Sciences as a religion.

[tumbleweed41]

Any religion that has a belief or faith in anything unobservable outside of the natural realm cannot be defined as "evidence based".
Even my own Deism, what I consider to be one of the most reasonable beliefs in the Western World, ultimately relies on faith in the unobservable and untestable.

Science, in the loosest of definitions, is observation of the natural world and coming to fact based conclusions based on empirical and objective evidence.

 

[Frank Merton]

Any religion that has a belief or faith in anything unobservable outside of the natural realm cannot be defined as "evidence based".

That is a common way people beg the question: define your topic in such a way as to rule out other views. It isn't rational to argue that way.

Even my own Deism, what I consider to be one of the most reasonable beliefs in the Western World, ultimately relies on faith in the unobservable and untestable.

You are really a Deist? Are you fully aware of the effect of Darwin's discoveries on the whole reason for Deism? I did not include Deism in my little list, mainly because I would call it a belief, not a religion. It has no structure, no rituals, no ethical system, no eschatology, etc. -- in other words, it doesn't have any of the characteristics most people associate with a religion.

Science, in the loosest of definitions, is observation of the natural world and coming to fact based conclusions based on empirical and objective evidence.

My problem with that, as with most definitions of "science," is that it does not rule out a lot of stuff most of us think of as quackery or as pseudo-science.

For example, believers in every nostrum you can buy refer to "scientific studies," as well as to personal experiences, and they generally have lots of both. That the studies have flaws may be true, but there is no such thing as a medical study that can't be criticized in some way or another. That anecdotal evidence (testimony) is often unreliable does not make it nonobjective.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Any religion that has a belief or faith in anything unobservable outside of the natural realm cannot be defined as "evidence based".

That is a common way people beg the question: define your topic in such a way as to rule out other views. It isn't rational to argue that way.

I did not "define" religion. I sated a simple fact. Any religion that has a belief or faith in anything unobservable outside of the natural realm cannot be defined as "evidence based".
I will clarify by saying that "evidence based" refers to objective empirical evidence.

Even my own Deism, what I consider to be one of the most reasonable beliefs in the Western World, ultimately relies on faith in the unobservable and untestable.

You are really a Deist? Are you fully aware of the effect of Darwin's discoveries on the whole reason for Deism? I did not include Deism in my little list, mainly because I would call it a belief, not a religion. It has no structure, no rituals, no ethical system, no eschatology, etc. -- in other words, it doesn't have any of the characteristics most people associate with a religion.

Yes, I am really a Deist. And yes, I also define it as a faith based belief.
All religions have at their core a system based on subjective beliefs.

Science, in the loosest of definitions, is observation of the natural world and coming to fact based conclusions based on empirical and objective evidence.

My problem with that, as with most definitions of "science," is that it does not rule out a lot of stuff most of us think of as quackery or as pseudo-science.

For example, believers in every nostrum you can buy refer to "scientific studies," as well as to personal experiences, and they generally have lots of both. That the studies have flaws may be true, but there is no such thing as a medical study that can't be criticized in some way or another. That anecdotal evidence (testimony) is often unreliable does not make it nonobjective.

I believe objective and empirical evidence rule out "quackery", "pseudoscience" and "anecdotal".
All of which, by their very definitions, do not fall under science as I defined.

 

[Frank Merton]

I did not "define" religion. I sated a simple fact. Any religion that has a belief or faith in anything unobservable outside of the natural realm cannot be defined as "evidence based".
I will clarify by saying that "evidence based" refers to objective empirical evidence.

What if there is evidence of things unobservable? There is tons of testimony of miracles, angels, ghosts, what-have-you. This may not convince you, but it does convince others and it is evidence. Therefore such belief can be said to be "evidence based."

This is the mistake I think all "deniers" (as opposed to the unconvinced, like me) make -- they think that evidence that doesn't happen to convince them is not evidence.

Yes, I am really a Deist. And yes, I also define it as a faith based belief.
All religions have at their core a system based on subjective beliefs.

