Science, why we should believe it?

[Gjallarhorn]

People are also often lousy practitioners of religion. It's a good thing that all the scientism thralls realize that and are thus gracious toward religion and forgiving toward religious people.

...oh wait.

Scientism is not science. It is a belief, not a method.

 

[Student of X]

Scientism is not science. It is a belief, not a method.

Right. Scientism is the beliefs of the people practicing science. And like you said, the problem is with the people using it.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Right. Scientism is the beliefs of the people practicing science. And like you said, the problem is with the people using it.

Are all scientists advocates of scientism?

 

[Revoltingest]

People are also often lousy practitioners of religion. It's a good thing that all the scientism thralls realize that and are thus gracious toward religion and forgiving toward religious people.
...oh wait.

Well, there is a difference.
Science is useful, but you need to know math.
Religion is wacky, but you can make up whatever you want.

 

[Student of X]

Well, there is a difference.
Science is useful, but you need to know math.
Religion is wacky, but you can make up whatever you want.

That's your opinion. Do you realize that?

 

[Iti oj]

when you investigate something you don't draw conclusion, you just try to find the answer, science already conclude the non existence of "Higher Intelligence", so I think actually it does>

no it did not where are you getting that? what theory or experiment are you referring too? or is it the lack of gods in the theories?

 

[tumbleweed41]

Science is naturalism.

The supernatural and paranormal by their very definition are not natural. Nor are they falsifiable, testable, predictive or repeatable by detached research.

 

[Iti oj]

That's your opinion. Do you realize that?

exactly =D get it? got? science is not an opinion but religion is =D

 

[Revoltingest]

That's your opinion. Do you realize that?

Of course!
I'm the one who just made it up.
(But I am right though. Doesn't happen often, but it did this time.)
(Don't you just love it to death when my line lengths increase according to some weird but irrelevant mathematical exponential function?)

 

[Sunstone]

Right. Scientism is the beliefs of the people practicing science.

If scientism were "the beliefs of the people practicing science" the word would be useless. Scientism would seem to be more usefully (albeit roughly) defined as the notion that the only source of valuable fact or information about reality is science.

 

[Sunstone]

No. Science kinda sucks.

Has Modern Science Become Dysfunctional?

WASHINGTON, DC –March 27, 2012 -- The recent explosion in the number of retractions in scientific journals is just the tip of the iceberg and a symptom of a greater dysfunction that has been evolving the world of biomedical research say the editors-in-chief of two prominent journals in a presentation before a committee of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) today.

“Incentives have evolved over the decades to encourage some behaviors that are detrimental to good science,” says Ferric Fang, editor-in-chief of the journal Infection and Immunity, a publication of the American Society for Microbiology (ASM), who is speaking today at the meeting of the Committee of Science, Technology, and Law of the NAS along with Arturo Casadevall, editor-in-chief of mBio®,the ASM’s online, open-access journal.

In the past decade the number of retraction notices for scientific journals has increased more than 10-fold while the number of journals articles published has only increased by 44%. While retractions still represent a very small percentage of the total, the increase is still disturbing because it undermines society’s confidence in scientific results and on public policy decisions that are based on those results, says Casadevall. Some of the retractions are due to simple error but many are a result of misconduct including falsification of data and plagiarism.

More concerning, say the editors, is that...

[...]

It is inconceivable that a wise person would fault scientists for correcting their errors.

 

[Sunstone]

One of my teacher said once in my Biology class "What I said to you today tomorrow may not be true". In other words since change so much, so is science trustworthy ?

Is science trustworthy? What is stopping you from looking around at all the technologies that science has given us? Does someone have their hands over your eyes? If science were not trustworthy, you wouldn't even have a light bulb to see by at night. Your life expectancy would be about 40 years less than it is today. And no one would have made it to the moon. How could science build computers if it were not trustworthy? How could science discover new medicines if it were not trustworthy?

 

[Student of X]

It is inconceivable that a wise person would fault scientists for correcting their errors.

At the end of the article, they write, "only science can provide solutions to many of the most urgent needs of contemporary society," thus re-affirming the primacy of scientism for the thralls, despite the corrupting influence it has on science.

"Scientism is the belief that the assumptions, methods and even the speculations of science are equally appropriate, if not essential, for the proper understanding of all knowledge including religion."

Sunstone, do you believe that science is essential for the proper understanding of all knowledge including religion?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

At the end of the article, they write, "only science can provide solutions to many of the most urgent needs of contemporary society," thus re-affirming the primacy of scientism for the thralls, despite the corrupting influence it has on science.

"Scientism is the belief that the assumptions, methods and even the speculations of science are equally appropriate, if not essential, for the proper understanding of all knowledge including religion."

And as I have repeatedly pointed out and you have continually ignored, scientism is not science, and is not necessarily a shared belief by all scientists.

 

[Student of X]

And as I have repeatedly pointed out and you have continually ignored, scientism is not science, and is not necessarily a shared belief by all scientists.

I get it, so how about if you now go and find atheists who are mistaking mysticism for religious fundamentalism and go repeatedly point out the differences to him and see how it goes.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I get it, so how about if you now go and find atheists who are mistaking mysticism for religious fundamentalism and go repeatedly point out the differences to him and see how it goes.

So now you're stereotyping atheists...

How long will it take for the hypocrisy to hit you?

 

[Student of X]

So now you're stereotyping atheists...

How long will it take for the hypocrisy to hit you?

When you start a crusade against atheists who stereotype mystics.

 

[Sunstone]

And as I have repeatedly pointed out and you have continually ignored, scientism is not science, and is not necessarily a shared belief by all scientists.

Agree.

 

[Student of X]

Agree.

Sunstone, do you believe that science is essential for the proper understanding of all knowledge including religion?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

When you start a crusade against atheists who stereotype mystics.

...why just the atheists?