1. 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

Discussion in 'General Debates' started by Jim, Aug 12, 2019.

  1. Jim

    Jim Nets of Wonder

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    3,643
    Ratings:
    +1,317
    Religion:
    learning to follow Baha'u'llah
    The science that I’m denouncing is not everything that is called “science.” The science that I’m denouncing is saying or insinuating that some people’s views are “unscientific” or “anti-scientific.” Some examples of that, besides saying it explicitly, are saying that some people are rejecting the “scientific consensus,” calling some people “science deniers,” and people debating with others, demanding evidence and calling their own views “scientific” and ”evidence based.”

    It looks to me like the “science” that people are allegedly rejecting when their views are stigmatized as “unscientific” or “anti-scientific” is always or nearly always misrepresentations of the views of some people with science degrees. I’m interested in the views of people with science degrees, but how many of them agree or disagree with some view, other people’s misrepresentations of their views, and statements of professional associations endorsing or denouncing some view, mean nothing to me. Worse than nothing. I denounce all of that, as ways of promoting views or arguing against them.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Creative Creative x 1
  2. Shad

    Shad Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2014
    Messages:
    13,626
    Ratings:
    +3,079
    Religion:
    Theological noncognitivist
    It is an easier to make the smear (statement) rather than establishing a view does not follow a set(s) of methods which takes more effort (argument).
     
    #2 Shad, Aug 12, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  3. Nimos

    Nimos Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Messages:
    647
    Ratings:
    +237
    Its slightly hard to relate to what you are saying when you generalize it like that without any examples or even explaining what you mean with science.

    But your view is that people do these without relating to the definition of science:

    Science
    the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

    Is that what you mean or what?
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Jim

    Jim Nets of Wonder

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    3,643
    Ratings:
    +1,317
    Religion:
    learning to follow Baha'u'llah
    I don’t care what definition of science people say that they are using. I’m denouncing the practice of saying or insinuating that some views are “unscientific” or “anti-scientific.”
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  5. Samana Johann

    Samana Johann Restricted by request

    Joined:
    May 7, 2019
    Messages:
    728
    Ratings:
    +175
    Religion:
    Dhamma-Vinaya
    believer haunting believer...
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  6. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    12,339
    Ratings:
    +5,881
    Religion:
    None
    Cant you learn about one more tune? This particular theme
    and variation is getting way too much play.

    So you have a pet peeve regarding something that
    seems to exist only in your imagination.
    You bring it up over and over.
    You expect ...what?

    Oh and guess what? The views of creos always
    are non or anti sciebtific. No "insinuation", just a fact.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  7. RabbiO

    RabbiO הרב יונה בן זכריה

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2011
    Messages:
    1,768
    Ratings:
    +1,922
    Religion:
    Judaism
    @Jim -

    How is this thread going to be different than your previous threads and posts on the same subject?
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  8. wellwisher

    wellwisher Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2018
    Messages:
    543
    Ratings:
    +208
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Science is not self sufficient when it comes to the resources needed to do science. There are very few billionaire entrepreneurs who self finance; Stark Industries and Iron Man. The vast majority of science is more or less a mercenary sport.

    If you get a job doing science for a tobacco or pesticide company, you will be given resources to help your company's bottom line, since they sign your check. Name me a company that will fund science that will drive itself out of business. If such negative results were to come about by coincidence, it would never be published. It did not exist.

    Even manmade global warming and climate change science is beholden on government and politics to provide resources. Consensus means which side has the deepest pockets, and which side can exclude alternate ideas by not providing sufficient resources. Consider the mantra of denier. This is a tactic to prevent any funding for opposing science; taboo.

