8 ms·

Ha ha - primitive Islamic religionists!! Only we are exactly the same, but are blind to our failings. This narrative plays on our conceited, flabby, unreasone

Ha ha - primitive Islamic religionists!! Only we are exactly the same, but are blind to our failings. This narrative plays on our conceited, flabby, unreasoned thinking. But its nice to laugh to others, eh? Science to me, is the application of the scientific method. This is to say that whatever is being looked at should be repeatable, and consistently provide the same results. Strictly speaking, when we say we know, we should be saying that because we have applied the scientific method personally. The reality is that science in 'the West' does not provide us the knowledge we think it does. The use of the pronoun 'we' cuts to the chase of the problem - WE assume that our scientists have this. But step back and think about what it is to know - it can't be a case of trusting scientists. I should be able to take whatever is being proposed or claimed and verify it personally. But no one - NO ONE - is verifying anything personally. No one is testing the claims. We all live in our silos, trusting that others are working in good faith. Trusting that the stories we are told are not just hearsay. We trust the results we are provided, without any verification. We trust that what we are provided are not stories, but are actual verifiable science. My point is that no one is personally verifying science. On an individual level we cannot be sure that these are not stories and hearsay. With the virus, has anyone here ever used an electron microscope? Did you see a virus with it? Why do you think it is a virus? Etc etc. The truth is our reason is actually faith too! Science, as we do it, ie based on trust and without personal verification, is absolutely equivalent to religion. A comforting, explanatory story is provided and we believe we 'know' what is happening. Scientists are our priests and we take their pronouncements as gospel, without questioning them.

