• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Two kinds of science, polar opposites of each other

Jim

Nets of Wonder
((There are many things that people call “science.” One that I’ll be discussing here is honest and responsible research and reporting the results. That’s the kind of science that I love, and the kind of science that gave science its reputation. Another is media and faction stories about reports of research, and pronouncements of professional associations. The first meaning is the one that people will cite to defend their use of the word “science,” but in forum debating that is never what anyone actually means when they call what they’re saying “science” or “scientific.” In forum debates, when people call what they’re saying “science” or “scientific,” they only ever mean the second kind of science, media and faction stories about research reports, and pronouncements of professional associations. Anyone who disagrees with that, please show me some counter examples.

Look! The emperor has no clothes!))
 
Last edited:

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
((There are many things that people call “science.” One that I’ll be discussing here is honest and responsible research and reporting the results, that’s the kind of science that I love, and the kind of science that gave science its reputation. Another is media and faction stories about reports of research, and pronouncements of professional associations. The first meaning is the one that people will cite to defend their use of the word “science,” but in forum debating that is never what anyone actually means when they call what they’re saying “science” or “scientific.” In forum debates, when people call what they’re saying “science” or “scientific,” they only ever mean the second kind of science, media and faction stories about research reports, and pronouncements of professional associations. Anyone who disagrees with that, please show me some counter examples.

Look! The emperor has no clothes!))
Science is a very very big topic and it goes from science of life to costructions and how to do something with machines. But all of them are research and calculation then result.
I do not have a very big grasp of the science and how it works so i am sure my thoght of it is wrong but that does not mean all forms of science is bad or ill-willed for us humans ( Not often i support the science community but i think they do a lot of good too)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

qaz

Member
ganghi allegedly said that "in democracy no fact of life is untouched by politics". well, it includes science. most people can't give an actual meaning to scientific discoveries such as the black hole imaging... at the same time they can't ignore them. therefore they are bound to force them into their everyday political narrative, as you see for example in the katie bouman case. seeing common people genuinely interested in science is very rare.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Well, the basic problem is that real science is technical, detailed, and tends to use a lot of math. Most people don't have the time or energy to learn the math, let alone all the details and technicalities. In fact, going through that learning process is a big part of the training to be a real scientist. And, unfortunately, that training only works for one field. If you go through the training to be a physicist, you won't have the time to go through the training to be a biologist (even though there is some overlap).

So, we have a specialized population of people that have gone through this training. But policy decisions have to be made by people who have *not* gone through that training. And the general public, while 'interested', wants to avoid all that training because they have other things to think about.

So, we have 'science writers' who have often (not always) gone through some of the basic training, but don't have the details and the technicalities (or, often even the math). They are, in essence, journalists that attempt to communicate ideas to the public. The problem is that the journalists, themselves, don't *really* understand these ideas. They are communicating a poorly understood set of ideas to people who want to know even less: they want the end result, not the details.

And, of course, to make the story interesting, these journalists have to 'play up the controversy' and make things seem more unusual than they actually are. They are selling the *story*, not the science.

And, of course, there are also many 'science writers' who really don't understand much about what they are writing. These give poor descriptions and cater to those who don't want to believe the science. SO, politics enters in and we get those who want things one way when the science says they are another. And, for the general public, who has little training, figuring our who the 'experts' are is, in and of itself, a job that requires more thought than they want to do. So they 'go with their gut' and the result is bad policy all around.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
((There are many things that people call “science.” One that I’ll be discussing here is honest and responsible research and reporting the results, that’s the kind of science that I love, and the kind of science that gave science its reputation. Another is media and faction stories about reports of research, and pronouncements of professional associations. The first meaning is the one that people will cite to defend their use of the word “science,” but in forum debating that is never what anyone actually means when they call what they’re saying “science” or “scientific.” In forum debates, when people call what they’re saying “science” or “scientific,” they only ever mean the second kind of science, media and faction stories about research reports, and pronouncements of professional associations. Anyone who disagrees with that, please show me some counter examples.

Look! The emperor has no clothes!))
I would interject that the people most often (and by that, a VAST MAJORITY) using your second definition of "science" are theists. People using scientific findings to battle against the bald assertions of theists, mostly as far as I have seen, do not tend to call upon that second definition very much at all.

