scienceisreligion - 19 February 2012 08:28 AM

much of science is belief, as is religion. [...] much of it should not be set forth as fact.

Scientists do trade beliefs or provisional theory founded on evidence. That evidence is fact (or falsification) and those beliefs are to be rigorously defended by fact.

Religion, in its rhetorical trickery, banishes evidence.

scienceisreligion - 19 February 2012 08:28 AM

I believe [science and religion] both hold some truth, are good for society [...] There is too much we dont know and never will.

The God of the gaps continues to shrink. Humans operate on beliefs and religion exploits that vulnerability. Some unwittingly think that fanciful stories are good for society and some are, unfortunately for the rest of us, convinced. Ultimately, religion is irresponsible.

scienceisreligion - 19 February 2012 08:39 AM

its in the quotes originally

Where?

George - 19 February 2012 08:29 AM

dougsmith - 19 February 2012 07:41 AM

Lysenko - 18 February 2012 06:41 PM

Liberals tend to deny science in areas where the mass of scientists dare not tread, such as evolutionary psychology, psychometrics, and genetics. They think that anything that could be used to justify racism and sexism is wrong to even look into.

Seems to me pretty obvious that things which can be used to justify racism and sexism should be problematic.

Lysenko never said that the research potentially allowing to justify racism and sexism is not problematic. I think you’re reading something that is not there.

I didn’t say Lysenko said that the research wasn’t problematic. I think you’re reading something that is not there.

No, you didn’t explicitly say that, but I know what you’re doing here.

George - 19 February 2012 10:30 AM

No, you didn’t explicitly say that, but I know what you’re doing here.

Oh you do? And what exactly are you doing here, then?

Excuse me for trotting on old ground, doing some catching up here. . .

scienceisreligion - 19 February 2012 07:23 AM

[#19] This demonstrates exactly why the scientific community has credibility problems.  The interviewer is claiming that scientific evidence is indisputable fact.

It’s this sort of distortion that screws up the whole dialogue.

I dare say you couldn’t find a single serious scientist or student that thinks that. 
Science is all about disputing evidence - but disputing it with more solid evidence.
Uncertainties don’t make something wrong. 
Further evidence often refines knowledge, rather than upturning it.
Although enough further solid evidence can and does upturn scientific tenets.

For example with the Plate Tectonic Revolution, Wagner is often brought up.  Many times with a head shake that he was ‘so wrongly’ rebuffed by the geological community. 
Well actually, the stodgy scientific community was right to demand extraordinary proof for his extraordinary claims.  He was a visionary on the right track, but it takes more than being a visionary on the right.  His vision left too much unexplained so was rejected.  Evidence and proofs were needed.  So it took a few more decades for that stuff to accumulate and for his vision to be vindicated.  So it should be.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I’ve found that one of the worst problems with the general public appreciating science is how badly it gets misinterpreted {as scienceisreligion has done in that quote and others} and with claims being made that never came out of the literature {or the actual scientific community} to begin with.  I see this constantly in the AGW (global warming), evolution debate and many others.

I find it interesting that the podcast was about scientific evidence gaining acceptance throughout the general community, and whether the barriers to new ideas are greater on one side or symmetrical, but when I try to introduce my own skepticism I am written off because it is not the answer that is being sought after.  Is this not what the podcast is about?  Instead of simply dismissing me, would it not be better to address my concern? Think of me as a very small sampling (I know that large samples are needed but its a start), and use this input to find the real problem with communicating scientific ideas.  When you dismiss me as a know nothing (and when it comes to much of science I am) then you are turning your back on those very people you claim to want to communicate with.  Maybe the arguments between the right and left are more symmetrical than the interviewer believes after all.
Uncertainties do not make things wrong, they make them uncertain!  This is all I am saying, We don’t know.  Science doesn’t explain everything.  Science like religion wants to pretend to have all the answers and in many cases can look foolish in the process.  There are countless “truths” that have later been found to be false.  What is worse is when these “facts” are used to build other “facts.”  Why not simply disseminate the information as current scientific beliefs.  I don’t think this would have add anything negativity to the ideas and at the same time might garner more acceptance with us “general public” folk.
Citizenschallange: I just don’t why the scientific community needs to feel like everything they produce is fact.  Why are you saying I am misrepresenting science, I am not representing anything.
DE: “The God of the gaps continues to shrink. Humans operate on beliefs and religion exploits that vulnerability. Some unwittingly think that fanciful stories are good for society and some are, unfortunately for the rest of us, convinced. Ultimately, religion is irresponsible.”
Religion is not irresponsible.  Thou shall not kill is irresponsible?  Thou shall not steal is irresponsible?  Most religions are based on peace and well being.  Just because you don’t want to believe there is a super human being looking over us does not mean you should turn a blind eye to all the good religion brings such as schools, hospitals, and orphanages.  Casting away these would be irresponsible. 
I find it almost amusing that the scientific community would like to completely abolish the theory of God but at the same time would like to be God.

