What is "Pro-Science?"
There have been times where I have been labeled, either explicitly or implicitly, as "pro-science" and often meant more in a derogatory tone. That always strikes me as odd, when someone is labeled pro-science in a negative manner. This tells me that those who use the term pejoratively either do not understand or accept sound science. To some, science seems to be something to be shunned or rejected, especially if it conflicts with personal beliefs or bias. Such a mentality is inherently intellectually dishonest and cowardly. Not to mention being a sad commentary on society.
So what exactly is being "pro-science?" Simply put, pro-science means to be in favor of science, its methods (particularly the scientific method), and its establishments. I fail to see how that can possibly be a negative or bad thing. After all, science itself seeks to acquire systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation. It establishes facts or truths based on empirical data and critical, rational analysis of said data. There is simply no better tool to expand our body of knowledge and understanding of the world/universe around us than science.
I suppose being labeled "pro-science" would be accurate, and one I wear with pride. Science is something to be promoted, respected, and celebrated. Something based on facts, evidence, and reasoning. After all, if it wasn't for science, we wouldn't be living in the Modern Age we have now. Now, if you'll excuse me, it's time to get the new issue of Popular Science. 
Tags
Who is online
458 visitors
I'll count myself among the "pro-science". Those who oppose science oppose knowledge, and I must question their motives for doing so.
I'm going to wager it's due to religious belief and/or personal bias or desires. Or perhaps some can't accept the reality in which they live, which science has acquired an understanding about. Kind of like when belief once held was the sun and planets revolved around the Earth. But science discovered the opposite is true. After all, thinking you're the center of the universe makes for a feel good moment. People may not have wanted to let that feeling go and resisted anything that would change it.
In a world based on relativity , people are both the center of their universe, and nothing, depending on what they are relating to at the moment.
Exactly, relatively speaking where is the focal point of humanity's universe?
It's an emotional need or response, which historically has stifled science or truth.
That's why it's important to constantly question accepted norms in the science community. At one point blood letting was standard practice in the medical community. I think that is why it is important not to stifle those who do question the norm and dismiss them as outliers. If they have data it should be objectively analyzed regardless of the politics that may surround the issue. I think we see too much pressure for people in science related industries to tow the line. Even if it results in medical or financial or social issues. Speaking out against vaccines would be a good example. I know some are necessary but if I had children I would want to know details about all of them. Even if a doctor tells me it's OK. I would still do my own research and make sure whatever cocktail they are about to shoot into an infant immune system is truly OK, and completely necessary. Yet there are those who would deem anyone objecting to any vaccines as "anti-science".
Questioning something is a good thing, especially in science. But idmf one wants to argue against established science and ideas, or propose better alternatives, then all that's needed is empirical evidence to back up any challenge or assertion. Otherwise, it lacks validity or credibility.
To use vaccinations as an exsmple, scientific research has shown vaccines to be effective and the benefits outweigh the risks. There is no valid scientific study which shows vaccines to be overly harmful (such as the claims of vaccines causing autism ). Information about vaccines is readily available too. But anti vaccers tend to reject science in favor of their own fears, misinformation, or second hand sources or the "mob mentality" of other anti-vaccers. I'd say anti vaccer mentality is based more on emotion than rational judgement.
Exactly. So you admit there are risks and the concerns of anti-vaccers are valid. Again, there was a time where people deemed the benefit of blood letting to outweigh the risk of whatever they were dying from. Doesn't mean it was the best solution and thank God there were people to question those methods and improve them.
There are risks or side effects to all medications, including vaccines. But the concerns of antivaccers are invalid because their claims, such as vaccines cause autism, lack scientific backing and/or are outight debunked. Antivaccer mentality seems more based on fear & ignorance than actual science.
Was the scientific method used extensively to evaluate the efficacy of treatment at that time?
There is nothing wrong with skepticism as long as the skeptic actually considers the evidence. Skepticism of scientific findings due to emotion, ideology, religion is wrong-headed. Skepticism of findings on grounds of evidence, reason, statistical results, etc. is part of the scientific method.
No it's based on a love of their children and not wanting to harm them more than help them. Many vaccines do have side effects and not all of them are really necessary. I don't ever get fly shots, because I rarely get the flu so I see no point of shooting it into my body just in case. Vaccine companies make money by pushing their vaccines. Obviously for big things like chickenpox and polio it's necessary but I would rather allow people's natural immunity to take care of most other things that are not a rampant problem. Let's not forgot humans survived for thousands of years without vaccination. I think we tend to get a little over board and too trusting in industries.
Research into immunisation has been based on the theory that the benefits of immunisation far outweigh the risks from delayed adverse events and so long term safety studies do not need to be performed. When looking at diabetes—only one potential chronic adverse event—we found that the rise in the prevalence of diabetes may more than offset the expected decline in long term complications of H influenzae meningitis. Thus diabetes induced by vaccine should not be considered a rare potential adverse event. The incidence of many other chronic immunological diseases, including asthma, allergies, and immune mediated cancers, has risen rapidly and may also be linked to immunization.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1114674/
Further down in your link
The Cochrane review that Jefferson et al mention omits important references, including a preliminary study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This study supports our data that hepatitis B immunisation starting after 2 months is associated with a more than 60% rise in type 1 diabetes. The authors criticise us for not having our analysis peer reviewed, but our collaborators asked us not to publish the data to allow all researchers to review them. Several trials of the vaccine were performed in Finland, and we are completing the analysis of these.
And also this:
I'm sure that's their intention and/or justification. But considering many preventable diseases can cause severe harm or even death, not vaccinating kids will cause more harm and is just irresponsible.
No one said they didn't. I specifically said all medications have listed side effects. some people may suffer side effects to varying degree. Some do not experience side effects at all.
That's your choice and consider yourself lucky then.
The same can be said for every pharmaceutical product on the market. Your point?
It's because of vaccines that it's not a rampant problem.
Let's not forget humans also died much younger from diseases, especially children. How many millions did smallpox kill before vaccines eradicated it? Thousands of people die each year from the flu. We have better health, quantity and quality of life due to vaccines and medical treatments. Yeah, I'll trust the industries that produce solid results like that.
The article you cited has some glaring limitations: first, it's an editorial summary. To access the actual research article itself, I have to subscribe to the journal, which I am not inclined to do. Second, your cited article is OVER 20 YEARS OLD! Third, there is no mention (unless it's in the original article itself) of other factors such as genetics and lifestyle, which might contribute to the development of other chronic conditions. Your cited study seems rather limited.
Yes the same can be said of many pharmaceutical products. Those products like Prozac that can be linked to many mass shootings. Many experts stood behind the benefits of Prozac until they found out there were long term effects. that likely didn't stop them from pushing it until there was public outcry. same with opioids. Many doctors prescribed the same drug that caused an outbreak. If they accepted the opinion of the community it was fine to prescribe it. Look what it did to our country. Sorry I'm not as blind to follow experts as you are. People make money off of science. therefore they can use science for nefarious reasons and make money and influence people's opinion.
And vaccines cause autism in children too, right? >sarc<
Perhaps you would be so kind as to provide a link to a credible, peer reviewed article that corroborates your statement? Although, somehow I think it'll be a link to some conspiracy or far wing "news" site, and not any actual research.
The opioid crisis is the result of people misusing it.
Sorry if I'm not as biased (or paranoid) as you are. Yes, medications have side effects. But they must also be taken as prescribed too. I follow what the research and actual scientific experts say, not some so called "expert" who is really an expert at pandering to peoples fears, ignorance, ad paranoia.
https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/medication-induced-violence/
https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/prescription-for-violence-the-corresponding-rise-of-antidepressants-ssris-mass-shootings/
Not a right wing news site by any means. No you don't want to give credit to that theory because you are political and you want the focus to be on guns and not science.
"The opioid crisis is the result of people misusing it."
Oh so it's OK to put personal responsibility on drug users but not irresponsible females. Got it. The hypocrisy is blinding.
What theory? I don't give credit to it because it is not a scientific or research source. It discusses a problem, but only makes assumptions about the cause. One of the sources even said that problems can be due to people NOT properly taking their medications. And you also make erroneous assumptions too, which means you too have little or no credibility.
Not as blinding as your glaring strawman argument. Or the misogynistic tone of your statement. But if a woman chooses to have an abortion or continue a pregnancy, then she is taking responsibility.
Do you think there's any chance conservatives would agree to an invasive ultrasound to check their insides before they're allowed to shoot the trespasser on their property in the head? Just want to make sure they know what they're doing, right? That they, as a "pro-life" advocate, are making the decision to terminate another humans life, and not just a fertilized egg, but one that's been born, grown up, has sibling, parents, teachers, friends, but apparently made the mistake of stepping onto a "pro-lifers" property without asking. Talk about blinding hypocrisy.
Probably not.
My guess is that the pejorative is attempting to claim that those who are 'pro-science' treat science as a religion. That the 'pro-science' people simply believe whatever is stated by some scientific authority. In other words, a total misunderstanding of how science works.
It is as though one cannot imagine that there are people who think critically and do not simply accept as truth what their 'trusted authority' claims is true.
Aficionados of science follow the evidence to wherever it leads. A theory of science is only as good as its supporting evidence, verification and predictability.
Quite possible and probably most likely. Such a viewpoint also shows how limited their scientific acumen really is too. If some view science as a religion (irony alert), then they might think science is a competitor to their own beliefs or ideas and something to be rejected, or twisted to suit their own viewpoints and biases.
How many times have we seen people (some we can mention by name too) simply accept as truth what some "source" tells them, no questions asked or tolerated. No critical thinking applied. Just mere belief.
Exactly.
I think that is precisely why the 'pro-science' pejorative is used.
A bit of projection on their part. Their religion has been twisted, either by themselves or others, to suit their own viewpoints and biases, so they think that science will be twisted to suit others' viewpoints and biases.
Good point. But I've noticed that some fail to understand that science doesn't generally have such biases, as long as it follows where the evidence leads, and not the other way around.
Does the pro-science person look at the art behind a man made pattern or say a painting, or a piece of pottery, or look at the science behind it's creation?
I'm assuming both.
So why say someone is a pro-science person? Assumedly one is that and a lot more.
I think that is part of Gordy's question. Why use 'pro-science' as a pejorative? And what does the user actually mean by 'pro-science'?
Well, being both a biology teacher and an earth science teacher, I must be pro-science. But anyone with a curious mind can be proscience. Actually, I can't even use that dumb term. Just call me a person who believes in the scientific method and all that it yields.
I would hope so Perrie, Lol
It's curiosity that drives us to explore, too discover, to understand. Science is the means by which we do that.
The term "pro-science" struck me as a bit weird as well. Have a few sheepskins on the wall that say 'science' on them, but never considered myself "pro science" until I experienced those who vociferously deny evolution, geological Earth history, vaccinations and anthropogenic global warming (anti science).
Ironic how science deniers use computers to spread anti-science dogma and mythology.
It boggles the mind how anyone can be a science denier or anti-science. It's as if some people are either threatened by science or prefer the emotional comfort or delusion of belief.
Pretty sure that more than a few science deniers are paid to be so.
That wouldn't surprise me.
Another observation is that there are those who (inexplicably) hold the ridiculous belief that evolution is pseudoscience promoted worldwide by godless scientists. With that way of thinking, those who accept the validity of the evidence and the theory upon which it is based are dissed because evolution contradicts the literal creationist view. Especially the science-trashing beliefs of Young Earth Creationists.
Indeed. Another thing is, those who go by belief never question the belief. They accept it as is and reject anything which contradicts it, regardless of what evidence or logic (or logical fallacy) is presented. There isn't much more intellectually dishonest and scientifically backwards with that mentality.
pro science, I like knowing how and why things work. I like things that make sense and fit together in a logical way
Spoken like a true motorhead.
I'd be flattered to be labeled pro science, it's far better than being labeled anti science in my mind
I am pro-science and I believe in spirituality. And, vice-versa.
In reply to:
Kathleen, post #6: " For me pro-science. I like knowing the facts about nature ."
Charger 383, post #7: " pro science, I like knowing how and why things work. I like things that make sense and fit together in a logical way. "
I feel the same way.
I would call myself more pro-philosophy. Being pro-philosophy means being open to many different ways of looking at existence. You can be both pro-science and pro-religion if you are pro-philosophy, because you will realize that they both have their place and their meaning.
Denying scientific principles probably falls under a definition of profound ignorance or insanity, while denying the religious impulse probably means one is shut off to their inner being which longs to communicate with the eternal.
My inner being prefers communicating with reality, but we're all different so all is good
Everything is reality.
Lol or are we and our perceived reality just someone's dream and doomed to disappear from existence when he/she/it wakes up?
It is simple enough, people who walk and live spiritual lives are acting on something tangible, whether the "natural man" can relate to it or not. After all, it is plain that every spiritual person lives in the natural world where science is operating proficiently. And while there can be conflict between belief and science, one simply needs to keep in the front of the mind that we don't know all about anything in our world.
I think spiritual can be different to some. Some think of it as a feeling that there is something more, maybe an afterlife.
I tend to think of it as we are all connected. We are all made up of the same molecular structure.
That same structure returns to its basic form and is a part of a wider basic building block.
Yes. There are different forms of spirituality. I agree.
I guess it is just me but every time I see this thread the song weird science comes into my head.
And Kelly LeBrock just came into my head.
The term "pro-science" is a natural consequence of labeling people as anti-science. Those who are pro-science use the label "anti-science" as an ad hominem pejorative to influence uninformed opinion.
I agree that 'anti-science' is a pejorative; to be anti-science is to deny the extremely successful scientific method. The term 'pro-science' accordingly should be a compliment. Yet, as Gordy notes, it is used (strangely) as a pejorative.
The scientific method imposes a limitation upon fully experiencing the human condition. Those who prioritize other means of experiencing the human condition are not necessarily anti-science.
Reality need not be objective.
True. But I did not suggest they were so why make this point in reply?
Actually you did make that suggestion. You stated "to be anti-science is to deny the extremely successful scientific method." As I pointed out, the scientific method imposes limitations upon fully experiencing the human condition.
The scientific method is not applicable for all human endeavors. Recognizing that the scientific method is not germane for a given question or topic of consideration isn't denial and isn't anti-science.
I am so sick of explaining what I write.
What I wrote:
To wit: anti-science = deny the scientific method
To wit: prioritizing other means of experiencing the human condition over science ≠ anti-science
Here ⇧ I am agreeing with 13.1.1 but noting that I did not even imply otherwise.
Putting it together:
Denying the scientific method (my clause) is not the same as prioritizing other means of experiencing the human condition over science (your clause). Two very different things.
An example of these two statements working together: Dr. Francis Collins is one of the premier scientists in genetics. He is also a devout Christian. I suspect he considers his perceived relationship with God to be a higher priority than his love of science.
Now adding in this:
1 and 2 are independent statements. Both are true. I never stated or implied that the scientific method enables one to fully experience the human condition.
In short, my words do not state nor imply that those who prioritize other means of experiencing the human condition are necessarily anti-science .
Vaccination has become a contentious issue involving political conflict between "pro-science" and "anti-science" factions. And the "pro-science" faction labels opposition to vaccination as anti-science to politically influence opinion. But the question is not purely scientific and the scientific method is not germane to making a value judgement concerning vaccination.
Anti-vaxxers are not making a scientific argument; they are making a value judgement supported by considerations other than science. "Pro-science" factions attempt to force anti-vaxxers into a science based argument but, in reality, the scientific method is not germane for issues of value judgement.
Just because someone dismisses science and the scientific method to make a value judgement does not equate to "anti-science". An abstract argument that the two are independent and mutually exclusive ignores the reality of how the labels "pro-science" and "anti-science" are used in society.
Anti vaccers are in effect antI science because they base their judgements on emotion or false information. They reject scientific study and consensus which establishes vaccines as safe, but offer nothing objectively valid to support their own position.
A value judgement that gives greater weight to factors other than scientific study isn't anti-science. There isn't any requirement for a value judgement to be made objectively; especially when the consequences are overwhelmingly subjective. A child cannot be un-vaccinated; there ins't a way to undo vaccination. And vaccination is not without risk. Vaccination may be safe within a margin of risk, according to scientific study, but those studies do not show that vaccination is absolutely safe without any risk.
Proponents of vaccination use scientific study as justification and toss out the label "anti-science" for those who make a value judgement using other factors as justification. As the example of vaccination suggests, the pejorative label "anti-science" was likely coined first. And the label "pro-science" as a pejorative is a natural consequence of using science in a political manner to influence opinion concerning value judgements.
Remember what I wrote:
To wit: deny scientific method = anti-science.
There is a difference between disagreeing with or ignoring ( dismiss ing) a finding of science on non-scientific factors [ value judgement supported by considerations other than science ] and denying the scientific method . Your distinction has nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote.