Shorel 6y ago
Except science is not static like religion, it changes with new discoveries and explanations. And, at high school level, basic science is tested and experiments are repeated. So at the very least, some people learn proper scientific thinking, while others just learn to repeat "facts". In contrast, everything that religion is, is just memorization of some old ideas, and treating personal anecdotes and made up stories like they are statistically significant data.
pvaldes 6y ago
> But no one - NO ONE - is verifying anything personally. No one is testing the claims. My point is that no one is personally verifying science Each science article is extensively reviewed. First when you need to force yourself to read previous articles in the same field. Second by your boss and other members in the team. Third time by a peers system, and is not easy at all to pass. Sometimes must be corrected two or three times more. Often is rejected and sent to other journal, that will require the same process. Journals can ask for your laboratory notes and raw data and repeat the calculus by themselves. Is not unusual. After an article is published anybody can point to something found incorrect on it. So the truth is that science, the real science, is extensively reviewed. There are groups specially prone to fraud, and many articles are garbage, but are most the exception than the norm.
Retric 6y ago
> has anyone here ever used an electron microscope? I am not a scientist, but yes. It’s not that hard to directly access most scientific tools. Verification takes effort, but random verification should reasonably give you confidence and can be a fun project on it’s own. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVbdbVhzcM4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVbdbVhzcM4 PS: One of the most famous experiments off all time is replicated whenever you can something. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation
- feralimal 6y ago
  You've used an electron microscope? They've been around since 1933 you know - we should all have ready access by now, no? If you look at a video, do you believe its true? Take a look at this one, to see the problems: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFLs6nufCj4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFLs6nufCj4 You really cannot trust what is presented on a screen. There really is no equivalent to personally testing science or any thesis personally. You will be illuminated, rather than falsely believing you 'know', when all you know is a story.
  - ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    That is an example of an experiment. If that experiment reveals some truth then it should be repeatable. If it isn't repeatable it isn't going to be considered always true and has no particular value. Videos like this are made all the time for marketing, media, entertainment purposes. Anti-science propagandists make videos like this all the time - but they aren't accepted because they aren't typically repeatable or filled with flaws. We trust the process because the process bears fruit - computers, cars, power, electricity, cell phones, cures of disease, antibiotics, etc. We experience all of these things daily. Now black holes and hawking radiation? Perhaps these things are a bit harder and require leaps of faith - but that is reality in a specialized modern society. You trust the car mechanic to know what's wrong, although sometimes you encounter a fraud who will lie to make more money. That doesn't make all mechanics bad.
  - Retric 6y ago
    That video is making the false claim that individual aspects of a video can’t be independently falsified. A simple example is to track down the original referenced paper. Another is knowing that at the time the video was created, VFX wasn’t good enough to fake the shot. That’s not verification of say the amount of effort involved, as they could be scamming their backers or whatnot. But, it does demonstrate the difference between being skeptical and a conspiracy theorist. A skeptic looks for individual evidence to support every independent assertion, where a conspiracy theory is based on the assumption that individual truths are linked. Using multiple different takes to make a video is independent of the accuracy of the experiment. A trained crow would be able to fake what a crow learning to solve a puzzle does.
gomox 6y ago
Science and religion are belief systems and therefore share some commonalities but the radical difference is that science is based on testable hypothesis, whereas religion is just religion. To say they are "absolutely equivalent" is a massive stretch.
- feralimal 6y ago
  Do you personally test any scientific claims? Or do you personally take them on faith?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - ben509 6y ago
    Like any student, I did basic chemistry and physics and we tested various claims in the lab. Nobody personally tests all claims, even professional scientists have to accept some prior claims until they have some reason to believe they're incorrect. Trust is necessary for science to extend beyond the efforts of an individual, but trust isn't the same thing as faith.
  - maeln 6y ago
    There is a big difference between something being able to be tested to see if it is actually true and something that is impossible to test. Want to understand and test the veracity of some theories on electricity, gravity, medicine, etc, you can ! And a lot of those can be even tested at home with simple experiment. You can sometimes even find something new, or that one theory is wrong. Want to test if god exists ? If heaven or hell exists ? If following some rules will grant you access to heaven ? You can't. There is no experiment that you can replicate that will prove any of those claims. You can try to find your own, in many way is is also scientific, but there is many religions and people have been trying to prove many of those theories for eons without any advancement. Comparing science and the belief in scientific theories as similar to a religious faith is just wrong if you stop and think about it for more than 5 minutes.
- joshuahughes 6y ago
jariel 6y ago
"With the virus, has anyone here ever used an electron microscope? Did you see a virus with it? Why do you think it is a virus? Etc etc - its all on faith." You're in the wrong forum.
- feralimal 6y ago
  They've (electron microscopes) been around since 1933, why aren't they everywhere? On your phone even?
Fezzik 6y ago
Or they are, they may just not be aware of it - the fact that billions of people have had MMR vaccines and we, as a species, have nearly eradicated the measles, mumps, and rubella in a great scientific experiment is downright awe inspiring. This is nothing like a religion and this type of backwards thinking is what holds us, as a species back. And, either way, it doesn’t matter - every scientific practice does not need to be repeated down to the minutia by every human being to be effective. I imagine most people taking HIV/AIDs suppressants have never looked through an electron microscope to verify exactly how they work, but that has nothing to do with anything. Your analogy is, frankly, awful and way off the mark. Edit, to add an example: a patient listening to a doctor who has set many broken bones about how the doctor is going to set that particular patient’s bones is nothing like a religious adherent listening to a priest who has never spoken to god about what god says and expects of the adherent... that’s just absurd.
blackbear_ 6y ago
You have a fair point^, but instead of attacking science in particular you should attack societies in general. Can you trust the food you buy at the supermarket or at the restaurant is not poisonous? That your doctor or partner isn't going to kill you in your sleep? That policemen will not shoot you? That drivers won't run you over? It's not about science. Society is impossible without trust. ^ except that scientists do check each other's work and occasionally find mistakes. Scientific progress is real and has provided concrete and undeniable improvements to people's lives, and this should give credibility to science as a whole. But I see your point, outsiders cannot understand nor verify science without the proper training and equipment.
- feralimal 6y ago
  Fair enough. It is absolutely wider than science. The problem more widely, is that we trust others. Bear with me - I know this sounds bad. The fact is that we trust too much. We should be verifying all the claims that are made to us. We would soon learn discernment over what sources are trustworthy (friend's personal experiences - ie anecdotal evidence) versus evidence presented by those that govern us on the media (politicians + their megaphone the mainstream media). This in itself is jarring - we know politicians are not trustworthy, but we think they are trying to do their best. But really what we have is a dog and pony show to distract us, and the governance is going on anyway. The answer, in my opinion, is something like stepping up individually. We should test and present our results to those around. We would soon learn the difference between knowing and believing. And we would also learn to accept that we do not know - and that that's ok. If we don't know, that doesn't mean we have to accept any old story that's presented. We can defer acceptance as and when we have the data, without kidding ourselves. This is skepticism.
  - blackbear_ 6y ago
    > We would soon learn the difference between knowing and believing. Well said, and it's not always so easy. Skepticism and critical thinking are in very short supply, that is true, and we should all try to verify as much as possible. But really, most things cannot be verified by you, personally. We do stand on the shoulders of giants, and you will not be able to verify centuries of scientific progress all on your own, from first principles. And this becomes even harder when you approach the softer parts of human knowledge such as economics or very recent discoveries that aren't fully settled. Most people are easily tricked by politicians and other evil actors simply because most things cannot be known for sure (immigration? interest rates? carbon taxes?), and the best one can do is to have educated guesses. And educated guess require education, which most have not. So I don't see how you can live without trusting most of what you are said or living partially outside society. I guess a compromise between our point of views is the good old adage "trust, but verify".
