Science has replaced religion
in [Physics]
|
From: Free Lunch on 25 Mar 2010 18:52 On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 22:18:47 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism: >On 25 Mar, 01:38, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)joe.king.com> wrote: >> Ste wrote: >> > On 23 Mar, 21:43, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 02:06:35 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> >> >> wrote in alt.atheism: >> >> >>> On 23 Mar, 02:43, "Smiler" <Smi...(a)joe.king.com> wrote: >> >>>> Free Lunch wrote: >> >>>>> On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:51:40 -0700 (PDT), Ste >> >>>>> <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism: >> >> >>>>>> On 21 Mar, 14:21, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> >> >>>>>>> Science has to be honest to work. There is no such restriction >> >>>>>>> in religion. >> >> >>>>>> By that standard then, theoretical physicists haven't been very >> >>>>>> honest since probably the 60s. >> >> >>>>> Did you want to bother to back that up? >> >> >>>> His 'want' and his ability are two different things. >> >> >>> That is good, lest my "lack of want" be interpreted as a lack of >> >>> ability. >> >> >> So you are abandoning any effort to defend your claim. >> >> > In truth it was a throwaway comment, for comic effect, given that >> > there hasn't been a great deal of useful theoretical progress for half >> > a century or more. >> >> > That said, the differences between science and religion have nothing >> > to do with "honesty", because indeed "what works" has nothing to do >> > with total honesty - moreover, even defining these words is incredibly >> > difficult, and they are certainly not objective concepts. >> >> > And finally, there could be whole reservoirs of scientific knowledge >> > or progress untapped because of scientific dishonesty, but we'll never >> > get to hear about them. And the secret to successful dishonesty is >> > when even the sceptical can look around and be unable to put their >> > finger on any instance of dishonesty - that is always how the powerful >> > successfully manipulate information and ideology. >> >> You throw out an accusation and then poison the well. > >An accusation of what, dishonesty? I merely stated that, if we are to >judge the "honesty" of a theory by its functionalism, then the likes >of string theory fail miserably. Of course, I personally wouldn't have >tried to suggest that somehow science is honest and religion is not, >because I know better. But Free Lunch did, and so I'm running with the >logic of his argument. You really need to read what I wrote. You are running with a straw version of what I said. It appears that you know you are. >> Where is your evidence that such 'reservoirs of scientific knowledge' exist? > >Lol. I didn't say any existed. I said, if indeed any existed, they >could be concealed by a concerted "dishonesty", and there would be no >evidence of the concealment for anyone to point to (because, of >course, the evidence in question had been successfully concealed). Of >course, I've further qualified that by saying that a test of "honesty" >is very difficult to define. > >As I've said previously, these sweeping statements that people make >about the "honesty" of science are not factual statements, they are >ideological statements from people who pretend not to have an >ideology, and moreover there is little actual scientific evidence to >support such statements. The honesty of science arises because any factual claim is testable and someone will test it sometime. What is testable in religion? >> > and >> > yet you still engage in patting science on the back for its "honesty" >> > and functionalism, which is exactly what religions do and always have >> > done. >> >> Where is the evidence for the existence of your religion's deity? > >In the natural world, of course. I'm a naturalist, I don't hold the >"existence of a deity".