Here is an example of dismiss ing a finding of science due to non-scientific factors that does not ipso facto deny the scientific method:
Jehovah's Witnesses, for example, refuse blood transfusions under the belief that the procedure makes the recipient impure. Their objection is for biblical reasons. They do not deny medical science , they just believe they cannot accept it (in this case) for religious reasons ( ‘ the life of all flesh is the blood thereof: whoever eat it shall be cut off ' - Lev. 17:10–16 ). That is not anti-science, that is - in my opinion - wrong-heading thinking based on the views of ancient men.
In contrast, here is an example of denying the scientific method:
" Evolution is a worldwide conspiracy perpetuated by godless scientists ." Indeed, one can go to the Answers In Genesis website and find a plethora of articles written expressly to discredit science in areas where the science inconveniently disagrees with Young Earth Creationist beliefs. Placing an ancient book (e.g. the Bible) over the scientific method — declaring that science is wrong— in matters within the domain of empirical science is anti-science.
Now on your example. Anti-vaxxers vary. There are some who refuse vaccinations because they are not convinced that the vaccination is as reliable as claimed. Others dislike the notion of injecting small doses of inert disease into one's system. Being skeptical of a scientific finding is not necessarily anti-science. If one is looking at the findings objectively and is not persuaded by same, that is actually healthy skepticism (yet the skeptic might be wrong and suffer the consequences).
Anti-science, for your vaxxer example, would be declaring for non-scientific reasons (i.e. without a scientific foundation for the claim) that vaccinations are bogus. This is not a claim of ' I am not convinced vaccinations work effectively ' but rather a claim that the science behind vaccinations is wrong. No studies, no biological analysis, just a declaration.
Read this:
Note the words in blue. Those anti-vaxxers (not all think this way) who claim the science is wrong but have no scientific counter-argument are anti-science (at least on this issue). Those who reject vaccinations (for whatever reason) but do not claim that the science is wrong are not necessarily anti-science.
Evolution is unimportant, useless, and irrelevant for YEC belief. That's the basic claim made by YECs. YECs are not making a value judgement based on science. Science does not invalidate YEC belief because science is not a significant factor in forming that belief. In the YEC value system science is wrong and no amount of political labeling will alter that belief.
The "pro-science" and "anti-science" arguments is really an attempt to politically influence uninformed and disinterested opinion. So, you have faith that evolution provides answers for existential questions. Good for you. But you still put on your socks one foot at a time just like anyone lucky enough to have two socks and two feet. Your faith does not invalidate the faith of others who utilize different sources to find answers to existential questions.
Reality need not be objective.
One does not "have faith in" science, as you well know.
Equating science to faith is ridiculous.
One does not have faith in a hammer. But the hammer supports faith in ability to achieve something of value. The system of values requires belief and faith.
As I pointed out, the belief that science (the tool) provides answers to existential questions does require faith in a system of values.
NASA competes for resources that could be used for other purposes, such as social programs. Allocating those resources requires a value judgement. Belief and faith in a system of values really is a motivating factor in making value judgements.
If the NASA budget were redirected toward social programs then proponents of NASA would claim that justifications for social programs are wrong because those justifications would not be consistent with belief and faith in a value system that places greater value on science.
So true. 99.99 percent of the time the science of the natural world is well-researched and the best of what man has to offer. It is those "accidental" cases where science is not sufficient (operating blind?) that give fuel to the critics of science. For example: Lawyers are seeking "candidates' for cancer-causing products (chemicals) like "Round-Up." The cigarette industry (of old) used, "hired guns" from the science community; and others have followed suit to delay the public getting truth. Leading to gross confusion.
A betier option would be reallocating military funds towards social programs. The military budget is much larger than NASA's. NASA should get more funding, not less.
YEC is a perfect example of those that are anti-science. They go by belief. But belief does not equal fact. Science seeks to establish facts or at least something with as high a probability as possible. Just because someone holds a belief doesn't mean the belief itself is valid or true. Especially when it's contradicted by established science.
That is a value judgement based upon a system of values that places greater value on NASA than the military. Making that value judgement is subjectively motivated by belief and faith in a system of values.
War is as scientifically valid as is peace. The same resources, manpower, and knowledge can be allocated for both war and peace. Science, itself, can provide the means and methods for both war and peace. Choosing between war and peace is a value judgement motivated by belief and faith in a system of values.
That is wrong. Science directly contradicts the notion of a 6,000 year old Earth. YECs are constantly trying to discredit science so as to hold on to the 6,000 year old Earth belief. I could go on, but that single example should be sufficient.
What does that have to do with my comment?
Personally, I think the term "pro-science" is overly broad and open to interpretation. Just like one could be said to be "pro-science" but not support the use of science to develop weapons of mass destruction.
I am "pro-science education". But I certainly have limits on where I believe that science should be used and how. I don't think many people who would consider themselves "pro-science" would support unregulated genetic human experimentation, so perhaps we should call it what I believe most people feel as "pro-science used responsibly for the benefit and defense of mankind".
Just like a hammer can be used to build, it can also be used to destroy. I am "pro-hammers being used responsibly for the benefit and defense of mankind"
I am "pro-gun being used responsibly for the benefit and defense of mankind".
I am "pro-choice being used responsibly for the benefit and defense of mankind".
I suppose that's true. I believe science can be beneficial to mankind and I have faith that we humans, for the most part, can wield that knowledge responsibly.
True science doesn't start with an answer and then work backwards trying to prove it true. Science (the tool) is meant to be an impartial arbiter of truth. Like a crime scene investigator, it's only job is to be objective and give answers based on the scientific method.
"The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge that has characterized the development of science since at least the 17th century. It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation." -
It requires "rigorous skepticism".
skepticism: noun - an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object.
faith : noun - complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
So what you call "faith" in science is actually incorrect as scientists are taught to start from a position of doubt, a position of skepticism towards the theory being tested. Religious faith however requires the exact opposite. In fact, most religions primary tenets teach that you must erase all doubt, to believe in the unseen things without evidence, without proof, for proof would make faith superfluous and unnecessary.
So with the religious, they approach those 'existential questions' from a position of faith, of claiming they already know the answers and just have to trust the religion they chose (or were born into) is the right one. They present their religious beliefs as unchallengeable and above human testing and thus nothing can dissuade them if their faith is strong enough, not even concrete scientific facts that appear to contradict their doctrines.
With scientists, they approach those same 'existential questions' from a position of doubt, of skepticism. Then they rigorously apply the scientific method and then present the findings to the scientific community as a whole so it can be challenged and tested by others. Scientists welcome scrutiny and want their theories to be proven false if there are flaws in them since doing so by the scientific method would replace their earlier flawed belief with a more accurate understanding which will help lead future scientists to an even clearer understanding of our physical universe.
Now admittedly, there is no way to test something that doesn't reside in the physical universe, thus if one believes in a spiritual universe, they can only use their faith to believe in it. So far, no one has been able to prove any such spiritual universe exists. There is as much, if not more, evidence of a multi-verse than there is of a spiritual universe.
So to me, there are two completely different fields of study with two completely different methods of exploration. One for the physical universe which is science and the scientific method. The other is for the unseen, the spirit realm, the supposed spiritual universe which can only be believed in through faith. I heard a friend once tell me that "faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for", but to have that kind of faith it requires someone convincing a person they lack something, and then convincing them that their doctrines will fulfill grand promises of immortality and to be at the right hand of God, or perhaps help them avoid eternal suffering. That creates the "need" and the "hope". They must convince you that the way you are now is flawed and that only through their faith can you escape this supposed nightmare of human suffering to a peaceful spiritual universe and tell you only through faith can you have hope of getting there.
With science, they present the facts as they find them and merely try and inform people of them. And the false claim by some that climate scientists haven't presented facts in regards to AGW is pure fantasy. Who really has more to gain from believing or not believing in AGW?
On one hand you have the religious, some of who proclaim the earth to be only 9,000 years old, that it experienced a global flood within the last 8,000 years and that man is far to insignificant to effect global climates. They make these claims with zero facts. Not a single shred of empirical evidence to back up their claims, but they attack and try to shame any who are bold enough to doubt their beliefs, to mock their faith as they see it. The religious are really the only ones in the debate who have something to lose. Climate scientists would love for AGW not to be true, they would love to be able to claim nothing humanity does in any way could speed up global climate change. Climate science deniers would hate for AGW to be empirically proven (which it pretty much has but they still refuse to accept it) because that would mean they would have to change their position, they would have to accept that the belief their actions weren't having any measurable effect was incorrect or incomplete. It would mean they would have to change their actions, stop profiting off dirty non-renewables, they would have to stop championing the oil and gas industry.
The fact that scientific theories invite others to rigorously test them to try and prove them wrong means it is the polar opposite to religious theories which are held by those who believe in them as unchallengeable and unassailable, meant only to be accepted as truth without evidence. Skeptics are to be seen as merely those weak in faith, to be ridiculed and derided and at certain times in human history, to be hunted down and eliminated for fear they might spread doubt among those kept chained and controlled by religious doctrine.
To me, 'pro-science' means recognition of the wisdom and effectiveness of the scientific method.
But "benefit and defense of mankind" is a value judgement requiring a lot of hand waving. Keep in mind that development of fossil fuels was justified for the "benefit and defense of mankind".
There must be a crime before a crime investigation. We observe answers as effects or results. Science attempts to identify a cause for an observed effect or result. Science attempts to explain cause in the same manner as a crime investigation.
An observed effect or result is an answer. So, the scientific method really does begin at the end of the causal chain and works backward to find a cause. The scientific method really does begin with an answer.
What you call "faith" in science is actually belief and faith in a value system. Science only provides support for that faith. As you point out, the value system supported by science places greater value on tangible evidence rather than intangible measures of reality. Reality need not be objective.
Facts are conditional; facts are not universal. Even scientific rigor requires enumerating conditions to allow testing of conclusions and avoid challenges to conclusions by altering conditions. What happens in Vega stays in Vegas.
On the present political trajectory of the AGW debate, those most likely to benefit are researchers, politicians, and retailers. A technological solution for a problem caused by dependency on technology would, on its face, seem to be an oxymoron. Manufacturing solar panels does require emissions of greenhouse gases, after all.
Religious theories are tested subjectively. Personal religious belief is not susceptible to refutation by independent objective testing. Attempting to engage in some sort of 'religious therapy' to alter someone's value judgements (similar to conversion therapy to alter sexual orientation) accomplishes little of import.
That is my view regarding the term proscience as well.
Actually I think my examples bring up not science acting in ways unscientific, but people using science in immoral and unethical ways and schemes.
Yup. It is those damn human beings that cause the problems, not the scientific method.
Yes, the "value" being human life put above all other on this planet. That's why I believe there is only subjective morality. I believe it impossible for the subject to remove themselves completely from the equation when weighing their opinions on good and bad.
And they did, greatly. But the fact remains that even too much of a good thing can be bad. If humanity hadn't chosen to abuse those resource, greedy for more wealth, more power, we might not even be in this situation. We might have devoted the necessary resources to develop the renewable resource technology that is now being integrated into our daily lives. But there's no use crying over spilt milk, but there's also no use denying it's been spilt.
Nonsense. A dead body found in a room doesn't tell you how it got there. It's not "an answer". It's a question.
Again, totally illogical reasoning. A crime scene investigator should never enter a room with a predetermined outcome already in mind. If they do, they aren't doing their job very well and certainly aren't being scientific. If a crime scene investigator began their scientific method "with an answer", they would, by definition, not be scientists, they would be "believers".
Well, in a sense you are correct. I find value in learning about this physical universe and absorb as much science as I can in order to better understand it. I don't have "faith" that all scientific theory at this point in history is correct. In fact, I believe it's the exact opposite. I believe all scientific theories are a work in progress, steps being taken towards a complete understanding of this physical universe. I have "faith" that through the scientific method, slow as it may be in uncovering truths about the universe, will eventually be able to answer the existential questions that religion has jumped ahead claiming they already have all the answers. I believe it takes far more faith to believe in a religious wormhole jump from where we are now (with zero empirical evidence of anything supernatural) to an end point claiming you know what did it, why it did it, and for what purpose.
Cherry-picking what you want from science and leaving the rest is pretty dishonest, but is the only way I can fathom how many evangelicals continue to believe in a 9,000 year old earth and a global flood. If taken as a whole, most of sciences great discoveries have contradicted religious doctrine and only after centuries is some of the science truly winning out like the belief in evolution. When faced with the facts even the catholic Church had a change of heart and then embraced evolution but claiming it as just another tool God used to create us. It feels far more like religion adapting to science than science supporting "that faith".
No, they aren't. No matter how much you may want to believe, there are no such things as "alternative facts".
Yes, scientific method requires "enumerating conditions", but it's not to "avoid challenges", it's to invite them. If you thought you had trained the best boxer in the world, you would go out and just claim your boxer "can beat anyone anytime at anything", you clarify that in a boxing ring, with a referee, with standardized boxing rules, your boxer can beat any other boxer. Otherwise you might have some nut pull a wire garrote out of their glove and strangle and decapitate your fighter who had only trained at boxing defenses. Science doesn't say "This here scientific theory can do anything! You just have to have faith!", they meticulously spell out and show the numerous identical repeated tests that expose some aspect of our physical universe.
But what gets published in respected scientific journals don't "stay in Vegas", they are intentionally sent out to all the brightest minds in their fields to read, review and challenge if anyone can find a flaw in the method or the results.
Bullshit. That is total, unadulterated bullshit. The researchers working on studying climate change and its effects are relatively low paid civil servants who would be getting paid regardless of which way their data leaned. The only politicians truly profiting off this debate are those taking the fossil fuel industries money.
"To be exact, a 2019 Influence Map report found that “the five largest publicly-traded oil and gas majors ( ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, BP, and Total) have invested over $1Bn of shareholder funds in the three years following the Paris Agreement on misleading climate-related branding and lobbying .” -
I see that $1 billion spent did its work well. You're just regurgitating the bullshit half truths the oil and gas conglomerates have fed you, ignoraing their own massive greenhouse gas output while pointing the finger saying "Well those renewables aren't completely free of carbon either, wah, wah, wah, wah!".
Could you imagine if we supported the subjectivity of placebos? We could sell sugar pills to cure just about anything and likely see around 30% of those taking them swearing that they helped their conditions. If we accepted every subjective result as "evidence" or "proof" that a religious theory was accurate, then all religious are 100% true, because they all have believers who swear by their subjective experiences. They nearly all claim to the one and only truth, but all have nearly identical statistical results when questioning their adherents as to whether their prayers were answered. Jews, Muslims, Christians, Hindus, all of them have effectively the same rate of prayer efficacy.
I agree. Where I dissent is when some claim their personal religious belief must be everyone's personal religious beliefs, some even threatening eternal torment for not conforming. Simply accepting that any other religion might be true, or even that atheism might be correct, but making a personal choice to accept a belief, never empirically proven, due to personal experiences is perfectly acceptable to me. It's only those who refuse to accept the possibility that their faith may be misplaced that I feel are truly lost. They do not have the strength of faith to say "I accept I may be wrong, but I believe because I want to believe", but instead resort to attacking or sabotaging any opposing views. Those have been defined before as gnostic theists.
While I you may believe you were "born Christian", trying to equate this to sexual orientation is rather dishonest. Religious belief is a choice, sexual orientation is not. While I believe everyone has the right to choose their own beliefs and would never force a Christian into a conversion therapy camp to force them to overcome their choice, I do believe many of their choices are ill-informed and illogical. But regardless of how illogical they are, that's their choice so it's not up to me to educate them. If they ever want to actually seek knowledge instead of just memorizing answers, they will find their path in time.
"So you created a new robot? Amazing... So.... can I have sex with it?"
The difference here is that the hammer exists.
Agreed.
Depends on the vaccine, but in principle I agree with you.
Yeah, tangibility is a big thing when determining if something exists or not.
What is the relationship between morality and causality? Aren't you progressing toward David Hume's problem of induction?
The dead body is the culmination of a causal chain. The tangible result of a dead body defines the conditions and limitations of any inquiry into cause. Any reconstruction of the causal chain must culminate with a dead body to be valid. The dead body is the answer to all questions. And that answer defines conditions and limitations for questions. The question for inquiry is to understand cause; the result is already known.
Knowledge of causality allows prediction. But the prediction is not an answer. Only the result at the end of the chain of events provides an answer.
So, understanding causality is objective but assessing the value of that knowledge is a subjective process. And the debate over objective knowledge is actually an effort to persuade an uninformed and disinterested audience to accept the subjective value of that knowledge.
Objective understanding of causality allows predictions. The result provides validation for predictions and validates knowledge of causality. The causal chain (and knowledge of the causal chain) does not require belief or faith since a cause will culminate in a result.
Efforts to interfere in the causal chain and avoid or achieve a predicted outcome is motivated by some valuation of detriment/benefit to be achieved from interference. The value of interfering or directing causality does require belief and faith.
