I’m a science denier, an enemy of science

[mikkel_the_dane]

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?

We end here:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/#H3

It is true to the person believing it. Of course, then some people will call it a wrong belief, but that is only true according to their version of truth.
That is it. We always end in cognitive relativism, because all of versions of reason, logic, evidence, correct, true and what not are subjectively cognitive.
Now is this true? Only if you accept it, but it won't stop other humans from thinking differently than you.

 

[Jim]

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?

My first thought was that I might look for the reports that I saw about new species being created in some experiments.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

We end here:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/#H3

It is true to the person believing it. Of course, then some people will call it a wrong belief, but that is only true according to their version of truth.
That is it. We always end in cognitive relativism, because all of versions of reason, logic, evidence, correct, true and what not are subjectively cognitive.
Now is this true? Only if you accept it, but it won't stop other humans from thinking differently than you.

I don't think you mean "true" in anything like an epistemological sense though, do you?

I remember an old canard from when I was very young, and such jokes seemed very funny to me: "The earth sucks -- gravity's just a myth." For your sort of believer, the first part may be true, but I have a strong suspicion that gravity exists, and can be measured and used to make predictions useful in getting from place to place in the galaxy, or for deciding whether to take that next step off the precipice or not.

 

[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.

How does your position address the possibility of lies and deceit? I know of instances where I have confronted blatant lies in support of a personal view. Is your position that anyone holding a scientific view must be the side that seeks to find ethical means to continue discussion while the other side is free to fabricate creatively?

It seems you are going after one side as if they are the only culpable parties in these discussions. Not that any culpability is established merely because one recognizes that some positions and views are not scientific.

 

[Jim]

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?

No, that’s not what I’m thinking at all. I’m not objecting to telling the person that you disagree with them and what your reasons are. What I would object to would be for example if you would call your views “scientific” or “evidence based,” or call your reasons “evidence,” or call the other person’s view “unscientific” or “anti-scientific,” or say that they “have no evidence.”

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, that’s not what I’m thinking at all. I’m not objecting to telling the person that you disagree with them and what your reasons are. What I would object to would be for example if you would call your views “scientific” or “evidence based,” or call your reasons “evidence,” or call the other person’s view “unscientific” or “anti-scientific,” or say that they “have no evidence.”

So for you, evidence and science have no value in a discussion? How is believing red is the best color and everyone should like red best not unscientific? Is there a science for determining the true subjective view?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, that’s not what I’m thinking at all. I’m not objecting to telling the person that you disagree with them and what your reasons are. What I would object to would be for example if you would call your views “scientific” or “evidence based,” or call your reasons “evidence,” or call the other person’s view “unscientific” or “anti-scientific,” or say that they “have no evidence.”

What about discussions of science? Do you object to the proper use of such terms in discussions of science? Are there other areas of debate and discussion where you think positions based on science and evidence should have their hands tied?

 

[Jim]

How does your position address the possibility of lies and deceit? I know of instances where I have confronted blatant lies in support of a personal view. Is your position that anyone holding a scientific view must be the side that seeks to find ethical means to continue discussion while the other side is free to fabricate creatively?

It seems you are going after one side as if they are the only culpable parties in these discussions. Not that any culpability is established merely because one recognizes that some positions and views are not scientific.

I’m not objecting to thinking that someone is lying, and doing whatever you think you need to do about that. I would only object if you used the words “science” and “evidence,” as part of that.

 

[Jim]

So for you, evidence and science have no value in a discussion?

You aren’t getting it. This not about evidence and science. It’s about the words “evidence” and “science.” I think that the ways that those words are used in public debating. they not only have no value, but are actually harmful to society, and detrimental to human progress. I can imagine some contexts in private conversations where those words could be used beneficially, where they are not being used for virtue signaling and the meanings are not constantly shifting.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

I am still rereading this for my own comprehension, but in the meantime, I have some related thoughts.

