Why Hate Science?

Post Reply New Topic

this is a delightful story on how we may be wrong about how life may have started out:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ ... 040513.php

also, (this part of the text is not directed at you, BlueMax...)

it seems like upon reading this thread more closely, there appears to be a misconception by a lot of the people railing against Fnord and others that reads something like we are saying that "science has all the answers". i don't think anyone that is informed about how science works would ever say that.

and CubeDemon, i never said anything about hating Christianity. i respect people's right to believe in BS, though i may not agree with them. i also think it's my right to think that if there were better education out there, we wouldn't have to rely on outmoded systems like religion.

Last edited by donothing1979 on 21 Apr 2013, 10:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Very few people in the civilized modern world truly hate science. Those very few that do are an acceptable loss.
There are those, though, that are uncomfortable with certain subjects of science but that's just how it's going to be and trying to drag them will only make them dig their heels in deeper.
As long as they're good with most of science then that's good enough.

yes. i was really thinking about our conversation, and about how you were heading into a hole of illogical conclusions. i'm glad that someone who speaks more clearly than i can took over.

You haven't missed much ... a lot of noise, some bluff and bluster ... it's like living next door to Kim Jung Un ...

last i remember was "all A's are A's" and that made me reel with thought... i seriously lose sleep over these things, and have conversations with myself about them when i think no one can see or hear me.

It's called a "Categorical Syllogism" - a kind of logical argument in which one proposition (the conclusion) is inferred from two or more others (the premises) of a specific form. The format is something like this:

a. All B are C (the major premise)
b. All A are B (the minor premise)
: : All A are C (the conclusion)

A is a subset of B, which is a subset of C. This makes A a subset of C also.

QED

You have GOT to be kidding me! Really? Where is this alleged creationist-backed science? Somebody's been lying to you AGAIN!

Like I said, you are obviously VERY BADLY MISINFORMED about this subject if you make such ignorant and FALSE claims as in the quotation above. You can keep wallowing in your ignorance if you want, but don't be surprised if someone else calls you out when you try to tell people the earth is really flat.

There is no creationist-backed science. Every time the creationists go up against evolution in a fair fight in a court of law the creationists come out looking like fools because they have nothing, nada, zilch that they can present as credible scientific evidence to support their position. Creationism is NOT supported by evidence and some of its claims (those that can be tested) have been falsified, but the creationists ignore that (just as they ignore most of the evidence for evolution that they don't deny or distort) and keep making those falsified claims anyway. Evolution IS supported by evidence and has not yet been falsified despite rigorous testing the past one hundred fifty years.

Note that evolution is not anti-Christianity or anti-God. It is not pro-God either, but it is not anti-God even though some people try to say it is. I would say instead it is the people who ignore, distort and deny the evidence for evolution who are anti-God because they are calling God a liar by saying the evidence for evolution does not exist when it most certainly does. Why would God plant so much evidence that clearly shows it happens if it doesn't? Either evolution is a fact or God is a malicious prankster trying to trick us when the price of our being fooled is eternal damnation. Not a very nice God, is it?

By the way, MOST Christians worldwide belong to denominations that either accept the fact evolution happens or say whether or not it happens makes no difference to their beliefs. You know it used to be the official position of Christianity that the sun went around the earth, based on the same principles of Biblical interpretation that lead some today to deny the fact of evolution. Eventually churches were forced BY THE WEIGHT OF OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE to admit they had been wrong and it is the earth that goes around the sun, not vice versa. Those silly churches that today deny the fact of evolution are in a similar situation now. Their denial of what is demonstrably real makes anyone who belongs to those churches (and to some degree, all Christians, all religious people, heck even all humans) look really really STUPID.

I agree with you, TheBicyclingGuitarist. Post some links to demonstrate what you've said. It might help BlueMax to see your point more clearly. Just telling him to go research isn't going to make him do it.

I'm chiming in rather late in the thread, so I hope I'm not just repeating someone's earlier contribution:
In recent years, intellectualism - and with it, science - for political reasons has been equated with elitism, and that's of course supposed to be something bad. Lacking higher education and just a plain lack of intellectual curiosity have been considered virtues in certain company. Political alliances have been made with religious fundamentalists who have demanded that evolution and geological sciences disproving the young earth fantasy be stricken from school curriculums in payment for delivering votes. And with that, such right wing elements demonize the sciences, and attempt to replace them with the idiocy of pseudosciences like creationism, and the young earth.
Be afraid Fnord, be very afraid, because I am.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Yes, I indeed was. It is because faulty premises more than likely will entail faulty conclusions. I made the assumption that faith and axiom was synonymous when they are not. Axioms still go by observational data which means data from the five senses while faith accepts something without this observational data. This was the component I did not grasp and I was missing. I was wrong on this one.

Even with the concept of observation I can think of myself observing and actually observe other people observe something.

Do you still remember the syllogistic rules?

In the Aristotelian system there are 19 valid categorical syllogisms. The most "perfect" is of the form AAA -1 known by the mnemonic Barbara. The example given above is this syllogistic form.

ruveyn

yeah, i'm familiar with that concept. but it was still wrong in this case, and it drove me crazy trying to think of a way to explain it without letting it get too pleonastic.



yes; this is what were were trying to communicate to you from the start. i have some issues with being able to effectively communicate what i'm thinking, but i can't blame my issues for this entirely.

and i wouldn't be down about being wrong. being wrong can allow you to learn new things! and that's always exciting! well... for me, at least... i guess that being wrong could be terrifying for a lot of people.

I do have communication issues myself especially on the pragmatic side and sometimes on the semantic side as well.



This is true. I have to keep myself open to the possibility that I may be wrong on something. This is where humility is the key. I have been wrong so many times when I have posted on wrongplanet that I have lost count.

I think it's important to respect science, while keeping in mind that scientists are people, with all the fallibility that brings. For all the rigorousness of the method, people still manage to bring their biases and personal beliefs into it, structure their research to support a predetermined outcome for the benefit of a patron, or occasionally just make things up (autism caused by vaccines, anyone?). I don't apply the same measure of skepticism to science that I do to someone making a purely moral or otherwise unsupported claim, but I sure as hell check who's paying for research and what a scientist's political history is before accepting anything from them at face value.

I do not fear ignorance, and the ignorant are easily out-smarted or ignored.

I fear only the weapons they use to enforce their beliefs - knives, guns, pressure-cooker bombs and commercial airliners.