The development of fossil fuels created an economic segment that provided profits for a large number of people over a long period of time. And the development of fossil fuels (and the cheap energy they provide) was hailed as a milestone in human progress. Universities created departments to train engineers to exploit fossil fuels. Research programs were initiated to invent more efficient means of exploiting fossil fuels and to develop new products using fossil fuels as raw material. And both fossil fuels and new products derived from fossil fuels were consumed in large quantities by the consuming public. There is now a retail sector devoted entirely to the consumption of fossil fuels and their derivatives.
AGW is creating another economic segment that is following the same trajectory as did fossil fuels. Unlike fossil fuels, the United States is not developing the means to exploit and harvest a natural resource. The parts of the new economic segment being created are education, research, and retail. So, only those activities will generate profit. And politicians follow any source of profit.
But our pharmaceutical industry does sell placebos. And some of those placebos are causing more harm than benefit. Our pharmaceutical industry is developing and marketing medications based on statistical significance; not efficacy. And so called preventive care serves the same purpose as prayer. What is pre-diabetes anyway?
Modern medicine is serving the same purpose as religion in many ways.
How is that different than imposing personal secular belief upon everyone? How is warnings of human extinction different than warnings of brimstone and hellfire? Keep in mind that what is being imposed is a system of values supported by belief and faith.
What defines existence? Love, fear, and hope are not tangible objects. Knowledge is not tangible and cannot be observed.
To recognize existence, doesn't that existence need to be experienced in some manner?
Emotions like love & fear are just biochemical functions of the brain. That can be determined and observed. Emotional expression is the observed effects of those particular biochemical reactions. What we call knowledge is also biochemical functions in the brain, including neuronal interconnectivity.
Existence that we currently observe existed before we evolved on this planet and will be there after we're gone.
According to that logic, those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons should not be allowed in public places, either. The argument is that lack of vaccination poses a public danger; the reason for not being vaccinated is irrelevant.
So? Emotions are not tangible objects. A function is not a tangible object. A chemical reaction is not a tangible object, like a hammer.
What you affirm is that recognizing existence requires experiencing that existence in some manner. How can existence be described if it is not experienced in some manner?
There ARE YECs who attempt and FAIL to claim that science supports their 'beliefs' or argue that scientific facts are false in order to try and bolster their dogma. Ken Ham is the most infamous for that with his BS about 'flood geology'.
We know emotions exist because we can observe them and how they are produced. Emotions themselves may not tangible like a hammer. But they are the products of physiological processes that we can observe and measure.
So, would the universe exist if we weren't here to observe it?
So?
That is an existential question that philosophy has struggled over. I don't think science can answer the question since any obtained knowledge would be dependent upon observation.
So I see you have nothing left to offer then.
Since we do exist and see the universe, it is quite reasonable to assume the universe existed before we did, and will continue to do so after we cease to exist.
Non-vaccination due to medical issues is a reasonable exception. Not getting vaccinated due to fear or ignorance of vaccines is not. But there's also the issue of herd immunity associated with vaccinations. A few individuals who are not vaccinated may not pose much risk (except to themselves). But if many people are not vaccinated, then herd immunity drops and the risk of disease spreading, even to epidemic proportions, rises significantly. Vaccinations not only helps protect you from disease, but also help protect others from disease.
Still denying AGW?
Still trying to recoup from financial losses on biotech?
Rationally concluding that more technology to solve a problem created by technology isn't a workable solution doesn't equate to denying AGW.
Recent reporting of scientific results show that CFCs are responsible for a third of Arctic warming. And that replacement HFCs are 1,000 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2. Increasing amounts of CFCs and HFCs in the atmosphere are definitely the result of anthropogenic activities. It seems the scientific method failed to identify that contribution to AGW. Perhaps that failure can be attributed to the scientific community being distracted by celebrating its political influence and power to exert control over society to establish an international accord to save the ozone layer.
Huh?! Never lost a dime on biotech. Best investments ever.
True. What's more, terms like pro-science and anti-science aren't very useful in describing what's actually being talked about most of the time. It would be more accurate to speak in terms of materialists and anit-materialists.
Aren't the labels used to influence the opinion of uniformed or uninterested observers? The labels "pro-science" and "anti-science" seem to be used in a political manner to establish distinctions that are not relevant for particular questions or topics for consideration. Someone touting the validity of science, in actuality, is making an appeal to authority. By its nature, science generates knowledge more objectively. But the objectivity of the knowledge does not overcome a subjective claim that science is authoritative.
A question, such as, "is it art?" does not lend itself to scientific scrutiny. Aesthetic appeal is more often individually subjective. An independent authority would need to constrain the aesthetic within defined boundaries to answer the question "is it art?".
Climate change is a contentious issue where science is being used politically to constrain the issue within defined boundaries. The scientific method is certainly capable of answering questions concerning causality. But the scientific method isn't useful for deciding whether or not we should interfere with the causal chain or for determining priorities among competing endeavors. The objective scientific authority tells us that climate change is a self-correcting problem since a changing climate will kill humans who are causing climate change. Attempting to artificially interfere with that objectively identified cause/effect relationship may actually make the problem worse. The scientific method is not germane for questions concerning more subjective values or subjective beliefs. Invoking science in a political manner to influence opinion is not an objective application of obtained knowledge. A conclusion that "humans are determined to kill themselves, let them die" is scientifically valid.
That would be my opinion, yes. Especially with terms like pro-science and anti-science.
So it seems. I believe it is intentionally propagated in an effort to mislead the uninformed or uninterested (I would also add the non-critical thinker) as to what the issue is actually about. When the issue is put in terms of pro vs anti-science, it assumes there is some conflict between science and faith and, further, that some sort of choice must be made between the two.
Agreed, as long as we recognize we're not talking specifics but rather, statements like, "Science trumps religion". It is indeed appeal to authority. And that is what makes being "pro-science" a religion. Of course, it isn't really correct to call it pro-science. That is what proponents of such a position want to claim as a title as it perpetuates that same appeal to authority, but what it really is, is materialism. The belief that there is only the material and nothing supernatural.
That is what makes it a religion. Faith in an unprovable and unsubstantiated claim. When confronted with the fact that their position is actually a religious one they inevitably point right back to "science", as if it were an actual entity that distributes truth rather than simply a method of discovery. A method that produces data which is interpreted by subjective humanity.
I agree with you, but a hard core materialist might not. Since there are those who believe that the mind is an illusion and is, instead, just chemical processes occurring in the brain, they might feel they could eventually answer the question "is it art?"
Agreed. The scientific method cannot tell us what is the moral reason whether or not we should interfere.
I have never read anyone claim that science can offer moral guidance. Where does this come from?
Why does it have to come from anything? It's self evident, wouldn't you agree?
The 'this' in my question is referring to the claim that science can offer moral guidance:
Where does the claim that science can offer moral guidance come from?
I don't know. Why don't you tell us since you seem to be claiming it comes from somewhere?
Drakk, this came from you:
I am asking you where you got the notion that the scientific method can tell us what is the moral reason for anything? You are saying that it cannot tell us about moral reasoning. I agree. Why did you state that unless you think someone has claimed that science can offer moral reasons?
Since it isn't my notion or relates to anything I said, but one you seem to be attributing to me, I can't really answer your question.
To point out the limitation of science within the context of the discussion Nerm_L and I were having. Basically, I was saying I agreed with his point of view on the supremacy claim concerning science.
I was not attributing anything to you, but rather asking why you felt the need to state the obvious fact that the scientific method cannot offer moral reasons.
You are not going to answer and it is obvious that you understand the question so no point in further clarifying by me.
Why should I answer for something I didn't do or say?
Since you are continuing this, one last time just to give you the benefit of the doubt.
You stated ⇧ that the scientific method cannot tell us what is the moral reason whether or not we should interfere. You see that in the quote, right?
If I stated that Christianity cannot tell us why entangled particles have synchronized spin or Christianity cannot tell us why the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate , would you find that odd? Would you wonder why I would declare something that nobody appears to ever dispute?
Actually, I would simply agree and move on, given the lack of context. Since what I said was in response to...
… we see that, given the context, I was agreeing with what Nerm_L said. If you wish to make more of it than that, you're on your own.
I asked you a simple question; it was a question of clarification. Why you would not simply answer and move on is interesting.
Perhaps because no one on this discussion made the claim. What is the relationship between morality and causality?
If someone asserted: 'Christianity cannot tell us why the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate' it would be reasonable to ask why such an obvious statement was made. Did someone suggest that Christianity had such insight?
The assertion: 'The scientific method cannot tell us what is the moral reason whether or not we should interfere.' is also obvious. Science has nothing whatsoever to do with moral reasoning.
When an obvious statement is made sometimes I am curious as to why. A simple answer to my inquiry would have sufficed.
So what are you questioning? Are you questioning the obviousness of the statement?
Where the statement came from is obvious, as you pointed out. Stating the obvious does not invalidate the statement. So, what was the point of your question?
I was curious as to why such an obvious assertion was made. It is so obvious it 'goes without saying'. So when it is 'said' one naturally wonders why.
The question being discussed is "what is pro-science?" Stating the obvious "the scientific method cannot tell us what is the moral reason whether or not we should interfere" suggests that the labels "pro-science" and "anti-science" aren't really about the scientific method or the validity of science itself.
As an example, deciding if and how we should address climate change is more of a moral question. The "pro-science" and "anti-science" sides of the debate is really about the value of interfering and not a debate about science or the scientific method.
Well at least you now gave an answer rather than argue with me as to why I asked a simple question. That gives me something to work with.
I do not see how that obvious statement suggests the labels are not about the scientific method. A clearer argument would state that the labels are NOT about the scientific method and then explain why.
Background on why I disagree:
Having repeatedly observed the pejorative 'pro-science' label that prompted Gordy's article, my assessment is that it does indeed question the scientific method. The case in point that often accompanies the 'pro-science' as a pejorative is the ridiculous claim: evolution is pseudoscience ... a worldwide conspiracy by godless scientists. If someone is in such a bizarre mindset to deem the foundation of modern biology to be pseudoscience then it is difficult to interpret those words as being in support of the scientific method. It is, in my view, ant-science rhetoric.
It would be a moral question if everyone was on the same page and were convinced of the reality of AGW, the impact of the anthropogenic factors and knew what we had to do to prevent running into a self-perpetuating cycle. If we were on the same page then the moral question would be: do we trash the planet for future generations for our own convenience today? (or equivalent)
The anti-science side of this debate denies scientific findings; claiming that the science is wrong or exaggerated. That is where we are today. But this is not as simple as anti-science vs. pro-science. Taking anti- and pro- as the extremes, we have a continuum from: anti-science ⇨ distrusting science ⇨ negative scientific skepticism ⇨ neutral skepticism ⇨ positive scientific skepticism ⇨ trusting science ⇨ pro-science. And everything in-between. People are all over the map in their positions and I would not conclude that those falling on the left of the continuum (not convinced AGW is real) are categorically anti-science and that those on the right (convinced that AGW is real) are categorically pro-science. That is far too simplistic for what is taking place.
One needs to keep in mind that pro-science and anti-science may not mean the same thing to everyone. What you might consider as anti-science or pro-science may not seem so to another. For instance, you and I seem to both agree that science cannot determine what is moral. However, there are those who believe it can, such as Sam Harris. Would I be considered anti-science in being opposed to his worldview? I think he might consider me so for believing that morality is the purview of God.
Further, I love science primarily because I love to see God's handiwork revealed. It just amazes me. But because of that, would I seem anti-science to Laurence Krauss because of that? Or would I seem anti-science to you because I may believe intelligent design is a fact?
While we both know this to be true, it still tends to get blurred in everyday life. For instance, in the abortion debate the justification for it is often based on "science". They use it in an attempt to justify a moral decision. While a human being is a human being from conception to death (it can't be anything else, such as a duck for instance), we have people who claim that science declares that humans aren't humans until they are born. There's nothing in science that suggests this. It is an opinion and nothing more. But they claim science supports their moral reasoning. They say that science says we can morally interfere with the natural progression of a human life.
So, while it may seem so obvious as to "go without saying", in reality it does need to be said on occasion.
Quite true.
I doubt it because you are not blindly contradicting science. To me, anti-science means dismissing scientific findings based on emotional factors rather than based on not being convinced for cause after objectively reviewing the evidence and reasoning. Also, and crucially, Sam Harris' opinion does not define science. Disagreeing with Sam Harris has no bearing on the truth of the underlying science. (That said, Harris seems to be correct most of the time.)
Now, on your view of Harris and science, Sam Harris' point is (as I see things) different from your interpretation. When he speaks of science answering moral questions he is (to me) saying that objective knowledge of our condition can (and should) be used to rationally determine what is moral. And, importantly, what is moral is that which yields the most happiness and least suffering for all forms of life (but, admittedly, with preference to human life). Harris is NOT saying that the scientific method will produce moral answers.
I doubt it. I would expect Lawrence Krauss would state that you hold beliefs that are not supported by evidence and reason. Unless you suggest something like: 'the Earth is not in danger due to AGW because God would never let that happen to us' Krauss would likely not consider you anti-science. Again, I think to be anti-science one must reject well founded findings in science for reasons other than objective, reasoned, researched factors.
This is where Harris' point comes into play. Science helps us understand the development of the fetus. That is, with science we know the point in time where the fetus is sufficiently developed to experience pain. For some that changes abortion from terminating a pregnancy to taking a life that should be preserved. But this is not science making the call, this is science as knowledge that enables moral decisions.
Again we can use science. I submit that a zygote is not a human being. It is a biological entity (specifically a eukaryotic cell) in a state that, if all goes well, will indeed eventually develop into a human being. Think of it as the recipe for a particular individual. On the other hand, my position is that a viable fetus (one that is developed sufficiently to live outside of its mother with at best temporary aids) is a person. (The recipe was followed, the cake is sufficiently baked ... just have not taken it out of the oven.) So I use science to determine the point of viability and based on the meaning of viability I find that to be an appropriate dividing point. (Exceptions exist, let's not explore them.)
(see above)
Yes, but the concept of what constitutes pro & anti science has been made clear in this discussion.
Not necessarily outright. But that position tends to lean towards the anti-science stance. Especially since evolution tends to contradict ID.
While science doesn't deal with morality, it does help give us a clearer and more in depth understanding of something which can be used to modify or reevaluate a moral position.
That's still far different from claiming that a zygote (a single cell) or blastocyst (a literal clump of cells) equates to an actual fully developed and born individual. A cell can be a human cell, but it is not a human being. Big difference.
Science doesn't say that either. Science describes the stages of gestational development.
Depends on how one defines "interfere" exactly. The flip side to that is we "interfere" with human life when we administer medical aid like antibiotics and the like. Interference disrupts the natural progression. The "moral reasoning" that people might claim science supports works both ways. But that only affirms what I said about science being used to alter moral perceptions or ideas.
I have been stating that the labels are not about the scientific method or science itself. The labels are applied when value judgements and systems of value are in conflict. If religious doctrine (or other philosophical concepts) is used as support for a value judgement then that is labeled "anti-science". If scientific theories are used as support for a value judgement then that is labeled "pro-science". The conflict is between value judgements made with different supporting sources of information.
The conflict is not about the scientific method or science itself. Those who use scientific theories to support value judgements are "pro-science". "Pro-science" proponents for a value judgement use scientific theories in the same manner as "anti-science" proponents use religion, philosophy, economics, or other sources of non-scientific information to support a value judgement.
Pro-science proponents for a value judgement are not defending the scientific method; they are using science to try to win an argument. That, too, should be stating the obvious.
The frustration is understandable and it would be easier adopt a single value judgement if everyone were on the same page. IMO achieving that ideal would require establishing a closed society. History shows that has been tried in the past and did not work very well. The Medieval Roman Catholic Church, communist China and Soviet Union, modern Islam, and North Korea are examples of attempts to establish closed societies. I am not away of any form of democratic society achieving the ideal of everyone being on the same page.
The anti-science side of the debate bases their value judgement on something other than scientific theory. Science is not relevant to making the value judgement.
When the pro-science side of the debate attacks the value judgements of others as wrong because those value judgements aren't based on scientific theory then the label "pro-science" becomes a pejorative. The nature of the debate isn't any different than an argument over which God is the true God.
I responded specifically to this:
This ⇧ asserts, as you note, that the labels are not about the scientific method. I understand that. But my comment was about the inner quote in your sentence:
So, again, one cannot derive a meaning of: "the labels are not about the scientific method" from the very obvious statement: "the scientific method cannot tell us what is the moral reason whether or not we should interfere".
So let's move on because rehashing this sentence is boring and is clearly making zero progress.
My point was not to bemoan the fact that people see things differently. Rather, I was making a very different point - an example of a moral question based on knowledge gained by science:
Not being on the same page was not my point. Making a moral question using the findings of science was my point.
That is not then what I would consider anti-science. Anti-science is denying well-established scientific findings without evidentiary cause. As I have noted, a fine example of this is declaring evolution to be pseudoscience because it clashes with the biblical claim of Adam & Eve being the first two human beings and the common ancestors for all homo sapiens as well as other claims such as a young Earth.
