Science is not a religion, but some scientists ARE religous about their science

[Dancing David]

Detrimental to its reputation to have top scientists keep explaining things as gods work.

And also detrimental to the science itself no doubt, as for example the person who said "It really is like finding the driving mechanism for the universe, and isn't that what God is?" has created a religous/spiritual attatchment to his findings. So when they are proved wrong in a few years, either from analysis or new data, hes going to want to keep his special findings in the limelight for as long as possible. Even though its now wrong. Thus he is pushing bad science for religous reasons. Or as people on this forum that so like stereotyping people would say, is a crackpot; an awful personal and pejorative habit that even I've picked up now when posting here.

So not really a deteriment to the process of science itself?

 

[Zeuzzz]

Had sleep now. Im a productive insomniac. Christ I was in a bad mood before, the op's not even making much sense to me anymore. I might start it over fresh and actually make the points im trying to directly instead of using stupid examples that can easily be construed as stereotypical.

I need to come up with some sort of warning system before I start a thread, I could save a tread I start somewhere, sleep on it, and re-read a fresh the next day. Misleading OPs seem to be my main problem here, it was the same with the epigenetics thread. Took over a page of posts of people laughing at how wrong I was about the title and some other things then ended with people saying actually this is a new area of science that's in its infancy and my main points were valid and sound.

 

[quarky]

Its a tough crowd here, for sure.

In defense of everyone and everything, I'd like to point out that the sum-total posts on this "educational, science-based website" are probably not dominated by science.

Similarly, I've seen websites that had a main focus on psycho-active drugs, with science sub-forums, containing some brilliant discussions of chemistry, physics, computer tech, and so on.

Zeuzzz is going to be alright.
Complexity is brilliant, though occasionally brusque.

We have all fallen short of the

(Oh, nevermind! I'm in pain! Brings out perverse amounts of empathy.)

 

[Complexity]

Thanks, quarky, though only 'occasionally'?

My meds must be kicking in.

I've really had it interacting with most of these people.

I'm taking a break from the worst of them, some permanently.

I'll still point out their woo and other errors, but I won't feel in any way obliged to respond to them.

 

[tsig]

I give up on this forum.

Too many people holding too many stupid arrogant grudges for me to make any sort of productive conversation possible on any subject.

That way to the egress>

 

[AlBell]

Shouldn't this thread be in Humor?

 

[macdoc]

+1

 

[Michael Mozina]

Edited by Gaspode: 

Removed breach of Rule 12

 

[Michael Mozina]

So not really a deteriment to the process of science itself?

Sure it is. Folks like you that do not approach these topics in 'zealous' manner are a great boon to science. The human behaviors that insist on villianizing other individuals and belief systems however tends to be more of a detriment to the process. Unfortunately it's a very human flaw that requires the zealots to personally attack individuals, but that happens in "science" as well as "religion". It's a flaw in human nature that has a detrimental effect on "positive change" and the scientific method in general.

 

[Naddig74]

Plenty of fighting to be going on with then.

I have a different thought about similarities between science and religion.

A priest will tell you a fairy story, and demand you take the counter intuitive, hard to understand on faith; ''You'll just have to take my word for it.''

I'm pretty bright, but I'm a dunce where maths is concerned especially. A lot of high level physics in particular just goes completely over my head. On a lot of hard science subjects I just have to ''take the professor's word for it.''

I appreciate the difference is that what the scientist is telling me can be shown to be true by experimental evidence or mathematical proofs, but mostly they just bewilder me too.

In essence, I think that for most people of average intelligence science is like religion in that you just have to accept that what you're being told is true, as actual understanding is so difficult.

 

[Zeuzzz]

To be fair to complexity I was half getting you muddled with geemack (roughly similar avatars I guess) who is the worse of the two, but I cant see there being any point getting worked up about people that you meet anonymously on a forum having different views than you. Crist its cyberspace, and jref is a comparative island of sanity in a sea of internet induced human paranoia and prejudices.

Its the consistant lack of any valid reason for the emotive pejorative comments that really gets on peoples nerves. If you disagree for a reason then state it clearly. If you disagree due to your own subjective emotional reaction to material, then say that. I cant remember any actual discussions of substance with either of those two.

 

[Dancing David]

Sure it is. Folks like you that do not approach these topics in 'zealous' manner are a great boon to science. The human behaviors that insist on villianizing other individuals and belief systems however tends to be more of a detriment to the process. Unfortunately it's a very human flaw that requires the zealots to personally attack individuals, but that happens in "science" as well as "religion". It's a flaw in human nature that has a detrimental effect on "positive change" and the scientific method in general.

That is your opinion, so how about some place where this actually happned? Where a dogmatic belief in something is currently interfering with the process of discovery.

 

[technoextreme]

Find me the same plethora of quotes about "god" from plasma cosmology advocates in the literature then.

I actually need to work on this because I found it really bizarre that this theory is floating about and their is documented evidence of religious zealots essentially trying to morph science to fit their view of their word. Their morphing of science just so happens to entail a concept that sounds incredibly like plasma cosmology. Now if I could only remember the person.

 

[Tubbythin]

Keep in mind that the "Big Bang" theory was created by a Catholic priest.

Nope. The Big Bang theory wasn't really created by one individual. Einstein had his field equations, then Friedmann showed that they led to expanding/contracting Universes, then LeMaitre showed pretty much the same thing, then Einstein said no, then Hubble showed that the Universe was expanding, then Einstein said yes, then Gamow and Alpher showed how the Big Bang was responsible for the lighter elements, then predicted the CMBR, then (I think) the name Big Bang was coined by Fred Hoyle, then the Perfect Cosmological Principle was found not to hold by erm er I've forgoten from inter-galactic radio sources, then the CMBR was found by Penzias and Wilson, then COBE eventually found fluctuations in the CMBR and then this was verified by WMAP. This is just a very brief and selective history of the Big Bang cosmology which may not be entirely chronologically correct. But the idea that it was created by one man is flat-out wrong.
)[/QUOTE]

 

[Tubbythin]

I agree. IMO however it's only "difficult" because it lacks empirical support and therefore the "believers" insist that the "evidence" is in that math.

Please provide us with a definition of empirical.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Nope. The Big Bang theory wasn't really created by one individual.

Well, ok, it's an oversimplification but it doesn't change my point one iota.

 

[Tubbythin]

Well, ok, it's an oversimplification but it doesn't change my point one iota.

Really. What was your point then? I must have missed it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Please provide us with a definition of empirical.

Something that shows up in a lab certainly qualifies as empirical. Inflation is a complete no show in the lab. There are half a dozen "brands" to choose from too.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Really. What was your point then? I must have missed it.

PC/EU advocates tend to span the entire religious spectrum just as BB'er span the spectrum. That's hardly a valid barometer of "truthiness".

That was the point.

 

[Tubbythin]

That was the point.

Fair enough. I have been drinking.