Why Hate Science?

Post Reply New Topic

Sorry, I erased my response to your "unicorn war" in favor of an image of two unicorns fighting while an unknown 1st century Jewish male rides by on a tyrannosaur.



Let's rerail this thread...

Obligate reference on this topic: The Flat Earth Society.

As far as I know, the owners of that site aren’t really serious about it, but there are still people who do believe the Earth is flat. I find some discussions in the forums interesting. They also show that many people treat science pretty much as though it were religion, angrily defending the Earth’s rotundity* with no other basis than it being common knowledge—today—and personal attacks. The same attitude a mere three thousand years ago would lead to defend the belief in a flat Earth and attack whoever suggested otherwise.

There is, too, (or was till recently) a Flat Mars Society. That URL doesn’t work for me, but this older site does, somewhat: http://z4.invisionfree.com/Theflatmarss ... hp?act=idx

http://z4.invisionfree.com/Theflatmarss ... howtopic=1

____________________________________

* I like how Samuel Rowbotham used this word in Zetetic Astronomy: Earth Not a Globe

aw, man...

...overlooking that, yes... the Earth is not a perfect sphere... but...

...oh man... i love the FES. i heard about FMS, but i never really looked into it. i'm too busy occupying myself with Reptilian Overlords.

the idea that science is a religion of it's own is pretty weak. science is based on testable theories and evidence, and religion is not. plain and simple. i get the "subtlety" in that line of thought... "'scienticians' are just as dogmatic as var X religioids", but science isn't a dogma in the sense that it has ground to stand on.

...but that doesn't matter to the "what-i-feel-is-right-is-right" crowd.

I would like to do a thought experiment with you if you do not mind? I will ask the following questions.

Can you prove the scientific method and the tenets that make up the scientific method?
Can you prove logic and rationality themselves?

Yes.

Yes.

This is like asking "Can you prove language?", in that the very act of asking the question automatically proves the query it is posing.

Okay, how would you prove these things? I believe the scientific method is based upon rationality and logic. Can you prove these things without using logic, rationality and the scientific method. If you attempt to prove logic with logic and rationality with rationality you would be committing the fallacy of circular logic.



You're using circular logic. How do you use the very something that proves this very something? My point is you accept certain things as axiomatic meaning you accept these things without proof. You accept the scientific method, logic and rationality and their tenets without proof of their axioms and propositions. This means you accept certain tenets upon faith.

Unless I am completely misunderstanding what you are saying to me it seems you have as faith as well but faith in something different than religion. When you knock faith then you contradict what you are trying to state. Like you, I have faith as you have in the scientific method, rationality and logic.

I will take this further can you prove the idea of proving??? Can you prove proof?

Fnord, your whole belief system is based upon rationality, logic, reasoning and the scientific method. These are the axioms that you accept. I'm not refuting or hating on science. I am refuting your bias against faith which you have demonstrated consistently on this site.

Can you demonstrate and prove a system of anything whether it is logic, math, reason or science in which all of its truths are provable and consistent and is contained within that system? If you can, will you do so?

this is kind of the reason science is there.. you seem to be looking for absolute truth. even the best scientists and philosophers will tell you that absolute truth is not known. i'm not even sure that it can be known, and this by no means, that we can see or have been shown, allows for the existence of spiritual mechanisms or otherwise.

also: you don't need several punctuation marks in a row to make your point.

I never claimed to be looking for spiritual mechanisms. I never sought out to prove spiritual mechanisms. Certain people deny faith as a concept. I wasn't meaning faith as in faith in a God. When I meant faith I meant faith as in the starting points or the presuppositions of a belief system. Even in science scientists are going by presuppositions or axioms that they believe without proof. What I see is inconsistency to what Fnord says and what you say as well.

If even the best scientists and philosophers believe absolute truth is not known then how do they know for absolute certainty that absolute truth is not known? Socrates said that he knows nothing and he knows that he knows nothing. More than likely this means he knows nothing with absolute certainty. If that is so then how does he know that he knows nothing with absolute certainty. How does one know that he knows and how does one know what he does not know? How do you know who the best scientists and philosophers are? How do you know what the criteria is for this? How do you know what these best philosophers and scientists truthfully know? If you believe that absolute truth is not known then why are you stating things as though they are absolute truth and promoting it that way?

Anyway, I will ask again. Can you use logic and rationality to prove logic and rationality? Can you prove the idea of proving? The point I am making is those on the side of science are going by a set of axioms and tenets that they accept without proof. How can one down faith if one must have faith to believe the presuppositions or axioms of a given system without proof? I see inconsistency.



Why? If truth is not known then how do you know that I do not need several punctuation marks in a row to make my point? How do you even know I was using that to even make a point? You claim that absolute truth is not known but yet you automatically assume an absolute truth here.

i see what you're saying more clearly now. when someone says "faith", i read it as "religious faith". that was not made clear at first, but i see what you're trying to get across.

