I’m a science denier, an enemy of science

usfan said:

..that's funny.. you think the disclaimer negates the OBVIOUS 'mean spirited!' smears toward the OP?

Click to expand...

And people 'liked' that.

I think that I’ve been depreciating science beliefs in ways that I would never want to do with religious beliefs, no matter how much I might disagree with them. Now that I’m seeing science beliefs as beliefs, I’m rethinking how I want to talk about them, and about the attitudes and behavior that I’m denouncing. I’m not an enemy of science beliefs any more than I’m an enemy of religious beliefs. What I’m denouncing is people using their beliefs, religious or scientific, to excuse and camouflage their animosities and hostilities. What I was actually aiming at here was stigmatizing people’s beliefs as “unscientific.”

I’m denying the validity of that, saying that it doesn’t matter to me how many people with science degrees agree or disagree with some 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 anyone has that anyone calls “evidence”; in deciding what to think. Also, I don’t ever call any of my reasons for what I think “evidence.”

usfan said:

..that's funny.. you think the disclaimer negates the OBVIOUS 'mean spirited!' smears toward the OP?

Click to expand...

It isn’t like that. That’s her way of lighting up my life in these forums, as one of my forum gods.

Landon Caeli said:

And people 'liked' that.

Click to expand...

That’s her way of lighting up my life in these forums, as one of my forum gods. I would have “liked” it myself, but sometimes that arouses her wrath against me.

Jim said:

It isn’t like that. That’s her way of lighting up my life in these forums, as one of my forum gods.

Click to expand...

I did not know your history.. i likely was not privy to an inside joke.

But, as one who has also been on the receiving end of her catty barbs, i felt it appropriate to point out the conflict between what was said, over what was actually done.

Jim said:

I think that I’ve been depreciating science beliefs in ways that I would never want to do with religious beliefs, no matter how much I might disagree with them. Now that I’m seeing science beliefs as beliefs, I’m rethinking how I want to talk about them, and about the attitudes and behavior that I’m denouncing. I’m not an enemy of science beliefs any more than I’m an enemy of religious beliefs. What I’m denouncing is people using their beliefs, religious or scientific, to excuse and camouflage their animosities and hostilities. What I was actually aiming at here was stigmatizing people’s beliefs as “unscientific.”

I’m denying the validity of that, saying that it doesn’t matter to me how many people with science degrees agree or disagree with some 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 anyone has that anyone calls “evidence”; in deciding what to think. Also, I don’t ever call any of my reasons for what I think “evidence.”

Click to expand...

It seems to me you are too hung up on what is meant by "beliefs" and what is meant by "evidence", and that you are continuing to try to engineer a false equivalence between science and other systems of thought.

Everybody "believes" all sorts of things, from mundane predictions that are virtually facts, e.g. that the sun will rise each morning or that a very hot object will burn you, to ideas that are far less obvious and can be matters of individual opinion, such as the motivations and and competence of particular politicians. "Belief" is far from confined to religious ideas: it is an essential part of the functioning of the human mind. Nearly all beliefs are based on some sort of evidence, whether it be our own experience or advice from those whose opinions we respect, for one reason or another.

So to identify scientific ideas as "beliefs" gets you precisely nowhere. You and I can both be said to "believe" in Newton's laws of motion or the laws of thermodynamics. So what? What distinguishes scientific theories is that they are tested by reproducible observations of nature and found to work. In other words it is the type of reason for belief that science employs that makes it distinctive - the type of "evidence".

This type of evidence is particularly reliable, having gone through a process to make sure it is not just subjective but as objective as possible. This is why you will find people educated in science will be strongly convinced that data and theories validated in this way can claim to have primacy over any rival ideas that conflict with them, unless those rival ideas have similar support behind them.

It is nothing to do with "excusing or camouflaging hostility". Such animosity or hostility as you may find will be due to personal issues: for instance when it appears that someone is arguing a position in bad faith, or being dishonest or deceptive.

Jim said:

Now that I’m seeing science beliefs as beliefs

Click to expand...

Then you have totally,completely missed every point that the science proponent has tried to explain to you. I have wasted my time.

Why is empiricism conflated with "belief" or "faith" in the minds of believers?

Because, in your flawed reasoning, you believe that if you can reduce empiricism to mere belief, then you place science and religion and equal footing.

