Facts vs evidence

[Augustus]

Michael Servetus, Antoine Lavoisier, Giordano Bruno

Someone killed for denying the trinity which has nothing to do with being a scientist.

Someone killed by the French Revolutionary government.

A mystic killed for denying the virgin birth etc.

Not seeing many martyrs for science here.

Darwin

Not persecuted

Copernicus

Not only was he not persecuted, his book on heliocentrism was published by a bishop and dedicated to the pope.

Ernst Cohen was killed by the Nazis

So nothing to do with religion

Galileo

The only one people can name, and even with him a large part of the problem was him calling the pope a simpleton while breaking both his word and an injunction.

He could even have taught heliocentrism if he had been more tactful.

 

[Augustus]

As I noted in the paragraph you edited out,
people who've even dabbled in science

So no one can name any people killed for their science, and we also know that not many peasants and serfs were dabbling in science (or proto-science if you prefer).

Similarly phony is your switch to "lots'
of people. I said "who knows". It's more then nine.
Perhaps you know? Its not lots apparently.
So tell us.

Saying "no telling how many" commonly implies you expect the answer to be significant, but if you accept it might have been a very, very small number then fair enough.

Why assume it's more than 9 if you can't give any examples though?

Seeing as no one seems able to give even a single example, I'll assume it's not many until someone offers evidence to the contrary, that's how things usually work.

The names of famous scientists who were
persecuted by just the christian religionists
are well known and were readily supplied by others
before I had a chance to.

So you were also going to also post a list of people not persecuted for science, not persecuted at all, or killed by Nazis or French Revolutionaries?

That would have been a fun coincidence.

The point was that people assume there are lots and "everyone knows this", then when asked to name anyone persecuted the list tends to stop at "Galileo".

I thought a lot better of you before that
invidious and totally uncalled for response.

I asked if you could name anyone killed for science, and pointed out those who seem to assume there were lots never seem able to name any. If you find that "invidious and uncalled for" then it's up to you. If you think correcting common myths is uncalled for, you share something in common with the fundies after all.

I missed out the witchcraft stuff, not for "invidious" reasons, but because I couldn't be bothered to point out that folk belief in black magic (and magic in general) is ubiquitous to pre-modern human society and very common in modern society too.

It is completely unconnected with any specific religion, and has very little to do with "proto-science" either.

Abrahamic religions are probably responsible for significant declines in such folk belief in black magic given the Church position for most of its history has been that such things don't exist.

In the Renaissance era when witch hunts were at their peak and a few hundred people were killed each year in the whole of Europe, it again had nothing to do with "proto-science".

There are many people who have been killed by religious authorities for many reasons, I've yet to see anyone who was killed specifically for science/proto-science.

 

[Audie]

So no one can name any people killed for their science, and we also know that not many peasants and serfs were dabbling in science (or proto-science if you prefer).



Saying "no telling how many" commonly implies you expect the answer to be significant, but if you accept it might have been a very, very small number then fair enough.

Why assume it's more than 9 if you can't give any examples though?

Seeing as no one seems able to give even a single example, I'll assume it's not many until someone offers evidence to the contrary, that's how things usually work.



So you were also going to also post a list of people not persecuted for science, not persecuted at all, or killed by Nazis or French Revolutionaries?

That would have been a fun coincidence.

The point was that people assume there are lots and "everyone knows this", then when asked to name anyone persecuted the list tends to stop at "Galileo".



I asked if you could name anyone killed for science, and pointed out those who seem to assume there were lots never seem able to name any. If you find that "invidious and uncalled for" then it's up to you. If you think correcting common myths is uncalled for, you share something in common with the fundies after all.

I missed out the witchcraft stuff, not for "invidious" reasons, but because I couldn't be bothered to point out that folk belief in black magic (and magic in general) is ubiquitous to pre-modern human society and very common in modern society too.

It is completely unconnected with any specific religion, and has very little to do with "proto-science" either.

Abrahamic religions are probably responsible for significant declines in such folk belief in black magic given the Church position for most of its history has been that such things don't exist.

In the Renaissance era when witch hunts were at their peak and a few hundred people were killed each year in the whole of Europe, it again had nothing to do with "proto-science".

There are many people who have been killed by religious authorities for many reasons, I've yet to see anyone who was killed specifically for science/proto-science.

