Religion, Dinosaurs, A.I. and Aliens

[TheVisitor]

Science is to some another form of religion.
It's true people will blindly defend them both at all costs.
"Impossible to prove or disprove".
That kind of puts them right up there with God. Untouchable.
A word that begins with "theo"... how interesting.

 

[John99]

* * * * NOTE FROM THE LINGUISTICS MODERATOR * * * *

I wish scientists would agree on the definition of the word "theory." Until then, disagreements are unavoidable and instead of arguing we should simply say what we mean by a "theory."

Interesting that you would put "* * * * NOTE FROM THE LINGUISTICS MODERATOR * * * *".

Of course the definition of theory is the same in all fields and including laypersons.

Also, i cannot see how insults or insinuations are helping.

Note: i moved this post to alleviate the confusion that the post above was a response to it.

 

[Dywyddyr]

You have made my point again. Science is to some another form of religion.

So you'd rather come back with inane statements instead of backing up your false accusations?

"Impossible to prove or disprove".
That kind of puts them right up there with God doesn't it.

Is that a deliberate misunderstanding on your part?
And it isn't what I said. You are are misquoting me.

I'm glad most in the scientific community do not hold your views.
We would have a real problem then.

I think you'll find that they do in fact.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Of course the definition of theory is the same in all fields and including laypersons.

I think you'll find that is not true at all.

 

[NMSquirrel]

* * * * NOTE FROM THE LINGUISTICS MODERATOR * * * *
This is what we mean when we say the theory of evolution or the theory of relativity. It is unreasonable to doubt them,

there has got to be a better word than unreasonable..

but the probability is so low that to doubt without evidence is unreasonable.

its perfectly reasonable to doubt without evidence...but then you gotten find evidence to move it out of doubt status and into any certainty..

 

[Dywyddyr]

I'm getting bored here

So bored you can't be bothered to post "proof" of your accusations and instead have taken to misquoting me.
Reported. Again.

 

[NMSquirrel]

i think those two need a timeout...

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

"Proven true beyond a reasonable doubt" is not what the "man on the No. 3 bus" understands by "proven".

Which is exactly why I recommend using the phrase "proven true beyond a reasonable doubt" instead of "proven." The man on the bus has an erroneous notion of what we mean by "proven" and we need to fix that!

You have made my point again. Science is to some another form of religion.

I'll let someone with better credentials assess your understanding of religion, but your understanding of science is abysmal. Look up the word "religion" in any respected dictionary and the primary definition centers on "belief in the supernatural," or words to that effect. Religion is just a polite word for supernaturalism: the belief that an (in most cases) invisible and illogical supernatural universe exists, containing creatures or forces which have the power to capriciously interfere with the behavior of the natural universe.

This stands in direct opposition to science. The underlying premise of all science is that the natural universe is a closed system (in layman's language) whose behavior can be predicted by theories derived logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior--a process spelled out in more detail as the scientific method. And BTW, the scientific method is not something that's taken on faith. It has been tested exhaustively for half a millennium and has never come close to being falsified.

People who believe in supernaturalism cannot believe in science, and vice versa. At least not at the same time. Humans have an amazing capacity for cognitive dissonance: belief in two things that contradict each other. But to call science a religion is not to understand at least one of those two things, and possibly both. Religion is antiscience, and I suppose many of us would not object to science being called antireligion.

It's true people will blindly defend them both at all costs.

Scientists don't do anything "blindly." You must be confusing us with somebody else.

It almost sounds like some worship these "theory" things the way you've described them.

If this is the way you see it, then my characterization that you don't really understand science very well is starting to sound true. We accept theories as true beyond a reasonable doubt because they have been proven to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. When one is disproved, which happens occasionally, the average scientist will be excited by all the wonderful new stuff he now gets to learn. Yes, there are some old farts in science who will be disheartened by the change and nostalgic for the good old days, but that's true of any community or discipline. When you become that old it's time to retire.

