I’m a science denier, an enemy of science

[Audie]

I rated it useful because it bumped the thread.

Too bad you didnt know what to do with it.

 

[Jim]

There is a responsibility of belief, one that is directly related to the duty that religious doctrines have to adjust and course-correct themselves.

The responsibility I see there is for religious leaders to stop fooling people and perpetuating the animosities, and for their followers to stop being fooled and stop making excuses for their animosities and hostilities

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

I don’t know what you’re thinking of when you say “actual science.” If you mean people trying to learn more about ourselves and the world around us, for the benefit of all people everywhere and for human progress, I’m not giving up on that at all.

And yet you blame science for making the attempt?

I don’t know what you mean by that. I’m denouncing some ways that I see people using the name of science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I will try. Forget science as science. Look at some of the words use in relationship with science - evidence, reason, logic, objectivity, rationality, test, knowledge and so on.
Henceforth I will not talk about science, but Evidence. The words signifies its use as an ideological and political word.

Someone and it never actually happens in any thread on this forum: There are people who do things I don't like.
Me: Yes, I accept that, but that is morality and utility. That has nothing to do with Evidence.
Someone: But they have no evidence. I don't accept beliefs without evidence.
Me: Yes, but that you don't accept some beliefs, is without evidence. You are doing Evidence. You don't like it and you believe that you have Evidence.
Someone: I am rational and ...
Me: Yes, but that is not better that irrational, just because you say so.
Someone: That is nonsense.
Me: No, it is nonsense to you and without evidence.

Some people believe in Evidence. They believe that they can justify everything with Evidence. They can't. Nobody can for the everyday world.
But it won't stop them, because they have Evidence with which, they can judge other humans.
So it always ends here for them, Evidence matters. But that is matters to them, is subjective, an emotion and without evidence.
They are in effect unable to spot that they do value judgments, when they talk about Evidence.

So back to science. Science as a human behavior works in a limited sense and what sometimes happens, is that we move beyond the limits of science and they still talk about Evidence. So here it is as a test:
Someone: The concept of Evidence works the same for all humans.
Me: No!
Someone: That is irrational (and what not).
Me: Yes, and that is the limit of science.
Someone: Science matters and truth matters.
Me: Yes, but that is subjective itself and not true with evidence.
Someone:
The test is that you can learn to get them to use emotions and not science. They imbue science with emotional value and that has nothing to do with values, because it is rational and objective to them. Yet it is morality, utility and politics rolled in to one and a subjective worldview.

That is it. Some people don't like that science has a limit and the same for reason, logic, evidence, objectivity, truth, unbiased and what not.

 

[LuisDantas]

The responsibility I see there is for religious leaders to stop fooling people and perpetuating the animosities, and for their followers to stop being fooled and stop making excuses for their animosities and hostilities

That is basically in agreement with what I said, although I do not think that emphasizing leaders is very helpful at all.

I don’t know what you’re thinking of when you say “actual science.”

The activity that attempts to find falsifiable and reliable (as opposed to passionate) explanations for aspects of reality.

If you mean people trying to learn more about ourselves and the world around us, for the benefit of all people everywhere and for human progress, I’m not giving up on that at all.

No, but you are attacking its most reliable and most necessary element in order to protect its most troubled and self-destructive parts.

 

[Jim]

Too bad you didnt know what to do with it.

I’m glad to see you back on the job again. I was afraid you weren’t going to roast me any more.

 

[George-ananda]

@Jim

I think it is more accurate to say you are anti-scientism not a science denier. As for being anti-scientism you have me as an ally,

(from Wikipedia) Scientism is an ideology that promotes science as the only objective means by which society should determine normative and epistemological values.

 

[Jim]

No, but you are attacking its most reliable and most necessary element in order to protect its most troubled and self-destructive parts.

I don’t know what you’re calling “most reliable and most necessary element.” I would put curiosity, honesty and integrity at the top of the list, after the kind of love that I’ve discussed in another thread.

