Two kinds of science, polar opposites of each other

[sooda]

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?

Yes. Hebrew is a canaanite language closely related to Phoenician language.

 

[Jim]

@Polymath257 Here are some definitions that I found for “consensus,” in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

Definition of consensus

1a: general agreement : UNANIMITY
b: the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned
2: group solidarity in sentiment and belief

Is one of those what you mean by “consensus” when you say “consensus of the scientific community”? How can I see for myself what the consensus of the scientific community is on some topic?

Also, what do you you mean by “the scientific community?” Does it include all the people all over the world who are called “scientists” by others? Does it include any others? How can I see for myself if a person is a member of the scientific community or not?

 

[Jim]

@siti Here’s how I’m understanding it now, your reasons for calling some view “unscientific.” It isn’t enough for people to know that it contradicts your understanding of what some research says. They also need to know that you are a scientist whose field makes you a person whose understanding of what the research says is always true. Am I understanding that correctly?

 

[Audie]

Good. I was hoping that it would.

((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.))

First off I should point out that as a matter of
semantics, "the flood" is a myth, a work of
literature, and as such cannot be scientific,
or unscientific any more than a violin or a
sonnet can be.

Now, when a person presents it as fact, a
historical reality, then science can be applied
to falsify /disprove divers concrete claims
that might be msde about said flood.

Of course, it seems most every reader has his
own version of the presumptivr facts presented
in the bible.

And of course too, if you wish to, it is always possible
to find base and ignoble motives for people's statements
about science, or anything else for that matter. Though
I don't know why you would care to.


ETA and btw- in no way does what you think about
made-up motives of others respond to my suggestion
that you thimk about why "noahs ark" is as you put
it, "unscientific".

 

[Audie]

@siti Here’s how I’m understanding it now, your reasons for calling some view “unscientific.” It isn’t enough for people to know that it contradicts your understanding of what some research says. They also need to know that you are a scientist whose field makes you a person whose understanding of what the research says is always true. Am I understanding that correctly?

See what I said about "ignoble" above, and then look to this
outlandish bit of totally uncalled for calumny from you.

 

[Jim]

And of course too, if you wish to, it is always possible to find base and ignoble motives for people's statements about science, or anything else for that matter. Though I don't know why you would care to.

Because that was my honest answer to your question, asking me to guess what “unscientific” means.

 

[Audie]

Because that was my honest answer to your question, asking me to guess what “unscientific” means.

I did not ask you to guess anything. I suggested you
think a bit.

Your "honest" guess, like your "always true"
ie "infallible" call say far more about you than
some might want to expose to public view.

In the event, it appears I have wasted my time
trying to explain why "unscientific" does not
even apply to the story.

 

[Jim]

See what I said about "ignoble" above, and then look to this outlandish bit of totally uncalled for calumny from you.

See this post.

I’m honestly trying to understand what @siti is telling me about his reasons for calling some views “unscientific.” I agree that “always true” is going too far.

 

[Jim]

Here’s an example of how to confront people with the evidence, without calling anyone’s views “scientific” or “unscientific.” You could say “Here’s some research that I think contradicts that, and here’s my understanding of what it says.”

I get what you are saying Jim, but I don't think it is desirable not to call a spade a spade in this case...especially for someone who is a scientist...I can speak with the authority of my profession - you presumably would not appreciate your doctor telling you, that based on the positive test results, he was pretty sure you had cancer but that you should feel free to disagree with him if you preferred to see it otherwise would you? Or telling you that your well-meaning faith-healing friend's suggestion that you should attend the service at the local Church on Sunday rather going for chemotherapy if you want to get well was an equally valid interpretation, and not at all an uninformed or un-medical opinion would you?

Here’s how I understand what you’re saying. You have a responsibility to do all you can to convince people that certain views are false. For that purpose, it isn’t enough for them to know your credentials and what you think the research says. You aren’t fulfilling your responsibility if you don’t say it in a way that stigmatizes people who don’t believe what you say. Am I understanding that correctly?

(edit)
Maybe a better way to say it is that to fulfill your responsibility, it isn’t isn’t enough to try to convince people that some views are false. You need to also try to discredit the sources?
(/edit)

 

[Audie]

See this post.

I’m honestly trying to understand what @siti is telling me about his reasons for calling some views “unscientific.” I agree that “always true” is going too far.

Maybe if you'd avoid making ill consideted and inflammatory
statements in the first place?

Concealing a vicious ibdictment of others' integrity
(see "infallible") ¡in a suficially mild and reasoned
manner, half-way retractions to follow or not,
is a practice you may want to discuss with such
spirit guide as you may have

If too, you would just look up what "scientific"
means, you'd find less occasion for your flights
of fantasy.

