Let's talk about the newest religion: scientism

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Ruiner1978
It could well be that they made the statement on what they thought to be good authority.

Yes!
Yes! Yes! Yes!!!

Now THINK deeply on that.

Thinking deeply about that is part of the method for discerning fact from fiction. All people are susceptible to the problem of bias, which is why the scientific method is held in such high regard. It takes this into account with peer review and multiple lines of investigation. However if a claim cannot be falsified, it can be tenatively accepted until it is found to be incorrect.

Is this where you find your "faith in science?"


Or are you referring to people who have no scientific background accepting the words of scientists as fact?

Why pin it down to just those with no scientific background?

With TzarChasm's help we've established that "rational faith" exists and that everyone has it.

Like I suggested to him, insert any word you like before faith or trust if it makes it easier to swallow.

We all operate on a level of faith.

I have already explained to you that calculated trust and blind faith are not the same thing whether you want to dismiss the critical differences or not.

Yes there's a difference.

There's a difference between vanilla ice cream and chocolate ice cream too.

The point is, followers of science are still operating on a level of faith in a similar way followers of religion are.


"But my ice cream is chocolate!"
You're still eating ice cream!

That's a poor analogy. I begin to see the nature of your misunderstanding. Or perhaps astyanax is right and you're just trolling. Either way you don't seem to be interested in being educated.

That's also absolutely fine.
Again I state, as we've established, we're all free to believe/disbelieve whatever we like.
We all operate on a level of bias as well as we do faith.

My last two replies to Astyanax apply to you also.

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Ruiner1978
It could well be that they made the statement on what they thought to be good authority.

Yes!
Yes! Yes! Yes!!!

Now THINK deeply on that.

Thinking deeply about that is part of the method for discerning fact from fiction. All people are susceptible to the problem of bias, which is why the scientific method is held in such high regard. It takes this into account with peer review and multiple lines of investigation. However if a claim cannot be falsified, it can be tenatively accepted until it is found to be incorrect.

Is this where you find your "faith in science?"


Or are you referring to people who have no scientific background accepting the words of scientists as fact?

Why pin it down to just those with no scientific background?

With TzarChasm's help we've established that "rational faith" exists and that everyone has it.

Like I suggested to him, insert any word you like before faith or trust if it makes it easier to swallow.

We all operate on a level of faith.

I have already explained to you that calculated trust and blind faith are not the same thing whether you want to dismiss the critical differences or not.

Yes there's a difference.

There's a difference between vanilla ice cream and chocolate ice cream too.

The point is, followers of science are still operating on a level of faith in a similar way followers of religion are.


"But my ice cream is chocolate!"
You're still eating ice cream!

That's a poor analogy. I begin to see the nature of your misunderstanding. Or perhaps astyanax is right and you're just trolling. Either way you don't seem to be interested in being educated.

That's also absolutely fine.
Again I state, as we've established, we're all free to believe/disbelieve whatever we like.
We all operate on a level of bias as well as we do faith.

My last two replies to Astyanax apply to you also.

since you ran out of useful things to say a few pages ago, i suppose this exchange is concluded. but it is worth mentioning as i take my leave that no one has demonstrated science to be a religion. not once in this whole thread. according to wikipedia:

Religion is any cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, world views, texts, sanctified places, ethics, or organizations, that relate humanity to the supernatural or transcendental. Religions relate humanity to what anthropologist Clifford Geertz has referred to as a cosmic "order of existence".

science is not a doctrine, it is a method of observation measurement and recording/preserving information. this is why it is called calculated trust and not religious or blind faith. there is no relationship to the supernatural or acknowledgement of a cosmic order comparable to karma, sin, divine oversight, otherworldly governing bodies, etc. say what you will but there is no evidence that science is a religion. if anything there are people who adhere to science religiously but that is a personality trait and not a property of the scientific method.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Ruiner1978
It could well be that they made the statement on what they thought to be good authority.

Yes!
Yes! Yes! Yes!!!

Now THINK deeply on that.

Thinking deeply about that is part of the method for discerning fact from fiction. All people are susceptible to the problem of bias, which is why the scientific method is held in such high regard. It takes this into account with peer review and multiple lines of investigation. However if a claim cannot be falsified, it can be tenatively accepted until it is found to be incorrect.

Is this where you find your "faith in science?"


Or are you referring to people who have no scientific background accepting the words of scientists as fact?

Why pin it down to just those with no scientific background?

With TzarChasm's help we've established that "rational faith" exists and that everyone has it.

Like I suggested to him, insert any word you like before faith or trust if it makes it easier to swallow.

We all operate on a level of faith.

I have already explained to you that calculated trust and blind faith are not the same thing whether you want to dismiss the critical differences or not.

