Scientism: The worship of modern mainstream science

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: vasaga
The actions taken in this thread already show the answers to this question, but... Would you (or anyone else in here) be willing to use violence if it would mean convincing people of something that science has discovered?

No. I'm not even willing to spend time, other than that spent here at ATS and even that isn't wasted trying to convince people of some scientific discovery.

Ok. Are people allowed to disagree with science?

originally posted by: vasaga

Ok. Are people allowed to disagree with science?

“What do you think science is? There's nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. Which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?”


― Steven Novella

a reply to: GetHyped

I assume that is a no, but maybe I should've asked the question a bit more specific. Second attempt:

Are laymen allowed to disagree with current scientific theories? A simple yes or no please.

originally posted by: vasaga
I assume that is a no, but maybe I should've asked the question a bit more specific. Second attempt:

Are laymen allowed to disagree with current scientific theories? A simple yes or no please.

Anyone is allowed. It isn't like people are being raked over coals for heresy.

a reply to: daskakik

Symbolically they basically are raked over coals for heresy in these forums, but fine, let's assume they're not.

So, if someone is allowed to disagree, are they allowed to express that disagreement by talking about it and acting upon it?

a reply to: vasaga

You're entitled to disagree with whatever you please but that doesn't exempt you look ignorant and foolish in the process.

A good example would be your hubristic and ham-fisted denial of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis because you find it philosophically and existentially challenging.

originally posted by: vasaga
Symbolically they basically are raked over coals for heresy in these forums, but fine, let's assume they're not.

Being asked to back up your claims and being tortured until you "confess" to a crime are not even close to being the same thing.

So, if someone is allowed to disagree, are they allowed to express that disagreement by talking about it and acting upon it?

Depends. Different places have their rules. Even ATS has rules that vary from sub-forum to sub-forum.

I mean, I'm not going to go to a local catholic church and interrupt their mass with my "disagreement" just because I have a right to talk and act upon it.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: vasaga

You're entitled to disagree with whatever you please but that doesn't exempt you look ignorant and foolish in the process.

A good example would be your hubristic and ham-fisted denial of Modern Evolutionary Synthesis because you find it philosophically and existentially challenging.

Why are we those people not exempt from looking ignorant and foolish?

Ok. Are we aware that science uses inductive reasoning? Let me copy some things about inductive reasoning, and then you'll understand why people are perfectly allowed to disagree, WITHOUT having to be looked at like being ignorant, foolish, creationist, or whatever other label you want to use...

First... From wikipedia:

Inductive reasoning is reasoning in which the premises seek to supply strong evidence for (not absolute proof of) the truth of the conclusion. While the conclusion of a deductive argument is supposed to be certain, the truth of an inductive argument is supposed to be probable, based upon the evidence given.

Inductive reasoning forms the basis of most scientific theories e.g.; Evolution, Big bang theory and Einstein's theory of relativity.

So, whatever theory science is giving us, it is probable, not necessarily the truth. And we'll go on with:

Inductive reasoning is inherently uncertain. It only deals in degrees to which, given the premises, the conclusion is credible according to some theory of evidence

And

Unlike deductive arguments, inductive reasoning allows for the possibility that the conclusion is false, even if all of the premises are true. Instead of being valid or invalid, inductive arguments are either strong or weak, which describes how probable it is that the conclusion is true.

And

Inductive reasoning is also known as hypothesis construction because any conclusions made are based on current knowledge and predictions.

Remember this. And this is why there is NO legitimate reason whatsoever to dismiss anyone who wants to investigate anything that does not fall into the closed box that is modern day mainstream science. If it produces positive results, great. If it produces negative results, we have no more doubts regarding the possibility of something to exist. Not based on bias, but on data.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: vasaga
Symbolically they basically are raked over coals for heresy in these forums, but fine, let's assume they're not.

Being asked to back up your claims and being tortured until you "confess" to a crime are not even close to being the same thing.

Being labeled creationist and ignorant and whatnot is closer to a torture than just being asked to back up your claims, since it is not a question, but a baggage assigned to you as a justification for ridicule and abuse.

originally posted by: daskakik

So, if someone is allowed to disagree, are they allowed to express that disagreement by talking about it and acting upon it?

Depends. Different places have their rules. Even ATS has rules that vary from sub-forum to sub-forum.

I mean, I'm not going to go to a local catholic church and interrupt their mass with my "disagreement" just because I have a right to talk and act upon it.

I can agree with that. So, assuming that we live in a mixed society, why is it that religious people should be prohibited to learn creationism or intelligent design in school but forced to learn evolution? Why can't they choose to learn all or none, or just two, or whatever.

Before I get a question back instead of an answer, it goes the other way. Atheists shouldn't be forced to learn intelligent design or creationism if they don't want to.

originally posted by: vasaga
Why are we those people not exempt from looking ignorant and foolish?

