Scientific fundamentalism

[juantoo3]

Look at the air time and devotion dedicated to "French Toast Jesus".

Funny, I missed that one. I do know what you mean though, but I'm afraid the extent of zealotry surrounding those who find images of Jesus or the Virgin Mary in foodstuffs is considerably less, although the calibur is comparable, with those who fawn over every sci-phi put forward. I mean really, there's no comparison with the air time given to some "french toast Jesus" compared with string theory or parallel universes. 5 minutes on the evening news and / or a half page article in the National Enquiror, compared to years of bantor, with all seriousness, across a wide spectrum of society. No comparison. The zealotry of sci-phi wins hands down.

And I would think that you also know that a lot of this stuff, like string theory, really isn't much more than a mental exercise using advanced mathematics to play a hunch that may, or likely may not, pan out. And where we are at the present time in our state of knowledge and understanding, and the capabilities of our instruments, cannot verify or refute the speculation.

Hmmm, sounds a bit like trying to prove G-d with instruments and meters and ...

what makes the news isn't the day-to-day work that people perform. ... Likewise the day-to-day work in sciences gets short shrift while fantastic theories make the news.

I agree. But that's not the way in comes across in the classrooms until one gets into graduate school. By then one is already predisposed...one could, I think honestly, say "brainwashed," into accepting without question.

This keeps getting flipped into the science vs. religion bit, Scope's monkey trial and all that, but it *really* is about surrendering the ability to question. Question *all* things-religion, science, philosophy, politics-but we don't as a rule encourage that. We are encouraged to choose up sides and heckle the opposition.

Too bad none of these issues apply to your life. Otherwise you might find them interesting.

I would like to think the content and character of my responses in general and the wide scope of subjects I consider in my posts shows this comment for the sarcasm it is.

Question Authority.

I do.

 

[iBrian]

This keeps getting flipped into the science vs. religion bit, Scope's monkey trial and all that, but it *really* is about surrendering the ability to question. Question *all* things-religion, science, philosophy, politics-but we don't as a rule encourage that. We are encouraged to choose up sides and heckle the opposition.

I really hope not, and I suspect, like with many things, it's up to the individual teacher.

I had one single science teacher from age 10-18 - he never tried to stop me raising awkward questions, and even encouraged me (he lent me a book on Quarks that I unfortunately still have!).

Some teachers just wanted to run through the syllabus. Some had a wider enjoyment of the subject.

 

[citizenzen]

And I would think that you also know that a lot of this stuff, like string theory, really isn't much more than a mental exercise using advanced mathematics to play a hunch that may, or likely may not, pan out.

The "mental exercises" are usually far ahead of our ability to apply them in everyday life, just as Einstein's theory of relativity took nearly forty years before becoming a reality in the form of a nuclear bomb.

What pans out, pans out; what doesn't, doesn't. But don't overstate the degree to which science holds these theories to be "fact". String theory is so far from an established fact that it's ridiculous to apply that label to it. Multiverse theory, even more so. It's not science that is overstating its importance... it's you who are overstating it... and then attacking the overstatement.

We call that the straw man fallacy. You may not know much about science, but you sure know a thing or two about making scarecrows.

Some might say you've made a science of it.

 

[juantoo3]

I really hope not, and I suspect, like with many things, it's up to the individual teacher.

Thankfully, there are a rare few. I am grateful for the two or three that crossed my path.

But ya gotta admit, that's the exception...not the rule.

 

[juantoo3]

The "mental exercises" are usually far ahead of our ability to apply them in everyday life, just as Einstein's theory of relativity took nearly forty years before becoming a reality in the form of a nuclear bomb.

What pans out, pans out; what doesn't, doesn't. But don't overstate the degree to which science holds these theories to be "fact". String theory is so far from an established fact that it's ridiculous to apply that label to it. Multiverse theory, even more so.

Tsk tsk tsk.

Well then, even the names are more than a bit misleading, no?

But that would take us into the whole "it's called a theory because it's proven" argument. What works for evolution doesn't apply here...selective definitions, and all that. <shakes head in dismay>

 

[citizenzen]

But that would take us into the whole "it's called a theory because it's proven" argument. What works for evolution doesn't apply here...selective definitions, and all that. <shakes head in dismay>

Poor dismayed Juan. Confused by words. Confused by evidence.

