• 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

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
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.
I cannot perceive of a more appropriate and succinct defense of the proper use of the term unscientific. The fact that the word along with any other can be and is subject to abuse, does not render the proper application moot.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
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.
If we can not agree on even the terminology, there is little point in attempting to discuss anything, don't you think?
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
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.
That is a huge amount of giving up when faced with what, while challenging, are hardly unsurmountable difficulties.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
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.
That is hardly possible or worthwhile without a clear understanding of the goals. And without a common terminology, we would be reduced to hoping for a miraculous convergence where we have no reason to expect any.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
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.

No, you are getting there. But remember there is a difference. There is science and there is scientism. They are not the same.
But some of those, who do understand science, don't understand when they do scientism. Yet others do understand the limit. You are the second kind.
What you are learning, is of limited usage and you can do with out it. But once you have learned it, you can spot when some humans imbue science with a value system, it can't do.

So what is the value of this? Well, as you, that is your problem. In general you are learning a corner of some aspects of social constructivism, namely that all knowledge is embedded in a social setting and you always look for the power, morality, utility and so on attached to the words.
Now this is maybe not Jim's point, but I think I get. It is a kind of idealism, namely to learn to see what is really about. That all that matters, is that it matters to humans. I.e. a better world and respect and love for humans and nature.

So where to start? Well, this is one place. To get some humans to understand that science is being misused for ideology. Remember again the difference between science and scientism. But of course it doesn't tackle dogmatic religion.
But scientism and dogmatic religion are the 2 sides of the same coin. In effect, they are about the same. To claim a knowledge, that is not there and then use it to judge humans with an authority, that is not there.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
No, you are getting there. But remember there is a difference. There is science and there is scientism. They are not the same.
But some of those, who do understand science, don't understand when they do scientism. Yet others do understand the limit. You are the second kind.
What you are learning, is of limited usage and you can do with out it. But once you have learned it, you can spot when some humans imbue science with a value system, it can't do.

So what is the value of this? Well, as you, that is your problem. In general you are learning a corner of some aspects of social constructivism, namely that all knowledge is embedded in a social setting and you always look for the power, morality, utility and so on attached to the words.
Now this is maybe not Jim's point, but I think I get. It is a kind of idealism, namely to learn to see what is really about. That all that matters, is that it matters to humans. I.e. a better world and respect and love for humans and nature.

So where to start? Well, this is one place. To get some humans to understand that science is being misused for ideology. Remember again the difference between science and scientism. But of course it doesn't tackle dogmatic religion.
But scientism and dogmatic religion are the 2 sides of the same coin. In effect, they are about the same. To claim a knowledge, that is not there and then use it to judge humans with an authority, that is not there.
While I recognize the validity of the issue, I am unconvinced that the examples seen on this thread are those of predominantly scientism rather than science. Having been personally involved in some of these discussions, and having used the terms myself, I think that focusing on those words alone, sweeps a greater abuse under the rug. From my perspective, it is as if the sniffles are the focus of treatment for someone with tuberculosis. Considering how he titled this thread, it seems very slanted and one sided, with the finger of guilt pointed at one side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
While I recognize the validity of the issue, I am unconvinced that the examples seen on this thread are those of predominantly scientism rather than science. Having been personally involved in some of these discussions, and having used the terms myself, I think that focusing on those words alone, sweeps a greater abuse under the rug. From my perspective, it is as if the sniffles are the focus of treatment for someone with tuberculosis. Considering how he titled this thread, it seems very slanted and one sided, with the finger of guilt pointed at one side.

Yes, I get it. It is in some sense overdone. :)
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
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.
Wouldn't it have been more appropriate and accurate to have named this thread "I am an enemy of the abuse of words"? After all, you have claimed not to be on a side, but your choice of title immediately makes the reader see you as on a side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

We Never Know

No Slack
No, you are getting there. But remember there is a difference. There is science and there is scientism. They are not the same.
But some of those, who do understand science, don't understand when they do scientism. Yet others do understand the limit. You are the second kind.
What you are learning, is of limited usage and you can do with out it. But once you have learned it, you can spot when some humans imbue science with a value system, it can't do.

So what is the value of this? Well, as you, that is your problem. In general you are learning a corner of some aspects of social constructivism, namely that all knowledge is embedded in a social setting and you always look for the power, morality, utility and so on attached to the words.
Now this is maybe not Jim's point, but I think I get. It is a kind of idealism, namely to learn to see what is really about. That all that matters, is that it matters to humans. I.e. a better world and respect and love for humans and nature.

So where to start? Well, this is one place. To get some humans to understand that science is being misused for ideology. Remember again the difference between science and scientism. But of course it doesn't tackle dogmatic religion.
But scientism and dogmatic religion are the 2 sides of the same coin. In effect, they are about the same. To claim a knowledge, that is not there and then use it to judge humans with an authority, that is not there.

