Indeed, that was my point (and Juan's, and Earl's)...
Oh, I'm not religious. Haven't been to church in years...no use for people who profess on Sunday and screw each other over the other six days of the week...
Scientific fundamentalism
- Thread starter earl
- Start date
Oh, I'm not religious. Haven't been to church in years...no use for people who profess on Sunday and screw each other over the other six days of the week...
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
I just haven't gotten around to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I kinda like babies...even if they are a bit messy sometimes. My life is fuller and richer with babies in it.
For those who have difficulty understanding metaphor, substitute religion for baby...although this is an instance where the metaphor can also be taken literally.
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Even us SoCal rednecks have our moments.
Lol
Don't get me wrong. I will walk into a church on my own terms, just not in a scheduled "mass".
I love being there in the serenity and awesomeness of it all, without the clutter of people full of hate.
CZ, that Coke commercial is classic (not Classic Coke) !! That commercial looks so naive by todays standards.
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
It seems to me the actual definition of Scientific Fundamentalism that some here like to throw into the mix is a term applicable to anyone who presents a science backed piece of information that makes believers defensive because they cannot refute it any other way. Just another one of the 100s of straw men we have seen constructed here in defence of "Fairies at the bottom of the garden syndrome".
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Nothing could be further from the truth, Tao. Which leads me to believe there's been a nerve struck? Have you no ego? No psyche? No meme?
Besides, everyone knows its gnomes not fairies, at the bottom of the garden.
Last edited:
indeed, you are correct Juan. Science only becomes fundamentalistic when the scientist attempts to interpret his or her data to mean more than it says and when the scientist chooses to unobjectively dismiss data which does not fit that person's deeply held belief about the nature of things.
earl
T
Tao_Equus
Guest
The first two I do have, but the third no easily defined one save perhaps that of the affluent malcontent. But far from any nerve being struck I am struck with the total dearth of any substance in the effort to define that which you direct your chagrin. Every charge you make is unfocussed, reliant on unspoken assertions and oozing with some ulterior gripe you seem to have. To try and rescue that when challenged you take us off to the Congo or Amazonia and try to tell us that the same knowledge a forest rat has is somehow significant. (It is too, but not here). This thread was started because Earl got the hump that I would not lend credence to his claims based on so called doctors that publish rotten science. It was not started because I support everything any scientist says, which again Earl seems to think I do despite 100s of posts to the contrary, and could therefore be described as accused, but because I would not support his rotten science. Go figure that one out.
So Earl, we finally found the truth.... it is you that is the scientific fundamentalist, though it should read "rotten science fundamentalist".data which does not fit that person's deeply held belief about the nature of things.
You are again off the mark Tao. I am leary of anyone who would claim any scientific data as ultimately meaning any proposition is absolutely true or untrue if the data cannot confirm that. But blind you are my friend or should I say "well filtered" from within the meme you say you do not possess.
earlAppreciate the concern Avi, but the experience has tought me well that debating memes really isn't worth the time nor is pointing out to Tao he's well ensconced within one.Easy Tao, the man just had an angio yesterday, he needs to keep his bp below 120/80. No flame wars today, give him one day off !
earl
citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
Geeze... here we go again.
Who here (besides Avi) claimed that scientific data has proved a proposition absolutely true or untrue?
Earl, your assertion is so full of absolutes that it has clearly passed the border of ridiculous and has entered the land of true absurdity.
Can we please attempt to base this discuss on even a modicum of logic and reason? At this point, I have my doubts.
*"absolute" crap
Who here (besides Avi) claimed that scientific data has proved a proposition absolutely true or untrue?
Earl, your assertion is so full of absolutes that it has clearly passed the border of ridiculous and has entered the land of true absurdity.
*"absolute" crap
CZ, I can't figure out whether you are disagreeing with myself or Earl here
. But I do like your emoticon !My point about scientific fundamentalism was related to the validity of the assumptions (i.e. boundary conditions). I did not say anything about scientific data's role in proof of propositions.
But since you ask, you cannot simply connect scientific data with proof in an absolute sense. That is because of uncertainty in experimental data. One can only speak of proof within specific levels of uncertainty. The scientific fundamentalist would not recognize the significance of uncertainty, and try to make sweeping claims of absolutes. I reject this notion.
I am in the "reform scientific" movement. 
