The Popular Science Faith

[Jim]

(edited to add the following)
What I mean by "popular science" is media and faction interpretations of research reports, that people cite as proof of what they think about religion and social issues.
(end edit)

It substitutes the word “science” in the place of “God,” and reports of academic and industry research in the place of scriptures. In debates between followers of religions and followers of the Popular Science Faith, just like religious believers, Popular Science believers consider their scriptures as incontestable proof of their views. Just like religious believers, Popular Science believers mostly never actually read their scriptures, and instead rely on others (journalists and identity factions) to tell them what their scriptures say. Just like religious believers, Popular Science believers act like the presumed infallibility of their scriptures (reports of research) makes them infallible.

 

[SomeRandom]

Uhh what? The very first thing one learns about science, even at primary (elementary) schooling level, is that everything in science is to be questioned. Hell the knowledge of dinosaurs has changed within my own school life even.When I was in primary school it was accepted that reptiles were brethren with dinos. By the time I hit High School they were considered cousins and therapods extended its definition to include birds. That's just one example. Talk to the older gen about what they learned in their schooling years and you'll find all sorts of updates.
To question a sacred text is usually akin to blasphemy. To question scientific research is just another day at the office.

 

[icehorse]

The OP appears very much like it was written by someone who clearly knows almost nothing about science.

 

[Dawnofhope]

It substitutes the word “science” in the place of “God,” and reports of academic and industry research in the place of scriptures. In debates between followers of religions and followers of the Popular Science Faith, just like religious believers, Popular Science believers consider their scriptures as incontestable proof of their views. Just like religious believers, Popular Science believers mostly never actually read their scriptures, and instead rely on others (journalists and identity factions) to tell them what their scriptures say. Just like religious believers, Popular Science believers act like the presumed infallibility of their scriptures (reports of research) makes them infallible.

Science in my experience doesn't work that way. I have three university science degrees and work in a field that relies heavily on scientific research as a medical doctor. None of my peers view research with the kind of infallibility that some faith adherents would view their religion. We are all cognisant that medical science is a rapidly changing field. What constitutes good medical practice now, may not be so in another ten years.

Did you have a particular group in mind when you wrote this?

 

[Jim]

I'm talking about people using "scientifically proven" as an argument in debates about religion and social issues, and people being stigmatized as "unscientific" or against science if they don't accept media and faction interpretations of research reports as proof of anything.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I'm talking about people using "scientifically proven" as an argument in debates about social issues, and people being stigmatized for not accepting media and faction interpretations of research reports as proof of anything.

That makes more sense. Whereas we can do double blinded randomised control trials to test the efficacy of a medication, the type of quality research that's required to answer the important social issues of our day is much more difficult. The best studies are long term studies where we follow a large cohort of people for decades and then make provide both qualitative and quantitative analysis. A good example of this kind of research is the Dunedin longitudinal study that has been running for over 45 years and well regarded internationally.

Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study - Wikipedia

Even with this kind of quality research there are usually limits to how certain we can be in regards the findings.

 

[Jim]

I'm talking about people citing media and faction interpretations of research reports as proof of what they think about religion and social issues.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have a subscription to Popular Science.
Is Popular Mechanics a religion too?

I'm talking about people using "scientifically proven" as an argument in debates about religion and social issues, and people being stigmatized as "unscientific" or against science if they don't accept media and faction interpretations of research reports as proof of anything.

I find that research is far too often misunderstood, & twisted to suit an agenda.
One trap is that people think that if a number is given for something, then that
something is quantified, & therefor beyond question. Then the number is cited
without being incorporated into a cogent argument....as though the number
prove's one's larger claim all by itself.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I'm talking about people citing media and faction interpretations of research reports as proof of what they think about religion and social issues.

That makes sense. Its always useful to look at the original research and what it says. Research that has been published in a scientific journal has been peer reviewed so gives it more weight. Its easy to take research conclusions out of context and assign more certainty that the authors intended.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I have a subscription to Popular Science.
Is Popular Mechanics a religion too?

If you build your own god it could be.

 

[Revoltingest]

If you build your own god it could be.

View attachment 24587

That's a good one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm talking about people using "scientifically proven" as an argument in debates about religion and social issues, and people being stigmatized as "unscientific" or against science if they don't accept media and faction interpretations of research reports as proof of anything.

