Science is a religion (or at least it should be)?

[JustBusiness17]

I came across this a couple days ago but never got around to posting it. Check it out and lets hear what you think:

 

[Niocan]

Science examines the order, discredits the disorder, and claims it's by-product is the absolute truth... [Sounds like the christian trinity]

It's exactly like religion These words just sound more acceptable to the masses of the logic-locked left. The key here is that not one group can claim absolute authority [Self-proclaimed search for Truth] on anything without being corrupted by this act alone.

I should add, though, that I don't mean to discredit anything science has found but rather to illuminate the ego science has imposed onto itself.

 

[nasher168]

Science examines the order, discredits the disorder, and claims it's by-product is the absolute truth...

What? No it doesn't! A more accurate way of putting it would be:
"Science examines the current understanding, compares it to the evidence and thinks up a new understanding if the old one doesn't fit the evidence. It then repeats the process indefinitely."

Doesn't roll off the tongue as well as your's, but it is certainly more accurate. There are no absolute truths in science-only theories.

 

[Niocan]

What? No it doesn't! A more accurate way of putting it would be:
"Science examines the current understanding, compares it to the evidence and thinks up a new understanding if the old one doesn't fit the evidence. It then repeats the process indefinitely."

This is the mechanical means of which I didn't question or deny

 

[borrofburi]

Science ...claims it's by-product is the absolute truth...

There are no absolute truths in science-only theories.

This is the mechanical means of which I didn't question or deny

Err, yes you did, you precisely said science claims to have absolute truth.

 

[monitoradiation]

Science is not a religion, but I can excuse people for thinking that it somehow is.

The differences are several, and they are significant.

1. Religion has dogmas that can never be changed, even when it obviously conflicts with observable and testable reality. Science doesn't; it only tries to understand reality, and whatever popular notion that goes against what is discovered is quickly re-formulated and replaced by better notions.

2. Religions, at least some of them, have old men sitting around dictating to practicing members what they should do on their free time, who they can or can't have mature, loving relationships with, and who they should disavow or when it comes to it, kill. Science doesn't.

3. Science doesn't have a tithing system. It's reward is discovery about reality, and its practical applications pays for itself by virtue of being useful. Religion claims the former, but does nothing with the latter.

Science examines the order, discredits the disorder, and claims it's by-product is the absolute truth... [Sounds like the christian trinity]

First of all, there are studies about chaotic systems. I don't know what "disorders" science is discrediting, but I'm glad to see you're still not able to back up your assertions with anything other than nebulous statements.

Secondly, science is agnostic, so nobody in science ever claims that its byproduct is the absolute truth. That's why scientific studies have p-values.

It's exactly like religion These words just sound more acceptable to the masses of the logic-locked left. The key here is that not one group can claim absolute authority [Self-proclaimed search for Truth] on anything without being corrupted by this act alone.

What is "logic-locked left"? Are you ascribing to science a political inclination?

This is the second time in a discussion (out of a grand total of 2) that I've engaged with you that you've brought up "the masses". You seem to have a fascination with, and a superiority complex over describing yourself as not being in "the masses". If you have a point to make with regards to lemmings or whatever, you should actually make your point instead of using it as a pejorative.

I should add, though, that I don't mean to discredit anything science has found but rather to illuminate the ego science has imposed onto itself.

Tongue-in-cheek translation: I have no qualms about science and what it has produced because I use them daily and it has improved my standard of living to such an extent that I now have free time to talk on the internet. I just don't like the fact that scientists work towards understanding reality and that they look down on those who don't.

You sound like one of those "truth is relative" kind of people where everyone's opinion is justified and deserving of being heard. Yes, science is meritocratic, however, everyone is allowed a shot. If someone has a view on a subject that opposes the prevalent view, they may sometimes be oppressed by bureaucracies in science. If the idea that someone proposes goes against all evidence but this person asserts the idea as truth, then you and i as well as the rest of society is justified in ignoring them about what they have to say.

