Let's talk about the newest religion: scientism

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: noonebutme

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
An overtly scientific minded individual states a certain "fact".
After a debate the individual admits that they didn't know how we know this fact to be a fact before they got into the debate.
True story.

What true story? Please tell me that story. And which fact where they/he/you referring to?

Before that gap in the individual's knowledge was filled with ACTUAL knowledge, was the individual not operating on faith when stating the fact as truth beforehand?

No. Again, I make the example -- If I jump off the Empire State building, i will die on impact. I believe that to be true, even though I have never done it. Why do i believe this? Because all the supporting evidence is testable, empirical and demonstrable.

I can prove how gravity works.
I can prove how acceleration works.
I can prove material sciences and how different materials react when then impact on each other at speed and with force.

Therefore, with all that supporting, FACTUAL evidence (ie: things that can be tested and re-tested by anyone who wants to), I have full *faith* that jumping off the Empire State Building to the ground below will kill me.

That is the kind of *faith* people are misusing when you claim people of science have 'faith'.

Maybe your example was relevant when you last stated it but it's an extremely bad analogy here.

You've demonstrated that you know how we know jumping from that height will result in death.

The knowing how we know was absent in the individual's knowledge. They "just knew" something as fact even with incomplete knowledge. Which is the whole crux of it, which your reply doesn't address.

An actual understanding of what I'm saying may prevent you from confusing types of faith

so to summarize: person A believed that fact B was true because they had faith before actual evidence replaced that faith, which you interpret as something of a lucky guess rather than a reasonable gamble borrowing from previous experience. maybe that has something to do with the faith we place in professionals who are paid to investigate examine deduce and test real world phenomena and the theories that explain their mechanics. professionals who have spent decades mastering the elaborate techniques and tools of all the interlocking studies that impact every level of daily living. yes, we have what i call 'calculated faith' or 'inductive trust'...

Finally! Someone who (almost) understands. You're halfway there

because those professionals have EARNED that faith by being challenged again and again and again, and overcoming those challenges through discipline and determination and establishing a pattern that manifested itself in medicine and technology and agriculture and meterology etc. much of this comes from believing in what they do, they believe in the importance of their work, and they believe in the integrity of their trusted roles in the scientific process. they believe in doing it right and not just looking good. hence the inductive trust, our willingness to give them the benefit of the doubt when they have something to say without writing a book about it first. some of us are secure enough that we dont feel the need to make fools of them every chance we get.

Oh dear...
Nope, a complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what I'm saying.
Once again confusion and an imagined "attack" on science as a whole.
Every. Bloody. Time.

it seemed like you were trying to misrepresent inductive trust as irrational faith. i was trying to explain why it is actually rational faith as opposed to more zealous forms of faith. maybe you would be kind enough to show me where i went wrong and how.

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
You've demonstrated that you know how we know jumping from that height will result in death.

The knowing how we know was absent in the individual's knowledge. They "just knew" something as fact even with incomplete knowledge. Which is the whole crux of it, which your reply doesn't address.

An actual understanding of what I'm saying may prevent you from confusing types of faith

I do understand what you are saying - I just think you are wrong in your conclusions.

And I'll ask you again - what was the true story you mentioned earlier? The post which I replied to? I'm keen to know exactly which 'true' story this was and which fact you are referring to:

After a debate the individual admits that they didn't know how we know this fact to be a fact before they got into the debate.
True story.

And yes I use the building jump example frequently -- because its a very easy to understand analogy and illustrates my point that, as TzarChasm has already said, there is a difference between trust and faith.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: noonebutme

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
An overtly scientific minded individual states a certain "fact".
After a debate the individual admits that they didn't know how we know this fact to be a fact before they got into the debate.
True story.

What true story? Please tell me that story. And which fact where they/he/you referring to?

Before that gap in the individual's knowledge was filled with ACTUAL knowledge, was the individual not operating on faith when stating the fact as truth beforehand?

