The Cult Of Science, Politics & Religion

"I think evolution is fake and made up by scientisty types to further their agenda of eroding the white american christian culture." -MisterE

there, are you happy limpy?

lets be honest though, out of science, religion, and politics, which one gets you laid the most?

but yeah i agree with you (limpy) about how we dont have access to the labs, lab equipment, the know how to use any of it, most people lack the intelligence or knowledge or interest to do it, etc etc etc, so we can't all verify everything.

which is why we have to accept it on almost totally blind faith

  On 4/13/2013 at 9:14 PM, MisterE said:

but yeah i agree with you (limpy) about how we dont have access to the labs, lab equipment, the know how to use any of it, most people lack the intelligence or knowledge or interest to do it, etc etc etc, so we can't all verify everything.

which is why we have to accept it on almost totally blind faith

This is really untrue.

Religions by nature aren't critical of themselves. That is why blind faith in religion isn't a logical thing to do because you know any religious official is solely trying to push their own religious agenda

Science by nature is extremely critical of itself. Nobody allows other scientists to publish papers that aren't scientifically accurate, and if they do their reputation is ruined and they are shunned forever.

With religion, we don't have the ability to vet any claims, period. Because they are all unfalsifiable

With science, we DO have the ability to vet claims, because science requires falsifiability. If you spent the time and money, you could do it. And even if an individual couldn't spend the time or money, trusting in the good judgement of the entire scientific community is far different from trusting in the religious community

There have been no widespread scientific lies given to the public except in isolated cases where pure science is mixed with political or financial motivations, and someone has a monopoly. This is not representative of science as a whole.

you made some valid points, but i don't see where they contradict mine

  On 4/13/2013 at 10:13 PM, MisterE said:

you made some valid points, but i don't see where they contradict mine

you said blind faith....

well, i was talking about 'the masses' earlier, and i guess i am kinda wrong in that a large chunk of the masses don't only not understand science but they also don't care about it. so i guess those types aren't putting blind faith into it.

and maybe 'blind' is a bit too harsh of a word. yeah the fact of peer review does make scientists reports more trustworthy, and so when people understand the rigor behind it, they aren't totally blind. they are basing their trust on something that makes sense.

but i'm still taking their word for things i don't understand. and i still think there is plenty of room for deception in the field of science, and that it's almost surely happening, has happened, and will continue to.

  On 4/13/2013 at 10:07 PM, Zeffolia said:

 

  On 4/13/2013 at 9:14 PM, MisterE said:

but yeah i agree with you (limpy) about how we dont have access to the labs, lab equipment, the know how to use any of it, most people lack the intelligence or knowledge or interest to do it, etc etc etc, so we can't all verify everything.

which is why we have to accept it on almost totally blind faith

 

This is really untrue.

 

Religions by nature aren't critical of themselves. That is why blind faith in religion isn't a logical thing to do because you know any religious official is solely trying to push their own religious agenda

 

Science by nature is extremely critical of itself. Nobody allows other scientists to publish papers that aren't scientifically accurate, and if they do their reputation is ruined and they are shunned forever.

 

With religion, we don't have the ability to vet any claims, period. Because they are all unfalsifiable

With science, we DO have the ability to vet claims, because science requires falsifiability. If you spent the time and money, you could do it. And even if an individual couldn't spend the time or money, trusting in the good judgement of the entire scientific community is far different from trusting in the religious community

 

There have been no widespread scientific lies given to the public except in isolated cases where pure science is mixed with political or financial motivations, and someone has a monopoly. This is not representative of science as a whole.

 

isolated cases ? science isn't being made by robots but by people who are constantly under the influence of different forces. general adherence to scientific method can coexist with such influences...you're describing something very idealistic. this stuff is especially apparent in social studies.

someone posted this in chatmm and i think it's pretty relevant

[youtubehd]53hiHAkK6KA[/youtubehd]

i dont know what he's saying about space and time distortions and light years or mental telepathy, but i think it's something to do with science. it might be important

  On 4/12/2013 at 3:31 AM, MisterE said:

if we also share 99% dna with mice.

we don't. our most recent common ancestor with chimps is much more recent than our most recent common ancestor with mice. that's why we're more different from mice than from chimps; more time has passed with us as separate populations, allowing for more mutations to accumulate. also, I think the takeaway from us being so close to chimps genetically and yet more intelligent is that a small genetic difference can result in a big difference in the finished product, not that the difference in dna is equivalent to the resulting difference in things such as intelligence.

