• 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!

I’m a science denier, an enemy of science

Jim

Jim

Nets of Wonder
exchemist said:
Oh I quite agree. A creationist can believe what he likes - so long as he does not try to misteach science, which a lot of them do.

I'm just hoping that, one day, we will find out what Jim actually thinks, so we can put into perspective these frustratingly circumlocutory threads of his. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
If you’re insinuating that I haven’t been open and honest about what I think, that’s false.
 
Stevicus

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
exchemist said:
Oh I quite agree. A creationist can believe what he likes - so long as he does not try to misteach science, which a lot of them do.

I'm just hoping that, one day, we will find out what Jim actually thinks, so we can put into perspective these frustratingly circumlocutory threads of his. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Well, I can kind of understand where he's coming from, though. Think of how poor Linus must feel in this comic:

heresy.gif


For the sake of argument, let's say that Lucy's and Charlie Brown's disbelief in the Great Pumpkin would be the "scientific" position, while Linus' belief in the Great Pumpkin would be the "unscientific" position.

The "scientific" position is characterized as malicious, scornful, and predatory, while the "unscientific" position is shown as an underdog and a martyr which might engender people's sympathy.
 
Jim

Jim

Nets of Wonder
Stevicus said:
Well, I can kind of understand where he's coming from, though. Think of how poor Linus must feel in this comic:

heresy.gif


For the sake of argument, let's say that Lucy's and Charlie Brown's disbelief in the Great Pumpkin would be the "scientific" position, while Linus' belief in the Great Pumpkin would be the "unscientific" position.

The "scientific" position is characterized as malicious, scornful, and predatory, while the "unscientific" position is shown as an underdog and a martyr which might engender people's sympathy.
Click to expand...
If that’s supposed to be about what I’m thinking, or how I’m feeling, it’s false.
 
Jim

Jim

Nets of Wonder
Now I’m seeing more clearly some parallels between science beliefs and religious beliefs, and I want learn to be as friendly with people about their science beliefs as as I’ve learned to be about their religious beliefs.
 
tas8831

tas8831

Well-Known Member
Jim said:
Thank you, but what I’m denouncing is far more than what people call “scientism.” I’m denouncing the practice of associating the name of science with denunciations of people’s beliefs. I’m also grieving over the word “science” being applied to misrepresentations of the views of some people with science degrees, and doctrines of professional associations corrupted by monopoly interests, but I’m resigned to that as part of the evolution of language.
Click to expand...
Awwww.... poor "beliefs" can't stand up to scrutiny...

But you cherish them so!!!!

Snowflakery at its most obvious.
 
Jim

Jim

Nets of Wonder
I see that I need to add a qualifier to the word “science,” in calling myself a science denier and enemy of science. For now I’ll try “faction science,” It’s people calling their beliefs “scientific” and “evidence-based” to validate them, in opposing them to other people’s beliefs. I’m an enemy of that way of thinking, just like I’m an enemy of people calling their beliefs “what God says.” The way that I’m denying faction science is by saying that it doesn’t matter to me how many people with science degrees agree or disagree with any view, or who they are; it doesn’t matter to me what any statement from any professional association says; and it doesn’t matter to me how much or how little evidence anyone has for their views. None of that matters to me at all, in deciding what to think about anything.
 
Last edited:
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Jim said:
I see that I need to add a qualifier to the word “science,” in calling myself a science denier and enemy of science. For now I’ll try “faction science,” It’s people calling their beliefs “scientific” and “evidence-based” to validate them, in opposing them to other people’s beliefs. I’m an enemy of that way of thinking, just like I’m an enemy of people calling their beliefs “what God says. The way that I’m denying faction science is by saying that it doesn’t matter to me how many people with science degrees agree or disagree with any view, or who they are; it doesn’t matter to me what any statement from any professional association says; and it doesn’t matter to me how much or how little evidence anyone has for their views. None of matters to me at all, in deciding what to think about anything.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
ratiocinator

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Jim said:
The way that I’m denying faction science is by saying that it doesn’t matter to me how many people with science degrees agree or disagree with any view, or who they are; it doesn’t matter to me what any statement from any professional association says; and it doesn’t matter to me how much or how little evidence anyone has for their views. None of that matters to me at all, in deciding what to think about anything.
Click to expand...
  1. How far do you extent this principle? To doctors, surgeons, or dentists, who treat you? Would you want people who designed and piloted planes you were going to flay in, following it? How about legal advice?

  2. This is pretty much why we get nonsense like flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, homeopathy, astrology, people voting for Brexit, and so on.

  3. What does matter to you in deciding what you think, if evidence doesn't? How are you going to decide - by reading tea-leaves?
 
Jim

Jim

Nets of Wonder
ratiocinator said:
How far do you extent this principle? To doctors, surgeons, or dentists, who treat you? Would you want people who designed and piloted planes you were going to flay in, following it? How about legal advice?
Click to expand...
Yes, very much so.
 