Give me an example of a value judgment that is not based on knowledge gained by science that is then attacked by based on science. I can offer an example such as the judgment to not have a blood transfusion because one's religion deems that would make the individual's soul impure. That is clearly not based on knowledge gained by science but it is not necessarily anti-science (they might accept the science but reject it for a higher perceived 'truth'). When someone points out the science-based (medical science) reasoning for the transfusion and claims that not taking the transfusion is wrong (and dumb and harmful) labeling that pro-science in the pejorative is, in my view, an emotional reaction; in this case the 'pro-science' position is simply pro-truth.
Similarly, when a YEC declares that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that all scientific methods of dating are bullshit, the 'pro-science' rebuttal stating why the Earth is 4.54 billion years old is pro-truth as opposed to pro-confusion.
Ultimately we are talking about believing that which is true. Determining truth is difficult, but when a question can be rationalized in terms of science then the truth of the question most likely will best come from scientific findings. The truth of blood transfusions based on medical science is superior to the religious belief that they make the soul impure.
Which explains why there is a label "pro-science". If support for a value judgement requires demonstrating that other value systems are wrong then the label "pro-science" becomes a pejorative.
As an example, pro-science advocates expend a great deal of effort to demonstrate the Bible is wrong according to scientific theory and knowledge. The purpose of that effort to refute the Bible is to claim that scientific knowledge and theory has more value and authority than the Bible for answering moral questions. But science doesn't deal with morality and science is never certain; science self-refutes its own authority as basis for answering moral questions.
Why do pro-science advocates quote scripture as a means of refuting the Bible? Scientific knowledge and theory includes inconsistencies and discrepancies, too. Pro-science advocates choose to ignore (deny) the inconsistencies and discrepancies in scientific knowledge and theory. Anti-science advocates aren't behaving differently than pro-science advocates. The God of the Gaps applies to gaps in science just as it does to gaps in theology. Pro-science advocates deliberately and intentionally choose to deny science, too.
The best possible outcome for a blood transfusion is to prolong life. Medical science has not eliminated death; pro-science advocates delude themselves into believing that prolonging life is some sort of significant achievement.
6,000 years wasn't just pulled out of a hat. The basis for YEC is Biblical scripture, not science. Pro-science advocates expend effort refuting Biblical scripture (often by quoting scripture) and tossing out scientific knowledge and theory to "prove" YEC is anti-science. But YEC is only anti-science to pro-science advocates; YEC isn't based upon science. Anti-science YEC will argue in the gaps just as does pro-science advocates.
YEC is not about science. Claiming YEC is anti-science is really about science intruding and imposing itself where it does not belong.
Science is strictly an epicurean endeavor devoted to the senses. Science isn't about rationality or reason; science cannot do anything without experiencing tangible reality in some manner. And the epicurean nature of science constrains any description of reality to terms of tangible experience of reality. Science is subjective because it depends upon sensing reality in some manner.
Philosophy and religion delve into questions that science has no ability to describe.
Who would do that?? Science does not produce moral answers. Those who understand science would never suggest that scientific knowledge answers moral questions. One can use scientific knowledge to help produce moral conclusions (e.g. the point of fetal viability might be part of one's reasoning on the morality of abortion) but scientific knowledge itself is inherently amoral.
Is that what pro-science advocates do? Skeptics of the Bible would do that whether or not they are 'pro-science'.
Oh bullshit Nerm. Now you are just making things up. Aficionados of science will routinely note that science is an ongoing process that never declares perfection and systemically self-corrects its errors over time.
Delusion? Do you think that prolonging life is insignificant?? If a 12 year old child needs a life-saving transfusion, would you consider delivery of said transfusion and saving of life to be insignificant??
That is correct. It stems from Archbishop Ussher. He produced a result based strictly on the Bible. Modern day YECs favor his pure biblical analysis and CONTRADICT SCIENCE in doing so. That is anti-science. They are denying facts about the natural world (the domain where scientific knowledge is the best we have) in favor of the words of ancient men.
Where do the 'pro-science' advocates toss out scientific knowledge and theory?
YEC is anti-science because it denies well-founded scientific knowledge such as the age of the Earth. Hello?
By that reasoning the only thing that can be anti-science is science.
Correct. I do not believe anyone has disputed that. Science does not ponder why we exist nor does it attempt to understand why bad things happen to good people. You are stating the obvious when the obvious has not been refuted. Why?
You are stating the obvious. Why?
Pro-science is a label that describes a moral advocate, not a scientist. Why would skeptics of the Bible utilize scientific knowledge and theories as refutation if those skeptics were not pro-science? You have already acknowledged that the labels "pro-science" and "anti-science" not being about the scientific method or science, itself, states the obvious.
Then how can science be used to refute theology? Discrepancies between theology and science may be due to errors that science has not yet self-corrected.
That question has been asked before. "What good will it be for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?"
Pro-science moral advocacy provides an answer that ignores the underlying existential question. Anti-science moral advocacy attempts to answer the existential question.
Then what's the point of imposing scientific knowledge and theory onto that Biblical analysis? The Biblical analysis cannot contradict science because the Biblical analysis wasn't based upon science. Why do pro-science advocates belief they have any authority over Biblical analysis?
If it's obvious, then why does it matter that YEC Biblical analysis differs from scientific knowledge and theory? Science is just as wrong from a Biblical viewpoint as the Bible is wrong from a scientific viewpoint.
Who made science God?
We are done.
Only if one changes the definition of science.
Are you referring to the Bible as a moral guide, or for information regarding how the universe came into being. Science does not address morality, so nobody is using science to refute the Bible's moral guidance. To insist that they are is dishonest.
That's a question along the lines of "When did you stop beating your wife?", and any intelligent reader recognizes it as such.
That is not what pro-science is. And it is certainly not defined that way for the purposes of this article and discussion.
Biblical proponents who tout religious based claims as fact or truth can and should be refuted with actual scientific facts and evidence.
As TiG said in his post 13.1 [emphasis mine]: "I agree that 'anti-science' is a pejorative; to be anti-science is to deny the extremely successful scientific method. The term 'pro-science' accordingly should be a compliment." It seems TiG did say pro/anti science is about [but not limited to] the scientific method.
It's based on the claims made and the evidence to support those claims. For example, certain theological claims (YECs) state the Earth was created 6000 yrs ago. That is scientifically and demonstrably false. And there is no evidence to support the theistic claim. So that theological component is soundly refuted.
Religious based platitudes.
Science doesn't deal with morality.
Exactly. So there is no logical reason to take biblical "analyses" seriously. It lacks evidence and credibility.
No one is making that claim. They simply use evidence to arrive at a conclusion, which may or may not contradict biblical "analysis."
It's all about the evidence. YECs have no empirical evidence to support their claims. Actual scientific evidence soundly refutes their claims and their supposed "evidence." So YECs are wrong, even if they don't want to admit it.
I know of one who can do this with both hands behind his back and forth confabulating and contorting of made up words and meanings manipulated to convey his ill gotten means to an end of an arguement he can't lose, cause he's already in the 'Land of the Lost', where Holly had the Will to date Chewbacca, and Trump got pist at "what's with the White Women slummin with the indigenous ones', as Sharp Tooth and humans roamed the earth simultaniously while the Slestax just grabbed pussy from Will, i'm assuming against his back
words for every OKayshun he needs to feed his following a beginning to his end he is in the middle of while initiating faux arguments he renders faux his own benefit, that "friends' won't provide, as i doubt he could provide friends, less from a test tube baby without a tire tube to insulate the rubber glue he does due to stick his adversaries with names like Nick at night during a day long tirade about buying ice from Greenland that is envious of adjacent countries that he says are not Great Britain yet again, as he looks for an exit
sign of the
Southern Cross
town traffic that emits no smog emoji cause his thoughts were clouded with 100% Cotton shrunk to fit between his acoustic receptors deflecting the rising decibel level till out of Plumb Nowhere, he delivers a decidedly succinct comment, that doesn't sink till he gets to the bottom,
of it all
where he belongs
Sorry serious Science people, i was bored, and now i'm gone out to raise doubt about the lowered temperatures
I'm sorry, but you do not have sole power in deciding what those terms mean. Further, it wasn't as clear as you think. For instance...
That's not very exact. To favor something means to prefer one thing over another. In favor of science over what? Presumably, you mean something similar to your view of science's place over what you consider superstition. For me, being pro-science doesn't necessitate favoring it over or under my faith, since the two aren't really related, although I think science supports my faith. Where I might be considered anti-science is that I do not support the idea that science must inform one's decision about whether there is a God or not.
I disagree. I think, if you were honest, you'd say my stance, based on past participation in this place, was anti-science. You've often enough made the claim that people of faith only do so out of emotional need and not on any supporting evidence or critical thinking. A claim that is untrue in every sense.
Again, I disagree. It tends to disagree with your view of evolution, not tend toward anti-science.
Can you give me an example?
No claim was made that it was a fully developed human. But you cannot be a fully developed human without going through all the stages. Science can identify a zygote but it tells us nothing about whether or not it is immoral to terminate it. Science has no say nor information on that subject at all. The decision to claim it is not a human being is purely a mental one based on the individual's moral values.
That it is not aware, can't think, feel or any of the other things a fully developed human can do seems a poor line to draw to me. By that standard we can probably just eliminate people in comas without any moral qualms.
I think you're really reaching here. There is nothing unnatural about administering medical aid. Humans, due to our intelligence, naturally administer aid. It is naturally part of being human. It is natural for us to use tools, to build, create art, compose music, learn, explore and everything else that makes us human.
Actually, it isn't anything like that and the question is quite valid.
For Christians, God is the answer to the world's problems. If we accept Jesus as our savior and follow him, one day we will be with God forever in a perfect existence that will never end.
It would not be hard to pull up examples of people who think that science will do the same thing. People who think we will eventually be able to upload our minds into some machine, making us effectively immortal. Those that think neuroscience will eventually cure what makes us selfish, hostile, violent and all the rest. People who think tech that creates a post-scarcity society will eliminate war, poverty, illiteracy and the rest. People who put all their hopes in the future science will bring us.
Not in the context used. My original point - an example of what I consider to be anti-science and showing that the pro-science view is simply the pro-truth view:
Nerm responded with:
A correct statement. Science does not, for example, deal with questions of morality or existential philosophy. Science explains observations. My prior comment did not claim that science makes philosophical calls. The age of the Earth is squarely in the domain of science. Thus I responded with this:
Again we have someone making a statement that is entirely obvious. Nobody that I see has even hinted that science answers philosophical questions.
I had used YEC as an example of anti-science because YECs explicitly deny science to maintain their beliefs of a 6,000 year old Earth. Nerm states that science gets the biblical viewpoint of a young Earth wrong. Well, yeah, the overwhelming evidence shows that the Earth is substantially older than 6,000 years. In the domain of science (the pursuit of truth based on empirical observation) the YEC belief is wrong. That does not imply that science is God. It states that this YEC belief is demonstrably wrong based on modern knowledge derived through science.
The question is not valid in this context. It is a complete misrepresentation of the point I made. It yet again stubbornly attempts to imply that I am declaring science the only source of knowledge. Matters that fall within the domain of science (explanations of empirical observations) are fair game for scientific opinion. If another viewpoint disagrees with the scientific opinion (in cases like this where the evidence is beyond overwhelming), the other viewpoint can be deemed wrong with supporting evidence and reason. That is not science making commandments (God), it is science delivering its goods: explaining observations with a measure of confidence based on empirical evidence, reason and the body of knowledge accumulated thus far. It is science operating within its domain.
Science is not advocacy. Science only describes material reality. Science does not make value judgement nor does science advocate for interfering with causality to achieve a social objective.
The labels "pro-science" and "anti-science" are meaningless within science because science is not about social advocacy, social morality, or social value judgement. Science does not advocate one way or other on issues like abortion, climate change, vaccination, or the environment. When science becomes an advocate for a particular point of view then science is no longer objective.
The labels "pro-science" and "anti-science" are not about the scientific method or science, itself. The labels are about using science to support advocacy for social issues, moral judgement, and attempts to interfere with causality. Science doesn't take sides on those issues to avoid becoming biased.
The Bible is only one example. There are many schools of thought concerning ethics/morality, social organization, and allocation of resources. Science cannot maintain objectivity while advocating for a particular point of view concerning issues of ethics/morality, social organization, and allocation of resources.
No, it's a specific and unambiguous question. Who made science God? Who made science the moral authority? Who made science the authority and arbiter for questions concerning ethics/morality, social organization, and allocation of resources?
Science cannot take sides on questions of what ought or ought not be done while maintaining objectivity. When science engages in advocacy then science becomes biased.
The labels "pro-science" and "anti-science" have no meaning within science. The labels are about advocacy which, necessarily, depends upon a biased point of view.
TiG's statement in post @13.1 misses the mark. The label "anti-science" denotes advocacy for a particular point of view. The label "pro-science" also denotes the bias of advocacy for a particular point of view. Science, itself, does not take sides to avoid the biases introduced by advocacy.
TiG was wrong. An advocate cannot be unbiased and the scientific method cannot overcome that bias.
When did earth become Earth? If there are questions about when humans become human then the same logic applies. What is the time scale used in the Bible? The Bible tends to present the passage of time in terms of genealogical lineage and a sequence of specific events. Biblical time may not utilize the same time scale as science.
The YEC age of the Earth need not coincide with the scientific age of the planet. So, the debate is really about advocacy for differing points of view. And that advocacy introduces biases into the debate. Science cannot be objectively biased. Neither can theology.
Science does not speak of what ought to be done. I see nobody suggesting this yet you keep making this point as if in rebuttal. Strawman.
Correct. The labels are the subject of an article on Newstalkers. Nobody has suggested they have meaning in science. Another strawman.
Let's show the comment of which you speak:
And now let's read the crap you wrote about it:
Where in 13.1 do you see any hint of me suggesting that science itself takes sides on advocacy ? My comment speaks of perspectives. You either do not comprehend what I wrote or are purposely proposing an interpretation that has nothing whatsoever to do with what I wrote. That practice is offensive and intellectually dishonest.
My comment defined the terms anti- and pro- science from my perspective. I made no comment whatsoever regarding bias . Again you toss out crap from thin air and attribute it to me.
Nerm, do not invent claims from thin air and attribute them to me or anyone else. That practice is intellectually dishonest and offensive.
WTF is that supposed to mean?
So what are you trying to say Nerm, that the YEC 6,000 years are not actual years but some other kind of 'year'? Or are you saying that archbishop Ussher got things wrong by interpreting biblical days/years in modern terms? Be clear.
Hey Nerm, YECs claim that the Earth is 6,000 years old and they are using modern years. They are wrong per science and there exists a body of knowledge in science that can demonstrate this with extremely high confidence.
You understand this, right? 6,000 year old Earth claim is nonsense and the determination is based on objective facts and reasoning.
When it comes to the YECs, their "point of view" is a proven lie. Just because there are two points of view doesn't mean both are valid.
It's not a strawman. The grammatical modifiers "pro" and "anti" denote advocacy. Science, itself, does not take sides on what ought or ought not be done to avoid introducing biases. But a pro-science advocate utilizes science to promote a biased point of view.
What is pro-science? the obvious answer, contained within the label, is that pro-science is about advocacy to promote a biased point of view.
Your comment was based upon anti-science denying the extremely successful scientific method. Doesn't that describe a bias?
Theology doesn't hide its biases. In fact, theology clearly states its bias; everything begins with God. Theology takes sides on issues, from the onset, according to the bias of theology. Theology is not an objective endeavor and does not claim to be objective. Theology is dedicated to advocacy for God.
What is science dedicated to advocating? And if science is an advocate for a point of view then isn't science just as biased as theology?
The extremely successful scientific method cannot impart objectivity onto a biased advocacy. Theology adopting the scientific method will not alter the innate bias and advocacy of theology.
The effort was an attempt to impose science upon theology. Don't ignore that members of the Catholic priesthood have made significant scientific contributions.
IMO some motivation for the attempt was a desire to impart objectivity onto theology by association with science. But theology is not objective; theology is advocacy for God. Association with an objective pursuit will not alter the biased advocacy that is the core principle of theology.
Your strawman is your statement "Science cannot take sides on questions of what ought or ought not be done while maintaining objectivity. " which implies that someone has suggested that science does takes sides on what ought or ought not be done. Nobody suggested that. Strawman.
Nobody has suggested that the pro- and anti- are NOT advocating a perspective. Another strawman. You are debating against positions that nobody here has made.
No it is factual and obvious. Science has been extremely successful and one who denies science certainly fits the label anti-science.
Science is a method and an associated body of knowledge. It seeks truth. It is muddled thinking to presume science itself is advocating anything. It follows the evidence to where it leads and attempts to explain observations with formal theory.
Again, you put forth comments like this when nobody has suggested otherwise. The findings of science can, however, be used by an advocate of a particular perspective. An argument against YECs regarding the age of the Earth can be objectively supported by the evidence supporting the age of 4.54 billion years. This is not science itself advocating a position.
