Scientism: The worship of modern mainstream science

a reply to: old_god

Agreed... It's evident everywhere. If you make a claim, they want a paper. If you give them a paper, it needs to be a peer-reviewed one. If it's a peer-reviewed one, the journal is unreliable and needs to be in another journal. If it's in a journal they trust, you are misinterpreting the conclusion. If you show them it's the actual conclusion, they need more evidence to convince them.

The scientism folk have an endless list of demands of anything that doesn't support their claims. But if Richard Dawkins says that penguins can fly in space while drinking a Latte macchiato, immediately everyone believes it, and the one who dares ask for a paper, is attacked so violently, that it looks like a preparation for the crusades.

a reply to: vasaga

You're saying this in response to that crappy paper from The Disovery Institute that you were touting as the death of evolution/abiogenesis (you still get the two confused) in your other thread. Not really surprising that the most vocal about so-called 'scientism' in this thread are the ones who have been shown on this forum to hold pseudo-scientific beliefs that have long been disputed/refuted by hard scientific data.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: vasaga

You're saying this in response to that crappy paper from The Disovery Institute that you were touting as the death of evolution/abiogenesis (you still get the two confused)

No I don't. But some things have implications for both. And that paper is not form the discovery institute. Just because the discovery institute wants to use it to support their own creationism agenda doesn't invalidate a paper. That's the problem with you people... The guilt by association fallacy. Here, let me copy it for you, and I hope you'll realize that this is one of the main tactics you like to use...

Fallacy: Guilt By Association

Also Known as: Bad Company Fallacy, Company that You Keep Fallacy

Description of Guilt By Association

Guilt by Association is a fallacy in which a person rejects a claim simply because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the claim. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

It is pointed out that people person A does not like accept claim P.
Therefore P is false
It is clear that sort of "reasoning" is fallacious. For example the following is obviously a case of poor "reasoning": "You think that 1+1=2. But, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Joseph Stalin, and Ted Bundy all believed that 1+1=2. So, you shouldn't believe it."

The fallacy draws its power from the fact that people do not like to be associated with people they dislike. Hence, if it is shown that a person shares a belief with people he dislikes he might be influenced into rejecting that belief. In such cases the person will be rejecting the claim based on how he thinks or feels about the people who hold it and because he does not want to be associated with such people.

Of course, the fact that someone does not want to be associated with people she dislikes does not justify the rejection of any claim. For example, most wicked and terrible people accept that the earth revolves around the sun and that lead is heavier than helium. No sane person would reject these claims simply because this would put them in the company of people they dislike (or even hate).

Source

originally posted by: GetHyped
in your other thread.

And, whatever is discussed in another thread is its own issue. You simply want to bring that in this thread because here, you have nothing to attack me with.

originally posted by: GetHyped
Not really surprising that the most vocal about so-called 'scientism' in this thread are the ones who have been shown on this forum to hold pseudo-scientific beliefs that have long been disputed/refuted by hard scientific data.

Ah yes. The label of something determines if it's true now right? Everything that doesn't fall into the reference frame of scientism is called pseudo-science, even if it is scientific.

originally posted by: vasaga
Agreed... It's evident everywhere. If you make a claim, they want a paper. If you give them a paper, it needs to be a peer-reviewed one. If it's a peer-reviewed one, the journal is unreliable and needs to be in another journal. If it's in a journal they trust, you are misinterpreting the conclusion. If you show them it's the actual conclusion, they need more evidence to convince them.

This is just people being generally more skeptical.

It's the same as pics or it didn't happen. Is that a religion too?

The scientism folk have an endless list of demands of anything that doesn't support their claims. But if Richard Dawkins says that penguins can fly in space while drinking a Latte macchiato, immediately everyone believes it, and the one who dares ask for a paper, is attacked so violently, that it looks like a preparation for the crusades.

Hyperbole.

a reply to: vasaga

I think you'll find it's called the Fallacy of Pretending To Understand and Know the Details of a Paper You Haven't Even Read, as you have revealed in your other thread. The layman name for this is "Being a Bull#er".

originally posted by: daskakik
This is just people being generally more skeptical.

