'Science' is no better than 'religion'

Some religions use "evidence", but not evidence. That's beside the point anyway, I was trying to get at the fact that religious dogma starts with a premise - the truth - that has to be accepted. Evidence may then be looked for to confirm this truth.

Science works in the other direction.

'Science' is constantly being revolutionized because hitherto accepted hypothetical premises are abandoned under the weight of new observations. 'Science' like [traditional] 'religion' operates on theories that make sense of observations.

If you were going to rationalize a case for a critical difference, I'd say it would be trying to operate without giving human beings any relevance. But I don't think 'science' does that, certainly most scientists don't.
 
Pangur, you have a good point and it's one that I've made before. To most people belief in "science" is a lot like belief in God - they believe in it because they've been told by people they consider trustworthy that so and so is true. It's uncritical acceptance, not scientific skepticism. And that's of course true even for scientists, as you correctly said. A biologist is not likely to know Quantum Physics anymore than a layman, and yet he believes in its postulates because he trusts the people who claim they're true and empirically validated.

Exactly, if you don't have the resources to familiarize yourself with all this stuff, you simply have to depend on experts. And experts without institutions depend on potentates. Baptist preachers on the other hand depend on their congregations (well, most do), and will simply echo back at people what they already believe.

That said, there's a key difference between accepting as true a certain scientific framework that you don't understand and a religious one. Those physicists have made planes fly, they have detonated atomic bombs, they have put the man on the moon. Those physicians have cured tuberculosis, smallpox, several types of cancer. In other words, the average person may not have the capacity to critically analyze their postulates of what is true and what isn't, but he sure can look at tangible results and so has good reason to trust those people in their area of expertise. By contrast, what good reason is there to trust those who claim that a certain religion is true? What palpable, tangible results can they point to? I mean, of course they can point out to some stuff. But in the era of the H-Bomb and nanotechnology their stuff is not very impressive.

This is very much like the 'Christian' versus 'pagan' difference early churchmen pushed. In late antique hagiographic texts, it is common to have stories where the Christian holy man comes up against a pagan holy man and defeats him through superior power, thus proving to the watching public (and the reader) that the victorious God is better than the defeated holy man's god.
 
Pangur Bán said:
Exactly, if you don't have the resources to familiarize yourself with all this stuff, you simply have to depend on experts. And experts without institutions depend on potentates. Baptist preachers on the other hand depend on their congregations (well, most do), and will simply echo back at people what they already believe.
Potentates, institutions, at the end of the day they all want to further their own interests, one way or another. The main engine for scientific progress is the eternal quest for power and money, and we can rely on its continuity.

Pangur Bán;13590044 said:
This is very much like the 'Christian' versus 'pagan' difference early churchmen pushed. In late antique hagiographic texts, it is common to have stories where the Christian holy man comes up against a pagan holy man and defeats him through superior power, thus proving to the watching public (and the reader) that the victorious God is better than the defeated holy man's god.

Well yeah. And indeed Christianity is a much more logical and intellectually refined religion than the pagan ones, having incorporated first Greek philosophy and later developed a whole philosophical school of its own.

For any intellectually-oriented, skeptical person of say the the 6th Century, Christianity offered a far more sophisticated worldview than the numerous pagan religions it was replacing. It's no wonder it attracted the West's finest minds for over one thousand years.
 
Pangur Bán;13589912 said:
Ah, the old 'conspiracy theory' strawman which would associate real historical process with ET- and 9-11 coverups! You have to understand that people seek dominance, but they don't do always do so through orchestration and dramatic events, but more so through process and structure. Would you describe the 'agricultural revolution' that allegedly created permanent social hierarchies as a 'conspiracy theory'? Is capitalism a 'conspiracy theory'? Was the Roman Empire a 'conspiracy' by the Romans to conquer the Mediterranean?

Well, no I wouldn't describe the agricultural revolution as a conspiracy theory. There were some features of a conspiracy in the strategy of landlords clearing their land, though. As I think you'd agree.

But when you say things like this:
So as we proceed into the post-democratic age where unscrutinized power controls our lives, public representations of 'science' will shift more and more towards what suits the patrons of science and less and less what the observations say.
it does seem, to me, to be remarkably close to a conspiracy theory.

But I wouldn't know. You seem to be better educated about this issue than I am. And maybe even gifted with clairvoyance.
 
Well, no I wouldn't describe the agricultural revolution as a conspiracy theory. There were some features of a conspiracy in the strategy of landlords clearing their land, though. As I think you'd agree.

But when you say things like this:

it does seem, to me, to be remarkably close to a conspiracy theory.

But I wouldn't know. You seem to be better educated about this issue than I am. And maybe even gifted with clairvoyance.

The term 'conspiracy theory' tends to suggest something wacky like alien coverup, and people who use it tend to use it to try to discredit any view power's behaviour that doesn't accord with power's PR. Almost everything in your life is affected by some sort of 'conspiracy' (i.e. collective decision) of which you know little, that's just how the world works. It's not clairvoyance, its a fact of your life and mine.