Because you deny reality when it's convenient for you. That's what all of this is about. You don't like scientific findings that conflict with your faith-based beliefs therefore it's the scientific method that's wrong, not you.

Cognitive dissonance:

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the excessive mental stress and discomfort[1] experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time. This stress and discomfort may also arise within an individual who holds a belief and performs a contradictory action or reaction.[2] For example, an individual is likely to experience dissonance if they are addicted to smoking cigarettes and continue to smoke despite knowing it is unhealthy.[3]

Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency. When inconsistency (dissonance) is experienced, individuals largely become psychologically distressed. His basic hypotheses are listed below:

"The existence of dissonance, being psychologically uncomfortable, will motivate the person to try to reduce the dissonance and achieve consonance"
"When dissonance is present, in addition to trying to reduce it, the person will actively avoid situations and information which would likely increase the dissonance" [1]

Motivated reasoning:

The processes of motivated reasoning are a type of inferred justification strategy which is used to mitigate cognitive dissonance. When people form and cling to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence, the phenomenon is labeled "motivated reasoning". In other words, "rather than search rationally for information that either confirms or disconfirms a particular belief, people actually seek out information that confirms what they already believe."[2] This is "a form of implicit emotion regulation in which the brain converges on judgments that minimize negative and maximize positive affect states associated with threat to or attainment of motives."[3]

Confirmation bias:

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is the tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. People also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

Dunning-Kruger Effect:

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias which can manifest in one of two ways:

Unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than is accurate. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their ineptitude.[1]
Those persons to whom a skill or set of skills come easily may find themselves with weak self-confidence, as they may falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. See Impostor syndrome.
David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University conclude, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others".[2]

We see this pattern of reasoning all pf the time with reality deniers such as yourself.

As someone who does see science as their religion, so to speak, it is interesting to hear so many that do not accept it and yet carry the banner...

I see religion as a way of exploring the universe around us, and I feel science is the best one we have come up with yet. However, just like any other, it can be used for control, manipulation, and many other "negative" things.

And just like religion, it is a personal AND collective journey that changes over time but both are imperative to the balance and trust-worthiness of the system. One of the advantages that science has is being able to communicate these things a bit better through individual barriers of communication (through math), though it isnt perfect.

I find that the scientific method, the core of it, is the best method current available for exploring and communicating these things. If there is a better alternative, I would be interested in hearing it.

originally posted by: GetHyped

originally posted by: vasaga
Why are we those people not exempt from looking ignorant and foolish?

Because you deny reality when it's convenient for you. That's what all of this is about. You don't like scientific findings that conflict with your faith-based beliefs therefore it's the scientific method that's wrong, not you.

Cognitive dissonance:

Motivated reasoning:

Confirmation bias:

Dunning-Kruger Effect:

We see this pattern of reasoning all pf the time with reality deniers such as yourself.

First of all, the scientific method is not wrong, even though there's not really such a thing as 'THE' scientific method. And AGAIN, Scientism =/= scientific method. Scientism = idealization of science as being the infallible truth while attacking anyone who does not do the same thing.

You're too busy looking at what I do instead of what you do. I am aware of these things in myself, and I admit that I'm not always able to control them. But at least I'm willing to admit that they happen from time to time (in before "you're always like that!!!"). Do you have the courage to say the same thing about yourself, or are you so sure you know the truth of reality because science told you so?

originally posted by: Serdgiam
As someone who does see science as their religion, so to speak, it is interesting to hear so many that do not accept it and yet carry the banner...

My thoughts exactly...

originally posted by: Serdgiam
I see religion as a way of exploring the universe around us, and I feel science is the best one we have come up with yet. However, just like any other, it can be used for control, manipulation, and many other "negative" things.

And just like religion, it is a personal AND collective journey that changes over time but both are imperative to the balance and trust-worthiness of the system. One of the advantages that science has is being able to communicate these things a bit better through individual barriers of communication (through math), though it isnt perfect.

I find that the scientific method, the core of it, is the best method current available for exploring and communicating these things. If there is a better alternative, I would be interested in hearing it.

Remember that what is transferred to the laymen is not exactly the information found with the scientific method, but the scientific information that has been transferred through a political filter of a parasitic system.

originally posted by: vasaga
Being labeled creationist and ignorant and whatnot is closer to a torture than just being asked to back up your claims, since it is not a question, but a baggage assigned to you as a justification for ridicule and abuse.

No, it isn't even close. Are you honestly saying that being upset about someone labeling you is the same as being physically beaten to death for what you "may" believe?

I can agree with that. So, assuming that we live in a mixed society, why is it that religious people should be prohibited to learn creationism or intelligent design in school but forced to learn evolution? Why can't they choose to learn all or none, or just two, or whatever.

This isn't the case. There are options and even if someone "learns" something, nobody is forcing them to agree with it.