It's people being selectively skeptical. True skepticism is for everything, not for what you don't want to believe. Everyone is a little biased to their own beliefs, but the degree of attachment to beliefs is what differentiates a true skeptic from a selective skeptic.

originally posted by: daskakik
It's the same as pics or it didn't happen. Is that a religion too?

On itself, no, but.. If you can believe in a flying dog easily, but want pics for a flying pig, then yes, it's basically a religious mentality. And when you group together to fight for the flying dog and ridicule everyone who wants to talk about the flying pig, you have a religion. Especially if you're fighting for the flying dog because the flying animal priest said so.

originally posted by: daskakik
Hyperbole.

I know

originally posted by: vasaga
a reply to: old_god

Agreed... It's evident everywhere. If you make a claim, they want a paper. If you give them a paper, it needs to be a peer-reviewed one. If it's a peer-reviewed one, the journal is unreliable and needs to be in another journal. If it's in a journal they trust, you are misinterpreting the conclusion. If you show them it's the actual conclusion, they need more evidence to convince them.

The scientism folk have an endless list of demands of anything that doesn't support their claims. But if Richard Dawkins says that penguins can fly in space while drinking a Latte macchiato, immediately everyone believes it, and the one who dares ask for a paper, is attacked so violently, that it looks like a preparation for the crusades.

No, we ask Dawkins to provide proof there's penguins in space. That is how science works, Most scientists are honest researchers, and frauds get discovered and disgraced pretty quickly when no one can replicate their results. Just believing a ridiculous claim is the ground of religion, not science.

The dishonesty in science comes from when commerce gets involved. But it always gets found out in the end. Might take decades, but other scientists realise something was off and dig for the truth.

I think the major flaw when religious people see science is exactly what I've seen from the OP and others on this thread. Science is not opinion, it's measured facts and rational theories drived from those facts.

If you can't back a claim with a fact that can be checked by multiple others you get ridiculed. Nothing warms a scientist more than academically eviscerating a rival.


I think the whole thread shows exactly how religious people fail to understand how science works,

SCIENCE: IT IS NOT A BELIEF, IT IS AN OBSERVATION.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: vasaga

I think you'll find it's called the Fallacy of Pretending To Understand and Know the Details of a Paper You Haven't Even Read, as you have revealed in your other thread. The layman name for this is "Being a Bull#er".

An abstract is enough to show what a paper contains. And again...:

originally posted by: vasaga
And, whatever is discussed in another thread is its own issue. You simply want to bring that in this thread because here, you have nothing to attack me with.

originally posted by: vasaga
It's people being selectively skeptical. True skepticism is for everything, not for what you don't want to believe. Everyone is a little biased to their own beliefs, but the degree of attachment to beliefs is what differentiates a true skeptic from a selective skeptic.

I guess if someone claims to be a "true skeptic" then he will have to live up to it. Everyone else is off the hook.

My point was about people, in this day and age, generally being more skeptical and not about them being more generally skeptical.

On itself, no, but.. If you can believe in a flying dog easily, but want pics for a flying pig, then yes, it's basically a religious mentality. And when you group together to fight for the flying dog and ridicule everyone who wants to talk about the flying pig, you have a religion. Especially if you're fighting for the flying dog because the flying animal priest said so.

It was rhetorical.

It's no more a religion than scientism, unless you lower the bar a whole bunch, but then just about anything can be called a religion.

originally posted by: Antigod

originally posted by: vasaga
a reply to: old_god

Agreed... It's evident everywhere. If you make a claim, they want a paper. If you give them a paper, it needs to be a peer-reviewed one. If it's a peer-reviewed one, the journal is unreliable and needs to be in another journal. If it's in a journal they trust, you are misinterpreting the conclusion. If you show them it's the actual conclusion, they need more evidence to convince them.

The scientism folk have an endless list of demands of anything that doesn't support their claims. But if Richard Dawkins says that penguins can fly in space while drinking a Latte macchiato, immediately everyone believes it, and the one who dares ask for a paper, is attacked so violently, that it looks like a preparation for the crusades.

No, we ask Dawkins to provide proof there's penguins in space. That is how science works, Most scientists are honest researchers, and frauds get discovered and disgraced pretty quickly when no one can replicate their results. Just believing a ridiculous claim is the ground of religion, not science.

The dishonesty in science comes from when commerce gets involved. But it always gets found out in the end. Might take decades, but other scientists realise something was off and dig for the truth.