simonh 6y ago
This is flat out not true, every child that studies science in high school, all the way through to degree level in University personally goes through all the logical chains of thought, experimentation and verification of the ideas and principles they learn. We read how Newton derived the laws of motion and measure the periods of swinging weights hanging on strings, we measure the pressure of a gas as it varies with changing temperature. I have personally measured the speed of light in a lab to within a few percent using a set of lasers and worked through the derivation of the relativistic equations. All of this is in the physics text books for anyone to learn and personally verify. Science education very much rests on teaching and learning scientific methods and showing students how to prove the things they are learning.
- feralimal 6y ago
  Sorry - but you verify very little at school. It is an indoctrination system. IMO. Feel free to provide a specific example though, where you verified something at school.
  - kalenx 6y ago
    I verified a _lot_ at school. Simple stuff, sure, but it's the method which matters, not the thing you verify. I guess it may depend on the education systems, but seeing it as an 'indoctrination system' is just dishonest, given that by _definition_ you want to change the minds of the children. There is no --or so little-- spontaneous learning when you reach something more complicated than the basic action/immediate consequence a toddler uses.
    - feralimal 6y ago
      To all those that are telling me how much verification is going on, I want to offer this very simple and basic question. How was water proven to you to be made up of 2 gases? Please don't refer me to youtube videos where a showman's pop is made, and we see some water droplets from the air condensate on the bottle. I want to see 2 gases being added together and making a liquid, that is water. We are apparently on a planet that is mainly water... surely this isn't too much to ask? You might think this is basic, and it is. If you review this information, you will recognise just how little you actually know.
w0utert 6y ago
I don't agree with your final conclusion, but I upvoted this regardless, because I think it is an interesting perspective that is worthwhile to philosophize on. If the Covid-19 situation taught me anything, it would be that it's apparently very, very easy to convince the vast majority of the population they need behave, think and feel in some way, based on 'facts' and figures that are unproven, incomplete, out-of-context, or based on 'science' that is not or only barely amenable to empirical verification. We (the world) are doing so many things at once now to try to handle the pandemic, but my impression of all of it, is that we really have no idea what we are doing, what works and what doesn't, why things seem to be out of control, and (controversially) how bad it actually is in the grand scheme of things. IMO science is most definitely not comparable to religion, but I will concede that -for most people- its role in their lives is very similar.
- feralimal 6y ago
  Thank you. I always get heavily downvoted as I don't think others are as open minded to hearing a different viewpoint as you. I agree too. But, I see science as an individual's pursuit. I really mean it when I say that science is something one should verify personally. Whenever you don't do that, you are accepting a story - without testing you cannot know anything, it is all in the realm of belief. And you are right that most belief whether it is science/magic/religion its all the same thing. They want to naively trust and have faith. It would be endearing if it wasn't also susceptible to meaning that they can be lead as a herd. As an individual, it is very hard to stand against the herd. Whether that is avoiding being drowned as a witch, or being forced to vaccinate oneself for the good of the herd.
  - kalenx 6y ago
    Be careful in bringing up "open mindedness". If the most compelling thing you can say about your position is that "it is so weird and obtuse that only true open minds will not reject it", I'm not sure you're making a point here... > But, I see science as an individual's pursuit. I really mean it when I say that science is something one should verify personally. Sure. But you can't. You literally can't. And since you can't, it means, given this sentence, that you consider all science to be in the realm of belief. This is really sad. > Whenever you don't do that, you are accepting a story - without testing you cannot know anything, it is all in the realm of belief.
EForEndeavour 6y ago
In a perfect world, any random person would have the ability to independently verify any scientific claim they cared to. But as you imply, our world is far from perfect. Many scientific facts require heavy training and/or expensive equipment to verify that most people just don't have. But the cool thing is that IF you did have the skills and gear (and patience, free time, assistants, etc.), you absolutely can image a virus particle, or measure the mass of an electron (not all that complicated, it turns out!), or take your own observations of the motion of the planets and re-derive Kepler's laws of planetary motion. > My point is that no one is personally verifying science. On an individual level we cannot be sure that these are not stories and hearsay. You should hang out with more scientists. It turns out they count as "someone"! > Science, as we do it, ie based on trust and without personal verification, is absolutely equivalent to religion. A comforting, explanatory story is provided and we believe we 'know' what is happening. Scientists are our priests and we take their pronouncements as gospel, without questioning them. This is a grossly false equivalency. The thing with any scientific claim is that you could independently verify it; in practice, verifying modern scientific claims tends to cost tons of time and money, but nothing in principle prevents you.
- feralimal 6y ago
  Have you heard of the reproducibility/replication crisis? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis "A 2016 poll of 1,500 scientists reported that 70% of them had failed to reproduce at least one other scientist's experiment (50% had failed to reproduce one of their own experiments). In 2009, 2% of scientists admitted to falsifying studies at least once and 14% admitted to personally knowing someone who did. Misconducts were reported more frequently by medical researchers than others." Its not a joke. Also, there is the question of funding in science. The government, the military and private corporations basically provide all the funding. Do you think they fund things that are not in their interests? That good food would be more effective than medicine? Stuff like that? If they fund a study that produces data that is contrary to the general narrative, do you think that will be published? Do you think they will fund those studies that are against their narrative? I love science, and the scientific method. But, not the science we have. It really is akin to religion - both are means of governance of the masses by controlling what is acceptable to think about.
kalenx 6y ago
That's the kind of argument that could make sense in a vacuum, but does not apply at all in practice. Sure, _in theory_, I would be glad to know enough, to have enough time and to have enough money to verify every scientific theory since the dawn of times. In practice, it's been totally not scalable for a single person for about 500 years. _Careful trust_, with verification systems in place, is then the second best choice we can make. The difference with religion lies in the fact that you do _not_ have to blindly accept everything. If you doubt a specific scientific theory, then by all means, put it to the test! But no, you won't be able to do that for science as a whole, not because "we're whining children who like conformting stories" but simply because of the blunt fact that our time here is limited.
- feralimal 6y ago
  When you test, and in one case you find something different to what is presented, what do you do? Do you, blame yourself? Accept that everything else is true? Accept that nothing else is true? My position is that I am happy to continue as before, but I won't overstate my case. I won't say 'I know' when I don't. I can accept that what is presented as true, may in fact be true, but I don't know it. I would be lying if I did. So, when you say viruses, or atoms, or whatever exist, but you have not personally verified that, you should be clear that you do not know. You may think such-and-such is the case, but if you state something without personal verification, you run the risk of repeating a lie, and misleading the next person.
  - kalenx 6y ago
    > When you test, and in one case you find something different to what is presented, what do you do? First, you check for external factors which may have affect the test. If you can confirm you cannot reproduce past results, you may consider discussing with other people about your findings, and publishing if no one can find a reasonable explanation. In any case, you are happy because that's how science progresses. > My position is that I am happy to continue as before, but I won't overstate my case. I won't say 'I know' when I don't. I can accept that what is presented as true, may in fact be true, but I don't know it. I would be lying if I did. Sure, and that's the point of science: there is no truth, only better and better models. But we won't stop using the verb "to know" altogether. Knowledge is not a binary thing (you know or you don't).
GuB-42 6y ago