scienceisreligion - 19 February 2012 06:43 PM

but when I try to introduce my own skepticism I am written off because it is not the answer that is being sought after.  Is this not what the podcast is about?  Instead of simply dismissing me, would it not be better to address my concern?

That doesn’t seem fair.
You’ve been answered in a civil constructive manner, including straight-forward honesty. . . . . . . we’re all big kids, no offense intended.

scienceisreligion - 19 February 2012 06:43 PM

Uncertainties do not make things wrong, they make them uncertain!  This is all I am saying, We don’t know.  Science doesn’t explain everything.  Science like religion wants to pretend to have all the answers and in many cases can look foolish in the process.*  There are countless “truths” that have later been found to be false. 

*No it doesn’t!
Religion has a dogma that must be accepted… doubts to that dogma are not tolerated - instead replaced by the demand of faith, even when that faith requires
Willfully Ignoring the full spectrum of evidence… of life.

Science is build on the premise all knowledge is provisional, open to re-review., retesting.  Of course science is also a human endeavor and there are examples of… accepted wisdom becoming too entrenched, much too much, beyond supportable underpinning.  But, the science ethic itself comes to the rescue because within her is a set of ground-rules that enable new eyes to challenge and superimpose better understanding upon older, lessor understanding.

After all it is a pageant, not a machine. 

Whereas seems to me all religion has to offer is endless repetition,
a horizon from which the beauty of discovery has been banished…
... actually thinking on it just now, sort of is like a machine

scienceisreligion - 19 February 2012 06:43 PM

What is worse is when these “facts” are used to build other “facts.”

 
Where’s that dramatic flourish come from?  Can you explain it?  Support it?

scienceisreligion - 19 February 2012 06:43 PM

Why not simply disseminate the information as current scientific beliefs?

What do you mean?  Searching our scientific information and coming up to speed on the knowledge and debate of the moment, it’s not that tough to do. Keeping up with it once you’ve found it, that test is a bitch.

So tell us ‘scienceisreligion’ what information do you believe is not being disseminated?
List some of your “countless (banished) truths” ?
Can you offer details?
What specific part(s) of science is giving you a problem?
It’d be interesting looking into the rest of story. 

scienceisreligion - 19 February 2012 06:43 PM

Citizenschallange: I just don’t (see) why the scientific community needs to feel like everything they produce is fact. 

Why are you saying I am misrepresenting science, I am not representing anything.

Look at what you write.  You’re bias burns.
Your characterizations of science/scientists have nothing to do with what actual science is about.

scienceisreligion - 19 February 2012 06:43 PM

I find it almost amusing that the scientific community would like to completely abolish the theory of God but at the same time would like to be God.

There you go again, projecting your obsesses and baggage into your own story. 
Keep in mind simply because you misunderstand & misrepresent what “science is or believes” doesn’t make it so.

          ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

incidentally regarding

scienceisreligion - 19 February 2012 07:57 AM

This forum is nothing but propaganda.  pretending otherwise is simply fooling yourself.

Who’s fooling whom
What does that mean? 

This is an open forum - there’s nothing here but individuals having a few discussions
We’re a gathering of totally disparate individuals. 

We got one thing in common, we can talk/write about common interests in a convivial atmosphere; 
That and all the participants are quite interesting folks in their own right.
This is a discussion community, one of high caliber at that, yet in your imagination you’ve morphed it into some “propaganda machine.” 
Then you sound stunned when some take a swipe at you.

But, I like your posts, at least you’re having a discussion as opposed to pure rant.

citizenschallange: I dont have the time to address everything at the moment, but I did want to write a few quick comments.

“That doesn’t seem fair.
You’ve been answered in a civil constructive manner, including straight-forward honesty. . . . . . . we’re all big kids, no offense intended.”

I have been answered in constructive manner on certain things, other things have just been disregarded with semi-personal attacks.

