The Plight of True Science.

[Malik00]

Yeah...I'd say this is accurate.

Alright Look. Something that's always bothered me about modern day science, or modern day advocates of science, is just how much hubris and lack of humility many of them tend to have. But not only that right? But when you hear their claims and why they think science is absolute, they either don't hold water, make no sense at all, or they just resort to petty insults and name calling.

Now let me just preface this by saying that I am not referring to atheists when talking about this......at least not spiritual ones. If you don't believe in god but still believe in spirituality, a great beyond or an essence of all things, then I have no quarrel with you and there are many religions that support your beliefs such as buddhism, taoism and Jainism as well as multiple other pagan style religions.

So this should really narrow down the types I'm talking about. Personally I considered myself an omnists , or someone That finds truth and Recognizes and respects all religions as sharing some form of common truth. But that's besides the point. The ones I'm talking about are New atheists and Anti-Theists that have corrupted the scientific world.

Now what I'm going to do is note 5 aspects that i feel is keeping science from progressing and how to fix it.

Insisting that Free will is an illusion.

I'll go over this first since it's the easiest to explain at least in my view. Now maybe I'm viewing this the wrong way or something.

But when I think Free will, I think the ability to make your own choices, Live life as you want to and expressing your individuality as a person.

Now the counter argument is that we have no free will and are pre-programmed to act a certain way. Whether by our genes or something else.

This is an example of having a mindset of Determinism and Fatalism.

Now say you knew someone who was an unapologetic jackass, someone who was like........Snaps fingers. Imagine if Killer Keemstar and Logan Paul Had a baby.

And one day you just had enough of his nonsense, confronted him about it, and he's just like "I'm sorry man, my genes made me do it. I can't help myself" I don't think you need to be a scientist or a genius to know that that is absolute bull. Yet people will actually do this as some people go one step further and say that determinism implies that individual human beings have no free will and because of that we cannot be held morally responsible for our own actions!

WHAT?!

What kind of nonsense is that?! Of course you should be held responsible for that! That's like saying a child sex offender shouldn't be thrown in jail for raping a kid, because he genes told him to do it and he couldn't help himself. Nobody is gonna buy that shit, and you know it. No matter how you look at it, saying humans have no free will, is absolutely absurd.

Materialism
Materialism basically boils down to 4 main roots.
1.Everything is mechanical
2.The laws of nature are fixed
3.Everything is meaningless.
4.Everything we see and experience is nothing more then the product of our brains.

In other words Materialism or Physicalism, is effectively a combination of Solipsism and Nihilism.

And it really just doesn't make any sense. Because anyone who can claim that our world is entirely made up of matter/mass or is completely physical, clearly doesn't know what a photon is. But really to say that everything is material or, we've got the universe figured out or w/e is quite possibly the most presumptuous thing I've ever heard. All this means is that our current scientific method has reached its limit and it's time to find a new approach.

Now Thankfully This is already happening. About 4 Years ago, Rupert sheldrake(who is considered a maverick in the scientific community) Along with 5 other PHD holding scientists as well as 2 MDs Published "The Manifesto of Post materialist Science" as viewable here.

http://opensciences.org/files/pdfs/Manifesto-for-a-Post-Materialist-Science.pdf

More then 300 other scientists agree with this manifesto, and more of todays youth are showing interests in science such as quantum mechanics, and the study of the consciousness. Say what you will about rupart call him a quack or w/e, either way this is getting too big to really just brush to the side as mere pseudoscience.....Speaking of which.

Bias and Hostility in the scientific Community.

I honestly don't know whats worse, a lot of science advocates blind hostility towards any dissenting opinions, or the fact that half of the time a lot of them don't know what on earth they are talking about. I have seen this mentality from base internet comments about how anyone who doesn't agree with science is an idiot all the way up to rupert sheldrakes ted chat being censored for daring to question the modern day scientific approach.

For those who don't know in 2013 Rupert made this ted talk that was almost banned for "Advocating Pseudoscience", and the only reason it was Technically unbanned,(I say technically because it's more or less shoved in the corner of teds website, while still not being available on their youtube channel.) Is because there was such a controversy around them censoring him that they had no choice but to partially unban it. I also imagine anyone who is openly Religious/Spiritual in the scientific community will often be viewed in a less favorable light compared to their pure atheist colleges.