 

[Niocan]

Err, yes you did, you precisely said science claims to have absolute truth.

Well if you ignore the clear analogy I made, quote mine a certain part, and assume that those words taken at face value is the 'Truth' part of my post... then you've done well to prove my point.

 

[Ibaapzo]

Science examines the order, discredits the disorder, and claims it's by-product is the absolute truth... [Sounds like the christian trinity]

It's exactly like religion These words just sound more acceptable to the masses of the logic-locked left. The key here is that not one group can claim absolute authority [Self-proclaimed search for Truth] on anything without being corrupted by this act alone.

I should add, though, that I don't mean to discredit anything science has found but rather to illuminate the ego science has imposed onto itself.

Science examines, religion preaches. That's all the evidence necessary to disprove science as a religion. Religion exists to explain the powers that control human destiny and things that cannot be rationally tested. Science tests the natural world in order to understand it further.

Science is the pursuit of worldly knowledge and understanding. Religion only explains the afterlife, which cannot be tested. One is worldly and testable, the other is not. Simple.

This is, of course, the very basic understanding. If we were to examine both definitions closer, I'm sure this topic would grow to considerable length. I understand why some one would make the connection, but it's wholly incorrect.

 

[Niocan]

Science examines, religion preaches. That's all the evidence necessary to disprove science as a religion. Religion exists to explain the powers that control human destiny and things that cannot be rationally tested. Science tests the natural world in order to understand it further.

That's very hard to argue against, as it's sound in theory, but what of the practical applications? How much pure research is being done in contrast to the 'science' of corporation funded research for patentable substances to sell, etc.

"Science is but a perversion of itself unless it has as its ultimate goal the betterment of humanity", Nikola Tesla

I like to think of them as tools, and as such, it's the efficiency of use that counts. With science specified for finding the details and religion for spreading a message of connectivity; We can see how both can be corrupted by their own egos... (With religion being the biggest example by far >.>)

Science is the pursuit of worldly knowledge and understanding. Religion only explains the afterlife, which cannot be tested. One is worldly and testable, the other is not. Simple. This is, of course, the very basic understanding. If we were to examine both definitions closer, I'm sure this topic would grow to considerable length. I understand why some one would make the connection, but it's wholly incorrect.

Religion isn't just the afterlife, and because of this I know it's treated as a threat or alternative view on the same subject and why one is believed more then the other. If, however, one is viewed as the understanding of the world we interact with and the other as *how* we interact with it; Would this quell the urge to discredit one over the other? Or is this an apparently bad place for a split between the two.

 

[Aught3]

I think the analogy is interesting and would probably be quite useful to flesh out in more detail. The big difference that I can see is that science deals with reality whereas religion is reality plus. Reality plus a entirely different world placed over top and merged with the real one. Gods and spirits and heaven and hell, these extras don't have a place in science, especially considering it's methodological naturalism. But it would be interesting to see how far you could push the analogy until you came up against this rather big difference.

 

[RyuOni1989]

Just slightly off topic, -IF- Science became a religion, what would it be called? Because I'm pretty sure "Scientology" is taken.

 

[Aught3]

Scientism.

 

[JustBusiness17]

Err, yes you did, you precisely said science claims to have absolute truth.

Well if you ignore the clear analogy I made, quote mine a certain part, and assume that those words taken at face value is the 'Truth' part of my post... then you've done well to prove my point.

Remember -eschew obfuscation, espouse elucidation!

I agree with the others that your writing implied what they responded to. The only person you should blame for any discrepancy between your intended message and how it was perceived is yourself. When I sent you a PM about this issue the other week, I had no idea just how bad it was. In my opinion, this is a problem because your cryptic preference for writting is derailing perfectly good conversations.

I cant speak on behalf of anyone here, but I think it would be better for the forums if you made an effort to use effective communication. I'm sure there are better places to get poetic than in the middle of adult conversations.

