I’m a science denier, an enemy of science

[George-ananda]

What I’m denying is much more than what any calls “scientific.” I’m denying the validity, in public debating, of arguments from science and evidence.

I guess I'm not understanding.

Can you give me an example perhaps of a couple scientific things you are denying the validity of?

 

[Jim]

@Dan From Smithville I see now that I’ve been publicly depreciating science beliefs in a way that I would never do with any religious beliefs. I’m thinking now how to back away from that.

You said that it looks like I’m ignoring a larger issue. Long before I started this thread, I started two threads on the larger issues that I see:

How might people learn to love with the kind of love that the world needs?

Learning not to lump people together in belief groups and categories

This thread was for a specific purpose, for people whose beliefs are stigmatized as “unscientific” and who are called “science deniers” to see more clearly that those are nothing but virtue-signaling, bullying spitballs with nothing in or behind them that deserves the name of “science.” Then I went off on a tangent about science beliefs.

 

[Jim]

I guess I'm not understanding.

Can you give me an example perhaps of a couple scientific things you are denying the validity of?

I’m saying that whether or not something is “scientific,” or “evidence based,” has nothing to do with whether it’s true or not. I’m saying that everything that people think they know, that they call “science,” is just their own personal beliefs, believing what they want to, just like with any religious beliefs, only using the name of “science” as a virtue signal and a stamp of authority instead of the name of “God.”

This post might help:

post #108

 

[Jim]

Now I’ll be thinking about the language of science beliefs, and parallels between science beliefs and religious beliefs.

 

[Jim]

I’m thinking that some fruits of honest and responsible research are what gave the name of science the reputation that has been appropriated for virtue signaling and making spit-wads in middle-school spit-wad fights in Internet discussions.

The people that I see being bullied are not the ones who volunteer to be the clowns in dunking booths, like I do. The people that I see being bullied are the ones who never post about their beliefs because of the ways that they see them being stigmatized. I’m not imagining that anything I can do will change that overnight. I just think that what I’m saying in this thread might do some people some good. I went too far in what I was saying about science beliefs, and I might still be doing it. It might take some time for me to re-calibrate to my new view of what’s happening.

 

[Jim]

There are things that people think they know, that they call “science.” That’s what they mean by “science” when they call some beliefs “unscientific,” and when they call some people “science deniers.” I’m denying that science, everything that people think they know, that they call “science,” as a reason for believing or not believing anything. I’m an enemy of people calling what they think they know “science,” just like I’m an enemy of people calling what they think they know “what God says.”

 

[Jim]

In public debating, the words “science” and “evidence” are used as fighting words so much that even when they are not used that way, they contribute nothing to anyone’s understanding, and they help perpetuate and intensify scorn and contempt for all science, including the most beneficial kinds.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

@Dan From Smithville I see now that I’ve been publicly depreciating science beliefs in a way that I would never do with any religious beliefs. I’m thinking now how to back away from that.

You said that it looks like I’m ignoring a larger issue. Long before I started this thread, I started two threads on the larger issues that I see:

How might people learn to love with the kind of love that the world needs?

Learning not to lump people together in belief groups and categories

This thread was for a specific purpose, for people whose beliefs are stigmatized as “unscientific” and who are called “science deniers” to see more clearly that those are nothing but virtue-signaling, bullying spitballs with nothing in or behind them that deserves the name of “science.” Then I went off on a tangent about science beliefs.

Obviously, there are a number of larger issues, that vary in importance with context, I would say. In the particular case I was referring to, it was the hostile atmosphere that was created by a poster that was attacking aspects of science and other posters due to their own ideology, with observed and verified attempts at deceit. To me, in that thread, it seemed like a larger issue. It seems like a pretty large issue outside of any thread also.

 

[Jim]

Obviously, there are a number of larger issues, that vary in importance with context, I would say. In the particular case I was referring to, it was the hostile atmosphere that was created by a poster that was attacking aspects of science and other posters due to their own ideology, with observed and verified attempts at deceit. To me, in that thread, it seemed like a larger issue. It seems like a pretty large issue outside of any thread also.

I might be more concerned about that, if I thought anyone was taking it seriously, or if I thought it might discourage anyone from posting about their science beliefs. Do you think it might? All I see people doing on the Bible-as-history side is volunteering to be the clown in a dunking booth. Do you see any actual harm being done by that, other than defaming the name of science, and discouraging people who don’t agree with popular science from posting about their beliefs? If you’re talking more generally about poisoning Internet discussions, then I would agree that the OP author was doing that. Toxicity in Internet discussions is one of the issues that I’ve tried to discuss. Besides, I told that person more than once that I objected to what he was doing, so I was addressing that issue, in that thread.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Jim, as I explained before, and I will do so again: There is a method to science and there are rules for evidence. For one to make claims without evidence, they violate the rules of evidence. As they are not working within the method of science, they are definitely, by definition,unscientific.

Christians have a tenant against stealing. If one steals, it is completely fair to state that this person acted in an UnChristian manner; as they violated that tenant of Christianity.

Muslims have a tenant against homosexual behavior. If one engages in homosexual behavior, it is fair to state that this person acted in an Un-Muslim manner.

Both religions mentioned above have a belief in the existence of Jesus Christ. For one to state that Jesus Christ never existed, they are making a claim against the religions, and can thus be fairly stated that they are Anti-Christian or Anti-Islam.

There are rules to science. If you make a scientific claim without following those rules, then you are being Unscientific.

To bring myself back on topic, I’ll try to explain what I mean by saying that I’m a science denier. It doesn’t matter to me how many people with science degrees agree or disagree with some view, or who they are. It doesn’t matter to to me what any statement from any professional association says. It doesn’t matter to me how much or how little evidence anyone has for their views. None of that matters to me at all, In deciding what I think about any view. I’m poInting at the emperor, popular science, and saying that he’s wearing no clothes.

