Two kinds of science, polar opposites of each other

[Jim]

... to believe the Biblical account of creation as a literal fact is unscientific ...

Just for information, in case anyone is wondering, I don’t believe the Biblical account of creation as literal fact.

((I’d like to see if I understand what you mean by saying that it’s unscientific to believe it. Do you mean that it contradicts a consensus of the scientific community? Do you mean that it contradicts what you think about it, and anything that contradicts your views, based on the research in your field that you’ve seen, is unscientific? Do you mean that the reasons you’ve seen people giving for believing it are not scientific? What precisely do you mean by saying that it’s unscientific to believe it?))

 

[Audie]

Just for information, in case anyone is wondering, I don’t believe the Biblical account of creation as literal fact.

((I’d like to see if I understand what you mean by saying that it’s unscientific to believe it. Do you mean that it contradicts a consensus of the scientific community? Do you mean that it contradicts what you think about it, and anything that contradicts your views, based on the research in your field that you’ve seen, is unscientific? Do you mean that the reasons you’ve seen people giving for believing it are not scientific? What precisely do you mean by saying that it’s unscientific to believe it?))

Better, you figure out why it is "unscientific".

See if you can explain why.

 

[Jim]

Better, you figure out why it is "unscientific".

See if you can explain why.

((Some possibilities I see are that when people call something “unscientific,”
- They want to be popular with some people.
- They want to stigmatize or intimidate some people who believe it.
- They want people not to believe it even if they don’t understand the reasons for not believing it.
- It fortifies their feeling of being right.
- it’s an impulsive reaction we all have sometimes, when people are refusing to believe something that we just know is true, to try break the resistance with words that we think might break it.
- It’s to try to satisfy some other psychological or social need.))
(edit)((It helps them excuse and camouflage their prejudices against some people.
- They’re riding on a bandwagon of people saying that.))(/edit)

That reminds me of something I forgot to do.

 

[sooda]

((Some possibilities I see are that when people call something “unscientific,”
- They want to be popular with some people.
- They want to stigmatize or intimidate some people who believe it.
- They want people not to believe it even if they don’t understand the reasons for not believing it.
- It fortifies their feeling of being right.
- it’s an impulsive reaction we all have sometimes, when people are refusing to believe something that we just know is true, to try break the resistance with words that we think might break it.
- It’s to try to satisfy some other psychological or social need.))

That reminds me of something I forgot to do.

Facts are just facts... You're talking "agenda".

 

[Jim]

... there is no easy way to address that but to confront them with the scientific evidence - it rarely works, but I feel duty-bound to at least try.

((Have you ever seen it change anyone’s mind?))

 

[Polymath257]

Just for information, in case anyone is wondering, I don’t believe the Biblical account of creation as literal fact.

((I’d like to see if I understand what you mean by saying that it’s unscientific to believe it. Do you mean that it contradicts a consensus of the scientific community?

yes.

Do you mean that it contradicts what you think about it, and anything that contradicts your views, based on the research in your field that you’ve seen, is unscientific?

not usually my own research (since my research is in math)

Do you mean that the reasons you’ve seen people giving for believing it are not scientific?

Yes.

What precisely do you mean by saying that it’s unscientific to believe it?))

Answered.

 

[Audie]

((Some possibilities I see are that when people call something “unscientific,”
- They want to be popular with some people.
- They want to stigmatize or intimidate some people who believe it.
- They want people not to believe it even if they don’t understand the reasons for not believing it.
- It fortifies their feeling of being right.
- it’s an impulsive reaction we all have sometimes, when people are refusing to believe something that we just know is true, to try break the resistance with words that we think might break it.
- It’s to try to satisfy some other psychological or social need.))
(edit)((It helps them excuse and camouflage their prejudices against some people.
- They’re riding on a bandwagon of people saying that.))(/edit)

That reminds me of something I forgot to do.

That does help to explain something about you,
however little it says of others, or of science.

It says zero (0) about my questiontion to you.

 

[ChristineM]

@Audie @ChristineM @Polymath257 Here are some examples, from this thread, of the ways of thinking about science that I’m denouncing.

“... the scientists are the authorities.”

“... science has authority in certain matters.“

“... I am calling the consensus of working research scientists science.“

Science is about learning, not giving orders, not controlling

What matters has science got authority?

