How good is science as a religion?

[TagliatelliMonster]

"Everything" is subject to further testing except today most "science" is purchased by the rich and powerful to further their aims. All science is experiment and today there is little experiment occurring.

It is simply human nature to not investigate, think about, or devise experiments to test the obvious. So assumptions across the board get very little attention.

I love how on the one had you claim that in science assumptions are just accepted without reason and that nobody is repeating experiments and instead just taking scientist's word for it at face value....
While at the same time complaining about the process of peer review as if it is a bad thing.


The irony is strong in this one...............

 

[cladking]

Scientists want to uncover what is actually true. Scientists want to follow the evidence.

Real scientists want to believe what's real or true. but if this thread has proven anything it has proven most of the science supporters will believe what they are told to believe.

Science does not. Science moves where the evidence points to. Wherever that my lead.

But science never proves anything remember? Science leads but those who believe in science get there first and are the holiest of all thous. Real scientists aren't 100% sure of anything at all and they know everything they believe is dependent on axioms and definitions. Most believers around here only know science is right and their models are perfect because they read it in a book.

Capitalism has nothing to do with morality.

The same people who are capitalists are also believers in science and religion. You can not separate beliefs within an individual. Almost every capitalist who destroys companies, products, widows, and orphans believes in 'survival ogf the fittest". It is irrelevant what they believe in when they destroy things to get wealthy.

My point is that AS A SPECIES we believe in survival of the fittest and that as a species we waste and destroy more than we create. We are destroying ourselves and the planet ever confident the strong will prosper.

There is nothing moral or immoral in making a bundle if you sell a product and have a lot of success.

This is not how people get rich now. We sue, we destroy, and we counterfeit. We cheapen and and remove value. We accumulate and we acquire.

This is just empty meaningless rhetoric that is neither here nor there.

Believers have an answer for everything. They know everything about everything because they think "theory" is always the final answer.

Real scientists know better but we're not talking about real scientists or real metaphysicians, we're talking about believers in science.

 

[cladking]

Peer review only exist because no scientist's claims are taken at face value.

I don't know how to break this to you. All thought, All knowledge, and all science is individual. All life is individual. All ideas are individual. No committee nor group of Peers has ever had even the simplest thought or idea. None has ever been born or died and their opinions are irrelevant to how reality works just as they are irrelevant to the very nature of theory or experimental results.

Peer review is simply irrelevant to even the opinion of "peers" because 'peers" don't have opinions, only individuals have opinion. Individual peers each have their own models for everything and each model is flawed when compared to the reality disclosed by experiment that created these many disparate models. People believe in "Peers" just as they believe in rabbits, stinky footed bumpkins, and science.

One doesn't do "blind trust" in science. So you don't trust another's results, tests, conclusions.

But you trust the opinion of Peers!!!!

This is why science works. It's built from the ground up to remove human bias.

No!!!

Science works because reality is disclosed in experiment. Even if only one scientist understands an experiment it can still be determinative of reality.

 

[cladking]

I love how on the one had you claim that in science assumptions are just accepted without reason and that nobody is repeating experiments and instead just taking scientist's word for it at face value....
While at the same time complaining about the process of peer review as if it is a bad thing.


The irony is strong in this one...............

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Of course there are assumptions necessary to every experiment. There are definitions and axioms that must apply.

What you don't see to understand is that there is such a thing as "bad" definitions that make things harder to see or harder to accommodate. There are assumptions that are simply wrong. While axiom are true by definition we must remember that anything derived from these axioms is still dependent on them.

I have no problem with "peer review" however I have a huge problem with believers accepting "Peer opinion without thought or analysis. I have a problem with "Peers" who have no clue what assumptions and definitions they accepted without test. I have a problem with those who think "Peer reviewed" and "Truth" are synonyms. I have a problem with those who just skip over evidence and anomalies because they don't fit with their estimation of "Peer" opinion. I have a problem with believers who don't understand how science works, what science is, and how theory evolves from experiment alone.

 

[cladking]

I have a problem with Peers who refuse to release the results of experiments just because it shows they are wrong. I have a problem with Peers who ask for only the opinion of Peers who are not experts in the field in which their opinion is required. I have a problem with Peers more concerned about their standing in the field than with truth or reality. I have a problem with a world wed to a status quo that works against the many and for the few.

 

[cladking]

I have a problem with a status quo that says you can take and take and take and always have more.

 

[joelr]

Because single causal claims of complex culture can be done differently if you accept complex explanations.
Religion is either simple as in the end supernatural or complex as a part of human behavior.

The poster I'm talking to believes it's supernatural.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Real scientists want to believe what's real or true. but if this thread has proven anything it has proven most of the science supporters will believe what they are told to believe.

Empty rhetoric that is neither here nor there.

But science never proves anything remember?

So? Did I say otherwise?

Science leads but those who believe in science get there first and are the holiest of all thous.
Real scientists aren't 100% sure of anything at all and they know everything they believe is dependent on axioms and definitions. Most believers around here only know science is right and their models are perfect because they read it in a book..