Many people consider science like a religion. For example, many people don't understand evolution, they think some magic force gradually turned fishes into humans. No wonder it is sometimes put on the same level as creationism. But to be honest, it doesn't really matter. If you are not a scientist, faith is a shortcut that allows you to focus more on what matters more to you. The difference is that you don't need faith. With enough motivation, you can probably get to see the virus on an election microscope. It is difficult. Just operating an election microscope is an art, and getting the necessary security clearances to work with deadly pathogens can be tricky. Almost no one does it, but sometimes, a crazy enough guy spends way too much time challenging a well established theory. Most of the times, the results are the same as what mainstream science says, but there are a few exceptions. This random poking keeps science in check. The current pandemic is good at exposing the "non-faith" aspects of science. Covid is not airborne, ah, maybe it is, hydroxychloroquine works, no it doesn't, case fatality rate is 5%, no, 0.5%, no, 1%, it attacks the lungs, the nose, you keep immunity for a long time, no you don't, yes you do, etc... It is constantly changing, and this is science at work. A priest will not change his mind, he will not receive a new revision of the Bible every week. That rarely shown aspect is a bit unsettling to those with a faith-based view of science, but totally normal for those who are practicing. Modern academia has its problems. We often talk about the "reproducibility crisis", but the simple fact it is widely recognized as a problem sets it apart from religion. And BTW, while I am an atheist myself, I am not against religion. Religion offers stability and answers that science is unable to provide, and both can coexist.
- feralimal 6y ago
  Have you seen evolution? What proved evolution to you personally? I would expect that you were presented with Darwin and evolution at school and accepted. With no verification. You were propagandised. Just like creationists.
  - cbnotfromthere 6y ago
    There is direct / first-hand knowledge and there is indirect / second-hand knowledge. Both have their legit place. You insist to declare the direct knowledge as the only knowledge. That's pure sophistry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist#Modern_usage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist#Modern_usage Every time you enter a building, you accept as fact the science behind all the engineering which keeps the building safe and sound.
tgv 6y ago
As far as viruses are concerned: when washing your hands can keep diseases at bay, that's good enough for me. Then you study DNA at school, you experiment a bit with drosophila, you read about Mendel and evolution, and it makes sense, doesn't it? It isn't faith, it well calculated trust. > Science is absolutely equivalent to religion And that's why we see people smitten by lightning every day.
segfaultbuserr 6y ago
> Science, as we do it, ie based on trust and without personal verification, is absolutely equivalent to religion. We call it Social Constructionism. It's the basis of all knowledge in society. Whether a concept exists or whether it's believed to be true does not necessarily have anything connected to an objective reality, all you need is making it believable (different groups of people and different societies have different standards on what qualifies as believable). Demonstrating it by direct observation using the scientific method can achieve this goal, creating a mythology or writing a textbook can do it as well. At the end of the day, you must start from an existing concept and assume it is true. Theoretically, You can start from simple and self-evident concepts and derive everything from first principles. However, in a modern society, the existing body of knowledge is too large for any individual to independently verify and too useful to refuse. Even the verification of the simplest fact can be non-obvious and expensive. Thus, we assume they're true without verification. And often, what we have accepted are not even technically accurate. Now, I'm not interested in discussing any particular issues in the thread, but I'd like to use this chance to talk about my pet theory on the psychology of conspiracy theories... An interesting thought exercise: Consider the shape of the Earth. Now, design a physics experiment to provide empirical evidence for a spherical Earth, preferably also it's rotation. Requirements: This should be practical within the ability of a single individual, and should be as easy as possible. Only minimum pre-existing concepts should be used. The result should be as obvious and unambiguous as possible without too much interpretation. It should be able to defend itself from any challenge on its technical inaccuracy or alternative models... I think it's actually a non-obvious problem. It's amazing how much domain-specific knowledge it requires. Flat Earth conspiracy theorists have cherry-picked numerous arguments to support their positions, just to name a few... * Bedford Level Experiment. A number of sticks were placed in an 6-mile uninterrupted straight line. Optical observations were made. Experiment failed to detect any curvature, or that the data showed the curvature was not outward, but inward. Many modern versions by Flat Earthers can be found in YouTube videos, often on lakes or sea - objects and buildings well beyond the horizon can be seen by telescopic lens. Laser beams have been detected 15 kilometers apart, etc. Why? Atmospheric refraction. After atmospheric effects have been corrected, the data will definitely show that the Earth is indeed a sphere. But from now, to interpret the data, you suddenly need a model of atmospheric optics, which is far from obvious and requires many additional concepts. Then, consider the cost and difficulty of this naive experiment - For an individual, it's already high enough and unpractical for a city dweller. Thus, all optical experiments are doomed? Radio based observations are even trickier than optical observations. * Foucault Pendulum. It's the most famous physics experiment to show the Earth's rotation, but the instability of the original, unpowered pendulum is notorious, even minor imperfection in mechanical construction or startup can create unwanted mode of oscillation, such as an elliptic oscillation which can totally mask the Earth's rotation. For powered pendulum, a careful and complicated mechanical analysis is needed to show that the pendulum has no preferred direction of swing,. Thus, Flat Earth advocates reject Foucault Pendulum as a valid experiment - any expected result is refuted as a coincidence or the result of the experimenter's biases. * Gyroscope. An accurate and sensitive gyroscope, such as a Laser Ring Gyroscope, can sense the Earth's rotation. But gyroscope observations are rejected by Flat Earthers in general - the raw data output is noisy with random drifts and noise, aquisation of useful data heavily relies on algorithms and data processing. They argue that the algorithms can be biased to show a rotational Earth. Of course, it's not the case, but then you need to justify the entire subject of statistics and digital signal processing, good luck with that. * Astronomic and Geodesic Measurements. Examples include observing the fixed stars and showing their variation in altitudes, or showing the sum of a triangle on Earth is greater than 180-degree, etc. Many of these experiments require an individual to travel great distances, many geodesic measurements also require accurate navigation, which can be disputed. Of course, obvious experiments that produces strong evidences do exist, good candidates can be lunar ellipses, sun rise and sun set, timezones. But it's just a rhetorical question, I used the absurd example of Flat Earth to illustrate the point of non-obviousness of personal verification - indeed, many people who believe the Earth is a sphere have proposed these experiments to Flat Earthers, while making the mistake of not realizing their limitations, which in turns strengthens the beliefs of many Flat Earthers that "people are too brainwashed to see the truth". If we move away from Flat Earth and step into more advanced subjects, obviousness completely disappears, and only domain-specific knowledge remains, which are heavily dependent upon preexisting results. In my opinion, it's how numerous conspiracy theories are created. The conspiracy theorists will simply tell you: why do you assume they're true? It's entirely possible that everything you know is false. And all the gaps in your accepted knowledge can be exploited by them to make this point. And ultimately, you may come to the conclusion that the entire body scientific knowledge is a hoax. Then, one may ask, how can people build anything in engineering? The conspiracy theorist will tell you, the truths are carefully and systematic distorted in a way that appears to be self-consistent, enough for some applications, but it's distorted enough to kill truth. And since any pre-existing results couldn't be trusted and one is unable to derive or verify anything from first principles due to limited time and resources, science is hence rejected. Conclusion: The theoretical and epistemological foundation of many conspiracy theories are the equivalent of Reflection on Trusting Trust - they claim the vast majority of knowledge is manipulated for malicious purposes, in the same way that the hypothetical attack by Ken Thompson claims one's compiler could be backdoored and no program in one's computer can be trusted.
rcxdude 6y ago
'no-one' verifying is too steep. Many people test many results from science all the time. I've personally followed and tested many papers because their claimed results were useful to me. Sometimes they aren't correct, or at least I am not able to verify them as such. More fundamental ideas are put to the test every time I design something, and they have held very strong in my experience. Equivocating religion with science by raising your standards so high they are impossible to meet in practice is disingenious, especially when one stands up to far more testing than the other. I agree that we need more critical thinking in this world, especially from the general public, but when you retreat to deciding nothing is verified because you have not seen or understood it directly and personally, you retreat in another direction which is just as useless and potentially harmful.
- feralimal 6y ago
  Thank you for your comment. Although you think you are arguing against me, I think you are supporting my point. When you design and it works - that is what I am calling applying the scientific method personally. When you test other's papers you should have a 100% confirmation rate, unless you are making an error in methodology. It seem to me that you did not find that. I'm not raising my standards high. When I have not personally verified something, I would say - that I haven't verified something. I just wouldn't say 'I know'. This a statement of reality - it is not a standards thing. There is no faith involved. But most people, it seems to me, would take it all on trust and step out to say 'they know'. I would say their standard are too low. That they are acting on faith - they are believers. Thanks again for your comment.