No. Again, I make the example -- If I jump off the Empire State building, i will die on impact. I believe that to be true, even though I have never done it. Why do i believe this? Because all the supporting evidence is testable, empirical and demonstrable.

I can prove how gravity works.
I can prove how acceleration works.
I can prove material sciences and how different materials react when then impact on each other at speed and with force.

Therefore, with all that supporting, FACTUAL evidence (ie: things that can be tested and re-tested by anyone who wants to), I have full *faith* that jumping off the Empire State Building to the ground below will kill me.

That is the kind of *faith* people are misusing when you claim people of science have 'faith'.

Maybe your example was relevant when you last stated it but it's an extremely bad analogy here.

You've demonstrated that you know how we know jumping from that height will result in death.

The knowing how we know was absent in the individual's knowledge. They "just knew" something as fact even with incomplete knowledge. Which is the whole crux of it, which your reply doesn't address.

An actual understanding of what I'm saying may prevent you from confusing types of faith

so to summarize: person A believed that fact B was true because they had faith before actual evidence replaced that faith, which you interpret as something of a lucky guess rather than a reasonable gamble borrowing from previous experience. maybe that has something to do with the faith we place in professionals who are paid to investigate examine deduce and test real world phenomena and the theories that explain their mechanics. professionals who have spent decades mastering the elaborate techniques and tools of all the interlocking studies that impact every level of daily living. yes, we have what i call 'calculated faith' or 'inductive trust'...

Finally! Someone who (almost) understands. You're halfway there

because those professionals have EARNED that faith by being challenged again and again and again, and overcoming those challenges through discipline and determination and establishing a pattern that manifested itself in medicine and technology and agriculture and meterology etc. much of this comes from believing in what they do, they believe in the importance of their work, and they believe in the integrity of their trusted roles in the scientific process. they believe in doing it right and not just looking good. hence the inductive trust, our willingness to give them the benefit of the doubt when they have something to say without writing a book about it first. some of us are secure enough that we dont feel the need to make fools of them every chance we get.

Oh dear...
Nope, a complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what I'm saying.
Once again confusion and an imagined "attack" on science as a whole.
Every. Bloody. Time.

it seemed like you were trying to misrepresent inductive trust as irrational faith. i was trying to explain why it is actually rational faith as opposed to more zealous forms of faith. maybe you would be kind enough to show me where i went wrong and how.

No, there's no misrepresentation on my part.
I'm highlighting that there is in fact oftentimes a level of faith when it comes to believing scientific fact. This is always violently denied on this site (until now, thank you for that).

I never stated it was an irrational faith. It is a parallel to the "other" faith. I mean, it is a faith. It's faith!
And there's nothing wrong with that. We all have it, I have it, you have it, everyone claiming there is no faith in science has it. Why do some irrationally deny they operate on a level of faith to the point of anger and throwing insults? Why do some find the concept so sickeningly disagreeable to the point where they think I'm part of some scientist Lynch mob or something? (exaggeration yes)

I see similarities in the way people act/react/interact to or with their belief systems/not belief systems, whether it religious, scientific or other. And again, there's nothing wrong with that, it's human behaviour.

Someone stated earlier that science and religion aren't sports teams. If this is the case why does everyone evidently act like they are?

originally posted by: noonebutme

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
You've demonstrated that you know how we know jumping from that height will result in death.

The knowing how we know was absent in the individual's knowledge. They "just knew" something as fact even with incomplete knowledge. Which is the whole crux of it, which your reply doesn't address.

An actual understanding of what I'm saying may prevent you from confusing types of faith

I do understand what you are saying

No, you sincerely do not...

a reply to: Ruiner1978

I'm highlighting that there is in fact oftentimes a level of faith when it comes to believing scientific fact. This is always violently denied on this site (until now, thank you for that).

I never stated it was an irrational faith. It is a parallel to the "other" faith. I mean, it is a faith. It's faith!

if by parallel you mean equal, then im afraid you are quite mistaken. they are not equal faiths. one is dissonant faith, the other is calculated faith. i already explained this.