I don't see an inconsistency in what I am saying, because assuming that we live in a rational world for the axioms of science and logic to make sense is really the best way we have currently for giving naturalistic and rational explanations of what goes on around us. so far, i think that this method has worked out quite nicely.

if you see inconsistency in presupposing rationality in our world, what do you propose we base our idea of reality on?

the way that you're expressing how to think about this, e.g.:

"Socrates said that he knows nothing and he knows that he knows nothing. More than likely this means he knows nothing with absolute certainty. If that is so then how does he know that he knows nothing with absolute certainty. How does one know that he knows and how does one know what he does not know"?

– seems to open an infinite loop. this comes off to me as broken logic. i could be wrong about this, but it does seem broken to me.



i was only saying that because it annoys me when people use unnecessarily excessive punctuation.

I did not know that you were constraining the definition of faith to religious only. I saw the definition in a wider context that could be applied in different areas.



My version of my aspergers affects me in the area of pragmatics the most. I will do my utter best to make this as coherent as possible. By accepting the axioms that make up rationality, reason, science, and logic you're displaying faith meaning accepting something as truth without having to prove it. Unless I am misunderstanding, one of the arguments against religion is they accept things without proof. They go by their own presuppositions. Isn't this what you and Fnord do as well by accepting the axioms of rationality, reason, science, and logic. Reason goes by presuppositions as well. I see an inherent contradiction against your argument against religion especially Christianity. This doesn't mean I'm knocking rationality, reason, science, and logic. In fact, I believe in these things myself.



I don't see the inconsistency in this. Please see above.

the way that you're expressing how to think about this, e.g.:



Exactly! It is an infinite loop. You are so correct on this and right on the money. This is along the lines of what you are saying. The problem is if scientists and philosophers know that they do not know then how do they know that they know that they do not know? This means to resolve this paradox one must accept that there are things that one must know and one must accept. These things we just have to accept as true without proof. For example, we have the law of identity or All A are A. Your particular shoes are those particular shoes. What's the proof of this. I have no proof. I simply accept they just are. This is why some level of faith has to exist.









Okay, I did not know that and it was a typo on my part anyway. Even when I spell and grammar check things I still can miss some things. There are times even when I grammar and spell check that my brain processes faster than I can read or type.

@cubedemon6073
I see some problems with your reasoning. Science is based on EVIDENCE, so it is by no means the same type of FAITH as religion has. And when certain religions try to tell me that stuff like evolution doesn't happen and they ignore, deny or distort the evidence I know exists, then those religions have lost credibility with me.

Please, do so then. Give an example of a scientific method and prove it.

Thomas Edison said it best: "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."

His scientific method:

1. Form an hypothesis or revise a previous hypothesis ("Hmm ... a coiled carbon filament connected to platina contact wires might work better if I put it all in a vacuum").

2. Test the hypothesis ("Experiment number ten-thousand-one is ready. Okay, throw the switch!").

3. Observe the results ("13 hours and 30 minutes! I think we've got it!"). If the results falsify the hypothesis, then go back to step 1.

4. Publish the results for peer review ("But first, I'd better patent it!")

Proof that it works? Go flip on a light switch.

Without the scientific method, you would have no Internet, no computer, and no explanation for anything except "God did it".

People hate science mainly because it falsifies their favorite myths and forces them to think - Believing in myths allows the comfort of having opinions without the discomfort of having to think for one's self.

My reasoning may be based upon fallacious thinking and fallacious reasoning. The thing is when I perceive things that make no sense to me whatsoever I ask questions. When I perceive a contradiction in thought or belief I question it.

By what you state, when we are talking about faith we're not debating the same thing. When I mean faith I mean having presuppositions or having axioms. This is where I am running into issues. Why is some types of faith sound while others are not?

I'm just trying to understand where others are coming from and if I have faulty reasoning I just want to know where the faulty reasoning comes from and why it is faulty, what the correct reasoning is and why. Did I zig when I should've zagged and if so where should I have zagged at?

By the idea of having axioms and presuppositions do we not have to accept these without proof or evidence? Isn't science based upon axioms and presuppositions that one must accept upon faith, without proof or evidence?

I understand where you're coming from. My point is that if one believes something on faith (in a certain way of reading a holy book for example) that is falsified by all the evidence of the physical world (i.e., no evidence supports it and all the evidence falsifies what it claims), then that is certainly different than accepting something as a natural fact (such as evolution) that is SUPPORTED by all the evidence found so far and falsified by none. See the difference?

Now the person who denies what is observably and demonstrably real has a LOT of faith to insist that their version of reality is more true than the scientific one, but their view does NOT contribute to the advancement of humanity (at least in regards to knowledge about the universe and how it works, and in developing technology and medicine to help people) while the scientific view DOES.

Sure we have to have "faith" even in science up to a point. We have to assume that we exist, that the universe exists, and that if we observe or measure some phenomenon of nature that other people can observe and measure the same thing and hopefully our observations and measurements have some consistency. That is a lot different though than the outright denial of what is demonstrably real by the anti-science religious nut jobs of fundamentalist denominations (and not just fundie Christians). It is the fundies of the world (regardless of whatever religion they subscribe to) who seem to cause the most trouble for everyone including themselves, but they seem too ignorant, mentally deficient or insane to realize this.