  On 4/13/2013 at 10:30 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 4/13/2013 at 10:07 PM, Zeffolia said:

 

  On 4/13/2013 at 9:14 PM, MisterE said:

but yeah i agree with you (limpy) about how we dont have access to the labs, lab equipment, the know how to use any of it, most people lack the intelligence or knowledge or interest to do it, etc etc etc, so we can't all verify everything.

which is why we have to accept it on almost totally blind faith

 

This is really untrue.

 

Religions by nature aren't critical of themselves. That is why blind faith in religion isn't a logical thing to do because you know any religious official is solely trying to push their own religious agenda

 

Science by nature is extremely critical of itself. Nobody allows other scientists to publish papers that aren't scientifically accurate, and if they do their reputation is ruined and they are shunned forever.

 

With religion, we don't have the ability to vet any claims, period. Because they are all unfalsifiable

With science, we DO have the ability to vet claims, because science requires falsifiability. If you spent the time and money, you could do it. And even if an individual couldn't spend the time or money, trusting in the good judgement of the entire scientific community is far different from trusting in the religious community

 

There have been no widespread scientific lies given to the public except in isolated cases where pure science is mixed with political or financial motivations, and someone has a monopoly. This is not representative of science as a whole.

 

isolated cases ? science isn't being made by robots but by people who are constantly under the influence of different forces. general adherence to scientific method can coexist with such influences...you're describing something very idealistic. this stuff is especially apparent in social studies.

 

Social studies are not sciences they are a crock of biased sources and twisted statistics

Just look at the bullshit Feminism has brought into the social "sciences"

Imaginary wage gaps and a self fulfilling theory of patriarchy.

I'm talking about real sciences here, not social sciences.

-Mathematics

-Chemistry

-Biology

-Physics

-Computer Science

Pretty sure that broadly covers them all. Social sciences is at most extremely abstracted and applied chemistry + biology. Further abstractions from those core topics render the science less pure and more prone to these types of widespread lies like what the social sciences provide nowadays.

  On 4/14/2013 at 2:17 AM, nene multiple assgasms said:

we don't.

we don't? that article has it at 97.5 but i've seen the 99% figure in other places. also note the part in there about how the differences in species may have a lot to do with "regulatory regions" which i think gordo mentioned.

  On 4/14/2013 at 2:17 AM, nene multiple assgasms said:

our most recent common ancestor with chimps is much more recent than our most recent common ancestor with mice. that's why we're more different from mice than from chimps; more time has passed with us as separate populations, allowing for more mutations to accumulate.

no doy?

  On 4/14/2013 at 2:17 AM, nene multiple assgasms said:

also, I think the takeaway from us being so close to chimps genetically and yet more intelligent is that a small genetic difference can result in a big difference in the finished product, not that the difference in dna is equivalent to the resulting difference in things such as intelligence.

did you read gordo's post going into a bit more detail about how it's a misleading stat, or even just read mine where i was saying that? it's like youre ignoring the accusation i made that the stat is misleading, even though your post is a reply to one of mine. one reason is that it isn't a small amount of difference. you're just wrong about that. there is a fair amount of difference in our dna and chimps. it doesn't make sense to take millions and millions and millions of bits of info that's in these molecules, and reduce that down to the number 100 and assign percentages which are rounded off to integer values. you only do that if you are trying to trump up some other point you are trying to make and it's kinda dishonest and it's 100% misleading. its a huge over-simplification of how these things work. and it's an example of scientists framing data in a misleading way to appeal to the emotions of laypeople.

http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=51513 in this discussion about whether we share 50% of our dna, a few ppl who seem to know what they are talking about explain why the whole idea of comparing shared % of dna between species is misleading, better than i could.

maybe do a quick 15 second google on some of this stuff before schooling me on evolution 101?