Yes there's a difference.

There's a difference between vanilla ice cream and chocolate ice cream too.

The point is, followers of science are still operating on a level of faith in a similar way followers of religion are.


"But my ice cream is chocolate!"
You're still eating ice cream!

That's a poor analogy. I begin to see the nature of your misunderstanding. Or perhaps astyanax is right and you're just trolling. Either way you don't seem to be interested in being educated.

That's also absolutely fine.
Again I state, as we've established, we're all free to believe/disbelieve whatever we like.
We all operate on a level of bias as well as we do faith.

My last two replies to Astyanax apply to you also.

since you ran out of useful things to say a few pages ago, i suppose this exchange is concluded. but it is worth mentioning as i take my leave that no one has demonstrated science to be a religion. not once in this whole thread. according to wikipedia:

Religion is any cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, world views, texts, sanctified places, ethics, or organizations, that relate humanity to the supernatural or transcendental. Religions relate humanity to what anthropologist Clifford Geertz has referred to as a cosmic "order of existence".

science is not a doctrine, it is a method of observation measurement and recording/preserving information. this is why it is called calculated trust and not religious or blind faith. there is no relationship to the supernatural or acknowledgement of a cosmic order comparable to karma, sin, divine oversight, otherworldly governing bodies, etc. say what you will but there is no evidence that science is a religion. if anything there are people who adhere to science religiously but that is a personality trait and not a property of the scientific method.

Enjoy your ice cream.

... it is worth mentioning as i take my leave that no one has demonstrated science to be a religion. not once in this whole thread.



...there are people who adhere to science religiously...

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
I'm talking about faith and trust in an authoritive figure.

There is a lot of science you can test for yourself.

Understanding that some things have a consensus but that they can be contested and changed makes it different. You don't even have to agree with the consensus. Nobody is being killed for having a different opinion or theory.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
I'm talking about faith and trust in an authoritive figure.

There is a lot of science you can test for yourself.

Understanding that some things have a consensus but that they can be contested and changed makes it different. You don't even have to agree with the consensus. Nobody is being killed for having a different opinion or theory.

People have faith and trust in the Authority without testing for themselves.
As agreed, again, numerous times, they CAN test for themselves, but they DON'T.
The faith in the Authority is enough for most to accept what is stated as truth without having to test for oneself.
Why are you not accepting this?

Whether people are getting killed or not doesn't change that fact.

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
I'm talking about faith and trust in an authoritive figure.

There is a lot of science you can test for yourself.

Understanding that some things have a consensus but that they can be contested and changed makes it different. You don't even have to agree with the consensus. Nobody is being killed for having a different opinion or theory.

People have faith and trust in the Authority without testing for themselves.
As agreed, again, numerous times, they CAN test for themselves, but they DON'T.
The faith in the Authority is enough for most to accept what is stated as truth without having to test for oneself.
Why are you not accepting this?

Whether people are getting killed or not doesn't change that fact.

we try not to accept strawman arguments. science raised us better than that. its hard to misrepresent the scientific method and those who use it professionally when it is so easy to look up the many many examples of science making the world a better place. we would test it, sure. but testing the same thing over and over and expecting a different data set is just...well, insane. i believe a well respected scientist once said that. but of course you would want us to be unsure of absolutely everything. because thats easier than proving you are more trustworthy than "the authority". science invented ice cream, but who invented ice cream headaches?

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
People have faith and trust in the Authority without testing for themselves.
As agreed, again, numerous times, they CAN test for themselves, but they DON'T.
The faith in the Authority is enough for most to accept what is stated as truth without having to test for oneself.
Why are you not accepting this?

Some repeat what they were taught because they actually don't really care. Actually a lot of "religious" people are the same way about their religion.

Finding trivial similarities doesn't makes things similar. Science can never be like religion no matter how religious some people might be about their science.

Whether people are getting killed or not doesn't change that fact.

That fact is inconsequential. People having been killed for questioning the church and the fact that science isn't like that is a bit more important.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
I'm talking about faith and trust in an authoritive figure.

There is a lot of science you can test for yourself.

Understanding that some things have a consensus but that they can be contested and changed makes it different. You don't even have to agree with the consensus. Nobody is being killed for having a different opinion or theory.

People have faith and trust in the Authority without testing for themselves.
As agreed, again, numerous times, they CAN test for themselves, but they DON'T.
The faith in the Authority is enough for most to accept what is stated as truth without having to test for oneself.
Why are you not accepting this?

