The Cult Of Science, Politics & Religion

yeah, I wasn't actually referring to you Mr. E.

look at this long diatribe you created off of one statement. When did I say science is infallible?

Of course biases exist in every human machination, that's human nature.

I am referring to statements here that literally equate the scientific method, and pretty much epistemological principles to a completely gnostic religious doctrine inherently based upon an unfalsifiable premise.

Here, you like looking up my past statements; check out my past comments on global warming.

I agree with the scientific consensus that global warning is real and exists, but I am also skeptical as to how scientists can accurately measure the degrees at which global warming effects the earth. This is were the politicization occurs; newspapers post grandiose statements like "Global warming will destroy humanity in 2020". Contrary to what you might think, I don't blindly accept anything I read. Save the brainwashing diatribe; I don't even watch network news (other than to mock it).

As much as people here might hate the idea of hierarchical elitism in academia and the sciences, it is more good than bad. It is a good thing to have people thrown through the gauntlets to hone their knowledge, and to constantly be criticized by their peers, who are also trained in the same ways with skeptical, inquisitive eyes. Yes, some slip through the cracks, make mistakes, and many can be politically motivated or influenced. But that is why you have a body of trained peers assessing your work; more often than not they will find these flaws. I can give you plenty of examples within my own field, where Gordon Wood, Joseph Ellis, and others have recently relied on far too dispersive secondary sources on which they base their narratives and conclusions. Schools put their entire reputation on the line every time a "watershed" discovery is made in any academic school of thought; if they turn out to be falsified or incorrect, that school endures damage to their reputation, funding, and future admissions. It's not easy to publish, and it's not supposed to be for these very reasons

So should people be critical of sciences? Sure, you should be skeptical of just about every form of human knowledge. But comparing the scientific method, which goes through what I've mentioned above, to religious doctrine is solipsistic nonsense, and egregiously misleading.

I don't know why I keep responding to this stuff because this post will probably be glossed over with people cherry-picking and continuing this narrative that I worship science, or that I'm a left-wing Islamofascist. It's frustrating and a waste of time, but I keep convincing myself that there is some form of common ground or distortion of the basic arguments that hasn't been acknowledged, and that if there was an actual face-to-face sitdown and discussion that a lot more would be understood or clarified than what is being posted here. I'm condescending because it's frustrating to try to formulate a well thought-out response to a major, complex issue, and have it brushed over with strawmanning, circular reasoning, ad ignorantium and thinly veiled personal attacks. In another thread I spent 20-30 minutes writing a critique on something, and received responses. I realized that it would take me an hour or so JUST to explain the logical fallacies upon which people based their responses on, and even then I knew THOSE explanations of the fallacies would become the subject of the topic and could never be accepted. And I realized that I shouldn't be engaging in the namecalling either.

So I suppose it will improve the "dialogue" if I stop responding. There you go.

  On 4/14/2013 at 5:07 PM, eugene said:

lol, he doesn't mean you bro.

oh he means me

if you weren't lumping me into that 'far right ideological' comment, then you truly are a pisspoor communicator. we've had a few back and forths directly related to our ideological differences recently, in chatmm and the forums. so for you to post a comment like that in a thread where i've been saying ppl should be skeptical of science, or that science could be (and has been) used to further an agenda just like religion has, you knew i would take it as you were at least including me in that comment. but you do this pretty frequently, make really short broad sweeping comments that aren't specific. i guess you think it leaves you more 'outs'? if you really weren't including me in that then you should learn to specify (but i'm not buying it).

after i mentioned eugenics earlier someone made a comment about how science has NEVER been used on a wide scale to further agenda/decieve or whatever, and that it's only happened in isolated instances. check out this 1911 "Scientific American" article that's republished here. notice how the intro calls eugenics a philosophy, as does the current wiki for it, but how the actual article from back then called it a science. notice how it mentions some studies done and a few scientist type people doing them. here's an especially choice cut:
"We know enough about the laws of heredity, we have enough statistics from insane asylums and prisons, we have enough genealogies, to show that, although we may not be able directly to improve the human race as we improve the breed of guinea pigs, rabbits or cows, because of the rebellious spirit of mankind, yet the time has come when the lawmaker should join hands with the scientist, and at least check the propagation of the unfit."

ooooohhh. SWEET. this is the 'science' that then went on to be used by Nazis to justify killing millions upon millions of people. Here's some more sweet meat. notice the part about charles darwin's son (who many back then called a scientist himself):
In the run up to the First World War, he lobbied the British government to establish flying squads of scientists, with the power of arrest, who would travel around the country identifying the "unfit". Those classified as such would be segregated in special colonies or sterilised.