  On 4/14/2013 at 2:38 AM, Zeffolia said:

 

  On 4/13/2013 at 10:30 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 4/13/2013 at 10:07 PM, Zeffolia said:

 

  On 4/13/2013 at 9:14 PM, MisterE said:

but yeah i agree with you (limpy) about how we dont have access to the labs, lab equipment, the know how to use any of it, most people lack the intelligence or knowledge or interest to do it, etc etc etc, so we can't all verify everything.

which is why we have to accept it on almost totally blind faith

 

This is really untrue.

 

Religions by nature aren't critical of themselves. That is why blind faith in religion isn't a logical thing to do because you know any religious official is solely trying to push their own religious agenda

 

Science by nature is extremely critical of itself. Nobody allows other scientists to publish papers that aren't scientifically accurate, and if they do their reputation is ruined and they are shunned forever.

 

With religion, we don't have the ability to vet any claims, period. Because they are all unfalsifiable

With science, we DO have the ability to vet claims, because science requires falsifiability. If you spent the time and money, you could do it. And even if an individual couldn't spend the time or money, trusting in the good judgement of the entire scientific community is far different from trusting in the religious community

 

There have been no widespread scientific lies given to the public except in isolated cases where pure science is mixed with political or financial motivations, and someone has a monopoly. This is not representative of science as a whole.

 

isolated cases ? science isn't being made by robots but by people who are constantly under the influence of different forces. general adherence to scientific method can coexist with such influences...you're describing something very idealistic. this stuff is especially apparent in social studies.

 

Social studies are not sciences they are a crock of biased sources and twisted statistics

 

Just look at the bullshit Feminism has brought into the social "sciences"

 

Imaginary wage gaps and a self fulfilling theory of patriarchy.

 

I'm talking about real sciences here, not social sciences.

-Mathematics

-Chemistry

-Biology

-Physics

-Computer Science

 

Pretty sure that broadly covers them all. Social sciences is at most extremely abstracted and applied chemistry + biology. Further abstractions from those core topics render the science less pure and more prone to these types of widespread lies like what the social sciences provide nowadays.

 

hehe, i thought the idiotic notion of social sciences not being real sciences have disappeared from public consciousness, but lets leave it for now.

how do you imagine the peer review process ? a bunch of folks completely delete their biases, preferences, ideologies, jealousness and rivalries and only then start reviewing a particular paper ? do scientists always adhere to the ideal norms of social methods and even give up their theories and work easily if they find a well based contradiction, for example ?

  On 4/14/2013 at 3:44 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 4/14/2013 at 2:38 AM, Zeffolia said:

 

  On 4/13/2013 at 10:30 PM, eugene said:

 

  On 4/13/2013 at 10:07 PM, Zeffolia said:

 

  On 4/13/2013 at 9:14 PM, MisterE said:

but yeah i agree with you (limpy) about how we dont have access to the labs, lab equipment, the know how to use any of it, most people lack the intelligence or knowledge or interest to do it, etc etc etc, so we can't all verify everything.

which is why we have to accept it on almost totally blind faith

 

This is really untrue.

 

Religions by nature aren't critical of themselves. That is why blind faith in religion isn't a logical thing to do because you know any religious official is solely trying to push their own religious agenda

 

Science by nature is extremely critical of itself. Nobody allows other scientists to publish papers that aren't scientifically accurate, and if they do their reputation is ruined and they are shunned forever.

 

With religion, we don't have the ability to vet any claims, period. Because they are all unfalsifiable

With science, we DO have the ability to vet claims, because science requires falsifiability. If you spent the time and money, you could do it. And even if an individual couldn't spend the time or money, trusting in the good judgement of the entire scientific community is far different from trusting in the religious community

 

There have been no widespread scientific lies given to the public except in isolated cases where pure science is mixed with political or financial motivations, and someone has a monopoly. This is not representative of science as a whole.

