[Jim4120]

I find it hypocritical when someone attacks science, but is perfectly fine with using all of the many wonderful inventions that have come (and still continue to come) from science, and that operate under scientific principles. You do realize the very computer you are using is a result of science, as is the internet which you are accessing. As well as the electricity in your home that powers the computer, and is probably running your heater right now (or if you live in the southern hemisphere, your air-conditioning), another invention of science.

If you want to make a statement about rejecting science, how about start by not using everything that science has given you over the centuries.

It's similar to a drug addict continuing to use drugs, but telling others that they are evil and wrong for using the same drugs, or like a homosexual telling others that they shouldn't be homosexual themselves or they are evil and wrong (I'm sure neither of those would ever happen). Your hypocrisy is ridiculous.

[Rejn]

Jim, can you provide an example please?

[Jim4120]

I believe I did in my opening post, but maybe I'm misunderstanding the question?

[Decky]

Modern medicine for example.

[Rejn]

Can you give an example of an anti-scientist, I mean? What are they specifically opposed to, if they use modern technology?

[Jim4120]

Mainly fundamentalists who seem to be against the advancement of science because they feel it is a religion that attacks their own, and thus feel a need to try and destroy certain parts of science that are almost universally accepted ideas within science (although admittedly they have been wholly unsuccessful). I maintain that science and religion can be wholly compatible, and are not the same thing. It just seems hypocritical to me, and I strongly abhor hypocrisy. When I find myself doing it, I try extremely hard to eliminate such ideas from my thinking.

Maybe I'm wrong in my interpretation of their statements and actions, and if so I'll back down.

[Brother of Karl]

It's probably for the same reason that communists still take part in the capitalist economy and occasionally even own businesses. Just because you believe in a certain ideal world doesn't mean you don't still have to live in the real world.

[Jim4120]

Point taken, but science isn't really a belief system in my opinion, it's a way of describing the physical world around us, that we can observe, and just because you don't believe something doesn't make it false. So I'm not entirely sure your example applies to this specific question.

I would think a reasoning person would see the evidence for something and change their mind, but maybe that's where my mistake lies, in that I'm not dealing with reason in some cases.

[Paradigm]

I don't know that I've ever met someone who's truly "anti-science." I've met people who were ignorant about scientific concepts, but didn't hate science for coming up with those concepts. I've met fundamentalists who have denied scientific theories such as evolution, but rather than condemn science as a whole, they instead come up with complex rationalizations to explain away the scientific evidence in a way that supports their view. There are people who are skeptical or cynical about technological progress, and believe that humanity's scientific hubris will be its downfall. And then there are people such as myself who are critical of the cultural hegemony of the hard sciences over other ways of knowing, and vigilant against dogmatic and unwarranted claims about the scope and applicability of scientific ideas to various realms of human experience. In no case have I found any group that rejects all science out of hand. So I suppose I'd have to actually meet one of these supposed "anti-science" people to get some idea of what you're talking about.

[Jim4120]

I don't know that I've ever met someone who's truly "anti-science." I've met people who were ignorant about scientific concepts, but didn't hate science for coming up with those concepts. I've met fundamentalists who have denied scientific theories such as evolution, but rather than condemn science as a whole, they instead come up with complex rationalizations to explain away the scientific evidence in a way that supports their view. There are people who are skeptical or cynical about technological progress, and believe that humanity's scientific hubris will be its downfall. And then there are people such as myself who are critical of the cultural hegemony of the hard sciences over other ways of knowing, and vigilant against dogmatic and unwarranted claims about the scope and applicability of scientific ideas to various realms of human experience. In no case have I found any group that rejects all science out of hand. So I suppose I'd have to actually meet one of these supposed "anti-science" people to get some idea of what you're talking about.

Maybe I'm simply mistaken in my interpretation of their views, or maybe I'm not good in expressing my own, or maybe both.

[Rich]

I would say belief in science is a religion. The belief that there is some sort of sphere of activity or methodology known as science that is qualitatively different to some other form or forms of gaining knowledge. So I believe in an old Earth, I accept that the Earth is billions of years old. I accept the authority of mainstream geologists as opposed to the authority of flood geologists who believe the Earth is about 6000 years old. But as I've never studied Geology it is purely a matter of me accepting one set of authorities and not another.