And how hostile some of these people can get my goodness. Not only do they just immediately throw out baseless insults or just start treating you with a dismissive disdain for anyone that that criticizes science, but a lot of the time they have no idea what they are talking about. More often then not, you will find many wannabe science nobs criticizing something considering it pseudo science because it doesn't click with their world view, only to find out they

A. Did no research about it before hand
and
B. Don't care to, some claiming that "They don't need to research something to criticize it"

I think the crazy thing here is that, these types LOVE to be on the attack, but once someone starts fighting back, they either back out or resort to baseless name calling.

And I got to ask, if your whole goal is to make society more secular, and get people to think more rationally, HOW THE DUCK IS THIS SUPPOSE TO DO IT?! All it's gonna do is make people resent you more and turn to their faith. This is spite, plain and simple. There is no positive intentions, there's no misunderstood approach. I don't care who or what you are, you are not this hostile towards ANYTHING unless you have some sort of grudge, or you're a sociopath one of the two.

Ignorance of the Scientific Mindset

I'm sure most people will have at least one person, that would regurgitate the scientific method as being the pinnacle of science and how we got all the things we have today, But most people from what i understand seem to completely ignore the scientific mindset, or rather most of it.

There are 4 parts of a scientific mindset. Curiosity, Open Mindedness, Skepticism, and Humility. Only one of these are present within much of modern day science, that being skepticism. With the other 3 being woefully ignored, instead being replaced with Indifference, Prejudice and Arrogance. This just will not do, as you will never progress or learn anything stuck in a box with your preconceived notions. If you truly called yourself a man/woman of science you would NEVER stoop to something like this.

But i think the worst part is well.

Scientific Hypocrisy and The melding into a religion.

I have always said that the biggest oversight that can happen is the treating of science as a religion. Of course everyone I talk to about it denies it.

But let's look at some of the similarities.

1.Lately Science is being viewed as an absolutist institution that can never be questioned.
2.You will get reprimanded and attacked violently for ever questioning it, in many ways worse then any religious person ever could.
3.They will often pick and choose certain scientific studies to support their view point while completely ignoring others.
4.And many of their claims about how things work are often little more then baseless conjecture at best, and long since disproved nonsense at worst, that generally doesn't hold water when you start asking critical questions.

Sounds real familiar doesn't it?

I just find it so ironic that despite claiming to hate religion and calling it the greatest disease on the planet, many who laud over science will treat it just like that, a religion. A religion of Fatalism, Determinism, Solipsism, Nihilism and Spite just to give religious and spiritual believers a middle finger. Pfft No wonder people call Richard Dawkins an Edgelord.

How to fix this Turd Storm

Ok now the first 2 kind of take care of themselves right?
Disproving the whole free will is an illusion thing is simple if you just use some common sense. Or you know have the slightest bit of integrity.
and the other one is a work in progress with the establishment of the AAPS or Academy for the Advancement of Post-materialist Sciences which you can check out here
https://www.aapsglobal.com/

Now the 3rd one a lot of it not only has to do with popular science, but also science melding with people's political biases. Science should be non-partisan giving findings regardless of whether they agree or not. Because it stops being science if you start withholding findings that you don't agree with. The big mistake here is thinking that scientists will always give you all the facts and details when its actually very common for scientists to not publish findings out of fear that they will not get funded anymore.

4th one In my opinion is simple, prioritize the scientific mindset over the scientific method. You don't have all the answers and you likely never will, but that doesn't mean you should close yourself off to any possibilities regardless of whether it's associated with religion or not. I think a good saying for this is "A true master, is an eternal student" Scientists should have this plastered on their labs or something.

And the final one, understanding that end of the day science is a tool and a method to find answers. A very useful one at both don't get me wrong and one that has gotten us very far, but end of the day thats all it is and how it should be treated. We should not treat science as an absolute end all be all to everything in the universe, we should not act as if we have figured everything else out and we have reached the pinnacle of human civilization.