 

[monitoradiation]

I agree with the others that your writing implied what they responded to. The only person you should blame for any discrepancy between your intended message and how it was perceived is yourself. When I sent you a PM about this issue the other week, I had no idea just how bad it was. In my opinion, this is a problem because your cryptic preference for writting is derailing perfectly good conversations.

I don't think he's willing to change for the sake of making sense. As it stands, he's only concerned with looking like he's winning an imaginary pissing contest as to who understands the most philosophical-sounding jargon; as such, he takes pride in using them in ways that confuse people. The more people he confuses, the better he feels, and the more we tell him he's not making sense, the bigger his misunderstood-genius/victimization complex gets.

I hope he'll start writing better, but I'm not holding my breath.

Well if you ignore the clear analogy I made, quote mine a certain part, and assume that those words taken at face value is the 'Truth' part of my post... then you've done well to prove my point.

Your analogy was not even apt, let alone clear.

You claim that borroburi quote-mines you when the sentence he's quoting is the opening statement of your post and the only sentence in that paragraph with no stylistic differences from the rest of the paragraphs to denote that you mean that it is how the "masses" view Science. It's more like you've done all you can to be bad at communicating. If you don't want people quote-mining you, don't make it so easy to quote-mine you accidentally.

Secondly, when someone quotes you and you think it's a quote-mine, it's a chance for your to explain yourself. Don't give us stupid oh-ho-ho-you-guys-don't-understand-me comments. It doesn't help anyone. And I'm pretty tired of reading them because that's all you seem to do when it's obvious that nobody here can read what you're writing.

 

[monitoradiation]

That's very hard to argue against, as it's sound in theory, but what of the practical applications? How much pure research is being done in contrast to the 'science' of corporation funded research for patentable substances to sell, etc.

We don't live in an utopian society where research funding is unlimited and everyone gets the equipment that they need. However, it's not as if because of corporate funding, science can suddenly start to deny reality where they see fit. The most they can do is be biased in publishing their results or outright manipulating their data.

Now the scenario does occur, but the good thing about science is that it's self-correcting and it's repeatable. Someone's always checking what is currently known. And if the manipulated data is important in our daily lives, someone will find out and expose it.

As for selling - It must be useful. And because of that, it must mesh with reality. And because it must mesh with reality, research done even for the sake of profit must come to some understanding of reality.

Example - Suppose you have corporate funding to do research on polymer fibers for windshield wipers that would increase the effectiveness of each wipe within a certain vehicle speed regime. You could outright lie and say that it increases the effectiveness by 200% when the real number is about 50%. A competitor selling a similar product would do their own research and find out that you're lying. They'll sue the corporation who sponsored you, you lose your scientific credibility and never work in research again. And all in all, science has learned that this particular polymer fiber increases windshield wiping effectiveness in a certain vehicle speed range by 50%, not 200%.

How's that for practical applications?

I like to think of them as tools, and as such, it's the efficiency of use that counts. With science specified for finding the details and religion for spreading a message of connectivity; We can see how both can be corrupted by their own egos... (With religion being the biggest example by far >.>)

That depends on what Science and Religion are tools for. I think you give Religion too much credit as a tool for "spreading a message of connectivity". Much more of it is a message of separation and superiority. And Religion, as it's practiced, is far better for divisiveness on a global scale because of its efficacy to form communities at a local scale.

You also give Science too little credit - it's a tool to understand reality. It can be used to produce bad results, but thankfully Science by its nature is self-correcting.

 

[borrofburi]

assume that those words taken at face value

Ah yes, I am not allowed to assume that you mean what you write. There's clearly a problem with your communication skills when taking your words at face value is considered wrong. Though I guess JustBusiness already responded well enough by this point in the conversation.

