Let's talk about the newest religion: scientism

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

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.

Thinking deeply about that is part of the method for discerning fact from fiction. All people are susceptible to the problem of bias, which is why the scientific method is held in such high regard. It takes this into account with peer review and multiple lines of investigation. However if a claim cannot be falsified, it can be tenatively accepted until it is found to be incorrect.

Is this where you find your "faith in science?"


Or are you referring to people who have no scientific background accepting the words of scientists as fact?

a reply to: Ruiner1978

Now THINK deeply on that.

I think about things quite deeply.

If you have a point to make, make it. All this teasing may be fun for you, but it’s rather tedious to people who have better things to do.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

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.

Thinking deeply about that is part of the method for discerning fact from fiction. All people are susceptible to the problem of bias, which is why the scientific method is held in such high regard. It takes this into account with peer review and multiple lines of investigation. However if a claim cannot be falsified, it can be tenatively accepted until it is found to be incorrect.

Is this where you find your "faith in science?"


Or are you referring to people who have no scientific background accepting the words of scientists as fact?

Why pin it down to just those with no scientific background?

With TzarChasm's help we've established that "rational faith" exists and that everyone has it.

Like I suggested to him, insert any word you like before faith or trust if it makes it easier to swallow.

We all operate on a level of faith.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Ruiner1978

Now THINK deeply on that.

I think about things quite deeply.

If you have a point to make, make it. All this teasing may be fun for you, but it’s rather tedious to people who have better things to do.

The only thing you've been thinking deeply on is a way to avoid thinking about the point.
Even to the point of trying to suggest the point hasn't been made.

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

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.

Thinking deeply about that is part of the method for discerning fact from fiction. All people are susceptible to the problem of bias, which is why the scientific method is held in such high regard. It takes this into account with peer review and multiple lines of investigation. However if a claim cannot be falsified, it can be tenatively accepted until it is found to be incorrect.

Is this where you find your "faith in science?"


Or are you referring to people who have no scientific background accepting the words of scientists as fact?

Why pin it down to just those with no scientific background?

With TzarChasm's help we've established that "rational faith" exists and that everyone has it.

Like I suggested to him, insert any word you like before faith or trust if it makes it easier to swallow.

We all operate on a level of faith.

I have already explained to you that calculated trust and blind faith are not the same thing whether you want to dismiss the critical differences or not.

a reply to: Ruiner1978

The only thing you've been thinking deeply on is a way to avoid thinking about the point.

Ah, I see. A troll. Bugger off.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

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.

Thinking deeply about that is part of the method for discerning fact from fiction. All people are susceptible to the problem of bias, which is why the scientific method is held in such high regard. It takes this into account with peer review and multiple lines of investigation. However if a claim cannot be falsified, it can be tenatively accepted until it is found to be incorrect.

Is this where you find your "faith in science?"


Or are you referring to people who have no scientific background accepting the words of scientists as fact?

Why pin it down to just those with no scientific background?

With TzarChasm's help we've established that "rational faith" exists and that everyone has it.

Like I suggested to him, insert any word you like before faith or trust if it makes it easier to swallow.

We all operate on a level of faith.

I have already explained to you that calculated trust and blind faith are not the same thing whether you want to dismiss the critical differences or not.

Yes there's a difference.

There's a difference between vanilla ice cream and chocolate ice cream too.

The point is, followers of science are still operating on a level of faith in a similar way followers of religion are.


"But my ice cream is chocolate!"
You're still eating ice cream!

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Ruiner1978

The only thing you've been thinking deeply on is a way to avoid thinking about the point.

Ah, I see. A troll. Bugger off.

Are you really trying to play that card now??
How pathetic...

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 !!!

How so?

Have you revised 10 page math questions equations in regards to astronomy, astrophysics , quantum mechanics etc.. need I go on. And if not, your belief system is derived of faith not facts. Sounds a bit religious to me.

You could correct if I'm wrong

originally posted by: omniEther

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 !!!

How so?

Have you revised 10 page math questions equations in regards to astronomy, astrophysics , quantum mechanics etc.. need I go on. And if not, your belief system is derived of faith not facts. Sounds a bit religious to me.

You could correct if I'm wrong

Exactly!
You are not wrong.

They can't correct you, all they can do is deny this FACT.

Also sounds a bit religious...

originally posted by: omniEther
Have you revised 10 page math questions equations in regards to astronomy, astrophysics , quantum mechanics etc.. need I go on. And if not, your belief system is derived of faith not facts. Sounds a bit religious to me.
You could correct if I'm wrong

Ok, you are wrong. Here's why.

Actually, you even said the answer in your post - you can revise. You can go back and correct or re-evaluate and amend the work.

Again, that isn't 'faith' in maths or science in the same way people have 'faith' in religion. The latter is without any sort of evidence or proof or means of testing it, whereas the former has all those absent qualities.

So, if i'm looking at a 10 page long mathematical astrophysics question (which, lets be honest, I wouldn't have a clue how to evaluate right now), I would need to learn many underlying foundations in the core subjects before I could proceed. But, I 'believe' that what it is and what it is trying to prove is factual. If it isn't, then i can go an learn those skills to do it myself.