From: Ste on 25 Mar 2010 23:16 On 25 Mar, 22:52, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: > On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 22:18:47 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> > wrote in alt.atheism: > > >> >>>>>>> Science has to be honest to work. There is no such restriction > >> >>>>>>> in religion. > > >> >>>>>> By that standard then, theoretical physicists haven't been very > >> >>>>>> honest since probably the 60s. > > >> >>>>> Did you want to bother to back that up? > > >> >>>> His 'want' and his ability are two different things. > > >> >>> That is good, lest my "lack of want" be interpreted as a lack of > >> >>> ability. > > >> >> So you are abandoning any effort to defend your claim. > > >> > In truth it was a throwaway comment, for comic effect, given that > >> > there hasn't been a great deal of useful theoretical progress for half > >> > a century or more. > > >> > That said, the differences between science and religion have nothing > >> > to do with "honesty", because indeed "what works" has nothing to do > >> > with total honesty - moreover, even defining these words is incredibly > >> > difficult, and they are certainly not objective concepts. > > >> > And finally, there could be whole reservoirs of scientific knowledge > >> > or progress untapped because of scientific dishonesty, but we'll never > >> > get to hear about them. And the secret to successful dishonesty is > >> > when even the sceptical can look around and be unable to put their > >> > finger on any instance of dishonesty - that is always how the powerful > >> > successfully manipulate information and ideology. > > >> You throw out an accusation and then poison the well. > > >An accusation of what, dishonesty? I merely stated that, if we are to > >judge the "honesty" of a theory by its functionalism, then the likes > >of string theory fail miserably. Of course, I personally wouldn't have > >tried to suggest that somehow science is honest and religion is not, > >because I know better. But Free Lunch did, and so I'm running with the > >logic of his argument. > > You really need to read what I wrote. You are running with a straw > version of what I said. It appears that you know you are. I told you, it was a throwaway comment, a bit of banter. But since posters have taken umbrage at the comment, then I've explained the logic behind it. As for your statement, it seemed to be in straw form in the first place. You referred to religion's ability to "manipulate", and suggested that science could not do this because it must be "honest". If I've wholly misinterpreted what you meant, then please correct me, but there was very little to work with in the first place, and there definitely seemed to be a juxtaposition between "honest" science and "manipulative" religion. > >> Where is your evidence that such 'reservoirs of scientific knowledge' exist? > > >Lol. I didn't say any existed. I said, if indeed any existed, they > >could be concealed by a concerted "dishonesty", and there would be no > >evidence of the concealment for anyone to point to (because, of > >course, the evidence in question had been successfully concealed). Of > >course, I've further qualified that by saying that a test of "honesty" > >is very difficult to define. > > >As I've said previously, these sweeping statements that people make > >about the "honesty" of science are not factual statements, they are > >ideological statements from people who pretend not to have an > >ideology, and moreover there is little actual scientific evidence to > >support such statements. > > The honesty of science arises because any factual claim is testable and > someone will test it sometime. What is testable in religion? But that is laughable. Liars invairably make statements that are "testable" in principle - but they are expert at making claims that are very difficult to test in practice, and they are also skilled at using complexity and vagueness of meaning in order to confound attempts to test. Also, what of the factual claims that science doesn't make? One can mislead a great deal merely in being economical with the truth, or presenting only one side of the story. As for religion, if we take the bible as a collection of "factual claims" for example, then you'll find that there is a great deal of truth (especially allegorical truth) in many of the statements, or that there is logic to many of its prescriptions if one bears in mind the circumstances that prevailed when much of the bible was written. Even some of its more wilder claims, like that of creation, were probably never taken literally at all times by all people, and there are probably some just as wild (and often in hindsight, falsified or unfalsifiable) claims amongst all the scientific literature. There are undoubtedly meaningful contrasts to be made between science and traditional religion, but it is nothing so fundamental as the "honesty" of science as against the "dishonesty" of religion, and certainly not something that can be summed up in a sentence or two by someone who almost certainly knows nothing about religion, nothing about history, and nothing about the social sciences.