 

isolated cases ? science isn't being made by robots but by people who are constantly under the influence of different forces. general adherence to scientific method can coexist with such influences...you're describing something very idealistic. this stuff is especially apparent in social studies.

 

Social studies are not sciences they are a crock of biased sources and twisted statistics

 

Just look at the bullshit Feminism has brought into the social "sciences"

 

Imaginary wage gaps and a self fulfilling theory of patriarchy.

 

I'm talking about real sciences here, not social sciences.

-Mathematics

-Chemistry

-Biology

-Physics

-Computer Science

 

Pretty sure that broadly covers them all. Social sciences is at most extremely abstracted and applied chemistry + biology. Further abstractions from those core topics render the science less pure and more prone to these types of widespread lies like what the social sciences provide nowadays.

 

hehe, i thought the idiotic notion of social sciences not being real sciences have disappeared from public consciousness, but lets leave it for now.

 

how do you imagine the peer review process ? a bunch of folks completely delete their biases, preferences, ideologies, jealousness and rivalries and only then start reviewing a particular paper ? do scientists always adhere to the ideal norms of social methods and even give up their theories and work easily if they find a well based contradiction, for example ?

 

Wowzers...how do you imagine the peer review process?

The most prominent social activism groups tend to be fueled by the Woozle Effect

And where does this bud off from? What's taught in university social science classes. There have been countless cases of professors refusing to throw out and replace old, outdated textbooks all over the world, teaching their students incorrect data and explanations for phenomena.

Feminism in particular has tainted things quite a bit.

The social sciences are no doubt less scientific than all of the other disciplines I listed. As I said before they require a much higher level of abstraction from the scientific method and thus are more prone to the spreading of incorrect information via the Woozle Effect.

And yes, that is exactly how the scientific review process works for REAL sciences. In the social sciences, however, that tends to not be the case as I mentioned above.

There is no room for personal disagreement and biases to come into play when scientific knowledge is based more purely in mathematical values and leaves little to no room for interpretation.

Mathematics:

-100% objective proofing process

Chemistry

-Bit of an abstraction as applied physics

Biology

-Bit of an abstraction as applied chemistry

Physics

-100% objective proofing process

Computer Science

-100% objective proofing process, theoretical models and benchmarks

Social Sciences in general

-Massive abstraction from biology and chemistry in the most pure of cases. Barely recognizable as a pure science in others. Statistics are skewed and controversial ideas are rejected, reputations ruined.

it seems that you're more interested in preaching how social studies are not mathematical enough and therefore not scientific enough instead of addressing my points. and it is obviously wrong as being based on math is not a necessary element in scientific method.

can you at least recognize that there could be tensions in peer review process on purely personal, ideological paradigm-al basis ?

apropos paradigms, are you familiar with this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Structure_of_Scientific_Revolutions ?

what the hell happened in the last week or so that caused all of the extreme right-wing ideologues to spill out of the dark corners of WATMM?

It's a bit of a silly argument, imo. If you start from the premiss that science is a methodology to arrive at some kind of truth, than why would a science studying sociological subjects be any different to cosmological? It has at least as much practical value. And think of it this way, if it wasn't for all those "hard" AND "soft" sciences, people would still believe in the crap preached by religion. And don't you think statistics is hard enough for being a science? The most important difference between "hard" and "soft" sciences are the way theories are presented. Although statistics is fundamental on both accounts.

To be honest though, I'm currently following a 101-course in ethics and it astounds me how unscientific it is. There's hardly any mention about a link between western and eastern philosophies. It's all western, starting from Plato to Kant, etc. Ethics is apparently about learning what a couple of thinkers have thought in western history. If it'd be somewhat more scientific, I'd assumed some research into some universal ethics underneath western and eastern philosophies, and even better, similarities between any socio-biological species on this planet (Frans de Waal is researching this stuff, btw). But in this 101-course...nothing of the sort.

Sorry for the rant...

  On 4/14/2013 at 3:00 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

what the hell happened in the last week or so that caused all of the extreme right-wing ideologues to spill out of the dark corners of WATMM?