More empty rhetoric.
Do you have anything real on point to say, or is this vague empty rhetoric all that you have?

The same people who are capitalists are also believers in science and religion.

And I bet they drink coffee too. So what?
What does any of that have to do with capitalism having nothing to do with morality?

You can not separate beliefs within an individual.

Capitalism isn't a belief either.

Almost every capitalist who destroys companies, products, widows, and orphans believes in 'survival ogf the fittest". It is irrelevant what they believe in when they destroy things to get wealthy.

And we're back to the vague empty rhetoric

My point is that AS A SPECIES we believe in survival of the fittest

We actually don't. The evidence of that is, among many other things, that we have hospitals.
If we would collectively "believe" in "survival of the fittest", we wouldn't bother with keeping the "weak" (in the broadest sense) alive and healthy.

"Survival of the fittest" is just how nature works.
Evolution theory is descriptive of the processs that biological entities are subject to. Not prescriptive in how we should organize society.

This is not how people get rich now.

Yes, it is.
The vast majority of people who became rich, have done so by being succesfull in what they do.
Selling software, operating a distribution platform, selling cars, selling clothes, selling real-estate, construction, farming,....

We sue, we destroy, and we counterfeit. We cheapen and and remove value. We accumulate and we acquire.

More empty rhetoric.

Believers have an answer for everything. They know everything about everything because they think "theory" is always the final answer.

And more vague empty rhetoric.
No substance whatsoever.

Always about mysterious "they". Who?
Always about the mysterious "beliefs". About what?

Real scientists know better but we're not talking about real scientists or real metaphysicians, we're talking about believers in science.

What is a "believer" in science?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't know how to break this to you. All thought, All knowledge, and all science is individual. All life is individual. All ideas are individual. No committee nor group of Peers has ever had even the simplest thought or idea. None has ever been born or died and their opinions are irrelevant to how reality works just as they are irrelevant to the very nature of theory or experimental results.

Peer review is simply irrelevant to even the opinion of "peers" because 'peers" don't have opinions, only individuals have opinion. Individual peers each have their own models for everything and each model is flawed when compared to the reality disclosed by experiment that created these many disparate models. People believe in "Peers" just as they believe in rabbits, stinky footed bumpkins, and science.

Sounds like you didn't comprehend a word I said.

I can only repeat myself....

Peer review exists, because scientists aren't simply believed at face value.

Let's illustrate because clearly you don't understand.

Say that I am a scientist and I study phenomenon X and try to explain it.
I do some research and I come up with a hypothesis. This hypothesis requires testing.
I establish the testable predictions of the hypothesis and set up an experiment to test those predictions.
I conduct the experiment, analyze the results and conclude that they support the hypothesis.
I write a paper about it, detailing the problem, the proposed hypothesis, the predictions it makes, the experiment design, the results thereof and end with my conclusion.

In your opinion, should my paper "just" be accepted as accurate and of good quality?
Or would it be better if other people who aren't affiliated with me or my team, and who have the proper qualifications, to review my paper in all aspects:
- does the hypothesis actually address the problem I'm tackling?
- do the predictions actually flow from the hypothesis?
- is the experiment design appropriate? Are there any issues which would impact the results?
- are the reported results in proper form? Can they be reproduced?
- is my proposed conclusion appropriate given the results of the experiment?


Which paper would YOU feel more comfortable with?
The one who was NOT reviewed by a bunch of other, unaffiliated, scientists?
Or the one that wasn't reviewed by anyone at all?

But you trust the opinion of Peers!!!!

No. I trust the expertise of professionals and the scientific process.
The trust in both is justified by a very good track record.

When one deviates from that tried and tested process of inquiry, like for example papers that haven't been reviewed by anyone, is when my trust fades.

No!!!

Yes.

It is the reason why even you will feel more comfortable with papers that have been reviewed by a bunch of people with no stake in it as opposed to papers that haven't been reviewed by anyone.

Science works because reality is disclosed in experiment.

Your experiment can be flawed.
This is why others review your work and try and repeat your results.
The more people that do this (ie: actively try to find holes in your experiment / model / paper) and fail, the more trustworthy your paper / model / experiment becomes.

You seem to be seriously confusing the process of science with the individual scientist.

Just why do you think that there is such a thing as the formalized scientific method?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

I know. And that seems to be the root of the problem.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have a problem with Peers who refuse to release the results of experiments just because it shows they are wrong. I have a problem with Peers who ask for only the opinion of Peers who are not experts in the field in which their opinion is required. I have a problem with Peers more concerned about their standing in the field than with truth or reality. I have a problem with a world wed to a status quo that works against the many and for the few.

Empty meaningless, vague rhetoric again.

You seem to be trying to insinuate as if such is the "standard practice" in science.
You give no evidence of this at all.

Just empty rhetoric and nothing else.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The poster I'm talking to believes it's supernatural.