Richard Dawkins is a clear example of someone who could easily be called a "scientific fundamentalist". When you follow his arguments on religion, it seems plain that he's become a very mirror image of the very fundamentalists he claims to be in opposition to.
Despite having little apparent understanding of religion from any sociological, psychological, or anthropological point of view, he has strong opinions on religion that he's very aggressive at delivering. Yet his opinions are opinions, and clearly there is no scientific basis for the position he's taking.
The result is that in combating the Creationist arguments, he's turned reductionism into a belief system in itself.
In that regard, I think Dawkins is clearly over-stepping the mark between scientific method and exposing opinion, with the point that he tries to conceal the boundary between the two.
From my reading of Tao on the forums, he doesn't read as a "scientific fundamentalist", but instead more like a "moderate rationalist" - he seeks a rationalised explanation of phenomena according to existing scientific evidence, with the caveats that a) science may not be able to currently explain all phenomena, and b) that any existing explanations may be incomplete.
Just my 2c of psycholanalysis, though.
Despite having little apparent understanding of religion from any sociological, psychological, or anthropological point of view, he has strong opinions on religion that he's very aggressive at delivering. Yet his opinions are opinions, and clearly there is no scientific basis for the position he's taking.
The result is that in combating the Creationist arguments, he's turned reductionism into a belief system in itself.
In that regard, I think Dawkins is clearly over-stepping the mark between scientific method and exposing opinion, with the point that he tries to conceal the boundary between the two.
From my reading of Tao on the forums, he doesn't read as a "scientific fundamentalist", but instead more like a "moderate rationalist" - he seeks a rationalised explanation of phenomena according to existing scientific evidence, with the caveats that a) science may not be able to currently explain all phenomena, and b) that any existing explanations may be incomplete.
Just my 2c of psycholanalysis, though.
You may be right, but many's the post where Tao sounded Dawkinsesque.Richard Dawkins is a clear example of someone who could easily be called a "scientific fundamentalist". When you follow his arguments on religion, it seems plain that he's become a very mirror image of the very fundamentalists he claims to be in opposition to.
Despite having little apparent understanding of religion from any sociological, psychological, or anthropological point of view, he has strong opinions on religion that he's very aggressive at delivering. Yet his opinions are opinions, and clearly there is no scientific basis for the position he's taking.
The result is that in combating the Creationist arguments, he's turned reductionism into a belief system in itself.
In that regard, I think Dawkins is clearly over-stepping the mark between scientific method and exposing opinion, with the point that he tries to conceal the boundary between the two.
From my reading of Tao on the forums, he doesn't read as a "scientific fundamentalist", but instead more like a "moderate rationalist" - he seeks a rationalised explanation of phenomena according to existing scientific evidence, with the caveats that a) science may not be able to currently explain all phenomena, and b) that any existing explanations may be incomplete.
Just my 2c of psycholanalysis, though.
earl
juantoo3
....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
OK, first: whatever beef between Tao and earl is none of my concern (even though I think it is a senseless one to carry for so long).
Now to your comment:
OK, well it seems I'm stuck in a "damned if I do and damned if I don't" situation then. You must admit, I present more references to support my positions in discussions across multiple subjects than just about everybody else...come to think of it, more than *everybody* else who participates on this forum. Want references? I think it is more than a little amusing that you should speak of unfocussed assertions when in *many, many* discussions between you and I, I have provided references to almost everything I have suggested, and you have provided little and often no references to support your refutations. In those discussions I am *too* wordy, here I am chastised for not being wordy enough. I can't win for losing...which sure tells me something related to the OP.
<shakes head>
It is nice to see you acknowledge what I was trying to get across, but in typical Tao fashion you dismiss the significance without regard. What passes as science *is* culturally relevent, particularly in the philosophical sense CZ was alluding to that drew my response.
Fine. Whatever. Like I said, your beef with earl is none of my concern. My concern is with the art of science, and how it is *properly* conducted without political and emotional interference. My concern is how people who are not scientists...like you and I...can sometimes get caught up in the hype and lose sight of what the data really says if we don't keep our wits about us. I am concerned with groupies who get caught up in cults of personality prompted by media and money...its bad enough in sports and movies... and some scientists do play to that tendency to herd mentality and zeitgeist in people. I am concerned with that "attitude of certainty," that *exact* same attitude that kept people believing the earth was flat long after it was shown otherwise, because "everybody knows it." And I am concerned with those who blithely think that fundamentalism is a product or function of religion or perhaps monotheism when it pretty obviously is not once one sits down and actually analyzes the human psychological tendency to memetic programming and ego-assurance and clannish, cliquish group think.
