Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Intrinsic

Intrinsic

Person of Whiteness
<Gold Donor>
15,338
13,756
I don't think that is a fair representation of psychology today and the research methods and tools used to create evidence based therapies and treatment. And that ignores the medical side of psychiatry and what goes in to creating the next Zoloft some bored housewife can mix with their lunch martini. I think the way tests are setup, conducted, data collected, analyzed, peer reviewed, meets any definition of science we would apply to other fields.

There is a faith based side, I guess, in that you have to have faith the client will give a shit and actually engage in the process.
 
Ukerric

Ukerric

Bearded Ape
<Silver Donator>
8,404
10,496
lendarios_sl said:
You can achieve great feats of engineering without never questioning religion, something i think it can no be said about science.
Click to expand...
Even with science. A few years ago, I came across the story ofthis guywho can simultaneously be a PhD in paleontology, with a dissertation on fossil dinosaurs extinct for 66 million years and be a Young Earth Creationist who thinks the Earth is 6 thousand years old.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,378
Ukerric_sl said:
Even with science. A few years ago, I came across the story ofthis guywho can simultaneously be a PhD in paleontology, with a dissertation on fossil dinosaurs extinct for 66 million years and be a Young Earth Creationist who thinks the Earth is 6 thousand years old.
Click to expand...
No, see, what you're failing to realize is that Creationists are actually going out and getting degrees so they can then speak with authority in the fields in question.

Not many, but enough. And many of them, especially ones employed by Liberty University, the Discovery Institute and Answers in Genesis have openly stated at times that the entire reason for their persuing their degrees was because they want to challenge the "Darwinists". Michael Behe is a good example of this, and so it Marcus Ross. One is employed by the Discovery Institute after being laughed out of academia (Behe) and the other is employed by the Liberty Institute, which is I'm pretty sure Jerry Falwell's university.

This was all detailed in the wedge document and strategy years ago, to construct "Trojan Horses" and invade the academic world with Creationists and with demands to "teach the controversy" in order to overturn evolutionary theory in favor of the Biblical interpretations.
 
BrutulTM

BrutulTM

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
<Silver Donator>
14,787
2,674
AngryGerbil_sl said:
Brutul, I don't think you have a prayer of being able to do it, but if you could somehow show me where I am using Faith in my Science...... the thing that I will drop like a hot potato is the faith, not the science!

Faith is literallytheweakest intellectual position a person can take. Actually, it is the specific lack of any intellectual position whatsoever. It is the complete surrender of all intellectualism. It is, truly, the end-game position of feelz over reelz.
Click to expand...
I didn't say faith is used in science you twit. I'm saying that those of us who do not discover science have to have faith in it. There are good reasons to have faith in science and I do have a lot of it, but believing something without seeing the evidence is pretty much what faith is and I haven't seen any evidence for the vast majority of science, even though I believe that it exists. I think that is true of pretty much everyone including scientists when it comes to things that they are not personally researching. I realize that this causes tons of butthurt with overly sensitive atheists because that word triggers them but what I am saying is completely rational.
 
ZyyzYzzy

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA
<Banned>
25,295
48,789
BrutulTM_sl said:
I didn't say faith is used in science you twit. I'm saying that those of us who do not discover science have to have faith in it. There are good reasons to have faith in science and I do have a lot of it, but believing something without seeing the evidence is pretty much what faith is and I haven't seen any evidence for the vast majority of science, even though I believe that it exists. I think that is true of pretty much everyone including scientists when it comes to things that they are not personally researching. I realize that this causes tons of butthurt with overly sensitive atheists because that word triggers them but what I am saying is completely rational.
Click to expand...
Faith is accepting something in the absence of evidence. Again, just because people chose to not examine the evidence, doesn't make it not exist.
 
BrutulTM

BrutulTM

Good, bad, I'm the guy with the gun.
<Silver Donator>
14,787
2,674
Of course not, but if you have not seen the evidence, the only reason for you to believe that it exists is that you have faith in the scientists that discovered it and in other scientists that have examined their data. I'm not a creationist, I am a believer in science. I'm just not up my own ass far enough to tell myself that I believe it based on evidence.
 