Shorel 6y ago

Except science is not static like religion, it changes with new discoveries and explanations. And, at high school level, basic science is tested and experiments are repeated. So at the very least, some people learn proper scientific thinking, while others just learn to repeat "facts". In contrast, everything that religion is, is just memorization of some old ideas, and treating personal anecdotes and made up stories like they are statistically significant data.

pvaldes 6y ago

> But no one - NO ONE - is verifying anything personally. No one is testing the claims. My point is that no one is personally verifying science Each science article is extensively reviewed. First when you need to force yourself to read previous articles in the same field. Second by your boss and other members in the team. Third time by a peers system, and is not easy at all to pass. Sometimes must be corrected two or three times more. Often is rejected and sent to other journal, that will require the same process. Journals can ask for your laboratory notes and raw data and repeat the calculus by themselves. Is not unusual. After an article is published anybody can point to something found incorrect on it. So the truth is that science, the real science, is extensively reviewed. There are groups specially prone to fraud, and many articles are garbage, but are most the exception than the norm.

Retric 6y ago

> has anyone here ever used an electron microscope? I am not a scientist, but yes. It’s not that hard to directly access most scientific tools. Verification takes effort, but random verification should reasonably give you confidence and can be a fun project on it’s own. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVbdbVhzcM4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVbdbVhzcM4 PS: One of the most famous experiments off all time is replicated whenever you can something. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_generation

feralimal 6y ago
You've used an electron microscope? They've been around since 1933 you know - we should all have ready access by now, no? If you look at a video, do you believe its true? Take a look at this one, to see the problems: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFLs6nufCj4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFLs6nufCj4 You really cannot trust what is presented on a screen. There really is no equivalent to personally testing science or any thesis personally. You will be illuminated, rather than falsely believing you 'know', when all you know is a story.
- ntsplnkv2 6y ago
  That is an example of an experiment. If that experiment reveals some truth then it should be repeatable. If it isn't repeatable it isn't going to be considered always true and has no particular value. Videos like this are made all the time for marketing, media, entertainment purposes. Anti-science propagandists make videos like this all the time - but they aren't accepted because they aren't typically repeatable or filled with flaws. We trust the process because the process bears fruit - computers, cars, power, electricity, cell phones, cures of disease, antibiotics, etc. We experience all of these things daily. Now black holes and hawking radiation? Perhaps these things are a bit harder and require leaps of faith - but that is reality in a specialized modern society. You trust the car mechanic to know what's wrong, although sometimes you encounter a fraud who will lie to make more money. That doesn't make all mechanics bad.
- Retric 6y ago
  That video is making the false claim that individual aspects of a video can’t be independently falsified. A simple example is to track down the original referenced paper. Another is knowing that at the time the video was created, VFX wasn’t good enough to fake the shot. That’s not verification of say the amount of effort involved, as they could be scamming their backers or whatnot. But, it does demonstrate the difference between being skeptical and a conspiracy theorist. A skeptic looks for individual evidence to support every independent assertion, where a conspiracy theory is based on the assumption that individual truths are linked. Using multiple different takes to make a video is independent of the accuracy of the experiment. A trained crow would be able to fake what a crow learning to solve a puzzle does.

gomox 6y ago

Science and religion are belief systems and therefore share some commonalities but the radical difference is that science is based on testable hypothesis, whereas religion is just religion. To say they are "absolutely equivalent" is a massive stretch.

feralimal 6y ago
Do you personally test any scientific claims? Or do you personally take them on faith?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- ben509 6y ago
  Like any student, I did basic chemistry and physics and we tested various claims in the lab. Nobody personally tests all claims, even professional scientists have to accept some prior claims until they have some reason to believe they're incorrect. Trust is necessary for science to extend beyond the efforts of an individual, but trust isn't the same thing as faith.
- maeln 6y ago
  There is a big difference between something being able to be tested to see if it is actually true and something that is impossible to test. Want to understand and test the veracity of some theories on electricity, gravity, medicine, etc, you can ! And a lot of those can be even tested at home with simple experiment. You can sometimes even find something new, or that one theory is wrong. Want to test if god exists ? If heaven or hell exists ? If following some rules will grant you access to heaven ? You can't. There is no experiment that you can replicate that will prove any of those claims. You can try to find your own, in many way is is also scientific, but there is many religions and people have been trying to prove many of those theories for eons without any advancement. Comparing science and the belief in scientific theories as similar to a religious faith is just wrong if you stop and think about it for more than 5 minutes.
joshuahughes 6y ago

jariel 6y ago

"With the virus, has anyone here ever used an electron microscope? Did you see a virus with it? Why do you think it is a virus? Etc etc - its all on faith." You're in the wrong forum.

feralimal 6y ago
They've (electron microscopes) been around since 1933, why aren't they everywhere? On your phone even?

