Why Mainstream Science is a Religion

a reply to: Greggers

Try actually READING the thread. The op and several others have gotten into the specifics of how what is often referred to as science in the modern era, is actually religion and what SCIENCE as YOU and others are purporting it IS different, both from religion and the scientific paradigms that are ALSO religious in nature.

I swear all of the ostriches who keep mumbling... science is not religion because SCIENCE... need to learn how to think for yourselves...Jesus Christ...it's like talking to a friggin wall.

Jaden

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: Greggers

Try actually READING the thread. The op and several others have gotten into the specifics of how what is often referred to as science in the modern era, is actually religion and what SCIENCE as YOU and others are purporting it IS different, both from religion and the scientific paradigms that are ALSO religious in nature.

I swear all of the ostriches who keep mumbling... science is not religion because SCIENCE... need to learn how to think for yourselves...Jesus Christ...it's like talking to a friggin wall.

Jaden

Yep, I read the thread. Are you trying to say I'm not entitled to comment on the OP simply because the conversation has moved on from it?

If I thought it had moved on from it in a way that negated my response, I wouldn't have shared it. If talking to me is like beating your head against a wall, I can assure you there is no need for you to continue.

I certainly am not an ostrich who can't think for himself, nor does anything in my post suggest as much.

a reply to: Greggers

no. Not really. Time has had MANY meanings throughout time. What it really is, is up for debate.

In general, it is the amount of measured time it takes to accomplish something. I mean the basic premise behind time isn't debatable at all. Kind of like the force of gravity isn't up for debate. The CAUSE of gravity is up for debate, the theory of gravity is up for debate, but that SOME force causes things to fall toward the center of the earth isn't up for debate.

It's the same with time. Notice how I said TWO specific things in the post where I talked about time. I said IF Einstein's theories of relativity are correct, more specifically his special theory of relativity, and I said that the atomic clock experiments SUPPORT the idea of time dilation. I even specifically noted that I didn't say that they PROVE time dilation.

What is commonly referred to as time today scientifically is NOT what people of the past referred to.

It's funny because scientifically, time is assumed to be space/time according to relativity.

What if it isn't????

What if relativity is COMPLETELY wrong but the tests that support it happen to closely resemble what is really going on?

The whole idea that science leads to technological breakthrough is farcical at BEST...

Scientific ENDEAVOR leads to many breakthroughs(mostly by accident). The scientific establishment DISCOURAGES technological breakthrough.

Jaden

a reply to: Greggers

Many things in your post suggests that you are. You constantly referred to the scientific METHOD as SCIENCE, also inferring that the beliefs of the scientific establishment are the same SCIENCE...

They cannot be lumped together. One is a method for attempting to discern physical truth, the other is a religious belief system that is self supporting with dogma and many other religious concepts.

That you can't see it, when it's been explained exactly how it is, shows you to be an ostrich.

BTW.. I consider myself to be a scientist. I use the scientific method to discover and to discern. WHAT I DON'T do, is ignore evidence that doesn't fit my preconceived notions, discount and deny things simply because they don't fit into existing dogma, etc...

More importantly, I don't ignore evidence that appears to contradict existing established doctrine (I'm sorry but it IS doctrine) and I LOOK at the steps that lead to what that established doctrine is. I followed the house of cards to its' foundations and found it extremely wanting.

Jaden

a reply to: GetHyped

no but denying evolution to be a fact based on its merits and the fact that a theory can NEVER be fact by definition is...

Quit setting up straw men.

Jaden

a reply to: Masterjaden

First off, I agree with much of your last post.

GR is a model (I avoid using the word theory because people tend to think it means something it doesn't), and as a model, it holds up remarkably well. Does that mean it's TRUE? No. Like I said, it can never be proven. However, because it is SCIENCE, it can be falsified, and because of all the supporting data supporting it, GR will be treated as a basic truth of the universe until the moment it's not.

Maybe gravity and time are both emergent properties of an invisible quantum field. Maybe one day we'll have a Theory of Everything that will tie it all together. Until then, we have GR on one end, and QM on the other, and they both do a remarkable job of allowing highly accurate predictions within their respective domains.

As far as time being the ticking of a clock, that is the way it is described in every modern physics book I have ever read. Understand, in this context, the clock is theoretical rather than physical, and is generally applied at the subatomic level, thereby effecting the passage of time for "almost" everything within a given reference frame. What people considered to be time 1000 years ago is not something I was commenting on.

The only part of your post I strongly disagree with is the very last bit. Although I recognize that there is a difference between scientific endeavor and the scientific establishment, I personally don't think it's fair to separate scientific endeavor from science in general, the way you seem to have done. I would say that scientific endeavor involves the application of science in general, and that the scientific establishment often consults on projects funded by those involved in scientific endeavor.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
I swear all of the ostriches who keep mumbling... science is not religion because SCIENCE... need to learn how to think for yourselves...Jesus Christ...it's like talking to a friggin wall.

Who has said that?

I've continually pointed out the fundamental differences between science and a religion and why science is nothing like religion, no matter how some people perceive it, or how some people try to make it out to be.

