3 ms·

One person observes the universe, believes in God, and orders his life accordingly. Another person observes the universe, believes in science, and orders his l

One person observes the universe, believes in God, and orders his life accordingly. Another person observes the universe, believes in science, and orders his life accordingly. (And a third person believes in both, but since we're dichotomizing...) Both persons have faith in things which they have not directly observed nor cannot directly prove, based on what they have heard and seen others claim, many of whom have specialized knowledge that requires years to obtain. What's the difference? well credentialed individuals who observe them...You can choose not to have faith in the second one, but that doesn't make it not real...thousands upon thousands of trained scientists... So, we could quibble over numbers, but there are two problems: 1. You're relying on argument from authority. How is this any different from an ancient person trusting the word of a priest? How is a scientist walking in and saying, "My computer model shows x, therefore it is so" different from an ancient priest walking in and saying, "The gods told me x, therefore it is so"? From the perspective of a non-scientist or non-priest, there is no difference; you cannot verify their claims. If you believe them, you operate on faith. 2. As the history of science testifies, science makes many missteps. For all your talk of credentials, one would think you'd give credence to some of the most credentialed scientists in history, who pointed out that science is not a matter of consensus, that only one correct dissent is required to disprove any hypothesis. Given that, how many dissenting scientists do you require to conclude that the matter is not settled beyond debate? There are many highly credentialed scientists who do dissent on this matter. denying global warming Finally, this is muddled thinking. The phrase "denying global warming" is both vague and loaded. Besides, isn't the correct term "climate change"?

debaserab2 10y ago
I don't really know how to take you seriously if you're going to equate scientists with priests. We are at such an incredible disposition that I don't think there is room for persuasive argument. I simply believe that science is put to a much higher rigor and standard than any religion or philosophy out there, period. You obviously don't believe that. We are at an impasse. The rigor of science says that climate change (global warming) is a real thing. Call it whatever you want.
- alphapapa 10y ago
  I did not equate scientists with priests. Read my comment more carefully: From the perspective of one who cannot verify their claims, there is no difference between the claims made by scientists or priests--they are both taken on faith. You are not thinking objectively. > I simply believe that science is put to a much higher rigor and standard than any religion or philosophy out there, period. You obviously don't believe that. Your claim is too general to be useful. What kind of science? Carried out by whom? Under what circumstances? What I believe is simple: 1) Science is carried out by humans; 2) Humans are fallible; therefore 3) Science is fallible. This is supported by even articles posted here on HN recently, which discuss the corruption of the peer review process. Tell me, do you honestly believe that science is infallible? That we can trust whatever any scientist says about anything? Or do you believe that if the percentage of scientists that claims x is greater than 50% then it must be so? Or some other arbitrary percentage? That would be simply illogical, as history shows many examples of the majority of scientists being wrong about something. If you believe that science is above corruption, you have greater faith than most religious people do in their religions. Finally, you completely ignored my second point: "How many dissenting scientists do you require to conclude that the matter is not settled beyond debate?" It's a simple question; will you answer it? Or, when presented with a point that challenges your presuppositions, will you ignore it instead of wrestling with it? I can't take you seriously if you do the latter.
  - debaserab2 10y ago
    Yep, science is fallible, but it's far and away the most reliable thing we have to understand our nature and forecast our future. Again, if I have to actually articulate an argument on why this is, I'm afraid were at such different positions that I'm not going to be able to convince you that science is always more reliable than religion. You're asking for sources and claiming my argument is too general, yet you provided nothing of the sort for your own original argument. I could link you the hundreds upon thousands of scientific reports/sources that support climate change/global warming, but I'm not going to do that and condone the constant goalpost moving you demonstrate in every discussion I've seen you have on HN. At this point in time, if you aren't taking the minimal amount of responsibility needed to listen to what is likely one of the most important problems of our lifetime, you have your head stuck in the sand. That's a true disappointment because it seems that you have the intelligence necessary to comprehend it. Me coming up with a few sources isn't going to fix your willingness to be ignorant on this issue and not get with the program. It's too late for you. This isn't faith. This is common sense and critical thinking.

debaserab2 10y ago

I don't really know how to take you seriously if you're going to equate scientists with priests. We are at such an incredible disposition that I don't think there is room for persuasive argument. I simply believe that science is put to a much higher rigor and standard than any religion or philosophy out there, period. You obviously don't believe that. We are at an impasse. The rigor of science says that climate change (global warming) is a real thing. Call it whatever you want.

alphapapa 10y ago
I did not equate scientists with priests. Read my comment more carefully: From the perspective of one who cannot verify their claims, there is no difference between the claims made by scientists or priests--they are both taken on faith. You are not thinking objectively. > I simply believe that science is put to a much higher rigor and standard than any religion or philosophy out there, period. You obviously don't believe that. Your claim is too general to be useful. What kind of science? Carried out by whom? Under what circumstances? What I believe is simple: 1) Science is carried out by humans; 2) Humans are fallible; therefore 3) Science is fallible. This is supported by even articles posted here on HN recently, which discuss the corruption of the peer review process. Tell me, do you honestly believe that science is infallible? That we can trust whatever any scientist says about anything? Or do you believe that if the percentage of scientists that claims x is greater than 50% then it must be so? Or some other arbitrary percentage? That would be simply illogical, as history shows many examples of the majority of scientists being wrong about something. If you believe that science is above corruption, you have greater faith than most religious people do in their religions. Finally, you completely ignored my second point: "How many dissenting scientists do you require to conclude that the matter is not settled beyond debate?" It's a simple question; will you answer it? Or, when presented with a point that challenges your presuppositions, will you ignore it instead of wrestling with it? I can't take you seriously if you do the latter.
- debaserab2 10y ago
  Yep, science is fallible, but it's far and away the most reliable thing we have to understand our nature and forecast our future. Again, if I have to actually articulate an argument on why this is, I'm afraid were at such different positions that I'm not going to be able to convince you that science is always more reliable than religion. You're asking for sources and claiming my argument is too general, yet you provided nothing of the sort for your own original argument. I could link you the hundreds upon thousands of scientific reports/sources that support climate change/global warming, but I'm not going to do that and condone the constant goalpost moving you demonstrate in every discussion I've seen you have on HN. At this point in time, if you aren't taking the minimal amount of responsibility needed to listen to what is likely one of the most important problems of our lifetime, you have your head stuck in the sand. That's a true disappointment because it seems that you have the intelligence necessary to comprehend it. Me coming up with a few sources isn't going to fix your willingness to be ignorant on this issue and not get with the program. It's too late for you. This isn't faith. This is common sense and critical thinking.