As someone who's turning up on peoples shitlists of bigots and other kinds of conservatives: you shouldn't generalise like that. It's condescending and stigmatising.

*starts AA for people who think different to what is accepted by some at watmm*

  On 4/13/2013 at 8:50 PM, compson said:

There's one islamofascist there, you're losing your game, son.

lol @ "imaginary wage gap."

  On 4/14/2013 at 2:38 AM, Zeffolia said:

Social studies are not sciences they are a crock of biased sources and twisted statistics

 

Just look at the bullshit Feminism has brought into the social "sciences"

 

Imaginary wage gaps and a self fulfilling theory of patriarchy.

 

I'm talking about real sciences here, not social sciences.

-Mathematics

-Chemistry

-Biology

-Physics

-Computer Science

 

Pretty sure that broadly covers them all. Social sciences is at most extremely abstracted and applied chemistry + biology. Further abstractions from those core topics render the science less pure and more prone to these types of widespread lies like what the social sciences provide nowadays.

 

  On 4/14/2013 at 6:34 AM, Zeffolia said:

The most prominent social activism groups tend to be fueled by the Woozle Effect

 

And where does this bud off from? What's taught in university social science classes. There have been countless cases of professors refusing to throw out and replace old, outdated textbooks all over the world, teaching their students incorrect data and explanations for phenomena.

 

Feminism in particular has tainted things quite a bit.

 

The social sciences are no doubt less scientific than all of the other disciplines I listed. As I said before they require a much higher level of abstraction from the scientific method and thus are more prone to the spreading of incorrect information via the Woozle Effect.

 

And yes, that is exactly how the scientific review process works for REAL sciences. In the social sciences, however, that tends to not be the case as I mentioned above.

 

There is no room for personal disagreement and biases to come into play when scientific knowledge is based more purely in mathematical values and leaves little to no room for interpretation.

 

Mathematics:

-100% objective proofing process

 

Chemistry

-Bit of an abstraction as applied physics

 

Biology

-Bit of an abstraction as applied chemistry

 

Physics

-100% objective proofing process

 

Computer Science

-100% objective proofing process, theoretical models and benchmarks

 

Social Sciences in general

-Massive abstraction from biology and chemistry in the most pure of cases. Barely recognizable as a pure science in others. Statistics are skewed and controversial ideas are rejected, reputations ruined.

lol, well, social sciences study 'social facts', which are certainly much more abstract, since they're constructed by people's ideas and actions. they change constantly and it's very difficult to apprehend them through traditional scientific method.

some think that social facts can be measured through quantitative research--codification of meaning to numbers, making them analyzable with statistics--, and some think that is not possible, and claim a methodological standpoint exclusively for social sicences based on the comprehension of meaning (phenomenology, hermeneutics, linguistics, etc.) since people communicate through language. the debate still persists, but the core idea, to try an approach as objetive as possible (even if that includes the own interpretations of social actors, which are certainly subjective) to social phenomena is there, as in other scientific disciplines. as you know, science consists of several specialized disciplines. what's the use of the scientific method if it cannot throw a little bit of light about the mind and collective behavior?

your view is, to say the least, very limited. and conservative.

there are not "pure cases of social sciences", based on biology and chemistry. yes, sometimes ideas are borrowed from natural sciences (evolution, system--but that applies to other areas as well, like cybernetics--, resilience in psychology--originally a concept from physics--, etc.), but 1) that happens in many disciplines (engineering, for example), 2) it is pretty much inevitable, as the advance of transdisciplinary studies to grasp the complexity of many phenomena on reality (environmental issues, for example) show.

the "if is not mathematics, isn't science" argument is rubbish.

the "social science spreading lies" argument connects intimately to your political orientations so i'm not commenting on that.

you where saying earlier that theories where not hypothesis. in theoretical astrophysics there a different 'competing' theories. can you tell me which one of them is really true?