Fezzik 6y ago

Or they are, they may just not be aware of it - the fact that billions of people have had MMR vaccines and we, as a species, have nearly eradicated the measles, mumps, and rubella in a great scientific experiment is downright awe inspiring. This is nothing like a religion and this type of backwards thinking is what holds us, as a species back. And, either way, it doesn’t matter - every scientific practice does not need to be repeated down to the minutia by every human being to be effective. I imagine most people taking HIV/AIDs suppressants have never looked through an electron microscope to verify exactly how they work, but that has nothing to do with anything. Your analogy is, frankly, awful and way off the mark. Edit, to add an example: a patient listening to a doctor who has set many broken bones about how the doctor is going to set that particular patient’s bones is nothing like a religious adherent listening to a priest who has never spoken to god about what god says and expects of the adherent... that’s just absurd.

blackbear_ 6y ago

You have a fair point^, but instead of attacking science in particular you should attack societies in general. Can you trust the food you buy at the supermarket or at the restaurant is not poisonous? That your doctor or partner isn't going to kill you in your sleep? That policemen will not shoot you? That drivers won't run you over? It's not about science. Society is impossible without trust. ^ except that scientists do check each other's work and occasionally find mistakes. Scientific progress is real and has provided concrete and undeniable improvements to people's lives, and this should give credibility to science as a whole. But I see your point, outsiders cannot understand nor verify science without the proper training and equipment.

feralimal 6y ago
Fair enough. It is absolutely wider than science. The problem more widely, is that we trust others. Bear with me - I know this sounds bad. The fact is that we trust too much. We should be verifying all the claims that are made to us. We would soon learn discernment over what sources are trustworthy (friend's personal experiences - ie anecdotal evidence) versus evidence presented by those that govern us on the media (politicians + their megaphone the mainstream media). This in itself is jarring - we know politicians are not trustworthy, but we think they are trying to do their best. But really what we have is a dog and pony show to distract us, and the governance is going on anyway. The answer, in my opinion, is something like stepping up individually. We should test and present our results to those around. We would soon learn the difference between knowing and believing. And we would also learn to accept that we do not know - and that that's ok. If we don't know, that doesn't mean we have to accept any old story that's presented. We can defer acceptance as and when we have the data, without kidding ourselves. This is skepticism.
- blackbear_ 6y ago
  > We would soon learn the difference between knowing and believing. Well said, and it's not always so easy. Skepticism and critical thinking are in very short supply, that is true, and we should all try to verify as much as possible. But really, most things cannot be verified by you, personally. We do stand on the shoulders of giants, and you will not be able to verify centuries of scientific progress all on your own, from first principles. And this becomes even harder when you approach the softer parts of human knowledge such as economics or very recent discoveries that aren't fully settled. Most people are easily tricked by politicians and other evil actors simply because most things cannot be known for sure (immigration? interest rates? carbon taxes?), and the best one can do is to have educated guesses. And educated guess require education, which most have not. So I don't see how you can live without trusting most of what you are said or living partially outside society. I guess a compromise between our point of views is the good old adage "trust, but verify".

simonh 6y ago

This is flat out not true, every child that studies science in high school, all the way through to degree level in University personally goes through all the logical chains of thought, experimentation and verification of the ideas and principles they learn. We read how Newton derived the laws of motion and measure the periods of swinging weights hanging on strings, we measure the pressure of a gas as it varies with changing temperature. I have personally measured the speed of light in a lab to within a few percent using a set of lasers and worked through the derivation of the relativistic equations. All of this is in the physics text books for anyone to learn and personally verify. Science education very much rests on teaching and learning scientific methods and showing students how to prove the things they are learning.

feralimal 6y ago
Sorry - but you verify very little at school. It is an indoctrination system. IMO. Feel free to provide a specific example though, where you verified something at school.
- kalenx 6y ago
  I verified a _lot_ at school. Simple stuff, sure, but it's the method which matters, not the thing you verify. I guess it may depend on the education systems, but seeing it as an 'indoctrination system' is just dishonest, given that by _definition_ you want to change the minds of the children. There is no --or so little-- spontaneous learning when you reach something more complicated than the basic action/immediate consequence a toddler uses.
  - feralimal 6y ago
    To all those that are telling me how much verification is going on, I want to offer this very simple and basic question. How was water proven to you to be made up of 2 gases? Please don't refer me to youtube videos where a showman's pop is made, and we see some water droplets from the air condensate on the bottle. I want to see 2 gases being added together and making a liquid, that is water. We are apparently on a planet that is mainly water... surely this isn't too much to ask? You might think this is basic, and it is. If you review this information, you will recognise just how little you actually know.

w0utert 6y ago

I don't agree with your final conclusion, but I upvoted this regardless, because I think it is an interesting perspective that is worthwhile to philosophize on. If the Covid-19 situation taught me anything, it would be that it's apparently very, very easy to convince the vast majority of the population they need behave, think and feel in some way, based on 'facts' and figures that are unproven, incomplete, out-of-context, or based on 'science' that is not or only barely amenable to empirical verification. We (the world) are doing so many things at once now to try to handle the pandemic, but my impression of all of it, is that we really have no idea what we are doing, what works and what doesn't, why things seem to be out of control, and (controversially) how bad it actually is in the grand scheme of things. IMO science is most definitely not comparable to religion, but I will concede that -for most people- its role in their lives is very similar.

feralimal 6y ago
Thank you. I always get heavily downvoted as I don't think others are as open minded to hearing a different viewpoint as you. I agree too. But, I see science as an individual's pursuit. I really mean it when I say that science is something one should verify personally. Whenever you don't do that, you are accepting a story - without testing you cannot know anything, it is all in the realm of belief. And you are right that most belief whether it is science/magic/religion its all the same thing. They want to naively trust and have faith. It would be endearing if it wasn't also susceptible to meaning that they can be lead as a herd. As an individual, it is very hard to stand against the herd. Whether that is avoiding being drowned as a witch, or being forced to vaccinate oneself for the good of the herd.
- kalenx 6y ago
  Be careful in bringing up "open mindedness". If the most compelling thing you can say about your position is that "it is so weird and obtuse that only true open minds will not reject it", I'm not sure you're making a point here... > But, I see science as an individual's pursuit. I really mean it when I say that science is something one should verify personally. Sure. But you can't. You literally can't. And since you can't, it means, given this sentence, that you consider all science to be in the realm of belief. This is really sad. > Whenever you don't do that, you are accepting a story - without testing you cannot know anything, it is all in the realm of belief.