I think the major flaw when religious people see science is exactly what I've seen from the OP and others on this thread. Science is not opinion, it's measured facts and rational theories drived from those facts.

If you can't back a claim with a fact that can be checked by multiple others you get ridiculed. Nothing warms a scientist more than academically eviscerating a rival.


I think the whole thread shows exactly how religious people fail to understand how science works,

SCIENCE: IT IS NOT A BELIEF, IT IS AN OBSERVATION.

Ok. I have one thing to show you that undermines your whole argument. Please mark yes/no to the following questions.

Did you know, that in 2008, Richard Dawkins used Haeckel's Embryo Diagram?
Did you know that it was publicized by the New York Times in 2001 that the Haeckel's Embryo Diagram was a fraud?
Did you know, that the scientific community knew this fraud since the 19th century?
Did you know that in 1997, a paper was released in ScienceMag to 'remind' people that Haeckel himself admitted to committing the fraud?
Did you know that even then, this diagram is still used in textbooks today?
Do you still think Richard Dawkins is trustworthy and doing actual science?

It's funny you say that dishonesty in science comes when commerce gets involved. But today there's no such thing as commerce-free science. Only they will fund your research, and if you take care of your own funding, no one wants to publish your paper. The journals you can publish in are seen as pseudo-scientific by the major scientism group called mainstream science.

a reply to: vasaga

No, an abstract is not enough to tell you all you need to know a paper. I bet you haven't read an actual academic paper in your life (don't lie, we both know its true). But you were defending the methodology and data in the paper, a paper you haven't even read.

You basically tried to beat people on the head with a paper like you knew the ins and outs of it and how credible it was, as if you could do that on the abstract alone (plot twist: you can't). You haven't even read the paper yet accept its findings as gospel unquestionably.

Doesn't that make you a 'scientism' follower, using your own definition? Why, yes it does! And a hypocrite.

But your brand of scientism is very specific: if it supports your magical beliefs, it's good science. If it doesn't, it's part of the grand conspiracy to... Oh I don't know, I can never keep track of all the cognitive rationizations that get thrown around.

a reply to: vasaga

How much longer are you going to keep up the charade when you've been shown numerous times you don't know what you are talking about?

You keep clinging to this belief that a paper in a journal is the same thing as "confirmed", going so far as to only read abstracts. I, and others, have pointed out to you that this is not true.

Assertion doe not equal evidence or data. But, how would who know . . . you don't actually read these papers.

You don't know the difference between ridicule and criticism. To the point, that anything that goes against your personal bias is labeled ridicule and ignored . . . of course this is more evidence toward your "truth".

You just keep moving the goal post to continue living in your fantasy world. And, when you are confronted with providing proof for your claims . . . you don't respond. You just wait for someone calling you names, so you can begin your "persecution complex" and spreading your conspiracist ideation.

You are a fraud just like your boy Abel.

ETA - That Haeckel's embryos BS is not true . . . that's something that gets pushed around to promote ID over Evolution. Please provide examples of current textbooks (or any that were used in the last few decades even) that use Haeckel's embryos as "fact". That doesn't mean that there is some mention that Haeckel did this or what his diagram looked like . . . I mean presenting the chart as valid.

I'll wait . . . for you to produce that long list of active text books.

Op, this is a quote from you in this thread:

Since science not being looked at objectively, but with love glasses, we have created scientism, and people expressing scientism (both scientists and laymen) claim they are holding scientific facts, even though they are personal beliefs/faith. It's not that complicated...

Sounds like you with that paper you swear by but haven't read:

1) Since science not being looked at objectively

Yup, the paper panders to your beliefs and prejudices so there's no objectivity there

2) but with love glasses

Wierd turn of phrase but whatever. You're vigorously defending this paper seems pretty, erm 'love glasses' to me

3) we have created scientism, and people expressing scientism (both scientists and laymen) claim they are holding scientific facts, even though they are personal beliefs/faith

Sounds like you down to a T. You have a paper (which you haven't even read) and are claiming it as an unshakable proof just because it is in favor of your deeply held beliefs/faith.

Congratulations, you are the latest member of the Church of Scientism.

4) It's not that complicated...

But complicated enough for you to hang yourself with your own arguement.