For any intellectually-oriented, skeptical person of say the the 6th Century, Christianity offered a far more sophisticated worldview than the numerous pagan religions it was replacing. It's no wonder it attracted the West's finest minds for over one thousand years.

Roman elites repackaged Christianity in a way that made sense to them, and exported it along with much of Graeco-Roman culture, learning and literacy to neighbouring regions. Its doubtful most of Europe would have had writing let alone books had it not being for Rome's conversion to Christianity.
 
I think you seem to have a few points:

1. People generally accept the claims of scientists on authority, instead of evidence.

I agree, this is similar to religion. However, the specific claims in science are much more reasonable. Given what we know of physics, how is it reasonable that prayer can change the objective world, or Jesus was born of a virgin, or bread becomes the body of Christ, or the Ten Commandments were directly written by God, or the world was created in 7 days. If all of these are simply metaphors that we re-interpret, and basically the Bible is a book of parables written by man and interpreted by man, then what is religion really bringing to the table, other than just a good work of literature? What differentiates the Bible from the works of Shakespeare?

2. Religion, as well as science, is a method of contextualizing our everyday experience.

Again, I agree. However, religion isn't based on facts - it's just wishful thinking. Religions can point to Aids and say God is wiping out the gays, because homosexuality is a sin. It can point to contraception as a great evil... I don't even know why. I don't always understand religious thinking. It can point to stem cell research which can potentially save many lives and call it morally wrong, because the religious belief involves a "soul" which suddenly appears the moment the sperm meets the egg, and using that embryo for research is therefore murder of this "soul."

So yes - it's a way of contextualizing things. However, when it involves beliefs in supernatural entities that have no basis in reality and demands these supernatural beliefs be respected when they actually harm people that are real, these beliefs cannot be given any weight. Sure, it's ok to believe whatever you want - but keep it the hell out of any sort of decision-making which actually affects other people. This is the price for keeping beliefs based on wishful thinking. Is it too much? I think so. I don't want to have to remember which beliefs are probably true and which are entirely based on potentially false assumptions.

3. Christianity was the best they could do at the time.

Sure. But now we're in 2014. Let's move on.
 
1. People generally accept the claims of scientists on authority, instead of evidence.

What alternative is there?

I trust scientific consensus, because I know that it has gone through a rigorous process of the scientific method.

I know that if I really wanted to, that I'd be able to read the research papers that have lead to this conclusion - as well as all the other research papers that the research was based on.

Who has time to question every single thing they learn and do the research themselves? That'd be impossible. You've got to put your trust in authority, on some level at least.
 
What alternative is there?

I trust scientific consensus, because I know that it has gone through a rigorous process of the scientific method.

I know that if I really wanted to, that I'd be able to read the research papers that have lead to this conclusion - as well as all the other research papers that the research was based on.

Who has time to question every single thing they learn and do the research themselves? That'd be impossible. You've got to put your trust in authority, on some level at least.

Agreed. There's an additional peer review process that religion doesn't have because it makes claims that aren't testable.

Also, I know how the media works. If I read something, and agree to it based on authority, someone that thinks it might wrong will fact check it, and if they do find it wrong, it will make for an even more interesting story that I will probably see. Thus, its likely that any knowledge that I agree to because of authority will probably be replaced at some point by actually correct knowledge.

Granted, there are levels of belief as well. It's best to wait until the fact-checking process is complete if you don't want to mistakenly have a false belief. So you can think "this is probably true" when there's some evidence, and "this is certainly true" when there is tons of evidence. If some other scientist repeats a study and its negative, "this is probably true" can shift back to "i have no idea."

I'm not sure we could stay in the same place even if we wanted to.

*Chuckle* Not what I meant.
 
I trust scientific consensus, because I know that it has gone through a rigorous process of the scientific method.

Assuming the scientific consensus actually exists, who is going to tell you what it is? And whether the scientific method has really been as rigorously applied as you think?

In my opinion, science is something you do, not something you should trust in.

Agreed. There's an additional peer review process that religion doesn't have because it makes claims that aren't testable.

You are confusing peer review, which could certainly be done in theology, with reproducability. The latter is what should set science apart, if it is properly checked (which it isn't often enough)

Also, I know how the media works. If I read something, and agree to it based on authority, someone that thinks it might wrong will fact check it, and if they do find it wrong, it will make for an even more interesting story that I will probably see. Thus, its likely that any knowledge that I agree to because of authority will probably be replaced at some point by actually correct knowledge.

No. That is not how it works. The media will report on what sells and correctness does not sell.
 
Pangur Ban said:
'Science' is constantly being revolutionized because hitherto accepted hypothetical premises are abandoned under the weight of new observations.
trader/warrior said:
The tiniest piece of evidence can overturn years and years of amassed knowledge.

I fully agree. :) Your posts remind me of a nice statement from one video lecture that I watched:

"(...) Final conclusions, for May 2013. Because we can change our conclusions anytime we like. The more we learn, the more we know - the more we redesign our conclusions. (...)" - prof. Ofer Bar-Yosef from Harvard University.
 
