What is "anti-science"?

[tabibito]

There is seldom a consensus on what constitutes "undeniable evidence" ... It comes down to personal evaluation. The "undeniable" evidence for evolution, global warming, and even the very shape of the planet is denied by some. That list is seemingly endless, and then there are conspiracy theories, the list for which is also seemingly endless.

[rogue06]

Many churches have historically taught that "blind faith" (believing without evidence) is required ... That those teachings are completely at odds with the Biblical declarations - that believing (πιστευων - pisteuon) is based on palpable evidence (deemed undeniable by the believer, admittedly). Then too, in the Old Testament (Septuagint), πιστις - pistis only translates the Hebrew word for "loyalty/trustworthiness" - So, what does the FIRST of the English definitions of "faith" have to do with the translated definition of "pistis/pistin/pistos"?

You would think that it goes without saying that the first definition for a word isn't always the correct one in a given situation but unfortunately that is not the case.

[oxmixmudd]

You would think that it goes without saying that the first definition for a word isn't always the correct one in a given situation but unfortunately that is not the case.

Especially if that word is used to translate a word in another language. There are two words then, each with multiple possible meanings. Therefore, the choice of the translated word is then based on how a certain element of usage of that word intersects with the contextually derived usage of the source word. And so one must be sensitive to its contextual application in the setting of the text as rendered in both languages. One can"t just march over to a dictionary for the target language and make claims about how that word can be used independent of the source language's textual context.

Jim

[Joel]

"If you want real accuracy, try science. What is the secret of its success? Partly, it's this: There is a built-in error-correcting machinery. There are no forbidden questions in science, no matters too sensitive or delicate to be probed, no sacred truths...Diversity and debate between contending views are valued."
-Carl Sagan, "Real Patriots Ask Questions"

What I worry about is when those who call others anti-science, seem to make science into a set of sacred truths. And questioning the orthodoxy makes one anti-science.

[HMS_Beagle]

And questioning the orthodoxy makes one anti-science.

That is false and you've already been corrected as why it is false. Questioning orthodoxy in science is actively encouraged as a form of critical peer review. What makes one anti-science is rejecting orthodoxy while providing no supporting scientific evidence or reasons, or pushing the orthodoxy denial on the lay public while dishonestly bypassing all scientifically accepted forms of critical vetting.

ID-Creationism is notorious for the latter mentioned dishonesty which is why they are rightly rejected and considered anti-science by those who do actual scientific work.

[shunyadragon]

"If you want real accuracy, try science. What is the secret of its success? Partly, it's this: There is a built-in error-correcting machinery. There are no forbidden questions in science, no matters too sensitive or delicate to be probed, no sacred truths...Diversity and debate between contending views are valued."
-Carl Sagan, "Real Patriots Ask Questions"

What I worry about is when those who call others anti-science, seem to make science into a set of sacred truths. And questioning the orthodoxy makes one anti-science.

Please, explain further what you consider 'orthodoxy?' and 'sacred truths?' in science. Without an explanation this is genuinely a canardian 'red herring.'

I have no problem with the Carl Sagan citation concerning the role nature of our physical existence. Based on the citation there are no 'sacred truths' in science that cannot be questioned by scientific methods. Is there any other way we can develop the knowledge of our physical existence other than Methodological Naturalism?

[rogue06]

"If you want real accuracy, try science. What is the secret of its success? Partly, it's this: There is a built-in error-correcting machinery. There are no forbidden questions in science, no matters too sensitive or delicate to be probed, no sacred truths...Diversity and debate between contending views are valued."
-Carl Sagan, "Real Patriots Ask Questions"

What I worry about is when those who call others anti-science, seem to make science into a set of sacred truths. And questioning the orthodoxy makes one anti-science.

Actually, in large part, questioning "orthodoxy" is the stuff that Nobel Prizes are made of.

[oxmixmudd]

Actually, in large part, questioning "orthodoxy" is the stuff that Nobel Prizes are made of.

The problem here is a lack of preciseness in language. The words "questioning orthodoxy" can be used to describe legitimate and informed inquiry into the assumptions and data driving some current theory and some crack-pots ignorant rants fuel by megalomania or dunning-kruger (or both). And unfortunately, the vast majority of the public is simply not capable of telling the difference between the two. A significant point of leverage for the crack-pots. Further, the never-ending source of crack-pots erodes trust in the legitimate process and the expertise of those qualified to tell the difference. Factor in religious sensitivity and the observed tendency for scientific research to find itself at odds with religious and/or cultural presumption and superstition* and here we are.