I'm sorry if I don't reference every g-damn point I try to make. I *do* reference far more than you to support my conclusions, and at least I do not mimic some pre-determined line of official bullsh!t. I draw my own conclusions, thank you very much. It is called "thinking for myself." So if my writing at times seems unfocussed or unclear, perhaps it is because it is uniquely mine, developed with my own open-minded consideration of the broad array of subjects that appeal to me, considered as much as possible with the unemotional detachment and apolitical distance needed for a proper scholarly consideration to the best of my ability. And since you seem to think that I don't reference enough, rest assured I will demand references from you for *everything* you contend from here out.
So I suppose that yes, I do have an ulterior gripe just oozing, and that is with wannabe intellectuals that are only too happy to spout sh!t and call it fact like a good little fundamentalist groupie and then try to smugly sit in judgment over anybody who sees things the least bit different. They should learn to get a life. Barring that the least they can do is lighten up and realize that other people not only might, but actually do have a right to see the world differently.
It never ceases to amaze me the people that think feedom of speech means they can spout whatever drivel they want to. It doesn't occur to them that it also means other people can spout off too. Heaven forbid.
Now to your comment:
OK, well it seems I'm stuck in a "damned if I do and damned if I don't" situation then. You must admit, I present more references to support my positions in discussions across multiple subjects than just about everybody else...come to think of it, more than *everybody* else who participates on this forum. Want references? I think it is more than a little amusing that you should speak of unfocussed assertions when in *many, many* discussions between you and I, I have provided references to almost everything I have suggested, and you have provided little and often no references to support your refutations. In those discussions I am *too* wordy, here I am chastised for not being wordy enough. I can't win for losing...which sure tells me something related to the OP.
<shakes head>
It is nice to see you acknowledge what I was trying to get across, but in typical Tao fashion you dismiss the significance without regard. What passes as science *is* culturally relevent, particularly in the philosophical sense CZ was alluding to that drew my response.
Fine. Whatever. Like I said, your beef with earl is none of my concern. My concern is with the art of science, and how it is *properly* conducted without political and emotional interference. My concern is how people who are not scientists...like you and I...can sometimes get caught up in the hype and lose sight of what the data really says if we don't keep our wits about us. I am concerned with groupies who get caught up in cults of personality prompted by media and money...its bad enough in sports and movies... and some scientists do play to that tendency to herd mentality and zeitgeist in people. I am concerned with that "attitude of certainty," that *exact* same attitude that kept people believing the earth was flat long after it was shown otherwise, because "everybody knows it." And I am concerned with those who blithely think that fundamentalism is a product or function of religion or perhaps monotheism when it pretty obviously is not once one sits down and actually analyzes the human psychological tendency to memetic programming and ego-assurance and clannish, cliquish group think.
I'm sorry if I don't reference every g-damn point I try to make. I *do* reference far more than you to support my conclusions, and at least I do not mimic some pre-determined line of official bullsh!t. I draw my own conclusions, thank you very much. It is called "thinking for myself." So if my writing at times seems unfocussed or unclear, perhaps it is because it is uniquely mine, developed with my own open-minded consideration of the broad array of subjects that appeal to me, considered as much as possible with the unemotional detachment and apolitical distance needed for a proper scholarly consideration to the best of my ability. And since you seem to think that I don't reference enough, rest assured I will demand references from you for *everything* you contend from here out.
So I suppose that yes, I do have an ulterior gripe just oozing, and that is with wannabe intellectuals that are only too happy to spout sh!t and call it fact like a good little fundamentalist groupie and then try to smugly sit in judgment over anybody who sees things the least bit different. They should learn to get a life. Barring that the least they can do is lighten up and realize that other people not only might, but actually do have a right to see the world differently.
It never ceases to amaze me the people that think feedom of speech means they can spout whatever drivel they want to. It doesn't occur to them that it also means other people can spout off too. Heaven forbid.
citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0
citizenzen
Custom User Title
- Messages
- 3,231
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 0