The Popular Science Faith

[TheBannerofHomuraAkemi]

(edited to add the following)
What I mean by "popular science" is media and faction interpretations of research reports, that people cite as proof of what they think about religion and social issues.
(end edit)

It substitutes the word “science” in the place of “God,” and reports of academic and industry research in the place of scriptures. In debates between followers of religions and followers of the Popular Science Faith, just like religious believers, Popular Science believers consider their scriptures as incontestable proof of their views. Just like religious believers, Popular Science believers mostly never actually read their scriptures, and instead rely on others (journalists and identity factions) to tell them what their scriptures say. Just like religious believers, Popular Science believers act like the presumed infallibility of their scriptures (reports of research) makes them infallible.

No offense, but you come off as someone who doesn't understand science so therefore God etc. Science isn't a religion. It's just knowledge.

 

[sayak83]

Part of what I'm thinking is that in public debates about religion and social issues, what people are doing when they cite research reports as proof of what they think, is exactly the same, psychologically and socially, as what people are doing when they cite their scriptures as proof of what they think. Most of what people are saying on all sides is just singing along with their faction's bouncing ball, and citing as incontestable proof some writings that they never actually read, relying on others to tell them what the writings say. The writings of scripture-infallibility factions are cherry-picked religious scriptures, with the presumed authority of a falsely imagined God behind them, and the writings of science-infallibility factions are cherry-picked reports of research, with the presumed authority of a falsely imagined science behind them, but the psychological and social dynamics are exactly the same. I see exactly the same attitudes and behavior on all sides. For example, people on the scripture-infallibility side accuse their adversaries of being enemies of God, and people on the science-infallibility side accuse their adversaries of being enemies of science. I see all the allegations of all factions against the others, about bad attitudes and behavior, as happening just as much in their own factions, including ignoring, denying and excusing it when it's in their own faction.

Can you cite an example?

 

[Shad]

Part of what I'm thinking is that in public debates about religion and social issues, what people are doing when they cite research reports as proof of what they think, is exactly the same, psychologically and socially, as what people are doing when they cite their scriptures as proof of what they think. Most of what people are saying on all sides is just singing along with their faction's bouncing ball, and citing as incontestable proof some writings that they never actually read, relying on others to tell them what the writings say. The writings of scripture-infallibility factions are cherry-picked religious scriptures, with the presumed authority of a falsely imagined God behind them, and the writings of science-infallibility factions are cherry-picked reports of research, with the presumed authority of a falsely imagined science behind them, but the psychological and social dynamics are exactly the same. I see exactly the same attitudes and behavior on all sides. For example, people on the scripture-infallibility side accuse their adversaries of being enemies of God, and people on the science-infallibility side accuse their adversaries of being enemies of science. I see all the allegations of all factions against the others, about bad attitudes and behavior, as happening just as much in their own factions, including ignoring, denying and excusing it when it's in their own faction.

Humans are prone to certainty/absolute fallacies which can be found in many belief systems. If this is what you mean I agree.

 

[HonestJoe]

I'm talking about people citing media and faction interpretations of research reports as proof of what they think about religion and social issues.

You’re not really talking about science specifically then, not even about “popular science” as your defined it. This is just the much more general issue of how people gather and use information in normal day-to-day life, including in casual socio-political discussions.

I can’t help suspecting you’re trying to present it as a problem specific to “science” as a justification for dismissing actual legitimate scientific conclusions you don’t like. I hope that’s not the case but I can’t see any other reason for raising this in the manner you did.

 

[David T]

(edited to add the following)
What I mean by "popular science" is media and faction interpretations of research reports, that people cite as proof of what they think about religion and social issues.
(end edit)

It substitutes the word “science” in the place of “God,” and reports of academic and industry research in the place of scriptures. In debates between followers of religions and followers of the Popular Science Faith, just like religious believers, Popular Science believers consider their scriptures as incontestable proof of their views. Just like religious believers, Popular Science believers mostly never actually read their scriptures, and instead rely on others (journalists and identity factions) to tell them what their scriptures say. Just like religious believers, Popular Science believers act like the presumed infallibility of their scriptures (reports of research) makes them infallible.