Palum

Palum

what Suineg set it to
27,650
44,190
hodj_sl said:
Yes, and please stop trying to equivocate between relying on results that have been demonstrated to work time and time again for hundreds of years now, with relying on absurd conjectures for which no evidence has ever, nor will ever, be presented, and cannot be justified in any way, shape, or form.

Science demonstrates its validity through its results.

This discussion belongs in the Atheism thread, as we are watching the stale old Creationist trope of trying to drag science down to the same level as religion so that they can punch in the same weight class. It has been refuted a million times a million times.

Faith is belief without evidenceandwithout regard for the evidence.

Trusting in the scientific method to self correct and provide mostly accurate and functional answers is not remotely comparable to faith. When faith can land a probe on a comet traveling hundreds of thousands of miles an hour through the voids of space after a decade long voyage, then and only then does it get to call into question the methodology and reasonable trust in the scientific method to provide real, substantive results, which is something religion has never, and will never, accomplish.



This is why Boghassian's definition of faith helps to bridge this gap and correct this error in thinking. Faith is defined by Boghassian as "Pretending to know things you can'tpossiblyknow".

You can possibly know scientific information as fact based upon simple, but rigorous, research and study, if one so chooses.

We cannot possibly know that there is a magic man that exists outside time and space that magicked up the universe as some sort of cosmic game board on which the souls of humanity are the pawns.
Click to expand...
Hodj, first off you are changing Dr. Boghossian's statement. He never makes the claim that faith is things you can'tpossiblyknow. It's irrelevant to the claim anyway.

The point I was attempting to make was that while science and religion are two entirely different fields, how the AVERAGE PERSON applies them in daily life is almost identical and indeed necessary to some extent. Just because one is possible to test empirically and one is not does not change the vehicle by which people use the knowledge - in both cases your 'average Joe' simply creates an opinion based upon something he read out of a book without any first hand knowledge or understanding of why it may or may not be correct. This is the exact definition Boghossian uses. When I claim vaccines are good I am using faith -I have absolutely no knowledge of the medical studies, I am largely ignorant of vaccines and how they work biologically. I am pretending to know something I do not. I happen to be right because it IS empirically testable, but I am absolutely also using faith in the process of science, the institutions who credentialed the individuals and that the peers who reviewed all the studies over decades and decades are all following the scientific method.

In fact, faith through science is how social sciences survive in the public sphere and where the anti-vaxx movement came from. People simply took things written by people they 'trusted' and adopted it as truth WITHOUT any critical thinking, testing or in most cases any peer review of the actual claims.
 
BrotherWu

BrotherWu

MAGA
<Silver Donator>
3,358
6,829
Faith is not just belief in something without direct evidence. It is also belief in something in spite of the evidence.

Trying to establish an equivalence between the a confidence that Einstein's math was good although you don't understand it and the proposition that there is a Sky Wizard who created the world 6000 years ago because the Bible well... That is stupid and dishonest.
 
Palum

Palum

what Suineg set it to
27,650
44,190
BrotherWu_sl said:
Faith is not just belief in something without direct evidence. It is also belief in something in spite of the evidence.

Trying to establish an equivalence between the a confidence that Einstein's math was good although you don't understand it and the proposition that there is a Sky Wizard who created the world 6000 years ago because the Bible well... That is stupid and dishonest.
Click to expand...
Well if you want to use dictionary obscurantism, sure. I am choosing to use both Dr. Boghossian's definition and the first definition you will find in any dictionary which is confidence or trust in something.

If you have an actual argument to address my specific claim that the average human being applies science and religion in the same fashion (that is, they read something from a source they trust and adopt it as truth despite having no first hand knowledge) then go ahead.
 
Palum

Palum

what Suineg set it to
27,650
44,190
AngryGerbil_sl said:
This is simply incorrect.
Click to expand...
I think you are conflating the condition of the knowledge and the person who is gaining the knowledge.

Of course an empirically tested piece of knowledge is superior to pure conjecture. The question is how an individual absorbs that information and what vehicle they use to do so. A simple example: a child goes to Sunday school and his Pastor tells him that Jesus saves and takes half damage. He goes to elementary school Monday and learns from his teacher tells him that water boils at 212 degrees F at sea level.