And there's nothing wrong with that. We all have it, I have it, you have it, everyone claiming there is no faith in science has it. Why do some irrationally deny they operate on a level of faith to the point of anger and throwing insults? Why do some find the concept so sickeningly disagreeable to the point where they think I'm part of some scientist Lynch mob or something? (exaggeration yes)

i agree that the anger and insults are unhelpful and imply a level of insecurity. your intentions may be sincere but much like their anger comes from being prematurely lumped in with examples of irrational thought, your arguments are echoed by similar camps of irrational thought who encourage the dismissal of any process that doesnt confirm their bias. it is easy to get confused when thought exercises are repurposed in a cloak and dagger fashion. the george orwell concept of doublethink is a good example.

Someone stated earlier that science and religion aren't sports teams. If this is the case why does everyone evidently act like they are?

because it is difficult to objectively discern which parts of spirituality are right, which parts of science are wrong, where they overlap and to what extent and how that reflects on our species as one of the first organisms to recognize the universe observing itself...not to put too poetic a twist on it. it is a fascinating journey that makes some people feel very insecure about how they have chosen to spend their time and what happens when that time runs out. fear can bring out some very surprising and unsettling things in all of us. no one is immune.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Ruiner1978

I'm highlighting that there is in fact oftentimes a level of faith when it comes to believing scientific fact. This is always violently denied on this site (until now, thank you for that).

I never stated it was an irrational faith. It is a parallel to the "other" faith. I mean, it is a faith. It's faith!

if by parallel you mean equal, then im afraid you are quite mistaken. they are not equal faiths. one is dissonant faith, the other is calculated faith. i already explained this.

No, I said and meant parallel. If putting other words in front of the word faith makes them unequal to you that's fine. Whether they're equal or not doesn't concern me

And there's nothing wrong with that. We all have it, I have it, you have it, everyone claiming there is no faith in science has it. Why do some irrationally deny they operate on a level of faith to the point of anger and throwing insults? Why do some find the concept so sickeningly disagreeable to the point where they think I'm part of some scientist Lynch mob or something? (exaggeration yes)

i agree that the anger and insults are unhelpful and imply a level of insecurity. your intentions may be sincere but much like their anger comes from being prematurely lumped in with examples of irrational thought, your arguments are echoed by similar camps of irrational thought who encourage the dismissal of any process that doesnt confirm their bias. it is easy to get confused when thought exercises are repurposed in a cloak and dagger fashion. the george orwell concept of doublethink is a good example.

Understandable. But the irrational thought and dismissal of concepts that dont confirm bias is rife in all camps.

Someone stated earlier that science and religion aren't sports teams. If this is the case why does everyone evidently act like they are?

because it is difficult to objectively discern which parts of spirituality are right, which parts of science are wrong, where they overlap and to what extent and how that reflects on our species as one of the first organisms to recognize the universe observing itself...not to put too poetic a twist on it. it is a fascinating journey that makes some people feel very insecure about how they have chosen to spend their time and what happens when that time runs out. fear can bring out some very surprising and unsettling things in all of us. no one is immune.

Indeed, something we're all guilty of.

a reply to: Ruiner1978

Understandable. But the irrational thought and dismissal of concepts that dont confirm bias is rife in all camps.

the scientific method is designed to minimize if not eliminate human error. other methods are often dependent on human error.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Ruiner1978

Understandable. But the irrational thought and dismissal of concepts that dont confirm bias is rife in all camps.

the scientific method is designed to minimize if not eliminate human error. other methods are often dependent on human error.

I agree with that statement.

But I don't see how that's a relevant reply to what I'm saying. You're still not on the same page it seems.

You still seem hung up on the misconception that I'm criticising science as a whole or it's methods, or that I don't see the difference between methods.

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Ruiner1978

Understandable. But the irrational thought and dismissal of concepts that dont confirm bias is rife in all camps.

the scientific method is designed to minimize if not eliminate human error. other methods are often dependent on human error.