EForEndeavour 6y ago

In a perfect world, any random person would have the ability to independently verify any scientific claim they cared to. But as you imply, our world is far from perfect. Many scientific facts require heavy training and/or expensive equipment to verify that most people just don't have. But the cool thing is that IF you did have the skills and gear (and patience, free time, assistants, etc.), you absolutely can image a virus particle, or measure the mass of an electron (not all that complicated, it turns out!), or take your own observations of the motion of the planets and re-derive Kepler's laws of planetary motion. > My point is that no one is personally verifying science. On an individual level we cannot be sure that these are not stories and hearsay. You should hang out with more scientists. It turns out they count as "someone"! > Science, as we do it, ie based on trust and without personal verification, is absolutely equivalent to religion. A comforting, explanatory story is provided and we believe we 'know' what is happening. Scientists are our priests and we take their pronouncements as gospel, without questioning them. This is a grossly false equivalency. The thing with any scientific claim is that you could independently verify it; in practice, verifying modern scientific claims tends to cost tons of time and money, but nothing in principle prevents you.

feralimal 6y ago
Have you heard of the reproducibility/replication crisis? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis "A 2016 poll of 1,500 scientists reported that 70% of them had failed to reproduce at least one other scientist's experiment (50% had failed to reproduce one of their own experiments). In 2009, 2% of scientists admitted to falsifying studies at least once and 14% admitted to personally knowing someone who did. Misconducts were reported more frequently by medical researchers than others." Its not a joke. Also, there is the question of funding in science. The government, the military and private corporations basically provide all the funding. Do you think they fund things that are not in their interests? That good food would be more effective than medicine? Stuff like that? If they fund a study that produces data that is contrary to the general narrative, do you think that will be published? Do you think they will fund those studies that are against their narrative? I love science, and the scientific method. But, not the science we have. It really is akin to religion - both are means of governance of the masses by controlling what is acceptable to think about.

kalenx 6y ago

That's the kind of argument that could make sense in a vacuum, but does not apply at all in practice. Sure, _in theory_, I would be glad to know enough, to have enough time and to have enough money to verify every scientific theory since the dawn of times. In practice, it's been totally not scalable for a single person for about 500 years. _Careful trust_, with verification systems in place, is then the second best choice we can make. The difference with religion lies in the fact that you do _not_ have to blindly accept everything. If you doubt a specific scientific theory, then by all means, put it to the test! But no, you won't be able to do that for science as a whole, not because "we're whining children who like conformting stories" but simply because of the blunt fact that our time here is limited.

feralimal 6y ago
When you test, and in one case you find something different to what is presented, what do you do? Do you, blame yourself? Accept that everything else is true? Accept that nothing else is true? My position is that I am happy to continue as before, but I won't overstate my case. I won't say 'I know' when I don't. I can accept that what is presented as true, may in fact be true, but I don't know it. I would be lying if I did. So, when you say viruses, or atoms, or whatever exist, but you have not personally verified that, you should be clear that you do not know. You may think such-and-such is the case, but if you state something without personal verification, you run the risk of repeating a lie, and misleading the next person.
- kalenx 6y ago
  > When you test, and in one case you find something different to what is presented, what do you do? First, you check for external factors which may have affect the test. If you can confirm you cannot reproduce past results, you may consider discussing with other people about your findings, and publishing if no one can find a reasonable explanation. In any case, you are happy because that's how science progresses. > My position is that I am happy to continue as before, but I won't overstate my case. I won't say 'I know' when I don't. I can accept that what is presented as true, may in fact be true, but I don't know it. I would be lying if I did. Sure, and that's the point of science: there is no truth, only better and better models. But we won't stop using the verb "to know" altogether. Knowledge is not a binary thing (you know or you don't).

GuB-42 6y ago

Many people consider science like a religion. For example, many people don't understand evolution, they think some magic force gradually turned fishes into humans. No wonder it is sometimes put on the same level as creationism. But to be honest, it doesn't really matter. If you are not a scientist, faith is a shortcut that allows you to focus more on what matters more to you. The difference is that you don't need faith. With enough motivation, you can probably get to see the virus on an election microscope. It is difficult. Just operating an election microscope is an art, and getting the necessary security clearances to work with deadly pathogens can be tricky. Almost no one does it, but sometimes, a crazy enough guy spends way too much time challenging a well established theory. Most of the times, the results are the same as what mainstream science says, but there are a few exceptions. This random poking keeps science in check. The current pandemic is good at exposing the "non-faith" aspects of science. Covid is not airborne, ah, maybe it is, hydroxychloroquine works, no it doesn't, case fatality rate is 5%, no, 0.5%, no, 1%, it attacks the lungs, the nose, you keep immunity for a long time, no you don't, yes you do, etc... It is constantly changing, and this is science at work. A priest will not change his mind, he will not receive a new revision of the Bible every week. That rarely shown aspect is a bit unsettling to those with a faith-based view of science, but totally normal for those who are practicing. Modern academia has its problems. We often talk about the "reproducibility crisis", but the simple fact it is widely recognized as a problem sets it apart from religion. And BTW, while I am an atheist myself, I am not against religion. Religion offers stability and answers that science is unable to provide, and both can coexist.

feralimal 6y ago
Have you seen evolution? What proved evolution to you personally? I would expect that you were presented with Darwin and evolution at school and accepted. With no verification. You were propagandised. Just like creationists.
- cbnotfromthere 6y ago
  There is direct / first-hand knowledge and there is indirect / second-hand knowledge. Both have their legit place. You insist to declare the direct knowledge as the only knowledge. That's pure sophistry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist#Modern_usage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophist#Modern_usage Every time you enter a building, you accept as fact the science behind all the engineering which keeps the building safe and sound.

tgv 6y ago

As far as viruses are concerned: when washing your hands can keep diseases at bay, that's good enough for me. Then you study DNA at school, you experiment a bit with drosophila, you read about Mendel and evolution, and it makes sense, doesn't it? It isn't faith, it well calculated trust. > Science is absolutely equivalent to religion And that's why we see people smitten by lightning every day.

