8 ms·

> The emotions you’re expressing — awe and anger at disbelievers — are rooted more in religious sciencism than actual science. They didn't say a word about "di

> The emotions you’re expressing — awe and anger at disbelievers — are rooted more in religious sciencism than actual science. They didn't say a word about "disbelievers" (which implies faith). They spoke of the "rise of pseudo-science and the glorification of ignorance", which are two things very much separate from belief/faith.

teakettle42 4y ago
> They didn't say a word about "disbelievers" (which implies faith). Sciencism is rooted in faith — faith in institutions and authority. Science is dispassionate and rooted in empiricism and logical reasoning. Enforced truth isn’t required — any claims can be tested and refuted. > They spoke of the "rise of pseudo-science and the glorification of ignorance", which are two things very much separate from belief/faith. Could have been written “the rise of heresy and the glorification of idolatry”. There’s no rise of pseudo-science; that’s been with us all along, and generally far more prevalent than it is today. The science continues to win regardless, because it can be proven without appeal to emotion or authority.
- lisper 4y ago
  Are you by any chance a young-earth creationist?
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    No, I’m an agnostic software engineer in formal verification. Why?
    - lisper 4y ago
      Because you are employing the same rhetoric that YECs often do.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - teakettle42 4y ago
        Young earth creationists argue against religious thinking? That seems unlikely to me, but I’m totally unfamiliar with their rhetoric and will have to take your word for it.
        lisper 4y ago
        > Young earth creationists argue against religious thinking? Yes. And the irony is lost on them.
    - XorNot 4y ago
      Which Gods are you agnostic about?
      - teakettle42 4y ago
        agnostic, n. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena All of them. None of them. What answer were you hoping for?
        XorNot 4y ago
        No I'm belittling the entire concept of agnosticism as though it's meaningfully distinct from atheism. Either you dilute the definition of God so much as to be meaningless (and thus you are an atheist who "well actually's" every conversation since you clearly make a number of claims about what God isn't) or you implicitly are being quite religious about which God you believe is the only option (in which case Pascal's wager does in fact apply very strongly to you). Which is to say your ongoing position in this thread that "sciencism" is a real belief structure speaks to the fact that what you claim to believe is completely inconsistent to start with: you've just hunted around for a middle ground which you felt existed for the company you keep.
        teakettle42 4y ago
        Agnosticism means I get to say “I literally don’t care” to your entire argument, and that’s why it’s superior to your brand of atheism. I have zero interest in arguing about or considering god, or gods, and the existence or non-existence thereof, until such time as you can propose and carry out a repeatable experiment that demonstrates some observable fact within this realm of inquiry. That’s all “agnostic” means to me: leave me out of your pointless arguments; they’re not science.
- SECProto 4y ago
  > Could have been written “the rise of heresy and the glorification of idolatry”. "Heresy" and "pseudo-science" are not synonyms. "Ignorance" and "idolatry" definitely aren't even similar. This point is poorly argued > There’s no rise of pseudo-science; that’s been with us all along, and generally far more prevalent than it is today. Certainly there's always been pseudo-science. Far more prevalent, perhaps. But never has it been more harmful. > The science continues to win regardless, because it can be proven without appeal to emotion or authority. This I disagree with. Any time politics enters into the equation, an appeal to emotion or an appeal to authority become benefits. For example, Nuclear power is statistically safer than any other form of electricity generation, yet politicians worldwide can win on anti-nuclear platforms. Choose any intersection of science and politics, and there is no obvious pattern of science winning.
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    > "Heresy" and "pseudo-science" are not synonyms. They are when your definition of “science” is an argument from authority. > "Ignorance" and "idolatry" definitely aren't even similar. This point is poorly argued Idolatry is the worship of false idols — worshipping something other than the one true god. The parallel with “glorification of ignorance” should be obvious enough. > Certainly there's always been pseudo-science. Far more prevalent, perhaps. But never has it been more harmful. Pseudo-science has never been more harmful? Really? How about the use of pseudo-scientific eugenics to label and justify sterilization — and often, murder - of undesirables? That’s just recent history. We’ve done worse in a myriad of small ways, for longer, from positions of much greater ignorance. > Choose any intersection of science and politics, and there is no obvious pattern of science winning. You don’t believe there’s a clear pattern of science winning over the course of recent human history?
- nawgz 4y ago
  I wish I had enough karma to downvote you. We're watching modern disinformation tear society apart at the seams, this person is lamenting that somehow the "information age" has been entirely corrupted, holding up a great piece of progress as a foil to the latest news and its motivations... and you have to go make some absurd argument that "science will always win" even though we're definitively seeing that to be false. Misplaced faux-philosophy and a condescending tone to boot.
