What Causes or Motivates the Anti-scientists?

[ecco]

At the same time science minded atheists, who have never in their lives successfully reproduced the results of a study, tout science as some Utopian answer to man's problems when in fact science is subject to the same problems and corruptions.

I'm an atheist. I believe in science - evolution, modern medical diagnostic techniques and medicines, driverless cars, computers and cell phones. I have never touted "science as some Utopian answer to man's problems". There are many people, religious and atheist, who believe in science and don't tout "science as some Utopian answer to man's problems". Where did you get the idea that "science minded atheists tout science as some Utopian answer to man's problems?

Mostly though, it's the arrogance. Real science is the modern day version of the Inquisition.

The arrogance seems to be coming from you. In what way is science like the inquisition?

 

[Audie]

In some fashion we would have to define science. Panspermia and Evolution were speculated upon by the likes of Anaximander, Anaxagoras, Empedocles and Aristotle. Was this science or philosophy? Was Aquinas and even Newton scientist? The alchemists that begat the chemists? The theory of evolution I was taught as fact in school 30 years ago is n o longer fact just as that taught in schools today as fact wont be facts any more 20 years from now.

Then you have the mad scientist on the hill, from Frankenstien to South Park's Dr. Alphonse Mephesto. Then the Nazi scientists that were so fond of Eugenics that come over here to work on the atom bomb and space program. I think they have their own Youtube channel don't they?

For some strange reason people on the religious side fear science can compete with their God? Nonsense. Xenophobia and superstition. At the same time science minded atheists, who have never in their lives successfully reproduced the results of a study, tout science as some Utopian answer to man's problems when in fact science is subject to the same problems and corruptions. As if it were incapable of being subject to those imperfections. See Adam Ruins Science

Mostly though, it's the arrogance. Real science is the modern day version of the Inquisition.

The theory of evolution I was taught as fact in school 30 years ago is n o longer fact

Ah, good, this explains so much
Teaching that a theory is a fact is as
fundamentally wrong and ignorant as
one can get.

You attended an inferior school with
ignorant hacks for teachers.

Then, instead of trying to overcome
the handicap, you made the mistake of
thinking that what you were fed
(memorize for the test, right?) was
what education can be, that the nonsense
you heard represented something
about the nature of research, and rejected
the whole thing, not the stupid teachers.

Look at the attitude it gave you!
....arrogance. Real science is the modern day version of the Inquisition.

Right in there with those who think that science
is run by satan.

You went the wrong way friend, and it
is too late for you to try again. Too bad.
But, as a matter of conscience, you might
not try to spread it to others.

 

[Polymath257]

In some fashion we would have to define science. Panspermia and Evolution were speculated upon by the likes of Anaximander, Anaxagoras, Empedocles and Aristotle. Was this science or philosophy? Was Aquinas and even Newton scientist? The alchemists that begat the chemists? The theory of evolution I was taught as fact in school 30 years ago is n o longer fact just as that taught in schools today as fact wont be facts any more 20 years from now.

Really? What, exactly, were you taught 30 years ago in school that was not a fact? That species change over time? That is a fact. That mutation and natural selection are driving forces for evolution? That is a fact.

Or, is it possible you were not taught the theory of evolution at all, but merely a few of the guesses made at the time about *specific* examples of evolution? Even still, what were you taught that is not a fact? That humans evolved from previous apes? Fact. That horses evolved through various stages going back to eohippus? Fact.

Now, perhaps you got a teacher that didn't know some of the details. That is, unfortunately, very common. So, evolution does not run in a straight line. They are usually branches and dead ends, so it often isn't easy to determine *exactly* which species are ancestors of which. Also, a lot of significant changes happen in small populations, so it is often the case that such are not fossilized. But, we still have mountains of evidence that species do, in fact, change over geological time due to mutation and natural selection. And that is all evolution claims.

 

[Audie]

Really? What, exactly, were you taught 30 years ago in school that was not a fact? That species change over time? That is a fact. That mutation and natural selection are driving forces for evolution? That is a fact.

Or, is it possible you were not taught the theory of evolution at all, but merely a few of the guesses made at the time about *specific* examples of evolution? Even still, what were you taught that is not a fact? That humans evolved from previous apes? Fact. That horses evolved through various stages going back to eohippus? Fact.

Now, perhaps you got a teacher that didn't know some of the details. That is, unfortunately, very common. So, evolution does not run in a straight line. They are usually branches and dead ends, so it often isn't easy to determine *exactly* which species are ancestors of which. Also, a lot of significant changes happen in small populations, so it is often the case that such are not fossilized. But, we still have mountains of evidence that species do, in fact, change over geological time due to mutation and natural selection. And that is all evolution claims.