Theists use that second definition of science to try and discredit it's future invocation against their theistic arguments... much like you seem to be preparing for with your OP.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Well, the basic problem is that real science is technical, detailed, and tends to use a lot of math. Most people don't have the time or energy to learn the math, let alone all the details and technicalities. In fact, going through that learning process is a big part of the training to be a real scientist. And, unfortunately, that training only works for one field. If you go through the training to be a physicist, you won't have the time to go through the training to be a biologist (even though there is some overlap).

So, we have a specialized population of people that have gone through this training. But policy decisions have to be made by people who have *not* gone through that training. And the general public, while 'interested', wants to avoid all that training because they have other things to think about.

So, we have 'science writers' who have often (not always) gone through some of the basic training, but don't have the details and the technicalities (or, often even the math). They are, in essence, journalists that attempt to communicate ideas to the public. The problem is that the journalists, themselves, don't *really* understand these ideas. They are communicating a poorly understood set of ideas to people who want to know even less: they want the end result, not the details.

And, of course, to make the story interesting, these journalists have to 'play up the controversy' and make things seem more unusual than they actually are. They are selling the *story*, not the science.

And, of course, there are also many 'science writers' who really don't understand much about what they are writing. These give poor descriptions and cater to those who don't want to believe the science. SO, politics enters in and we get those who want things one way when the science says they are another. And, for the general public, who has little training, figuring our who the 'experts' are is, in and of itself, a job that requires more thought than they want to do. So they 'go with their gut' and the result is bad policy all around.

The best science writer I know of is John McPhee, who
while not a geologist, writes so well and engagingly of
it that one geologist I know said it is a shame he is not
commissioned to write the college texts.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Seriously now... did you not just blanket-state in this (and in other threads, I noticed) that people invoking "science" or "scientific information" within a debate forum are always appealing to "media and faction stories about research reports?"

This is exactly like The Bible telling people that they'll know they are right when everyone starts telling them they are wrong. Pathetic. "My views can't be assailed by science because I already told everyone that they are using science incorrectly." That's basically the place you are trying to get to. Evidence is evidence. That you and many, many others have none as sufficient as findings within science for whatever outlandish views you may hold is not anyone's problem but your own.
 
Last edited:

Audie

Veteran Member
I would interject that the people most often (and by that, a VAST MAJORITY) using your second definition of "science" are theists. People using scientific findings to battle against the bald assertions of theists, mostly as far as I have seen, do not tend to call upon that second definition very much at all.

Theists use that second definition of science to try and discredit it's future invocation against their theistic arguments... much like you seem to be preparing for with your OP.

We all like our OP fellow but I for one get
my antenna up when a person explains that
he "loves" science. The more so when they
go on to divide it up into good v bad science.

From there we go on to that good science
supports noahs ark, etc.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
((There are many things that people call “science.” One that I’ll be discussing here is honest and responsible research and reporting the results. That’s the kind of science that I love, and the kind of science that gave science its reputation. Another is media and faction stories about reports of research, and pronouncements of professional associations.

The two are not polar opposites. Totally false dichotomy.
Non professional reporting ranges from shallow stupid
and mostly wrong, to better written and more understandable
than the original. You are making shades of grey into night
and day, and it is not there.

Media and faction stories? What is that? Faction?

As for professional associations, like what?
The American Chemical Society, say?

They do not do "pronouncements" and your suggestion
that professional associations are to be classed with
blurbs on Yahoo as unreliable is nothing but garbage.
IF that is what you are saying. clarify svp. (not the
Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists, another group
not into phony pronouncements)
 
Last edited:

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
In forum debates, when people call what they’re saying “science” or “scientific,” they only ever mean the second kind of science, media and faction stories about research reports, and pronouncements of professional associations. Anyone who disagrees with that, please show me some counter examples.
And I also have a counter-example, as requested.

Endogenous Retroviruses as they relate to evidence for common-descent.

If you're unfamiliar, I would suggest looking up information, as it is fascinating and eye-opening.

And the reason this works as a counter-example is that I have never once heard this talked of in "the media" or as any part of "faction [one-sided] stories about research reports." I learned about this through forum posts by people who were using it as evidence of evolution and common-descent when pressed by creationists for such evidence - which it most definitely IS. I don't know that any media outlet has done stories on this subject, but again, that doesn't matter, because when I saw it invoked it was not being done by proxy of coverage from some media story, it was done pointing to the actual research and findings.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
People using scientific findings to battle against the bald assertions of theists, mostly as far as I have seen, do not tend to call upon that second definition very much at all.
Examples, please, of people calling what they say “science” or “scientific,” quoting directly from honest and responsible reporting of honest and responsible research, written by the people who did the research.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Examples, please, of people calling what they say “science” or “scientific,” quoting directly from honest and responsible reporting of honest and responsible research, written by the people who did the research.