Of course scientists are scientists.

 

[sooda]

Just for information, in case anyone is wondering, I don’t believe the Biblical account of creation as literal fact.

((I’d like to see if I understand what you mean by saying that it’s unscientific to believe it. Do you mean that it contradicts a consensus of the scientific community? Do you mean that it contradicts what you think about it, and anything that contradicts your views, based on the research in your field that you’ve seen, is unscientific? Do you mean that the reasons you’ve seen people giving for believing it are not scientific? What precisely do you mean by saying that it’s unscientific to believe it?))

Actually that isn't what it means.. It means the creation story was borrowed from the Babylonians and adapted by the Jews during their exile in Babylon circa 560 BC. There's no argument against that.

 

[Jim]

Actually that isn't what it means.. It means the creation story was borrowed from the Babylonians and adapted by the Jews during their exile in Babylon circa 560 BC. There's no argument against that.

“Unscientific” means “borrowed from the Babylonians and adapted by the Jews during their exile in Babylon circa 560 BC”?

 

[sooda]

Science is about learning, not giving orders, not controlling

What matters has science got authority?

Of course scientists are scientists.

“Unscientific” means “borrowed from the Babylonians and adapted by the Jews during their exile in Babylon circa 560 BC”?

Before the Babylonian exile the Hebrews had no foundational myths .. no history.

Writing Genesis and Exodus gave them a history and identity.. Add the laws and rituals of Leviticus and Deuteronomy and they have set themselves apart from the people who lived around them.

 

[Jim]

That does help to explain something about you ...

Good. I was hoping that it would.

It says zero (0) about my questiontion to you.

((If the question is “Why is it unscientific to believe the Biblical account of creation as literal fact?” I think that my answers have everything to do with it. Those are all the possible reasons I can think of, for people calling it “unscientific,” besides the ones that were already given before you asked me that question. Would you like me to go back through the thread and make a list of all the reasons that people have given for calling something “unscientific”?

If you know of any other reasons for calling views “unscientific”, besides the ones that have already been mentioned, I hope you will post them some time.))

 

[Jim]

Before the Babylonian exile the Hebrews had no foundational myths .. no history.

Do you seriously believe that? No foundational myths? No history? Sources, please.

Writing Genesis and Exodus gave them a history and identity.. Add the laws and rituals of Leviticus and Deuteronomy and they have set themselves apart from the people who lived around them.

There might be a misunderstanding here. My question is not “Where did the Hebrews get their ideas for their stories?” My question is, what information are people communicating about a view, when they call it “unscientific”?

 

[sooda]

Do you seriously believe that? No foundational myths? No history? Sources, please.

There might be a misunderstanding here. My question is not “Where did the Hebrews get their ideas for their stories?” My question is, what information are people communicating about a view, when they call it “unscientific”?

They were an unaffiliated Bedouin tribe.. meaning they had no symbiotic relationship with any town or oasis. See Habiru or Apiru.

 

[Jim]

They were an unaffiliated Bedouin tribe.. meaning they had no symbiotic relationship with any town or oasis. See Habiru or Apiru.

((Do you have any other reasons for thinking that they had no foundational myths, no history, before the exile?

Do you know of any other reasons for people calling some views “unscientific,” besides the reasons already given in this thread?))

 

[sooda]

((Do you have any other reasons for thinking that they had no foundational myths, no history, before the exile?

Do you know of any other reasons for people calling some views “unscientific,” besides the reasons already given in this thread?))

Yes.. they were lawless, landless fringe of civilization bedu with a language of 300 words.

 

[Jim]

@siti Do you agree with all of @Polymath257 ’s answers to the questions I asked you? Do you have anything to add?

 

[Jim]

Yes.. they were lawless, landless fringe of civilization bedu with a language of 300 words.

Anything else? I’m still waiting to see your sources.

 

[sooda]

Anything else? I’m still waiting to see your sources.

Read up on the development of the Hebrew language.. and its VERY heavy reading. Should take you a couple of weeks.

 

[Jim]

Read up on the development of the Hebrew language.. and its VERY heavy reading. Should take you a couple of weeks.

Have you told me all the reasons you can think of, for thinking that the Hebrews had no foundational myths, no history, before the exile? Have you reviewed all the historical and archaeological knowledge available, about the Hebrews before the exile?