3 ms·

I don't have a better way to say this. Trust me, I've tried to find one. Science has, in many ways, taken on some of the characteristics of religion. You eithe

by KGIII 9y ago

I don't have a better way to say this. Trust me, I've tried to find one. Science has, in many ways, taken on some of the characteristics of religion. You either believe or you're a heretic. Which, sort of, I agree with. If you don't believe in the results of the scientific method, you may wish to reexamine your life. However, a lot of what is published under the name of science hasn't actually followed the scientific method. You get people who believe in the strangest things. A recent example was someone who told me that the oceans were going to rise by 57' by 2050. Now, I'm firmly in the belief of AGW camp. I pointed out that they were wrong and that no models suggested such a thing and that their citation had no citations, other than an article in some newspaper. I provided link after link. I explained that I am not a climate scientist, but a mathematician. I explained that I'd actually run the models locally, just to learn more. I explained the process, the data collection methods, and even why the data is adjusted. They decided I was a 'denier' and a Trump voter - quite literally, they called me a 'science denying Trump voter.' I was baffled. Later, I'd bump into them again, at the same site. This time, I explained that science was a philosophy. Of course, I provided the citation for this and even went so far as to take the time to explain what Ph.D. actually means. They went ballistic, so to speak. Oh, the names they called me. This is not an isolated case, they had others chiming in. It wasn't until several days later when someone finally noticed and chimed in to support me, but it was of no use. That person is a science believer. I can't tell them to stop believing in science. However, it has the hallmarks of a religion, it's certainly a belief system. No, being a belief system isn't a bad thing. I don't have the answers, but this is a problem. Sorry for the verbosity, but I haven't a better way to describe it, nor a better descriptive term than religion.

icelancer 9y ago
>>I don't have a better way to say this. Trust me, I've tried to find one. >>Science has, in many ways, taken on some of the characteristics of religion. There is no better way to put it. I have said this the same way. There is a growing sentiment of a "science clergy," a bureaucracy that controls Truth (tm).
- KGIII 9y ago
  Men in lab coats have become the new priests, handing down ordained works for the masses and being held up on a pedestal. I say this as a scientist. It's almost as strange as how people will ask me medical questions when I'm introduced as Dr. KGIII. I can kinda understand when people ask me things outside my discipline, but I'm the last person you want to ask about your medical problems.
jonathanstrange 9y ago
Maybe they just thought you were exaggerating, like many people do in reply to this insight by Kahneman. From the fact that Kahneman misjudged some studies in experimental psychology it doesn't follow that all of science is hopelessly lost, philosophical, or wrong. To put it in another way, most people I've met who criticized science couldn't even explain how a toaster works if they had to and had no grasp of what they were criticizing. Hearing superficial criticisms by people who do not know anything about the methodology and maths can be very tiring, and these criticisms have become abundant in online forums. It can be easy to overcompensate and react needlessly aggressive to such general criticisms. At the same time, the critiques of science I've met so far (in academia, and all leftists, not that it matters) were all relying on the outcomes of obvious and constantly ongoing scientific progress on a daily basis. From lossy image compression over GPS over microchips to modern medicine and diagnostics. Maybe in your case people overreacted and missed the fact that you're a smart mathematician and not some random dumbass who says "statistics lie" as if that was an argument for anything, and you felt butthurt about it. Still, they are right when they say that science is not a philosophy. I should know that, because I have a Ph.D. in philosophy, and the standards for our 'theories' are not even remotely as stringent as in natural science or mathematics. And maybe you're also overreacting a bit. Contrary to what seems to have become fashionable - mostly in certain political circles outside of Europe to be honest - the scientific process continues to converge to the truth in almost all disciplines and we reap the benefits of science daily. (I say almost all because I'd like to exclude literary science and the like.)

by KGIII 9y ago

icelancer 9y ago

>>I don't have a better way to say this. Trust me, I've tried to find one. >>Science has, in many ways, taken on some of the characteristics of religion. There is no better way to put it. I have said this the same way. There is a growing sentiment of a "science clergy," a bureaucracy that controls Truth (tm).

KGIII 9y ago
Men in lab coats have become the new priests, handing down ordained works for the masses and being held up on a pedestal. I say this as a scientist. It's almost as strange as how people will ask me medical questions when I'm introduced as Dr. KGIII. I can kinda understand when people ask me things outside my discipline, but I'm the last person you want to ask about your medical problems.

jonathanstrange 9y ago

Maybe they just thought you were exaggerating, like many people do in reply to this insight by Kahneman. From the fact that Kahneman misjudged some studies in experimental psychology it doesn't follow that all of science is hopelessly lost, philosophical, or wrong. To put it in another way, most people I've met who criticized science couldn't even explain how a toaster works if they had to and had no grasp of what they were criticizing. Hearing superficial criticisms by people who do not know anything about the methodology and maths can be very tiring, and these criticisms have become abundant in online forums. It can be easy to overcompensate and react needlessly aggressive to such general criticisms. At the same time, the critiques of science I've met so far (in academia, and all leftists, not that it matters) were all relying on the outcomes of obvious and constantly ongoing scientific progress on a daily basis. From lossy image compression over GPS over microchips to modern medicine and diagnostics. Maybe in your case people overreacted and missed the fact that you're a smart mathematician and not some random dumbass who says "statistics lie" as if that was an argument for anything, and you felt butthurt about it. Still, they are right when they say that science is not a philosophy. I should know that, because I have a Ph.D. in philosophy, and the standards for our 'theories' are not even remotely as stringent as in natural science or mathematics. And maybe you're also overreacting a bit. Contrary to what seems to have become fashionable - mostly in certain political circles outside of Europe to be honest - the scientific process continues to converge to the truth in almost all disciplines and we reap the benefits of science daily. (I say almost all because I'd like to exclude literary science and the like.)