Responding to @Dan From Smithville you say "it's not many"
but now it's not any.


Whatevs.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Yet it's those abstractions formulated within the human mind that become our reality, and our truth. That define and generate every fact and conclusion that we will ever presume to know to be so.

Yes. I think that's what I said, so I don't understand your use of the word "yet."

Our reality is all within the theater of the consciousness. We imagine a world outside of it and make mental maps of what we think it looks like, which is generally that it is what it looks like, as if the sphere of consciousness were a giant spherical window, but as I explained, that need not be the case. We get a similar illusion playing a racecar video game, as if when we turn the steering wheel, the car we are looking at goes right or left, when the reality is that there is no car - just digital bits. Still, we play as if we were driving an actual car with wheels on a road outdoors, and the model works, so it's a keeper however different from the underlying reality of the video game it actually is.

 

[Augustus]

To @Dan From Smithville it's not many, to me it's not any.

Whatevs.

“Not seeing many martyrs for science here” = there are none here.

Same as in your posts

 

[Audie]

Yes. I think that's what I said, so I don't understand your use of the word "yet."

Our reality is all within the theater of the consciousness. We imagine a world outside of it and make mental maps of what we think it looks like, which is generally that it is what it looks like, as if the sphere of consciousness were a giant spherical window, but as I explained, that need not be the case. We get a similar illusion playing a racecar video game, as if when we turn the steering wheel, the car we are looking at goes right or left, when the reality is that there is no car - just digital bits. Still, we play as if we were driving an actual car with wheels on a road outdoors, and the model works, so it's a keeper however different from the underlying reality of the video game it actually is.

Just translate "our" or "we" to "my" and "me".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

In part because science ignores the philosophy of ethics.

No it doesn't.

And there was no other entity but religion doing so. And it's still true today.

If you can call some of the historical actions of religions and the religious ethical, be my guest. I wouldn't.

The problem is not religion. The problem is that we have allowed the amorality of science and capitalism to run amok while completely ignoring ethical philosophy. Leaving ancient superstitious religions to be the only entities even considering it. It's long past time that we stop whining about religion and start a serious modern investigation into ethical philosophy and social responsibility.

The problem is people that love the smell of their own brand and see scientism everywhere when it is hardly anywhere. For some, no one can present a scientific argument, defend science or practice it without being accused of scientism.

The problem is that people use anything to promote their own bias. Just less of it happens with science than in religions.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Someone killed for denying the trinity which has nothing to do with being a scientist.

Someone killed by the French Revolutionary government.

A mystic killed for denying the virgin birth etc.

Not seeing many martyrs for science here.


Not persecuted


Not only was he not persecuted, his book on heliocentrism was published by a bishop and dedicated to the pope.



So nothing to do with religion


The only one people can name, and even with him a large part of the problem was him calling the pope a simpleton while breaking both his word and an injunction.

He could even have taught heliocentrism if he had been more tactful.

This was just off the top of my head. I have little doubt you would find some reason to fault any list I came up with.

The point is that the religious have a history of killing or persecuting anyone that differs from the predominant view of religion. It may be diluted these days, but it is still there.

Come on. Darwin is still being persecuted and he has been dead for 130 years.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Responding to @Dan From Smithville you say "it's not many"
but now it's not any.


Whatevs.

Typical moving goal posts.

 

[YoursTrue]

Someone killed for denying the trinity which has nothing to do with being a scientist.

Someone killed by the French Revolutionary government.

A mystic killed for denying the virgin birth etc.

Not seeing many martyrs for science here.


Not persecuted


Not only was he not persecuted, his book on heliocentrism was published by a bishop and dedicated to the pope.



So nothing to do with religion


The only one people can name, and even with him a large part of the problem was him calling the pope a simpleton while breaking both his word and an injunction.

He could even have taught heliocentrism if he had been more tactful.

Yes, ain't that the truth.

 

[YoursTrue]

So no one can name any people killed for their science, and we also know that not many peasants and serfs were dabbling in science (or proto-science if you prefer).



Saying "no telling how many" commonly implies you expect the answer to be significant, but if you accept it might have been a very, very small number then fair enough.

Why assume it's more than 9 if you can't give any examples though?

Seeing as no one seems able to give even a single example, I'll assume it's not many until someone offers evidence to the contrary, that's how things usually work.