I agree with that statement.

But I don't see how that's a relevant reply to what I'm saying. You're still not on the same page it seems.

You still seem hung up on the misconception that I'm criticising science as a whole or it's methods, or that I don't see the difference between methods.

you are not clarifying either. im not psychic and i dont care to play go fish.

a reply to: mrperplexed

Right there with you . If it isn't satire I almost feel like it would be a waste of time to go any further. Most people in this mindset never change. Science and religion are complete opposites , End of story !!!

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Ruiner1978

Understandable. But the irrational thought and dismissal of concepts that dont confirm bias is rife in all camps.

the scientific method is designed to minimize if not eliminate human error. other methods are often dependent on human error.

I agree with that statement.

But I don't see how that's a relevant reply to what I'm saying. You're still not on the same page it seems.

You still seem hung up on the misconception that I'm criticising science as a whole or it's methods, or that I don't see the difference between methods.

you are not clarifying either. im not psychic and i dont care to play go fish.

My first post on this page wasn't enough clarification for you?

I think you've just proved my 'irrational thought and dismissal of concepts that dont confirm bias is rife in all camps' statement.

Maybe give me another reply that makes no sense in relation to this post that also just comes across as a sort of 'scientific psalm' given the context you strangely rammed it into.

a reply to: Ruiner1978

thank you for your insight. your observations have been noted.

originally posted by: LittleFire
a reply to: mrperplexed

Right there with you . If it isn't satire I almost feel like it would be a waste of time to go any further. Most people in this mindset never change. Science and religion are complete opposites , End of story !!!

Science and religion are the same - not opposites.

Religion is based upon tradition rooted in experience.

Science is based upon experience rooted in tradition.

It's a circle.

If anyone seeks truth, one must become a tangent.

originally posted by: TarzanBeta

originally posted by: LittleFire
a reply to: mrperplexed

Right there with you . If it isn't satire I almost feel like it would be a waste of time to go any further. Most people in this mindset never change. Science and religion are complete opposites , End of story !!!

Science and religion are the same - not opposites.

Religion is based upon tradition rooted in experience.

Science is based upon experience rooted in tradition.

It's a circle.

If anyone seeks truth, one must become a tangent.

you got those mixed up. religion is rooted in tradition and science is founded on experience. that is to say, scientific experience is far more easily generated and disseminated than religion is.

a reply to: Justoneman

if I understand who you are implying

To be honest, I wasn’t thinking of anyone in particular. As I said earlier, it’s quite a common occurrence.

a reply to: Ruiner1978

All I know is that they are overtly scientifically minded.

In what way? To me, a scientifically-minded person is one who takes an empirical, analytical approach to problem-solving and the acquisition of knowledge. Evidently you have something else in mind. What is it?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Ruiner1978

All I know is that they are overtly scientifically minded.

In what way? To me, a scientifically-minded person is one who takes an empirical, analytical approach to problem-solving and the acquisition of knowledge. Evidently you have something else in mind. What is it?

No, our definitions are the same.

How about that! We agree on something!

a reply to: Ruiner1978

Well, somebody who is scientifically minded in that sense is surely aware of the dangers of blind belief in anyone or anything. So it seems rather unlikely that they made any assertion they did make purely on faith.

It could well be that they made the statement on what they thought to be good authority. We don’t know their reasons for thinking so, and would be unwise to assume that they were acting merely on faith.

As with the people he is attempting to condemn, he overexaggerates to make his point. In most of the important ways, science is nothing like religion. His only point that has any value is that scientists themselves can be guilty of dogmatism - an overabundance of faith in their own conclusions and occasionally subconsciously believing theory as being fact..

Actually, it is in one of the most important ways that science is currently mimicking religion that he left out - that somehow all our problems will be solved if we'd only give them enough money - that is the most dangerous.
Just my opinion!😄😃

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Ruiner1978
It could well be that they made the statement on what they thought to be good authority.

Yes!
Yes! Yes! Yes!!!

Now THINK deeply on that.