We still don't know how exactly how the Egyptians made their pyramids the way they did, we don't know how the inca were able to make
Machu Picchu or how in 6th century BC India, a civilization MUCH less technologically advanced then ours were capable of making Damascus/Wootz steel. Steel that just so you know how special this metal was, contains carbon nanotubes.....Carbon Bloody Nanotubes.....how do you even do that?!

The Point is, Modern day science, has the illness of presumptuousness and the only way to fix this is for people to realize that.....

"I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing." Socrates

[ladsin]

Ugh... There's a lot to cover here, but I'll try to tackle them by significance, and I'll itemize them for clarity in case you want to respond.

1.) Materialism, What is Science?
Science is necessarily methodologically materialistic. This is by definition the case as science is the study of the natural world through observation and experimentation. What you seem to be misunderstanding comes from equating this necessity of methodological naturalism to philosophical naturalism. Methodlogical naturalism is just the realization that all we can assess via science is the natural world; however, philosophical naturalism tends to be the assertion that the natural world IS all that exists. I do not think they've met this burden, although I'm fine with admitting that the natural world is all that apparently exists.
2.) Science and Bias/ Hostility
The scientific method is necessarily biased. The whole process of peer review and skepticism are what makes science work. If any person could get their ideas published without evidential support then science would not be effective at all. If, however, you're able to supply evidence that vindicates your claims then you'll be accepted (eventually, not always immediately).
3.) Free-Will
I wrote a little bit about compatabilism here Dennet's Compatabilist View of Free Will ↗ but the main point to address is in regards to how we're to define free-will. As far as we can tell the libertarian notion of free will (ie a soul) is incorrect. Our "free-will" or conscious is an emergent property of our brains and when our brain is injured it changes. I think one of the more humorous examples that demonstrates this is the study which shows confabulation in split-brain patients. The researchers would ask the patient to walk across the room and then ask the patient why they did it. The two hemispheres of their brain could not communicate and as a result they would fabricate a reason completely out of whole cloth like "I wanted to get a coke."
Suffice it to say that the research (many different ones) appears to show that we perform a particular action for reasons unbeknownst to us, but then our brain fabricates a reason after the fact. This has led some neuroscientists like Sam Harris to claim that free will is an illusion, but others simply say "we have free-will, it's just not what we thought it was."

[Malik00]

The only real interesting one is that 3rd notion... See the issue i have with that mindset regarding free will being a property in our brains and all that. That would in theory, mean that you could reprogram someone to think and act however you wanted... which has SO many red flags going its not even funny.

[ladsin]

Eventually, perhaps. That doesn't mean it can happen today, nor does the fact that you don't like it mean it's not true. The evidence vindicates the position that the libertarian notion of free will doesn't exist.
We do however appear to have some autonomy that is regulated by our biology. To address your crime example. We don't charge mentally retarded persons with crimes the same way we do people with full cognitive abilities because they don't appear to have as much "free will".
All of it was interesting.

[Malik00]

welp time to embrace the hive mind i suppose.

[ladsin]

If ya need to

[hellionthesagereborn]

I have argued these points myself many times. I find it frustrating that people will not allow you to question science even as science itself is based upon questioning. Many scientists are treated like priests and science itself is treated like a religion. Its scientism, this notion that science is all incompassing which is rather unscientific as the simple fact that we exist proves that science cannot explain everything (as us existing requires that their either be nothing then something which goes against causality, or that its always been which itself goes against causality the very thing required for science to function (the need for cause and effect without which their can be no science, or reason or logic).

I've also noticed scientists pushing a anti theist agenda, like dawkins but another one is Neil Degrass Tyson. He gave a speech asking why not all scientists where atheist talking about how the majority of the stars in the sky where named by Arabic scholars and yet it all stopped when they where taken over by the ottomans and became muslim. The problem with his speech was the fact that he was very careful to not mention that the people who created the first version of the scientific method where muslims, the great sultan that spent his fortunes acquiring books from around the globe to further his and his peoples knowledge and understanding of the universe, also muslim, and the astonomers and poets and artists and mathmaticians where also muslim. He was very careful to not mention that and while not out right stating it heavily suggested they where if not atheist where non religious yet was very quick to point out that the ones who conqured and where anti intellectual where muslim. It was rather unscientific and intellectually dishonest for him to do but it furthered his argument so he did it and no one questioned him because he is a scientist.