The Deism that was popular in the 18th century and pretty much died out in the 19th was based on the observation of how well each species seems designed to fit its role in the environment -- "design requires a designer." To me, while the argument even then was weak, it was still evidence, and so this was an evidence-based belief.

I believe objective and empirical evidence rule out "quackery", "pseudoscience" and "anecdotal".
All of which, by their very definitions, do not fall under science as I defined.

Well, again, you tell me you are unconvinced. Lots of people are convinced by this same evidence. It strikes me as dangerous to just simply assume your reasoning is right and theirs is always wrong.

The problem is defining science. Just saying that it is objective won't do.

 

[Looncall]

What if there is evidence of things unobservable? There is tons of testimony of miracles, angels, ghosts, what-have-you. This may not convince you, but it does convince others and it is evidence. Therefore such belief can be said to be "evidence based."

Ah, but what are these evidence of? Gods or human psychology? if you think they are evidence of gods, how do you justify that conclusion?

 

[Frank Merton]

Ah, but what are these evidence of? Gods or human psychology? if you think they are evidence of gods, how do you justify that conclusion?

Its evidence of both. Some claims are so spectacular that, if verified, one would really have to be perverse to say it is human psychology. Take for example the claim that the Red Sea parted for Moses. If that could be established as historical reality (as described in the OT text), we would be perverse to try to get around it without some kind of superman intervention. Here, of course, it comes down to an assessment of the historical evidence.

I live in Vietnam, a relatively ghost-ridden culture, and consequently have had serious, reliable, sober, dependable people I know well, testify strongly to ghostly experiences (fitting the Vietnamese cultural notion of a ghost as something really ghastly and dangerous to encounter). What do I do with such testimony, especially when it comes, as I said, from people I really have to be perverse to think are lying or in any way are deluded.

Of course I don't believe it, but then I don't exactly disbelieve, either. I tend to put it down to some sort of real experience misinterpreted in Vietnamese cultural terms, but can I be sure? Knowing the individuals I have in mind, I have to wonder.

The point I want to make is neither pro- nor anti- either Moses or ghosts, but that there really is a lot of evidence out there bringing a lot of smart and reasonable people to at least have their doubts.

For the most part the only people who study these phenomena are pseudos, since a serious science with a career in mind is not going to get involved. (I saw a career torn to shreds in unworthy ridicule in Sri Lanka for what I thought was an objective and fair study of reports of rebirths.)

 

[tumbleweed41]

What if there is evidence of things unobservable? There is tons of testimony of miracles, angels, ghosts, what-have-you. This may not convince you, but it does convince others and it is evidence. Therefore such belief can be said to be "evidence based."

Like I said,"evidence based" refers to objective empirical evidence. Hearsay is not objective empirical evidence.

This is the mistake I think all "deniers" (as opposed to the unconvinced, like me) make -- they think that evidence that doesn't happen to convince them is not evidence.

Convincing evidence is not subjective.

The Deism that was popular in the 18th century and pretty much died out in the 19th was based on the observation of how well each species seems designed to fit its role in the environment -- "design requires a designer." To me, while the argument even then was weak, it was still evidence, and so this was an evidence-based belief.

But not a belief based on objective empirical evidence. There is no empirical evidence that "design requires a designer.
I am quit happy to accept that my beliefs are based entirely on faith. And refuse to use word manipulation and false reasoning in a vain attempt to justify them.

Well, again, you tell me you are unconvinced. Lots of people are convinced by this same evidence. It strikes me as dangerous to just simply assume your reasoning is right and theirs is always wrong.

I never claimed my belief was right. My beliefs are based on subjective faith.
What I can claim as fact are those things in science that are backed by empirical evidence,. They are testable, repeatable, observable, falsifiable and natural.

The problem is defining science. Just saying that it is objective won't do.

I repeat, science, in the loosest of definitions, is observation of the natural world and coming to fact based conclusions based on empirical and objective evidence.

Faith, on the other hand, is usually based on subjective evidence and beliefs that are not testable. Not repeatable. Not observable. And un-falsifiable.