I also don’t know what what you’re calling “most troubled and self-destructive parts.” My first thought is corruption by funding interests, and possibly the stigmatizing that I’m denouncing.

 

[tas8831]

Here is my take - when a person presents himself as wanting to learn and wanting to have a dialogue about science, then links to the Khan Academy website and laughs at how what they have there is the best evidence for evolution, you can tell that the person is a troll.

 

[Jim]

I think it is more accurate to say you are anti-scientism not a science denier. As for being anti-scientism you have me as an ally,

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.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Most of my views are unscientific. They are mainly what I've found that works for me. Mostly what is discussed on RF is opinion, perhaps occasionally supported by some scientific study. Most don't have the wherewithall the validate what they believe to be true. Not scientifically at least.

There are many scientific theories out there. Some more validated than others. To be a science denier, I'd suspect you'd have to deny something that has been pretty well validated. I suppose there is a difference between denying what has been validated and questioning it though. Science should be open to questions. Still one needs to have a fair understanding in any field of science to understand what should be questioned. To question a field from one's own lack of knowledge can be annoying to some.

If someone is going to question a they should probably take it upon themselves to grasp the basic knowledge in a field so they don't waste time asking questions that someone with an actual interest should already know. Or worse, make statements that are known to be untrue about a theory.

However most people seem willing to help if one acknowledges their own ignorance when asking questions about a field of science.

 

[exchemist]

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.

I find it curious how often you mention "science degrees" in these posts. You seem to have a bit of a bee in your bonnet about these, or about the people who have them. Speaking as the possessor of one of these things, I wish I knew what your issue is about them.

As for science itself, there is such a thing as scientific methodology and it is distinct from other intellectual disciplines. It therefore follows that it is valid to discriminate between ideas that are based on scientific principles and those that are not.

I would be the first to agree that to dismiss all non-scientific ideas as unworthy of consideration would be a very narrow (and frankly stupid) worldview. But there are times, for example in the middle of a discussion about natural phenomena, when the intrusion of non-scientific ideas is distracting and inappropriate. This is especially the case when such ideas are put forward to contradict scientific ones. On such occasions it is quite proper to label them, pejoratively, as "unscientific", as a way of dismissing them.

 

[LuisDantas]

I don’t know what you’re calling “most reliable and most necessary element.” I would put curiosity, honesty and integrity at the top of the list, after the kind of love that I’ve discussed in another thread.

I also don’t know what what you’re calling “most troubled and self-destructive parts.” My first thought is corruption by funding interests, and possibly the stigmatizing that I’m denouncing.

I fear that there is some significant challenge here in arriving at a consensus with you (and @George-ananda ) on what should be understood by science; scienticism; and objective knowledge.

 

[Jim]

... something that seems to exist only in your imagination.

On such occasions it is quite proper to label them, pejoratively, as "unscientific", as a way of dismissing them.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I find it curious how often you mention "science degrees" in these posts. You seem to have a bit of a bee in your bonnet about these, or about the people who have them. Speaking as the possessor of one of these things, I wish I knew what your issue is about them.

As for science itself, there is such a thing as scientific methodology and it is distinct from other intellectual disciplines. It therefore follows that it is valid to discriminate between ideas that are based on scientific principles and those that are not.

I would be the first to agree that to dismiss all non-scientific ideas as unworthy of consideration would be a very narrow (and frankly stupid) worldview. But there are times, for example in the middle of a discussion about natural phenomena, when the intrusion of non-scientific ideas is distracting and inappropriate. This is especially the case when such ideas are put forward to contradict scientific ones. On such occasions it is quite proper to label them, pejoratively, as "unscientific", as a way of dismissing them.

Yes, I get what you are saying. But there is a catch. Say we are debating biological evolution, then where is the cut of between science and religion and philosophy? I mean I accept evolution as a fact, but I also view it as based on the belief that the world is natural. And now all bets are off, because to some that the world is natural, is not a belief-system.
So yes, we can debate science, but we can't always agree on what science says about the world as to whether it is about facts or beliefs.