My degree was called the queen of sciences or theology. So we have sciences manifesting up through religion and what you point out has a long tradition.. Smart folks being idiotic is normal look at the nicene creed.

 

[viole]

I'm talking about people citing media and faction interpretations of research reports as proof of what they think about religion and social issues.

Well, a little part of me tells me that denying religion by using science is like using an H bomb to kill a mosquito. A ltlle bit of logic would be enough.

Although, I admit to do that sometimes. Especially, when I feel lazy.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Quintessence]

@sayak83 - you stole my thunder! Haha!

From my experience, there's often quite a difference between how scientists regard science and how the general public regards science. There's diversity within these demographics too, of course. A good scientist acknowledges and understands that the sciences are descriptive, not prescriptive. The general public often does not, which leads to interpreting the sciences in ways that are dogmatic or dogma-like. Both groups may use the sciences as a central anchor for their mythic narratives or worldview. In those cases, the sciences have a distinctly religious (or "spiritual" or "philosophical" if you prefer) function and role. Because there is a prevailing narrative in Western culture that pits sciences and religions as opposing each other, folks will often fail to acknowledge those connections or relationships. It is what it is, I suppose.

 

[QuestioningMind]

I'm talking about people citing media and faction interpretations of research reports as proof of what they think about religion and social issues.

Please cite an example of what you consider to be a 'media and faction interpretation of research reports'.

 

[sealchan]

(edited to add the following)
What I mean by "popular science" is media and faction interpretations of research reports, that people cite as proof of what they think about religion and social issues.
(end edit)

It substitutes the word “science” in the place of “God,” and reports of academic and industry research in the place of scriptures. In debates between followers of religions and followers of the Popular Science Faith, just like religious believers, Popular Science believers consider their scriptures as incontestable proof of their views. Just like religious believers, Popular Science believers mostly never actually read their scriptures, and instead rely on others (journalists and identity factions) to tell them what their scriptures say. Just like religious believers, Popular Science believers act like the presumed infallibility of their scriptures (reports of research) makes them infallible.

But unlike religious believers, the popular scientists make new things which change how people understand the Universe, enable them to experience more of that Universe, provide technologies (period), and provide advances that change the quality and character of human existence.

And unlike popular scientists, most religious believers think what someone said two thousand years ago can be assumed to be true today, that if that 2000 year old perspective conflicts with other 2000 year old or older perspectives that the 2000 year old perspective they like is automatically correct and that that condition of truth cannot change no matter how many people have experienced it otherwise.

 

[sealchan]

Part of what I'm thinking is that in public debates about religion and social issues, what people are doing when they cite research reports as proof of what they think, is exactly the same, psychologically and socially, as what people are doing when they cite their scriptures as proof of what they think. Most of what people are saying on all sides is just singing along with their faction's bouncing ball, and citing as incontestable proof some writings that they never actually read, relying on others to tell them what the writings say. The writings of scripture-infallibility factions are cherry-picked religious scriptures, with the presumed authority of a falsely imagined God behind them, and the writings of science-infallibility factions are cherry-picked reports of research, with the presumed authority of a falsely imagined science behind them, but the psychological and social dynamics are exactly the same. I see exactly the same attitudes and behavior on all sides. For example, people on the scripture-infallibility side accuse their adversaries of being enemies of God, and people on the science-infallibility side accuse their adversaries of being enemies of science. I see all the allegations of all factions against the others, about bad attitudes and behavior, as happening just as much in their own factions, including ignoring, denying and excusing it when it's in their own faction.

Sure there are these overlaps but what you don't include is essential. All scientific truths have to be documented, experimentally verified and tested and pass through a peer review process of some sort. In religions it is a subjective truth applied by an individual in order to achieve a sense of meaning. If the individual gives in to a religious authority then even that subjective truth is lost in favor of tribal containment. Most truths in religion become dogma and are not subject to change nor to the experience of the individual. In science the experience of the individual is reproducible through careful specification. In religion the experience of the individual is very difficult to reproduce although it is there.