I've never said science is science because 'science'. I've repeatedly stated how it differs, why it differs and why it is nothing like religion.

Father Christmas, it's like talking to a friggin wall.

originally posted by: cooperton
No one here is denying science, we are just trying to dismantle the "infallible" priesthood from their thrones and show their acolytes the fallacy of their theoretical beliefs.

ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

A bit of a related tangent: And, for me, it is a VERY serious concern. Maybe this needs to be a different thread--but for now, I merely want to illustrate why the Religion of Scientism is such a serious topic, to me.

I believe that even on ATS, most folks are fairly oblivious to the super serious trends underway on a large scale:

= = =

I moved that post to a new thread more fitting for that discussion:
.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

BTW, you might check your PM's--via the envelope icon near the upper right corner of the page.

You constantly referred to the scientific METHOD as SCIENCE,

I never even mentioned the scientific method. In fact, only a very small percentage of what constitutes actual science is actually derived from hard application of the scientific method. We could discuss that in more detail if you like. But I never mentioned the scientific method. Just pointing that out.

also inferring that the beliefs of the scientific establishment are the same SCIENCE...

Never said that either.

They cannot be lumped together. One is a method for attempting to discern physical truth, the other is a religious belief system that is self supporting with dogma and many other religious concepts.

I think you're going to have to be a lot more specific. Like I said before, quite clearly, people can screw up anything that they are involved in, including scientific pursuits. But you said the "beliefs of the scientific establishment" are "a religious belief." So, you're making a blanket statement about anything that is believed to be true by the scientific establishment. I have not found that to be true at all. In fact, most scientists I have spoken to will freely acknowledge what is known within their respective fields, and what is not.

That you can't see it, when it's been explained exactly how it is, shows you to be an ostrich.

You are being unnecessarily hostile. Remember, go after the ball, not the player.

WHAT I DON'T do, is ignore evidence that doesn't fit my preconceived notions, discount and deny things simply because they don't fit into existing dogma, etc...

Good. Neither do I.

a reply to: noonebutme

I don't see a way to help you hear and understand our point.

You are evidently wholesale missing it. Your biases seem to absolutely prevent such an understanding--even at arm's length, so to speak.

It seems impossible. Sorry.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: GetHyped

no but denying evolution to be a fact based on its merits and the fact that a theory can NEVER be fact by definition is...

Quit setting up straw men.

Jaden

This is that whole "scientific illiteracy" thing I was talking about:

In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.

en.wikipedia.org...

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.

en.wikipedia.org...

Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record. Theories of evolution provide a provisional explanation for these facts.[1]

Each of the words "evolution," "fact" and "theory" has several meanings in different contexts. Evolution means change over time, as in stellar evolution. In biology it refers to observed changes in organisms, to their descent from a common ancestor, and at a technical level to a change in gene frequency over time; it can also refer to explanatory theories (such as Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection) which explain the mechanisms of evolution. To a scientist, fact can describe a repeatable observation that all can agree on; it can refer to something that is so well established that nobody in a community disagrees with it; and it can also refer to the truth or falsity of a proposition. To the public, theory can mean an opinion or conjecture (e.g., "it's only a theory"), but among scientists it has a much stronger connotation of "well-substantiated explanation." With this number of choices, people can often talk past each other, and meanings become the subject of linguistic analysis.

Evidence for evolution continues to be accumulated and tested. The scientific literature includes statements by evolutionary biologists and philosophers of science demonstrating some of the different perspectives on evolution as fact and theory.

en.wikipedia.org...


If you're going to attack a scientific theory, you would be wise to get your terminology straight first. Otherwise, you look terribly ignorant in the process.

originally posted by: Greggers
a reply to: Masterjaden

First off, I agree with much of your last post.

. . . GR will be treated as a basic truth of the universe until the moment it's not.

I think it is that COMPULSION, HABIT, tendency, . . . doctrine . . . particularly when taken into one's 'soul' uncritically . . . that so wholesale contributes to science being treated, conceptualized (largely unconsciously for many), related to . . . as a religion.

IF most things were held loosely . . . as a probability . . . a model . . . I doubt there would be so much intense religious fervor about science as a system of beliefs.

originally posted by: Masterjaden
a reply to: GetHyped

no but denying evolution to be a fact based on its merits and the fact that a theory can NEVER be fact by definition is...

Quit setting up straw men.

Jaden

Ahhhhhhh, but WHEN all one has is straw men . . . THEN one HAS to cling to them all the more intensely, all the more RELIGIOUSLY.

originally posted by: BO XIAN

originally posted by: DOCHOLIDAZE1
a reply to: myselfaswell

it very much is, in regards to the masses that blindly follow, such as theoretical religion is blindly followed.

YUP.

The dogma aspect is very telling. Deviate even slightly from the approved dogma . . . and it's "off with their heads!"

--prevent tenure
--don't publish them
--prevent their speaking at conferences
etc.

And, science's history is replete with issues that were "PROVEN" as untrue . . . but were later truly proven to be totally wrongly considered untrue.

The dogged nature of "Science" is evident and there is a real problem with it.