You keep plugging away. One day you just might get it.

 

[juantoo3]

What evidence?

That's my point.

 

[Virtual_Cliff]

Whether you cared about the wavelengths of light or not, it wouldn't change the truth about them.

Hmm. Have I got this right? You'd be asking the primitive me to believe in things I can't see for which there is no visible proof and which is counter-intuitive, because someone who claims to know everything says so.

And you say this is called science?

What I was trying to say was that science is what works for you, in whatever situation you find yourself in. It's a derivative of culture. We have the arrogance to think ours is the only culture that matters. Time will tell.

 

[Avi]

Hmm. Have I got this right? You'd be asking the primitive me to believe in things I can't see for which there is no visible proof and which is counter-intuitive, because someone who claims to know everything says so.

It's a derivative of culture. We have the arrogance to think ours is the only culture that matters. Time will tell.

Yeah CZ, we are going to have to coin a new name for you, you are a "culture-phobe" .

 

[citizenzen]

Hmm. Have I got this right? You'd be asking the primitive me to believe in things I can't see [wavelengths of light] for which there is no visible proof and which is counter-intuitive, because someone who claims to know everything says so.

And you say this is called science?

VC, Isaac Newton discovered that light was made up of a spectrum of colors about 300 years ago. I had assumed this was common knowledge. Perhaps you could try a few experiments at this website, Experiments with Refracting Light. They'll even sell you a 4.5" Crystal Prism (Special Deal - $10.95).

Light is part of the Electromagnetic Spectrum. The electromagnetic radiation includes radio waves, micro waves, infrared waves (heat) and more. If you use a radio, television, microwave oven or cell phone, you're using electromagnetic radiation.

Here's a chart...

Here's Bill Nye the Science Guy to explain it (at least the visible light part)...

[youtube]msf-DbYif-4[/youtube]​

I hope this clears things up for you.

 

[juantoo3]

I hope this clears things up for you.

But CZ, you are wearing your smug zealotry on your sleeve.

I've played with prisms since I was a kid, I could teach the very same lesson you just brought up. That's not the point.

Let's see you take this exact same lesson, absolutely no changes in format or anything, to a primitive tribe in the Brazilian Jungle with no electricity (among other "civilized" comforts) and no cultural pre-disposition, and most likely no mastery of the English language...and tell them this exact same *smug* lesson. How much enlightenment do you expect to bring to them with your superior intellect after, oh, let's say 30 days?

How long do the batteries last in your laptop? And since you didn't provide a prism here, you can't use one there either. Hmmm, I am speculating that you will be received as a genius just short of being a god. Either that, or a blithering idiot. I would hold my bet which one until I saw how well you dealt with your batteries draining and your computer becoming inoperable, the malaria, the dysentary, the pirahna, the flesh eating maggots, and your hosts' generous offer of monkey brains for supper.

I think this scenario pretty well sums up what VC was trying to get across to you, and it serves so well what I have been trying to show.

 

[citizenzen]

But CZ, you are wearing your smug zealotry on your sleeve...

I have no idea what point you're trying to make in your post. Could you please clarify?

 

[juantoo3]

Nice dodge. I don't buy it.

 

[citizenzen]

Nice dodge. I don't buy it.

You don't buy that sometimes your message isn't clear?

I'll ask again...

I'm sorry Juan, but I didn't understand your previous post well enough to attempt a response to it. Could you please clarify for me the point you were trying to make, because unfortunately, I wasn't able to discern it.

Thank you.

 

[citizenzen]

... and Juan declines...

Cool. That means I win!

I think that makes the current score

Science – 1,994,663,885,373,209,011,957,144,299,656,444,843,084,189,909,263,353,731,190,090,343,222,841,189,252,409,131,234,173,879,157,967,145,980,145,853

vs.

Religion – 4

But don't dispair. There's still time on the clock.

 

[Tao_Equus]

But CZ, you are wearing your smug zealotry on your sleeve.

I've played with prisms since I was a kid, I could teach the very same lesson you just brought up. That's not the point.