Let us know if any of us who speak for science
misuse the word-not, say, at one tenth the rate
that you misuse /misstate , but, at all.

Another topic for for self examination, as opposed
to making invidious and unfounded claims against
others.

 

[Jim]

Maybe if you'd avoid making ill consideted and inflammatory statements in the first place?

Good advice. Thanks for the reminder.

.,. a practice you may want to discuss with such spirit guide as you may have.

That’s what I’m doing now, discussing it with you.

If too, you would just look up what "scientific" means, you'd find less occasion for your flights of fantasy.

I did that a long time ago, before I ever said anything about it.

 

[Jim]

Let us know if any of us who speak for science misuse the word-not, say, at one tenth the rate that you misuse /misstate , bjt, at all.

Another topic for for self examination, as opposed to making invidious and unfounded claims against others.

You always know just
the right things to say
to light up my day.

 

[Audie]

Good advice. Thanks for the reminder.

That’s what I’m doing now, discussing it with you.

I did that a long time ago, before I ever said anything about it.

Reading or betimes thinking of something is very far
from internalizing it or puting it into action.

 

[Audie]

You always know just
the right things to say
to light up my day.

Try refraining from such insincerity,
and otherwise saying things you do not mean
or concoct out of thin air.

Just for a day, say. See if a fresh breeze
bloweth not thro' troubled mind.

 

[Jim]

Try refraining from such insincerity,
and otherwise saying things you do not mean
or concoct out of thin air.

Just for a day, say. See if a fresh breeze
bloweth not thro' troubled mind.

I see that it’s time for me to stop responding to your posts.

 

[Jim]

@Audie That doesn’t mean that I won’t be reading them, and it doesn’t mean that I have anything against you posting whatever you want to say.

 

[sooda]

@Polymath257 Here are some definitions that I found for “consensus,” in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

Is one of those what you mean by “consensus” when you say “consensus of the scientific community”? How can I see for myself what the consensus of the scientific community is on some topic?

Also, what do you you mean by “the scientific community?” Does it include all the people all over the world who are called “scientists” by others? Does it include any others? How can I see for myself if a person is a member of the scientific community or not?

If you had your masters in chemistry or geology or some other science discipline there exists a consensus among your peers.

Why are you still flogging this silly thread?

 

[Audie]

I see that it’s time for me to stop responding to your posts.

Avoidance v personal responsibility

 

[siti]

((I’m seeing some new possibilities in this discussion, for finding examples of what people are calling “science.”

What do you mean by speaking with the authority of your profession? Do you mean that everything that anyone in your profession says about anything that you consider part of your profession, is always true? What do you call your profession?))

I am a scientist by profession - i understand the difference between popular expositions and genuine peer-reviewed research...I also am able to read research papers and discern how and where the evidence it presents fits into the broader 'catalogue' of scientific knowledge...I am not saying this to 'blow my own trumpet' or to suggest that I know better than anyone else...I'm just saying that as a scientist, I have (feel) a responsibility to be at least somewhat familiar with the body of knowledge we sometimes call 'science'. I am certainly not saying that everything a scientist says is always true - that in itself would be a betrayal of the concept of 'science' anyway...the object of a scientist is never to find the 'true answer' but always to find a better explanation that the one we already have...and in that sense, if we really have a better explanation for the origins of our earth, universe, species...etc. that ancient religious traditions, we have a professional responsibility to say so. That's what I meant.

((What do you mean by current scientific understanding? Do you mean the same thing as what people call “scientific consensus?”))

That is an excellent question and the answer is yes, that is what I mean...which might make some of my other responses look odd...e.g. when I say "science is not a matter of opinion" - that is really not quite right - it IS a matter of opinion - just not individual opinion, but collective, peer-reviewed consensus opinion.

I hope that helps.

 

[siti]

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?))

I mean it is incompatible with the body of scientific knowledge that we have about the origins of the universe, the earth and the living things that exist on it. The biblical account of creation contradicts great swathes of scientific knowledge across the disciplines of cosmology, biology and geology - to believe it, is to deny the veracity of several centuries of scientific endeavour going back at least to Copernicus in the 16th century. That the universe is very, very old, that the earth has existed for billions of years and that the origin of the diversity of biological species is biological evolution are not matters of opinion. Whether or not God had a hand in any of that is a matter of conjecture - but to deny the entire body scientific evidence in favour of an ancient myth - that might even have been intended as symbolic in the first place anyway, is very definitely 'unscientific' - however you choose say it.