is this what modern science really is ? religion like believe system ?

reply to post by KrzYma



ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

The history of science is riddled with horrific, tenacious, dogmatic, entrenched and successful efforts to hold progress back on a number of fronts.

reply to post by BO XIAN


Wow, haha. I almost took you seriously. But now I know you're just trolling.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


Would that be . . . .

compared to . . . uhhhh . . . pondering . . . .

you

or your nearest high priest of the Religion of Scientism?

reply to post by BO XIAN


At least scientists don't have to bribe their audience with alcohol, unlike some establishments.

reply to post by AfterInfinity



For too large a percentage of them,

alcohol bribes would be redundant.

They are already drunk on their own egos, pride, arrogance, presumed brilliance.

reply to post by BO XIAN

For too large a percentage of them,

alcohol bribes would be redundant.

They are already drunk on their own egos, pride, arrogance, presumed brilliance.

Oh stop it, you're making me blush. Although it is worth noting that you are even now using the product of such egotistical, prideful, arrogant, presumed brilliance. Such qualities have enabled you to broadcast your boisterous opinion to people all over the world. Imagine if they had been more like you...you would never have had this opportunity. Takes all kinds, I guess.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


OH RLY?

I think . . . you know little to nothing of my scientific curiosities and bent.

You have evidently mostly observed me pontificating as a counter-point to

Papal pronouncments from the Religion of Scientism's ecclesiastical elite and their acolytes.

Someone needs to do it.

. . . in the interest of "objective truth," of course.

reply to post by BO XIAN

. . . in the interest of "objective truth," of course.

As opposed to, ah, subjective interpretation?

-PLB-
If you call it faith when your trust that others will stop for a red light, or that a model wil work in a certain situation, you are totally raping the meaning of the word.

Indeed, this is a case of either dictionary abuse where the person knows the definition and intentionally abuses it, or else the person doesn't understand the definition. Probably the former.

BO XIAN
You use faith at every stoplight giving you the green light.

You must have faith that others will stop at their red light and that no drunk will run the red light THIS TIME.

No, I don't. I spend a lot of time at intersections. I make observations while I'm stopped at one and notice that a very high percentage of people stop at the red light. I've also made observations that whether they stop or not depends on how long the light has been red. If it's been red less than one second, I have no faith at all they will stop, because they often don't.

So what we do is make observations on a large statistical sample of behavior, regarding when and how people stop at red lights. This can even vary from city to city. I've observed that in one specific city in Pennsylvania, people have an unusual habit of running the red light just before it turns green. When they see the light in the perpendicular direction is yellow, and their light is still red, they step on the gas and go right through the red light if they don't see any other cars coming. There is no faith in any of these factual observations.

Even though I think there's a high probability that most people will stop for the red light if it's been red long enough, I still know that statistically some people will still run it. A friend of mine's father was seriously injured when someone ran a red light that had been red long enough, so that's another factual observation. So I have zero "faith" in anything about red lights. I have collected volumes of statistically based observations, which vary from locale to locale, and act based on these statistical probabilities. They do not result in a zero chance of me getting hit by someone running a red light.

So your claim is ignorance of the highest order which must be denied. There is no faith in my expectations of red lights. Zero. Maybe I have some hope that the small probability I assign to someone running a red light and killing me doesn't materialize,(after I allow for the 1 second delay and other factors I've observed) but that's not faith, by any stretch of the imagination. I could similarly say I think it's very unlikely I will win 200 million dollars in the lottery buying one ticket, but yes I realize it could happen. This is statistical probability, not faith.

It's time to admit to yourself that you're being intellectually dishonest with yourself.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


And that's what science is all about.

reply to post by Arbitrageur



LOLOLOLOLOL

'Tis NOT me guilty of 'dictionary abuse.'

"A rose is a rose is a rose . . . by any other name is still a rose.'

Being terminally allergic to the word "faith" is NOT a good excuse to avoid using it when fitting.

Your description of the stop-light situation is actually very parallel to countless Christians' experience with faith in God.

But go ahead and comfort yourself that you have no experience with faith. Perhaps God will be impressed with your rationalization. /sarc

Selective perception is a real phenomenon.

It also happens to be quite spiritually hazardous.

reply to post by Arbitrageur



"statistical probability" is--in many applications--also another word, metaphor for faith.

Those buying lottery tickets hoping against hope that they will win have placed their faith in extremely poor probabilities.

Faith operates WHENEVER there's not an ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that an event will occur; an outcome will materialize.

There's NO BETTER WORD FOR IT.

Rationalizing that FACT away doesn't change the fact.