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: vasaga

No, an abstract is not enough to tell you all you need to know a paper. I bet you haven't read an actual academic paper in your life (don't lie, we both know its true).

Actually, as someone who has a degree in chemical engineering, and works at a refinery, I've read my share of scientific papers.

originally posted by: GetHyped
You basically tried to beat people on the head with a paper like you knew the ins and outs of it and how credible it was, as if you could do that on the abstract alone (plot twist: you can't). You haven't even read the paper yet accept its findings as gospel unquestionably.

That's what I want you to believe, yes.

originally posted by: GetHyped
Doesn't that make you a 'scientism' follower, using your own definition? Why, yes it does! And a hypocrite.

Actually, no. Just because I constantly choose to play devil's advocates in those kind of threads to see how much people actually question and how much people blindly defend doesn't mean I believe everything in that paper.

originally posted by: GetHyped
But your brand of scientism is very specific: if it supports your magical beliefs, it's good science. If it doesn't, it's part of the grand conspiracy to... Oh I don't know, I can never keep track of all the cognitive rationizations that get thrown around.

The difference between scientism and me is that scientism is in support of the big body of mainstream science. I choose the side of the minority that questions the big body. Not because I believe everything they say, but because they are challenging the status quo which is not working.

It's funny how it's always the same 'group' using the same tactics on a single person to derail a thread.. This is the last time I replied to something related to another thread. Any other one derailing this thread with stuff from another thread is simply gonna go reported without any response. The issue of scientism is too important to waste on what mistakes I've supposedly made that invalidates whatever I say.

a reply to: vasaga

In all seriousness, there is nothing wrong with challenging the status quo or investigating concepts that are currently on the fringes.

The issue with your posts is how you present them. You don't present them as interesting ideas that sound possible, or even probable. Thus, opening a debate on if they have evidence to support their claims.

You present them as fact and as "proof" that Evolutionary Theory is wrong.

How can anyone have an intellectually honest debate with you or about what you post, if you start from the position that an idea is valid despite the "scientist" having no evidence for their idea? And when challenged, take the position that anyone who challenges is simply supporting the "status quo"?

originally posted by: solomons path
a reply to: vasaga

In all seriousness, there is nothing wrong with challenging the status quo or investigating concepts that are currently on the fringes.

Then why is it that every time someone asks a difficult question or presents another perspective they are met with disdain and scorn? You can't explain to someone who says that 1+1=3 instead of 2 by ridiculing him. If you really understand what you're talking about, you should be able to explain step by step why it is. But since most people who hold certain beliefs are unable to do that, other tactics are being used.

originally posted by: solomons path
The issue with your posts is how you present them. You don't present them as interesting ideas that sound possible, or even probable. Thus, opening a debate on if they have evidence to support their claims.

You present them as fact and as "proof" that Evolutionary Theory is wrong.

Yes. Because it doesn't matter if you just ask or make a strong statement. The response is the same in these forums, and they are the same in the scientific community. Look at what happened to the guys who 'discovered' cold fusion. And now NASA is gladly investigating it under a different name.

originally posted by: solomons path
How can anyone have an intellectually honest debate with you or about what you post, if you start from the position that an idea is valid despite the "scientist" having no evidence for their idea?

Why is it that an idea regarding abiogenesis being 'inevitable' without any evidence can be easily discussed by you, but something else, without evidence, which we would call a hypothesis, can not be talked about without getting ridiculed?

originally posted by: solomons path
And when challenged, take the position that anyone who challenges is simply supporting the "status quo"?

A real challenge is intellectually honest.

a reply to: vasaga

Hmmm . . . a "real challenge" would present evidence to go along with the ideas. It is not a hypothesis if it cannot be tested or present any evidence. Assertions presented as fact, is not an "honest" challenge . . . it's deception if done intentionally. Usually, if someone makes an assertion based on ignorance they will be open to the fact that their assertions are misplaced. When they don't, it reeks of an agenda.

Hypotheses without the ability to test or proper data to confirm are called conjecture. Conjecture is fine, as long as you know it's conjecture.