You won't find journalistic reporting done by the researchers. That almost never happens.

On the other hand, I have seen reports by members of RF that directly refer to the research articles along with links to said articles.

And, yes, contrary to your claims, the results of scientific research *can* be used in arguments when the facts they uncover are relevant for the discussion.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Examples, please, of people calling what they say “science” or “scientific,” quoting directly from honest and responsible reporting of honest and responsible research, written by the people who did the research.
This was apparently posted before I provided JUST SUCH AN EXAMPLE.

If you want, I'll even find some relevant forum posts where exactly what you're denying exists is being used - links to and descriptions of the actual, unbiased scientific findings and reports.

Your idea is dead in the water. You just need to own up to it.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Examples, please, of people calling what they say “science” or “scientific,” quoting directly from honest and responsible reporting of honest and responsible research, written by the people who did the research.

When I make a statement about science, I do not
as a habit put in foornotes or direct quotes from
research papers.

HOWEVER, I can always (always) back up what I say,
with as honest and reliable a source as anyone but
a fundy could ask for.

Any suggestion that I cannot, or that anyone else
here speaking for science v religious prattle cannot
do that, is false and invidious.

If you like dichotomy and challenge, lets see
any theist back up their god-claims with what
was it, honest and responsible reporting of honest and responsible research
 

Audie

Veteran Member
This was apparently posted before I provided JUST SUCH AN EXAMPLE.

If you want, I'll even find some relevant forum posts where exactly what you're denying exists is being used - links to and descriptions of the actual, unbiased scientific findings and reports.

Your idea is dead in the water. You just need to own up to it.

It would be well if our friend would do a bit of
thinking first, next time he wants to post something.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm also not sure why the 'pronouncements of professional organizations' are problematic. They represent the scholarly consensus at the time regarding the state of research. That seems to be a good source of information.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I'm also not sure why the 'pronouncements of professional organizations' are problematic. They represent the scholarly consensus at the time regarding the state of research. That seems to be a good source of information.

I doubt our hero has ever even seen such a thing as one
of these so called pronouncements in a professional journal.
This whole thread is about a fantasy.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
On the other hand, I have seen reports by members of RF that directly refer to the research articles along with links to said articles.
It might take a few rounds of this, for people to understand what I’m asking for. I’m asking for links to posts that were made before I started this thread, where people were calling what they were saying against other people’s beliefs “science” or “scientific,” where what they were calling “science” was direct quotes from results of honest and responsible research, as reported by the people who did the research.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
Seriously now... did you not just blanket-state in this (and in other threads, I noticed) that people invoking "science" or "scientific information" within a debate forum are always appealing to "media and faction stories about research reports?"

This is exactly like The Bible telling people that they'll know they are right when everyone starts telling them they are wrong. Pathetic. "My views can't be assailed by science because I already told everyone that they are using science incorrectly." That's basically the place you are trying to get to. Evidence is evidence. That you and many, many others have none as sufficient as findings within science for whatever outlandish views you may hold is not anyone's problem but your own.
Please provide links to some posts that were made before I started this thread, where people were calling what they were saying against other people’s beliefs “science” or “scientific,” where what they were calling “science” was direct quotes from results of honest and responsible research, as reported by the people who did the research.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
It might take a few rounds of this, for people to understand what I’m asking for. I’m asking for links to posts that were made before I started this thread, where people were calling what they were saying against other people’s beliefs “science” or “scientific,” where what they were calling “science” was direct quotes from results of honest and responsible research, as reported by the people who did the research.

What you are asking for does not take
a lot to understand. Quit acting like it
is something subtle and beyond our capacity
to grasp.

What difference does it even make
anyway?

As noted, I do not just say things, nor
do others here, such as subzie or poly
or some others.

As long as I / we can on request provide
all the back up, why do you think we have
to elabourately quote or footnote?

Often, I dont even remember the source for
what I say. AND, you guys can go look it
up for yourselves, for heaven's sake!!!

99 plus percent of the time, it is a total waste
to cite a source, We get back "bias" or, "paradigm"
or "yeah, well, there are others who say differently"
or "I trust god".

When are you going to provide an honest source
for this nonsense about the "opposite" science
in "pronouncements" of professional journals.

Never, is my guess.
 
Top