  On 4/14/2013 at 3:00 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

what the hell happened in the last week or so that caused all of the extreme right-wing ideologues to spill out of the dark corners of WATMM?

if you're referring to me saying merely that it is possible for scientists to lie or have a personal agenda or that the peer review system itself is not perfect, or that the fact that scientists often rely on government money which ties them with politics/politicians, who we all know to be corrupt as fuck, if you're suggesting that it's right wing of me to point that out, i might as well suggest that maybe you are maybe one of the 3 stooges.

this is exactly what i'm talking about and the whole reason i even brought this up. because you have people (sr4 just provided an example) who are so willing to defend science as being perfect and utterly above the possibility of the smallest corruption/deception/agenda, that merely saying out loud 'a scientist COULD lie' will bring these nuts out of the woodwork to accuse you of being rush limbaugh, or make all of these other assumptions about who you are or what you believe.

just my saying that a scientist has the ability to lie, or to use overly colorful metaphors that are ultimately meaningless and misleading at best, and clearly are designed to play on emotions, just my saying that shouldn't be considered as me being anti-science. i didn't say that they are all liars, or anything like that. i said several times that i'm only saying that everyone should accept and be aware that they are not above deception. a lot of people out there seem to think that the peer review process is perfect, that scientists only have our best interests in mind, and that they are incapable of being selfish/petty/biased/greedy/etc/etc/etc like the rest of us. this is basically like equating them with jesus christ. which is OT

i also said time and time again that i'm just saying people need to be a bit more skeptical of scientists, and everything that's told to them, in general. isn't skepticism a big part of the whole peer review process? good scientists are, themselves, skeptical of other scientists' claims. so how the hell are you going to act like i'm anti science smett? oh it's ok for them to be skeptical as part of what defines them as scientists in the first place, but the moment a guy you don't agree with politically starts talking skepticism, he be anti-science. why are you such a dick? could science figure that one out?

here's a clue guys-

i don't listen to rush limbaugh. i've been mostly atheistic for maybe almost 20yrs. i understand that religion has done a lot of things that probably held back progress over the course of history, but in recent years i've come to feel that maybe its a bit more complicated of a picture. maybe without religion, people never would have formed societies/civilizations in the first place. who knows? i also think religion could be a product of evolution itself which would make it kind of ironic for people to slam it as if it's completely worthless and should have never existed. it may be a natural product of the very thing some ppl get off on shoving in the faces of the religious (which if true, would make those people doing the shoving COMPLETE ASSES). i don't watch fox news (but i will acknowledge that it was the only channel on tv talking about how 'terrorists' (or whatever you want me to call them) attacked one of our embassies just before the last election, instead of furthering what has become obama's obvious fabrication about it being some spontaneous protest to cover his ass, even after he himself had referred to it as terrorism knowingly).

i guess some people don't like opposing beliefs/ideologies to even exist. and they would be the ones always talking about tolerance. WHAT A JOKE. like why does it hurt you people so bad that fox news exists? you have the entirety of the rest of tv to sit and watch and be happy with your brainwashing (and which most other couch potatos are glued to). let them have theirs/fox. why you gotta bring my political leanings in and assume all these other things that i must mean just because i say to be skeptical of science? your own hero god scientists are skeptical of each other. so fuck off with that.

lol, he doesn't mean you bro.

Nonsense from p. 1:

  On 4/11/2013 at 8:19 PM, Redruth said:

the scientific, political & religious cult is filled with elitist snobbery and lip-flapping know-it-alls, who clammer to retain status, to keep plaques on their walls and their acceptance into the right parties, clubs and cliques. if one includes the transfer of money and influence of power, then one starts to see the depth of deception and corruption. the scientific and political communities are cults like any other, made of the masses, but also including fringe groups (similar to religion & spirituality) who are often ostracized from the mainstream for their nonconformist views.

 

through the use of these spellbinding cults, as well as many others, we are kept under control and in submission and perhaps the greatest trick of it is, that most of us are completely unaware that there is anything wrong with the lives we are led to lead. however, the truth is we are being led to slaughter. we are being drugged, poisoned, manipulated, murdered, brainwashed and buggered in both ends. our innocence is being stolen and most of us literally don't know the difference anymore.

 

if we knew how little we actually know, if we were given a glimpse of the true significance of all that surounds us and that is inside us, we would likely melt in our shoes.