It does not technically matter how infinitesimal the small probability is in a matter . . . if something is not 100% CERTAIN, then FAITH IS INVOLVED.

The dictionary I just consulted stated that

.
faith = unquestioning belief.
.

Which . . . drum roll . . . is your description of the stoplight situation. It clearly qualifies.

When the probabilities become significant enough, one, practically, functionally doesn't question the matter any longer. And, as the dictionary affirms--THAT = FAITH--whether one cowboys up enough to admit it, or not.

However, it was a slightly interesting try. It can be amusing to watch the hyper-allergic-to-"faith" folks go through their contortions and mental gymnastics trying to avoid admitting the functionality of a word that applies in their lives every day.

I guess most acolytes of the Religion of Scientism didn't pay much attention in their English classes.

.

BO XIAN
reply to post by KrzYma

 

ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

The history of science is riddled with horrific, tenacious, dogmatic, entrenched and successful efforts to hold progress back on a number of fronts.

But it is far more shot through with instances where its advocates have been lambasted for trying to progress our understanding of the universe also. Again, the earth is not a flat disc, nor the center of the universe, and the sun does not orbit our world. But for scientific thinking, these errors, and countless others, would still be holding our understanding of the universe back.

You would not be communicating with your fellow members here at all, if errors like these had not been corrected by observant individuals, who applied logic and reason to what they saw, and were able to correctly identify the evidence before them, which lead to our modern understanding of astronomy for example. Satellite communications would not be possible if the sum total of our knowledge of space had been held back by the efforts of all the masses of scientific resources which are aimed at the heavens. Instead space has been opened up to us with tools like the Hubble telescope and its descendants.

And medicine, has that held us back? Ask the many people who now survive cancers which would surely have killed them but a decade ago, whether they believe medical science has held them back. Ask the ground crew, and airmen responsible for the use and upkeep of the F-35 if they think that recent advances in avionics are a backward step. Ask modern residents and travelers in the frozen arctic circle, if they think that material science, used to improve the material of their weatherproofs, has prevented them from advancing their goals.

Your standpoint cannot support itself, because it refuses to take into account the evidence against it.

reply to post by TrueBrit


And to think Bo claims to be some sort of teacher.....poor students.

TrueBrit

BO XIAN
reply to post by KrzYma

 

ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

The history of science is riddled with horrific, tenacious, dogmatic, entrenched and successful efforts to hold progress back on a number of fronts.

But it is far more shot through with instances where its advocates have been lambasted for trying to progress our understanding of the universe also. Again, the earth is not a flat disc, nor the center of the universe, and the sun does not orbit our world. But for scientific thinking, these errors, and countless others, would still be holding our understanding of the universe back.

You would not be communicating with your fellow members here at all, if errors like these had not been corrected by observant individuals, who applied logic and reason to what they saw, and were able to correctly identify the evidence before them, which lead to our modern understanding of astronomy for example. Satellite communications would not be possible if the sum total of our knowledge of space had been held back by the efforts of all the masses of scientific resources which are aimed at the heavens. Instead space has been opened up to us with tools like the Hubble telescope and its descendants.

And medicine, has that held us back? Ask the many people who now survive cancers which would surely have killed them but a decade ago, whether they believe medical science has held them back. Ask the ground crew, and airmen responsible for the use and upkeep of the F-35 if they think that recent advances in avionics are a backward step. Ask modern residents and travelers in the frozen arctic circle, if they think that material science, used to improve the material of their weatherproofs, has prevented them from advancing their goals.

Your standpoint cannot support itself, because it refuses to take into account the evidence against it.

I think nobody denies scientific achievements, I for myself never said we don't need science.

reply to post by KrzYma


Well where then is the stumbling block in the way of our progress? At every turn, examples can be made of a gadget or theorem which has advanced not just the science to which it applies directly, but the lives that this science affects. From horse, to steam train, to petrol driven combustion, to the electrical marvels being developed and refined as we speak, our ability to travel has advanced in both its range and its efficiency, as well as its power and pace.

From glider, to the first powered flight, to the Spitfire, to the jet engine, and then to the rocket motor which saw mankind take the giant leap, there is progress, there is advancement.

It is not science which holds us back, but the politics which develop around it, usually at the expense of pure progress, and against the wishes of the inventors and scientists who make these intellectual leaps forward. Here is a great example.

Sir Tim Berners-Lee, famed as the creator of the World Wide Web, wanted data to be shared across the vast breadth of our planet. He wanted us to communicate with one another, to take away the limitations which prevent the free sharing of data between individuals, no matter where they might be from, or who they might be. He wanted to set data free, for all to share in, for all to learn from. Thusly, he created the web, and here we are enjoying his creation.