 

[Frank Merton]

Like I said,"evidence based" refers to objective empirical evidence. Hearsay is not objective empirical evidence.

Hearsay? Oh really. Do you know what "hearsay" is?

Convincing evidence is not subjective.

I suppose that is the case most of the time. So?

But not a belief based on objective empirical evidence. There is no empirical evidence that "design requires a designer.
I am quite happy to accept that my beliefs are based entirely on faith. And refuse to use word manipulation and false reasoning in a vain attempt to justify them.

That is a brave stand. Remind me not to hire you as my advocate.

What I can claim as fact are those things in science that are backed by empirical evidence,. They are testable, repeatable, observable, falsifiable and natural.

This is all very true. They can still be wrong.

I repeat, science, in the loosest of definitions, is observation of the natural world and coming to fact based conclusions based on empirical and objective evidence.

Faith, on the other hand, is usually based on subjective evidence and beliefs that are not testable. Not repeatable. Not observable. And un-falsifiable.

I give you credit for trying to define something that is probably impossible to adequately define. It is brave because it leaves you a sitting duck I can take shots at.

The main shot I would take at your definition is that all pseudo-sciences make the same claim. Take your local astrologer (about as pseudo as a pseudo-science can get). He says that there is tested evidence that people with certain star charts have certain outcomes, based on repeatable observations of real stars (actually planets), objectively and precisely measured.

Faith means "trust." To me that implies that people with faith are trusting people. Do you remember, "Trust but verify?"

 

[tumbleweed41]

Hearsay? Oh really. Do you know what "hearsay" is?

Yes

I give you credit for trying to define something that is probably impossible to adequately define. It is brave because it leaves you a sitting duck I can take shots at.

Fire away

The main shot I would take at your definition is that all pseudo-sciences make the same claim. Take your local astrologer (about as pseudo as a pseudo-science can get). He says that there is tested evidence that people with certain star charts have certain outcomes, based on repeatable observations of real stars (actually planets), objectively and precisely measured.

Fire and miss.
Your first shot is "claims by pseudoscience"?
Claims are not science.
Astrology does not make accurate predictions. Not science.
Astrology is not verified through repeatability. Not science.
Astrology fails consistently through testing.

1. Test by Carlson. "Study after study has failed to support claims that astrology can predict the future or offer insights into personality," said Shawn Carlson, a physicist at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratories in Berkeley, California. He added, "There is absolutely no merit to the basic claims that astrologers make." Carlson made one of the most recent attempts to test the power of the stars. He asked 26 respected astrologers to match the personality profiles of 265 people with their astrological charts. They were right only about a third of the time, which is about the same as chance.(3)
2. Test by Barth & Bennett. James Barth and James Bennett, Economists at George Washington University, examined the horoscopes of tens of thousands of men who had reenlisted in the Marine Corps. They were looking for a trend among soldiers that favored astrological signs ruled by Mars, the god of war. However, they found instead an equal number of men who were born under the influence of Venus, the so-called planet of love.(4)
3. Test by Silverman. Psychologist Bernie Silverman of Michigan State University tested the effect of astrological compatibility on marriages. He surveyed astrologers across the country on the compatibility of the twelve Zodiac signs. In studying, 2,978 marriage and 478 divorce records in Michigan, Dr. Silverman found couples whose marriages were made in horoscope heaven united and split up just as frequently as those who were not astrologically compatible.(5)
4. Test by McGervey. In another experiment, physicist John McGervey of Case Western Reserve University in Ohio looked up the birthdays of 16,634 scientists listed in "American Men of Science" and 6,475 politicians named In "Who's Who in American Politics." Astrological theory would suggest that these non-average Americans would tend to cluster more among certain signs and certain personality types. However Dr. McGervey found as many Virgos, defined astrologically as weak leaders, as any other sign.(6)
5. Test by Culver. Astronomer Roger Culver of Colorado State University decided to determine whether astrological signs were related to such physical traits as bicep size, baldness, blood type, freckles, weight, neck size, etc. Were Leos more likely to go bald or Gemini to wind up ambidextrous? He found no trends among the 300 volunteers.(7)
6. Test by Gauquelin. The French psychologist Michel Gauquelin undertook a statistical test of personalities of people born under various signs of the zodiac. In this massive study, he listed 50,000 character traits that typified 16,000 famous people. Gauquelin then labeled each trait according to the appropriate astrological sign. One trait might be characteristic of a Leo, another of a Pisces, and so forth. Finally he looked to see which sign the person was actually born under. He found no correlation between personality traits and the sign a person was born under.(8)
7. Other Scientific Considerations. Astrology fails to adequately answer a number of other important questions. What is the mechanism the planets use to exert their influence over men? Supposedly we are affected by the gravitational pull of the heavenly bodies at the exact moment of our birth. However, this is absurd! At least this is the opinion of Andrew Fraknoi, executive officer of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific in San Francisco, an international scientific and educational organization. "The (gravitational) pull of the obstetrician is six times that of Mars," said Fraknoi. He also pointed out that the hospital building in which a person is born has 500,000 times the gravitational pull of Mars.(9) So much for the supposed gravitational influence of the planets!