Now, I presume we would both agree that the former is pure conjecture and the latter is empirically tested and without getting into bullshit metaphysics, simple fact. Yet to the child, he is taking both pieces of information on faith. He trusts the conveyors of said information. His reasons for trusting each may be different but in either case he has no real knowledge of the vaporization point of water, nor thermodynamics, nor has he measured or tested for it.

The challenge is that this banal trust in science is both necessary for advancement (can't spend your entire life reinventing the wheel and advance beyond) but it is also extremely dangerous. Unrelated but a huge concern I have is the lack of scientific skepticism that accompanies atheists these days - the shit that leads to the antivaxxers. To some degree, I suppose it's no surprise that simple people who were not indoctrinated with religion found it convenient to latch onto science as conveyed by the most viewed news source though.
 
AngryGerbil

AngryGerbil

Poet Warrior
<Donor>
17,781
25,897
If the antivaxxers want to take Wakefield on faith, that is not a reflection of science or the scientific method, it is exactly a corruption of it. A corruption of faith.

But yeah, science needs to be coupled with skepticism. I definitely agree on that.

Your post reminds me a little bit about a piece on some damn show (can't remember exactly which) with Richard Dawkins where he is talking to a group of gradeschool science teachers in Itzena-Land who were allowing creationism to be taught in their classes. When asked why, they said something along the lines of (paraphrased), "Well, our kids believe in creation because they are Christian or Muslim whereas we believe in evolution because we are Scientists."

Dawkins laughed and said, (again paraphrased), "No! You don't believe in evolution because you're member of a science club, you believe in evolution becausethat's what the evidence shows!"

He was quite understandably taken aback by the entire thing. He was beginning to realize that 'science' can become faith based. But of course, the moment it does, it stops being science.

I think that is how I see it differently. If a Christian church member said, "I believe Mohammed is the final prophet of God because I am a Hindu." The rest of his congregation would laugh nervously and look at him funny.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,378
Palum_sl said:
Hodj, first off you are changing Dr. Boghossian's statement. He never makes the claim that faith is things you can'tpossiblyknow. It's irrelevant to the claim anyway.
Click to expand...
Yeah, he does. He repeatedly says "Faith is something you do not know and can't possibly know." You haven't watched the video, clearly.

The point I was attempting to make was that while science and religion are two entirely different fields, how the AVERAGE PERSON applies them in daily life is almost identical
Click to expand...
No, they aren't. This is a very easy distinction to make. If they were equal, then when someone encounters a problem, for instance a car malfunction, they would then just sit back and wait for science to magic them up a fucking solution. That would be treating science like fucking faith. They'd pray to Henry Ford and hope that he finds favor with them and decides to fix their car.

But no one does this with anything regarding any object of substance in their lives, unless they are fucking crazy, like Christian Scientists who refuse medical treatment in favor of prayer. These people are regarded as nutso for a reason.

So, no, false fucking equivalence.
 
Palum

Palum

what Suineg set it to
27,650
44,190
}
hodj_sl said:
Yeah, he does. He repeatedly says "Faith is something you do not know and can't possibly know." You haven't watched the video, clearly.



No, they aren't. This is a very easy distinction to make. If they were equal, then when someone encounters a problem, for instance a car malfunction, they would then just sit back and wait for science to magic them up a fucking solution. That would be treating science like fucking faith. They'd pray to Henry Ford and hope that he finds favor with them and decides to fix their car.

But no one does this with anything regarding any object of substance in their lives, unless they are fucking crazy, like Christian Scientists who refuse medical treatment in favor of prayer. These people are regarded as nutso for a reason.

So, no, false fucking equivalence.
Click to expand...
I've watched that video many times, that's not something he claims. If he did I'm sure that would be the title of his talk and not what is actually displayed. Please give me a time index for when he states that since as you claim he states it all the time.

What you are doing is confusing taking something on faith for abandoning reason and rational thought when instead it only applies to the acquisition of specific knowledge.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.