Science Is Just Another Believe System

In another forum a discussion came up about science and inevitably the old argument of creationists came: It doesn't matter if you believe in god or science because either is basically the same, sou can believe in one or the other.

I tried to find an argument against that, because I know that this has been often enough rebuked on talk.origins and scpetics boards, but I can't find it.

There is no arguing that.
Science has become the new religion.
[Moderator: Suspended 10 days for making naked claims antithetical to dialogue without support.]

This post has been edited by rpenner on May 4 2012, 03:24 PM

I have no doubts that some science is more like a religion (Stringtheorie comes to my mind ), but that's not inherently so. Religion is by definition based on believe. At least in physics, I can, to some extent, with a rather moderate effort, see for myself that it works, totally independent from me believing in it.

Science is the belief that reality matters and therefore we should try to understand reality rather than just telling ourselves stories we like to hear.

How about 'man-made global warming'; more of a political profit/arm-twisting policy than a science. String Theory however is not close to a religion; it is what it's name implies - a theory. It was never called String Axiom. otoh, Christianity was never called Christian Theory by it's adherents, it is called Christianity.

I remain completely disenchanted by the actions of actual scientists that argue for the absoluteness of man made global warming. Politics is such a poison. Instead of scientists spending money (usually tax payer money), time, work, and deceit to 'prove' their pet is real and not merely a part of the occasional series of epochal events in the ongoing continuation of Earth, they could put all their resources to solving Pollution - something no one but Rush Limbaugh disbelieves in. Work to solve Pollution; the solutions of which would matter here and now. Air you breathe, water you drink, food you eat, material you handle - every day. Ability and knowledge to solve Pollution is an example of Science as a Solution, and it is a reality. A too-ignored one, but a reality nevertheless.

We would have time to argue about anthropogenic global warming, if man's activities weren't contributing to the increase in the CO2. If our activities contributed to global cooling then we could ignore man's activities.

OK the global warming may have been inevitable but we are certainly contributing to the run-away effect. If the car is rolling down a slope, on which side do you push if you want it slow down? Show me that you understand Newtonian physics!

Look at it in epochal terms. And worry about pollution instead. If you think we will die from man made GW, the same solutions for pollution apply to GW also. But we waste money time and resources that could be put to much better use, and it's all over vanity for one's own opinion. Arguing uselessly over intangibles is intellectual masturbation. How about some real action? As in devoting everything we have to solving pollution? You can't agree with that? You'd rather argue instead? You'd rather play the fiddle while Rome burns, arguing intangibles uselessly instead? Newtronian physics isn't even the issue - sheesh...

I play the fiddle! It's a violin I'll have you know.
You want real action. Well I do my bit, but as you may have gather my ideas don't always grab immediate approval.

I am actively involved daily with recycling resources.

"Grass juice" is the answer. For that I would sell a half share in my intellectual property for $100,000.

That's a statement I can agree with. I take it to the enth degree - the shortest showers i can effectively take (generally 8 minutes), No food of any kind ever in the garbage, everything that recyclers take is theirs (trash is a small store sized bag every 2 weeks), House temps in the 50's during the winter and 80's+in the summer, No AC in the car, Huge gardens to be weeded and very little lawn to mow, 42 mpg combined vehicle, Surcharge paid to get windpower.
These are some examples of my everyday living. I brag to inspire others. My contribution is miniscule in the grand scheme of things, but my integrity and principles disallow the 'everyone else has a big footprint, so why shouldn't I' crap. I sacrifice because it's the right thing to do, and I've done it for so long that it's not a sacrifice, it's a way of life I wouldn't give up if I had won that Powerball Lottery. And i'd donate 99% of it to proven laudable centers that promote wellness for Earth and her peoples and her animals.

Two reading sources I recommend: Garbage magazine, published from 1990-1995, and Mark Stevenson's book An Optimist's Tour of the Future.

In my previous post, I meant Newtonian

This post has been edited by soundhertz on May 5 2012, 06:08 AM

There's certainly a lot of faith in science. The difference is that we can often test science. For the general populace, they can judge the quality of their toys. For the scientist (who certainly needs faith), the testing is more direct.

In biology, I have 'faith' that a published paper is accurate, and so when I rely on their results in order to move the field forwards, I will have *my* success if they were correct. If my theory does not bear out, it might be a fault in my theory, or it might be that I'm building it off of inappropriate assumptions.

This means that I will retest their original experiments, to see if they made the mistake or if I did.

For simple theories this is certainly true. I think the main problem where this "argument" gets it's power from is, that modern science is getting so complex that it's no longer understandable.

But reading this thread, I already got a good counterargument, because science is still, by it's nature, verifiable.

A good example in my opinion is, special relativity. While RT is always considered to be "strange" with that time effects, the special RT can still be calculated and understood with simple highschool maths.


And BTW: I don't really "believe" in the "social warming" for various reasons.

This post has been edited by sparhawk on May 7 2012, 01:50 PM

Yeah, solid theories are so applicable that nearly anyone can perform their own experiments, if they cared to. In fact, 'normal people' can rely on their faith on the broad theories in order to make their own simple theories, ones that wouldn't be made by scientists because it's not really something they do. (Since scientists prefer to do cutting edge, hard-to-understand stuff)