5 ms·

It's hard to actually address this comment since it's such a ramble, but I think you make some disingenuous rhetorical moves that deserve to be addressed. You

It's hard to actually address this comment since it's such a ramble, but I think you make some disingenuous rhetorical moves that deserve to be addressed. You employ a rhetorical move that some theists have used in the past -- namely, casting doubt on the veracity of scientific beliefs by painting them in the guise of religion. This is also a convenient move that lets you characterize huge swaths of academia that disagree with you by questioning their psychological motives for holding the beliefs they do. And now that philosophy and science are reduced to priesthoods, what makes them better than religion? After all, most atheists "have some personal, emotional reason for not believing in God rather than a well-thought out chain of reasoning; but most people believe things for personal and emotional reasons, so it isn't surprising." As if the motivations behind a given belief have any ramifications on its truth value. This effectively allows you to justify belief in God without actually making any arguments for it -- as if in the hypothetical vacancy of science and philosophy we're left with no choice but to default to theism. I would encourage you to investigate the philosophy of belief and God in more detail, and to be "open to discovery of truth even when [you] may not like it." There is a great deal more literature on the subject than the pithy writings of Dawkins et al (of whom I am no fan) that deal with the subject in much greater detail, and with much more nuanced arguments than you're giving the entire discipline of philosophy credit for. Also, for the record, I am not an atheist or an agnostic. I am not a philosopher, and I didn't even major in it college. There's a lot of great philosophy out there I haven't even tried to tackle. But I appreciate its value. I think it's clear you're arguing in bad faith. And I'm disappointed that such an argument is the first thing that comes up on an article like this on HN.

blueprint 8y ago
> You employ a rhetorical move that some theists have used in the past -- namely, casting doubt on the veracity of scientific beliefs by painting them in the guise of religion. Are you not doing the same thing back to him ? If you disagree, then please tell me the definition of science.
- mfoy_ 8y ago
  "Science" is just a collection of tools and processes. "Scientisits" use those processes to attempt to arrive at true conclusions. This can be very difficult. Over time, "science" (the nebulous institution) can build up enough accrued "truths" that it can make interesting conclusions with a decent degree of confidence. (Note: scientific studies that are reported by clickbait headlines are not what I'm talking about.) The point is, that you can personally go learn how it all works, follow the studies, and attempt to replicate them, even, to arrive at the same conclusions. Or, if you find issues along the way, you can point them out and contribute to the corpus of "scientific knowledge" by removing an invalid "truth".
  - blueprint 8y ago
    That's not the definition. There are many tools and processes that do not constitute science. If you want to define science as that which uncovers truth, then, for that to be true, you must be able to define truth without resorting to tautology (that is, there must be a way to verify 'truth'). Excluding a subset of what's false doesn't necessarily lead you to discovering or being able to accept (integrate) the truth.
    - fizx 8y ago
      Science is the belief that the laws of nature are consistent, and therefore repeatable and testable. From there the practice of science is repeating and testing claims about nature, and communicating these tests through various social processes such as peer reviewed journals or running through the streets naked shouting "Eureka!"
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > Science is the belief that the laws of nature are consistent, and therefore repeatable and testable. No, science is the practice of using the assumption of consistent laws of nature to build predictive models. In a way, it is more an elaborate extended test of the utility of the assumption than a belief in it (though obviously belief may support the practice and observed utility of the resulting models may create or reinforce belief.) But belief in the assumption is neither necessary to nor sufficient for science.
mfoy_ 8y ago
I initially wanted to downvote GP, for the reasons you cite and more, but it sparked such an interesting (if predictably heated) debate that I kind of like it.
- gumby 8y ago
  Thank you for holding back.
sheepmullet 8y ago
> namely, casting doubt on the veracity of scientific beliefs by painting them in the guise of religion. You think he is commenting on the scientific method but he is really commenting on human nature. People really are treating Science as a kind of religion. Understanding this motivation is important because it shows the precarious position we are in - any event which causes a loss of faith in “Science” the religion could quickly turn our culture away from its relatively pro-science culture.
- salmonfamine 8y ago
  I agree that, subjectively, it seems like the popular discourse surrounding the nature of science is not exactly philosophically rigorous. And I agree that some people seem to hold quasi-religious views of science. Maybe I totally misunderstood OP, but it seemed like they were conflating the state of popular discourse with the state of academic philosophy. As an aside, I don’t think that people are likely to stop trusting in science or the scientific community because of the state of discourse surrounding science. I think that people are much likely to distrust science simply because they don’t like certain findings or it’s not politically aligned with them, imho. At least in America.

blueprint 8y ago

> You employ a rhetorical move that some theists have used in the past -- namely, casting doubt on the veracity of scientific beliefs by painting them in the guise of religion. Are you not doing the same thing back to him ? If you disagree, then please tell me the definition of science.

mfoy_ 8y ago
"Science" is just a collection of tools and processes. "Scientisits" use those processes to attempt to arrive at true conclusions. This can be very difficult. Over time, "science" (the nebulous institution) can build up enough accrued "truths" that it can make interesting conclusions with a decent degree of confidence. (Note: scientific studies that are reported by clickbait headlines are not what I'm talking about.) The point is, that you can personally go learn how it all works, follow the studies, and attempt to replicate them, even, to arrive at the same conclusions. Or, if you find issues along the way, you can point them out and contribute to the corpus of "scientific knowledge" by removing an invalid "truth".
- blueprint 8y ago
  That's not the definition. There are many tools and processes that do not constitute science. If you want to define science as that which uncovers truth, then, for that to be true, you must be able to define truth without resorting to tautology (that is, there must be a way to verify 'truth'). Excluding a subset of what's false doesn't necessarily lead you to discovering or being able to accept (integrate) the truth.
  - fizx 8y ago
    Science is the belief that the laws of nature are consistent, and therefore repeatable and testable. From there the practice of science is repeating and testing claims about nature, and communicating these tests through various social processes such as peer reviewed journals or running through the streets naked shouting "Eureka!"
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Science is the belief that the laws of nature are consistent, and therefore repeatable and testable. No, science is the practice of using the assumption of consistent laws of nature to build predictive models. In a way, it is more an elaborate extended test of the utility of the assumption than a belief in it (though obviously belief may support the practice and observed utility of the resulting models may create or reinforce belief.) But belief in the assumption is neither necessary to nor sufficient for science.

mfoy_ 8y ago

I initially wanted to downvote GP, for the reasons you cite and more, but it sparked such an interesting (if predictably heated) debate that I kind of like it.

gumby 8y ago
Thank you for holding back.

sheepmullet 8y ago

> namely, casting doubt on the veracity of scientific beliefs by painting them in the guise of religion. You think he is commenting on the scientific method but he is really commenting on human nature. People really are treating Science as a kind of religion. Understanding this motivation is important because it shows the precarious position we are in - any event which causes a loss of faith in “Science” the religion could quickly turn our culture away from its relatively pro-science culture.

salmonfamine 8y ago
I agree that, subjectively, it seems like the popular discourse surrounding the nature of science is not exactly philosophically rigorous. And I agree that some people seem to hold quasi-religious views of science. Maybe I totally misunderstood OP, but it seemed like they were conflating the state of popular discourse with the state of academic philosophy. As an aside, I don’t think that people are likely to stop trusting in science or the scientific community because of the state of discourse surrounding science. I think that people are much likely to distrust science simply because they don’t like certain findings or it’s not politically aligned with them, imho. At least in America.