Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Rancid wrote:I can't say I've ever had "faith" in science.
Sivad wrote:Well I know first hand that you believe all kinds of things that you have no rational business believing just because you heard some scientist say it. You're definitely invested quite heavily in the myth of science, you're as invested in that myth as any fundamentalist Christian is invested in the literal truth of scripture.
And even if you weren't being completely dishonest there are millions of liberal bubbleheads that do "believe in science" so this shit is certainly relevant to their delusions.
Godstud wrote:Believing in something that is true and verifiable is quite different from believing in something that requires faith, is not necessarily true, and is unverifiable. You fail to differentiate between the two, it appears.
Note: I "believe" that if I heat distilled water past 100C that it will boil under normal atmospheric conditions. That belief is supported by science.
One Degree wrote:I think I get where you are coming from. We get tired of science being presented as Gospel. We can’t go too far the other way though.
Rancid wrote:This isn't a problem with science, this is the problem with people pushing their agenda's. This is not too different from the argument that "guns don't kill people, people kill people." Science is just the tool. It's how people use it that can cause problems.
However, the beauty is, you can use better science to debunk other people's junk science.
Sivad wrote: This is important because different scientific studies and methods often do not align to provide straightforward results: Separate analyses even of the very same data can yield remarkably divergent conclusions (Stegenga 2011).
One Degree wrote:I think this is a fair assessment. It gets a little cloudy when a scientist is the one with the agenda, but it still holds true.
Rancid wrote:Indeed. It's very hard, because all people have their opinions and predispositions. The way we attempt to mitigate this problem is through peer reviewing and retesting ideas in different ways to look for contradictions. This is why research papers are published and open to the public. Anyone can come analyze and call out all the bullshit. Sometimes it takes a while for someone's scientific "conclusions" to get thrown out the window as pure bullshit, but hey, at least there's a means for this to happen. This is probably the easiest argument against the dumb idea that "science is religion".
Rancid wrote:Question 1:
Is your point that because science isn't perfect & concrete, it's thus requires faith, and thus it's basically just another kind of religion? Last, because it's just another religion, it's ok to reject any claims it makes, even if there is valid/verifiable/repeatable evidence?
You know Baylor University is a Christian school, right?
Now, I would agree that science isn't some hard concrete universal thing. However, it is still very much a formalized (or generalized) process that can arrive at objective truths. The fact that it isn't "universal" doesn't invalidate it.
Are you a flat earther?
That's basically it. I think the psychological profile for people like Sivad that strongly believe Science is just another religion, basically have trust issues. The basis for their argument is "I can't trust anyone but myself." Thus there's zero validity to any science.
Hindsite wrote:Science is not religion, but some people claim certain ideas that they believe are science when they have not been scientifically proven. In certain cases, their so-called theory can not even be tested by a scientific method, yet they claim it is proven science. That is when their so-called science has actually become their religious belief. I believe this kind of thinking is what Sivad is writing about.
I love how you people go into crazy bullshit mode to defend the faith. I have never suggested that any claim should be rejected based on its source, that's your dishonest misrepresentation of my argument. I clearly stated that all claims should be assessed case by case based on the evidence.
It's a nationally ranked school and IEP is a peer reviewed and edited secular encyclopedia(no religious affiliation).
You're still referring to "it" like it's one thing, there is no capital 'S' science , there are only specific protocols and programs, some are sound and some aren't.
No, but you might as well be.
Now you're just making my point for me. You're absolutely right, I don't trust science. For people who understand what science is, faith don't enter into it, we want to see the evidence for every claim. "Science" has to prove itself every single time, it gets zero credit for any past success it may have had. It's not an authority, it's not even a reliable source, it's just whatever specific claim that's being made and it's only as good as the evidence to back it.
Rancid wrote:The way we attempt to mitigate this problem is through peer reviewing and retesting ideas in different ways to look for contradictions.
This is why research papers are published and open to the public.
the dumb idea that "science is religion".
Sivad wrote:The peer review process is completely dysfunctional and science has a major replication problem.
Sivad wrote: You ever heard of a paywall? You know what a subscription to a major journal costs? What a joke.
Sivad wrote:Science isn't the religion, it's your mindless reverence for "Science" that's the religion.
Sivad wrote:All scientific results are in their nature provisional – they can be nothing else. Someone will come along, either the next day or the next decade, with further refinements, new methods, more nuanced ways of looking at old problems, and, quelle surprise, find that conclusions based on earlier results were simplistic, rough-hewn – even wrong.
Rancid wrote:The rest of what you posted basically confounds science and science journalism.
However, to use that to then say that science itself is a problem is very dishonest. In fact, you are using the same bad journalism practices you are complaining about.
I wonder what is going to happen to Ciarmella? Wi[…]
The notion that using fossil fuels could "ge[…]
You double speak so much your gums must be blee[…]
Johnson called Corbyn a semi Marxist in his electi[…]