Yes, and I don't believe it is that or that is natural.

 

[joelr]

That doesn't go against what I wrote.

Seems like it does?

"The Greek deities all had their own "jurisdiction", which in not the case with either Judaism nor Christianity nor Islam. Prometheus was a creator-god, whereas Zeus was the top honcho."

Well Originally it looks like El was the chief God and probably the creator and he gave Yahweh Israel.
If you don't want to compare Yahweh to Zeus a more apt comparison is Inana who was the first creator God and the deeds, sayings and powers of Inana are very similar to Yahweh. Except Inana was thousands of years older.
Enheduanna the first author writes about Inana. OT Hebrew professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou writes about the comparisons in her latest book, God, An Anatomy.
Yahweh is a deity who takes after the Sumerian - Mesopotamian line of Gods. Different from classical Greek religions. Hellenism was the late Greek theology which influenced most of the religions in the Middle East around 3 BCE - 1AD.

“Christianity is not a Jewish religion, it’s a Hellenistic religion.”


“Jesus is of Jewish ethnicity but is telling the story of a Hellenistic deity”

1:57

Carl A. P. Ruck (born December 8, 1935, Bridgeport, Connecticut), is a professor in the Classical Studies department at Boston University. He received his B.A. at Yale University, his M.A. at the University of Michigan, and a Ph.D. at Harvard University.

BTW, did you by chance read the summer edition of BAR that deals with the "Cult of YHWH" as it developed in the southern Arabian Peninsula and then brought north by Jewish traders? It pretty much goes along with what you posted above.

No but I have seen an article talking about that. The Edomites, the Midianites and the Moabites may have worshipped some form of Yahweh as a metallurgical deity? Needs more evidence.

https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology...w-theory/0000017f-dc86-d3ff-a7ff-fda6aa390000

 

[joelr]

Yes, and I don't believe it is that or that is natural.

Maybe you need some Existentialism.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Maybe you need some Existentialism.

There is no objective referent for the word "exist". It is an idea just like God.

 

[joelr]

There is no objective referent for the word "exist". It is an idea just like God.

Good to know.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Good to know.

You are in effect a product like all other humans including me of for you a subculture even within Western culture. And as all humans you have words you take for granted as part of your subculture. That is also for me and no, you are not better or worse than me or so in reverse. We just do it differently. BTW that can be observed when looking at human behavior and that includes our posts here.
Ain't social science great. You can use science on you and me and not just the rest of the world.

 

[metis]

Seems like it does?

"The Greek deities all had their own "jurisdiction", which in not the case with either Judaism nor Christianity nor Islam. Prometheus was a creator-god, whereas Zeus was the top honcho."

Well Originally it looks like El was the chief God and probably the creator and he gave Yahweh Israel.
If you don't want to compare Yahweh to Zeus a more apt comparison is Inana who was the first creator God and the deeds, sayings and powers of Inana are very similar to Yahweh. Except Inana was thousands of years older.
Enheduanna the first author writes about Inana. OT Hebrew professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou writes about the comparisons in her latest book, God, An Anatomy.
Yahweh is a deity who takes after the Sumerian - Mesopotamian line of Gods. Different from classical Greek religions. Hellenism was the late Greek theology which influenced most of the religions in the Middle East around 3 BCE - 1AD.

“Christianity is not a Jewish religion, it’s a Hellenistic religion.”


“Jesus is of Jewish ethnicity but is telling the story of a Hellenistic deity”

1:57

Carl A. P. Ruck (born December 8, 1935, Bridgeport, Connecticut), is a professor in the Classical Studies department at Boston University. He received his B.A. at Yale University, his M.A. at the University of Michigan, and a Ph.D. at Harvard University.




No but I have seen an article talking about that. The Edomites, the Midianites and the Moabites may have worshipped some form of Yahweh as a metallurgical deity? Needs more evidence.

https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology...w-theory/0000017f-dc86-d3ff-a7ff-fda6aa390000

Certainly, there are some comparisons, such as the beliefs in heaven and hell, both of which do not show up in the Tanakh. But the ancient Greeks were polytheistic, and no serious student of theology would confuse that with the monotheism of Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.

 

[metis]

Well Originally it looks like El was the chief God and probably the creator and he gave Yahweh Israel.

Nope, it's YHWH, as Elohim came later.

 

[cladking]

Empty rhetoric that is neither here nor there.

Like most believers you have the remarkable ability to miss every argument that doesn't agree with your assumptions.

What is a "believer" in science?

I've defined this for you a dozen times including multiple times in the posts you actually quote. "Believers" take a fine and noble think like the scientific method and its results and subvert it into a belief system. Believers extrapolate and interpolate experimental results into omniscience. There are no gaps in knowledge to believers and no doubt about how and why reality exists. They are the holiest of all thous. And then AS ALREADY STATED IN THIS VERY POST, they can't even see arguments to the contrary.