Let's talk about the newest religion: scientism

originally posted by: noonebutme

originally posted by: Willtell
The problem with science is that it doesn’t admit it uses faith

No, it doesn't use faith in the way you are implying or trying to liken it to religious faith.

and the problem with religion is that it doesn’t understand the limits of faith

Arguably, no. Because religion is only that -- faith That's all it has. It has not facts or truths or evidence. Therefore, faith is its defining quality. If you're willing to believe in a God or someone walked on water, or an illiterate arab in the desert wrote down the Koran from God, or Jesus left behind gold plates in America -- then what 'limit' of faith are you implying? Sounds like there's NO limits.

Therefore, science is a religion (faith) that depends on knowledge

Again, categorically, no. Where is the 'faith' in science?

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.

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?

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: firefromabove

All cults and religions make claim of special knowledge.

It is inevitable that knowledge would be construed as a religion by those unable to make the distinction.

What distinction..are you implying science does not employ magical imagination to a whole host of topics?

Sure would be nice if science was a pure system free of BS and belief systems...but it is not.

I was not referring to science, but to those individuals who cannot differentiate between the process of science and a system of invariant beliefs.

I can agree with that statement. The thing I am upset with is the whole IPP deal. Failed models and they keep posting tripe. The process says "test the theory, if it fails, pick another". Instead they keep saying the failed theory, models and all are right when they haven't made one prediction to my knowledge.

My apologies but I am not sure exactly what you are specifically referring to by "IPP deal". Would you please elucidate? Thanks in anticipation.

Mann, his hockey stick lie and so on.. Need I elaborate more?

Ah, I see, the method used to tease the apparently shocking climate change curve out of the data used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports.

Thank you.

Not really shocking when you consider the "tease" was in that statement "hide the decline". When people in power twist the truth and call it "science" while pretending those who notice the proverbial "emperor with no clothes on" syndrome are not shocked when the liars are allowed to get away with faking the data using failed models. But, the scientific community that I participate in is harmed.

The elephant in the room is Magnetic Poles are about to swap IMO. I have had a thread or two discussing the current location of the Magnetic Poles. There is a documented shift pattern of both the Sun and Planets in our Solar system that appear cylical and occurring right now. That sir, would be much more accurate to describe the reasons for our "shocking climate change".

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'.

originally posted by: Miracula2
The Big Bang and evolution are not at odds with Creationism.

I don't believe man evolved from monkeys, but I do believe in adaptive evolution.

I agree with this statement Miracula!

I was a Biology and Chemistry Double major before I moved to graduate studies in Environmental Chem (and yes, it took a lot of time to get those degrees). While in college, my adviser was a Dr. C Wymer Wiser to be exact (yes it rhymes). Dr Wiser was a Biology Professor who taught a very good course in Embryology, the study of Embryo's. He stated the exact same things that you posted here in our class! I was an impressionable youth. As such, when that well liked scholar made such a declaration, I took note . It didn't fall on deaf ears because I also had previously considered it was that way already in my own soul searching. No reason to disagree there HAS TO BE SOME evolution. We see it in the animals who adept a new color to blend in with a changing environment in the coal fired days in England. Those same birds changed back to their original in just a few generations of the coal fires being extinguished. Plus that whole "God spoke and created the universe" sounds quite like a "big bang" to me.

people keep saying "field of study" as if religion was not the same thing yet both religion and modern science are at heart ways of explaining observations of our surroundings with a limited understanding of those observations.

looking at our history as an example; what we know now will also be considered delusions of what our observations and facts tell us, our "knowledge" will be looked down upon as ignorance of primitive humans with a limited means of properly understand what they see and science will have been merely a precursor to a greater field of study we could never understand with our limited knowledge.

religion was created to understand what we observe and know, science is just an evolution of that desire to understand our surrounding, it will undergo the same hardships religion did once the ancients understood how to use it to gain power and influence the masses in whichever way they desired.

dangerous ideologies always begin with rational ideas and good intentions and as we stand right now the perversion of power has just started to take root in science too, eventually the path will lead to many terrible things before a better way comes forth.

in many ways science is the same as religion and WILL be abused for the sake of power, only evolution of our very nature will take us from the path that corrupts our desire to know.

a reply to: namehere

people keep saying "field of study" as if religion was not the same thing yet both religion and modern science are at heart ways of explaining observations of our surroundings with a limited understanding of those observations.

If it's not testable and falsifiable it's not science.

Religion is neither of those, it's Dogma which must be accepted.

a reply to: D8Tee

you don't get my point which was that the people of the times always believe within their limited means that they can prove what they observe as facts.

science has a limited means to understanding which will become obvious one day and all those facts will be thrown away just like the facts in religion.

humanity is too limited still to truly prove what we know as long as we expect what we want to see and pursue a specific path to the expectation.

we do not understand more than our limitations and science is only fact for now.

actually there is nothing new under the sun. Science so called has been around as long as man.

I award you no stars and no flags. Call me when relgion is open to examining its own creation myths.

a reply to: 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.

