This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Claim that the speed of light has been broken
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
HoleofArt
I said that people have a tendency of putting blind faith in scientific 'facts' (in inverted commas, because they're simply theories which haven't been proven wrong, e.g. max speed of light), and that the reason it's blind is because they haven't personally seen any evidence or conducted experiments to validate their faith.
So for me to believe and trust in any scientific theories, laws, or definitions, I should personally have to learn how to perform the experiment, then perform the experiment, and then use my findings to prove to myself what hundreds of others have already done? Why? I just don't see the purpose of that.
If so, why doesn't this same method apply to religion? In your definition, religion should be worse than blind-faith
because you can't actually do anything to validate it.
Post by
MyTie
So for me to believe and trust in any scientific theories, laws, or definitions, I should personally have to learn how to perform the experiment, then perform the experiment, and then use my findings to prove to myself what hundreds of others have already done? Why? I just don't see the purpose of that.
If so, why doesn't this same method apply to religion? In your definition, religion should be worse than blind-faith
because you can't actually do anything to validate it.
I'll answer for Squish, in the way I think he would answer:
No, you don't have to perform the experiment. That isn't what he was saying. He was saying that you put faith in something you do not understand. He has an issue with people who put faith in science, but then ridicule the faith of religious people. He isn't saying that religious is any more provable than science.
He doesn't like this train of thinking:
"I trust that which I do not understand, and ridicule people of faith."
It is hypocritical.
Post by
gamerunknown
Must be said that there's a difference between accepting something that matches or explains observable physical reality (something that is dense will sink in a less dense substance, something that is dense has more mass per volume) than when there's something that contradicts it (a man walked on water).
Post by
pezz
Must be said that there's a difference between accepting something that matches or explains observable physical reality (something that is dense will sink in a less dense substance, something that is dense has more mass per volume) than when there's something that contradicts it (a man walked on water).
Which works for basic scientific facts, but what observable physical realities which are experienced by the common man, uninitiated in both science and religion back up carbon dating?
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
Nobody is questioning obvious things like that. But what about particle physics, such as the stuff that goes on at CERN?
Post by
pezz
I'm referring to the vast majority of people who sit there and read a textbook and take what is said to be true, which is probably about 90% of the population.
There's a difference between believing in unicorns despite never having seen one and believing in France despite never having been there. Believing what's in a science book is a matter of believing that the scientists in question really existed, and really did all the experiments they're said to have done, and that the reader really could replicate those experiments if they wanted to. It's Not The Same Thing as believing things nobody even claims to have proof for.
Except that textbooks are typically decades out of date (revisions which are just reorganizations and spelling corrections don't count) except for all physics text books but for the most complicated*. Anything that still starts and ends with classical mechanics is about a century out of date. Also, new experiments and analyses can come up which changes science a hell of a lot in that amount of time.
I'd also like to point out that trusting it because you read the introductory paragraph in a book and because you personally understand it and have worked with it are levels of trust which entitle you to radically different levels of tone while discussing them. I die a little inside every time a high schooler says 'boy those creationists are dumb, of
course
we evolved from monkeys!'
Don't get me wrong, it's fine to trust what you read in your (credible) science textbooks. And hell, I'm an atheist, personally. Even if they're a little out of date, the cores of the sciences rarely change drastically, and classical mechanics is close enough for people like myself who don't understand calculus. People just need to be mindful of the fact that science is not remotely set in stone, and that the general public tends to get their scientific news third or fourth hand from sources which aren't made up of professional scientists themselves. For that matter, people get their religion third or fourth hand from hacks, as well. I grew up in Protestant, local churches with a secular education. When I took classes with up-to-date scholars on the New Testament, or learned about the late scholastic philosophers from someone who specializes in them, my understanding and appreciation for religion increased immensely.
*I should admit here that I'm basing this off of a credible article I once read about history textbooks. I don't see any immediate reason why that would not be the case with science texts.
Post by
MyTie
There's a difference between believing in unicorns despite never having seen one and believing in France despite never having been there. Believing what's in a science book is a matter of believing that the scientists in question really existed, and really did all the experiments they're said to have done, and that the reader really could replicate those experiments if they wanted to. It's Not The Same Thing as believing things nobody even claims to have proof for.