Arguing against the YEC claim of a 6,000 year old Earth does not impose science on theology. It argues that the YEC view is wrong and the argument is supported by extremely sound scientific findings.
By your reasoning it is not possible to challenge a theological claim regarding nature (the domain of science) without imposing science on theology. That is utter nonsense.
Then how can someone claim to be pro-science? Throwing out an allegation of strawman does not rectify the inconsistency of pro-science advocating an activity that does not take sides.
What you allege as a strawman is actually central to the discussion. Claiming a bias for non-bias would appear to be a self-defeating argument.
Again, alleging a strawman doesn't wipe away the claims that have been made about the meaning of the label "pro-science". Discussion of advocacy, bias, and source of bias are central to the discussion. Science, itself, is not a source of biased advocacy. Or is it?
Truth? Science seeks knowledge; that's all science does. And science has demonstrated that knowledge evolves and changes over time. Science has repeatedly demonstrated that today's truth can be tomorrow's falsehood.
The grandiosity of truth is ephemeral according to science.
The YEC claim of a 6,000 year old Earth is wrong by scientific measures. That does impose scientific measures onto the YEC claim.
The YEC claim is consistent with Biblical measures. The point of disagreement for pro-science advocates is the attempt to impose the Biblical measures onto science.
It's a conflict between points of view. The YEC point of view is biased since theology is based upon God as a core principle.
Granted, but I took the question at face value, and thus, valid in that sense. I thought it a good opportunity to display one way in which some, whether they realize it or not, look at science in such a way as it becomes god for them.
If I understand what Nerm is saying, his point is essentially, not that science takes sides but an individual saying they are pro-science would mean they are anti-something else, inducing bias.
Let me start by stating, I don't expect an answer to this, but I don't understand what you mean above. I am "pro-science" in the sense that I agree that science (the study of the natural order) is good for this planet and everything/everyone on it. And, I am "pro-God" because of my faith in a spiritual order. I struggle to see where 'conflict' is.
You continue to conflate the perspective of an individual with science itself. If you want to focus on the individual then do so. Speaking of science taking sides is confused language. Good grief man we all know that human beings are biased. We all know that an individual putting forth a pro-science position is biased towards science in matters within the domain of science. We all know that an individual putting forth an anti-science position is biased against science (typically because of a religious/emotional view).
Arguing the obvious when the opposite has not been posited is a strawman argument.
Science seeks knowledge that is as close to truth as possible. The limit function for scientific knowledge is truth. Science seeks to be correct, not incorrect.
Yes, it imposes on the claim. The claim is wrong. You wrote about science imposing upon theology. Read what you wrote:
The age of the Earth is a scientific factor, it is not a theological factor. If anything, theology is imposing on the domain of science with this question.
Nobody has suggested that the YEC claim is not based on their interpretation of the Bible. And yes, YECs (anti-science) are trying to preempt well-founded science (age of the Earth) based on biblical nonsense.
It it obnoxious though when people argue against posits that nobody has made.
Nobody here has even hinted the notion that science is the only source of knowledge and certainly not 'God'. The question "who made science God" has no bearing on what people have written in this article. Certainly has nothing to do with what I have written.
He is talking about individuals and then conflating those individual notions of perception and bias with science itself.
see TiG @13.2.51
Let's now consider Gordy's topical point. Gordy wrote this article because he (et. al.) have been deemed pro-science in a pejorative sense. The implied claim by the accuser is that pro-science people blindly follow science to the exclusion of all other reasoning. The main example of this follows the idiotic claim that 'evolution is pseudoscience; a worldwide hoax by godless scientists'. The accuser deems those who accept evolution as the most correct explanation of speciation thus far as waging a conspiracy against religion.
In short, the pro-science pejorative is an attack against those who dare to be persuaded by science over theology in matters dealing with nature.
I am pro-education. If that makes me "anti-ignorance" by default, then yes, I accept that. I am pro-science which means by default I suppose I am "anti-ignorance" as well. For me, knowing something based on the scientific method is better than not knowing or inventing my own unfounded non-scientific answers or adopting those of others. I'd rather understand the scientific principles that have been observed and tested behind precipitation cycles than to just accept someone telling me it's God crying. But that doesn't necessarily mean I'm anti-God or even anti-religious.
The supposed "bias" Nerm suggests in the term "pro-science" is just that of a person being "biased" toward knowing versus not knowing. The intersection and thus potential collisions come when some express their faith as "knowing" and attempt to equate that with scientific "knowing". The attempt to equate religious theory with scientific theory is simply dishonest because they are nothing alike. And science isn't trying to compete with religion, its not asking to be worshiped. Are there some who do "worship science"? Probably, and that's likely where Nerm gets the idea that "pro-science" would be biased, as if the majority of those who are "pro-science" are replacing their religion with science. Considering how many people, even most scientists, claim to be of one religion or another, attests to the fact that those who "worship" science or believe it to be somehow infallible are fairly few.
One thing stands out though, for those complaining about some supposed implicit bias for those who are 'pro-science" is the refusal to acknowledge that they, being obviously, blatantly pro-religion, are faaaaaaaaaaaaaaar more biased than those few who might "worship science". The core principle in virtually every religion is to worship that faith, worship whatever God you've been indoctrinated in. What those complaining about pro-science being biased are really saying is "Hey! Don't you dare allow scientific bias in your understanding of the universe get in the way of me expressing my religious bias in understanding the universe!".
Maybe, but no one said the world is fair. Further, no one made that posit directly, but certainly indirectly. That's more or less what this debate is about, in my opinion. When someone claims to be pro-science it automatically assumes they are anti-something else. To say you are pro-something, you are choosing a side between options.
Concerning what we are discussing, there are only two realities being discussed. Which is the real universe? The materialist universe or the one Christians claim exist? For the materialist, only certain kinds of scientific evidence will suffice to convince them, they say, in order to consider that the Christians are right, and even then, they probably still wouldn't believe it. They would still reject it as supernatural and start figuring out how God is an emergent property of a material universe.
That, to me, seems to indicate that materialists, if not consider science god, certainly treat it as if it were.
Maybe, but this discussion isn't only about what you have written.
This article though is about being labeled pro-science as a pejorative. If someone labels themselves pro-science then I agree they have a basis for doing so and should be able to articulate the con- side.
The difference here is evidence (of course). There is nothing remarkable about people (materialists) explaining observations based on evidence and reason. That is what one would expect. Going beyond that is the exception. That which has only been deemed true by human beings who can deliver no convincing evidence is justifiably open to challenge.
I do not buy that. You need to be more specific. We are operating in a reality where the Christian God is wholly unevidenced. What Christians consider evidence of God boils down to feelings. Some suggest that the awesomeness of reality is evidence of God. It is not. It is evidence of awesome complexity. The origin of that awesome complexity is the question, not the fact that nature (the universe) is awesome.
But, still, be specific. What evidence would you propose for God that you think should be seriously considered by 'materialists'?
I was not limiting my comment to only what I have written. Nobody here has suggested that science is God or anything close to that. Read the blue part in the quote you provided:
So why do you portray this as if I am only speaking of what I wrote when the quote you supplied shows the opposite?
That is a generality and doesn't work for this discussion. What an individual means when they are pro or anti-science is individually specific.
I suspect it may be more than a few. To explain what I mean let's look at the part of what you said here that I left out.
This is true and I have no argument with it. I believe I know there is a God and I believe I know Him. However, I can't claim "know" in the scientific sense (yet). But the potential collision from the other direction, as it were, is those who are "pro-science" claim our belief isn't valid precisely because of that. I'm sure you've heard some in this discussion claim exactly that in other discussions. However, such a claim is what is actually invalid. Faith in God is only invalid if the God in which I have faith in does not actually exist. If the Christian is right and the universe is the one God created, there is nothing about that which says it must be validated by science to be true. There is nothing logically inconsistent with this reasoning.
Yet, even so, the "pro-science" position, expressed by it's supporters here and in past conversations, will not only claim that the believer's faith is invalid scientifically, even though they will agree all day long that science cannot address the subject of a supernatural God, they won't bother, no, they actively resist, any attempt to discovering the truth of the claim by any other means other than science.
They see science as the arbiter of determining reality. In a very real sense, it is what they worship. Worship literally means worth-ship. The amount of worth something has. Within the context of this entire conversation, the "pro-science" side treat, or put science in the place of God, in determining what the true nature of the universe, of existence, is.
Really, this is what Gordy is actually referring to when he sees this issue in terms of pro or anti-science. This is the real issue being discussed. This is the "war" between faith and science. Not that science as a method of discovery about the physical world is a bad thing but, rather, the idea that the issue involves science in the manner the "pro-science" faction attempts to address the question. The war, isn't between religion and science. It's between religion and those who say God is not a factor unless He can be proven materially and the idea we need to train each new generation to think that and nothing else.
And the fact is that those supposed "materialists" admit they do not have all the answers but are actively and eagerly searching for answers that can be empirically, scientifically proven. But because there are many things which science has admitted it does not yet have answers for, some have chosen to fill in the blanks with the answer that "feels" best to them which almost always aligns with whatever religious beliefs are most prevalent in the area of their birth. If they were born in a Muslim country, they likely fill in the blank with Allah. If they were born in a Christian country, they likely fill in the blank with Jesus or the trinity as the answer to all unanswered questions.
To some, the very fact that a materialists is still searching for answers feels like an affront to and an attack on their faith. They already told you their answer to those questions thus any continued search is often received as them being ignored, diminished or disbelieved. Some get angry and bitter over what they perceive as patronizing smiles from the "pro-science" crowd who continue doing their experiment's and scientific hypothesis regardless of the fact that they've already been told over and over that it was a specific God that created everything.
So it's not really the pro-science folks problem that some religious adherents get their feelings hurt and feel minimized or diminished by facts and science chipping away at the answers their faith has already proclaimed are infallible. When they complain about some implicit bias in science what they really mean is they are angry that science is not more biased toward their brand of faith.
Still fighting a straw man, Nerm.
Quotes?
Only those imagining their faith is being attacked believe there is any war. Science doesn't give a crap about what any faith is preaching, it just goes out and does it's tireless work of observation, testing and experimentation. Most understand that science isn't evil and isn't actually attacking their faith even when it does challenge many of the doctrines they've been taught.
First, the religious should really all agree on a God before proclaiming their God is a "factor". To claim your God is a "fact" or "factor" before proving all the other Gods people believe in false seems pretty presumptive.
Factor: noun - a circumstance, fact, or influence that contributes to a result or outcome
So until your God is proven "factual", how can science enter any God into their working equations as a factor? How can you claim your God is an absolute without simultaneously telling other believers they must be crazy to believe in Allah or Vishnu or any other Gods worshiped throughout history. What exactly are you wanting from science? Are you desperate for approval and validation? If you truly have "faith" as you say, you wouldn't care what science is discovering, you wouldn't care when it contradicts your faith because you believe what you believe because you want to believe, facts are unnecessary and even antithetical to faith because faith is belief without evidence.
So we either leave God out of science until some God is proven, or we add all Gods, including the FSM, into the equation and just throw out any requirement for facts when coming up with scientific hypothesis. And of course if we did that, it would no longer be science and people could simply claim that E / MC x G where G is "God". That equation solves all questions science has ever asked. How big is the universe? Universe = E / MC x G. How old is the universe? Age of Universe = E / MC x G.
Obviously that would be ridiculous, but that seems to be what some religious are fighting for. They fight for the right to stand next to a scientists at a podium explaining quantum theory and proclaim that "Quantum particles = E / MC x G!" and expect the world to applaud them and be wowed by their supposed brilliance. They fight for validation of their religious theories even though they have no factual basis on which to present their theories, all they have are beliefs, feelings and an all encompassing desire to be considered "right".
This is not true. If one is open to the possibility that there is a supernatural God there is plenty of evidence that, if not proves His existence, certainly points toward Him. I'm fairly certain that you believe dark matter and dark energy exist, even though there's no actual proof. There is, however, plenty of evidence that strongly suggests that it does, whatever it turns out to be. In the same manner, there is scientific evidence and logical arguments for why we see the universe that we see, not just physically in the universe but in the human condition, that suggests, strongly, that God exists. That you do not see it that way does not invalidate this for anyone except those who choose to see such evidence as invalid.
There are plenty of arguments you can find online that give solid, logical, critically reasoned justification for belief in God. The basis for rejection for the materialist, however, amounts to not being able to, essentially, put God in a test tube. It is far from being just a mere feeling. And that is without taking account of God's involvement in the believer's life. It's a little hard to deny God when you have a relationship with Him.
And, I don't know if you've been paying attention to the holographic universe theory, but you might want to check it out if you haven't.
No, there is nothing remarkable about materialists doing that. There's also nothing remarkable about materialists demanding evidence concerning God. But the demand is not an honest one. It can't be when the claim is that God is supernatural but the materialist demands materialist evidence. The demand is actually a claim that existence is material only disguised as a seemingly reasonable request for evidence by a method that can't examine the question in the first place. How can it be anything else? This way, while a supernatural God may be personally involved every moment in supernatural ways with the humans it created, materialists can go on keeping their head in the sand because there is no "evidence".
As I said elsewhere, this is the real misnamed war between science and faith. Misnamed because it isn't a war between science and faith but between faith and materialism.
To be fair, Muslims have a rather interesting problem due to the condition of their politics and state policies (and,) the use of the minaret (5 times call to prayer tower)). Moreover, not all Jews living in Israel (a democracy) are Orthodox or even believe in God. Finally, there are born atheists (like Frances Collins) who transform themselves into believers in a God they have not yet seen and have not spoken with directly. It is significant when a Christian or Jewish person becomes a disbelieving Christian or Jew.
Is it any less important, when an atheist comes to accept, God, the Bible, and science?
How? I am allowed to make contentions and to make statements that support my contentions and to refute contentions made by others..
You allege I am making strawman statements. I challenge you to defend that allegation.
Yeah, this right here is the problem. You're attempting to refute contentions that haven't been made by others. Nobody has said that science is a moral authority, and nobody has proclaimed science to be God, except you, while constructing your straw man. Folks have been trying to tell you that for dozens of posts now, but you either haven't seen it, or have seen it and decided to pretend you haven't.
I challenge you to quote anybody here saying science is a moral authority, or proclaiming science to be God. If you can't produce quotes, well, there's your straw man.
For example?
Dark matter and dark energy are simply placeholder names given to an area of science that is unknown to us but whose effects can be measured. Science is saying: something is there due to effects but we do not understand what it is. The evidence suggests something is there; that is all.
If you want to use dark energy/matter as an analogy then you would say this: 'Something caused our universe to exist. We do not know what it is, but we can at least measure its effects (by analyzing the universe).' But that is not what you are saying is it? You go further and deem that this something is sentient. Worse, you ascribe to this unknown cause the attributes, history, plans, expectations, etc. of the Christian God. Evidence please? What you are doing goes far beyond labeling unknown behavior with placeholder names and admitting that we do not know what is going on.
Arguments for believing in a god are not evidence that a god exists. And most of these arguments are flawed. Give me an argument that you think is great and let's have at it. Better still, write an article on it.
Note that this is not really rejection of god but rather the lack of belief in a god. Skeptics typically do not reject 'god' but rather are waiting for someone to provide solid reason for believing a god exists. Skeptics do reject human created gods. That is not rejecting the concept of a sentient creator but rather rejecting the human-conceived fantasies of a potential creator. The grounds for rejection typically are contradiction in the definition of the god. Contradiction is a solid basis for rejecting a claim.
I have. But I do not know what point you wish to make so I cannot respond.
There is a profound problem with this logic. You claim that it is dishonest to ask for evidence for God because God is defined as supernatural. By that same reasoning, how can anyone claim that God exists give He is supernatural? You cannot on one hand deem supernatural a wild-card against any scrutiny yet hold that somehow human beings have knowledge of a supernatural entity. To wit: if you cannot give evidence for God because He is supernatural then how can you know God even exists (much less have knowledge of what He wants, etc.)?
Yes, I agree it is not science. It is logic and supporting evidence at the divide.
Not an individual but a point of view. What I am stating is that pro-science and anti-science represent advocacy for a point of view. The grammatical modifiers 'pro' and 'anti' denote a bias towards advocacy of a point of view concerning value judgements.
An example would be a point of view that "greed is good". Individuals may advocate for or against that point of view but the source of that advocacy is the point of view.
Has anyone disagreed with this??
I began this discussion thread @13 with the statement: "The term "pro-science" is a natural consequence of labeling people as anti-science. Those who are pro-science use the label "anti-science" as an ad hominem pejorative to influence uninformed opinion."
The first comment on the thread, made by TiG, @13.1: "I agree that 'anti-science' is a pejorative; to be anti-science is to deny the extremely successful scientific method. The term 'pro-science' accordingly should be a compliment. Yet, as Gordy notes, it is used (strangely) as a pejorative."