Same goes for scientific arguments, you have the big bang theory but no one is allowed to question it, they keep saying that its the best theory we have even though others have been posited. Yet the theory states by their own admission that it would create equal parts matter and antimatter which would have annihilated itself destroying all matter in the process. It says that the universe is expanding and that's why we see everything moving away from us. . . except for the andromeda galaxy that is suppose to collide with the milky way and all the countless other galaxy collisions we see.

[hellionthesagereborn]

Or the fact that it seems to be only the space between galaxies but not the space inside galaxies, between solar systems, between planets and their stars, their moons, the people on our planet etc. despite them stating that dark energy is pushing objects away from each other with a greater force then gravity is pulling them together meaning that all of this should be happening but isn't for some reason but we are not allowed to question it. I mean maybe its happening but their are a lot of contradictions we are seeing, why can't we entertain the idea that it might be wrong? That their might be another explanation (I particularly like the 4 torus topography explanation personally as it, while being as far as I know impossible to prove at the moment would explain everything we are seeing without the glaring flaws of the big bang model) why can't we try to see if one of them is a better fit?
But as you said at the end of the day science is suppose to be a tool, and its one of many.

[hellionthesagereborn]

Their is a indian Guru, Sadhguru who has a very interesting talk with a neuroscientist about this very topic actually, you should check it out (Its quite good because he very much endorses science but also realizes its limitations): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaCTs8oeAh8

[Malik00]

You sir are amazing

[goaded]

"4 torus topography explanation" I've never heard of that, the closest I can find, only 3 toruses, but they rotate (at 29km/h, which isn't a measure of rotation), is something from Dan Visser, who publishes non-peer-reviewed papers labelled "TOP-SECRET". Is that it? www.darkfieldnavigator.com/index.php?menu=94

If you want to propose a better theory than the Big Bang theory, it would have to:
1. Match observed reality at least as well as the BBT.
2. Differ from the BBT in a way that can be experimentally determined.

The best known example would be Einstein's theory that almost exactly matched the predictions of Newton's theory of gravity in all but some extreme situations but differed in the amount gravity would bend light around a massive object like the sun. The experiment was performed in the first half of the last century, during a solar eclipse; a star appeared near the sun in the place Einstein's theory predicted, not Newton's, which proved Einstein's theory was better.

[goaded]

I'm just a few minutes in, but the argument that "science doesn't do that" seems shaky. Four parts of mind: Intellect, he disapproves of. non-brain memory, how your body "remembers" what your great grandfather's nose looked like is called genetics. Research into people's feelings of identity is called psychology. Intelligence is something untrustworthy, and needs proving before you know it's true, otherwise people think the sun goes around the world like the moon does.

Debates are a very bad way to find truth.

[hellionthesagereborn]

Thank you, but really its just willingness to ask questions.

[goaded]

Why are you so sure they aren't willing to ask questions?

Newton said he could see so far because he was standing on the shoulders of giants, why can't today's scientists stand on his (and Einstein's) shoulders, rather than start from scratch every time?

[goaded]

What a lot of tosh. What scientist says we don't have free will?

Even saying that decisions are made as a result of physical events, the massive number of them, coupled with chaos theory, means that human behaviour is as unpredictable as the weather.

"4. Everything we see and experience is nothing more then the product of our brains."
Of course that's not true; let go of an apple while standing on the surface of the Earth and it will fall, unless it's supported by some other means. That has nothing to do with what's going on in your brain.

The whole point of science is to avoid the mistakes our experience teaches us; to find the closest approximation to reality, even if it seems counter-intuitive (see quantum physics).

(They don't even say the laws are fixed; there are a few small fractions of a millisecond at the beginning of the universe that need to be accounted for.)

"Bias and hostility", such as there is, is a reaction to the common myth that because you say "I don't know" about some tiny fragment of a theory (which is always an approximation to reality), you are wrong about the whole thing.

"Curiosity, Open Mindedness, Skepticism, and Humility"
All scientists are curious, that's why they're scientists. They're open minded, but it's ridiculous to expect them to abandon, say, the atomic model or evolution, because they know the weight of evidence behind them. They're skeptical of people who deny evidence, with good reason, and, finally, they all know how much they don't know, so they're humble when dealing with people who care about the evidence.