But they are not on equal footing, and never will be.

I’m seeing my science denial now as saying that whatever anyone might mean by calling their views “scientific” or “evidence based,” I don’t see it as a reason at all for me to think that way.

Jim said:

I’m seeing my science denial now as saying that whatever anyone might mean by calling their views “scientific” or “evidence based,”

Click to expand...

Then you haven't been paying attention.

NewGuyOnTheBlock said:

Then you haven't been paying attention.

Click to expand...

You would think that he would at least try to understand the concept of "scientific evidence" before digging a hole that he can't get out of. But just like other science deniers understanding the concept of scientific evidence would quickly end the discussion. Science deniers cannot afford to understand that which they deny.

Subduction Zone said:

You would think that he would at least try to understand the concept of "scientific evidence" before digging a hole that he can't get out of. But just like other science deniers understanding the concept of scientific evidence would quickly end the discussion. Science deniers cannot afford to understand that which they deny.

Click to expand...

I rated that as useful, because it counts me as a “science denier.” Thank you.

Why are you pleased at that?

NewGuyOnTheBlock said:

Why are you pleased at that?

Click to expand...

That’s what this thread is all about, people calling other people science deniers. Your posts are a good example of that.

To avoid some needless distractions, I’ll call science beliefs “views” Instead of “beliefs.” Also, I’ll narrow down what I’m saying some more. I’m denouncing the practice of people calling their views “scientific” and “evidence based” to validate them, in opposition to the views of others. For people who wonder why, I’ll start by saying that those words are used as fighting words so much that even if someone is not using them that way, they still have the same effect of helping to perpetuate stereotypes and animosities that facilitate cruelty and violence.

I might have said this already, but I think that sometimes people take the theories and models of the sciences too literally, like they do sometimes with religious scriptures. For example, it might be only a few researchers if any, who think of common ancestry as an actual historical fact. Those of course would be the only ones that we would see feuding in these forums.

Jim said:

I might have said this already, but I think that sometimes people take the theories and models of the sciences too literally, like they do sometimes with religious scriptures. For example, it might be only a few researchers if any, who think of common ancestry as an actual historical fact. Those of course would be the only ones that we would see feuding in these forums.

Click to expand...

You touch upon something important here about the philosophy of science, which a number of science's fiercest cheerleaders do indeed often fail to acknowledge. This is that theories in science are not facts. They are always open to modification, in the light of new observations of nature. This is due to the empirical nature of science: observation of nature, when appropriately validated and confirmed, trumps any theory.

Most scientists are well aware of this. The theories are current models of the physical world and they see their job as to assist in refining and improving those models. However there are people around, even including a few quite eminent scientists, who pooh-pooh philosophy and thereby display a depressing degree of ignorance about the enterprise they are engaged in. De Grasse Tyson is one example.

But, the theories and models of science, in spite of being only models and work in progress, do have a particularly firm foundation, due their objective and empirical basis. To reiterate a point I have made to you before, it is when somebody challenges science by recourse to an unscientific idea that scientifically literate people get annoyed. And rightly so.

When I say that I’m denouncing the practice of people calling their views “scientific” and “evidence based,” to validate them in opposition to the views of others, I don’t mean that it’s always malicious. I mean that I think it’s harmful, whether people intend it that way or not.

Jim said:

When I say that I’m denouncing the practice of people calling their views “scientific” and “evidence based,” to validate them in opposition to the views of others, I don’t mean that it’s always malicious. I mean that I think it’s harmful, whether people intend it that way or not.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, it is usually a simple, factual statement.

The theory of evolution is scientific and evidence-based. Creationism is unscientific and not evidence-based, because it comes merely from ancient writings and not from empirical observation of nature.

Jim said:

I rated that as useful, because it counts me as a “science denier.” Thank you.

Click to expand...

It also shows why you are demonstrably wrong.

Jim said:

When I say that I’m denouncing the practice of people calling their views “scientific” and “evidence based,” to validate them in opposition to the views of others, I don’t mean that it’s always malicious. I mean that I think it’s harmful, whether people intend it that way or not.

Click to expand...

Do you mean always harmful? Because I couldn't disagree more.

People are extremely prone to believing things that just aren't true. Sometimes, a solid dose of verified evidence is a really good thing. Even if it makes someone uncomfortable because it ruins a comfortable illusion.
Tom