1. 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!

Two kinds of science, polar opposites of each other

Discussion in 'General Debates' started by Jim, Jun 6, 2019.

  1. Jim

    Jim Nets of Wonder

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    3,647
    Ratings:
    +1,319
    Religion:
    learning to follow Baha'u'llah
    ((There are many things that people call “science.” One that I’ll be discussing here is honest and responsible research and reporting the results. That’s the kind of science that I love, and the kind of science that gave science its reputation. Another is media and faction stories about reports of research, and pronouncements of professional associations. The first meaning is the one that people will cite to defend their use of the word “science,” but in forum debating that is never what anyone actually means when they call what they’re saying “science” or “scientific.” In forum debates, when people call what they’re saying “science” or “scientific,” they only ever mean the second kind of science, media and faction stories about research reports, and pronouncements of professional associations. Anyone who disagrees with that, please show me some counter examples.

    Look! The emperor has no clothes!))
     
    #1 Jim, Jun 6, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2019
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. Amanaki

    Amanaki Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2018
    Messages:
    4,352
    Ratings:
    +2,310
    Religion:
    Cultivator of Buddha Dhamma
    Science is a very very big topic and it goes from science of life to costructions and how to do something with machines. But all of them are research and calculation then result.
    I do not have a very big grasp of the science and how it works so i am sure my thoght of it is wrong but that does not mean all forms of science is bad or ill-willed for us humans ( Not often i support the science community but i think they do a lot of good too)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. qaz

    qaz Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2017
    Messages:
    120
    Ratings:
    +31
    ganghi allegedly said that "in democracy no fact of life is untouched by politics". well, it includes science. most people can't give an actual meaning to scientific discoveries such as the black hole imaging... at the same time they can't ignore them. therefore they are bound to force them into their everyday political narrative, as you see for example in the katie bouman case. seeing common people genuinely interested in science is very rare.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    11,450
    Ratings:
    +10,896
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    Well, the basic problem is that real science is technical, detailed, and tends to use a lot of math. Most people don't have the time or energy to learn the math, let alone all the details and technicalities. In fact, going through that learning process is a big part of the training to be a real scientist. And, unfortunately, that training only works for one field. If you go through the training to be a physicist, you won't have the time to go through the training to be a biologist (even though there is some overlap).

    So, we have a specialized population of people that have gone through this training. But policy decisions have to be made by people who have *not* gone through that training. And the general public, while 'interested', wants to avoid all that training because they have other things to think about.

    So, we have 'science writers' who have often (not always) gone through some of the basic training, but don't have the details and the technicalities (or, often even the math). They are, in essence, journalists that attempt to communicate ideas to the public. The problem is that the journalists, themselves, don't *really* understand these ideas. They are communicating a poorly understood set of ideas to people who want to know even less: they want the end result, not the details.

    And, of course, to make the story interesting, these journalists have to 'play up the controversy' and make things seem more unusual than they actually are. They are selling the *story*, not the science.

    And, of course, there are also many 'science writers' who really don't understand much about what they are writing. These give poor descriptions and cater to those who don't want to believe the science. SO, politics enters in and we get those who want things one way when the science says they are another. And, for the general public, who has little training, figuring our who the 'experts' are is, in and of itself, a job that requires more thought than they want to do. So they 'go with their gut' and the result is bad policy all around.
     
    • Like Like x 5
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    3,898
    Ratings:
    +2,472
    Religion:
    ?
    I would interject that the people most often (and by that, a VAST MAJORITY) using your second definition of "science" are theists. People using scientific findings to battle against the bald assertions of theists, mostly as far as I have seen, do not tend to call upon that second definition very much at all.

    Theists use that second definition of science to try and discredit it's future invocation against their theistic arguments... much like you seem to be preparing for with your OP.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  6. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    12,370
    Ratings:
    +5,899
    Religion:
    None
    The best science writer I know of is John McPhee, who
    while not a geologist, writes so well and engagingly of
    it that one geologist I know said it is a shame he is not
    commissioned to write the college texts.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  7. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    3,898
    Ratings:
    +2,472
    Religion:
    ?
    Seriously now... did you not just blanket-state in this (and in other threads, I noticed) that people invoking "science" or "scientific information" within a debate forum are always appealing to "media and faction stories about research reports?"

    This is exactly like The Bible telling people that they'll know they are right when everyone starts telling them they are wrong. Pathetic. "My views can't be assailed by science because I already told everyone that they are using science incorrectly." That's basically the place you are trying to get to. Evidence is evidence. That you and many, many others have none as sufficient as findings within science for whatever outlandish views you may hold is not anyone's problem but your own.
     
    #7 A Vestigial Mote, Jun 6, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2019
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    12,370
    Ratings:
    +5,899
    Religion:
    None
    We all like our OP fellow but I for one get
    my antenna up when a person explains that
    he "loves" science. The more so when they
    go on to divide it up into good v bad science.

    From there we go on to that good science
    supports noahs ark, etc.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  9. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    12,370
    Ratings:
    +5,899
    Religion:
    None
    The two are not polar opposites. Totally false dichotomy.
    Non professional reporting ranges from shallow stupid
    and mostly wrong, to better written and more understandable
    than the original. You are making shades of grey into night
    and day, and it is not there.