Source




Simply because an Astrologer "claims" his methods are scientific does not mean they are. Independent verification confirms objectivity.
Obviously, the astrologers claims are subjective and cannot be backed up.
(That is why it is known as pseudoscience.)

 

[Frank Merton]

Yes

Then why do you misuse the word?

You use authority to "refute" the claims of the astrologer, this is fine and I am persuaded (of course I was already).

I am aware of the evidential weaknesses of astrology, and that you are so facile with web search engines is nice. It doesn't change the fact that astrology meets the definition you provided. You may be able to convincingly (to me) demonstrate that astrology is false, but not that it is not a sort of science.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Then why do you misuse the word?

I didn't.

There is tons of testimony of miracles, angels, ghosts, what-have-you.

Testimony that you have heard of and pass along without empirical evidence is hearsay.

It doesn't change the fact that astrology meets the definition you provided.

No, it does not.
Astrology is not an observation of the natural world and coming to fact based conclusions based on empirical and objective evidence.
It does not matter what the Astrologer claims.
What matters are the facts.
That is science.

 

[Frank Merton]

Testimony that you have heard of and pass along without empirical evidence is hearsay.

Hearsay is where you report what others saw. It is inadmissible in court because the evidence, when presented that way, cannot be cross-examined. In regular life almost everything we think we know comes to us that way, but we don't think of it as hearsay unless we are looking for a glib way to dismiss it.

Astrology is not an observation of the natural world and coming to fact based conclusions based on empirical and objective evidence.
It does not matter what the Astrologer claims.
What matters are the facts.

What pretty words you use.

That is science.

I'm sorry but that is a pretty fiction. Science is really merely the collective opinion of the "authorities" (generally a group of people who have met the criteria of certain college degrees and certain appointments). There is a remarkable filtering process that goes on (it is in fact necessary but its presence needs to be kept in mind) that weeds out pretty much anyone who doesn't hoe the party line (such as believes in astrology).

(Still, it is remarkable how real, working scientists are much more aware of this, and hence somewhat more skeptical of "science" than are the science devotees on this board. I think that may be because they have actually experienced it).

 

[outhouse]

It is inadmissible in court

im sorry your wrong again due to your lack of education.

there are two rules that makes hearsay A OK in a hearing. look up the two rules to hearsay yourself.

Hearsay is where you report what others saw

only partially right, the real legal definition is much longer and in much more detail. I could spend a year teaching you hearsay and we both would still have more to learn about it.

cannot be cross-examined.

sure it can by proving the exemption wrong

In regular life almost everything we think we know comes to us that way

only in your little world, i surely cannot live by hearsay alone

that weeds out pretty much anyone who doesn't hoe the party line

No, it weeds out uneducated morons with bad ideas and or a poor hypothesis. There is no party line and its your lack of education that blinds you to what really happens.

you have been presented the right material from many of our educated members but continue to shine the light of ignornce

 

[Frank Merton]

you have been presented the right material from many of our educated members but continue to shine the light of ignornce

Well, except for a tirade, and an attempt to seem an expert in law (are you by any chance a lawyer?), I don't see anything in your message that refutes what I say. I must say your belief runs deep; far be if from me to interfere with such deep faith.