A + B * C = D. Do you trust me? No? Ok, go work it out, it's possible and you will arrive at a factual answer.
vs
God is real. Do you trust me? No? Well, you should, because he is. There is no evidence or proof or facts, but you should have faith in what I say.

But religious faith is nothing like the 'trust' put in science. You cannot prove God. You cannot prove the earth is only 6000 years old. You cannot prove the Torah or the Quran or any of it. Yet people still have 'faith' that it's all true.

That sort of 'faith' -- a complete, trusting belief in something that cannot be proved, compared to trusting in science, which can be proved, is very different.

a reply to: noonebutme

But, but, but it's the same word. If you "believe" that your car will start in the morning than you are no different than any other religious zealot.

People need to stop wasting time on these types of threads.

originally posted by: noonebutme

originally posted by: omniEther
Have you revised 10 page math questions equations in regards to astronomy, astrophysics , quantum mechanics etc.. need I go on. And if not, your belief system is derived of faith not facts. Sounds a bit religious to me.
You could correct if I'm wrong

Ok, you are wrong. Here's why.

Actually, you even said the answer in your post - you can revise. You can go back and correct or re-evaluate and amend the work.

Again, that isn't 'faith' in maths or science in the same way people have 'faith' in religion. The latter is without any sort of evidence or proof or means of testing it, whereas the former has all those absent qualities.

So, if i'm looking at a 10 page long mathematical astrophysics question (which, lets be honest, I wouldn't have a clue how to evaluate right now), I would need to learn many underlying foundations in the core subjects before I could proceed. But, I 'believe' that what it is and what it is trying to prove is factual. If it isn't, then i can go an learn those skills to do it myself.

Yes you CAN do it yourself, but you don't.
Your faith and trust in the Authority is enough for you to believe what they state without having to investigate further.

It's ok, we all do it.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: noonebutme

But, but, but it's the same word. If you "believe" that your car will start in the morning than you are no different than any other religious zealot.

Bad analogy. That's not the same principle.

Also no one is saying "you're no different", just you're not all that dis-similar.

a reply to: Ruiner1978

Exaggerated analogy but it shows the idea.

That analogy also shows that that is not all that dissimilar.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Ruiner1978

Exaggerated analogy but it shows the idea.

That analogy also shows that that is not all that dissimilar.

I'm talking about faith and trust in an authoritive figure. You're talking about something that isn't the same principle.

But you do make a fair point in the sense that faith and trust is part of the human condition. To deny you don't operate on a level of faith is to deny you are human, and in a sense, ironically, is a kind of claim to omniscience.

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
Yes you CAN do it yourself, but you don't.
Your faith and trust in the Authority is enough for you to believe what they state without having to investigate further.

And that does not equate to science being a religion or being treated as such. I still disagree with how you're trying to imply faith in a proven scientific fact is the same as unprovable faith in religion.

Also, the Authoritative figure you are trying to make science out to be..? It can be question, changed, corrected and amended.

Religion cannot. It is, by its very nature, unquestionable because it is unprovable. Science is not.

It's ok, we all do it.

I'm not ashamed. I did it twice this morning for stress release.

originally posted by: noonebutme

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
Yes you CAN do it yourself, but you don't.
Your faith and trust in the Authority is enough for you to believe what they state without having to investigate further.

And that does not equate to science being a religion or being treated as such. I still disagree with how you're trying to imply faith in a proven scientific fact is the same as unprovable faith in religion.

That's fine.
As we've established, we're all free to believe/disbelieve whatever we like.
We all operate on a level of bias as well as we do faith.

Also, the Authoritative figure you are trying to make science out to be..? It can be question, changed, corrected and amended.

Yes, it CAN be.
I'm not disputing that. So there's really no need to keep saying it.

Religion cannot. It is, by its very nature, unquestionable because it is unprovable. Science is not.

Again, I'm not disputing that either.

I'm not ashamed. I did it twice this morning for stress release.

Good for you!
We all have faith that we won't really go blind.

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

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.

Thinking deeply about that is part of the method for discerning fact from fiction. All people are susceptible to the problem of bias, which is why the scientific method is held in such high regard. It takes this into account with peer review and multiple lines of investigation. However if a claim cannot be falsified, it can be tenatively accepted until it is found to be incorrect.

Is this where you find your "faith in science?"


Or are you referring to people who have no scientific background accepting the words of scientists as fact?

Why pin it down to just those with no scientific background?

With TzarChasm's help we've established that "rational faith" exists and that everyone has it.

Like I suggested to him, insert any word you like before faith or trust if it makes it easier to swallow.

We all operate on a level of faith.

I have already explained to you that calculated trust and blind faith are not the same thing whether you want to dismiss the critical differences or not.

Yes there's a difference.

There's a difference between vanilla ice cream and chocolate ice cream too.

The point is, followers of science are still operating on a level of faith in a similar way followers of religion are.


"But my ice cream is chocolate!"
You're still eating ice cream!

That's a poor analogy. I begin to see the nature of your misunderstanding. Or perhaps astyanax is right and you're just trolling. Either way you don't seem to be interested in being educated.