• 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

siti

Well-Known Member
@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?
No! And that is precisely why - if you read the comments in the threads I have directed your attention to - I frequently, if not always, suggest that people look up the research papers and other information for themselves to see whether what I said about it is true. It is true to say that I am able to understand some (at least) of the research papers better than a non-scientist would be able to - and I am - as a practicing scientist - better able to distinguish between 'scientific' and 'unscientific' claims. But I am certainly not saying that what I say is always true. But if you want to know how to build a house, would you consult anyone other than a professional builder? If you are ill, would you consult anyone other than a professional doctor? If you want legal advice, would you consult anyone other than a professional lawyer?

You started off this thread by making the thinly veiled suggestion that people who declared the beliefs of others 'unscientific' almost invariably did so without presenting genuine evidence in the form of research papers or referenced thereto...I have shown you that I have repeatedly done exactly that on numerous occasions...your premise is clearly wrong in my case - I am not arrogant enough to imagine that I know all the answers...but as a scientist, I do know where to find them and I have directed people's attention to that source of information repeatedly. Of course most times, the actual evidence is ignored in favour of diversionary tactics to distract attention from the failure of the premise by attacking the words or the character of the individual rather than the veracity of the argument.

Your claim:

((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!))
...is demonstrably false...it is rather, your argument that has no clothes.

I'm not going to waste any more time on this thread. I gave you multiple 'counter-examples' already, and all you have done is twist my words to make it sound like I am proclaiming my own knowledge. Nothing could be further from the truth...and if you had actually bothered to read the posts I gave you as examples, you would have seen that - and quite possibly learned something into the bargain.
 

Jim

Nets of Wonder
You started off this thread by making the thinly veiled suggestion that people who declared the beliefs of others 'unscientific' almost invariably did so without presenting genuine evidence in the form of research papers or referenced thereto...
False. That was not my point at all.
I have shown you that I have repeatedly done exactly that on numerous occasions...
Yes. I never doubted that in the first place.
I have directed people's attention to that source of information repeatedly.
Yes. I never doubted that.
Of course most times, the actual evidence is ignored in favour of diversionary tactics to distract attention from the failure of the premise by attacking the words or the character of the individual rather than the veracity of the argument.
Yes, I’ve seen that happening a lot, on all sides.
I'm not going to waste any more time on this thread.
Okay. I’m sorry if it was a waste of your time.
I gave you multiple 'counter-examples' already, and all you have done is twist my words to make it sound like I am proclaiming my own knowledge.
I was telling you how it looked to me, so you could correct me if I was wrong, which you’ve done now. Thank you.
... you would have seen that - and quite possibly learned something into the bargain.
I learned a lot from this discussion, and you helped me a lot with that.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
@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?
My version is closest to 1b.

I would limit the term scientific community to those actively doing research in some area of science using the scientific method. The main scientific journals are easy enough to find. Generally, the journals Science and Nature are good starting places to look. If you want physics, ho to Physical Reviews. If someone has published in one of those they definitely qualify as a scientist. Look for PhDs in relevant areas with a publication list in peer reviewed journals.

I'm not sure why you are finding this so difficult. Learn a bit of the basics and it is usually easy to tell the real expert from a hoaxer. The first college courses tend to be a good start.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
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.

IF the ToE were to be disproved, would that not
pretty much blow a smoking crater in all of the hard sciences?
 

siti

Well-Known Member
IF the ToE were to be disproved, would that not
pretty much blow a smoking crater in all of the hard sciences?
No - it would open up a new field of scientific investigation just as the demise of the geocentric model of the solar system and phlogiston theory did in earlier centuries. But there isn't really a "ToE" as such anyway, there are "ToE by..." models - evolution per se is not, as is often claimed, "only a theory", evolution is an observed fact (of everything) - if any of our understanding of how the universe works is correct, nothing above the atomic level is permanent, it is constantly in the process of 'shape shifting' into 'endless forms most beautiful' - that is evolution. What is still open to question is precisely what the natural processes that are involved consist of. If someone wants to believe that some supernatural force (or even being) has a hand in that at some point, well I can't disprove that...but if someone wants to deny that evolution happens, they're walking around with their eyes closed. Might just as well deny the existence of the moon as far as I am concerned.
 
Top