What Causes or Motivates the Anti-scientists?

[ecco]

ecco previously...

Here we start to see the answers to the questions posed in the OP.​

• Science = Atheism
• Atheism = Bad
• Anti-Atheism = Good
• Anti-Science = Good

None of these inferences can justifiably be drawn from the post you are responding to.

You mean this one...

I have no problem with science — my own background is scientific — but I have considerable problems with scientism. So long as there have been scientists like Dawkins, Hawking, Sagan, etc who set themselves up as prophets of atheism and dishonestly (or at best ignorantly) claim that their scientific background confers some sort of authority on them, they are bound to bring unjustified discredit on science.

Sure they can.

The poster refers to Dawkins, Hawking, Sagan as scientists and atheists. He accuses them of ignorance and dishonesty. He lays blame on them for discrediting science.

In reality, he presents a false dichotomy that shows his disdain for science and atheism and people who are scientists and atheists. Your first clue should have been his use of the word "scientism".

 

[ecco]

You know that evolution is still a theory amenable to prove or to disprove.
How many years elapsed since the theory emerged to existence. Some people consider it a believe & a base of their life.

Who do you think needs to prove or disprove ToE?

You got one thing right, it has been many years since the theory emerged. I'm sure that you are also aware that in the intervening years the theory has been strengthened by all new discoveries. I'm sure that you are also aware that in the intervening years no new discoveries contradict ToE.

The only people who still "consider it a theory" are people who do not want to accept it because it conflicts with their fundamentalist religious beliefs.

 

[ecco]

Science cannot answer metaphysical questions

Can you give an example of a metaphysical questions that does not imply the supernatural?

1. Yes. The sun and the earth existed long before the existence of life on this planet.

2a. Generally agreed with hesitation about the word "never". The existence of atoms was a scientific theory which has been proved true.
2b. I believe multi-verse is currently accepted as a scientific theory. It may be predictive, but it is not "falsifiable by observational evidence" at this time.

These are the examples you asked for.

Huh? My posts are examples of something I asked you to provide?!?
Let's try again.

Can you give an example of a metaphysical questions that does not imply the supernatural?

 

[oldbadger]

Buildings still fall and catch fire. That wouldn't happen if they were perfect.
Diabetics are mis-medicated. That wouldn't happen if medicine were perfect.

.............. At last.... You climb down at last......
So the next time that you want to lean against science to support some theory or other, you'll know not to just think again.......... many mistakes happen in the name of science.

A medication intended to do good turned out bad. That wouldn't have happened if research was perfect.

And so, just as I've been trying to tell you, you can't just grab hold of everything that supposed to be science with both hands............ that's just naive.


You're learning........

 

[oldbadger]

Then you went on a barely intelligible rant about Fundies.

It was intelligible....... but you clearly didn't comprehend it.... yes?

You finally gave one example:

"Can you remember being told that diesel engines burned more cleanly than petrol engines? Proven by 'science'? Did you believe that?"​

Told by whom - Governments? Manufacturers? Oil Companies?

One of many, actually, others which you clearly didn't investigate for yourself, such as sodium valproate.

I reckon that you, like many of us, believed every word of it, because it was supposed be science. Did you drive a diesel? You didn't answer that one. Maybe you still do?

Please provide evidence for your allegation that science proved that diesel engines burned more cleanly than petrol engines.

Ah ha! So you think that modern technology and micro-processed systems used for bad ends is not accepted as science? Interesting.

That's what the quasi-science followers do..... as soon as any systems, techniques, productions, researches are disproved these folks bury them and walk away in denial........ is that you?

And you rant about the amazing advances in building construction in areas with high seismic activity, how wonderful, and yet if one will fail you can then say, 'It ain't perfect, you know!' A cop out.

 

[ecco]

.............. At last.... You climb down at last......
So the next time that you want to lean against science to support some theory or other, you'll know not to just think again.......... many mistakes happen in the name of science.


And so, just as I've been trying to tell you, you can't just grab hold of everything that supposed to be science with both hands............ that's just naive.


You're learning........

You do have a problem reading and understanding - my posts and your own. Oh well.

 

[oldbadger]

You do have a problem reading and understanding - my posts and your own. Oh well.

A cop out........ no doubt in my mind.

You promote the advances in, say, building technology, the wonders of science, but where your science fails you wail away about folks who expected to trust in it, and you then rant about us all expecting perfection.

In my opinion you seem to fit the criteria of a quasi-science supporter.