    Science is published allowing the standards to set for further science. However, not all science is published in the general science literature. There is DOD or defense science that is secret and classified and will never be seen by most people. There is also proprietary science that defines trade secrets. This will never be seen. The easy to find science literature, is limited to only one part of mercenary science, that can be controlled via funding priorities.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  9. ratiocinator

    ratiocinator Strange Loop

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2017
    Messages:
    1,246
    Ratings:
    +730
    Religion:
    none
    Firstly, that isn't science. Secondly, some people's views are unscientific or anti-scientific. Science is a methodology. If you come to a conclusion, that is in the domain of science, by some other means, you are being unscientific. If you are hostile to the methodology, or are hostile to its conclusions for reasons other than the methodology, you are being anti-scientific.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Useful Useful x 1
  10. Nimos

    Nimos Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Messages:
    647
    Ratings:
    +237
    But the reason people might say it could be valid? As I started by saying in my first reply some examples of what you mean would help as you are not being very clear about what you mean with science.

    So my question is, how is it different when someone claims that something is unscientific compared to lets say, that someone make a claim that "There are to many fish in the oceans and we have to get rid of them, because of the climate change problem" and someone then tell them, that they are not really addressing the issue of climate change when they talk about the amount of fish in the oceans and that this is not what the climate change issue is about. Which would be a valid comment. So isn't it about definitions of what these means, because it would make it near impossible to discuss anything, if people don't care about definitions, wouldn't you agree?
     
  11. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    24,947
    Ratings:
    +13,813
    Religion:
    Atheist
    Why on Earth do you think that is the case?
     
  12. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    24,947
    Ratings:
    +13,813
    Religion:
    Atheist
    And sometimes doing so does no good at all. It appears that you have never debated with a creationist.
     
  13. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    12,339
    Ratings:
    +5,881
    Religion:
    None
    Not to be mean spirited here, but our friend is
    very self absorbed, his thread are about
    him and his debates are with himself.
     
    #13 Audie, Aug 12, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2019
    • Like Like x 3
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  14. Jim

    Jim Nets of Wonder

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    3,643
    Ratings:
    +1,317
    Religion:
    learning to follow Baha'u'llah
    I’ll post some examples later.
    I’m not objecting to disagreeing with what someone says, and explaining your reasons. What I’m objecting to is using the word “science” or any of its derivatives, when you do that. Also, some other incantations associated with it, like “evidence” and “substantiate.”
     
  15. Subduction Zone

    Subduction Zone Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2017
    Messages:
    24,947
    Ratings:
    +13,813
    Religion:
    Atheist
    It appears that you do not want any discussion at all.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  16. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    12,339
    Ratings:
    +5,881
    Religion:
    None
    Like I said, his discussion is with himself.
    Leave him to it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Useful Useful x 1
  17. Stevicus

    Stevicus Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Messages:
    7,730
    Ratings:
    +3,724
    Religion:
    Agnostic
    I think what you might be getting at are non-scientists who tend to set themselves up as "experts" in science merely because they might be better qualified laypersons than the person they're arguing with. I encounter this a lot in public forums - far more often than one would actually find an actual qualified expert in a given field of study. (Coupled with that is the fact that many scientific papers, articles and essays might be inaccessible to the average layperson, either because they're too complex or hiding behind paywalls.)

    I also think a lot of people are more of the "show me" variety. People are more convinced by something that you can see physically demonstrated. Or, if they didn't see it themselves, they might be convinced by someone emphatically claiming that "I saw it with my own eyes!"
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  18. Nimos

    Nimos Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2014
    Messages:
    647
    Ratings:
    +237
    I don't really see how that is an issue, maybe the examples will help clarify it. But what is science without evidence? One makes an hypothesis and in order for it to have any value one need to find evidence to support it. After that is done other people can test it to see if it holds up or not. If there is no evidence then there is nothing for anyone else to test.
     
  19. 9-10ths_Penguin

    9-10ths_Penguin 1/10 Riboflavin
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    54,244
    Ratings:
    +12,999
    Religion:
    None (atheist)
    What view that you expressed was labelled as "unscientific" or "anti-scientific?"
     
  20. Jim

    Jim Nets of Wonder

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    3,643
    Ratings:
    +1,317
    Religion:
    learning to follow Baha'u'llah
    Here are some examples of what I mean by saying or insinuating that some people’s views are “unscientific” or “anti-scientific”:
    Those are some examples of what I’m denouncing.
     
Loading...