Whether people are getting killed or not doesn't change that fact.

we try not to accept strawman arguments. science raised us better than that. its hard to misrepresent the scientific method and those who use it professionally when it is so easy to look up the many many examples of science making the world a better place. we would test it, sure. but testing the same thing over and over and expecting a different data set is just...well, insane. i believe a well respected scientist once said that. but of course you would want us to be unsure of absolutely everything. because thats easier than proving you are more trustworthy than "the authority". science invented ice cream, but who invented ice cream headaches?

And you have misrepresented my point yet again.
What was that you said about Strawman arguments?

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
People have faith and trust in the Authority without testing for themselves.
As agreed, again, numerous times, they CAN test for themselves, but they DON'T.
The faith in the Authority is enough for most to accept what is stated as truth without having to test for oneself.
Why are you not accepting this?

Some repeat what they were taught because they actually don't really care. Actually a lot of "religious" people are the same way about their religion.

Then you agree with me!

a reply to: Ruiner1978

I think we all agree that there are people like that but the bulk of those people are not religious about science. If anything it is the opposite. It really doesn't mean that much to them. I'm not sure that makes the OP's argument.

a reply to: firefromabove

This is completely valid. And what you are seeing is Called an "Aeonic shift".  It's like the shift between polytheism to monotheism, only this one shifts towards empirical answers in place of scripture. 

The purpose is the same. I can't explain "X" and this pacifies my curiosity.  The approach is slightly different. The world is shifting towards demanding validation that one can see. Things like "Vacuum Superfluid Theory" conceptually go a long way to rectifying the epistemological fallacies and paradoxes born of any creation story.  More and more are being won over by those "science priests" because it syncs up with their own experience and deductions about the world they see.

"Theism" to "Scientism" is the shift just starting. By 2500 I'm sure "Scientism" will be normative apprehension of what today is called "spiritualism".  The far flung generations might view theism as silly as a person today thinking the earth is the center of everything in the cosmos.

Changes of perception are inevitable, and after rough patches people adapt to this new information... Until then next great shift in "cosmic understanding"

You never know that could lead to inclusion in some "Galactic Imperium", and welcome to the new age.

a reply to: DefaultNamesake83

yeh and then we get to meet the space pope , so its all good !

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
I'm talking about faith and trust in an authoritive figure.

There is a lot of science you can test for yourself.

Understanding that some things have a consensus but that they can be contested and changed makes it different. You don't even have to agree with the consensus. Nobody is being killed for having a different opinion or theory.

People have faith and trust in the Authority without testing for themselves.
As agreed, again, numerous times, they CAN test for themselves, but they DON'T.
The faith in the Authority is enough for most to accept what is stated as truth without having to test for oneself.
Why are you not accepting this?

Whether people are getting killed or not doesn't change that fact.

we try not to accept strawman arguments. science raised us better than that. its hard to misrepresent the scientific method and those who use it professionally when it is so easy to look up the many many examples of science making the world a better place. we would test it, sure. but testing the same thing over and over and expecting a different data set is just...well, insane. i believe a well respected scientist once said that. but of course you would want us to be unsure of absolutely everything. because thats easier than proving you are more trustworthy than "the authority". science invented ice cream, but who invented ice cream headaches?

And you have misrepresented my point yet again.
What was that you said about Strawman arguments?

i have not misrepresented your point. your point is that all faith is faith is faith. that there is no difference between a gambling addiction, throwing a coin in a well, offering prayer at the altar, or investing in a cure for cancer or vaccine research. all of these things are equal in your eyes. that is what you have said more or less. i have argued that there are subtle crucial distinctions that set each of these faiths apart. perhaps an illustration would be useful.



anyone can become a priest. anyone can invent a church and get it registered. not everyone can be a doctor or a chemist or invent a new field of science. just like anyone can post disparaging comments on a conspiracy forum...but not everyone can back up their criticisms. your parrying does little to disguise the lack of substance to such criticism.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
I'm talking about faith and trust in an authoritive figure.

There is a lot of science you can test for yourself.

Understanding that some things have a consensus but that they can be contested and changed makes it different. You don't even have to agree with the consensus. Nobody is being killed for having a different opinion or theory.

People have faith and trust in the Authority without testing for themselves.
As agreed, again, numerous times, they CAN test for themselves, but they DON'T.
The faith in the Authority is enough for most to accept what is stated as truth without having to test for oneself.
Why are you not accepting this?

Whether people are getting killed or not doesn't change that fact.

we try not to accept strawman arguments. science raised us better than that. its hard to misrepresent the scientific method and those who use it professionally when it is so easy to look up the many many examples of science making the world a better place. we would test it, sure. but testing the same thing over and over and expecting a different data set is just...well, insane. i believe a well respected scientist once said that. but of course you would want us to be unsure of absolutely everything. because thats easier than proving you are more trustworthy than "the authority". science invented ice cream, but who invented ice cream headaches?