Plus scientists make money while most of the faithful obtain their quality of life and meaning from their beliefs and the pursuits thereof.

Maybe if we looked at religion as a whole and not any particular religion we could see that the evolution of religious practice shows a diversity and development more like scientific knowledge.

 

[sealchan]

Yes, I think that one can better compare the whole of all religions to science than a particular religion to science. A particular religion is more like a particular science with a particular paradigm and that science or paradigm doesn't want to shift or participate in the broader community of science. Also a religion like Hinduism which provides a language for understanding any religion might better be compared to science as a whole as it can better incorporate the methods and interests of religion as a whole.

 

[Jose Fly]

Can you cite an example?

I agree. So far @Jim has just posted vague accusations against unidentified groups. Specific examples of what he's complaining about would be most helpful.

 

[exchemist]

Part of what I'm thinking is that in public debates about religion and social issues, what people are doing when they cite research reports as proof of what they think, is exactly the same, psychologically and socially, as what people are doing when they cite their scriptures as proof of what they think. Most of what people are saying on all sides is just singing along with their faction's bouncing ball, and citing as incontestable proof some writings that they never actually read, relying on others to tell them what the writings say. The writings of scripture-infallibility factions are cherry-picked religious scriptures, with the presumed authority of a falsely imagined God behind them, and the writings of science-infallibility factions are cherry-picked reports of research, with the presumed authority of a falsely imagined science behind them, but the psychological and social dynamics are exactly the same. I see exactly the same attitudes and behavior on all sides. For example, people on the scripture-infallibility side accuse their adversaries of being enemies of God, and people on the science-infallibility side accuse their adversaries of being enemies of science. I see all the allegations of all factions against the others, about bad attitudes and behavior, as happening just as much in their own factions, including ignoring, denying and excusing it when it's in their own faction.

I'm struggling to think why a science perspective would be relevant to a public debate on religion. Religion is out of scope for science. Can you give an example?

On social issues, then yes there may be science findings to consider in developing public policy, though again perhaps an example would help. Drugs?

Remember in all this that the media are not looking to present a reasoned debate. What they almost invariably want is blood on the studio floor. So they will deliberately choose the most opinionated and intemperate extremists they can find, in the hope that they will knock lumps out of each other. (In fact, the juiciest media moments are when this strategy backfires and both representative agree, much to the chagrin of the interviewer. I love it when that happens. )

 

[ChristineM]

(edited to add the following)
What I mean by "popular science" is media and faction interpretations of research reports, that people cite as proof of what they think about religion and social issues.
(end edit)

It substitutes the word “science” in the place of “God,” and reports of academic and industry research in the place of scriptures. In debates between followers of religions and followers of the Popular Science Faith, just like religious believers, Popular Science believers consider their scriptures as incontestable proof of their views. Just like religious believers, Popular Science believers mostly never actually read their scriptures, and instead rely on others (journalists and identity factions) to tell them what their scriptures say. Just like religious believers, Popular Science believers act like the presumed infallibility of their scriptures (reports of research) makes them infallible.

Difference between religion and science is that religion is static while science is self modifying as new knowledge is gained.

And please dont make statements as though you know as fact about a group of people you clearly have little understanding about.

 

[ChristineM]

One that does not understand the sciences can never refute them.

Edit: I had to correct the strangest autocorrect error that I have seen here. It was almost correct. Somehow the above post was changed to:

One that does not understand the sciences can underwrite them.

Weird.

Thats what i have to live with all the time with autocorrect turned off, at least you spotted the error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thats what i have to live with all the time with autocorrect turned off, at least you spotted the error.

I am tempted to turn it off myself. Sometimes the "corrections" are even more extreme. Earlier today it insisted that Betulah (a Hebrew word) was Gerbils.

 

[ChristineM]

I am tempted to turn it off myself. Sometimes the "corrections" are even more extreme. Earlier today it insisted that Betulah (a Hebrew word) was Gerbils.

Being dyslexic often do not see the "intelligent" autocorrect has totally messed up my prose and words of wisdom