Note that I did not mention anything about the scientific method or science, itself. By your criteria TiG engaged in a strawman with his first comment on the thread. TiG would likely claim that he was only defining 'anti-science' but my opening statement doesn't require definitions.
The subsequent discussion has been a challenge to TiG's first comment. I contend that TiG's comment is a false interpretation of what the label 'anti-science' is really about and, consequently, what the label 'pro-science' is really about. I contend the labels are not about the scientific method.
I have posted statements that support my challenge to TiG's first comment on the thread. My statements have been accurate and pertinent to the discussion. TiG is arguing from an untenable position.
I made no claims that someone stated science is a moral authority so the allegation of strawman is unwarranted. I asked a rhetorical question to elicit a response that science is not a moral authority which would support my challenge to TiG's first comment. I had already pointed out that science is not a moral authority because science doesn't take sides.
Let's read this together Nerm.
You claim that my mentioning of the scientific method as part of qualifying what I mean by 'anti-science' is a straw man. You have now just redefined the very concept of straw man ...
FROM: A straw man is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument , while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man ".
TO: providing details to qualify a term that is used.
Redefining common words (in this case you redefine 'straw man') continues to be a slimy tactic. Easily caught and dismissed. Use an honest approach and you might get better results.
How can one be anti-science or pro-science and not be concerned with science itself (and that means the scientific method)?? That is like being pro-life or pro-choice without being concerned with abortion.
I pointed out the problem with your approach here:
... followed by:
... and then repeatedly after that.
In short:
You are arguing with nobody.
The tactic you are using is to posit items that most everyone will agree with, argue in favor of these posits, and then pretend that you are somehow rebutting your interlocutors.
Worse, you ignore the agreement on those items and continue with the faux rebuttal and attempt to piggyback nonsense (aka bullshit) on top of it like this complete misrepresentation of my position:
I never argued that an advocate can be unbiased (in fact I agreed that human beings are inherently biased ... obviously) or that the scientific method can overcome the bias of an individual. The scientific method is one of the best methods (demonstrably) that we have for mitigating human bias but it is not some cure-all that magically eliminates human bias. Your misrepresentation is offensive.
Do not expect any slack from me when you pull that kind of crap.
When speaking of a war we aren't speaking about science. As I stated clearly, we are speaking about faith vs materialism and materialism is winning in some important areas, unfortunately. They have almost completely eliminated religion from the public school system and are fighting tooth an nail to eliminate what little there is left. The state is imposing the religion of materialism on young minds with no other options to it allowed. Even worse, the religion of humanism is even more prevalent in the school systems. The state has no right to decide for the rest of us that there's nothing wrong for Jonny to now be called Jenny and you have to go along with it no matter what your parents say. You are a bad person if you think there's something wrong with a boy who now thinks he's a girl using the bathroom. Children have little defense against that. Colleges are even worse. God help you if you disagree with their humanist positions.
In the public square, humanist organizations are doing all they can to eliminate public expression of religion. Law suits for the silliest things are found in the news all the time. And God help someone who tries to practice their faith, such as refusing to participate in an event they find morally objectionable. If you think there isn't a war on, you're not thinking.
First, agreeing on which God isn't necessary for the purposes of this discussion. It is enough that, regardless of whether they have the right God or not, there is reason to believe there is a God. That is, the vast majority of the planet believes there is. And before anyone shouts "as populum" fallacy, it doesn't make them wrong, either.
First, no one is suggesting God needs to be worked into science equations. At least, not until recently. Science is about the observation of the universe in order to describe what we are observing. The apparently physical universe we live in was made to work a certain way and consideration of God is obviously not necessary for purely physical phenomena.
Second, if anyone has taken up my advice and looked into the holographic universe theory, something I've only recently become aware of myself, you would find that people are beginning to talk about how the fundamental particles of our universe do not appear to be the fundamental particles of existence. There is something beneath that and the physical universe we observe is actually an emergent property of that something. That something is being described as information that does not exist in either time or space. While I have no idea what that actually means, the one thing that the people I've heard talk about it say is that the only thing that could account for it would be a disembodied mind, because nothing else could account for the information. In short, I've heard the word "God" mentioned.
Or we could do something a lot more simple and just allow for the fact that there's no reason there is more to our existence than just the physical.
Except there isn't anyone actually doing that. Instead, regardless of whatever religion we speak of, they all are claiming there is something more than just the physical and what we do in this life matters. And that claim will not be eradicated. Even in an atheistic society such as China, which is estimated to have the largest Christian population in the world by around 2030.
I'm sure this is true for a lot of people. I will even admit it was true of me, once upon a time. Thanks to God, that isn't much of a problem for me any more.
I will tell you, though, for the Christian that has an actual relationship with God and understands existence from God's perspective (to the extent we can), you wouldn't believe how different reality looks to us. Who we are as humans. I don't think you could imagine it. Because we live in that reality and can see what's coming, we want to help every last person we can to find God. Not because it's some sort of merit badge but because God loves them and we love God.
Works for me, but I think it means the same thing. It takes an individual to hold a point of view, although I can see preferring to say "point of view" puts the focus there rather than "individual."
Where does anyone disagree that pro-science and anti-science advocate a point of view?
Nowhere, as far as I know, but I don't think that is his point. I mean, his overall point. I think he is saying, essentially, the same things I've been saying in his own way. I'm not totally sure because, no offense Nerm, I find you hard to follow sometimes.
Um, I must be tired. To more fully answer, it isn't the point of view aspect I believe he is actually talking about but the emergent bias from the point of view.
I agree, he is indeed stating that the pro- and anti- views contain human bias. I think everyone is aware of that too and I have yet to see anyone suggest otherwise. Human beings are biased and we have perspectives which reflect those biases.
That established (as if something so obvious needed to be established), the pro-science pejorative as Gordy describes in his article is used in an attempt to demean those who find well-founded scientific findings superior in credibility and explanatory power to religious explanations. Case in point is evolution.
I'm applying criteria that has been applied to me. You are making a pedantic argument while ignoring the "By your criteria" part of the statement. If you are going to appeal to authority then make that appeal to Sandy since Sandy is the authority on strawman arguments.
That's answered with simple logic: how can one be anti-XYZ or pro-XYZ and not be concerned with XYZ? The 'pro' and 'anti' denote acceptance or rejection of a point of view and isn't about accepting or rejecting XYZ. Note that the pro-XYZ advocates have constrained the debate to XYZ which precludes scrutiny of another point of view?
Pro-business advocates define anti-business as denying the highly successful principles of capitalism. But a pro-business point of view that 'greed is good' isn't advocating for the principles of capitalism. Anti-business is opposing the point of view and that opposition doesn't have anything to do with the principles of capitalism. Note that the pro-business advocates have constrained the debate to principles of capitalism which precludes scrutiny of another point of view?
Pro-science advocates define anti-science as denying the highly successful scientific method. But a pro-science point of view that society must be completely restructured to eliminate fossil fuels isn't advocating for the scientific method. Anti-science is opposing the point of view and that opposition doesn't have anything to do with the scientific method. Note that the pro-science advocates have constrained the debate to the scientific method which precludes scrutiny of another point of view?
The ad hominem labels are defined using circular logic as a means of avoiding scrutiny of a point of view.
You defined anti-science as denying the extremely successful scientific method. But that definition is wrong; anti-science is opposition to a point of view advocated by pro-science advocates. And that doesn't include scrutiny of the claim that the scientific method has been extremely successful considering the number and magnitude of problems caused by application of the scientific method.
I MADE THOSE CLAIMS AS STATEMENTS OF FACT. I wasn't refuting something, I was stating facts to support my position. No one in the discussion claimed anti-science denies the scientific method until you did. You stated a fact (which wasn't correct). According to Sandy (and now you) stating facts, even facts that are obvious, is some sort of strawman.
Who made science God? That's a rhetorical question. The facts are that science does not advocate, science does not take sides, science cannot be made God. Yes, I attempt to coax others to participate in the discussion instead of just throwing bricks.
And if no one is disputing that pro- and anti- are advocating a perspective then what was the point of your comment @13.1? You did not define pro- and anti- as advocates for a perspective (which BTW alters the meaning of what I have said).
A point of view endures far longer than an individual.
Karl Marx died 137 years ago but we are still arguing over the point of view described by Marx. Yes, individuals are engaged in the debate but the point of view that is socialism is the source of the debate.
Within the scientific community there has been enduring conflict and competition between theoretical science and applied science for allocation of resources. The debate has, at times, grown into conflicts between points of view concerning what constitutes science. When advocates for one type of science labels those who do not accept their point of view as anti-science, should we accept that definition?
Bullshit. That's like claiming not collecting stamps is a hobby. The simple act of not teaching religion in school is NOT teaching them atheism or humanism.
No clue why you'd need "God's help" when all anyone is doing by not teaching religion is ignoring you. What you're saying is "God Help Us To Not Be Ignored!". Just more whiny whine wine that some religious persons are drunk on. They are deathly afraid of their religion becoming obsolete. No one is attacking their religion, they are refusing to bow to it.
What have you or anyone else been "forced" to participate in? No one forced the cake baker to make the supposedly "gay wedding cake". He can choose not to sell wedding cakes, that's his right, no one is forcing him to sell them. No one is forcing anyone to get an abortion. What it seems you're saying is that the religious are being "forced" to participate in an open society where their religion isn't king, asking them not to discriminate against other law abiding tax paying American citizens, asking them to treat others as they want to be treated. Is that really so hard for the religious to do?
You are just redefining commonly defined terms (as usual).
Incoherent.
Slight of hand. You speak of pro- and anti- business and then use capitalism as your variable. Strike capitalism throughout and use business instead. Both pro- and anti- business necessarily are concerned with business . Just as pro- and anti- science necessarily are concerned with science .
Now you conflate pro-science with a political viewpoint.
Again, you purposely obscure these terms by conflating them with a political point of view. One could be pro-science and take either side of the political question of a complete restructuring of fossil fuels.
This is funny. I defined the term anti-science so that people would know what I meant by the term and here you are telling me that my definition is wrong.
The only thing that you can do is declare that you have a different definition for the term. You cannot state that I or anyone else is wrong in our personal definitions since the term is not defined in the large. There is no authoritative definition of pro-science or anti-science. Indeed, the lack of a definition is part of the reason why Gordy wrote this article.
That established, the prefix pro- does have a meaning: (" Favoring; supporting . ") so my personal definition correlates far better with the English language than yours. Although I am not denying you the right to define the terms as you see fit, I will point out that my definition is more straightforward and consistent with English norms.
Yeah, I know. As I have noted, you are making statements that we all agree with. But you present them as if you are making a rebuttal. There is no honest reason that I can see to state obvious facts (and then endlessly repeat same) when nobody is rebutting them.
Why would you ask this question unless someone has implied that science is God?
I offered a qualification as soon as I used the term anti-science so that my readers would be clear on my meaning:
That qualification does not assert that pro- and anti- science is not a perspective. Further, I have never suggested that viewing these as perspectives is wrong. Indeed, I have stated that they are obviously perspectives. The anti-science perspective involves denying science. The pro-science perspective involves respecting science.
There is nothing complicated about this but you have managed to gish-gallop simple ideas into incoherence.
Then let's apply a different example.
Since you are pro-TiG then it follows that anyone challenging your point of view is anti-TiG. Being anti-TiG as to deny TiG's methodoly. Notice how that the discussion is now all about TiG? An obvious (at least to me) rhetorical question would be "who made TiG God?"
Yes, it is slight of hand. Those that pro-business advocates label as anti-business may or may not be concerned with business. But the label makes business the center of discussion. And defining anti-business as denying the methodology of business diverts the debate away from the point of view that is being challenged.
Use a real example. I offered one that is perfectly clear: pro-choice and pro-life are pro- and anti- regarding abortion.
Indeed.
Then let's play on your field. First let's frame the example within the context of the current discussion; pro-abortion and anti-abortion are pro- and anti- regarding abortion. Extrapolating, anti-abortion denies the extremely successful medical practice of abortion.
What do we know? After conception and through following developmental stages what has been conceived is alive, is a unique individual, and possesses the human genome. According to available scientific knowledge what has been conceived and develops in the womb is a living individual human.
The slight of hand is to focus attention on the methodology of abortion. Note the advocates and opponents aren't debating the methodology of ending a human life; the debate isn't about abortion as a medical procedure. Anti-abortion is not claiming there are better methods of ending a human life than the medical procedure of abortion and are not opposing abortion as an inadequate medical procedure.
Pro-abortion advocates a point of view that ending a human life is acceptable and justified by a woman's right to choose. Anti-abortion opponents challenge the point of view that ending a human life is acceptable and that the justification is ethically unsupported. The debate is over a point of view that is being advocated as ethically acceptable.
Pro-abortion advocates have adopted the label of pro-choice (which does better conform to advocated justification) and labels opponents as denying the rights of women. That's slight of hand to divert the debate away from the ethical questions concerning ending a human life. Anti-abortion advocates have adopted the label of pro-life (which does better conform to their ethical advocacy) and labels opponents as denying the value of human life. That, too, is slight of hand to divert the debate away from a woman's right to choose.
The conflicting points of view are really addressing the ethical question of what is acceptable justification for ending a human life. And both sides of the debate are using slight of hand to avoid addressing the core ethical question. The debate has devolved into a political competition to impose a point of view onto society rather than attempting to clarify and answer the core ethical question.
Wrong. You need to apply the appropriate semantics. Anti-abortion rejects abortion on moral and philosophical grounds. It does not deem the procedure medically invalid.
You started with a false framing so I reject your entire comment.
To ensure you understand, I was saying that pro- and anti- positions necessarily concern themselves with a particular topic. Thus both pro- and anti- abortion necessarily take positions on abortion. Similarly, both pro- and anti- science necessarily take positions on science. The pro-science position is that science is the best method we currently have for explaining observations in reality whereas the anti-science position denies that.
IMO
Congratulations! You finally refuted your own statement @13.1 and have confirmed what I have been contending.
The scientific method is a practice of science; the scientific method is not science. And I have been contending that the labels describe rejection of a point of view and not the validity of a topic.
Well done!
That is correct, but also not what I said. They are actively teaching humanism in the schools. They, of course, aren't calling it that. What people such as myself want is for the public school system to also treat religion fairly. And before you ask the obvious "which religion?" I don't mean indoctrinate the children into any particular religion. A class that teaches, not necessarily that there is a God, but that there may be and do a comparative study of the world's major religions. Discuss it's historical impacts, both positive and negative. Things like that. But we aren't even allowed to do that because of the materialists and humanists. That's stupid, since religion has been such a major factor both today and historically.
Do you think anyone is going to be fooled by this ridiculous declaration?
Another strawman.
I see no problem with discussing the world's religions as part of a history or cultural curriculum. For example, when discussing the Chinese culture it is appropriate to also discuss Buddhism (in general, not delve into it). A class on world's religions would be over the top in high school, but I can see that as a college level elective course. At the college level it makes sense that an elective course (or courses) would delve deeper into the most common religions and engage in comparative analysis, origins, evolution, etc.
Note that a course on religions would speak of the good and the bad, the credible and the incredible. In other words, it should be objective and without a presumption of truth or falseness.
That's really just not true. My son's history class last year covered Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, Islam, and Christianity (and possibly others) and their influence on the development of the cultures where those religions were practiced.
No, there was no advocacy for any of them.
IMO teaching philosophy at the the elementary and high school levels would be adequate. The philosophy embedded within religion isn't unique to religion. In my view it isn't necessary to teach religion if philosophy is adequately presented.
I didn't decide what they mean. I simply explained what they are. But what do you think they mean, since you seem to disagree?
It's about favoring the scientific method and established facts and evidence.
It's more akin to rationality and critical thinking over irrationality and emotional bias.
I'd say faith and science is not related.
No worries then, since science doesn't deal with the issue of god/s nor say if there are god/s or not.
I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.
Since there's no empirical evidence for a god and claims of god are often made based on nothing but belief or desire, then my claim is apt.
My "view" of evolution is based on science. ID directly ignores science in favor of dogma. So yes, it is an anti-science position.
Abortion. People may have moral qualms about when abortion is permissible. Since science expanded our understanding of embryology, people can use that information to modify their moral stance regarding abortion.
Yes, but until it completes those stages, it is not yet a human. Just like a car is not yet a car until it comes off the assembly line.
Science tells us a zygote is just a single, undifferentiated cell. Essentially no different than any other cell in the body. Armed with that information, people may see no more moral issue with terminating it than they do scratching a few skin cells off their @ss. Other might not care and still see it as "human." But science calls it what it is.
Why? What should the line be?
It's called withdrawal of care or support. That is a thing.
You're the one mentioning "interference" with natural progression. Medical aid does that too. A person might be naturally progressing toward death via infection or injury, beyond the body's capabilities of dealing with such stressors. Medical aid interferes with that progression.
Irrelevant. We've developed those things due to our intelligence. But we still "interfere" with natural progression when we utilize them.
