I’m a science denier, an enemy of science

[Jim]

What view that you expressed was labelled as "unscientific" or "anti-scientific?"

I don’t remember anyone calling any of my views “unscientific.”

 

[Nimos]

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.

Sorry but that tells me nothing, when I don't know what they are talking about

 

[Jim]

Sorry but that tells me nothing, when I don't know what they are talking about

No matter what the topic is, or what views are being discussed, I’m denouncing the practice of saying or insinuating that any views are “unscientific” or “anti-scientific,” or not “evidence based.”

 

[LuisDantas]

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.”

That is indeed hard to relate with, as noted previously in this thread.

There are views that very much need to be denounced for various reasons, including their superstitious and anti-scientific nature - particularly when they expect, demand or pursue political or religious influence and thereby power over other people.

For example, there are climate change deniers. So-called "Creationists". Anti-vaxxers. Flat-Earthers. White supremacists.

 

[Revoltingest]

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.

It's surprising how many pro-science people lack education & experience in it.
I'm that way. (My degrees say "science", but they're only in engineering.)
So I'm careful not to make claims with too much certainty in too many areas.
But I can spot errors in describing & applying the scientific method(s) at times.
I have a keen sense of the obvious & simple basics.
Still, tis always best to avoid attacking the person with cries of "Science denier!".
To decry others thus might feel good, but it accomplishes nothing positive.

 

[LuisDantas]

No matter what the topic is, or what views are being discussed, I’m denouncing the practice of saying or insinuating that any views are “unscientific” or “anti-scientific,” or not “evidence based.”

Why would you oppose that?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I don’t remember anyone calling any of my views “unscientific.”

I guess I misunderstood the point of your thread, then.

 

[Audie]

Like I said, his discussion is with himself.
Leave him to it.

So, Jim glad you find the above useful.
Plz use it.

 

[Audie]

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.

So, if I went on a car talk or football forum, and said
idiotic things showing I had no clue about such things-
which I dont-and someone said my views show I
am clueless, you'd denounce that?

Or only if they said "unfootballistic" or, "unmechanical"?

You are being ridiculous.

 

[Nimos]

No matter what the topic is, or what views are being discussed, I’m denouncing the practice of saying or insinuating that any views are “unscientific” or “anti-scientific,” or not “evidence based.”

Ok that is a very strange position to take. So to you all views are equally scientific? So me claiming that big foot is real is just as scientific as someone claiming that quantum physics is? Despite that it can be demonstrated to be true, whereas... and this might come as a shock to some people!! Can't provide any evidence whatsoever for my claim.

Its seem you are just angry at the use of the words, is that what its about?

 

[Jim]

[

Why would you oppose that?

Mostly because it helps perpetuate animosities across imaginary belief lines. Also because it defames the name of science, but that’s just nostalgia for a time long ago, before the word “science” was hijacked for virtue signaling. I don’t think there’s any going back now. If I want to talk about the things that people do to learn more about ourselves the world around us, for the benefit of all people everywhere and for human progress, I’ll just have to spell it out every time. I see now that even the words “research,” “theory” and “models” no longer communicate anything.

 

[Jim]

So, if I went on a car talk or football forum, and said idiotic things showing I had no clue about such things-which I dont-and someone said my views show I am clueless, you'd denounce that?

Or only if they said "unfootballistic" or, "unmechanical"?

No. Only if they said “unscientific.”

 

[sun rise]

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.

Some views are unscientific and calling them such is accurately labeling their views. That is because the scientific method is a process for determining the facts about how the universe works. And to say that you don't believe something that has been proven is unscientific.

Demanding evidence is how science works. Putting politics ahead of science anti-scientific because it's substituting ideology for evidence. That is exactly what happened during the Middle Ages when the Church attacked scientific results because it did not fit with their ideology.

So, yes I will call anti-scientific rants anti-scientific and I will demand evidence from those who disagree with evidence-based conclusions.

That's because I'm not a science-denier.

 

[LuisDantas]

Mostly because it helps perpetuate animosities across imaginary belief lines.

It seems to me that the fault there, if there is any, is in holding arrongant, superstitious beliefs. I just don't see any ground to complain to those who point out the unscientific nature of some beliefs.

There is a responsibility of belief, one that is directly related to the duty that religious doctrines have to adjust and course-correct themselves. Also one that is far too often neglected or even arrogantly despised. It is no less real and no less urgent for that.

Also because it defames the name of science, but that’s just nostalgia for a time long ago, before the word “science” was hijacked for virtue signaling.

That is a tangent, albeit an important one. Even animism claims to be "science" these days. Which is, to be direct, a plain and very destructive lie.

But giving up on the benefits of actual science is not a solution for anything, and only furthers the problems.

I don’t think there’s any going back now.

It would be very bad indeed if there wasn't. But I do not think that you should be so pessimistic.

If I want to talk about the things that people do to learn more about ourselves the world around us, for the benefit of all people everywhere and for human progress, I’ll just have to spell it out every time. I see now that even the words “research,” “theory” and “models” no longer communicate anything.

And yet you blame science for making the attempt?

 

[sayak83]

No matter what the topic is, or what views are being discussed, I’m denouncing the practice of saying or insinuating that any views are “unscientific” or “anti-scientific,” or not “evidence based.”

Why.Many views are unscientific and anti-scientific. Eg:- denial of climate change, denial of evolution, denial of Big Bang, denial of efficacy of vaccines, etc.

 

[Jim]

So, if I went on a car talk or football forum, and said idiotic things showing I had no clue about such things-which I dont-and someone said my views show I am clueless, you'd denounce that?

On second thought, yes, I would denounce that, but for different reasons,

 

[Jim]

So, Jim glad you find the above useful.
Plz use it.

I rated it useful because it bumped the thread.

 

[sun rise]

It's surprising how many pro-science people lack education & experience in it.
I'm that way. (My degrees say "science", but they're only in engineering.)
So I'm careful not to make claims with too much certainty in too many areas.
But I can spot errors in describing & applying the scientific method(s) at times.
I have a keen sense of the obvious & simple basics.
Still, tis always best to avoid attacking the person with cries of "Science denier!".
To decry others thus might feel good, but it accomplishes nothing positive.

Someone who finds issues with research findings because of bad experimental design, mistakes in math, too broad a confidence interval and so forth is not anti-science.

And, as we've seen, subsequent research can correct and overturn conclusions from earlier research. That too is not anti-science.

Also per wikipedia: "Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity." Having an alternate theory that can be falsified is also how science works. But for someone with no background and no knowledge of the field to ignorantly question a scientific consensus is anti-science.

 

[Revoltingest]

Someone who finds issues with research findings because of bad experimental design, mistakes in math, too broad a confidence interval and so forth is not anti-science.

I agree.

And, as we've seen, subsequent research can correct and overturn conclusions from earlier research. That too is not anti-science.

Also per wikipedia: "Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity." Having an alternate theory that can be falsified is also how science works. But for someone with no background and no knowledge of the field to ignorantly question a scientific consensus is anti-science.

OK.

 

[exchemist]

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.”

But some stances and arguments ARE anti-scientific.

The pseudo-science of "Intelligent Design" is a good example. This has as its premise the idea that there is no natural explanation for certain structures in living things, and that science should therefore stop researching them.