Science is not a religion. Some people may treat it that way, but some people think Prince Phillip is a god. If you provide an equally valid study that counters the finding of the study they've cited, they'll consider it. The problem is that people will put forward flawed studies as a counter and it's a waste of time to debunk them. (See, for example, the "study" at crimeresearch. org about there being more mass shootings in "Europe" than the US, that by their own figures and assumptions can be shown untrue.)

What "long since disproved nonsense"?

"many types of modern steel outperform ancient Damascus... Research now shows that carbon nanotubes can be derived from plant fibers". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damascus_steel

Note that it's scientists discovered that, and are looking into how it happened. Do you really think Damaskus smiths designed nanotubes? They evolved a way of making strong blades.

[goaded]

*Damascene smiths...

The world of science is much more amazing than any made up story.

https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/rock.png

[Malik00]

You lack any creativity if you think that.

[goaded]

Really. That's all you have to say to me?

Religions are basically based on the idea that everything we can't control is caused by a big man in the sky with the same hang-ups as normal people.

[Malik00]

And That right there is precisely your problem. The fact that you actually take the bible literally, shows me that you either didn't do any research on this or just don't care to.

[goaded]

Like I said in my long, thought-out and detailed opinion that you completely ignored, if you want to be considered, then "provide an equally valid study".

I wasn't talking about the Bible, I was taking about religions in general; my comment was about the Norse Gods, like Thor, or Greek ones, like Poseidon, or the Roman Vulcan...

There are over 30 Weather Gods, around the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_god

[Malik00]

I have read everything you said and frankly most of it is regurgitated apologist gibberish.
You didn't even take anything i said to thought, and it's clear you don't intend to.
My point still stands, the fact that you genuinely think that religions claim that the stuff in their myths actually happened the way they describe it, and are not instead
A. Metaphors
or
B. Them describing phenomenon that they did experience, but could only describe it the way they did.
Shows me that you really don't know what you're talking about. I'm more then willing to have a mature, intelligent debate with you. But first you gotta show me you are capable of being a free thinker.

[goaded]

"regurgitated apologist gibberish"?

I wrote it all myself; is there any part where my English wasn't clear? Maybe I could clarify it for you.

Of course they were "describing phenomenon that they did experience, but could only describe it the way they did", but they were, without exception, wrong.

Praying or sacrificing to the gods had no effect on the phenomena they were supposed to control, and churches were even struck by lightning more often than other buildings, because they were taller (until science came up with lightning conductors).

[Malik00]

Then there's really only 2 possible explanations. Either supernatural phenomenon does indeed happen... or anyone who isn't a skeptic is an idiot... take a pick.

[goaded]

I don't understand what you mean.

Everyone should be skeptical, but there are limits. It doesn't make sense to wonder if you might float off the Earth today, when it's never happened to anyone before.

[Malik00]

I'm saying it's naive to believe that what we see is all there is.
You guys trust your eyes way too much.

[goaded]

Dark Matter can't be detected yet, but its effects can be observed on cosmic scales. (It's simply particles with mass that don't otherwise interact with anything, iirc.)

“Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?”
― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

[Malik00]

No it isn't if the world is as bland and boring as you anti-theists love to say it is, then there's no reason to get out of bed, no reason to obey the law and frankly no reason to even live. Life suddenly becomes a curse.
Sticking around just long enough to know what you want before you just fade into oblivion. It's a cruel, sick and twisted joke... but hey I guess that's one less believer in "Fairy Tales" for you to worry about right?

[goaded]

Did you even look at the cartoon I posted?

The Universe is an amazing place, even our tiny part of it. we're not saying it's "bland and boring", we're saying it's fascinating and wonderful. You're the one saying it's not enough.

I get out of bed to live, and learn and help and try to make the world a better place (in my own small ways).

Why would you say there's no reason to obey the law if there's no God? The reason is that people are happier in a peaceful, law-abiding society. People shouldn't only obey laws because they might get caught, but because they're guidelines to a better society.

It also means that life is more precious, because we understand we only get one go.

(You never responded to any of the points I made in my opinion, just insulted me. Why do you think that is?)