A common enough occurrence. But was this ‘scientific minded’ individual an actual scientist? Had he or she at least a scientific education? Or even take a few hours of science foundation courses at college? Or is their ‘science’ a kind of hobby pursued mostly on the internet?

It makes a great difference.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: 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.

A common enough occurrence. But was this ‘scientific minded’ individual an actual scientist? Had he or she at least a scientific education? Or even take a few hours of science foundation courses at college? Or is their ‘science’ a kind of hobby pursued mostly on the internet?

It makes a great difference.

Right again to point this out! I can tell that a big fat no is the most likely scenario from what I read if I understand who you are implying...

This site is beginning to worry me. The fact that someone can write a badly-thought out post saying that science has become a religion is... well it shows how much of a threat that they seem to think that science is to them.
Why is it that religion seems to give some people the delusion that they can twist science to their own ends, to fit their own personal theories?

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
This site is beginning to worry me. The fact that someone can write a badly-thought out post saying that science has become a religion is...

Not science

Scientism has become a religion.

that was made clear in the very first paragraph of the op

originally posted by: namehere
science has a limited means to understanding

Of course it does and it acknowledges that but never stops trying to find the truth. Religion gave up on the truth a long time ago and refuses to change, because it can't, otherwise it is no longer what it professes to be.

...which will become obvious one day and all those facts will be thrown away just like the facts in religion.

Really. All scientific facts will be thrown away? So physics, chemistry, biology... all thrown away huh?

humanity is too limited still to truly prove what we know as long as we expect what we want to see and pursue a specific path to the expectation.

So....a religious path then. Because, the scientific path is meant to explain what is observed, not suspend belief in order to keep to what you want it to be.

we do not understand more than our limitations and science is only fact.

No genuine pursuer of science and knowledge would ever argue otherwise. The only ones who profess to know the impossible are the followers of religion. They believe they *know* what God wants. Or what happens to you when you die. Which is a lie. No one does. At least science admits what it doesn't know. Which is a lot. But makes every effort to learn.

Religion does not.

a reply to: firefromabove

I'll take a whack at this.

Is science a belief system? Yes it is.

Could science lead us astray? Yeah It totally can

Is science more founded in reality then any other belief system before it? Yes

So the real problem with it is, somewhat ironically, your suggesting we don't blindly follow science? I would also agree with this statement

Knowledge beyond comprehension is a dangerous tool and we have seen how religions abused it in the past and now that tool is firmly in the hands of science.

For the most part I trust scientists mostly physicist. The more math they use in their science the more I trust them. Math has very specific rules you cannot deviate from and even the smallest of children can test and understand math. This knowledge in not beyond comprehension.

Now I do believe more caution should be used with the social sciences (more appropriate name would be social statistics). There is a lot of leeway in these "sciences" they use scientific method but because of topics they are studying and the fact that they use humans as their subject matter there can be a lot of subjectivity. Meaning, interpretation comes into the equation and we've all seen what happens when people are left to their own interpretations. These sciences I would have less faith in.

Also if someone says "there is a study proving..." I wouldn't believe it. But unlike other "religions" in science if the study exists I can check it for myself and come to my own conclusions.

So yes I agree we shouldn't blindly nod in agreement with every new scientific discover. At least with this religion we can get a second opinion.

a reply to: firefromabove

let me stop your right there

1. it has its own myth

a myth is based on literal story passed from generation to generation

the big bang is based on mathematical studies by countless scientists using other well known facts about the universe
to form the theory of how it started

you just dont get it do you , science is based on previously established factual information to develop future theories which are then remolded based on new evidence and new facts

2. Has its own prophets and saints, however the difference being the works carried out by these humans can be verified and tested by yourself if you are willing

saints and prophets cannot be as easily verified and their miracles cannot be proven
nor can their prophecy

3. Missing links are exactly that , missing , but the theory still holds weight based on factual evidence of species we do know existed

4. Claims the existence of astronomical phenomena , which have been agreed upon by numerous scientists over the last century and proven to exist using yes you guessed it scientific method

5. Anyone who wants to learn can go and get a degree in any respective scientific field of study and gain access to all of the equipment you think is off limits to the lay person!

6.Holy books , really ?

accept these books are written and based on factual information that can be replicated
save for where the book focuses on scientific theory and we use already established facts from other fields of study of the universe to develop said theory!

We wont react in rage , we will just try to get you to understand that all of what you speak of is rubbish
and if you were just willing to go and learn these things for yourself you will likely find yourself reflecting on how silly you are!

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

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: 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.

A common enough occurrence. But was this ‘scientific minded’ individual an actual scientist? Had he or she at least a scientific education? Or even take a few hours of science foundation courses at college? Or is their ‘science’ a kind of hobby pursued mostly on the internet?

It makes a great difference.

Yes, a very common occurrence.
I don't know. All I know is that they are overtly scientifically minded.

You're free to paint a picture of them if you feel it's necessary. Find the difference. Ignore the answer.

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'... 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. the difference between religious faith and inductive trust is the same difference between relying on prayer to heal a patient and trusting doctors to know which medicine is most likely to save that patient from zealots who dont know a damn thing about biology or chemistry. maybe now you are a little less confused about types of faith.

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.