Before I get a question back instead of an answer, it goes the other way. Atheists shouldn't be forced to learn intelligent design or creationism if they don't want to.

They will if they choose to go to a school that has that as part of their curriculum.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: vasaga
Being labeled creationist and ignorant and whatnot is closer to a torture than just being asked to back up your claims, since it is not a question, but a baggage assigned to you as a justification for ridicule and abuse.

No, it isn't even close. Are you honestly saying that being upset about someone labeling you is the same as being physically beaten to death for what you "may" believe?

The brain does not know the difference between emotional and physical pain. In fact, there are studies that say that emotional pain hurts more than physical pain. You can draw your own conclusion from that, or look it up if you wish.

originally posted by: daskakik
This isn't the case. There are options and even if someone "learns" something, nobody is forcing them to agree with it.

You have to if you wish to become a prominent scientist. Conform before questioning. That's a problem.

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: solomons path

Science my friend is for sale to the highest bidder, hence most science is scientism paraded as something that it is not, and all in the interest of profit.

Actually it's been 100% bought and paid for...

Haven't you noticed?

Science and religion correlate PERFECTLY.

Replace scientific "discoveries" by religious "testimonies" in holy books.

Illuminati found a way to hook the non-religious...with science.

Same trick, smarter dog.

"Blinded by Science" This card basically is a depiction of blinding people through the notion that a thing is false if it cannot be explained by science. Its like making science look like the real thing. Many empty headed people buy into it and that allows the corrupt science groups (controlled by illuminati as shown in the card) to publish false stuff.

The fact that so many actually BELIEVE it, exposes a massive credibility issue.

"...the Illuminati eventually controlled the science departments in all colleges and institutions of higher learning. The plan was to stifle scientific knowledge and then twist what was left to fit the science they wanted the people to believe.

Science - The Illuminati Religion and Mind Control Tool for the Masses

originally posted by: vasaga
Remember that what is transferred to the laymen is not exactly the information found with the scientific method, but the scientific information that has been transferred through a political filter of a parasitic system.

I would simply say that it is exhibiting the same measures of control as any other such system in our history.

Nip out the personal search and you are 90% of the way there. How many people actually practice the science they claim as truth for themselves? It becomes even more difficult when doing such peer review is made nigh impossible due to financial and regulatory restraints.

I think this is where the "scientism" starts to come in. Its the same psychological appeal to authority that we see in religion, where they preach that the only way to find answers is through proprietary means.

originally posted by: vasaga
The brain does not know the difference between emotional and physical pain. In fact, there are studies that say that emotional pain hurts more than physical pain. You can draw your own conclusion from that, or look it up if you wish.

While this may be true, I question the amount of emotional pain you are really experiencing from being labeled by people you don't even know.

You have to if you wish to become a prominent scientist. Conform before questioning. That's a problem.

There are a lot of things you have to do to attain any position in life. It is still your choice.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: vasaga
The brain does not know the difference between emotional and physical pain. In fact, there are studies that say that emotional pain hurts more than physical pain. You can draw your own conclusion from that, or look it up if you wish.

While this may be true, I question the amount of emotional pain you are really experiencing from being labeled by people you don't even know.

You have to if you wish to become a prominent scientist. Conform before questioning. That's a problem.

There are a lot of things you have to do to attain any position in life. It is still your choice.

Fair enough.

a reply to: Serdgiam
Glad to see that you get it

a reply to: vasaga
Compared to other forums ATS is petty good about that. In another Science and Tech sub forums I was once called a Savage who could not possibly know anything.

I let slide of but yea there was a moment their....

a reply to: tsingtao

mendel with peas.

Yes well mendels law of segregation, just may have to be segregated. Two pees in a pod does not a third make, it just makes it a crowd alike unto pees in a stalk. Three pees is good, two pees is also good, if you got a pee however, it means something is wrong with the whole thing. That or you have been drinking to much and are in a bathroom.

yeah, viagra was a Godsend? it is fun without the nasty side effects. blindness. bummer.

Well considering all these scientific breakthroughs have sometimes worse side effects then then whatever there trying to cure. The only logical conclusion one can derive from there popularity is that people like leaky anus syndrome, but dont like being a little bit depressed. Go figure eh! As for viagra, it just may be the best invention of the 20th century, however it still does not top sliced bread. As for the side effects, is that not what every grandpa once told there kids and grandkids, stop that or you will go blind. Well considering most who take it are those who need it, grandpa and grandma, I think it is time for them to start listening to there own advice. There hypothesis was incorrect anyways, generations and thousands of years of teenagers prove it wrong.

when we get our flying cars, i'll race ya! i'll have 3sol masses under the hood and do 1.5 C, the hard way.

If you wish. I will win however. Sounds like you wont be going anywhere thought, a bit to much weight under the hood. I off course hope to have my dodge neon running on unicorn farts by then. It is much more cost effective, potent, and much more eco friendly.