[Malik00]

Ok let me put it like this... if what philosophical materialists are saying is true.
Morality means Nothing
Soldiers dying in war are stupid
anything promoting selflessness and sacrifice is pointless
and people born in 3rd world war torn countries are just shit out of luck

In other words anything that doesn't have your own self interests in mind is a waste of time, so why should i bother looking out for anyone other then myself even if its at others expense?

Also I didn't respond to your "points" because there were none. All you did was berate me for being a judgmental idiot. If you want me to properly response to something, you don't start off by literally calling everything i state nonsense and rubbish.

Not only is that getting off on the wrong foot, but it tells me that you don't care about educating me, just winning and showing me up. And I'm not gonna bother dignifying something so conceited.

[goaded]

Last things first, I pointed out what I saw as flaws in your assertions; e. g. "All scientists are curious, that's why they're scientists". I hoped you would either accept that your assertions were wrong, or defend them.

I asked questions; e. g. "What "long since disproved nonsense"?". I hoped you would answer at least one of them.

If I asserted "All Christians believe the Earth is 6000 years old", you'd challenge that, wouldn't you? (And you'd be right, of course.)

You wrote a whole take on how scientists are wrong; am I supposed to just agree with you? Where's the fun in that? :)

[Malik00]

Sigh... ok let me calm down for a bit.

Your claim that all scientists are curious... i sorely disagree. I'm convinced that many scientists are or have become stuck in their ways and simply refuse to consider anything outside of their comfort zone.
Not to say that there aren't those that are inquisitively open-minded, but modern day science seems to follow this mindset of you have to think about things in this certain view point or you're wrong.

As for disproven, perhaps that was the wrong phrase to use. I mean more in the sense of someone saying that the concept of a soul and all of religion came from Christianity. Something real stupid from someone who just has it out for any and all things spiritual.

[goaded]

"why should i bother looking out for anyone other then myself"

Because it's the right thing to do, you'd like people to do that for you (Golden Rule). Also, it benefits the society in which we live.

As for the list...
"Morality means Nothing"
Morality means avoiding harming others, as far as possible. If you mean condemning people for their private lives, that's doing harm.

"Soldiers dying in war are stupid"
Soldiers dying in war are defending something they believe in. Soldiers dying in war for their God, however...

"anything promoting selflessness and sacrifice is pointless"
Large groups of selfless people are very pleasant to live with (Golden Rule, again).

"and people born in 3rd world war torn countries are just shit out of luck"
Yes. Yes they are. So it's a good idea not to hinder those countries' development, not just use them for their resources.

You have some very strange ideas about what I believe.

[Malik00]

That's still just considered Looking out for your own interests and having ulterior motives.

You're only being nice to others in the hopes that you will get something back as a result.

[goaded]

I think you're saying that scientists aren't curious about the things you want them to be curious about, is that about right?

If so, isn't that like physicists complaining that geologists aren't paying enough attention to quantum physics? They have no reason to! (Biologists are looking at quantum effects to explain how birds can detect magnetic fields.)

I think they're all trying to find and put together pieces of the puzzle that is the universe we live in (unless they're just trying to make a slightly bluer lipstick), I think that's a worthy goal.

[Malik00]

I'm saying my issue is that one field of science seem to overshadow and take precedent over all others... huh. Now that I think about it maybe my beef is more with physicists/biologists then science as a whole.

[goaded]

You might enjoy this... I'm enjoying it, anyway.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0NbBjNiw4tk

[Bluedream13]

lol the kind of goof who watches the idiot pseudoscientist michio kaku would argue against a brilliant take like this...

[sp33d]

These concerns are philosophical and not scientifical.

"But when I think Free will, I think the ability to make your own choices, Live life as you want to and expressing your individuality as a person."
Not a very scientific thing to do. Hence it will be regarded as a philosophical viewpoint. Doesn't hold much value in any scientific discussion.

"But really to say that everything is material or, we've got the universe figured out or w/e is quite possibly the most presumptuous thing I've ever heard"
You have to be more specific. Platonic objects are certainly NOT material. What do you mean by "everything"? I also dabble in research and I can verify that we don't know everything. Knowing 'everything' isn't the goal to begin with.