 

 

nothing is as it seems

 

 

 

 

This literally says nothing. There is no clear particular person, problem, institution, thing or victim being referenced. It refers to nothing in particular. And it's 'clamor.'

  On 4/11/2013 at 10:20 PM, compson said:

I'm not making any arguments in favor of this though. I'm just running through the hoops needed to reach a conclusion. It's more about building a framework that better identifies. If you outright reject something off the bat, you are putting yourself in a position that seems inherently more biased than if you approach each conspiracy in a vacuum initially.

'Identifies' is a transitive verb, so what does the framework identify? This sounds like backpedaling from a controversial claim to a non-committal, merely exploratory stance. The only difference between 'making an argument' and 'running through the hoops needed to reach a conclusion' is whether you are asserting the claims ('hoops') or merely entertaining the ideas. And so if you say, 'I was just running from the hoops!', that's like saying 'I was just kidding!' after accidentally insulting someone.

  On 4/11/2013 at 10:25 PM, Redruth said:

there are many different angles to this. something true can be made to seem absurd, with aim at deflating its credibility. this happens all the time and is happening, egregiously in relation to religion and spirituality currently. extraterrestrial and paranormal activity are also good examples. many of the different angles shift and play against each other. science plays against religion / spirituality and against et's and paranormal ability. religion then plays its fake, false identity in support of politics, armed warfare and the justice systems. there are many many more examples of this type of interplay within every important theme of our lives. basically anything that is advantagous for humans to control for the accumulation of power and wealth will have a false identity and a true identity and if one hopes to remain awake, one must know the difference, not just glom them together.

I 'played against' your mom last night. What does that even mean? They compete in a sport? They have a guitar soloing contest?

  On 4/11/2013 at 11:17 PM, compson said:

If a scientist makes a bunch of bullshit up, he will be criticized in his community. A religion is too abstract with differences by comparison.

 

'Too abstract with differences' boggles my mind. My mind is currently too interplanetary with square roots by comparison.

  On 4/11/2013 at 11:40 PM, doorjamb said:

The phrase "scientific authorities" is meaningless; science has no authorities, only experts in various fields of inquiry. Further, no true scientist ever claims to know anything to be absolute fact; hence why we still say "the theory of gravity" and not "the law of gravity." Science is, as someone already said, a method of inquiry based on interpretation of evidence and postulation of explanatory hypotheses. Religion is bald assertion.

 

also no one is saying that some sort of duplicitous conspiracy within the scientific community is impossible, but it would be less likely to succeed since research and postulated evidence are made available for review and the world is full of nosy nitpickers with nothing to do evenings. Religious claims don't apply to the real (perceivable) world and are therefore immaterial (pun intended)

Who gets the authority to decide if a food or drug is safe for public sale? An expert. Who gets the authority to decide whether a new study should be published? Experts. In the case of science, expertise is the source of authority. Same with medicine -- the doctor is an expert in health, which is why he has a right to prescribe something to you. But we do say 'the law of gravity' -- in fact, I don't know if I've ever seen 'theory of gravity' in a scientific textbook.

You are equivocating on 'theory.' The word has come to mean 'educated guess' in common use, and you're right that scientists need to make their claims about the world with a bit of humility since their theory could be falsified by later evidence. You're right that scientists, reasoning inductively, can't be certain their claims about the world are true, but they are trying to make claims that are in fact true and describe the structure of reality. They're not simply making a model which they would think could just as easily have nothing to do with the phenomena they're describing.

The point in calling it a 'law' is to bring out the kind of explanatory role that it plays in science's attempt to describe the natural world: Laws tell us what must happen, given some initial condition. In doing so, they allow us to make sense of why things happen in the way they do, by saying that, given the law, they had to happen that way rather than some other way.

Finally, your last claim is a bit too strong. Religion includes cosmology -- how the real, perceivable world was created, where it came from, what its nature and structure are -- as well as ethics -- how we ought to act in the real, perceivable world if we want to live a good human life. What you say applies to claims about God Himself, but not about religion in its entirety.