 

[outhouse]

far be if from me to interfere with such deep faith

im only passionate about truth and reality, this is not a matter of faith.

when I deal with everything but the truth on a daily basis, I have little patients for incorrect data when it is easily obtainable.

if you think im to hard i apologize.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Hearsay is where you report what others saw. It is inadmissible in court because the evidence, when presented that way, cannot be cross-examined. In regular life almost everything we think we know comes to us that way, but we don't think of it as hearsay unless we are looking for a glib way to dismiss it.

Let's end the strawman wordplay now.
[heer-sey] –noun 1. unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge

2. an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: a malicious hearsay.


–adjective 3. of, pertaining to, or characterized by hearsay: hearsay knowledge; a hearsay report.

What pretty words you use.

This is your rebuttal?

I will say it again, in case you actually want to address it, as it pertains to the definition of science you find so irrelevant.

Astrology is not an observation of the natural world and coming to fact based conclusions based on empirical and objective evidence.
It does not matter what the Astrologer claims.
What matters are the facts.

I'm sorry but that is a pretty fiction. Science is really merely the collective opinion of the "authorities" (generally a group of people who have met the criteria of certain college degrees and certain appointments). There is a remarkable filtering process that goes on (it is in fact necessary but its presence needs to be kept in mind) that weeds out pretty much anyone who doesn't hoe the party line (such as believes in astrology).

Are you talking about peer review? The process of legitimizing a claim through independent verification by others in the same field?
How does this in any way contradict that science, in and of itself, is observation of the natural world and coming to fact based conclusions based on empirical and objective evidence?

(Still, it is remarkable how real, working scientists are much more aware of this, and hence somewhat more skeptical of "science" than are the science devotees on this board. I think that may be because they have actually experienced it).

I think you are confusing Institutions with science.

 

[Frank Merton]

Let's end the strawman wordplay now.
[heer-sey] –noun 1. unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's direct knowledge

2. an item of idle or unverified information or gossip; rumor: a malicious hearsay.


–adjective 3. of, pertaining to, or characterized by hearsay: hearsay knowledge; a hearsay report.

Oh, dear, another dictionary thumper, ignorant of what dictionaries are for. This is getting to be entertaining. (By the way, just what is there in that definition that contradicts what I said?)

Oh, and just to save you some time, you don't have to keep refuting astrology over and over. We both know it is false -- well, 99.9% false. They do use the real positions of the planets.

You completely miss the point. What can I say. I think perhaps you don't want to deal with the real issues and problems in science. Instead, like all truth faithful adherents of a religion, you blindly refuse to admit that their may be weaknesses in your belief system.

Science, however, is not a religion. Stop worshiping it.

 

[Frank Merton]

im only passionate about truth and reality, this is not a matter of faith.

when I deal with everything but the truth on a daily basis, I have little patients for incorrect data when it is easily obtainable.

if you think im to hard i apologize.

I think it is a serious flaw to be passionate about truth and reality. Ideologues who end up killing millions, such as Pol Pot, are serious about truth and reality. A little skepticism about truth and a lot of skepticism about those who claim it is needed in this world.

What you perhaps should be passionate about is avoiding things that harm people.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think it is a serious flaw to be passionate about truth and reality. Ideologues who end up killing millions, such as Pol Pot, are serious about truth and reality. A little skepticism about truth and a lot of skepticism about those who claim it is needed in this world.

Well, this is a first....blaming the killing fields upon passion for truth & reality.
Clearly, we must make truth & reality illegal before any more millions die.

 

[gnomon]

Science as a religion?

This forum gets funnier every day.