QED

 

[ecco]

It was intelligible....... but you clearly didn't comprehend it.... yes?

I gave up half way through. Way too much punctuation.

One of many, actually, others which you clearly didn't investigate for yourself, such as sodium valproate.

I reckon that you, like many of us, believed every word of it, because it was supposed be science.

What's your problem with sodium valproate? You rant, but don't don't explain.

Did you drive a diesel? You didn't answer that one. Maybe you still do?

Frankly I don't care about diesels one way or the other. There are bad effects from diesels and gasoline engines.

Ah ha! So you think that modern technology and micro-processed systems used for bad ends is not accepted as science? Interesting.

Again, unintelligible.

That's what the quasi-science followers do..... as soon as any systems, techniques, productions, researches are disproved these folks bury them and walk away in denial........ is that you?

Again, unintelligible.

And you rant about the amazing advances in building construction in areas with high seismic activity, how wonderful, and yet if one will fail you can then say, 'It ain't perfect, you know!' A cop out.

You are the one who complained that science doesn't know everything and is therefore wrong. I'm all for trying, succeeding, failing, learning, and trying again. Every time there is an airplane crash there are extensive studies done to determine the causes and attempt to prevent them from occurring in the future. Your mindset is that we shouldn't be flying because we can't prevent all crashes.

If everyone always had your mindset, we'd still be sitting in caves arguing about the right way to start a fire.

 

[oldbadger]

What's your problem with sodium valproate? You rant, but don't don't explain.

Anybody with internet access and an ounce of investigative science in their being would have discovered all about that in about five minutes.
You let yourself down in a simple test.

Frankly I don't care about diesels one way or the other. There are bad effects from diesels and gasoline engines.

A perfect example of dismissive denial.
'Scientists' told us how much cleaner diesels were, and then we found out the devious deceptions, and now, frankly, you don't care.

And I expect that if a modern building in California falls in an earthquake you'll do exactly the same thing..... after promoting the wonders of modern building science you'll 'frankly not care'.

Shallow.......

You are the one who complained that science doesn't know everything and is therefore wrong.

Wrong........ a total deception, that.
I just don't cling to everything that is claimed to be science, like you probably do.

I'm all for trying, succeeding, failing, learning, and trying again. Every time there is an airplane crash there are extensive studies done to determine the causes and attempt to prevent them from occurring in the future. Your mindset is that we shouldn't be flying because we can't prevent all crashes.

Don't tell me what my mindset is........
I'm all for trying and learning, I just don't present all research as 'scientific', a much misused term to bamboozle bafoons.
You're not one of those, are you?

If everyone always had your mindset, we'd still be sitting in caves arguing about the right way to start a fire.

What, sitting in caves in a clean World, with clean air, and not living up to our necks in pollution and filth caused by..... science?
Me? No! Never! But come to think of it, since this Earth could become uninhabitable at some point, all through such wonderful 'scientific' developments in the last couple of centuries, many future humans might quite like that idea!

I bet you drove a diesel !! Yeah.... you never denied it!

 

[ecco]

ecco previously:
What's your problem with sodium valproate? You rant, but don't don't explain.​

Anybody with internet access and an ounce of investigative science in their being would have discovered all about that in about five minutes.
You let yourself down in a simple test.

Again, you show a reading comprehension problem. I don't care what the internet has to say. I was asking you what your problem with it is.

ecco previously:
Frankly I don't care about diesels one way or the other. There are bad effects from diesels and gasoline engines.​

A perfect example of dismissive denial.
'Scientists' told us how much cleaner diesels were, and then we found out the devious deceptions, and now, frankly, you don't care.

I didn't dismiss anything. I didn't deny anything. How did you miss this: There are bad effects from diesels and gasoline engines.

And I expect that if a modern building in California falls in an earthquake you'll do exactly the same thing..... after promoting the wonders of modern building science you'll 'frankly not care'.

Shallow.......

I do care, that's why I said I favor advancing science - unlike you.

ecco previously:You are the one who complained that science doesn't know everything and is therefore wrong.​

Wrong........ a total deception, that.

I am not responsible for the fact that you write things and then forget what you have written.

I just don't cling to everything that is claimed to be science, like you probably do.

What science am I clinging to? Please explain.

Don't tell me what my mindset is........
I'm all for trying and learning, I just don't present all research as 'scientific', a much misused term to bamboozle bafoons.
You're not one of those, are you?

