Two kinds of science, polar opposites of each other

[Jim]

I get what you are saying Jim ...

No, I don’t think you do.

(edit)If you would like to try to understand what I think my reasons are, let me know.(/edit)

 

[siti]

No, I don’t think you do.

Yes I do, you're asking people to explain how some of the silliest religious ideas - like Jesus walking with dinosaurs, or God creating bananas specially to fit the human hand or that Noah and his floating menagerie survived a global flood that has left not a single trace of genuine evidence in the geological record - are unscientific without saying they are unscientific.

You're asking us to pretend, for example, when someone declares that humans have only been on the earth for a few thousand years, that this is an opinion carrying equal validity as the scientific view based on literally millions of irrefutable, independent and very carefully investigated, scientific and archaeological discoveries that have been made in the last few hundred years that clearly debunk that preposterous idea and show beyond a shadow of doubt that our species has been around for hundreds of thousands of years and the earth for billions...why on earth should I do that? It is dishonest - not respectful.

I am all for showing respect for diverse opinions, but if someone believes that God made everything in the universe in less than a week 6000 years ago they are wrong - period!

 

[Jim]

You're asking us to pretend, for example, when someone declares that humans have only been on the earth for a few thousand years, that this is an opinion carrying equal validity ...

False.

I am all for showing respect for diverse opinions

My reasons have nothing to do with showing respect for diverse opinions.

If' you would like to try to understand what I think my reasons are, let me know.

 

[ChristineM]

Agreed. Nothing but a string of reckless statements. I’ll try again.

Sometimes when I see people denouncing a religion, its followers or its beliefs, it looks to me like they think that their arguments are what they call “scientific” and/or that the beliefs they’re denouncing are contradicted by what they call “science.” With one possible exception seven years ago, I haven’t seen any posts in these forums using a direct quote from reports by researchers of results of their research, as an argument against the beliefs they’re denouncing.

@Audie @A Vestigial Mote @Polymath257
@sayak83 @wandering peacefully @ChristineM
I would like to see some more recent examples of direct quotes, from reports by researchers, of results of their research, as arguments against what other people are saying. More recent than 2012, but before I started this thread.

As far as am concerned the definitions are definitive.

 

[Polymath257]

False.

My reasons have nothing to do with showing respect for diverse opinions.

If' you would like to try to understand what I think my reasons are, let me know.

I, for one, would like to know your motivation.

It seems to me that saying a non-scientific idea is not backed up by the science is perfectly reasonable. This goes double when pointers are made to the scientific literature to support that position.

So, are you at least satisfied that people in this forum do, in fact, use scientific articles to make arguments against the views of others (as your OP requested)?

 

[Jim]

... 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.

A few hours ago it dawned on me that you might actually have thought that I could be doing that. After thinking about it, I can understand you thinking that about me, but at first it really took me by surprise.

 

[Audie]

A few hours ago it dawned on me that you might actually have thought that I could be doing that. After thinking about it, I can understand you thinking that about me, but at first it really took me by surprise.

Did you say something other than that you like
science, but only as it conforms to your taste?

The noahs ark reference was not about you.

 

[Jim]

Did you say something other than that you like science, but only as it conforms to your taste?

I can live with that, as a description of what I think of science. I think I do remember saying something other than that, along with it.

The noahs ark reference was not about you.

Oh. Okay then.

 

[Jim]

@siti Sorry, I might understand better now the reasons for what you’ve been saying. I’m still opposed to calling any views “scientific” or “unscientific,” but I’m not objecting to denouncing bible-as-true-history campaigns. For example I might say something like “willful ignorance,” and “dishonest and irresponsible career advancement.”

 

[Jim]

I, for one, would like to know your motivation.

More than one motivation. My original motivation for starting this thread was to point out that where people are opposing something they call “science” against something they call “religion,” the emperor has no clothes.

