3 ms·

I think the "cult of science" argument still holds up even if you take it out of the context of someone countering in a faith-related argument. I've seen plenty

I think the "cult of science" argument still holds up even if you take it out of the context of someone countering in a faith-related argument. I've seen plenty of the rituals and iconography mentioned in the article play out in pop culture ( with reddit being especially bad for "fuck yeah science" type nonsense). Bill Nye and Neil DeGrasse Tyson being the atheist televangelists strikes a chord. It's not that faith in science is wrong (it's the best tool we have available right now), but that the way many people treat science is exactly the same way they would have treated religion if they were fervently religious. They didn't pick up the skepticism and rationalism that's meant to come with a scientific mindset, it's just "science TV man says X so X is true". We even get cargo cult science on HN (not a big surprise given this place is just a more formal reddit) where people demand a citation to a journal to back up arguments, but if one is provided the argument is dead in the water because the requester has no idea how to read the jargon of the field 9/10 times.

Cogito 8y ago
I agree with you completely, the cargo cult thing is real. To extend my point a bit further, my argument is that even if you treat science exactly the same as a religion - for all the points you mention and more - it is still fundamentally different to a faith based belief. That is, even if people treat it like religion it is fundamentally different to pretty much every other religion we have. That doesn't hold completely. I think the two points I said differentiate science from faith still hold; ideas are fallible, and authorities are fallible. It does seem that some people to not treat them as such, the 'atheist televangelist' being a great example. So sometimes people and ideas are held up as 'correct by definition'. I think, and perhaps this is tenuous, that even in these situations where people are playing out the cult of science we still have far better footing than the analogy with faith based beliefs would imply. Science is trying to be correct. If a person or an idea is so popular that they persist in the face of evidence, eventually they will change. If nothing else, the person will die or the people who believe the idea will die, and the more correct ideas will win out. I'm a little more optimistic, and think people like Nye and Tyson will change their positions if they're shown to be wrong. There is no underlying thing that you must believe to be true in order to believe in science, and if pressed I like to think anyone who believes something 'because science' will change their mind on pretty much anything if given enough evidence. Unfortunately Science becomes a tool for so many things, and so people who believe things because politics, but hide behind a smokescreen of 'Science!' will maybe never change their minds. Tribalism is a really powerful thing, and we'll probably have to continue relearning that old lesson that the truth of a matter is not determined by if we feel it is true, nor that it is true because someone agrees with us.
kkarakk 8y ago
nye and tyson are not considered "scientific atheist televangelists" by anyone who even casually researches their qualifications and temperaments. both are products of pop culture and are treated as such. both face heavy mockery in less PC social networks frequented by folk that have relatively scientific mindsets(for eg /sci/).Both make heavily egregious comments that are forgiven by their fans coz everyone makes a mistake sometimes. as for the second part of your argument, yes HN does get some ignorant arguments but that is the price of becoming more popular - you attract people from all segments of the technically inclined population. this is yet another "the popular thing of the day is actually bad coz human beings are stupid and do not seek out opposing viewpoints" argument thread
- erezyehuda 8y ago
  It seems like you read more cynicism and hostility in the previous comment than was actually there.

Cogito 8y ago

I agree with you completely, the cargo cult thing is real. To extend my point a bit further, my argument is that even if you treat science exactly the same as a religion - for all the points you mention and more - it is still fundamentally different to a faith based belief. That is, even if people treat it like religion it is fundamentally different to pretty much every other religion we have. That doesn't hold completely. I think the two points I said differentiate science from faith still hold; ideas are fallible, and authorities are fallible. It does seem that some people to not treat them as such, the 'atheist televangelist' being a great example. So sometimes people and ideas are held up as 'correct by definition'. I think, and perhaps this is tenuous, that even in these situations where people are playing out the cult of science we still have far better footing than the analogy with faith based beliefs would imply. Science is trying to be correct. If a person or an idea is so popular that they persist in the face of evidence, eventually they will change. If nothing else, the person will die or the people who believe the idea will die, and the more correct ideas will win out. I'm a little more optimistic, and think people like Nye and Tyson will change their positions if they're shown to be wrong. There is no underlying thing that you must believe to be true in order to believe in science, and if pressed I like to think anyone who believes something 'because science' will change their mind on pretty much anything if given enough evidence. Unfortunately Science becomes a tool for so many things, and so people who believe things because politics, but hide behind a smokescreen of 'Science!' will maybe never change their minds. Tribalism is a really powerful thing, and we'll probably have to continue relearning that old lesson that the truth of a matter is not determined by if we feel it is true, nor that it is true because someone agrees with us.

kkarakk 8y ago

nye and tyson are not considered "scientific atheist televangelists" by anyone who even casually researches their qualifications and temperaments. both are products of pop culture and are treated as such. both face heavy mockery in less PC social networks frequented by folk that have relatively scientific mindsets(for eg /sci/).Both make heavily egregious comments that are forgiven by their fans coz everyone makes a mistake sometimes. as for the second part of your argument, yes HN does get some ignorant arguments but that is the price of becoming more popular - you attract people from all segments of the technically inclined population. this is yet another "the popular thing of the day is actually bad coz human beings are stupid and do not seek out opposing viewpoints" argument thread

erezyehuda 8y ago
It seems like you read more cynicism and hostility in the previous comment than was actually there.