Interesting that you would put "* * * * NOTE FROM THE LINGUISTICS MODERATOR * * * *".

As the Linguistics Moderator it's part of my job to help clear up misunderstandings over the meaning of words.

Of course the definition of theory is the same in all fields and including laypersons.

Now you're just being obstinate. In my very last post I actually gave the two different meanings of the word "theory" in science and mathematics. In detective work, it means "a hunch based on a few intriguing bits of evidence."

there has got to be a better word than unreasonable.

Perhaps, but as I said, all Americans--and anybody else who watches our TV shows--are familiar with the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt." So to define a theory as "a hypothesis that has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt" will resonate with their understanding of the language. Based on that, I believe that using the negative form "unreasonable" will hold the logic together for them.

it's perfectly reasonable to doubt without evidence...but then you gotta find evidence to move it out of doubt status and into any certainty..

Yeah yeah yeah. Just don't confuse anybody by coming in behind me and telling them that, okay? More seriously, no layman is going to find the evidence to falsify a canonical scientific theory, so it is perhaps quixotic for him to doubt it.

i think those two need a timeout...

Visitor needs more than that. He seems to be confusing the "Comparative Religion" board with the "Religion" board.

 

[TheVisitor]

The underlying premise of all science is that the natural universe is a closed system.
People who believe in supernaturalism cannot believe in science, and vice versa. At least not at the same time.

Fraggle, I hear what you're saying and in most cases it's absolutely the truth.

We aren't always dealing with conventional science. Religions have controlled nations.
It does come to a point that the lines of separation cross.
Science has studied the supernatural and religion has drawn power from hidden science.

-The ancient rulers used "science hoary with age" as a source of mysterious power the common people couldn't understand.

When I speak of the area these two blend together I'm not talking about white coats and petri dishes.
There is a point were conventional rules no longer apply.
We passed that mark in our society a long time ago.

But for the most part Fraggle Rocker, your absolutely right.
This probably isn't the place for it. Thanks for trying to smooth things out.

 

[Stryder]

Science is to some another form of religion.
It's true people will blindly defend them both at all costs.
"Impossible to prove or disprove".
That kind of puts them right up there with God. Untouchable.
A word that begins with "theo"... how interesting.

Science is not a religion, after all Science from latin Scientia just means "Knowledge". It doesn't mean some Creator/Deity or Belief.

While Science in general attempts to have some sort of Structure, this isn't done because of some "Fraternity" way of thinking, it's done so that the "Knowledge" that is available can be freely imparted upon all. (It's not forced upon them, after all you having your beliefs and own theories to things is done so because of the freedoms that you take for granted, if Science was a religion then you wouldn't be allowed those freedoms)

If you implore that Science is a religion, you would be wrong. There are of course "Fraternities" that attempt to malform "Science" into their own blend of reasoning and they are who you could point at as being almost fundamentalist with it, but they by no means are the embodiment of Science, just a malpracticing group distorting Science with their own rationale.

(They would be no different than cult groups generating covenants based upon fundamentalist reasoning when it comes to your own blend of religion.)

 

[TheVisitor]

Science is not a religion, after all Science from Latin Scientia just means "Knowledge". It doesn't mean some Creator/Deity or Belief.

You've brought up some good points and going over these may help us understand it better. I'm not disagreeing with most of it.
It doesn't have to mean some certain unchanging belief is held openly to be a closed, structured system exactly like an organized religion.
This is comparative religions so I think this is right on topic here, and could use being explored. Some here don't understand what I mean by religion.
That is my fault for using the term too loosely. I'll explain further down.

having your beliefs and own theories to things is done so because of the freedoms that you take for granted.
If Science was a religion then you wouldn't be allowed those freedoms.
If you implore that Science is a religion, you would be wrong.

True, you would think that should be so. But it is not that obvious or simple.
Does science have a church? No they do not. But there are many striking similarities.

There are of course "Fraternities" that attempt to malform "Science" into their own blend of reasoning and they are who you could point at as being almost fundamentalist with it, but they by no means are the embodiment of Science, just a malpracticing group distorting Science with their own rationale.