How have I been bamboozled? Please explain.

What, sitting in caves in a clean World, with clean air, and not living up to our necks in pollution and filth caused by..... science?

See, there you go again disparaging science.

But come to think of it, since this Earth could become uninhabitable at some point, all through such wonderful 'scientific' developments in the last couple of centuries, many future humans might quite like that idea!

Alternatively, you could be living like a peasant in 14th Century Europe watching everyone you know dying from the Black Plague. I guess you're pi$$ed that science figured out the cause and preventions.

I bet you drove a diesel !! Yeah.... you never denied it!

I've never owned one and don't recall ever driving one. Nevertheless, if you had taken the time to do some research you would have found, as I did, that diesels are cleaner in some regards than gasoline engines. But you aren't the type of person who does any research. You just like to rant and rave about stuff you know nothing about. You couldn't even answer what your problem is with sodium valproate is.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

You know that evolution is still a theory amenable to prove or to disprove.

Theory is as high as any idea gets in science, so how is this a problem?

Some people consider it a believe & a base of their life.

Since the theory of evolution is one of the most well supported theories in science I can see why people accept it. However, how do you base your life on evolution? That doesn't make much sense. It's like basing your life on the germ theory of disease, or the theory of atoms.

 

[oldbadger]

ecco previously:
What's your problem with sodium valproate? You rant, but don't don't explain.​

Again, you show a reading comprehension problem. I don't care what the internet has to say. I was asking you what your problem with it is.

ecco previously:
Frankly I don't care about diesels one way or the other. There are bad effects from diesels and gasoline engines.​

I didn't dismiss anything. I didn't deny anything. How did you miss this: There are bad effects from diesels and gasoline engines.


I do care, that's why I said I favor advancing science - unlike you.

ecco previously:You are the one who complained that science doesn't know everything and is therefore wrong.​

I am not responsible for the fact that you write things and then forget what you have written.


What science am I clinging to? Please explain.



How have I been bamboozled? Please explain.


See, there you go again disparaging science.




Alternatively, you could be living like a peasant in 14th Century Europe watching everyone you know dying from the Black Plague. I guess you're pi$$ed that science figured out the cause and preventions.



I've never owned one and don't recall ever driving one. Nevertheless, if you had taken the time to do some research you would have found, as I did, that diesels are cleaner in some regards than gasoline engines. But you aren't the type of person who does any research. You just like to rant and rave about stuff you know nothing about. You couldn't even answer what your problem is with sodium valproate is.

Gosh.......... what a long rant.
And so to shorten down to the basics, let's look at your position:-

I wrote:-
What, sitting in caves in a clean World, with clean air, and not living up to our necks in pollution and filth caused by..... science?
.... and you replied:-
See, there you go again disparaging science.

And this seems to be your problem......... you think that I disparage SCIENCE, but I don't, I just disparage silly folks who think that they have more IQ than cave folks did, and that they have advanced far from them.

What we call SCIENCE today is what we rubbish and forget about tomorrow, all the time preening our arrogance as intellectuals, when in fact we're just a bunch of silly monkeys who developed enough to smash everything up......... that's not SCIENCE, that's idiocy.

 

[sayak83]

Gosh.......... what a long rant.
And so to shorten down to the basics, let's look at your position:-

I wrote:-
What, sitting in caves in a clean World, with clean air, and not living up to our necks in pollution and filth caused by..... science?
.... and you replied:-
See, there you go again disparaging science.

And this seems to be your problem......... you think that I disparage SCIENCE, but I don't, I just disparage silly folks who think that they have more IQ than cave folks did, and that they have advanced far from them.

What we call SCIENCE today is what we rubbish and forget about tomorrow, all the time preening our arrogance as intellectuals, when in fact we're just a bunch of silly monkeys who developed enough to smash everything up......... that's not SCIENCE, that's idiocy.

I like the modern world of today than the cave world of the neolithic. I have no hope of surviving there, being not physically strong and also genetically shortsighted. That civilization advances, of which science and technology is a part, has improved the lot of humans can be seen by the population of humans today compared to the neolithic. Our focus is now slowly shifting from us and only us to other non-human living things that live with us as a whole. If technological and scientific advances are not stopped due to some unforeseen catastrophe, I am certain that solutions towards ensuring flourishing natural ecosystems will also be found and implemented. The development of solar, wind turbine based electricity, electric cars, greater recycling capabilities are swiftly making a difference on this front. So is biotechnology that is making it possible to increase food production while decreasing resource consumption. But, at the end of the day, science, like everything is a tool. If you misuse a tool, then negative consequences will necessarily accrue. Bit like fire. You can use it to cook or heat or provide light at night, or you can use it to burn cities down (like Nero). Scientific knowledge is no different.