And you have misrepresented my point yet again.
What was that you said about Strawman arguments?

i have not misrepresented your point. your point is that all faith is faith is faith. that there is no difference between a gambling addiction, throwing a coin in a well, offering prayer at the altar, or investing in a cure for cancer or vaccine research. all of these things are equal in your eyes. that is what you have said more or less.

That most certainly is not what I have said.
I'm strictly talking about the faith and trust we have in the different authority figures being the same principle.

So yes, you have misrepresented my point and are still continuing to do so.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Ruiner1978

I think we all agree that there are people like that but the bulk of those people are not religious about science. If anything it is the opposite. It really doesn't mean that much to them. I'm not sure that makes the OP's argument.

If it doesn't mean that much to them?
I think it's evident that it means everything to them.

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
I'm talking about faith and trust in an authoritive figure.

There is a lot of science you can test for yourself.

Understanding that some things have a consensus but that they can be contested and changed makes it different. You don't even have to agree with the consensus. Nobody is being killed for having a different opinion or theory.

People have faith and trust in the Authority without testing for themselves.
As agreed, again, numerous times, they CAN test for themselves, but they DON'T.
The faith in the Authority is enough for most to accept what is stated as truth without having to test for oneself.
Why are you not accepting this?

Whether people are getting killed or not doesn't change that fact.

we try not to accept strawman arguments. science raised us better than that. its hard to misrepresent the scientific method and those who use it professionally when it is so easy to look up the many many examples of science making the world a better place. we would test it, sure. but testing the same thing over and over and expecting a different data set is just...well, insane. i believe a well respected scientist once said that. but of course you would want us to be unsure of absolutely everything. because thats easier than proving you are more trustworthy than "the authority". science invented ice cream, but who invented ice cream headaches?

And you have misrepresented my point yet again.
What was that you said about Strawman arguments?

i have not misrepresented your point. your point is that all faith is faith is faith. that there is no difference between a gambling addiction, throwing a coin in a well, offering prayer at the altar, or investing in a cure for cancer or vaccine research. all of these things are equal in your eyes. that is what you have said more or less.

That most certainly is not what I have said.
I'm strictly talking about the faith and trust we have in the different authority figures being the same principle.

So yes, you have misrepresented my point and are still continuing to do so.

you are unable to tell the difference between faith and calculated risk. the difference between a skydiving priest taking a bible or a parachute. he may have faith in his god, but he has more faith in engineering.

a reply to: TzarChasm

anyone can become a preist

originally posted by: Observationalist
a reply to: TzarChasm

anyone can become a preist

what qualifies bill nye as a priest?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: Ruiner1978
I'm talking about faith and trust in an authoritive figure.

There is a lot of science you can test for yourself.

Understanding that some things have a consensus but that they can be contested and changed makes it different. You don't even have to agree with the consensus. Nobody is being killed for having a different opinion or theory.

People have faith and trust in the Authority without testing for themselves.
As agreed, again, numerous times, they CAN test for themselves, but they DON'T.
The faith in the Authority is enough for most to accept what is stated as truth without having to test for oneself.
Why are you not accepting this?

Whether people are getting killed or not doesn't change that fact.

we try not to accept strawman arguments. science raised us better than that. its hard to misrepresent the scientific method and those who use it professionally when it is so easy to look up the many many examples of science making the world a better place. we would test it, sure. but testing the same thing over and over and expecting a different data set is just...well, insane. i believe a well respected scientist once said that. but of course you would want us to be unsure of absolutely everything. because thats easier than proving you are more trustworthy than "the authority". science invented ice cream, but who invented ice cream headaches?

And you have misrepresented my point yet again.
What was that you said about Strawman arguments?

i have not misrepresented your point. your point is that all faith is faith is faith. that there is no difference between a gambling addiction, throwing a coin in a well, offering prayer at the altar, or investing in a cure for cancer or vaccine research. all of these things are equal in your eyes. that is what you have said more or less.

That most certainly is not what I have said.
I'm strictly talking about the faith and trust we have in the different authority figures being the same principle.

So yes, you have misrepresented my point and are still continuing to do so.

you are unable to tell the difference between faith and calculated risk. the difference between a skydiving priest taking a bible or a parachute. he may have faith in his god, but he has more faith in engineering.

Again, no, that's not what I'm talking about.
Yet again, you are STILL misrepresenting.

I'm not talking about the priest's faith in god.
I'm not talking about the scientist's belief in his work.

I'm talking about the FOLLOWERS of both the priest and the scientist. How THEIR faith/trust in THEIR respective authority figure is the same principle.