I am an English teacher and last year I was teaching a leading gastroenterologist from the Czech Republic. We talked extensively about the problem of "Science" today. He told me about his annoyance that new theories that had not been proven to be true where being treated as such in official scientific papers. Apparently, this is the way of "Science" that a new theory is treated as "true" and published as completely "true" until something else comes along to disprove it. This happens even though those who are leading in the subject are fully aware that there are massive flaws in the theory.

originally posted by: BO XIAN

originally posted by: Greggers
a reply to: Masterjaden

First off, I agree with much of your last post.

. . . GR will be treated as a basic truth of the universe until the moment it's not.

I think it is that COMPULSION, HABIT, tendency, . . . doctrine . . . particularly when taken into one's 'soul' uncritically . . . that so wholesale contributes to science being treated, conceptualized (largely unconsciously for many), related to . . . as a religion.

IF most things were held loosely . . . as a probability . . . a model . . . I doubt there would be so much intense religious fervor about science as a system of beliefs.

Again, I agree with much of that. But is GR really the thing that's gotten everyone worked up here? I have my doubts, merely because most people don't get into arguments about GR -- except maybe on a few of the physics forums I frequent, and there the arguments are on a completely different level, mostly involving high concept mathematics.

I guess it does come up on ATS when people are discussing the possibilities of time travel and space flight, but I rarely see people get so upset that they are ready to decry science as a religion.

I think some of these excellent points deserve extra emphasis:

originally posted by: rottensociety
a reply to: BO XIAN

Genius thinking. Most people are unaware of the reality of the new "Age of Reason": indeed, many become the fanaticists as described below.

From "Survivre" no. 9, August/September 1971:

The pursuit of science "is just as irrational and emotional in its motives and just as intolerant in its daily practices as any of the traditional religions it has taken over from... It is not enough for it that it claims that its myths alone are true; it is the only religion which has the arrogance to claim that it is not based on any myth at all but on Reason alone, and whose particular mixture of intolerance and amorality is presented as tolerance."

From "Mythology" (Chambers Compact Reference):

"Science...presents itself as Truth, other than which there is none; it denies everything which cannot be encompassed within its sphere. The only justification for this exclusion is subjective. It is not founded on reason, it is irrational. It does, in fact, display a mythological nature.

Like the classical myth, 'scientism' has its images: the ideal society where everything is listed, counted and measured (Aldous Huxley, Brave New World). Like the classical myth, it is separated from the man of today by time (past or future); like the classical myth, it is full of social rites, churches and clergy; like the classical myth it is sustained by faith, sometimes even by fanaticism. In short, it has created a new form of myth."

Great quotes. Thanks.

And thanks . . . for sharing some understanding of some very critical truths of our era.

a reply to: Greggers

I don't think most people tackle very significantly with GR.

I think most of the emotional hostility comes from folks who are not that perceptively deep in their thinking generally.

I believe they mostly key on a few impactful memes, themes, key words, etc. and therefrom feel that their world view is somehow seriously threatened--which it may be--particularly if their world view is built on the hollow foundation of the RELIGIOUS aspects of modern 'scientific' institutions. Then the hostile aggressiveness is loosed on the 'science deniers' etc. as though that were a real thing--as though anyone was really denying tangibly accurate science--which, those of my perspective, generally speaking, are not.

To insist on objectivity in science vs religion in science is not to deny science.

Shoot, I'm a PhD social SCIENTIST already yet. And I've challenged my Christianity and local Christian leaders tooth and toenail in terms of "objective" experiential TRUTH vs RELIGIOSITY.

Much of what is said in the original post is true, but anti science types will seize on it to try and show some sort of equivalence with young earth creationism or something similar when it's just not.

Many in the scientific community have blinders on when it comes to questioning orthodoxy, there's no doubt of that. Does physics or evolution necessitate materialism? No.

But that doesn't mean evolution is false. It doesn't mean global warming is a hoax. It doesn't mean the earth's age can be measured in the 1000s.

Is there problem with reproducibility, are there very frequent statistical errors in published papers? Yep. Especially so in big publications like Science and Nature, because their claims are so often bombastic in order to get into those journals, it follows that many of their groundbreaking findings are false for a variety of reasons. That's the issue with a single study, often with a low sample size. Issues like global warming, evolution, and the age of the earth have been confirmed from literally thousands of different papers, both confirming from similar methodologies and different perspectives on adjacent issues that align perfectly.

For instance, Darwin proposes evolution through natural selection. That is famously confirmed through moths in England selecting for darker color during the especially sooty conditions of the industrial revolution. One among thousands of observations - antibiotic resistant bacteria is another. This is of course before the discovery of DNA, the existence of which perfectly buttresses natural selection. It also gives the mechanism by which evolution occurs. We can observe genes duplicating themselves, and we have seen genes mutate. Perhaps this mutation is beneficial, perhaps it's deleterious. And for anyone who thinks we haven't observed evolution in action, make note of people born with no wisdom teeth, they, like the appendix are vestigial.

So what's my point? That much of the OP is true, but you won't get it unless you actually understand science.
Are there de facto aspects of the scientific community that act like a religion? Yes, but that in no way means science itself, empirical observation and logical induction and deduction that is falsifiable in any way resembles a religion.