So you were also going to also post a list of people not persecuted for science, not persecuted at all, or killed by Nazis or French Revolutionaries?

That would have been a fun coincidence.

The point was that people assume there are lots and "everyone knows this", then when asked to name anyone persecuted the list tends to stop at "Galileo".



I asked if you could name anyone killed for science, and pointed out those who seem to assume there were lots never seem able to name any. If you find that "invidious and uncalled for" then it's up to you. If you think correcting common myths is uncalled for, you share something in common with the fundies after all.

I missed out the witchcraft stuff, not for "invidious" reasons, but because I couldn't be bothered to point out that folk belief in black magic (and magic in general) is ubiquitous to pre-modern human society and very common in modern society too.

It is completely unconnected with any specific religion, and has very little to do with "proto-science" either.

Abrahamic religions are probably responsible for significant declines in such folk belief in black magic given the Church position for most of its history has been that such things don't exist.

In the Renaissance era when witch hunts were at their peak and a few hundred people were killed each year in the whole of Europe, it again had nothing to do with "proto-science".

There are many people who have been killed by religious authorities for many reasons, I've yet to see anyone who was killed specifically for science/proto-science.

Offhand I don't know any scientist killed particularly for his scientific endeavors, maybe there are some, but I do know that scientists can disagree with one another and not lightly. Even though they're scientists in the same field. Some scientists have been persecuted and put down by other scientists. For their science viewpoints. Now I'm not putting Hawking down, but I am reading one of his books and I must say that his ideas aren't really "adding up" to me. He did write the book, however, not for scientists but to express his ideas to the general public. He did attempt to explain Einstein's view of e=mc2 and I'm still pondering over it. Maybe one day I'll understand it.

 

[Audie]

Typical moving goal posts.

I didn't count. That one was enough, I didn't bother
reading further.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

“Not seeing many martyrs for science here” = there are none here.

Same as in your posts

I saw them.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I was implying what I said.
There are plenty of things that come out of science that are opinions and not facts.
There are plenty of things that come out of history that are opinions and not facts.

The opinions of scientists about the subjects of science are educated and qualified opinions, if you must call them opinions. They are not claims without basis or support. The same with history. Science produces a lot of facts. That is one of the benefits of science.

 

[Augustus]

The point is that the religious have a history of killing or persecuting anyone that differs from the predominant view of religion. It may be diluted these days, but it is still there.

That wasn't the point.

Yes it is easy to find Christian, Muslims, Jews, Pagans, Hindus, Marxists, Nazis, etc who persecuted people for holding the wrong religious views, the point in question was about religious people persecuting people for science/proto-science.

People commonly assume there must be lots because "everyone knows religion is totally, like, anti-science and all that" but the fact remains no one can ever name any of them beside Galileo (and even that is far from straightforward).

Come on. Darwin is still being persecuted and he has been dead for 130 years.

Darwin is dead, you can't "persecute" dead people.

This reflects the common mistake though, people look at modern US-style fundies and assume they are representative of "religionists" throughout history rather than being something quite modern and unusual.

I'm more than happy to agree modern US fundies are often anti-science though, no quibbles there.

But historically speaking, all of the diatribes about how backward and anti-science religion have to start by explaining why the church was the biggest funder of scientific activities, scientific education and text preservation, and why religious clerics are significantly overrepresented in the history of scientific advances.

Of course there are complexities and negatives, but it's largely pointless to even try to discuss these rationally when the start point in some comic book version of the conflict thesis. After all "everyone knows religion is totally, like, anti-science and all that" (which is what I thought too until I actually looked at the evidence).

I find it interesting to ask people if they can name any people who were killed or persecuted and see if the fact they can't name more than 1 historical figure makes them question their initial assumption about it being common (99% of the time it doesn't, the response is "even if I can't name any, everyone knows there are lots because everyone knows religion is totally, like, anti-science and all that".

Typical moving goal posts.

Classic RF where someone fails to understand what words actually mean in context, even when corrected and it it is explicitly spelled out, then claims they have noticed a fallacy.

Try reading better.

I saw them.

Then you were hallucinating.

 

[Augustus]

I didn't count. That one was enough, I didn't bother
reading further.

Given there weren't any listed, which one did you count as a martyr to religious repression of science?

The one killed by the French Revolutionaries for tax avoidance perhaps? The one killed for his scientific views on the leading scientific field of Christology?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No it doesn't.