    Media and faction stories? What is that? Faction?

    As for professional associations, like what?
    The American Chemical Society, say?

    They do not do "pronouncements" and your suggestion
    that professional associations are to be classed with
    blurbs on Yahoo as unreliable is nothing but garbage.
    IF that is what you are saying. clarify svp. (not the
    Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists, another group
    not into phony pronouncements)
     
    #9 Audie, Jun 6, 2019
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2019
    • Like Like x 3
    • Winner Winner x 1
  10. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    3,898
    Ratings:
    +2,472
    Religion:
    ?
    And I also have a counter-example, as requested.

    Endogenous Retroviruses as they relate to evidence for common-descent.

    If you're unfamiliar, I would suggest looking up information, as it is fascinating and eye-opening.

    And the reason this works as a counter-example is that I have never once heard this talked of in "the media" or as any part of "faction [one-sided] stories about research reports." I learned about this through forum posts by people who were using it as evidence of evolution and common-descent when pressed by creationists for such evidence - which it most definitely IS. I don't know that any media outlet has done stories on this subject, but again, that doesn't matter, because when I saw it invoked it was not being done by proxy of coverage from some media story, it was done pointing to the actual research and findings.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. Jim

    Jim Nets of Wonder

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    3,647
    Ratings:
    +1,319
    Religion:
    learning to follow Baha'u'llah
    Examples, please, of people calling what they say “science” or “scientific,” quoting directly from honest and responsible reporting of honest and responsible research, written by the people who did the research.
     
  12. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    11,450
    Ratings:
    +10,896
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    You won't find journalistic reporting done by the researchers. That almost never happens.

    On the other hand, I have seen reports by members of RF that directly refer to the research articles along with links to said articles.

    And, yes, contrary to your claims, the results of scientific research *can* be used in arguments when the facts they uncover are relevant for the discussion.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. A Vestigial Mote

    A Vestigial Mote Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2015
    Messages:
    3,898
    Ratings:
    +2,472
    Religion:
    ?
    This was apparently posted before I provided JUST SUCH AN EXAMPLE.

    If you want, I'll even find some relevant forum posts where exactly what you're denying exists is being used - links to and descriptions of the actual, unbiased scientific findings and reports.

    Your idea is dead in the water. You just need to own up to it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  14. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    12,370
    Ratings:
    +5,899
    Religion:
    None
    When I make a statement about science, I do not
    as a habit put in foornotes or direct quotes from
    research papers.

    HOWEVER, I can always (always) back up what I say,
    with as honest and reliable a source as anyone but
    a fundy could ask for.

    Any suggestion that I cannot, or that anyone else
    here speaking for science v religious prattle cannot
    do that, is false and invidious.

    If you like dichotomy and challenge, lets see
    any theist back up their god-claims with what
    was it, honest and responsible reporting of honest and responsible research
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    12,370
    Ratings:
    +5,899
    Religion:
    None
    It would be well if our friend would do a bit of
    thinking first, next time he wants to post something.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Polymath257

    Polymath257 Think & Care
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2017
    Messages:
    11,450
    Ratings:
    +10,896
    Religion:
    Non-theist
    I'm also not sure why the 'pronouncements of professional organizations' are problematic. They represent the scholarly consensus at the time regarding the state of research. That seems to be a good source of information.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  17. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    12,370
    Ratings:
    +5,899
    Religion:
    None
    I doubt our hero has ever even seen such a thing as one
    of these so called pronouncements in a professional journal.
    This whole thread is about a fantasy.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. Jim

    Jim Nets of Wonder

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    3,647
    Ratings:
    +1,319
    Religion:
    learning to follow Baha'u'llah
    It might take a few rounds of this, for people to understand what I’m asking for. I’m asking for links to posts that were made before I started this thread, where people were calling what they were saying against other people’s beliefs “science” or “scientific,” where what they were calling “science” was direct quotes from results of honest and responsible research, as reported by the people who did the research.
     
  19. Jim

    Jim Nets of Wonder

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2004
    Messages:
    3,647
    Ratings:
    +1,319
    Religion:
    learning to follow Baha'u'llah
    Please provide links to some posts that were made before I started this thread, where people were calling what they were saying against other people’s beliefs “science” or “scientific,” where what they were calling “science” was direct quotes from results of honest and responsible research, as reported by the people who did the research.
     
  20. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    12,370
    Ratings:
    +5,899
    Religion:
    None
    What you are asking for does not take
    a lot to understand. Quit acting like it
    is something subtle and beyond our capacity
    to grasp.

    What difference does it even make
    anyway?

    As noted, I do not just say things, nor
    do others here, such as subzie or poly
    or some others.

    As long as I / we can on request provide
    all the back up, why do you think we have
    to elabourately quote or footnote?

    Often, I dont even remember the source for
    what I say. AND, you guys can go look it
    up for yourselves, for heaven's sake!!!

    99 plus percent of the time, it is a total waste
    to cite a source, We get back "bias" or, "paradigm"
    or "yeah, well, there are others who say differently"
    or "I trust god".

    When are you going to provide an honest source
    for this nonsense about the "opposite" science
    in "pronouncements" of professional journals.

    Never, is my guess.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
Loading...