Let's see you take this exact same lesson, absolutely no changes in format or anything, to a primitive tribe in the Brazilian Jungle with no electricity (among other "civilized" comforts) and no cultural pre-disposition, and most likely no mastery of the English language...and tell them this exact same *smug* lesson. How much enlightenment do you expect to bring to them with your superior intellect after, oh, let's say 30 days?

How long do the batteries last in your laptop? And since you didn't provide a prism here, you can't use one there either. Hmmm, I am speculating that you will be received as a genius just short of being a god. Either that, or a blithering idiot. I would hold my bet which one until I saw how well you dealt with your batteries draining and your computer becoming inoperable, the malaria, the dysentary, the pirahna, the flesh eating maggots, and your hosts' generous offer of monkey brains for supper.

I think this scenario pretty well sums up what VC was trying to get across to you, and it serves so well what I have been trying to show.

I'm with CZ Juantoo....what the hell are you on about? Try turning your argument round...bring the tribes most respected and wisest elder to Stanford or Harvard, lets see what enlightenment he can demonstrate. Time and time again I see straw man arguments when you build fallacies to knock em down and you do so not with a logical narrative but an emotional one. This is a personal chagrin you have, and its not rational or valid. What exactly is it you resent?

 

[Virtual_Cliff]

Juantoo3 has understood this perfectly. It's possibly a subtle point but an important one.

What we know as science is a facet of the Graeco-Roman-derived urban civilisation which we take for granted, because we live in it. It serves a purpose within this civilisation. Without the civilisation not only would it become redundant, but it would no longer describe the world in which we lived, in a way that had any meaning to us.

This science therefore is subservient to our culture and does not exist outside of our culture. It is an artifice.
VC

 

[citizenzen]

This science therefore is subservient to our culture and does not exist outside of our culture. It is an artifice.
VC

Said the man typing away on his computer. Take any medicines VC? Drive a car? Live in a home that's more than a lean-to of sticks? Use electricity? Radio? TV? Buy your foods the market? Wear clothes?

If science is an artifice, it is a very successful one, and one that affords you a lifestyle that you take for granted. How do you reconcile the fact that you call science an artifice and yet enjoy so many of its benefits?

One other note: you claim science is a product "Graeco-Roman-derived urban civilisation," but I would say that scientific inquiry is cross cultural and found throughout history. There was the harnessing of fire, ancient tools, math, language, agriculture, ceramics, fermentation, astronomy. These sciences were developed all over the globe and independent of the Greeks and Romans.

Scientific inquiry really transcends culture. Could you explain this?

 

[Virtual_Cliff]

I was at least trying not to succumb to the old science v religion debate. My point being to remark that our science is a cultural artifact. That doesn't make it useless within its context. On the contrary, it serves us well.

But to answer the second point, it all depends on what you mean by science. I would not include weapons manufacture or accounting or agriculture. I was referring to pure science - ie knowledge for the sake of knowing.

But this could lead on to a whole new debate about what we mean by science, the philosphy of science, and so on. There is an interesting extract here: http://thefourprecepts.com/propublish/art.php?artid=138 where Kant is saying he can't accept the existence of space as a fact.

Best wishes
VC

 

[citizenzen]

I was at least trying not to succumb to the old science v religion debate. My point being to remark that our science is a cultural artifact. That doesn't make it useless within its context. On the contrary, it serves us well.

But to answer the second point, it all depends on what you mean by science. I would not include weapons manufacture or accounting or agriculture. I was referring to pure science - ie knowledge for the sake of knowing.

Well I'm a trifle confused here. First you seemed concerned that science is no longer about empirical evidence, but is instead all about theories that have no real world application.

Then when I provide evidence for the wide scope of applications science is involved in, you say you're really only talking about "knowledge for the sake of knowledge." If that were the case, why were you originally concerned with empirical evidence? Shouldn't you be an advocate for arcane theories?

Secondly, you still haven't addressed the notion that science is not merely an artifact of the "Graeco-Roman-derived urban civilisation," but has been practiced well before that in every corner of the world. Scientific inquiry does not belong to any single culture, but is a facet of our intelligence and our desire to understand the world we live in.