holy science batman! i wonder who exactly it is that these guys were REALLY talking about? these... scientists. ???? I also suppose that yeah, John Maynard Keynes' own support of Eugenics was an isolated case too. nevermind the fact that he developed economic theories that are favored by important, powerful, and rich as hell Democrat politicians to this day. his idea of spending money a country doesn't have is alive and well. some might suggest that keynesian ecomics is working perfectly though. as it was designed to. i mean, here we are spending trillions upon trillions that we don't have, and certain elements of society are STILL largely contained in the ghettos. sounds like a wacko conspiracy theory, i know, but the guy did say eugenics was ”the most important, significant and, I would add, genuine branch of sociology which exists.”

no guys you're right though, don't ever ask about who or what is behind that curtain of science. they have never used science to deceive, and it's simply just not possible. and if they could it would be isolated and have little ill effect.

this thread has herpes

i could never stay mad at you limpy

  On 4/14/2013 at 7:04 PM, MisterE said:

i could never stay mad at you limpy

why were you mad at me?

  On 4/14/2013 at 5:34 PM, encey said:

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 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.

One should always re-examine and question their beliefs, especially when they can't be confirmed with something like the scientific method. So political views, religious, social, etc. The Mutz Paradox is very present in today's societies and it essentially says that the more politically active you are, the more polarized your political views become.

A religion is too abstract. It claims things of the supernatural are true. Science can't exactly disprove supernatural belief and therefore religions are inclined to make up anything to fit their agenda. That's why Christians hate Christians. They can't come to a common ground because there are no tools to gauge which religious sect or supernatural claim is accurate.

  On 4/14/2013 at 7:05 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 4/14/2013 at 7:04 PM, MisterE said:

i could never stay mad at you limpy

why were you mad at me?

 

  On 4/14/2013 at 7:40 PM, MisterE said:

 

  On 4/14/2013 at 7:05 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 4/14/2013 at 7:04 PM, MisterE said:

i could never stay mad at you limpy

why were you mad at me?

 

u gave me herpes

 

whoa no i had nothing to do with the herpes

then mebbe you gave me derpies?

i wore a rubber when I blew your mind.

  On 4/14/2013 at 5:35 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

I am referring to statements here that literally equate the scientific method, and pretty much epistemological principles to a completely gnostic religious doctrine inherently based upon an unfalsifiable premise.

 

i agree that it is silly to equate science with religion, but unfortunately many people think that the distinction is more straightforward than it really is

take this, for example:

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

 

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.

 

this way of drawing the contrast between science and religion is pretty dubious, since it's obviously false that religions are not critical of themselves on some level. focusing just on christianity, we have several thousand years worth of literature produced by reflective christians attempting to work out the proper understanding of christian doctrine, resulting in some pretty major shifts in understanding (the schism, the reformation, and so on). much of that is obvious self-criticism, where someone uses their reason and their experience to refine their understanding of their religion. much of this self-criticism is empirically informed as well, as arguments from design and theodices make clear. the idea that all religious believers acquire their views verbatim and without reflection from some authority is a carcature.

there are, you might object, certain features of a religious world-view that go unquestioned, like the existence of god, and (again, in a christian context) the divinity of christ. but the same is true of science, at least in practice. i'm not making the silly argument that science is a religion, but science makes certain assumptions that it does not seriously question and which it cannot realistically verify or falsify; for example, the assumption that unobservable things (like those distant in time and space) obey the same laws as observable things.

i also think that falsifiability is not the crucial issue. many religious beliefs clearly are falsifiable, at least in principle (e.g. if christ returns in the flesh and things proceed as described in revelations, that would falsify other religious views incompatible with christianity, and we can imagine similar scenarios that would falsify christian beliefs). similarly, many scientific claims are not falsifiable; for instance, existentially quantified statements are typically not falsifiable. so, "there is a black hole" and "there is a quark" are not falsifiable in any realistic sense, because no matter how much evidence you gather, it's always possible that you just made a mistake, or overlooked something. furthermore, it might be that every statement whatsoever is falsifiable in some contexts and not falsifiable in others (Duhem-Quine, etc.). so, falsifiability is also too crude a way of demarcating science from religion

i still think there is a difference between science and religion, but it's better not to pretend that it is more straightforward than it really is

  On 4/14/2013 at 3:08 AM, MisterE said:

 

  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.

my point was that you were basing an argument on a false premise, that humans share the same amount of dna with chimps as we do with mice.

from the linked article:

  Quote

Mice and men share about 97.5 per cent of their working DNA, just one per cent less than chimps and humans.

if I'm interpreting this correctly, it's saying that mice and men share about 97.5 per cent of their working dna, whereas chimps and men share about 98.5 per cent of their working dna. I think we agree that shared dna only gives you part of the picture, but when you said that we share the same amount of dna with chimps as we do with mice, I knew that couldn't be right. I should have made my response more clear instead of being terse. sorry.