Jim

*keep in mind that as a Christian I believe in Divine revelation. But I also observe over and over those that confuse presumption with revelation, tradition and truth. It seems to me that most apparent clashes between Christian scripture and science boil down to presumption concerning the implication or intention of the scripture and traditional views that have evolved from those presumptions.

[37818]

Is there only one correct [orthodox] view of what constitutes science? There are the philosophies of science and there are methods of science.

[TheLurch]

Is there only one correct [orthodox] view of what constitutes science? There are the philosophies of science and there are methods of science.

It's actually remarkably poorly defined philosophically, and most people go around with a high-school-textbook level understanding of the method, which is only peripherally related to the actual practice.

[TheLurch]

"If you want real accuracy, try science. What is the secret of its success? Partly, it's this: There is a built-in error-correcting machinery. There are no forbidden questions in science, no matters too sensitive or delicate to be probed, no sacred truths...Diversity and debate between contending views are valued."
-Carl Sagan, "Real Patriots Ask Questions"

What I worry about is when those who call others anti-science, seem to make science into a set of sacred truths. And questioning the orthodoxy makes one anti-science.

I note that Joel, after starting off with "flat earthers are scientific" and "we should teach the controversy" is now retreating into "you're treating science like religion". It's like he's filling in a bingo card of specious arguments.

[Joel]

Questioning orthodoxy in science is actively encouraged as a form of critical peer review. What makes one anti-science is rejecting orthodoxy while providing no supporting scientific evidence or reasons

No, I'd say that with empirical science, the burden is not on the questioner but on the person making the positive claim. On the other hand, if you want to change the minds of the existing scientific community, you need evidence/reasons, of course, but that's a different matter.

, or pushing the orthodoxy denial on the lay public while dishonestly bypassing all scientifically accepted forms of critical vetting.

Can you clarify? Dishonest in the sense of telling people something that they themselves believe is false? Or failing to disclose that they aren't publishing in particular journals?

I note that Joel, after starting off with "flat earthers are scientific" and "we should teach the controversy" is now retreating into "you're treating science like religion". It's like he's filling in a bingo card of specious arguments.

No it's the opposite. My concern about false charges of "anti-science" is where I started (in the OP). You have latched onto attacking me on some tangential issues and supporting arguments, and I've indulged you for a while, but I'm trying to get back to the main topic, to argue my main thesis.

Regarding the flat-earthers supporting argument, it's that flat earthers are not necessarily anti-science. Which is not the same as saying "flat earthers are scientific". The question is not whether they are (all? some?) scientific, but whether they are anti-science.

And likewise the relevance to the main topic of teaching the controversy is whether it is anti-science, not whether schools (all? some?) should adopt the practice. The latter is a tangential topic.

I did discuss those tangential issues with you for a bit, but now I'm going back on topic. If you want to discuss the tangential issues further, I am willing to do so in a new thread(s).

[Sparko]

What evidence do you have that the laws of physics are not universal? Please, let me in on it.

now you are arguing from silence?

What evidence do you have that there isn't a giant pink elephant hiding behind the Andromeda galaxy? If you have no evidence then it must be true!

[Sparko]

Your misquoting me as usual parroting your red herrings. I clearly and specifically referred to millions of scientists over the millennia that have confirmed Methodological Naturalism and the consistent predictable science, not available by the faith of Theism, which has absolutely no consistent reliable way to objectively proof nor falsify their beliefs by definition as referenced.

I consider the canard conflating the faith in Theism to the 'faith' supported by objective verifiable evidence by science as defined and referenced, is a classic red herring, and anti-science.

so I was right, you merely have faith in science and have never verified it for yourself.

[Sparko]

“Faith’ is commonly defined as “confidence or trust in a person or thing”. You don’t have to have personally verified every bit of scientific knowledge to accept it as reliable. It is enough to trust the methodology of the qualified people that have done so.

You just keep on shoving that foot in your mouth doncha?

Thanks for admitting I was correct, that you have faith in science.