 

[Twilight Hue]

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.

None of that will actually change science for what it is.

In fact, recognizing politics and manipulations could be considered a science in itself once you scrutinize and experiment to discover who is/was bull****ting who. ;O)

 

[Jim]

I fear that there is some significant challenge here in arriving at a consensus with you (and @George-ananda ) on what should be understood by science; scienticism; and objective knowledge.

I have nothing to say about how those words should be understood. I do feel some grief and nostalgia from seeing how their meanings have changed, but I wouldn’t want to try to change them back. Just now I remembered, the problem for me is not that they mean different things to different people. It’s that they mean different things to the same person in different contexts, and the meaning is constantly shifting. The best solution that I see for me is to just not use them at all.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I fear that there is some significant challenge here in arriving at a consensus with you (and @George-ananda ) on what should be understood by science; scienticism; and objective knowledge.

Here is my take and I don't speak for anybody else.
Science is the assumption that the world is natural. Scientism is the belief, that is a fact that the world is natural and that only objective knowledge as provided by science counts. (Strong version)
Weak version, science is special because it is about objective knowledge and it is pure, because it is not influenced by culture.
You can understand it here:

Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]

If you deny the relevance of this, you are approaching weak scientism. If you go strong and claim only science gives any knowledge at all and all questions can be answered using science, you are in effect strong.

Now in practice, it is that science is special, because of in effect emotional evaluation, but this is denied as relevant.
Here it is as the is-ought problem:
There is biological evolution, therefore we ought to... Some people how ever indirect believe that the "therefore we ought to..." can be answered with reason, logic, evidence, objective knowledge or any combination hereof. In effect that is the scientism - the belief that they can with reason, logic, evidence, objective knowledge and so on answer, what we ought to do as humans.
In effect we have left science and entered ideology, politics, philosophy, religion and so on.

Are there humans, who do bad things in the name of X? Yes, but that is not science, because "bad things" is without scientific evidence and not objective knowledge.
The inability to connect the dots between this:
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
and what we ought to do as humans, is a hard one to get for some people, because science is treated as good. It is not, it is a limited human behavior, which can save lives and be used to kill humans. But that is not in science as such, that is what we ought to do as humans and science can't answer that.

 

[Jim]

I fear that there is some significant challenge here in arriving at a consensus with you (and @George-ananda ) on what should be understood by science; scienticism; and objective knowledge.

I don’t think that’s even possible. What might be possible, depending on your interests, is some kind of discussion about how people might learn more and better ways of doing things, for the benefit of all people everywhere, and to bring out the best possibilities in all people and in society.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

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.”

So, for example, if someone were to say "macro evolution is impossible, and species must be individually created," you would not call that "unscientific or "anti-scientific?"

Okay, maybe you call it "naïve," or "a religious point of view." But would you call it correct, or "true" in any sense?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

I have been trying to understand the position that you are establishing and defending, but so far, I find an ever increasing confusion. Here you offer blanket statements that appear to cover the valid to the invalid as if they are all equivalent.

Position 1: In an examination of flower color, using established methodologies, materials and prior work, it is determined that those flowers perceived as red strongly reflect light with a wavelength between 650 to 700 nm. Data from the experiment can be shared and examined by all. This experiment can be repeated by anyone familiar with the art. The art can, itself, be taught and learned. The scientist that conducted this study has always chosen green as a favorite color.

Position 2. Red is the prettiest color. It is the best color of all. I love red. Everyone should consider red the same way I do.

Which position is based on evidence? Which is based on belief?

As near as I can determine about your position, nothing from Position 1 can be used to argue against any part of Position 2 and that they are equally valid from premise to conclusion. As near as I can determine from your position, you are supporting the idea that anyone accepting the validity of Position 1 must concede to the claims of Position 2 without dissent or be seen as unloving. What if they think green is the best color?