"More often then not, you will find many wannabe science nobs criticizing something considering it pseudo science because it doesn't click with their world view, only to find out they A/B"

These people are not scientists. Look no further.

"Lately Science is being viewed as an absolutist institution that can never be questioned."
No, certainly not. The advantage of any field of (actual) science over religion is that it can be questioned. To do that, however, you must be very precise in your formulation.

"They will often pick and choose certain scientific studies to support their view point while completely ignoring others."
A frowned on practice in any scientific community. This is why we have several layers of checking, double checking and triple checking before a paper is published.

[sp33d]

I need to be more specific on the "questioning science" part.

Metascience is provided within the science itself. For instance, mathematics can be studied and therefore questioned with mathematical tools. Religious texts do not offer this opportunity.

[Bluedream13]

Absolutely incredible take, brilliant topic that needs to be discussed more, cringing at these know it all neckbeads in the comments section...

science has turned from a process and a method of discovery into a modern religion, the problem is, most of the world isn't ready for the scientific method, most just wanna be told the truth from an 'authority' and be done with it.

[your_ego]

well said

[goaded]

And what good does it do if that "Authority" says "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live"?

In 200 years, we've gone from thinking the universe was thousands of years old and blood-letting is a cure for almost anything, to having good explanations for all but a few fractions of a second at the start of a 13.5 billion year expansion of an unbelievably huge universe, and techniques for attacking cancers by identifying their genetic makeup and vulnerable receptors.

Science is still a process and a method of discovery, but there's no point, any more, in arguing that things aren't made up of atoms, that gravity affects masses according to the square of the distance between them, or that life didn't evolve.

There's plenty to learn about the details; atoms are made up of sub-atomic particles, gravity is affected by relative velocities, and quantum effects cause changes in DNA, but the basics are pretty well established now, and any new theories have to explain all existing evidence.

[Bluedream13]

@goaded terrible example, for that would be going against the fundamental doctrine of science as a religion. Witches cannot exist in this religion. It would be like the christian authority saying "Cheating on your spouse is A OK, so is incest, FUCK WHATEVER YOU WANT"

it wouldn't matter saying that because it's so fundamentally opposed to the belief system, the person would be publicly humiliated just for suggesting such fallacies if not killed.

A genuine worry would be if the scientific authority said something like "The earth is heating up to a point where we will all go extinct because of our carbon footprint! We need a carbon tax so the big brave government can save us from ourselves!"

or

"Anyone who's not a complete atheist is merely suffering from *explain psychological problem here* and cannot be listened to. Simply ignore them."

or

"it's okay to cheat on your spouse!"

oh shit I think atheists are touting that last one...

[goaded]

You know that's from the bible, right? Exodus 22:18.

That sort of thing has real-world consequences, just like global warming.

www.ohchr.org/.../Witches21stCentury.aspx
"Throughout history, people described as witches have been persecuted, tortured and murdered and the practice continues today. Statistics are not easy to come by but it is known that every year, thousands of people, mostly older women and children are accused as witches, often abused, cast out of their families and communities and in many cases murdered. "

"Seven people in East Africa were killed earlier this week after being accused of witchcraft" (in 2014)
www.seeker.com/...-burned-to-death-1769174209.html

[goaded]

By the way, if it's not OK to cheat on your spouse, what do you think of Rudolph Giuliani, Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump?

Or adulterer author and proponents of the "Defense of Marriage Act" Bob Barr, Bob Dole, and Newt Gingrich?

Let me guess: "Clinton did it, too!".

[Bluedream13]

@goaded dude you didn't even read what I said, I don't know who you are responding to but it's not me.

Some crazy christians burn witches because the bible told them to... and a lot of atheists indulge in sodomy and polyamory because there's nothing saying they shouldn't, what's your point? I said that if a command goes against the fundamental tenets of the religion, it will be ignored. I'm just not sure you read what I posted.

And what the fuck does donald trump cheating on his wife have to do with anything? What are you even talking about? I'm not sure what you are trying to argue here. Clearly you like to sound more intelligent than you are, your vocabulary and dictation ability are brilliant but you're clearly not much of a thinker lol

great, just what the world needs, another articulate idiot LOL

[Malik00]

You know what they say, there's nothing worse then an enlightened dumbass.