You are confusing peer review, which could certainly be done in theology, with reproducability. The latter is what should set science apart, if it is properly checked (which it isn't often enough)

Fair enough. The reproducibility, then, not the peer review.

No. That is not how it works. The media will report on what sells and correctness does not sell.

Scientists being proven wrong does.
 
warpus said:
religious dogma starts with a premise - the truth - that has to be accepted.

Science works in the other direction.

Actually, most if not all of scientists start with a premise (a hypothesis / a theory), and then accumulate evidence to support their premise. :) I'm not sure if another way is even possible. It is hard to blindly feel around, you need some initial premises to know what you are trying to prove or disprove.
 
Which could kill the whole in a less than a day. science or religion? Science could with nuclear weapons, since we have more than enough nuclear weapons to destroy the whole world. Religion couldn't do that unless they took control of science in some way. Basically it s the application of how both are used is the key point.

Saying that science has control of nuclear weapons is as dumb as saying that history has control of WW2, or that geography had control of volcanos.

Just because science discovered radioactive elements and the technology behind nuclear bombs doesn't equate to an entire field of study having control over it.

Science relies on discovery, evidence and reason. Religion depends on thousands of years old ancient texts written by desert nomads with zero understanding of anything. I think I know which one I would rather trust.
 
Fair enough. The reproducibility, then, not the peer review.



Scientists being proven wrong does.

There's no such thing as proving science wrong. Every scientific research accepts and takes into consideration the null hypothesis, which is finding proof that is contradictory to the hypothesis. In fact most scientific research is actually designed around disproving a hypothesis, and proving valid results and conclusions as to why. Most scientific discoveries occur entirely by chance or mistakes during the scientific method.

In order for something to be considered 'true' in science, the same results and conclusions need to be obtained 100% of the time using the scientific method and statistical testing. In some cases there may be justifiable anomolies as to why a result cannot be replicated every time, but say for example that if an apple was dropped, and it didn't fall to the ground but rather hovered in mid air, the theory of gravity would be debunked immediately.

Science also doesn't state that the apple couldn't just hover in mid air, it simply hasn't happened yet so the theory of gravity is yet to be falsified, so it is considered to be true until it is.
 
Actually, most of scientists start with a premise (a hypothesis / a theory), and then accumulate evidence to support their premise. :)

I'm not sure if another way is even possible. You cannot blindly feel around, you need some initial premises to know what you are trying to prove.

I disagree here. Many material scientists do experiments somewhat randomly, and find results with the qualities that they need.

My father works in a large chemistry company. He tells me that only about 5% of science actually starts with a premise... 50% is feeling around randomly, the other 45% is research that tries to find why something happened or reproduce it or something. I worked at it for a bit too, and saw a lot of chemical engineers doing this sort of thing.
 
Religion depends on thousands of years old ancient texts written by desert nomads with zero understanding of anything.

Nope.

Those texts were written be people who tried to figure out how the world works, how did it come into being, etc.

Just like modern scientists, except that modern scientists have better tools to use in their research.

Many material scientists do experiments somewhat randomly

What do you mean "randomly"? They surely do expect some result, or at least they know for what purpose are they experimenting.

I can't imagine experimenting "just like that", without knowing the purpose and without knowing what are you trying to find out.

the other 45% is research that tries to find why something happened

People who wrote religious texts were also the ones who tried to find why something (or rather: everything) happened.

And religion did not start with texts - it started when the first Prehistoric caveman asked himself "why am I here, how did the world happen".

Invention of writing came much later than emergence of religious beliefs. Religion emerged with behaviorally modern humans.
 
There's no such thing as proving science wrong. Every scientific research accepts and takes into consideration the null hypothesis, which is finding proof that is contradictory to the hypothesis. In fact most scientific research is actually designed around disproving a hypothesis, and proving valid results and conclusions as to why. Most scientific discoveries occur entirely by chance or mistakes during the scientific method.

There is when scientists do something like falsifying data, or incorrectly accounting for something like an error in testing equipment. There's plenty that can be done improperly which could be used to discredit a scientist's experiment.
 
Philosophy is also closely related to science and religion.

Science also doesn't state that the apple couldn't just hover in mid air, it simply hasn't happened yet

It has happened in space, and it can also happen on other planets with thick atmosphere and weak gravity.

That the apple cannot hover in mid air is only true for Planet Earth - not necessarily for other worlds out there.
 
Nope.

Those texts were written be people who tried to figure out how the world works, how did it come into being, etc.

Just like modern scientists, except that modern scientists have better tools to use in their research.

.

And those people were still desert nomads that had little to no clue about anything. E.G. The earth is flat, at the centre of the universe, was created in 7 days, light and plants both came before the sun and the stars, and everything else revolves around the earth.

And they had no understanding how anything was made, therefore God had made it. That was their only 'logic'. To still believe in those texts today is lunacy.
 
Top Bottom