And this is patently unscientific, because science depends on evidence; so the attitude of "I don't care about evidence" is patently unscientific. I certainly don't understand why it bothers you for this word to be used in this context; because this statement clearly contradicts how science works, so this statement is, by definition, unscientific.

To give a specific example, it seems more likely to me now that all life on earth does not have a common ancestor.

And this is Anti-Scientific, because it contradicts all scientific evidence. It is also unscientific, because it discards evidence and replaces it with subjective impressions.

Now, if there is any such thing as a “science denier,” who would deny that I am one?

Not me, for one. You are a science denier.

What I don't understand is, under the definitions and examples I have provided you, why you would find that to be derogatory or insulting?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I might be more concerned about that, if I thought anyone was taking it seriously, or if I thought it might discourage anyone from posting about their science beliefs. Do you think it might? All I see people doing on the Bible-as-history side is volunteering to be the clown in a dunking booth. Do you see any actual harmf being done by that, other than defaming the name of science, and discouraging people who don’t agree with popular science from posting about their beliefs? If you’re talking more generally about poisoning Internet discussions, then I would agree that the OP author was doing that. Toxicity in Internet discussions is one of the issues that I’ve tried to discuss. Besides, I told that person more than once that I objected to what he was doing, so I was addressing that issue, in that thread.

From my experience, it is fairly common. It can be frustrating to other posters that are interested in a serious discussion. But the real problem is that others, unfamiliar with the issues, could be mislead or end up accepting obviously false statements. Yes, I would say it is the poisoning of the discussion and the potential to mislead others that is the biggest concern I have.

That is pretty good. I like that analogy about the dunking booth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I might be more concerned about that, if I thought anyone was taking it seriously, or if I thought it might discourage anyone from posting about their science beliefs. Do you think it might? All I see people doing on the Bible-as-history side is volunteering to be the clown in a dunking booth. Do you see any actual harmf being done by that, other than defaming the name of science, and discouraging people who don’t agree with popular science from posting about their beliefs? If you’re talking more generally about poisoning Internet discussions, then I would agree that the OP author was doing that. Toxicity in Internet discussions is one of the issues that I’ve tried to discuss. Besides, I told that person more than once that I objected to what he was doing, so I was addressing that issue, in that thread.

I suppose you did address that, but it was at a time that it was rather difficult to see which direction you were going and what you really wanted to discuss.

 

[Jim]

You are a science denier.

Good. Thank you.

What I don't understand is, under the definitions and examples I have provided you, why you would find that to be derogatory or insulting?

See this post.

 

[Desert Snake]

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.”

Agreed. It's speculative and nonsense.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

See this post.

Link doesn't work.

 

[Jim]

There is a method to science ...

Please describe that method to me.

... and there are rules for evidence.

Please tell me precisely what those rules are, in forum debating, and where they are stated as rules.

There are rules to science.

Where can I see a list of those rules?

 

[Jim]

Link doesn't work.

Sorry. Try this.

 

[Jim]

To give a specific example, it seems more likely to me now that all life on earth does not have a common ancestor.

And this is Anti-Scientific, because it contradicts all scientific evidence.

Can you give me an example of evidence that it contradicts?

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

I am not a scientist and my scientific education was denied to me by biblical literalists through years of parochial schooling; so most of what I know is self-taught. A tad bit of leniency is requested on your part.

Please describe that method to me.

I am doing this one from memory. Let's see how close I come when reviewed by those more scientifically literate (or by google lol)

1. Make an observation.
2. Ask a Question.
3. Conduct your Research.
4. Formulate an Hypothesis.
5. Conduct experiments. (There are rules here, too).
6. Record your results.
7. Revise your hypothesis as necessary (Step 4 again)
8. Submit your results for peer review.

(OOoh, so close! I'll now copy and paste from LiveScience)

1. Make an observation or observations.
2. Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
3. Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what's been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
4. Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
5. Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
6. Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. "Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method," Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. "The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility – no science."

In the parochial school, I was assigned the task of "Find evidence for Noah's Flood". This is totally unscientific. The conclusion was before premise. Hell, the conclusion was before the question! However, this is the bastardization of the method utilized by creationists, literalists, 911 conspiracy theorists, vaccine and climate change deniers, etc. etc. etc.

Please tell me precisely what those rules are, in forum debating, and where they are stated as rules.

Evidence must be independently verifiable and empirical..(I had to look for a little help on this one, heh heh)

Where can I see a list of those rules?

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia
Science & the Scientific Method: A Definition | Live Science

[On the latter, please notice the underpinnings and a very interesting description of what comprises a scientific theory).

Can you give me an example of evidence that it contradicts?

• Embryology; we are so very similar in the womb
• Genetics; the whole of it
• Paleontology; at its whole. There are the famous accidental finds; but most finds are actually predicted! (https://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/searching4Tik.html)
• Comparative morphology and taxonomic classification of organisms

Basically, denying that we share a common ancestor violates almost everything we know about the entire field and subfields of biology and those fields related to it.

 

[exchemist]

To me, if someone wants to be a creationist, that's no skin off me. Same for those who might tend to spout off that which is deemed "unscientific." I don't take any personal offense at it, although I get the sense that some people do. I do make an exception for the anti-vaxxers, only because they're potentially harming others with their belief against vaccinations. But if someone wants to believe in creationism over evolution, what's it to me? Why should anyone care?

Oh I quite agree. A creationist can believe what he likes - so long as he does not try to misteach science, which a lot of them do.

I'm just hoping that, one day, we will find out what Jim actually thinks, so we can put into perspective these frustratingly circumlocutory threads of his.