Certain concepts can be proven wrong far beyond a reasonable doubt. We know that there was never a worldwide flood, unless you claim that God.is a liar. We know that there were never only two people.


We cannot say that science disproves God. If people make that claim they are mistaken. We can claim that there does not appear to be any need for a God.

 

[Brickjectivity]

It substitutes the word “science” in the place of “God,” and reports of academic and industry research in the place of scriptures. In debates between followers of religions and followers of the Popular Science Faith, just like religious believers, Popular Science believers consider their scriptures as incontestable proof of their views. Just like religious believers, Popular Science believers mostly never actually read their scriptures, and instead rely on others (journalists and identity factions) to tell them what their scriptures say. Just like religious believers, Popular Science believers act like the presumed infallibility of their scriptures (reports of research) makes them infallible.

There are religious people like that, too; people who will try to tell you about a religion they have not studied. Its everywhere not just in pop sci.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good freaking grief
Blah, blah and blah
What garbage.

One that does not understand the sciences can never refute them.

Edit: I had to correct the strangest autocorrect error that I have seen here. It was almost correct. Somehow the above post was changed to:

One that does not understand the sciences can underwrite them.

Weird.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I have a subscription to Popular Science.
Is Popular Mechanics a religion too?

Probably not as good, although they do have potluck dinners.

 

[Jim]

There are religious people like that, too; people who will try to tell you about a religion they have not studied. Its everywhere not just in pop sci.

Exactly. That was my whole point. That's why I said "just like religious believers."

 

[Brickjectivity]

Exactly. That was my whole point. That's why I said "just like religious believers."

Oops, sorry I missed it.

 

[sayak83]

(edited to add the following)
What I mean by "popular science" is media and faction interpretations of research reports, that people cite as proof of what they think about religion and social issues.
(end edit)

It substitutes the word “science” in the place of “God,” and reports of academic and industry research in the place of scriptures. In debates between followers of religions and followers of the Popular Science Faith, just like religious believers, Popular Science believers consider their scriptures as incontestable proof of their views. Just like religious believers, Popular Science believers mostly never actually read their scriptures, and instead rely on others (journalists and identity factions) to tell them what their scriptures say. Just like religious believers, Popular Science believers act like the presumed infallibility of their scriptures (reports of research) makes them infallible.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

(edited to add the following)
What I mean by "popular science" is media and faction interpretations of research reports, that people cite as proof of what they think about religion and social issues.
(end edit)

It substitutes the word “science” in the place of “God,” and reports of academic and industry research in the place of scriptures. In debates between followers of religions and followers of the Popular Science Faith, just like religious believers, Popular Science believers consider their scriptures as incontestable proof of their views. Just like religious believers, Popular Science believers mostly never actually read their scriptures, and instead rely on others (journalists and identity factions) to tell them what their scriptures say. Just like religious believers, Popular Science believers act like the presumed infallibility of their scriptures (reports of research) makes them infallible.

Science is much different from religion in that it works in the opposite way by revising failed ideas and creating new empirically verified theories. But I agree that many of the liberal politicians who love to proclaim that they "believe in science" don't actually have a clue about what science is or how it works. If they did, they wouldn't even use the words "believe" and "science" in the same sentence.

 

[Jim]

Part of what I'm thinking is that in public debates about religion and social issues, what people are doing when they cite research reports as proof of what they think, is exactly the same, psychologically and socially, as what people are doing when they cite their scriptures as proof of what they think. Most of what people are saying on all sides is just singing along with their faction's bouncing ball, and citing as incontestable proof some writings that they never actually read, relying on others to tell them what the writings say. The writings of scripture-infallibility factions are cherry-picked religious scriptures, with the presumed authority of a falsely imagined God behind them, and the writings of science-infallibility factions are cherry-picked reports of research, with the presumed authority of a falsely imagined science behind them, but the psychological and social dynamics are exactly the same. I see exactly the same attitudes and behavior on all sides. For example, people on the scripture-infallibility side accuse their adversaries of being enemies of God, and people on the science-infallibility side accuse their adversaries of being enemies of science. I see all the allegations of all factions against the others, about bad attitudes and behavior, as happening just as much in their own factions, including ignoring, denying and excusing it when it's in their own faction.