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    > We're watching modern disinformation tear society apart at the seams If this is what you call being torn apart at the seams, I can’t imagine what you’d make of most of the past few centuries of human history. > somehow the "information age" has been entirely corrupted You legitimately believe the “Information Age” has been entirely corrupted? If anything, your rant convinces me that you’re the victim of a great deal of targeted disinformation. > you have to go make some absurd argument that "science will always win" No, I made the argument that science is dispassionate and stands on its own. It does not require censorship or appeals to authority to “win”. Its conclusions can be tested using empiricism and logical reasoning. If they cannot, or if subjecting results to review is not permitted, it’s not science.
    - nawgz 4y ago
      > > We're watching modern disinformation tear society apart at the seams > If this is what you call being torn apart at the seams, I can’t imagine what you’d make of most of the past few centuries of human history. Your counterargument to my point is just as stupid as your last one. "Oh, you think society is going backwards? Imagine if you lived even further in the past, it would be even worse!!" Have you watched the news recently? Seen what is happening in the USA and across the world with right-wing extremism and authoritarianism uprisings? Elites have coopted connectivity in order to control massive amounts of the populace through extensive propaganda networks. The world was on a genuine upswing for a long time, and now religious fanaticism is tearing down those pillars of progress. That's pretty thoroughly corrupted > If anything, your rant convinces me that you’re the victim of a great deal of targeted disinformation. This doesn't even mean anything, if you had a point for every trite aphorism you spew you might be interesting to talk to > I made the argument that science is dispassionate Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the human populace is largely forgoing the construct in favor of propagandized pop culture. Which is why I said you are out here flapping your fingers in an entirely pointless, dissatisfying fashion, designed only to make yourself smile at how pretty a picture your words paint, conversation be damned
- VikingCoder 4y ago
  I'm sorry, but it's like you're describing how awesome navigation has gotten, but ignoring the fact that ship's captains don't trust sextants and watches. The march of scientific progress is awesome, but unless it can be applied, it's kind of useless. What I'm lamenting, and I think others are too, is that we don't have a society that says, "Well, science provides the best tools we have to understand the universe, and so, we will trust scientists to guide our decisions." Picture if we learned about vaccinating against HPV, but no one agreed to do it. What good would it do us to know the virus causes cancer, and to have developed a vaccine, if almost no one trusted the safety and efficacy of the vaccine? And frankly, no one has the expertise to be properly skeptical of the science that affects our daily lives. We all have to trust in authorities, like peer review. Don't believe me? How do you know lead is harmful? No, really, walk me through it. Are you properly skeptical of that claim? How have you proven it to your own satisfaction? Lead may be beneficial to developing brains, for all you know. Maybe even especially beneficial in high concentrations. Maybe you should start giving lead to every child you encounter. Or just admit that you take it on faith that the conclusions you've heard repeated are coming from scientific institutions that you hope will get it right, eventually. If you're lost at sea, trust the navigator to tell you which way to row the lifeboat. Call it "Sciencism" if you want to. All else being equal, trust the experts to guide you. Run experiments if you can. Verify if you have the time and resources. But really, we all have to trust the institutions and authority. If you want to invest some more, put money towards duplicating important findings, or auditing the math and methodology of foundational research.
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    Honestly, arguing against religious ideology is an exhausting exercise and I’m happy to let someone else do it from here on out. I’ll just note that you should trust the science, not the scientists. Blind trust in institutions and authority is just religious thinking, with all the pitfalls inherent therein.
    - VikingCoder 4y ago
      Why are you insisting that my trust is "blind"? I'm looking at predictive power and track records. Yes, it's entirely possible that an institution has played the long con, revealing one verifiable truth after another, only to tell me a giant lie. Or that an institution can be suborned and corrupted. If there's some cutting edge field, with an urgent and important finding, I have to trust the scientists. You and I do not have the expertise to verify their findings. We can try. But it takes a deep understanding to make valid and constructive criticisms. I mean, let me walk you through this - your doctor says you have condition X, and need treatment Y. Being a skeptic, you get a second opinion, but it concurs. Tell me how you are not merely trusting the scientists? Feel free to explain like I'm five, I won't be offended.
- atoav 4y ago
  As I see it if you cannot reproduce or understand science all you got left is to either believe it or don't believe it. Better would be if people could judge methods etc for themselves, because if you just believe, how are you going to tell actual science apart from hogwash that presents itself in a sciency fashion? This is what pseudo-science is: utter invention that tries to borrow some credibility from science by mimicking the way science looks. This is btw. why actual science cannot say it doesn't care. Because if we want to live in a world where rational facts form the basis of the decisions we as societies take, then pairing a faux-science that is more exiting than the real thing with an lack of education is an recipe for disaster.