segfaultbuserr 6y ago

> Science, as we do it, ie based on trust and without personal verification, is absolutely equivalent to religion. We call it Social Constructionism. It's the basis of all knowledge in society. Whether a concept exists or whether it's believed to be true does not necessarily have anything connected to an objective reality, all you need is making it believable (different groups of people and different societies have different standards on what qualifies as believable). Demonstrating it by direct observation using the scientific method can achieve this goal, creating a mythology or writing a textbook can do it as well. At the end of the day, you must start from an existing concept and assume it is true. Theoretically, You can start from simple and self-evident concepts and derive everything from first principles. However, in a modern society, the existing body of knowledge is too large for any individual to independently verify and too useful to refuse. Even the verification of the simplest fact can be non-obvious and expensive. Thus, we assume they're true without verification. And often, what we have accepted are not even technically accurate. Now, I'm not interested in discussing any particular issues in the thread, but I'd like to use this chance to talk about my pet theory on the psychology of conspiracy theories... An interesting thought exercise: Consider the shape of the Earth. Now, design a physics experiment to provide empirical evidence for a spherical Earth, preferably also it's rotation. Requirements: This should be practical within the ability of a single individual, and should be as easy as possible. Only minimum pre-existing concepts should be used. The result should be as obvious and unambiguous as possible without too much interpretation. It should be able to defend itself from any challenge on its technical inaccuracy or alternative models... I think it's actually a non-obvious problem. It's amazing how much domain-specific knowledge it requires. Flat Earth conspiracy theorists have cherry-picked numerous arguments to support their positions, just to name a few... * Bedford Level Experiment. A number of sticks were placed in an 6-mile uninterrupted straight line. Optical observations were made. Experiment failed to detect any curvature, or that the data showed the curvature was not outward, but inward. Many modern versions by Flat Earthers can be found in YouTube videos, often on lakes or sea - objects and buildings well beyond the horizon can be seen by telescopic lens. Laser beams have been detected 15 kilometers apart, etc. Why? Atmospheric refraction. After atmospheric effects have been corrected, the data will definitely show that the Earth is indeed a sphere. But from now, to interpret the data, you suddenly need a model of atmospheric optics, which is far from obvious and requires many additional concepts. Then, consider the cost and difficulty of this naive experiment - For an individual, it's already high enough and unpractical for a city dweller. Thus, all optical experiments are doomed? Radio based observations are even trickier than optical observations. * Foucault Pendulum. It's the most famous physics experiment to show the Earth's rotation, but the instability of the original, unpowered pendulum is notorious, even minor imperfection in mechanical construction or startup can create unwanted mode of oscillation, such as an elliptic oscillation which can totally mask the Earth's rotation. For powered pendulum, a careful and complicated mechanical analysis is needed to show that the pendulum has no preferred direction of swing,. Thus, Flat Earth advocates reject Foucault Pendulum as a valid experiment - any expected result is refuted as a coincidence or the result of the experimenter's biases. * Gyroscope. An accurate and sensitive gyroscope, such as a Laser Ring Gyroscope, can sense the Earth's rotation. But gyroscope observations are rejected by Flat Earthers in general - the raw data output is noisy with random drifts and noise, aquisation of useful data heavily relies on algorithms and data processing. They argue that the algorithms can be biased to show a rotational Earth. Of course, it's not the case, but then you need to justify the entire subject of statistics and digital signal processing, good luck with that. * Astronomic and Geodesic Measurements. Examples include observing the fixed stars and showing their variation in altitudes, or showing the sum of a triangle on Earth is greater than 180-degree, etc. Many of these experiments require an individual to travel great distances, many geodesic measurements also require accurate navigation, which can be disputed. Of course, obvious experiments that produces strong evidences do exist, good candidates can be lunar ellipses, sun rise and sun set, timezones. But it's just a rhetorical question, I used the absurd example of Flat Earth to illustrate the point of non-obviousness of personal verification - indeed, many people who believe the Earth is a sphere have proposed these experiments to Flat Earthers, while making the mistake of not realizing their limitations, which in turns strengthens the beliefs of many Flat Earthers that "people are too brainwashed to see the truth". If we move away from Flat Earth and step into more advanced subjects, obviousness completely disappears, and only domain-specific knowledge remains, which are heavily dependent upon preexisting results. In my opinion, it's how numerous conspiracy theories are created. The conspiracy theorists will simply tell you: why do you assume they're true? It's entirely possible that everything you know is false. And all the gaps in your accepted knowledge can be exploited by them to make this point. And ultimately, you may come to the conclusion that the entire body scientific knowledge is a hoax. Then, one may ask, how can people build anything in engineering? The conspiracy theorist will tell you, the truths are carefully and systematic distorted in a way that appears to be self-consistent, enough for some applications, but it's distorted enough to kill truth. And since any pre-existing results couldn't be trusted and one is unable to derive or verify anything from first principles due to limited time and resources, science is hence rejected. Conclusion: The theoretical and epistemological foundation of many conspiracy theories are the equivalent of Reflection on Trusting Trust - they claim the vast majority of knowledge is manipulated for malicious purposes, in the same way that the hypothetical attack by Ken Thompson claims one's compiler could be backdoored and no program in one's computer can be trusted.

rcxdude 6y ago

'no-one' verifying is too steep. Many people test many results from science all the time. I've personally followed and tested many papers because their claimed results were useful to me. Sometimes they aren't correct, or at least I am not able to verify them as such. More fundamental ideas are put to the test every time I design something, and they have held very strong in my experience. Equivocating religion with science by raising your standards so high they are impossible to meet in practice is disingenious, especially when one stands up to far more testing than the other. I agree that we need more critical thinking in this world, especially from the general public, but when you retreat to deciding nothing is verified because you have not seen or understood it directly and personally, you retreat in another direction which is just as useless and potentially harmful.

feralimal 6y ago
Thank you for your comment. Although you think you are arguing against me, I think you are supporting my point. When you design and it works - that is what I am calling applying the scientific method personally. When you test other's papers you should have a 100% confirmation rate, unless you are making an error in methodology. It seem to me that you did not find that. I'm not raising my standards high. When I have not personally verified something, I would say - that I haven't verified something. I just wouldn't say 'I know'. This a statement of reality - it is not a standards thing. There is no faith involved. But most people, it seems to me, would take it all on trust and step out to say 'they know'. I would say their standard are too low. That they are acting on faith - they are believers. Thanks again for your comment.