The problem with most people on this site that like to discuss conjecture, and therefore, why the responses are "snarky", is because it's presented as "fact" and most lines of conjecture have been debated numerous times. The proponents of creationism or intelligent design all read from the same playbook, it seems, as they all bring up the same pseudo-scientific fields and absurd incredulity toward Modern Evolutionary Synthesis. They never present evidence, it's always assertion and incredulity, and asks the reader to "imagine" something. It doesn't lay out a clear unbroken line of experimentation or data plots . . . it's conjecture.

Conjecture should lead to developing experimentation and formulating a testable hypothesis. Not just writing a "review" of your ideas . . . unless you're fully going to conclude that despite your "beliefs" you actually don't have the data to back it up.

As far as abiogenesis . . . nobody says it's "inevitable" . . . Abiogenesis is simply a hypothesis at this time. However, what makes abiogenesis a hypothesis and not conjecture is that experiments have been performed and actual data produced. It's not a "theory" because there has been NO confirmation of the findings. Just like there is actual evidence and current study for the panspermia hypothesis, yet no confirmation.

In the future, we may all find (as is usually the case) that we were all wrong and it's something totally different. This new something will not only have to have very strong evidence to support it, but also incorporate all of the current data that leads us to our current (mainstream) conclusions.

ETA - I just realized your "inevitable" remark was based on the paper by the kid at MIT . . . I haven't actually read the paper, just the article, so while exciting news . . . I'll hold off supporting until I can read his findings and any current critiques. So, I guess there is ONE person who claims that Abiogenesis is inevitable. I will say, from a position of knowing a bit about chem, that his idea makes a lot of sense when viewing from a reaction, bonds, energy standpoint. However, it is just a new hypothesis . . . his paper is the very thing you are "fighting" for . . . going against the status quo and a new voice being heard.

a reply to: vasaga

The difference between scientism and me is that scientism is in support of the big body of mainstream science. I choose the side of the minority that questions the big body. Not because I believe everything they say, but because they are challenging the status quo which is not working.

How is that any better than "mainstream" science?

The difference between me and you, is I purely search for the truth based on the evidence available, regardless of whether it is popular or not. It is the most ethical approach and spreads the truth most effectively. It is also the approach favored by most professional engineering entities.

You seem to think science should be a popularity contest, where you feel the need to support the underdog regardless of whether it's true or not. What you should really be doing, is looking at actual scientific evidence and dispelling pseudoscience where you can.

You also haven't given an example of mainstream science not working yet. "Science" not working has a word. Pseudoscience.

originally posted by: vasagaActually, as someone who has a degree in chemical engineering, and works at a refinery, I've read my share of scientific papers.

The person who thinks a paper abstract is enough to determine the credibility of the paper, its methodology, its data and its conclusions?

The person who mistakenly thought that peer-review was the final word in scientific research and who's purpose is to independent replicate and validate the data and claims in a paper?

The person who cannot distinguish the difference between a good and bad paper, who appears oblivious to the red flags you should be looking out for?

The person who appears oblivious to the messiness of science and how being able to assess the credibility of a paper in terms of methodology, data, conclusions, replication and subsequent discussion within the scientific community is not only the cornerstone of the scientific method but critical to separating the wheat from the chaff?

The person who thinks a single poorly written paper who's findings have not been replicated is capable of refuting the mountain of evidence in favor of a given scientific theory?

The person who displays a consistently low level of scientific literacy and who routinely makes mistakes, blunders and fundamental misconceptions about the scientific method?

Consider me deeply suspicious of your claim.

That's what I want you to believe, yes.

Right *wink wink*

Actually, no. Just because I constantly choose to play devil's advocates in those kind of threads to see how much people actually question and how much people blindly defend doesn't mean I believe everything in that paper.

Oh come on now, you really expect me to believe this? This defense is beyond lame. You got called out on your BS and you (rightfully) looked silly as a result. Pretty much every response in that thread was critical of that paper. You persisted in defending it, only to play this card once you let slip you hadn't even read it (and making you look very hypocritical in the process given this current thread of yours). To pull this line now as an excuse, have you no shame? Try and have at least a shred of intellectual honesty.

The difference between scientism and me is that scientism is in support of the big body of mainstream science. I choose the side of the minority that questions the big body. Not because I believe everything they say, but because they are challenging the status quo which is not working.

There is no difference. Every charge you level at this 'scientism' thing you've invented can equally be laid down at your feet. That makes you a hypocrite.