teakettle42 4y ago

> They didn't say a word about "disbelievers" (which implies faith). Sciencism is rooted in faith — faith in institutions and authority. Science is dispassionate and rooted in empiricism and logical reasoning. Enforced truth isn’t required — any claims can be tested and refuted. > They spoke of the "rise of pseudo-science and the glorification of ignorance", which are two things very much separate from belief/faith. Could have been written “the rise of heresy and the glorification of idolatry”. There’s no rise of pseudo-science; that’s been with us all along, and generally far more prevalent than it is today. The science continues to win regardless, because it can be proven without appeal to emotion or authority.

lisper 4y ago
Are you by any chance a young-earth creationist?
- teakettle42 4y ago
  No, I’m an agnostic software engineer in formal verification. Why?
  - lisper 4y ago
    Because you are employing the same rhetoric that YECs often do.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - teakettle42 4y ago
      Young earth creationists argue against religious thinking? That seems unlikely to me, but I’m totally unfamiliar with their rhetoric and will have to take your word for it.
      - lisper 4y ago
        > Young earth creationists argue against religious thinking? Yes. And the irony is lost on them.
  - XorNot 4y ago
    Which Gods are you agnostic about?
    - teakettle42 4y ago
      agnostic, n. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena All of them. None of them. What answer were you hoping for?
      - XorNot 4y ago
        No I'm belittling the entire concept of agnosticism as though it's meaningfully distinct from atheism. Either you dilute the definition of God so much as to be meaningless (and thus you are an atheist who "well actually's" every conversation since you clearly make a number of claims about what God isn't) or you implicitly are being quite religious about which God you believe is the only option (in which case Pascal's wager does in fact apply very strongly to you). Which is to say your ongoing position in this thread that "sciencism" is a real belief structure speaks to the fact that what you claim to believe is completely inconsistent to start with: you've just hunted around for a middle ground which you felt existed for the company you keep.
        teakettle42 4y ago
        Agnosticism means I get to say “I literally don’t care” to your entire argument, and that’s why it’s superior to your brand of atheism. I have zero interest in arguing about or considering god, or gods, and the existence or non-existence thereof, until such time as you can propose and carry out a repeatable experiment that demonstrates some observable fact within this realm of inquiry. That’s all “agnostic” means to me: leave me out of your pointless arguments; they’re not science.
SECProto 4y ago
> Could have been written “the rise of heresy and the glorification of idolatry”. "Heresy" and "pseudo-science" are not synonyms. "Ignorance" and "idolatry" definitely aren't even similar. This point is poorly argued > There’s no rise of pseudo-science; that’s been with us all along, and generally far more prevalent than it is today. Certainly there's always been pseudo-science. Far more prevalent, perhaps. But never has it been more harmful. > The science continues to win regardless, because it can be proven without appeal to emotion or authority. This I disagree with. Any time politics enters into the equation, an appeal to emotion or an appeal to authority become benefits. For example, Nuclear power is statistically safer than any other form of electricity generation, yet politicians worldwide can win on anti-nuclear platforms. Choose any intersection of science and politics, and there is no obvious pattern of science winning.
- teakettle42 4y ago
  > "Heresy" and "pseudo-science" are not synonyms. They are when your definition of “science” is an argument from authority. > "Ignorance" and "idolatry" definitely aren't even similar. This point is poorly argued Idolatry is the worship of false idols — worshipping something other than the one true god. The parallel with “glorification of ignorance” should be obvious enough. > Certainly there's always been pseudo-science. Far more prevalent, perhaps. But never has it been more harmful. Pseudo-science has never been more harmful? Really? How about the use of pseudo-scientific eugenics to label and justify sterilization — and often, murder - of undesirables? That’s just recent history. We’ve done worse in a myriad of small ways, for longer, from positions of much greater ignorance. > Choose any intersection of science and politics, and there is no obvious pattern of science winning. You don’t believe there’s a clear pattern of science winning over the course of recent human history?
nawgz 4y ago
I wish I had enough karma to downvote you. We're watching modern disinformation tear society apart at the seams, this person is lamenting that somehow the "information age" has been entirely corrupted, holding up a great piece of progress as a foil to the latest news and its motivations... and you have to go make some absurd argument that "science will always win" even though we're definitively seeing that to be false. Misplaced faux-philosophy and a condescending tone to boot.