However I believe the Bible does give us some historical data even if I don't accept the Bible's creation stories. On the other hand I reject the neo Darwinian synthesis that evolution is dominantly based on selection on random mutations in DNA. The maths doesn't add up. With micro organisms we can watch relatively large quantities of evolution because we can observe massive populations over many generations. And we repeatedly fail to see the development of new new structures as evolutionary theory would predict. So I reject some of the Bible and accept the truth of some of it. I accept some of what is referred to as modern science and reject some of it. You see there is no qualitative difference between so called science and so called religion unless we take Stalin's line that quantity has a quality all its own.

Dogmatic science followed to its logical conclusion is as barmy as dogmatic Islam followed to its logical conclusion. I have a spirit. I feel pain and pleasure. I really experience them I don't just appear to experience them. I know that I am, I know what Descartes claimed to know. I think therefore I am as the manifestation referred to as Descartes claimed to think. When i play a video game I see characters like myself who have the appearance of experiencing pain and pleasure. However scientific investigation posits that their apparent appearance can be explained though electronics and associated fields. There is no necessity to believe in any feeling expereincing spirits behind these characters. However there is a problem, because when I investigate so called people I find something very similar. That these manifestations called people can all be explained by the actions of molecules without the need to believe in any feeling experiencing spirits.

it is purely though subjective and supposedly unscientific method of introspection and analogy that I infer that people have spirits the same as me and that hence I am not free to kill them in the way I am free to kill video game characters.

[Jim4120]

But as I've never studied Geology it is purely a matter of me accepting one set of authorities and not another.

But you could if you wanted to, and you would then be free to draw your own conclusions about the age of the earth. It's my bet that you would come to the same conclusion as many of the scientists who have actually studied it. That's the beauty of science. Anyone can study and learn and come to their own conclusions, and usually find that they agree with the mainstream view. However, if they are different than the mainstream view, that person can then challenge it, and if the mainstream view is wrong, it is then changed to match the new one.

However I believe the Bible does give us some historical data even if I don't accept the Bible's creation stories. On the other hand I reject the neo Darwinian synthesis that evolution is dominantly based on selection on random mutations in DNA. The maths doesn't add up. With micro organisms we can watch relatively large quantities of evolution because we can observe massive populations over many generations. And we repeatedly fail to see the development of new new structures as evolutionary theory would predict.

I guess you haven't heard of this study: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lo ... experiment

It clearly shows new traits developing, such as an ability for E. Coli to grow on citrate, which occurred after many generations. This is such a radical change in the behavior of E. Coli, that it could possibly be considered a new species, which is exactly what evolution would predict, working through natural selection.

You see there is no qualitative difference between so called science and so called religion unless we take Stalin's line that quantity has a quality all its own.

There's a big difference, in that science can be falsifiable and changeable based upon observation of real world phenomenon through our senses, i.e. experimentation. Religion does not allow tenants of it to be challenged by those that follow it. It requires that those tenants be followed unquestioningly. Religion also proposes many things that cannot be proved nor disproved through experimentation. It, unlike science, does not require that claims be backed by evidence. Clearly, science is not religion.

When i play a video game I see characters like myself who have the appearance of experiencing pain and pleasure. However scientific investigation posits that their apparent appearance can be explained though electronics and associated fields. There is no necessity to believe in any feeling expereincing spirits behind these characters. However there is a problem, because when I investigate so called people I find something very similar. That these manifestations called people can all be explained by the actions of molecules without the need to believe in any feeling experiencing spirits.

This is true. However, I don't see why it has to diminish any kind of spirituality to recognize that you are doing what you do due to electromagnetic processes. In fact, to me, it's even more amazing when you know how the world works. It enhances the experience of life. It also does not mean that science is saying that video game characters are the same as people. This would be an ignorant stance. The fact that you are trillions of cells working together in harmony is pretty awesome in my opinion. If only us humans could work together in such harmony, imagine what we could accomplish.

It is purely though subjective and supposedly unscientific method of introspection and analogy that I infer that people have spirits the same as me and that hence I am not free to kill them in the way I am free to kill video game characters.

You could also come to that conclusion based simply on your own morality, or you could say that is your morality, and where it is derived from. I don't see why science would change this.