As I said, inferior teachers; and quite possibly too, some
inadequate learning. Our friend has had 30 years to try
to overcome that bad start.

The thing on "facts changing" is telling for bad teching
and or poor learning.

From a scientist-as you know- you wont hear much about
facts, as such. You will get probabilities.

"it is a fact that this is my data" is about the only use for
"fact" in science, and who says that?

Facts do not change.

"fact wont be facts any more "

Such an absurd thing to say, or think!


Lets see if your friend can learn that much,
now. If not, there is not much to see here
other than a rather sad train wreck.

 

[exchemist]

In some fashion we would have to define science. Panspermia and Evolution were speculated upon by the likes of Anaximander, Anaxagoras, Empedocles and Aristotle. Was this science or philosophy? Was Aquinas and even Newton scientist? The alchemists that begat the chemists? The theory of evolution I was taught as fact in school 30 years ago is n o longer fact just as that taught in schools today as fact wont be facts any more 20 years from now.

Then you have the mad scientist on the hill, from Frankenstien to South Park's Dr. Alphonse Mephesto. Then the Nazi scientists that were so fond of Eugenics that come over here to work on the atom bomb and space program. I think they have their own Youtube channel don't they?

For some strange reason people on the religious side fear science can compete with their God? Nonsense. Xenophobia and superstition. At the same time science minded atheists, who have never in their lives successfully reproduced the results of a study, tout science as some Utopian answer to man's problems when in fact science is subject to the same problems and corruptions. As if it were incapable of being subject to those imperfections. See Adam Ruins Science

Mostly though, it's the arrogance. Real science is the modern day version of the Inquisition.

I think you'll need to explain your rather hysterical comparison of science to the Inquisition. Can you provide examples to illustrate what you mean by this?

 

[Audie]

I think you'll need to explain your rather hysterical comparison of science to the Inquisition. Can you provide examples to illustrate what you mean by this?

I do not think it is reasonable to try to get someone
to explain an attitude / the source of their hysteria.

It may be more than is possible to just get the undertanding
that "facts" do not change.

 

[exchemist]

I do not think it is reasonable to try to get someone
to explain an attitude / the source of their hysteria.

It may be more than is possible to just get the undertanding
that "facts" do not change.

OK I should have said "apparently".

 

[Audie]

OK I should have said "apparently".

Not sure where you'd have stuck that in, but I say
lets see if one tiny step is possible.

"facts do not change"

 

[exchemist]

Not sure where you'd have stuck that in, but I say
lets see if one tiny step is possible.

"facts do not change"

True. Though sometimes what we thought were facts turn out not to be.

There is another complication in the case of the "facts" involved with evolution. There is a classic confusion that is often made between the facts of evolution as observed, for instance, in populations of bacteria that become drug-resistant, or the famous "peppered moth", and the theory of evolution of species by natural selection, for which there is vast evidence, but is not a "fact" any more than any other theory can be a fact.

The theory of evolution has undergone quite a bit of change in my lifetime, e.g. punctuated equilibrium and epigenetics. So I think to be fair to our poster he or she may be thinking of this. (Though the inclusion of a Berlinski video may on the contrary signify an IDer running up the Jolly Roger. We'll see.)

 

[Audie]

True. Though sometimes what we thought were facts turn out not to be.

There is another complication in the case of the "facts" involved with evolution. There is a classic confusion that is often made between the facts of evolution as observed, for instance, in populations of bacteria that become drug-resistant, or the famous "peppered moth", and the theory of evolution of species by natural selection, for which there is vast evidence, but is not a "fact" any more than any other theory can be a fact.

The theory of evolution has undergone quite a bit of change in my lifetime, e.g. punctuated equilibrium and epigenetics. So I think to be fair to our poster he or she may be thinking of this. (Though the inclusion of a Berlinski video may on the contrary signify an IDer running up the Jolly Roger. We'll see.)

I am going to be a bit fussy here, on the subject of facts.

This is the only use of the word in science that I
understand to be correct.

"It is a fact that this is my data".

Or more collectively, "it is a fact that nobody
has disproved ToE" (or the gas laws)

Now, there can be problems with the data, there
can be more in the interpretation of the data.

I suppose in that narrow sense, one could say that
what is a fact today might not be tomorrow.
Some guy was champion today, is not tomorrow.
That kind of thing.

Of course, our friend was not getting into nuance,
but saying evolution was a fact and then it wasnt.

Refinements in a field so vast as inquiry
into matters related to To,E will be taking place
continually.


But to return to changeable facts.