You speak of science and scientism, scientism and dogmatic religion.

What do you see in the differences of religion and creation? Or do you see them as the same since its seems you think religion period is dogmatic?.
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
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.

I can see what he's getting at with the point about "science degrees." Most of the time, discussions of this nature are typically "non-scientist vs. non-scientist," yet one non-scientist thinks they have a better understanding of science than the other non-scientist.

It's usually at that point that such discussions start to go downhill.

It usually happens when one non-scientist tells the other they're being "unscientific" or that they "know nothing about science." Then, if the other person asks why or where they're incorrect, the "pro-science" person plays the "if you don't know, I'm not going to tell you" card. The reason for this is that they're not actually scientists, they don't understand what they're talking about, and they're unable to elaborate or answer follow-up questions. Even though they claim to be "scientific" and that they're taking the side of science.

If an actual scientist wants to argue a view, that's one thing, but I think what the OP is getting at is having to contend with the "wannabes" who act as cheerleaders for science while not really understanding well enough to expound with more than a throwaway one-liner. These people add nothing to any discussion and only serve to create more animosity than is really necessary.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
I can see what he's getting at with the point about "science degrees." Most of the time, discussions of this nature are typically "non-scientist vs. non-scientist," yet one non-scientist thinks they have a better understanding of science than the other non-scientist.

It's usually at that point that such discussions start to go downhill.

It usually happens when one non-scientist tells the other they're being "unscientific" or that they "know nothing about science." Then, if the other person asks why or where they're incorrect, the "pro-science" person plays the "if you don't know, I'm not going to tell you" card. The reason for this is that they're not actually scientists, they don't understand what they're talking about, and they're unable to elaborate or answer follow-up questions. Even though they claim to be "scientific" and that they're taking the side of science.

If an actual scientist wants to argue a view, that's one thing, but I think what the OP is getting at is having to contend with the "wannabes" who act as cheerleaders for science while not really understanding well enough to expound with more than a throwaway one-liner. These people add nothing to any discussion and only serve to create more animosity than is really necessary.
I am an actual scientist and I know of at least four others on here that have described themselves as professional scientists. This group is usually involved in the discussion and as near as I can determine, we are included among those spouting scientism.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
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.
You’re getting warmer. :) I’ll say more about this later.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
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.
That’s a good point, and I think a very important one. I’ll say more about that later, too.

That post of yours was a very nice surprise!
 

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I am an actual scientist and I know of at least four others on here that have described themselves as professional scientists. This group is usually involved in the discussion and as near as I can determine, we are included among those spouting scientism.

I wasn't talking about scientism, per se.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

We Never Know

No Slack
That’s a good point, and I think a very important one. I’ll say more about that later, too.

That post of yours was a very nice surprise!

You do realize the Dan poster believes in the same god of the bible as you right? You two are more similar than opposite.
 

dfnj

Well-Known Member
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.” .

You might like this video:

 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim

Jim

Nets of Wonder
Wouldn't it have been more appropriate and accurate to have named this thread "I am an enemy of the abuse of words"? After all, you have claimed not to be on a side, but your choice of title immediately makes the reader see you as on a side.
It seemed like a good idea at the time. :D

I agree with everything you’ve been saying about the one-sidedness of it. Besides that, I derailed my own thread, because originally I didn’t mean for it to be denouncing anything. Originally it was just for people whose beliefs are being stigmatized as “unscientific,” to point out to them, if they didn’t know already, that all it means is that they are disagreeing with some misrepresentations of the views of some people with science degrees. I’m wondering now how many people here know all the history of what has happened from trusting the views of people with science degrees, about economic, social and political issues, and even about science.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
It seemed like a good idea at the time. :D

I agree with everything you’ve been saying about the one-sidedness of it. Besides that, I derailed my own thread, because originally I didn’t mean for it to be denouncing anything. Originally it was just for people whose beliefs are being stigmatized as “unscientific,” to point out to them, if they didn’t know already, that all it means is that they are disagreeing with some misrepresentations of the views of some people with science degrees. I’m wondering now how many people here know all the history of what has happened from trusting the views of people with science degrees, about economic, social and political issues, and even about science.
I think there have been some valid arguments that it is not just disagreeing with people who have science degrees. Though that may be what you mean specifically.

The other end of the spectrum is denying anything an expert says, simply because they are an expert. It is the same thing, but done a different way.

I had noticed that derailing, but I thought I would wait and see if it was part of something larger.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
Now this is maybe not Jim's point, but I think I get. It is a kind of idealism, namely to learn to see what is really about. That all that matters, is that it matters to humans. I.e. a better world and respect and love for humans and nature.
Yes. Yes. Yes.
 
Top