 

[Ibaapzo]

Science examines, religion preaches. That's all the evidence necessary to disprove science as a religion. Religion exists to explain the powers that control human destiny and things that cannot be rationally tested. Science tests the natural world in order to understand it further.

That's very hard to argue against, as it's sound in theory, but what of the practical applications? How much pure research is being done in contrast to the 'science' of corporation funded research for patentable substances to sell, etc.

You brought in corporate research, which, unfortunately, doesn't always use the scientific method. The science I'm arguing for is real science which entails observation, a hypothesis, testing (either rejected or accepted thereafter), further testing, and if nothing stands against the tests, becomes a theory. You need to be more specific if you'd like me to argue practical applications. Astronomy has given us more technology that you can imagine that you employ in your daily life. Research is the essence of science, and as nothing is exact, and no real scientist will ever tell you that something is absolute, testing is a never-ending process.

Science is the pursuit of worldly knowledge and understanding. Religion only explains the afterlife, which cannot be tested. One is worldly and testable, the other is not. Simple. This is, of course, the very basic understanding. If we were to examine both definitions closer, I'm sure this topic would grow to considerable length. I understand why some one would make the connection, but it's wholly incorrect.

Religion isn't just the afterlife, and because of this I know it's treated as a threat or alternative view on the same subject and why one is believed more then the other. If, however, one is viewed as the understanding of the world we interact with and the other as *how* we interact with it; Would this quell the urge to discredit one over the other? Or is this an apparently bad place for a split between the two.[/quote]
I'm certainly not insinuating that we discredit religion. For some, it's the only thing that keeps them from homicide. I'm not going to bring froth my arguments against religion - that's a completely different discussion. However, science doesn't aim to tell us how to live our lives. Science is not for or against ethics, as religion is for ethics. Science is used to explain the universe through testing, where religion seeks to explain it as history and by assumptions. Religion is not testable. I believe it is a fantastic way to split it, as it brings forth the question of ethics. Religion employs ethics (all of them do, and is the basis of religion, I'd argue) and science is neutral. Therefore, science is not a religion.

 

[Niocan]

I agree with the others that your writing implied what they responded to. The only person you should blame for any discrepancy between your intended message and how it was perceived is yourself. When I sent you a PM about this issue the other week, I had no idea just how bad it was. In my opinion, this is a problem because your cryptic preference for writting is derailing perfectly good conversations.

I don't think he's willing to change for the sake of making sense. As it stands, he's only concerned with looking like he's winning an imaginary pissing contest as to who understands the most philosophical-sounding jargon; as such, he takes pride in using them in ways that confuse people. The more people he confuses, the better he feels, and the more we tell him he's not making sense, the bigger his misunderstood-genius/victimization complex gets.

Science examines the order, discredits the disorder, and claims it's by-product is the absolute truth... [Sounds like the christian trinity]

How, exactly, was this analogy not clear when I pointed it out? And if you don't know what the connection is then at least you can ask first..

The trinity concept [Male - Female - Son] is seen in most if not all cultures mythologies, and depending on what values the culture likes and dislikes the trinity (through their perspective) will resemble their tastes. For example, if all three items have the same value we can assume this is a reflection of equality; If, however, the Male concept is over-hyped, the Female is discredited, and the Son is seen as the only 'path of salvation'... then what does this reflect?

You claim that borroburi quote-mines you when the sentence he's quoting is the opening statement of your post and the only sentence in that paragraph with no stylistic differences from the rest of the paragraphs to denote that you mean that it is how the "masses" view Science. It's more like you've done all you can to be bad at communicating. If you don't want people quote-mining you, don't make it so easy to quote-mine you accidentally.

Honestly, whenever the entire paragraph or context is taken out then it's very safe to say this quote mine was intentional.

How's that for practical applications?