Thanks for bringing that up. These fundamentalist "Fraternities" are not the true religious aspect I'm bringing out here.
They may still be a remote guiding influence, but the real reason I've compared science to religion is this;
They are both a closed system of self appointed officials that only recognize others who've been approved and "anointed" within their own group.

Take Doctors. If you attempt to practice outside of the approved restrictions your license is revoked.
Take Archaeologists. If your findings are outside of the approved "box" of accepted teachings you may find yourself no longer employed.
Take Teachers of the sciences. Teach outside of the "ordained" teachings of the system and again...no longer a teacher.
It is a organized closed regulated system just like the organized religions are.

Let's compare them. If you're a minister, which is comparable to a teacher in the secular world, and you attempt to bring some teaching outside the approved doctrine of your organization you are removed from office.
Baptists can teach only Baptist doctrine. Methodists, Methodist doctrine, etc..
It's even called "Doctrine" is it not?
Organized religions "ordain" doctors to teach. With a doctors degree. Doctors of Divinity.
Organized sciences "ordain" doctors to teach. With a doctors degree. Doctors of Science, Medicine, Education, etc...

They are both the same organized closed type system of acceptance.
That is what I mean by religion. I used the word loosely, but I hope you now get the point.

These two groups have more in common than they would like people to know.
They are not at war with each other. That is the stuff of fiction as I've said before.
Together they hold the understanding of the peoples of this world in their hands.
They are both a ruthless, cold, closed system. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Has the world really emerged from the Dark Ages while letting this stranglehold on the hearts and minds of humanity remain?

Welcome to..."TheVisitor Zone".

 

[Dywyddyr]

Or the Kennel Club.
Or Budgie-Fanciers.
Or CAMRA...

Once more you are resorting to your own (false) definitions.

 

[John99]

I think you'll find that is not true at all.

It isnt a theory.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/theory

 

[Dywyddyr]

It isnt a theory.

Correct. It's a gross error on your part.
Fraggle has ALREADY given two different meanings.
And try this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

While theories in the arts and philosophy may address ideas and not easily observable empirical phenomena, in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with the scientific method.

That article lists many different meanings.

 

[John99]

Science is to some another form of religion.
It's true people will blindly defend them both at all costs.
"Impossible to prove or disprove".
That kind of puts them right up there with God. Untouchable.
A word that begins with "theo"... how interesting.

That is...i hate to use the word ridiculous but it is an accurate way of describing it. There is nothing to defend in 'Science' only peoples weakness and not being able to admit certain things. Think of why it is called 'The Theory of Evolution' and the ONLY reason is because it will never be completely known or proven because it cannot all be shown to be 100% factual. How can you prove that humans evolved from something else? The problem lies with the defensiveness but of course we can only speculate on what is likely to have happened and if someone cannot accept that then they are just being simpletons. So perhaps various subsets of Science can be viewed as a religion, that would be more accurate.

 

[John99]

Correct. It's a gross error on your part.
Fraggle has ALREADY given two different meanings.
And try this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

That article lists many different meanings.

While theories in the arts and philosophy may address ideas and not easily observable empirical phenomena, in modern science the term "theory", or "scientific theory" is generally understood to refer to a proposed explanation of empirical phenomena, made in a way consistent with the scientific method.

So you dont understand the word 'proposed' either?

 

[John99]

TheVisitor, an easy way to understand this is the way the term crops up.

Do you see "The Theory of Fogs" or "The Theory of Air"?

 

[Dywyddyr]

So you dont understand the word 'proposed' either?

You don't understand the context of that word I see.
Try this one:
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Theory

You're still utterly incorrect.

 

[John99]

You don't understand the context of that word I see.
Try this one:
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Theory

You're still utterly incorrect.

Call me 'incorrect' who cares?

That link supports EXACTLY what i am saying here.

 

[John99]

oh no, utterly incorrect.