If you can call some of the historical actions of religions and the religious ethical, be my guest. I wouldn't.

The problem is people that love the smell of their own brand and see scientism everywhere when it is hardly anywhere. For some, no one can present a scientific argument, defend science or practice it without being accused of scientism.

The problem is that people use anything to promote their own bias. Just less of it happens with science than in religions.

Yeah, I get you. But there is the other side.
This is one example and there are other ones.
"
Logic
¶
All thinking is a process of identification and integration. Man perceives a blob of color; by integrating the evidence of his sight and his touch, he learns to identify it as a solid object; he learns to identify the object as a table; he learns that the table is made of wood; he learns that the wood consists of cells, that the cells consist of molecules, that the molecules consist of atoms. All through this process, the work of his mind consists of answers to a single question: What is it? His means to establish the truth of his answers is logic, and logic rests on the axiom that existence exists. Logic is the art of non-contradictory identification. A contradiction cannot exist. An atom is itself, and so is the universe; neither can contradict its own identity; nor can a part contradict the whole. No concept man forms is valid unless he integrates it without contradiction into the total sum of his knowledge. To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality. —Ayn Rand Lexicon "

That is one version of truth and some people then combine that with science as a form of truth and claim in effect objective is better than subjective and they have truth for that with evidence(science). The problem is that "better" is subjective.

This is not really about science. It is about what science can't do and some people claim it can do:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

 

[Augustus]

Offhand I don't know any scientist killed particularly for his scientific endeavors, maybe there are some, but I do know that scientists can disagree with one another and not lightly. Even though they're scientists in the same field. Some scientists have been persecuted and put down by other scientists. For their science viewpoints. Now I'm not putting Hawking down, but I am reading one of his books and I must say that his ideas aren't really "adding up" to me. He did write the book, however, not for scientists but to express his ideas to the general public. He did attempt to explain Einstein's view of e=mc2 and I'm still pondering over it. Maybe one day I'll understand it.

I don't rule out that there could be some, as with anything I'm open to evidence on the issue.

It's just for many people (as this thread illustrates), their absolute unshakeable confidence that there are numerous examples is completely unaffected by their inability to name a single one of them.

As you note, scientists and other academics are prone to squabbles, often quite bitter and no doubt some of those have used whatever institutional power they have access to.

Richard Owen springs to mind as a particularly mean spirited example:

Richard Owen - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Altfish]

It seems to me that when a scientist or a scientifically minded person asks "what is the evidence that supports your claim?", what they are really asking is "what facts support your claim?"

I think it may help resolve our debates on whether such things as alleged witness testimonies of the Bible constitute "evidence", because whilst a testimony could be factual or fabricated it may be considered "evidence" from a purely legal perspective, the legal perspective considers there to be "false evidence".

From wikipedia;
'False evidence, fabricated evidence, forged evidence, fake evidence or tainted evidence is information created or obtained illegally in order to sway the verdict in a court case.'

Source: False evidence - Wikipedia.

By comparison i would argue there is no such thing as a false fact, only things believed justifiably or unjustifiably to be fact.

So I think it would help to separate witness testimony which could be considered admissible in a court as evidence whether false or true from fact and instead ask the question, "what facts support your claim" in the place of "what evidence supports your claim" so as not to invite the potentially false evidence of testimony being presented as valid where I think it can be argued that it is not such as with regard to supernatural or miracle claims.

Your thoughts?

In my mind, evidence has to be sufficient that it would stand up in court, under cross-examination.
Facts are 'bits' of evidence that help support the hypothesis.

 

[PureX]

Yes. I think that's what I said, so I don't understand your use of the word "yet."

Our reality is all within the theater of the consciousness. We imagine a world outside of it and make mental maps of what we think it looks like, which is generally that it is what it looks like, as if the sphere of consciousness were a giant spherical window, but as I explained, that need not be the case. We get a similar illusion playing a racecar video game, as if when we turn the steering wheel, the car we are looking at goes right or left, when the reality is that there is no car - just digital bits. Still, we play as if we were driving an actual car with wheels on a road outdoors, and the model works, so it's a keeper however different from the underlying reality of the video game it actually is.

All I see is you admitting that this IS the case, and that it is an inescapable condition. Which renders philosophical materialism and it's worship of "objective reality" logically incoherent.