Tesla's quote and my mention of ego effecting both sides should tell you that's a pathetic application. How about that MPG rating for the original model T? Hm? (It was 25MPG by the way )

That depends on what Science and Religion are tools for. I think you give Religion too much credit as a tool for "spreading a message of connectivity". Much more of it is a message of separation and superiority. And Religion, as it's practiced, is far better for divisiveness on a global scale because of its efficacy to form communities at a local scale. You also give Science too little credit - it's a tool to understand reality. It can be used to produce bad results, but thankfully Science by its nature is self-correcting.

I had mentioned that both are corrupted by their own egos, and what you point out is exactly that. I'm not attacking one side over the other, and you should know by now that I'm a Spiritualist <3. I give 'pure' science all the credit it deserves and more, as it's no easy task to understand the physical world and don't assume I forget about the self-correcting nature built within it.

Ah yes, I am not allowed to assume that you mean what you write. There's clearly a problem with your communication skills when taking your words at face value is considered wrong. Though I guess JustBusiness already responded well enough by this point in the conversation.

Congrats on continuing to think that your mined fact is Truth while ignoring the clear context of my statement.

You brought in corporate research, which, unfortunately, doesn't always use the scientific method. The science I'm arguing for is real science which entails observation, a hypothesis, testing (either rejected or accepted thereafter), further testing, and if nothing stands against the tests, becomes a theory. You need to be more specific if you'd like me to argue practical applications. Astronomy has given us more technology that you can imagine that you employ in your daily life. Research is the essence of science, and as nothing is exact, and no real scientist will ever tell you that something is absolute, testing is a never-ending process.

It was indeed my point to show that there's a difference between how science works in theory and how it's being implemented today; Just as I'm sure there are religious people who think they're standing for Just causes while ignoring the misapplication and corruption that they truly stand for.. I don't meant to discredit either, I'm just here trying to add some structure (ironically enough) to this arrangement by separating the theory from the general application of each method.

I'm certainly not insinuating that we discredit religion. For some, it's the only thing that keeps them from homicide. I'm not going to bring froth my arguments against religion - that's a completely different discussion. However, science doesn't aim to tell us how to live our lives. Science is not for or against ethics, as religion is for ethics. Science is used to explain the universe through testing, where religion seeks to explain it as history and by assumptions. Religion is not testable. I believe it is a fantastic way to split it, as it brings forth the question of ethics. Religion employs ethics (all of them do, and is the basis of religion, I'd argue) and science is neutral. Therefore, science is not a religion.

The tools remain separate, but it's the similarities in use that worry me. With the split of *what* the world is, and *how* we interact with it (Within my 'cryptic' lingo I'd call this the world without and the world within) what would your take be on how they're similarly used?

 

[borrofburi]

Ah yes, I am not allowed to assume that you mean what you write. There's clearly a problem with your communication skills when taking your words at face value is considered wrong. Though I guess JustBusiness already responded well enough by this point in the conversation.

Congrats on continuing to think that your mined fact is Truth while ignoring the clear context of my statement.

Your cryptic words are always far from clear. Indeed, I think it time we coin a phrase: argumentum ad mud.

 

[Ozymandyus]

Come now, if you truly think that was a perfectly clear and more important, Accurate representation of what science does .. I don't know what to say to you. But I will attempt to correct your confusion anyway...

1. Science does not claim absolute truth, it claims increasingly accurate models. It takes an old model, adjusts it according to new data, and comes to a new model. There are no claims of absolute truth, or vague things like 'discrediting disorder' which is not specific enough to qualify as a worthwhile contribution to a discussion.

To claim that this is somehow similar to the christian trinity which is generally known as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (not the Male, Female, and Father) is simply silly and belies a lack of understanding of both christianity AND science.

You seem to have no idea what you are talking about, and not only that you are trying to use flowery speech to hide that fact and it completely destroys any point or idea that you are attempting to convey. Even if your explanation the same trinity can mean precise equality or a male hierarchical society or, apparently, the process by which we learn. That you accuse US of 'not knowing connections' when we all seem to agree that you are completely nonsensical should give you some clue.