I am a Christian. I believe in God. I am a practicing scientist and do not recognize or follow a literal view of the Bible. In other words, I hold my own version of a common religious position. I do make judgments about other religious views, since I have chosen my own position.

I do not consider that the world is only natural, but I see that I am limited to the evidence of the natural world for explanations of natural phenomena. In discussions of science, I have only the physical evidence on which to base conclusions.

In a debate between myself and a person that claims that the universe and life were created just as they are described in the Book of Genesis, it is perfectly legitimate to point out that they are expressing a belief that is not supported by evidence or the conclusions of science. It is not usually expressed in those terms for brevity and due to the limitations of this format of communication. What has been determined in science is often in opposition to the claims made based on Genesis. It is those claims that are the issue and not the person's belief, though that belief is likely the justification for their claims. For me personally, it is the science and the evidence that have lead me to conclude that the story is an allegory and not something that should be considered as an historical account of actual events. My overall personal belief, while amended in the details, remains intact.

I consider unscientific and evidence-based as legitimate terms that can be freely and appropriately used in the context of a discussion with a person claiming that the events of that story are established facts. I do not know of any observations that support the claims of Genesis, so claiming these events occurred as described would be unscientific. This is specific to the claims of Genesis and not to a belief in God. In coming to understand this, I did not perceive these facts as an attack on my personal religious beliefs. They are not in my opinion. Perhaps I am just not that thin-skinned, but I do not perceive pointing out facts as an attack, but rather are support for an argument.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, that’s not what I’m thinking at all. I’m not objecting to telling the person that you disagree with them and what your reasons are. What I would object to would be for example if you would call your views “scientific” or “evidence based,” or call your reasons “evidence,” or call the other person’s view “unscientific” or “anti-scientific,” or say that they “have no evidence.”

In the world of science the concept of scientific evidence is well defined. It is quite easy to accurately judge whether someone has scientific evidence or not. And our OP does not understand this simple concept not does he seem to want to learn.

The standard for scientific evidence has a hurdle that appears to be deceptively easy. One only needs to form a testable hypothesis. Once one does that observations that agree with one's hypothesis are scientific evidence for it and observations that disagree with one's hypothesis are scientific evidence against it.

Unfortunately for our OP there are literally mountains of observations that agree with universal descent and no one seems to be able to find observations that disagree with it.

Creationists cannot seem to form their idea into a testable model. When one asks them how they could disprove their work the frequently ask why they would want to do that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I’m not objecting to thinking that someone is lying, and doing whatever you think you need to do about that. I would only object if you used the words “science” and “evidence,” as part of that.

That is a strange set of criteria that make little sense to me. I see it as tantamount to placing moral prohibitions on nudity while being OK with collateral damage in a military operation. You may call this an unwarranted extreme intended to vilify, but it is not. That is the scale of the extremity that I perceive. In other words, you condemn even the legitimate use of terms. but but seem to consider a larger issue as the lesser problem.

 

[Jim]

It seems you are going after one side as if they are the only culpable parties in these discussions.

I’m not going after any sides. I see people on all sides using the words “science” and “evidence” in the ways that I’m denouncing.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am still rereading this for my own comprehension, but in the meantime, I have some related thoughts.

I am a Christian. I believe in God. I am a practicing scientist and do not recognize or follow a literal view of the Bible. In other words, I hold my own version of a common religious position. I do make judgments about other religious views, since I have chosen my own position.

I do not consider that world is only natural, but I see that I am limited to the evidence of the natural world for explanations of natural phenomena. In discussions of science, I have only the physical evidence on which to base conclusions.

In a debate between myself and a person that claims that the universe and life were created just as they are described in the Book of Genesis, it is perfectly legitimate to point out that they are expressing a belief that is not supported by evidence or the conclusions of science. It is not usually expressed in those terms for brevity and due to the limitations of this format of communication. What has been determined in science is often in opposition to the claims made based on Genesis. It is those claims that are the issue and not the person's belief, though that belief is likely the justification for their claims. For me personally, it is the science and the evidence that have lead me to conclude that the story is an allegory and not something that should be considered as an historical account of actual events. My personal beliefs, while amended in the details, remains intact.