That's just lazy then! That's just a way to absolve oneself from taking any responsibility for the world they live in. That's like saying "The world has problems, but it doesn't matter. God will fix it." Well, given the world's problems, god has done precisely Jack & $#!t fixing anything!
Science is better equipped and capable of fixing problems.
That claim is largely made in science fiction.
Emotions are generated by the brain. So altering brain structure and chemistry can affect emotional expression. We already have medications for psychological disorders. So that statement is not actually far off.
We're living in the "future" because of science.
It wasn't about who is pro/anti whatever. It's about being labeled pro-science as a pejorative.
Key word in there is "believe," as that is all it is. Belief does not equal fact.
Do not presume to speak for me! I was quite clear as to the purpose of this article and discussion.
Maybe that's your view of things. But I've said many times before that science doesn't deal with god.
Such as?
No one said it did or should. Ideally, science remains objective.
A possibility. But it depends on the issue and the available evidence.
That is correct. I only brought it up because the terms, especially "pro-science" was being used pejoratively.
Wrong! Anti-science expressly or actively rejects established science and evidence in favor of its own views, beliefs, and biases, while offering nothing empirically credible to counter science. It doesn't get more biased than that. Flat/Young Earth views are a perfect example of that. Pro-science recognizes and utilizes the scientific method and established facts or evidence regarding a particular issue. It goes where the evidence leads, not where it wants it to go. See the difference?
Not even a little!
You're the one bringing up the issue of bias, not TiG.
I assume you mean when did the Earth form? If so, that would be about 4.5 billion years ago.
Modern humans (Homo Sapiens) evolved approximately 500,000 years ago.
How conveniently vague. So basically, it's little more than making a time up to suit one's purpose or needs. Got it. Of course, the bible isn't a science text either.
I would say certainly not!
The difference is the evidence presented to support a point of view. There is no bias when the evidence supports you. Theology tends to lack objective, empirical evidence and even rejects it flat out in favor of its own view.
Did you even read or comprehend the article? Here it is again: "Simply put, pro-science means to be in favor of science, its methods (particularly the scientific method), and its establishments." You're the one bringing up points of views. Well, some points of views are clearly and demonstrably wrong!
No, that describes a fact. But if you're looking for bias, then the bias belongs to the anti-science side.
Bias reduces credibility. And theology has no credibility when making claims of god. Even science will and must admit to limitations in research, including bias, in its work. Ever read a research article? There's usually a section or statement by the author/s stating limitations (including bias, if applicable) in their work. Of course, this also allows other scientists to replicate the research and attempt to reduce or eliminate bias or other limitations to better validate or refute the previous study.
Nothing. Science simply seeks to expand knowledge and understanding using the scientific method and gathering empirical evidence.
THey have historically also tried to restrict significant scientific contributions.
YEC is wrong because scientific evidence directly contradicts their claims and they offer nothing to validate their claims.
No, it's the lack of evidence to support the claims. No evidence means no validity or credibility for the claims made, and therefore, no reason to accept them.
It is necessary to understand that science advocates for a point of view that all questions can be answered with materialistic explanations. The scientific method is constrained to observing, testing, and explaining material reality. Science is limited to empirical philosophy depending upon the senses because science is constrained to material reality. As a result, science precludes itself from delving into rational philosophy based upon reason. Science may use rational logic to make deductions concerning material reality but that does not alter science being an advocate for empirical philosophy and, consequently, an opponent of rational philosophy.
Anti-science rejects that all questions can be answered by observing, testing, and explaining material reality. Anti-science is advocacy for a point of view that there is an immaterial reality as well as a material reality. Advocates of rationalism are obviously anti-science.
In epistemological terms, science is not rational knowledge; science is empirical knowledge. And science advocates that empirical knowledge answers all questions; rational knowledge has no value or merit. That means science has obviously declared rational knowledge is anti-science.
In very simple language, science isn't for thinkers.
Science's advocacy for empirical knowledge is a bias that undermines credibility. Theology doesn't hide its own bias behind a false facade of objectivity; theology openly acknowledges its advocacy for God. God is first cause, first principle, and integral to answering questions. But God represents an immaterial reality that can only be explored through reason and rational knowledge. God is not subject to empirical observation, testing, and material explanations because God is immaterial. Knowledge of God can only be obtained through reason and rational philosophy.
The overt bias of science's point of view disregards and denies reason, rational philosophy, and rational knowledge. Science openly and grossly declares that lack of material evidence can only mean that rational knowledge is nothing more than superstition.
Science is a limitation on human knowledge.
That's downright laughable! Science is the (best) means by which we expand and build upon human knowledge. We would not have the wealth of knowledge (or technology) today if it wasn't for scientific endeavours.
Not quite accurate. Science simply utilizes the scientific method to find evidence and follow that evidence to wherever it leads. It may be able to answer questions. Or at the very least, establish a degree of probability of an accurate answer or educated guess. But the search for answers often raises more questions in science. And the process then repeats and continues.
Science uses reason and critical thinking when analyzing and establishing facts. Philosophy makes for interesting thought experiments. But it is not science and does not establish scientific facts.
Science doesn't oppose philosophy. It simply doesn't deal with it. "Rational philosophy" almost sounds like an oxymoron.
In other words, it's BS! Got it! It basically wants to make things up or make baseless claims and offer nothing to back it up and otherwise reject anything that contradicts it.
So scientists don't think, is that what you're saying?
It's empirical evidence that establishes and affirms the credibility of science. Theology is conspicuously devoid of that.
And we should simply accept what theology says about god or anything....because?
Prove there's a god then!
If there is no evidence, then it is superstition. Or at the very least, baseless claims. Either way, no reason to merely accept it and easily dismiss it.
Seriously? Haven't you read my posts? How on Earth can you think you are giving cogent replies if you don't even know the answer to this question by now? You're not actually reading them, are you? You're just looking for key words and phrases and replying to those.
I'm tempted to say more, but really, what would be the point?
Ok, since you refuse to simply answer my question and elaborate, I guess we're done then.
No, it does not.
Science makes no attempt to address questions of philosophy, morality, or ethics.
What "reason and rational knowledge" confirms the existence of God?
I'm willing to bet it's those who are anti science came up with the pro-science label (pejoratively) first.
When someone rejects or twists established science and facts to suit their own beliefs and agenda, the anti-science descriptor is apt.
The scientific method is the best and most rigorous means we have to objectively expand our knowledge and understanding. Do tell, what exactly is the "human condition?"
That would be correct. Another way would be to reject science in favor of belief.
People are just fond of smashing words together and like opposites can do, they will hop up on a positive or negative bandwagon and invite others to join them!
Materialists are naturalists and they can present as two types:
One problem is when people conflate science with religion or the supernatural, possibly in an attempt to validate supernatural based beliefs or assertions.
I may actually agree with you. I just don't have an example I can bring up at this moment, nevertheless. Got one to share?
Malleus Maleficarum
I'll think about it
Are you referring to situations where people claim that science is a belief system?
Belief or a religion. That's one. Thank you.
Science is simply a process for learning. It's not good or bad. It can be incredibly useful, but it's not useful for all things.
Sometimes there are debates around here on certain topics that don't lend themselves to scientific analysis. If you find yourself arguing that any point of view not derived through the scientific method is invalid, then you yourself have strayed into the realms of belief or opinion.
When that happens, some people are accused of being anti-science, as Nerm pointed out above. I see that a lot more than I see "pro-science" used pejoratively. Frankly, I don't recall ever seeing that expressed in specifically that way.
What's more, even though the scientific method is both useful and sound, the people who employ it (i.e. the human race) are fallible. They do not reach zero fallibility when they put PhD after their name or don a white coat, but of course we often see people rely on those features for credibility. Just watch any infomercial or daytime TV.
All humans are imperfect and capable of making mistakes in data collection, measurement, experiment design, and other issues of execution. Even if they get all the basics right, they can still reach wrong conclusions.
And then there's fake science, sometimes just to get published or get a grant, other times to make a point:
Sokal affair
‘Sokal Squared’: Is Huge Publishing Hoax ‘Hilarious and Delightful’ or an Ugly Example of Dishonesty and Bad Faith?
Failures and fakes happen all the time, and yet, if you don't 100% and enthusiastically agree with and support the latest "scientific finding" you might find someone accusing you of being "anti-science."
That illustrates why the scientific method is so important. Yes, there can be error or bias. That's why findings are not always immediately accepted until it has gone through proper scrutiny by the scientific community. A review of findings and collection of empirival evidence to affirm or discredit previous findings and assertions helps minimize error and establish greater validity.
There's an example of sloppy interpretation of science and the rush to act on it in today's paper. As a fan of scientific discovery myself, this kind of thing frustrates me.
California considers declaring Tylenol’s key ingredient a carcinogen
Editorial: It’s way too soon to declare Tylenol a carcinogenic killer
I mean seriously. Tylenol? Causing cancer? Somehow literally hundreds of studies and decades of use around the world missed that Tylenol causes cancer?
A couple of years ago, the same hypersensitivity to out-of-context minutiae almost resulted in California declaring coffee to be a carcinogen. They actually had to get a special exemption.
To be fair, everything causes cancer. Lol
But that also highlights the necessity of continued scientific study
New technologies for studies and diagnosis are happening all the time.
Sounds like you're saying we shouldn't put so much trust in science.
LOL. Yeah, I feel you. This is why I don't pay a lot of attention anymore about what food is good for you and what isn't. Seems like it's constantly changing back and forth. I mean, yeah, common sense that fast food isn't going to be all that great but it seems like ping pong concerning eggs.
You'd prefer to cling to a conclusion, whether it's right or wrong, than consider evidence produced after said conclusion that suggests it may be wrong?
Nope. Of course I would consider new evidence. I would also not ignore old evidence. Beyond that, I don't know what you're driving at.
You seem to think that there is no evidence that Tylenol causes cancer. The evidence is mixed - some studies say no, but some studies suggest a link. The fact that people are investigating the possible link and reasons for it are a reason to trust science, not a reason to distrust it.
Note that science dictates that we not jump the gun and call acetaminophen a carcinogen based on the results of a few contradictory studies, and demands that we question the methodology of the studies that suggest a link. Those are reasons to trust science.
There can be evidence. I never said there wasn't. But my response to the story is that there is overwhelming evidence that Tylenol is safe.
No; that is way understating the reality.
Tylenol has been used literally billions (heck, it might be trillions) of times for decades without causing cancer. Finding some potential correlation (not causation) in an extremely limited number of cases is not what I would consider significant evidence.
That we know of.
If no link had ever been suspected, might it have caused cancers without our knowledge?
Of course it might.
Whether the evidence is significant or not is subject to further investigation. Because that's what science insists on.
BTW, Tylenol isn't all that safe. It has a fairly low therapeutic index, meaning that a toxic dose isn't that much larger than a therapeutic dose. Chronic use has been linked to liver damage, even at recommended doses.
Irresponsible, hyperbolic shit like this:
Is Tylenol 'By Far The Most Dangerous Drug Ever Made?'
is one way that science gets a bad rap. People latch on to some small feature or a study or dram of data, ignore real world experience, and write headlines to panic people. You start tugging people this way and that, weighing all evidence equally for all situations and then, Surprise! People develop a reflex to mistrust science.
Real world experience like unintentional overdoses due to low therapeutic index?
Reading the article would tell you why your "real world experience" of Tylenol misses the whole picture - the picture revealed by science. Yes, many people use Tylenol with no problems. But many people actually do have problems, and pointing to the ones who don't have problems doesn't negate the ones who do.
From he same link:
I still take Tylenol. But I'm much more careful than I used to be about how much I take, and will sometimes tough out a headache rather than take more Tylenol, or just take Advil, which is more effective and has a higher therapeutic index.
Right. Cuz doctors and hospitals have been ignoring science for decades and are just winging it.
No, an insanely huge majority of people use Tylenol with no problems. And even for people who do have problems, that doesn't justify labeling it a carcinogen.
Let's say the word slowly, together.
O - VER - DOSE.
Out of billions of doses of the drug every year, people who OVERDOSE could die. Big surprise. That's true for virtually anything you can stick in your mouth. For crying out loud, OXYGEN is toxic if you get too much. Like I said before, you can't give equal weight to every smidgen of data.
Every drug has side effects for some people in specific situations. A ham sandwich has side effects. That doesn't make it a carcinogen and it doesn't mean billions of people should suddenly start worrying about it.
Good! I'm pretty confident it probably won't give you cancer.
Honestly, if you ever had a point, I'm just not seeing it.
Nobody ever said that or implied it. Hyperbole, indeed.
I never said it did. What would justify it being labeled as a carcinogen would be finding compelling evidence that it is a carcinogen. Not finding evidence after investigation is reason to avoid labeling it as a carcinogen. Not finding evidence because we just don't feel like looking for it isn't good science or medicine.
Yeah, you missed the "unintentional" part. A lot of these are by people who think "It's over-the-counter. I can take a little bit more." or who are unaware that their prescription Norco has acetaminophen, and take some Tylenol with it. With many other drugs, that one or two extra doses per day wouldn't be that bad. Not so with Tylenol. Hell, it would be safer to take extra doses of the narcotic component of Norco.
So "safe" is a relative term. Nobody is recommending it be pulled from the market. Science isn't recommending that it be labeled a carcinogen. Bad policy may be, but that's not science's fault.
Science goes where the data takes it. Tylenol, based on the data, is not as safe as most OTC drugs, nor even as safe as many prescription drugs, and it may be linked to an increased risk of cancers. Science revealing either of those does not mean science is not trustworthy.
Yeah, you kinda did, though I still don't get why. You keep trying to discount the many many many extant tests and years of usage, saying they miss some big picture, but you won't say what the point of it all is supposed to be.
To review, I started out by complaining about the misuse of scientific results and supplied the move - by California - to label Tylenol a carcinogen as an example of that. You either think that's a good thing or you don't. I don't understand your complaint with what I have said.
Where?
Doctors and hospitals haven't been "ignoring science for decades and are just winging it", because they have modified their recommended maximum daily dose of acetaminophen based on...
drum roll, please...
science.
You know, like it says in the article.
Misuse of science is not the fault of science.
That's a good point about headlines. And not just with science, either. It seems to me that the news media is doing it's best to make people neurotic or something. Like they're deliberately trying to erode trust in anything and everything.
It pays ($) to get people talking about something. Typically we talk about the bad over the good. Sucks, but that seems to be how we roll as a society.
boring mundane doesn't incite interest, as before Trump, can you claim a time when reality was further from the truth, the truth further than somes reality, somes reality further from the truth, ?
Hoax fauxNerws more real, as dealt from the bottom of the deck in an inartful "art of the deal " that shhould have remained surreal, like a sir name, changed to seal the inartful art of thedeal that when fully grasped, becauseit is aloud herd to be allowed to grab what i heard, scratches heads, liker some posts, with obvious boxes of litter to fill gas bags buried in their own shit not reaped or repealed, but scratched like the head of the surface that has submerged a once towering liter, to concede to a court appointingcheater the dire reaction suffered after a dire election with consequences quite consequential while not in order, taken by those who should have beern tipped like a cow due to so much bully pulpit fictioned in pulp fiction from an Orange Pulpit who would be a pupi worker B slaving to a Queen that was parked in a Putin Place beside a Boardwalk, to Monopolize a disease passed mouth to mouith while in Stereo Typing writers into wrong, wringing hands from defeat, snatching snatches cause let, letters written to be sent to P O Boxes of peoples rounded off, till often dull a says
on another tangent, coerced till red
inn fine prints of cursive black graphics of white paper trails burning eyes that see the gaslight, the fake fight, the what aboutisms and other
Jisms, secreted by the
Secreter in Chief J strongbowin to a King a pointing a soft mortar joint ,
Chief in Sessions, that he couldn't, not remove, as he spot and spit on all he couldn't swallow, asz he rang so unhollow,
asz filled with shit, a constipated mind can't divulge, till his mouth began to bulge, and in vane, whether he couldn't or could not, he knows snot what he blows out his nose tra domus like tweets, that have proven, more accurate than that whether forecaster predicted the Golden Showers he has throne, from his golden retriever of truth, deceiver aloof, stuffed with hoof in an orifice gone completely shuttin up, what
he laid down as it floated like feathers retarred in the sewer grate America drained from the Swamp under achievers are those under achieving as deceiving can be sold to those to
THINK FOR THEMSelves
AS
IT IS obvious what is true and real.
and,
it is not
the art of Trump's unreel deal
looped in fabricated looms, as it is a
Yarn
too fckn far,
now shove a tip in the Bovine excremental Jar red
far from the glass sealing in the fresh air deprived, as he wasn't cleared,
blurred like red about eyes whose visine is blurred by the Murine Marine Vessel constricting the women grabbed, to SEA THE MEN
WHO WOULD, if they COULD
C WOOD from the tiny handed hump that which cannot register a bump on her log ain rythem meth OD's to stop the Russian Orgasmic celebration over the
betrayer of our Nation.