From: Helmut Wabnig hwabnig on 26 Mar 2010 02:55 On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 20:16:47 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_rose0(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On 25 Mar, 22:52, Free Lunch <lu...(a)nofreelunch.us> wrote: >> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 22:18:47 -0700 (PDT), Ste <ste_ro...(a)hotmail.com> >> wrote in alt.atheism: >> >> >> >>>>>>> Science has to be honest to work. There is no such restriction >> >> >>>>>>> in religion. >> >> >> >>>>>> By that standard then, theoretical physicists haven't been very >> >> >>>>>> honest since probably the 60s. >> >> >> >>>>> Did you want to bother to back that up? >> >> >> >>>> His 'want' and his ability are two different things. >> >> >> >>> That is good, lest my "lack of want" be interpreted as a lack of >> >> >>> ability. >> >> >> >> So you are abandoning any effort to defend your claim. >> >> >> > In truth it was a throwaway comment, for comic effect, given that >> >> > there hasn't been a great deal of useful theoretical progress for half >> >> > a century or more. >> >> >> > That said, the differences between science and religion have nothing >> >> > to do with "honesty", because indeed "what works" has nothing to do >> >> > with total honesty - moreover, even defining these words is incredibly >> >> > difficult, and they are certainly not objective concepts. >> >> >> > And finally, there could be whole reservoirs of scientific knowledge >> >> > or progress untapped because of scientific dishonesty, but we'll never >> >> > get to hear about them. And the secret to successful dishonesty is >> >> > when even the sceptical can look around and be unable to put their >> >> > finger on any instance of dishonesty - that is always how the powerful >> >> > successfully manipulate information and ideology. >> >> >> You throw out an accusation and then poison the well. >> >> >An accusation of what, dishonesty? I merely stated that, if we are to >> >judge the "honesty" of a theory by its functionalism, then the likes >> >of string theory fail miserably. Of course, I personally wouldn't have >> >tried to suggest that somehow science is honest and religion is not, >> >because I know better. But Free Lunch did, and so I'm running with the >> >logic of his argument. >> >> You really need to read what I wrote. You are running with a straw >> version of what I said. It appears that you know you are. > >I told you, it was a throwaway comment, a bit of banter. But since >posters have taken umbrage at the comment, then I've explained the >logic behind it. > >As for your statement, it seemed to be in straw form in the first >place. You referred to religion's ability to "manipulate", and >suggested that science could not do this because it must be "honest". >If I've wholly misinterpreted what you meant, then please correct me, >but there was very little to work with in the first place, and there >definitely seemed to be a juxtaposition between "honest" science and >"manipulative" religion. > > > >> >> Where is your evidence that such 'reservoirs of scientific knowledge' exist? >> >> >Lol. I didn't say any existed. I said, if indeed any existed, they >> >could be concealed by a concerted "dishonesty", and there would be no >> >evidence of the concealment for anyone to point to (because, of >> >course, the evidence in question had been successfully concealed). Of >> >course, I've further qualified that by saying that a test of "honesty" >> >is very difficult to define. >> >> >As I've said previously, these sweeping statements that people make >> >about the "honesty" of science are not factual statements, they are >> >ideological statements from people who pretend not to have an >> >ideology, and moreover there is little actual scientific evidence to >> >support such statements. >> >> The honesty of science arises because any factual claim is testable and >> someone will test it sometime. What is testable in religion? > >But that is laughable. Liars invairably make statements that are >"testable" in principle - but they are expert at making claims that >are very difficult to test in practice, and they are also skilled at >using complexity and vagueness of meaning in order to confound >attempts to test. Also, what of the factual claims that science >doesn't make? One can mislead a great deal merely in being economical >with the truth, or presenting only one side of the story. > >As for religion, if we take the bible as a collection of "factual >claims" for example, then you'll find that there is a great deal of >truth (especially allegorical truth) in many of the statements, or >that there is logic to many of its prescriptions if one bears in mind >the circumstances that prevailed when much of the bible was written. >Even some of its more wilder claims, like that of creation, were >probably never taken literally at all times by all people, and there >are probably some just as wild (and often in hindsight, falsified or >unfalsifiable) claims amongst all the scientific literature. > >There are undoubtedly meaningful contrasts to be made between science >and traditional religion, but it is nothing so fundamental as the >"honesty" of science as against the "dishonesty" of religion, and >certainly not something that can be summed up in a sentence or two by >someone who almost certainly knows nothing about religion, nothing >about history, and nothing about the social sciences. Have you ever heard of scientist child molesters? Child misuse is an inherent feature of all religions. w.
From: Ste on 26 Mar 2010 04:41 On 26 Mar, 06:55, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote: > > Have you ever heard of scientist child molesters? Yes, why?
From: Jahnu on 26 Mar 2010 06:23
On Mar 26, 11:55 am, Helmut Wabnig <hwabnig@ .- --- -. dotat> wrote: > Have you ever heard of scientist child molesters? > Child misuse is an inherent feature of all religions. And in general society as well. Krishna says: But those who, out of envy, disregard these teachings and do not follow them regularly are to be considered bereft of all knowledge, befooled, and ruined in their endeavors for perfection. (Bg. 3.32) |