Yeah. Religion isn't the same thing as science. We know that. No need to bring up the 'unicorn' argument. Perhaps next it is the orbital teapot, or the flying spaghetti monster? Or maybe we can extend some common courtesy. Just a thought.
Post by
Sweetscot
What part of that was discourteous? It's a perfectly fitting example. Even as someone who does believe in a higher power I see no reason to take offense to what he said.
Post by
MyTie
What part of that was discourteous? It's a perfectly fitting example. Even as someone who does believe in a higher power I see no reason to take offense to what he said.
Read me.
Post by
Sweetscot
That would be you blowing what he said out of proportion and being too sensitive. Read what he said deadpan without reading extra crap into it...it's not offensive.
Post by
HoleofArt
Yeah. Religion isn't the same thing as science. We know that. No need to bring up the 'unicorn' argument.
.. he wasn't being discourteous at all. He was using it as an example, which fitted completely with the point he was trying to make. He could have said Godzilla or Bigfoot for all it mattered. The fact that you're taking such offense to a very small point in his overall argument is silly.
Post by
MyTie
@sweetscot and HoleofArt
Make an honest effort to empathize. Attempt to place yourselves in the shoes of the religious side of this argument. Now read this:There's a difference between believing in unicorns despite never having seen one and believing in France despite never having been there. This sounds dangerously close to:There is a difference between believing in something that is obviously false, and believing in something that you know to be true but don't have empirical evidence forI do not like having religion likened to "believing in unicorns", and my distaste surprises you?
Post by
Squishalot
pezz appears to have responded to almost everything that I wanted to.
And you said that because you insist on equivocating science with religion, which is why your posts about science don't make sense. People do not trust theories because they haven't been proven wrong. People trust theories that accurately predicts how the world behaves. As proof, look at Intelligent Design. ID has never been "proven wrong", but it's still disregarded - because it makes no predictions, and doesn't let us do or explain anything we couldn't already. Again, that's how science works.
Without picking on the fact that you're using a single sample example as 'proof', I believe we've already gotten into an argument in OT in the past about whether something that doesn't predict is a 'theory' or not.
That being said, plebs don't
observe
the accurate predictions of carbon dating. Plebs don't
observe
the theoretical maximum speed of an object. Yet the trust still occurs. The issue between us that you're not understanding is that you're referring to 'people' who can replicate experiments and test theories. What I'm saying is that the vast majority of people do not replicate experiments and test theories, and instead, choose to accept what they've been spoonfed.
The great irony is that I'm not the one equivocating science with religion - I'm simply putting a fact in place as an aside (that most people put blind faith in what they've been taught), and everybody else is jumping on the idea that I'm equivocating. I'm not. My first statement was simply that I believe that certain people won't want to admit that they held something to be true that wasn't. If unicorns or interstellar teapots were proven to exist, I would bet that it wouldn't be the atheists who'd be the first to write a new thread as well. Anything else is simply excess that you're reading into it.
Post by
gamerunknown
What I'm saying is that the vast majority of people do not replicate experiments and test theories, and instead, choose to accept what they've been spoonfed.
The argument from authority. Bertrand Russell called it the problem of specialisation: people's fields are so diverse and their area of expertise so specialised that by necessity in order to appreciate it one must forsake some degree of general knowledge and undertake a lot of learning in the field. The vast majority of people have neither the time nor the resources (nor the inclination) to replicate findings on accretion discs or atmospheric escape. I don't think this makes them plebs, any more than we're patricians because we frequent a forum (a forum ostensibly dedicated to WoW - how vulgar!). Likewise, I don't expect everyone to know or care about the two factor theory of emotion.
I do expect people to differentiate between claims made in peer reviewed journals, where methodological and mathematical errors are quite often picked up by peers (such as the very small sample size of the autism/MMR Lancet study) with claims that are dogmatically held (not liable to disproof - see Popper's criterion), that are mutually exclusive. If one believes that Jesus died on the cross in Cavalry and on the third day rose again, then one does not believe that a confederate replaced him at the last minute and he eventually died of old age.
Edit: I didn't get into postmodernist relativism, which is a viable line of defence but not a discussion anyone really wants to have.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
pezz
Exactly, we still teach classical mechanics and F=MA because they're useful
Lies-to-children
. Never forget that much of your education in any subject was a useful lie-to-children until you started specializing.
Incidentally, everyone should read the Science of Discworld books. They're amazing on numerous levels.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
168916
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
109094
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.