F U R defending Trump, U R A Chump Trumpullthinskin circumcised by what is wise, men
and women of all pedigree would agree ,
with or without a degree,
to melt
an educated individual to a nonsensical pot called Kettle one,
blackened ferrous wheel turned sideways so as to roll easier over the circus
the barker at the carnival
consumes, for his consumers too sad to admit
who the FCK is their DAD
.
a step father was never asz big of a wipe, as this
'man' of the cloth
torn from fabric stretched till elongated has become this fiasco,
that should END, at theDEAD END it has become in the cul de sac of shit ,
sum choose to live
.
oh sorry, i apparently veered a tad bit off topic of methods scientific, but i believe my experiment with hypothesis's that when applied, can conclude a correlation of those who have lied, abouit what should be tentatively accepted till proven WRONG becomes the Angle Right would use to explain the illogical phantom menaces de menaced by just repetitious fiction, fictitiously repeated denials drowning those unable to stand what floats in Root Beer, shaking their foundations of girls who can't Buoyancy the Make Up
covering what they REFUSE TO FACE
up to in the whirled of Maybeline madeup by Mary KKK, cause she couldn't C,
what the White Power House can Produce for vegetables eating all the Meet , the Press, can against the glass,
Press
Which is why the 'pro-science' community (as it were) always notes that it does not matter what one claims (regardless of the celebrity or accomplishments of the scientist making the claim) but rather the quality and persuasiveness of the explanation and its supporting evidence.
In science, claims are irrelevant. What matters is what can be demonstrated.
I think what really matters is the truth. We can demonstrate a lot of things that are wrong. Heck, we do it all the time. That's why scientific findings change all the time.
Why would you presume I am talking about demonstrating what is false ??
My comment: ' what matters is what can be demonstrated ' refers to demonstrating the truth of an assertion.
I don't and I didn't say you were.
Then say that. You didn't say that, though. You said what you said. I can only respond to what you say.
But the point remains. It is, of course, valuable to be able to demonstrate a thing. But it is ultimately more important that the thing demonstrated be the truth. As I said, many wrong things have been demonstrated and this is because the people doing the demonstrating are fallible. People get shit wrong even though they employ the scientific method. The fact that scientists argue with each other so vehemently about so many things is ample evidence of that.
Then why make the following statement?:
I wrote more than a single isolated sentence:
How could anyone not see that I am writing about demonstrating the truth of the claim? Does the context (the balance of the comment) not matter?
You're getting so defensive that it's distracting from the conversation. I'm really not interested in whatever it is you're trying to do for yourself. You keep taking offense to the way your comments are being understood, but it's not as if I'm attacking you personally or judging you for them. Can't you just clarify and move on?
I did clarify and you came back claiming that you can only go by what I write. So Tacos! if you do not accept my clarification and imply that I was inappropriately vague I think it is appropriate for me to illustrate that my comment was not vague and, in fact, obvious.
To be crystal clear:
You quoted only the "What matters is what can be demonstrated." part (leaving out the context established in the balance of my comment) and offered this:
I then clarified with this:
Instead of an 'okay, got it' from you, I read this:
What I see is a very obvious starting comment from me being cherry-picked into an interpretation that makes no sense (demonstrating a claim is not demonstrating the truth of the claim??). Instead of accepting the (obvious) clarification you deny the balance of my comment and suggest I was vague.
This happens all too often lately. Almost to the point where it does not matter what one writes because no matter how clear, some will find a way to interpret it oddly wrong.
You're being paranoid. I don't care enough about "winning" these conversations with you to set about cherry picking any part of anything you have to say. I just came to comment. If that's too stressful for you, I'll bid you good day.
It was your call to argue with me after I clarified the obvious to you. Demonstrating a claim obviously means demonstrating the truth of the claim.
In these cases (if you and I are recalling the same basic examples) there is a claim of certainty made that contradicts the findings of science. Prime example is the inexplicably ignorant claim that evolution is pseudoscience promoted worldwide by godless scientists. That is rather clear anti-science.
In other cases we have the God debate. Religious interlocutors claim that God exists. The scientific interlocutor can at best state that there is no evidence of a sentient creator. That is quite appropriate. Asking for evidence of the 'God exists' claim is also appropriate since the 'God exists' claim (rather than 'I believe my God exists') bears the burden of proof. What is not appropriate is to claim, based on science, that no sentient creator exists. That latter claim is unsubstantiated and bears the burden of proof.
I would say that's too broad. "No evidence" is far too sweeping and factually inaccurate. "No evidence" is usually conflated with the idea that an appropriate well-designed scientific experiment with measurable data and so on is not extant. That is not the same as "no evidence." But "no evidence" is frequently used to execute a blanket dismissal of the opposing viewpoint. And of course, if you disagree with this invented standard, you're "anti-science."
It is generally more fair to say that for the individual - by his own personal standard - the available evidence is insufficient to be convincing. For some people, "I just have a feeling" is evidence enough. As I mentioned before, the scientific method is not always efficacious for learning all things.
By 'no evidence' I am referring to verifiable empirical evidence - similar to that required to advance an hypothesis to theory.
I am aware that people consider all sorts of things as evidence in a loose vernacular usage of the word. For example, some consider our existence to be evidence of a sentient creator. That is 'evidence' used very loosely.
Whenever I speak of no evidence for a sentient creator I am referring to the lack of verifiable empirical evidence in spite of the desire by billions of people historically to deliver same (and failing to do so).
Then that's the language you should use. It may be limiting, but it's more accurate.
And, I think if you care about getting along with people (you don't have to, of course. that's your business), you might want to allow that on some topics, people aren't interested in applying the scientific method to a specific situation. That doesn't make them wrong, stupid, or anti-science.
It is impractical to constantly include qualifications as in a legal contract. It makes the language awkward. (Yet I often do so anyway. Funny thing, that does not always prevent people from reading what I wrote as if the qualifications were not there.) In this forum I think it is safe to say that most people can figure out (if they want to) what some of us are saying without us having to preemptively qualify our language. And if they do not understand, a simple qualifying question for clarity would correct the situation.
Depends on the specifics. If someone makes a claim of certainty then they bear the burden of evidence. If they cannot back up their claim of certainty then maybe they should not make the claim.
I never deem a member stupid.
An individual who declares that all scientific methods for dating are wrong so as to hold on to a 6,000 year old Earth belief is using anti-science rhetoric.
An individual who claims: 'Evolution is pseudoscience — a worldwide conspiracy by godless scientists to discredit Creationism.' is using anti-science rhetoric.
That's only if they are trying to convince someone. If that is not their goal, then they should be free to express their belief without being harassed to produce evidence.
The rhetoric is just a means of expression. What I have been talking about is what drives the rhetoric. Is it specifically an anti-science philosophy? I doubt it. Unless you're talking about someone who believes cars run on evil spirits or something. No, the rhetoric comes from the fear that a scientific finding about nature somehow undoes the existence of God.
I'm not enough of a historian on the debate to say for sure, but I remember reading that as the theory of evolution developed, some proponents advanced the idea that it undid the story of Creation. Insecure believers have bought into that logic - unnecessarily, I think.
We saw a similar insecurity with heliocentrism and the Church. If an insight from the nature of things comes from outside the church, it's threatening.
I prefer to see science as revealing the wonder and complexity of nature. I don't think it needs to unmake God at all.
'I believe in God' is expression of a belief. 'God exists and those who do not believe will suffer the consequences' is a claim (and an expression of belief).
Pretty much all it could be, right? What is rhetoric but a means of expression?
The example I gave of "An individual who declares that all scientific methods for dating are wrong so as to hold on to a 6,000 year old Earth belief is using anti-science rhetoric." is pretty clear.
The individual is likely not against all science but the rhetoric most certainly is anti-science.
I think it basically is that evolution shows homo sapiens did not originate from two human beings created as such but rather that homo sapiens are the result of a long progression.
If one views God as simply 'sentient creator' then nothing in science contradicts the potential existence of God. And I fully endorse the idea of using modern methods to discover 'God' through that which he created.
That is correct. In fact, there is plenty of evidence. The problem is often in how the evidence is interpreted. Take the fine tuning argument. The data is there for anyone to examine but not all come to the same conclusion.
The fine tuning argument offers no evidence for a sentient creator. It argues that our particular universe would not exist if certain factors were not precisely as they are. The evidence is that our universe is specific. The implication is that this particular setting of factors is most likely accomplished by a sentient creator. That is, the proposed most likely answer requires first presupposing the existence of a sentient creator of enormous power. The evidence suggests a very particular universe but does not support the idea of the cause being the Christian God.
The evidence of a specific universe is not evidence that we are living in a holographic projection created by an advanced alien species (or any number of alternate imaginative causes) yet some consider it to be evidence of the Christian God. Why?
If "evidence" presented is subjective and anecdotal, then interpretations can vary widely. Such evidence is not valid evidence, as it is often based on personal feelings, perceptions, or biases. Valid evidence must be objective and empirical, where it can be scrutinized and evaluated according to an established and consistent criteria or guideline. That standard helps eliminate bias and reduces the probability of erroneous "interpretations," and better helps established scientific truth based on actual evidence rather than mere "feeling" or belief.
I disagree, which pretty much proves my point about people not arriving at the same conclusion from the data. Point being, what someone considers evidence will often be subjective or will treat it subjectively.
Correct. This would be because the argument is about the universe being too finely tuned to be the result of chance, not evidence of who created it, such as God or an advanced alien species.
Because if the universe is indeed too finely tuned to be chance then God is a logical explanation. As to why the Christian God, the argument makes no argument for Him specifically.
As I said, if evidence is subjective, then it loses validity. Objective evidence is the best means to establish fact.
It is a well-established given that people will interpret the same evidence differently. I was not rebutting that well-known truth of human behavior. I was rebutting the interpretation.
If you claim that fine-tuning implies the universe is not the result of chance then you are implying that it's formation was directed (sentient creation). That means you presume a sentient creator. If not, then explain to me what you conclude from the fine-tuning argument.
Okay, my question above is answered. You interpret the fine-tuning to be evidence of a sentient creator. Apparently you think that a sentient creator existing in order to fine-tune the universe is more likely than the universe resulting from the natural interaction of the substance of existence.
Why is it more likely that a sentient creator powerful enough to engineer our universe coming into existence (or pre-existing) is more likely than our universe coming into existence (or pre-existing as the singularity)?
You cannot just ignore the likelihood of the sentient creator and presuppose it at 100% and then engage in the fine-tuning argument. After all, if we all knew for a fact that a sentient creator exists we would all likely view the existence of a particular configuration to be the act of that entity. But, point of fact, you must establish the likelihood of that sentient creator and the fine-tuning argument does not accomplish that feat.
There is no necessary order to come to a belief in God. One doesn't have to contemplate the likelihood of God existing before tackling the fine tuning argument. One who is contemplating whether or not God exists can look at the universe and agree that it does seem to be fine tuned, and therefore, created, and find it a point in favor of God's existence.
That's flawed reasoning. It's based on an assumption there's a god. It's basically another way of saying "we don't know why the universe is the way it is, therefore God."
If one presumes that it is more likely that the universe is the result of a sentient entity then one must establish the likelihood of the sentient entity. Clearly if one thinks sentient creation is more likely than the natural interaction of the substance of existence one must have some idea of how likely it is to have the sentient creator to do the fine-tuning.
The appearance of fine-tuning by a creator does not mean 'therefore, created'. It only means that our universe is lucky to exist because with a tiny difference in factors, it could not exist in its current form. That observation says nothing about why our universe exists and not some very different universe where gravity is too weak to cause the formation of stars and planets.
When one presumes sentience as part of the explanation for the appearance of fine-tuning, one must also then consider the evidence support the presumption. There is as much evidence that the universe is the product of a sentient creator as there is that it is an illusion produced by an advanced alien lifeform or any other wild speculation.
Why?
Unless the person doing the contemplating has been told that God created the universe. That person looks at the universe and thinks, "It certainly does seem to be fine tuned for our existence." Of course, said individual is not likely to decide God exists, let alone created the universe from the fine tuning argument alone. He may, however, consider it evidence in favor of God.
Maybe. Still, it's up to the observer concerning what they consider evidence and what it means. Which, remains the point.
Because your assessment of likelihood of creation is based on the existence of a sentient creator. (Obviously.) If you determine that the universe is more likely a creation than a natural consequence of undirected interactions of the substance of existence then you must include in your assessment the likelihood of this creator.
Likelihood of our universe being created = Likelihood of a creator * Likelihood our universe is the work of said creator
I have never disputed that point so that point is closed. I have been disputing your notion that fine-tuning suggests a created universe if more likely than an undirected emergence.
I think you're simply describing what it would take for you to believe in God, or something like that.
Okay, then. See you around.
Good grief Drakk.
pro-science...as opposed to the amateur stuff ongoing in my garage.
In the gym, we call that "bro-science."
Don't you mean that you are pro-choice since you only support science, you are not mandating that everybody has to support science? I mean I support science but I wouldn't consider myself pro-science if it means I have to agree with things I don't approve of like when a fetus is a child and climate change statistics that don't mean what the science community wants it to mean.
We have to be able to disagree about things without calling each other anti-science. Or anti-American, for that matter.
Of course. But if someone is putting forth anti-science rhetoric should it be ignored?:
'Evolution is pseudoscience — a worldwide conspiracy by godless scientists to discredit Creationism.'
Is this ⇧ appropriate to challenge as anti-science?
I don't even know that it's proper to call it anti-science. That's an assumption - a bias perhaps, that I think is wrong. It certainly hasn't been arrived at scientifically. I believe that the need to see evolution as anti-God reflects an insecurity about faith that has led to irrational hysteria.
The Bible is not - and was never intended to be - a science text. It's not biology, geology, or cosmology. What it is, is an anthology of documents revealing a culture's historical relationship with God. The validity of evolution science has no connection to belief. They are different topics.
If you think evolution being factual means that God doesn't exist, I think you have a lot of wrong - and extremely limited - ideas about God. People often put God in a box.
One of the most freeing things I think believers can do is be willing to say "I don't know" when it comes to topics related to God. This need to appear to know every damned thing is a vanity that can infect both the pro-science and anti-science crowd. It's very human.
Well if you do not consider that bizarre accusation ('Evolution is pseudoscience — a worldwide conspiracy by godless scientists to discredit Creationism.' ) anti-science then I wonder if you consider anything anti-science.
Exactly!
Explain that to the YECs.
Where, Tacos!, do you see me even hinting that I hold that position?
I agree. That is the position of science when something is not known ... the scientific answer is 'we do not currently know'.
There are some sects of Christianity that teach god created everything and is letting it just play out. Basically making evolution just a part of God's plan. There was a term for it I learned in school that escapes me now and I can't find it.
As I explained, my reasoning is that I see a stronger bias at work. It's not about science. It's about insecurity in faith. It's the same insecurity that drives conservative cultures to repel strangers. They fear being infected by new ideas.
Relax! I didn't say you personally held that position. It's actually a position that I think too many conservative people of faith hold, but also one a lot of atheists hold. In each case, without justification, they assign unwarranted cosmic significance to the process of evolution.
Intelligent design? The Clockmaker Theory?
It may indeed be a stronger bias. That does not change the fact that it is anti-science rhetoric. It is anti-science rhetoric no matter what the underlying reason for its utterance.
In a reply to me you stated: "If you think evolution being factual means that God doesn't exist, ...". I think it is reasonable to interpret the 'you' as a reference to me. I acknowledge your qualification. Since you are offering advice on language, a way to express the same thought is: 'if one thinks evolution ...'.
I often refer people to the biologos.org website where scientists who are also Christians explain real science to fellow Christians. That site does a fine job of explaining the science of evolution, genetics, geology, etc. without trashing core Christian beliefs.
The reasons matter, though, because "Evolution vs. God" isn't the only place we see the rhetoric. Plenty of people who are pro-science 6 days a week find an issue on the 7th day that makes them anti-science. For example, climate change, vaccinations, tobacco and cancer, various energy issues, mental health, infectious disease, GMOs, and on and on. If a scientific finding threatens a core belief or concern, any of us can suddenly turn into ardent skeptics.
Not every denomination or religion believes that either. Either way, there is no empirical evidence to supper such an assertion. It is just mere belief and nothing more.
The reasons are another matter entirely. Why someone puts forth anti-science rhetoric is interesting, but the rhetoric is anti-science nonetheless.
I would be surprised if anyone would be 100% anti-science. The anti-science label is in response to anti-science rhetoric.
Being skeptical about science (and everything for that matter) is (in my opinion) a net good quality. The anti-science level is met when one rejects science not based on the evidence but for other reasons (e.g. contradiction with one's reading of the Bible).
Why would someone not support science? No one is being required to do anything. But science goes by established facts and follows empirical evidence wherever it leads. If someone wants to disagree with what science finds, they can certainly do so. But unless they offer compelling objective, empirical evidence to the contrary to support the basis for their disagreement, then their disagreement lacks any credibility or merit and might be based more on misinformation, ignorance, or emotion.