I will go with my misquote of Feymnman on
this- something to the effect of how
"this is how things now seem to me to be"

Dont figure on anything in science being a fact.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

You can think of science like that, but I just think of science as facts.

Then you think of science incorrectly. Science is a method, not a collection of facts.

 

[exchemist]

Then you think of science incorrectly. Science is a method, not a collection of facts.

This is just about OK as a flowscheme for science, if one recognises one can start at almost any point and work back and forth, in both directions, in a highly informal way.

The idea should not be given that science conforms to a rigid methodology.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

This is just about OK as a flowscheme for science, if one recognises one can start at almost any point and work back and forth, in both directions, in a highly informal way.

The idea should not be given that science conforms to a rigid methodology.

The main point is that science isn't just collecting facts. The goal of science is a well constructed and well supported theory.

"Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

 

[exchemist]

The main point is that science isn't just collecting facts. The goal of science is a well constructed and well supported theory.

"Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome."--Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory"

Yes fair enough. It is the way facts are established and the way they are used both to develop and test theories that are distinctive of science.

 

[Audie]

[QUOTE="oldbadger, post: 5656379, member: 39349", I am moaning about pretentious imposters,


You can think of science like that, but I just think of science as facts.


Beware of imposters who bring gifts of 'science'. [/QUOTE]

You think of science as a bunch of facts??

A great pity here is that you did not notice
that the teachers who supposedly instructed
you in science were the imposters.

They clearly taught you nothing at all about
science, and, consequentemente, you learned
no science, at all.

 

[Audie]

Ha ha !!!
Clearly more of a commercial guy than an academic, and an amazing artist, having looked at some of his pictures.

I've been thinking about your posts on this thread, and of ways to explain myself more clearly, and I might have an angle to present to you.

I was a commercial detective for a long time, and sadly bumped into lots of people who didn't always tell me, juries or judges the truth.

People would often claim 'these are the facts!' and then tell rubbish, lies or inaccuracies, and most mature folks are aware of this which makes them cautious. But when we hear of surveys, productions, research etc we might swallow the accounts more easily if they are presented as 'science' or by 'scientists'. Anybody with an agenda who carries out a (loaded) survey for some effect or other will be much more successful if they report the results as 'carried out by scientists'.

You spent so much time around fakers, you got
to thinking everybody is like that? Too bad.

Maybe you learned to be skeptical of everyone but
yourself, forgetting you are the easiest one to fool.

 

[oldbadger]

Yes you would have had to be a professional sceptic, which I imagine carries some danger of shading off into cynicism, given that you would be dealing with that portion of humanity that is trying to conceal something, for whatever reason!

Scepticism is a valuable trait in science...... The Sceptical Chymist - Wikipedia

Oh yes........ we are a good % of what our pasts built us into....... I wish I could have been a veterinary surgeon or something similar. Here in the UK folks even make bequests to them in their wills.

 

[oldbadger]

Then you think of science incorrectly. Science is a method, not a collection of facts.

Whoa!
Many Facts (or much Science) is not discovered by anything like your chart.
Some of our best discoveries have been made by serendipity, as we (humanity) search for something entirely different.
Example? Viagara, discovered by accident in the research centre at Sandwich, England, I seem to remember.

Hang on........ I need to go off to google for a sec.... will finish post with an EDIT.
EDIT:- Yes, the Oxford English describes science as .... simply, the study or knowledge of the physical and natural world.
Your chart is the intellectual's answer, whereas the 'simple honest' is that no questions need be asked if a person just wishes to watch nature and/or the world. We can discover science (facts) by falling over backwards, sometimes........ but today folks do need to 'big' science up as something necessarily complicated.

Some folks are turning Science into a religion! Imagine that.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Whoa!
Many Facts (or much Science) is not discovered by anything like your chart.

Discovering facts is not science. Constructing and testing hypotheses and theories is science.

Some of our best discoveries have been made by serendipity, as we (humanity) search for something entirely different.
Example? Viagara, discovered by accident in the research centre at Sandwich, England, I seem to remember.

Hang on........ I need to go off to google for a sec.... will finish post with an EDIT.

The theory that Viagra has specific effects was tested in clinical trials.

 

[oldbadger]

You think of science as a bunch of facts??

Ummmmmm...... yeah........

A great pity here is that you did not notice
that the teachers who supposedly instructed
you in science were the imposters.

They clearly taught you nothing at all about
science, and, consequentemente, you learned
no science, at all.

Oh this will be fun!
So what did your science teacher teach you?
List anything you learned........

But whatever you do, don't list a fact!

Oh dear!...... do you read what you write?