I consider unscientific and evidence-based as legitimate terms that can freely and appropriately used in the context of a discussion with a person claiming that the events of that story are established facts. I do not know of any observations that support the claims of Genesis, so claiming these events occurred as described would be unscientific. This is specific to the claims of Genesis and not to a belief in God. In coming to understand this, I did not perceive these facts as an attack on my personal religious beliefs. They are not in my opinion. Perhaps I am just not that thin-skinned, but I do not perceive pointing out facts as an attack, but rather are support for an argument.

Yes, but for some humans as non-religious, not all non-religious, all they have is evidence, logic, reasons and what not.

Now I am also religious, but as you, I have no problem with natural phenomenons for the natural world.

Now I used to be an atheist and spend a lot of time around believers in New Atheism and more broadly scientific skepticism. Skepticism using the methodology of science to question the validity claims.
So I observed something, namely the difference between debating how science and evidence works and the value of science.
Some people use evidence as a concept to "hit" other humans over the head with.

There are some people who don't understand the limits of evidence, reason and logic and use these concepts as carriers for a sort of morality and objective utility.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You aren’t getting it. This not about evidence and science. It’s about the words “evidence” and “science.” I think that the ways that those words are used in public debating. they not only have no value, but are actually harmful to society, and detrimental to human progress. I can imagine some contexts in private conversations where those words could be used beneficially, where they are not being used for virtue signaling and the meanings are not constantly shifting.

You are correct. I am not getting it. You seem to have described special power to those two words that extend well outside of their use. The words and the way they are used are two different subjects. They are just words. They have definitions and uses. They harm no one or no society. It is the usage of those words that you find offensive. Now we are getting somewhere. So there are some usages that are legitimate and you would not find that use objectionable?

We could start a list of words that many consider to be objectionable and harmful to society, but I think that eventually we would find that we have no way to talk about them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I’m not going after any sides. I see people on all sides using the words “science” and “evidence” in the ways that I’m denouncing.

But I see you saying that any side using them is wrong, even when used appropriately and in context.

 

[Jim]

You may call this an unwarranted extreme intended to vilify ...

No, I’m not thinking that any more.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, I’m not thinking that any more.

I am glad of that. I am seriously interested in what you have to say. Disagreement is not intended as vilification and neither are my analogies. Neither is agreement intended as exaltation to some higher status.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, but for some humans as non-religious, not all non-religious, all they have is evidence, logic, reasons and what not.

Now I am also religious, but as you, I have no problem with natural phenomenons for the natural world.

Now I used to be an atheist and spend a lot of time around believers in New Atheism and more broadly scientific skepticism. Skepticism using the methodology of science to question the validity claims.
So I observed something, namely the difference between debating how science and evidence works and the value of science.
Some people use evidence as a concept to "hit" other humans over the head with.

There are some people who don't understand the limits of evidence, reason and logic and use these concepts as carriers for a sort of morality and objective utility.

It is only slowly occurring to me that Jim may be seeing the use of the terms as some sort of dehumanizing tag to destroy another person rather than to persuade them. In my observation that has been one way they have been used, but many words have been conscripted to that service by many views.

It seems an action of personal bias to choose two terms most commonly associated with only one side to launch a campaign for improving communication. While I recognize that one must start somewhere, the flaw here could be that it leads to greater animosity rather than unification.

Of course, this is all contingent on whether my growing understanding is real or another false view based on incomprehension.

 

[exchemist]

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.

Yes, evolution, like all the other theories in science, is indeed based on the premise that natural phenomena can be be understood in terms of nature - that the world is natural, if you like. That is axiomatic to the scientific method. But one can view it either as a belief or simply as the foundational limitation made in the scientific way of enquiring into nature, as opposed to other ways.

Either way, if one is discussing natural phenomena and somebody interjects a view that the world is not natural, it is right and fair to point out that that is an unscientific viewpoint.