A brain cell and a muscle cell share 100% of their DNA bit they're completely different tissues

Also, the scientific process is not as pure as people make it out to be (peer review and stuff). One thing is for sure tho, junk science gets forgotten IN THE LONG TERM.

  On 4/14/2013 at 11:26 PM, nene multiple assgasms said:

 

  On 4/14/2013 at 3:08 AM, MisterE said:

 

  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.

 

my point was that you were basing an argument on a false premise, that humans share the same amount of dna with chimps as we do with mice.

 

from the linked article:

 

  Quote

Mice and men share about 97.5 per cent of their working DNA, just one per cent less than chimps and humans.

if I'm interpreting this correctly, it's saying that mice and men share about 97.5 per cent of their working dna, whereas chimps and men share about 98.5 per cent of their working dna. I think we agree that shared dna only gives you part of the picture, but when you said that we share the same amount of dna with chimps as we do with mice, I knew that couldn't be right. I should have made my response more clear instead of being terse. sorry.

 

but that's not what i meant. obviously we don't share the same % of dna with mice as with chimps. that's why i brought it up, to show how absurd it is. and that point still stands, even if % with mice is only at 97.5%. it just goes to show that clearly there is more to it than how much we share. and this is again, beside my point that it's kind of full retard to take millions of different bits of info in the molecule, the whole regulators thing, and reduce that down to an (usually integer) % out of 100. its just a huge, huge oversimplification to the point of being entirely meaningless and it is missleading.

if you round off the %, as done with the 99% w/chimps, then how many other animals WOULD be at 99%, as with chimps? how can you talk with me about this and not acknowledge that just doing the rounding and using a % out of 100% is totally dumb. if a mouse is at 97.5, where is a dog? where is a pig? they still have millions of bits of info in there worth of difference though.

it's like if you ask me how far from new york ohio is, and i look at a map and tell you one inch.

Godbless you guys!

“Did I ever tell you about the man who taught his asshole to talk?"

  On 4/15/2013 at 5:00 AM, DerWaschbar said:

Godbless you guys!

Fuck God.

  On 4/14/2013 at 4:24 PM, Alcofribas said:

lol @ "imaginary wage gap."

The wage gap can be more or less attributed to personal career choices and differences in working hours. Don't believe the femiganda.

http://puu.sh/2ApZo.pdf

  On 4/15/2013 at 6:41 AM, compson said:

 

  On 4/15/2013 at 5:00 AM, DerWaschbar said:

Godbless you guys!

 

Fuck God.

 

¯\(シ)/¯

  On 4/15/2013 at 4:18 AM, MisterE said:

but that's not what i meant. obviously we don't share the same % of dna with mice as with chimps. that's why i brought it up, to show how absurd it is.

 

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

i just think that the fact of there being '99%' similarity between us and a chimp is ultimately meaningless and shouldn't be mentioned in a discussion about intelligence if we also share 99% dna with mice. its way oversimplified. you're talking about mountains of info in those DNA molecules, even just in that 1% that's actually different, so they are just reframing the math in a different way that seems to make their case better. it's like they are massaging the numbers.

I'm sorry, but it sure looked to me like you were basing an argument on something that wasn't true. now you tell me that was intentional, which I don't see the point of at all. all it did was confuse the matter.

I find it weird that MisterE is so heated about how much DNA we may or may not share with other species.

lol

  On 4/15/2013 at 7:22 AM, nene multiple assgasms said:

 

  On 4/15/2013 at 4:18 AM, MisterE said:

but that's not what i meant. obviously we don't share the same % of dna with mice as with chimps. that's why i brought it up, to show how absurd it is.

 

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

i just think that the fact of there being '99%' similarity between us and a chimp is ultimately meaningless and shouldn't be mentioned in a discussion about intelligence if we also share 99% dna with mice. its way oversimplified. you're talking about mountains of info in those DNA molecules, even just in that 1% that's actually different, so they are just reframing the math in a different way that seems to make their case better. it's like they are massaging the numbers.

I'm sorry, but it sure looked to me like you were basing an argument on something that wasn't true. now you tell me that was intentional, which I don't see the point of at all. all it did was confuse the matter.

 

i think i've made my point fairly well and it seems like you've ignored half of what i've said, so it's not worth continuing this on my end. i mean, you giving me an evolution 101 lesson is kind of a joke. i've made specific comments a bit beyond that and you just choose to ignore them. u=wasting my time