One reason that I’m saying now that I’m opposed to calling any views “scientific” or unscientific,” is that those words don’t actually communicate anything to most people, other than a false stamp of authority on some views and stigmatizing people who disagree. In fact I think that is the only reason for people using those words in public discussions. I think that everyone actually knows that, but they are telling themselves that the end justifies the means. That might be true if the purpose is to feel superior and be popular with some people, but if the purpose is to educate people, or to promote honest and responsible research, then I think that calling some views “scientific” and others “ unscientific.” is contrary to those purposes. Besides that, it reinforces prejudices on all sides, which I think is inexcusably irresponsible in a world where prejudices, especially religious prejudices, are causing so much grief and threatening to blow up the world.

So, are you at least satisfied that people in this forum do, in fact, use scientific articles to make arguments against the views of others (as your OP requested)?

What I was asking for was not scientific articles. What I was asking for was direct quotes, copied and pasted into a post from reports of research results, written by the people who did the research, as arguments against some people’s beliefs. I’m satisfied that there might have been an example of that seven years ago, and possibly another one more recently. I’m also satisfied that my point has been made, for anyone who might benefit from it.

 

[Polymath257]

More than one motivation. My original motivation for starting this thread was to point out that where people are opposing something they call “science” against something they call “religion,” the emperor has no clothes.

One reason that I’m saying now that I’m opposed to calling any views “scientific” or unscientific,” is that those words don’t actually communicate anything to most people, other than a false stamp of authority on some views and stigmatizing people who disagree.

And I disagree that it is a 'false stamp of authority'. In fact, it is a *true* stamp of authority because the scientists are the authorities.

And yes, those views that are unscientific should be recognized as such. In particular, those who promote their ideas as scientific for political gain when, in fact, the consensus of the scientific community disagrees with them, should be called out for their mendacity. This is the case, for example, of many creationist 'authorities' based in the Discovery Institute.

 

[Jim]

And I disagree that it is a 'false stamp of authority'. In fact, it is a *true* stamp of authority because the scientists are the authorities.

And yes, those views that are unscientific should be recognized as such. In particular, those who promote their ideas as scientific for political gain when, in fact, the consensus of the scientific community disagrees with them, should be called out for their mendacity. This is the case, for example, of many creationist 'authorities' based in the Discovery Institute.

((Save it for your echo chamber. Oh. That’s who it’s for. Sorry.))

 

[Jim]

I had no idea that I would be walking into the middle of a Bible-as-true-history spit-wad fight.

 

[Polymath257]

((Save it for your echo chamber. Oh. That’s who it’s for. Sorry.))

Sorry if you don't like that science has authority in certain matters.

 

[Jim]

And I disagree that it is a 'false stamp of authority'. In fact, it is a *true* stamp of authority because the scientists are the authorities.

And yes, those views that are unscientific should be recognized as such. In particular, those who promote their ideas as scientific for political gain when, in fact, the consensus of the scientific community disagrees with them, should be called out for their mendacity. This is the case, for example, of many creationist 'authorities' based in the Discovery Institute.

((It stretches my imagination to think that a person who is pretending to be educated and informed could seriously be saying “the scientists are the authorities” and equating “consensus of the scientific community” with truth. If none of the other people in this discussion who are pretending to be educated and informed see anything wrong with that, maybe that will finally convince me that this is nothing but a fantasy roleplaying game.))

 

[Jim]

Sorry if you don't like that science has authority in certain matters.

I want to be sure that I’m understanding you correctly. Are you calling the opinions of some scientists “science”?

 

[Polymath257]

((It stretches my imagination to think that a person who is pretending to be educated and informed could seriously be saying “the scientists are the authorities” and equating “consensus of the scientific community” with truth. If none of the other people in this discussion who are pretending to be educated and informed see anything wrong with that, maybe that will finally convince me that this is nothing but a fantasy roleplaying game.))

I'm not saying it is Truth (with a capital T), but it is the best approximation we have at this point. The ability (and requirement) to test all ideas is what makes science authoritative.

 

[Polymath257]

I want to be sure that I’m understanding you correctly. Are you calling the opinions of some scientists “science”?

No, I am calling the consensus of working research scientists science.

 

[Jim]

No, I am calling the consensus of working research scientists science.

Thank you. That’s good enough for my purposes.

 

[Jim]

Sorry if you don't like that science has authority in certain matters.

You’re claiming an authority for science that no honest and responsible research would ever claim for itself, by definition.