- teakettle42 4y ago
  > We're watching modern disinformation tear society apart at the seams If this is what you call being torn apart at the seams, I can’t imagine what you’d make of most of the past few centuries of human history. > somehow the "information age" has been entirely corrupted You legitimately believe the “Information Age” has been entirely corrupted? If anything, your rant convinces me that you’re the victim of a great deal of targeted disinformation. > you have to go make some absurd argument that "science will always win" No, I made the argument that science is dispassionate and stands on its own. It does not require censorship or appeals to authority to “win”. Its conclusions can be tested using empiricism and logical reasoning. If they cannot, or if subjecting results to review is not permitted, it’s not science.
  - nawgz 4y ago
    > > We're watching modern disinformation tear society apart at the seams > If this is what you call being torn apart at the seams, I can’t imagine what you’d make of most of the past few centuries of human history. Your counterargument to my point is just as stupid as your last one. "Oh, you think society is going backwards? Imagine if you lived even further in the past, it would be even worse!!" Have you watched the news recently? Seen what is happening in the USA and across the world with right-wing extremism and authoritarianism uprisings? Elites have coopted connectivity in order to control massive amounts of the populace through extensive propaganda networks. The world was on a genuine upswing for a long time, and now religious fanaticism is tearing down those pillars of progress. That's pretty thoroughly corrupted > If anything, your rant convinces me that you’re the victim of a great deal of targeted disinformation. This doesn't even mean anything, if you had a point for every trite aphorism you spew you might be interesting to talk to > I made the argument that science is dispassionate Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the human populace is largely forgoing the construct in favor of propagandized pop culture. Which is why I said you are out here flapping your fingers in an entirely pointless, dissatisfying fashion, designed only to make yourself smile at how pretty a picture your words paint, conversation be damned
VikingCoder 4y ago
I'm sorry, but it's like you're describing how awesome navigation has gotten, but ignoring the fact that ship's captains don't trust sextants and watches. The march of scientific progress is awesome, but unless it can be applied, it's kind of useless. What I'm lamenting, and I think others are too, is that we don't have a society that says, "Well, science provides the best tools we have to understand the universe, and so, we will trust scientists to guide our decisions." Picture if we learned about vaccinating against HPV, but no one agreed to do it. What good would it do us to know the virus causes cancer, and to have developed a vaccine, if almost no one trusted the safety and efficacy of the vaccine? And frankly, no one has the expertise to be properly skeptical of the science that affects our daily lives. We all have to trust in authorities, like peer review. Don't believe me? How do you know lead is harmful? No, really, walk me through it. Are you properly skeptical of that claim? How have you proven it to your own satisfaction? Lead may be beneficial to developing brains, for all you know. Maybe even especially beneficial in high concentrations. Maybe you should start giving lead to every child you encounter. Or just admit that you take it on faith that the conclusions you've heard repeated are coming from scientific institutions that you hope will get it right, eventually. If you're lost at sea, trust the navigator to tell you which way to row the lifeboat. Call it "Sciencism" if you want to. All else being equal, trust the experts to guide you. Run experiments if you can. Verify if you have the time and resources. But really, we all have to trust the institutions and authority. If you want to invest some more, put money towards duplicating important findings, or auditing the math and methodology of foundational research.
- teakettle42 4y ago
  Honestly, arguing against religious ideology is an exhausting exercise and I’m happy to let someone else do it from here on out. I’ll just note that you should trust the science, not the scientists. Blind trust in institutions and authority is just religious thinking, with all the pitfalls inherent therein.
  - VikingCoder 4y ago
    Why are you insisting that my trust is "blind"? I'm looking at predictive power and track records. Yes, it's entirely possible that an institution has played the long con, revealing one verifiable truth after another, only to tell me a giant lie. Or that an institution can be suborned and corrupted. If there's some cutting edge field, with an urgent and important finding, I have to trust the scientists. You and I do not have the expertise to verify their findings. We can try. But it takes a deep understanding to make valid and constructive criticisms. I mean, let me walk you through this - your doctor says you have condition X, and need treatment Y. Being a skeptic, you get a second opinion, but it concurs. Tell me how you are not merely trusting the scientists? Feel free to explain like I'm five, I won't be offended.
atoav 4y ago
As I see it if you cannot reproduce or understand science all you got left is to either believe it or don't believe it. Better would be if people could judge methods etc for themselves, because if you just believe, how are you going to tell actual science apart from hogwash that presents itself in a sciency fashion? This is what pseudo-science is: utter invention that tries to borrow some credibility from science by mimicking the way science looks. This is btw. why actual science cannot say it doesn't care. Because if we want to live in a world where rational facts form the basis of the decisions we as societies take, then pairing a faux-science that is more exiting than the real thing with an lack of education is an recipe for disaster.