5 ms·

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

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.
- teakettle42 4y ago
  > 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. So, you repeat the experiment and get the same results? The second doctor presumably re-ran tests, gave you his independent interpretation, etc? If he came to the same conclusion, you’ve replicated the original findings. You used the scientific method! This should have occurred at every step of the process, and you can (and should!) review the literature to the best of your ability and get it explained to you as throughly as possible. You’re not trusting the scientists, you’re trusting the science. (If you want to deploy sophistic epistemological arguments to claim you’re really just trusting the doctors, fine. I’ll bow out of the conversation, because arguing epistemology is an exhausting waste of everyone’s time). Now imagine that instead, you’re not allowed to ask another doctor. Trust the science. No second opinions, the institution has already spoken. Or the institution’s spokespeople, as is the case with (invariably poor) science reporting and politically-driven science bodies.
  - VikingCoder 4y ago
    > I’ll bow out of the conversation, because arguing epistemology is an exhausting waste of everyone’s time I'm sorry, but I have to laugh at you. "Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion." You yourself started this epistemological debate by arguing that belief in scientific institutions and authority was not justified.
    - teakettle42 4y ago
      You disingenuously left out the first half of the definition: “the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope.” An epistemological debate would be over whether empiricism and the scientific method are even valid “ways of knowing”, whether “religious ideology” and “faith” were themselves valid forms of knowledge, et al. I addressed your question about the application of the scientific method to trust the science, not the scientists. We were not engaged in a discussion of epistemological theory, and your response is exactly the kind of two-bit sophistry I was referring to.
      - VikingCoder 4y ago
        So my belief that you are engaged in an epistemological debate is not justified? Got it. We absolutely 100% were engaged in a discussion of epistemology, whether you realize it or not. You are a single human, and we have to question your methods and scope of the analysis you claim is required, to "do better than the scientists." And I'm telling you, the world is far too complex for you to put up any kind of real front, on any but the most absolutely critical decisions of your life, and even on those, I assert your best bet is to have faith in the experts. How do you know lead is dangerous? You and I have a justified belief that it is, even though you and I are merely trusting scientists who have told us that.
        teakettle42 4y ago
        > We absolutely 100% were engaged in a discussion of epistemology, whether you realize it or not. I was engaged in a debate about the inherent logical inconsistency of sciencism. That can be proven without appealing to epistemology. I explicitly bowed out of your attempt at a debate over epistemology. You’re welcome to discuss your belief in the validity of faith-based knowledge with others, but as I said, I’m not interested.
SantalBlush 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. Good. The term "religious ideology" here is so loaded that it doesn't deserve serious consideration.
- teakettle42 4y ago
  It’s accurate. If you have a better description for the observed phenomena, I’m all ears.
  - VikingCoder 4y ago
    I presented graphs to a friend, and he asserted the data had been faked. His belief that the process is corrupted supersedes any other evidence I could give him. His description of the observed phenomena is a perfect trap, preventing any revisions. He's not the only one I've had this discussion with. One person questioned my ability to understand science, asserting, "Yes, smallpox disappeared about the same time as the smallpox vaccine, but correlation doesn't equal causation." She is convinced that smallpox was faked, and that the vaccine was one of many devices meant to teach us to obey governmental authoritarianism. You tell me, how could I possibly break through to her? She is 100% convinced she has the best description for the observed phenomena. And you know what? That's fine. It's fine that you're also a skeptic. I don't need everyone to adhere to the church of scientific instutitions. But as a society, I think our representatives would be fools to think they have a better instrument to observe the world, than through the lenses of the scientific institutions. Use their own brains to interpret the data, and to decide how to behave, of course. But to provide them with the best theory that fits the observed data. Watching someone in Congress assert that oceans are rising because soil is eroding into the oceans... I mean... It's heartbreaking. [1] [1] : https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/20/opinions/erosion-sea-level-rise-scientific-analysis-lincoln/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/20/opinions/erosion-sea-level-ri...
  - SantalBlush 4y ago
    >If you have a better description for the observed phenomena, I’m all ears. I actually don't believe you are. Using the term "religious ideology" is laughably dishonest.

