Audie
Veteran Member
I rated it useful because it bumped the thread.
Too bad you didnt know what to do with it.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I rated it useful because it bumped the thread.
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 hostilitiesThere is a responsibility of belief, one that is directly related to the duty that religious doctrines have to adjust and course-correct themselves.
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.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 mean by that. I’m denouncing some ways that I see people using the name of science.And yet you blame science for making the attempt?
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
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.
I’m glad to see you back on the job again. I was afraid you weren’t going to roast me any more.Too bad you didnt know what to do with it.
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.No, but you are attacking its most reliable and most necessary element in order to protect its most troubled and self-destructive parts.
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 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,
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 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.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 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 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.
... 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.
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.
None of that will actually change science for what it is.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 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.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 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.
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.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]
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.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.
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?"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.”
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.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.