Jim

Jim

Nets of Wonder
ratiocinator said:
What does matter to you in deciding what you think ...
Click to expand...
Many things. Some examples are my own experience and observations, the experience and observations of others, and my intuition, to name a few. I’ve never tried tea leaves. Maybe I’ll try it some time.
 
usfan

usfan

Well-Known Member
Audie said:
Not to be mean spirited here, but our friend is
very self absorbed, his thread are about
him and his debates are with himself.
Click to expand...
..that's funny.. you think the disclaimer negates the OBVIOUS 'mean spirited!' smears toward the OP? :D
 
usfan

usfan

Well-Known Member
A few points:

1. There IS.. an objective reality, wrt 'science'. Scientific methodology is based on order, empiricism, and the immutable laws of nature.
2. This scientific knowledge is 'knowable', and is factual, whether it is believed, understood, or not.
3. It is possible, in the realm of scientific inquiry, for someone to be 'right', and someone else to be 'wrong', on a specific point of truth.
4. Right and wrong, wrt scientific facts, are not pejoratives or propaganda memes... just reflections of reality.
5. Someone can be 'right', scientifically, and be a rude, intemperate a$$. And, someone can be wrong, empirically, and be the nicest person, ever. Truth is not dependent on personality.
6. Debating 'facts & science!' is an empirical, logical progression, not related to the personality of the debater.
7. Obsessing over the personality of the 'debater', is an ad hom deflection, in a rational, empirical debate.
8. The quest for Truth is not always pleasant, fun, or soothing. Uncomfortable truths upset our beliefs and biases.

“To love truth for truth's sake is the principal part of human perfection in this world, and the seed-plot of all other virtues.” ~John Locke
 
exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
Jim said:
I see that I need to add a qualifier to the word “science,” in calling myself a science denier and enemy of science. For now I’ll try “faction science,” It’s people calling their beliefs “scientific” and “evidence-based” to validate them, in opposing them to other people’s beliefs. I’m an enemy of that way of thinking, just like I’m an enemy of people calling their beliefs “what God says.” The way that I’m denying faction science is by saying that it doesn’t matter to me how many people with science degrees agree or disagree with any view, or who they are; it doesn’t matter to me what any statement from any professional association says; and it doesn’t matter to me how much or how little evidence anyone has for their views. None of that matters to me at all, in deciding what to think about anything.
Click to expand...
And yet you claim to be an engineer by training.

The laws and principles you rely on in that work are all validated by objective, observational evidence. If you claim to be indifferent to the quality of that evidence, I should think you must be a very bad and dangerous engineer.

The same is true of the body of medical knowledge you rely on when you visit the doctor.

I wonder if you have really thought through this position you claim to be taking.

P.S. I see Ratiocinator has made almost the same point. Sorry, I should have read more carefully before posting.
 
usfan

usfan

Well-Known Member
exchemist said:
And yet you claim to be an engineer by training.

The laws and principles you rely on in that work are all validated by objective, observational evidence. If you claim to be indifferent to the quality of that evidence, I should think you must be a very bad and dangerous engineer.

The same is true of the body of medical knowledge you rely on when you visit the doctor.

I wonder if you have really thought through this position you claim to be taking.

P.S. I see Ratiocinator has made almost the same point. Sorry, I should have read more carefully before posting.
Click to expand...
I think this criticism and judgment is unwarranted. The OP is lamenting the FALSE use of 'Science!', as a proof text for someone's beliefs, when many of them are not scientific questions, at all.

You merely illustrate the OP, by jumping on the 'science denier!' label, to smear an ideological enemy.
 
Jim

Jim

Nets of Wonder
I’ll try to clarify what I mean by saying that I don’t care about evidence. First, I don’t call any of my reasons for what I think “evidence.” Second, in forum feuding, “evidence” doesn’t communicate anything at all to me about people’s reasons for what they think. I’m interested in people’s reasons for what they think, but I don’t care at all how much of it they call “evidence,” I don’t know how “evidence” became such a popular virtue signal in forum feuding. Maybe from courtroom dramas, or public debating between faction celebrities. Wherever it came from, it means nothing to me.
 
exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
Jim said:
I’ll try to clarify what I mean by saying that I don’t care about evidence. First, I don’t call any of my reasons for what I think “evidence.” Second, in forum feuding, “evidence” doesn’t communicate anything at all to me about people’s reasons for what they think. I’m interested in people’s reasons for what they think, but I don’t care at all how much of it they call “evidence,” I don’t know how “evidence” became such a popular virtue signal in forum feuding. Maybe from courtroom dramas, or public debating between faction celebrities. Wherever it came from, it means nothing to me.
Click to expand...
This is bizarre. Almost anyone explaining or defending a point of view in a discussion will adduce evidence to support their viewpoint.

Your attitude suggests either that you do not believe anyone has reasons for what they believe, or that you have no interest in what their reasons are. If either of these is the case, I would ask myself why you bother to come to a forum at all.

But perhaps what you mean is only that you have no interest in these things in the context of what you term "forum feuding". Is that it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top