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.

teakettle42 4y ago
> 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. So, you repeat the experiment and get the same results? The second doctor presumably re-ran tests, gave you his independent interpretation, etc? If he came to the same conclusion, you’ve replicated the original findings. You used the scientific method! This should have occurred at every step of the process, and you can (and should!) review the literature to the best of your ability and get it explained to you as throughly as possible. You’re not trusting the scientists, you’re trusting the science. (If you want to deploy sophistic epistemological arguments to claim you’re really just trusting the doctors, fine. I’ll bow out of the conversation, because arguing epistemology is an exhausting waste of everyone’s time). Now imagine that instead, you’re not allowed to ask another doctor. Trust the science. No second opinions, the institution has already spoken. Or the institution’s spokespeople, as is the case with (invariably poor) science reporting and politically-driven science bodies.
- VikingCoder 4y ago
  > I’ll bow out of the conversation, because arguing epistemology is an exhausting waste of everyone’s time I'm sorry, but I have to laugh at you. "Epistemology is the investigation of what distinguishes justified belief from opinion." You yourself started this epistemological debate by arguing that belief in scientific institutions and authority was not justified.
  - teakettle42 4y ago
    You disingenuously left out the first half of the definition: “the theory of knowledge, especially with regard to its methods, validity, and scope.” An epistemological debate would be over whether empiricism and the scientific method are even valid “ways of knowing”, whether “religious ideology” and “faith” were themselves valid forms of knowledge, et al. I addressed your question about the application of the scientific method to trust the science, not the scientists. We were not engaged in a discussion of epistemological theory, and your response is exactly the kind of two-bit sophistry I was referring to.
    - VikingCoder 4y ago
      So my belief that you are engaged in an epistemological debate is not justified? Got it. We absolutely 100% were engaged in a discussion of epistemology, whether you realize it or not. You are a single human, and we have to question your methods and scope of the analysis you claim is required, to "do better than the scientists." And I'm telling you, the world is far too complex for you to put up any kind of real front, on any but the most absolutely critical decisions of your life, and even on those, I assert your best bet is to have faith in the experts. How do you know lead is dangerous? You and I have a justified belief that it is, even though you and I are merely trusting scientists who have told us that.
      - teakettle42 4y ago
        > We absolutely 100% were engaged in a discussion of epistemology, whether you realize it or not. I was engaged in a debate about the inherent logical inconsistency of sciencism. That can be proven without appealing to epistemology. I explicitly bowed out of your attempt at a debate over epistemology. You’re welcome to discuss your belief in the validity of faith-based knowledge with others, but as I said, I’m not interested.

SantalBlush 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. Good. The term "religious ideology" here is so loaded that it doesn't deserve serious consideration.

teakettle42 4y ago
It’s accurate. If you have a better description for the observed phenomena, I’m all ears.
- VikingCoder 4y ago
  I presented graphs to a friend, and he asserted the data had been faked. His belief that the process is corrupted supersedes any other evidence I could give him. His description of the observed phenomena is a perfect trap, preventing any revisions. He's not the only one I've had this discussion with. One person questioned my ability to understand science, asserting, "Yes, smallpox disappeared about the same time as the smallpox vaccine, but correlation doesn't equal causation." She is convinced that smallpox was faked, and that the vaccine was one of many devices meant to teach us to obey governmental authoritarianism. You tell me, how could I possibly break through to her? She is 100% convinced she has the best description for the observed phenomena. And you know what? That's fine. It's fine that you're also a skeptic. I don't need everyone to adhere to the church of scientific instutitions. But as a society, I think our representatives would be fools to think they have a better instrument to observe the world, than through the lenses of the scientific institutions. Use their own brains to interpret the data, and to decide how to behave, of course. But to provide them with the best theory that fits the observed data. Watching someone in Congress assert that oceans are rising because soil is eroding into the oceans... I mean... It's heartbreaking. [1] [1] : https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/20/opinions/erosion-sea-level-rise-scientific-analysis-lincoln/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/20/opinions/erosion-sea-level-ri...
- SantalBlush 4y ago
  >If you have a better description for the observed phenomena, I’m all ears. I actually don't believe you are. Using the term "religious ideology" is laughably dishonest.