[goaded]

You really think consensual sex and burning people to death are two sides of a coin?

"I said that if a command goes against the fundamental tenets of the religion, it will be ignored."
You were talking about "science as a religion", which is isn't, and ignoring the fact that killing witches *is* a part of the christian religion.

"And what the fuck does donald trump cheating on his wife have to do with anything?"
You were pretending atheists were fine with people cheating on their spouses, which implies you're not, when clearly you are when they're on your "team".

[Bluedream13]

@goaded atheists are often find with cheating on their spouses, that doesn't mean all of them do. What you call consensual sex is also a sin and the murder of one's soul. Yeah burning people to death is arguably worse in many ways but atheists have done worse, far worse.

anyone remember communism? They were/are atheists, were/are they not?

You can argue that science isn't a religion all you want, just like I can argue that liberal means what it meant over a century ago, but reality supersedes all this. Science is treated as a religion because people believe scientific authorities dogmatically, the same as religious folk believe religious authorities dogmatically.

Very few atheists will have the inquisitive mind and desire to know how everything works necessary to really support their beliefs, they just believe them because they are 'facts' (as if they've verified that themselves, they just took somebody's word for it).

[goaded]

Here's the thing with science, whether you like it or not; you can take some scientific fact you're interested in, and you can follow a mountain of reasoning and experiments (some of which you can perform yourself) that lead up to the conclusion. Do that for a couple of different areas, and you'll have confidence that the scientific model produces verifiable facts.

With religion, you just have The Book.

And The Book can lead people to believe that burning innocent people to death is only "arguably" worse than cheating on your spouse, which, frankly, is terrifying.

[Malik00]

@goaded Really... cause last i checked. Science has given people justification to believe some races are superior to others. Or does sam harris suddenly not matter anymore?

[goaded]

Do you think many scientists agree with that kind of thing, let alone most? Or that there's any significant evidence?

In any case, you can go and look at whatever evidence is claimed, and the logic behind the conclusions, and in that case probably reject it, unlike the more concrete facts - gravity, evolution, climate change, etc. - you're trying to deny.

Who's been making these claims, anyway? Sam Harris? Where?

[Bluedream13]

@goaded tons of atheists make the claim that different races have higher iq, and when talking about averaged out statistics, they are correct. Moving on

Scientific evidence can be faked. The same statistics can be realized in many different ways and presented differently in sophistic ways to trick the public into buying into an agenda. Science relies on external funding these days and whoever pays for the research gets to influence it's outcome. It's corrupt as all hell, scientists attempt to get the result that will equal more funding, they don't care about truth

[Malik00]

I knew a professor that has personally admitted this to me.

[goaded]

So, neither of you has a single concrete example of anyone rating races by superiority, let alone a quote from Sam Harris or the name of any of the "tons of atheists" supposedly making such claims.

I can show you one example of a Christian making such a claim:
"tons of atheists make the claim that different races have higher iq, and when talking about averaged out statistics, they are correct"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism

[Malik00]

@goaded Oh you want an example huh? Ok hold on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0H2PUOrHDA&t=24s

He doesn't outright say it since you gotta sound all fancy and sophisticated. But he does state that races are genetically different with some people being smarter or dumber as a result. NOW, to his credit he did state that nothing good will come out of such knowledge being widespread... so then why would you bring it up in the first place ya dickhead?

[goaded]

I didn't, you did. But thanks for the insult.

" @goaded Really... cause last i checked. Science has given people justification to believe some races are superior to others. Or does sam harris suddenly not matter anymore? "

I'll watch it later. Bluedream13 was the one who made the racist claim, without using any "fancy and sophisticated" language.

[goaded]

And I watched it, and they don't say there's any evidence for a gene that supports racist stereotypes. They say it might be interesting to perform the experiment, but the only reason someone would perform it is if they want to discriminate, so it's a bad idea.

Oh, and both of them are generally dickheads, making money by being "controversial" (aka "dickheads").

Nobody does that kind of research because everybody who did, has turned out to be racist.

[Anonymous]

Humans are prejudiced, and business and politics can get aggressive with their bias.
See what happened to Galileo in the past. The modern day human is no different.