But it was not him, nor was it any person whose sole interest is the scientific advancement of our species, who began to abuse that creation for the amorphous and ambiguous purposes of the worlds various intelligence agencies. Their actions, politically motivated and uninterested in the scientific value of a free internet, the free sharing of ideas and data, are corrupting Sir Tim's brainchild as we speak. Ergo, computer science is not holding us back, but governments are. Just because chemical weapons are constructed, does not mean that all chemistry on the planet is holding us back. Just because a government uses atomic science to detonate nuclear weapons, does not mean that the entire field of physics is a weight about the neck of mankind. If a gun goes off, does the Newtonian idea of each action having an equal and opposite reaction, suddenly take on a sinister meaning? No.

The thing that holds us back, as Bo Xian would put it, is politics, greed, megalomania among a very small demographic of people, who hold a majority of the wealth on this planet, and wish to remain in that lofty position at all costs.

Look at science the same way as you would look at a toolbox. With a full tool kit, you can fix a car, saw up wood to make a cupboard, or a shed, hammer nails into wood, put screws into joins between sections of a creation, measure the materials you would need to continue a project. With the same tool kit, you could torture a man for a month, and cause him great suffering, and eventually death.

The tools required to do these things are the same, but their intent is entirely different, the motivation behind them utterly opposed.

The crucial thing here, is not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

TrueBrit
Your standpoint cannot support itself, because it refuses to take into account the evidence against it.

Evidently you have a flawed understanding of my standpoint.

Where have I said that I'm against science wholesale?

Where have I said that I'm against the improvements in life that science has delivered?

Where have I said that I think all science is evil?

Where have I said that I think all scientists are evil?

I think it was Einstein that noted that we have scientifically progressed beyond our anemic spirituality to handle constructively the science we have developed.

I'm merely trying to bring a desperately needed counterpoint to those who worship unthinkingly and ignorantly at the altar of science as though it were

--the supreme good
--the supreme and only valid source of absolute truth
--the supreme safety
--the supreme power for good
--the supreme deliverer of life and wonderfulness

It's not.

It is AT LEAST

AS

capable and functional in delivering ever more horrific means of death and tyrannical controls as it is good medicines.

Those, who, in their flight from the Judeo/Christian God Almighty then elevate science to the place of a supreme deity will ultimately find that they have a gnat's fart's worth of a god--or worse--that they've devoted their life of worship to.

.

reply to post by BO XIAN

Selective perception is a real phenomenon.

It also happens to be quite spiritually hazardous.

Oh sure. Plenty of proof of that. For instance, if you go on Youtube and type in "Evangelical ______", you'll see dozens of examples. It's hilarious how you keep making these veiled jibes and apparently remain, um, selectively perceptive of the fact that your own belief system is just as guilty of such practices, if not more so.

The post I am replying to right now is just one such case.

boymonkey74
reply to post by TrueBrit

 

And to think Bo claims to be some sort of teacher.....poor students.

Thanks for yet more wholesale inaccuracy.

Thankfully, my students, in their independent, confidential ratings with me out of the room [standard here] semester after semester gave me the highest statistical and commentary ratings of any in the college.

And, many of their comments on the evaluations and in class persistently documented that they learned more SCIENTIFIC understanding of relationships, human nature and interactions, psychological functioning etc. . . . and more USEFUL such info than they equivalently learned in all their other courses in the college combined. And, they persistently asserted that my class was the only one they enjoyed, looked forward to coming to.

However, I'm well aware that you have your own version of 'truth.'

BTW, I retired from teaching over a year ago.

reply to post by BO XIAN

I'm merely trying to bring a desperately needed counterpoint to those who worship unthinkingly and ignorantly at the altar of science as though it were

--the supreme good
--the supreme and only valid source of absolute truth
--the supreme safety
--the supreme power for good
--the supreme deliverer of life and wonderfulness

Each of those bullet points smacks of sycophancy and archaic philosophy. In fact, this whole "supremacy" idea is as outdated as slavery. Those who insist upon there being a battle to the final dominance between two parties strike me as shallow and shuttered. For example, it's utterly appalling how many beneficiaries of our democratic system still adore and worship a monarch. You may as well join NATO and preach to them about the merits of Nazism.

You cannot have a king and still respect democracy. That is why Christians are often beheld as hypocrites, for they often behave as if they are able to. And yet, in the end, they will gladly give up their voice to avoid absolute termination. And as we all know, those who give up their essential liberties for a little security deserve neither and will lose both.