 

[exchemist]

Huh? My posts are examples of something I asked you to provide?!?
Let's try again.

Can you give an example of a metaphysical questions that does not imply the supernatural?

I provided you with that in (1) of post 45.

 

[exchemist]

ecco previously...

Here we start to see the answers to the questions posed in the OP.​

• Science = Atheism
• Atheism = Bad
• Anti-Atheism = Good
• Anti-Science = Good

You mean this one...


Sure they can.

The poster refers to Dawkins, Hawking, Sagan as scientists and atheists. He accuses them of ignorance and dishonesty. He lays blame on them for discrediting science.

In reality, he presents a false dichotomy that shows his disdain for science and atheism and people who are scientists and atheists. Your first clue should have been his use of the word "scientism".

Your reasoning is very poor.

i) Referring to a number of high-profile, self-proclaimed atheist scientists is not an assertion that Science = Atheism.

ii) Objecting that these people dishonestly or ignorantly claim authority as prophets of atheism due to their scientific credentials does not mean Atheism = Bad.

iii) There is nothing at all in the post claiming that Anti-Atheism = Good.

iv) There is no hint whatsoever of anything in the post suggesting Anti-science = Good

On the contrary, the post offers only the far more more modest - and defensible - opinion that these particular evangelists for atheism either:

a) fail to realise that science does not make any claims one way or the other about such metaphysical ideas as the concept of God, or else
b ) are dishonestly trying to bamboozle people into treating their own personal opinions as endorsed by science, and that
c ) making this error risks bringing science into disrepute.

This is a point of view that someone who is himself an atheist and who recognises the value of science might quite easily hold.

P.S. See elsewhere on this thread for a proper discussion of the meaning and use of the term "scientism", starting at post 29.

 

[ecco]

What we call SCIENCE today is what we rubbish and forget about tomorrow, all the time preening our arrogance as intellectuals, when in fact we're just a bunch of silly monkeys who developed enough to smash everything up......... that's not SCIENCE, that's idiocy.

See, there you go again disparaging science.

 

[ecco]

ecco previously

Can you give an example of a metaphysical questions that does not imply the supernatural?​

I provided you with that in (1) of post 45.

This one?

1) Is the world objectively real, i.e. observer-independent?

First off, I addressed that in my post #59

1. Yes. The sun and the earth existed long before the existence of life on this planet.​

Second, how is that a "metaphysical question"?

 

[Audie]

See, there you go again disparaging science.

And you are going to continue arguing against an attitude?

 

[exchemist]

ecco previously

Can you give an example of a metaphysical questions that does not imply the supernatural?​

This one?

​

First off, I addressed that in my post #59

1. Yes. The sun and the earth existed long before the existence of life on this planet.​

Second, how is that a "metaphysical question"?

How someone answers the question is beside the point. It was just an example of a metaphysical question, since that was what you asked me for. I don't give a monkey's about how you answer it.

As to why it is a metaphysical question, here is a bit from Wiki on metaphysics:
" There are two broad stances about what is "the world" studied by metaphysics. The strong, classical view assumes that the objects studied by metaphysics exist independently of any observer, so that the subject is the most fundamental of all sciences. The weak, modern view assumes that the objects studied by metaphysics exist inside the mind of an observer, so the subject becomes a form of introspection and conceptual analysis. Some philosophers, notably Kant, discuss both of these "worlds" and what can be inferred about each one. Some philosophers, such as the logical positivists, and many scientists, reject the strong view of metaphysics as meaningless and unverifiable. Others reply that this criticism also applies to any type of knowledge, including hard science, which claims to describe anything other than the contents of human perception, and thus that the world of perception is the objective world in some sense. Metaphysics itself usually assumes that some stance has been taken on these questions and that it may proceed independently of the choice -- the question of which stance to take belongs instead to another branch of philosophy......"

So, you see, metaphysics is not just about God and stuff.

 

[Valjean]

See, there you go again disparaging science.

Science -- "knowledge" -- and the usage of it are two different things. I deplore some of the ways people have used stones, knives, iron, chemistry and physics, but I don't see how these have undermined our knowledge of them.