Why I don't believe in science.

Post Reply New Topic

What, you don't believe in science? Oh, dear God!

Have fun reading (and understanding):

http://blogs.plos.org/scied/2013/09/02/ ... nt-either/

It's such a shame that people have to resort to these lengths - writing articles, explaining over and over again - that words often have more than one meaning or usage.

Ironically, one of the most ill-defined words in use today is the word 'god'.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRxx8pen6JY[/youtube]

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo don't give aghogday another thread in which to lambast us because we don't believe in god even though his version of god is what we refer to as the natural world



Yep i could not agree more. I recently let some J. witness's in for a bit of sport the other day. Why oh why do they still think that evolution is wrong because it cannot explain the formation of life, and that it is "only a theory anyway".

Back to the article, I trust in the scientific method to come up with the best possible conclusion based upon the evidence available at the time, I also expect it to change that conclusion when new evidence presents itself. I have confidence in the paradigm that it will either quickly or over a period of time expose bias, obfuscation or worse still outright manipulation (e.g Milgram) of evidence by members of the scientific community. This perspective is not a pseudo religious belief/faith and to quote a recent statement does equate to "So you have a very interesting religion my friend.. And a GOD called Science"

It's almost inevitable that such a thing will happen with or without my input



Ah, those door-to-door religious sales reps never cease to amaze me with their ignorance of logic, reasoning and - much worse - socially acceptable behaviour.



Indeed. Trusting in the integrity of the scientific community as a whole does not remotely equate to belief. Let us not forget, the burden of proof rests upon the assertion. Perhaps he'll produce some evidence of the existence of this god named science. Of course, he'll first have to establish what the nature of this being is, and have his findings 'peer reviewed'.

The entire article depends on a misdefinition of the word belief. The word belief means the acceptance that something is true. There may be evidence or there may not.

Because of the culture wars between religion and science in the U.S., the quoted scientists are quick to distance themselves from the word believe since it gets used so often in the religious sense. But they have forgotten that it is perfectly appropriate to use believe when you accept the evidence for something. Lack of evidence is not part of the definition. The culture wars have just temporarily made people forget that.

I have no problem saying that I believe in evolution and I believe in science as a useful methodology for finding truth. This does not mean there is no evidence. "Without evidence" is not tied to the word believe.

Where there is no evidence*, we call it Faith. Where there is evidence*, we call it Knowledge.

(*"Evidence" being something other than a few dozen cherry-picked passages from a collection of largely apocryphal stories originating with a motley collection of innumerate and semi-illiterate nomads since before the Bronze Age.)

In an ideal world, this would not be an issue. But with heaps of religious people abound trying to make it sound like scientific acceptance is on the same level of religious faith, the distinction is necessary to make it clear to those believers that there is an important difference between the two.

I have no problem with you saying that either. I understand what you mean when you say it, and yet I assert that there is a better definition - just as Fnord demonstrated. Anyone, fundamentalist or otherwise, who chooses to argue semantics rather than evidence has already conceded that they have no valid point to make.

I do understand why the scientists, the author and posters here are making this distinction. What I am quixotically trying to do is fighting back to reclaim the full definition of the word believe.

The timeline of believe in recent decades seems to have gone like this:

70's, 80's and prior:Believe is used by everyone as a word that means to accept as true. Evidence or lack of evidence is not a part of its' colloquial definition or of its' dictionary definition. Scientists, religious people, and people who are both (they do exist) use it to refer to things they accept as true.

80's: Religion vs. science culture war starts in its present incarnation. (That culture war had several incarnations previously but had died down by the 70's).

90's,2000's: Fundamental religious people wage a campaign to change the colloquial definition of the word believe as an anti-science strategy. They do this by acting as though "without evidence" was a part of the definition. Since language is a consensus medium, they are to some extent succesful. Being succesful to some extent proved to be an excellent strategy, far better than 100% success at changing the colloquial definition of the word. Partial success meant that many people still used the word believe to mean accept as true without reference to evidence. If those people were scientists, the fundamentalists could jump on that usage and tack on their new definition of without evidence to equate science and religion.

2000's-present: Fundamentalists have caused such a total revision in the colloquial use of the word believe that scientists are forced to purge it from their vocabulary when discussing science- which is what this article really is doing. It's a heads-up to anyone still using believe to simply mean accept as true without reference to evidence to stop using the word and start using accept the evidence instead.

right this minute in this thread: I'm attempting to reclaim the word believe to the colloquial definition it had until a couple decades ago and the dictionary definition it still has. A couple people in the comments section of the article are doing the same thing. The message I get from fnord, MCalavera and adifferentname is that it's over. The word has lost its' original meaning and it's time to move on. But I'm not ready to yet. I am still trying to reclaim this word.

Believing in science does seem indicate that there is a certain amount of faith involved, for the layperson that basically all it ever is. The article s touches on this at the end by saying this...

This is true for everyone. Most people take science on faith because you trust the scientists, you trust the institutions, you trust the publishers, you trust everyone down the line.

The trust, faith, belief in the scientific method call it what you will has little to no resemblance to a faith/belief in god, or any form of the supernatural. Put simply the scientific method deserves respect and a level of trust as it has been repeatedly demonstrated to work and deliver results, the supernatural cannot in any way, make the same claim.

The religious attack on the scientific method is gaining ground by using statements like "oh science is just another form of religion" and "it is only a belief", as if you can believe away scientific understanding of things. They are using these terms in the same disingenuous way they describe a scientific theory as being just an idea.

If anything that is "just a belief" is unworthy of trust, then what does that say about religion?

Science certainly isn't a religion and I follow it as an ever evolving state of knowledge, but I think it does have some aspects that bare resemblence to religion and/or other human organizations.

It has a definate heirarchy of persons. There are levels and more authority is ascribed to higher ones, and sometimes in the more subjective area of interpretation. So things are not always decided by evidence pure and simple, but by whom accepts it.

They often wear lab coats and work in grand structures dedicated to higher purposes. And they sacrifice animals to gain knowledge. Indeed, a few rogues have sacrificed human beings.

There are probably more analogies real and fanciful, but the point is that what human's create will always bare the human stamp, with it's flaws as well as advantages. Even 'Science' and by that I mean the scientific community must be careful that corruption does not take hold and perfert its goals. The scientific community today contains flaws, you can be sure.

I am happy to assume there is no global conspiracy going on among scientists. If it's not a reasonable assumption, then explain why it isn't.

That said, science has contributed a lot to this world in terms of facts and relevant knowledge infinitely more so than religion. In fact, religion has contributed nothing substantial to this world besides being just one of many means to provide a select subset of people in this world with [false] hope and comfort.