“So tell us ‘scienceisreligion’ what information do you believe is not being disseminated?”
I am not saying things have not been disseminated, logically, that would be almost impossible to prove anyway.  What i am saying is the way it is disseminated.  In other words, it should be expressed as “what is currently believed” or “current studies suggest” etc.  Not presented to the general public as fact. 

“Look at what you write.  You’re bias burns.”
yes i am, i have stated this previously, and will not deny it now.  Can you do the same?

“Religion has a dogma that must be accepted… doubts to that dogma are not tolerated - instead replaced by the demand of faith, even when that faith requires
Willfully Ignoring the full spectrum of evidence… of life.”
I have my problems with religion as well, but I express those issues with people of faith (different boards).  There would be no point in discussing the problems with religion here or the problems with science there.  I HATE group think!

“Who’s fooling whom”
this was in response to someone claiming my writings were propaganda. 

Lastly, I like the fact that this is an open forum and my posts are not only left up, but responded to.  I am very happy a friend of mine lead me here as I believe this site, its podcasts, and boards will be very informative to me.  I have a much thicker skin than you may think, and enjoy spirited (pun intended) discussions haha.

p.s.  I need time to answer some of your more thoughtful questions, obviously my answer will be scrutinized (and I am ok with that) so I dont want to post rushed, unthoughtful (researched) garbage.

scienceisreligion - 20 February 2012 07:23 PM

p.s.  I need time to answer some of your more thoughtful questions, obviously my answer will be scrutinized (and I am ok with that) so I don’t want to post rushed, unthoughtful (researched) garbage.

As will mine and so it should be.

welcome

SR,
I have my problems with religion as well, but I express those issues with people of faith (different boards).  There would be no point in discussing the problems with religion here or the problems with science there.  I HATE group think!

I disagree with that observation. It is Fora like CFI which allow for free expression without automatic rejection. Yes you will find vigorous debate but you are allowed to post and defend your position. The very diversity on this forum prevents “group think”. Group think is only found in those other group boards you cite. An atheist or scientist is not even allowed to post and present their viewpoint on those sites. They are automatically excluded by the Group.

Beware bias!

I tend to agree there is nothing quite like the almost total denial that climate is an issue that we see in the Republican Party in the Democratic Party.  Part of my assessment on this has to do with how serious I take climate change to be.  But because I see nuclear power as a potential game changing solution to the problem of how to replace the fossil fuels, I think the anti nuke tendency that is widespread in the “left” has similarities, as noted on your show.  But nuclear power isn’t the only issue connected with climate change the “left” has blinders on about. 

One way to experience first hand how hard and fast denial on “the left” is is to take a position in a comment submitted to a “left” website.  Eg:  at Joe Romm’s site under this post where he discussed his position on carbon capture and storage I submitted a comment that linked to a Public Radio International piece describing that according to American Electric Power’s CEO Mike Morris, their carbon capture technology is ready to deploy at full scale now and what caused them to abandon their plan to deploy it at their Mountaineer plant in Virginia was the fact that because there is no carbon price in the US their regulator would not allow them to recover one dime of the cost from their customers.  Morris stated a new coal plant fitted with his company’s CCS process would produce low carbon power cheaper than new nuclear, solar or wind.  I commented to Romm:  “But of course the mantra here is CCS doesn’t exist, and can’t be part of any mitigation effort.  No wonder ‘progressives’ are dismissed as dispensing propaganda by many who would like to pretend that climate change is not happening”. 

For this, the name I was using to comment, i.e. Joe Bftsplk, found himself permanently banned from Romm’s site.  Any further comments I submitted under that name didn’t even make it into the moderation queue. 

You can get the same treatment if you say the wrong thing about nuclear power.  The reason I have to use made up names to comment on Romm’s site is because I have made comments on nuclear in the past and had my I.P. address or email address or username or all three identified and banned. 

Many on the “left” pretend they don’t oppose nuclear power or carbon capture but they do.  Romm claims his main objection to nukes is they are not cost effective.  Why is China putting in so many nukes that they will be producing the greatest share of its low carbon kW/hr going forward?  Romm delights in publicizing cost overruns on nukes in the developed world, i.e. Finland, but ignores reactor construction going on in China as he declares nukes are too expensive for anyone to use.  When solar panel construction moves to China Romm cheers at the prospect for low cost panels no matter what that situation does to his mantra of climate action will produce millions of green jobs.  But when reactor construction moves to China he pretends it isn’t happening.  Australian power producers expect to be able to order turnkey nukes from China after the Chinese get the process of building them down pat after a few dozen.  Perhaps the US will be in that position as well, unable to compete with China building modular small breeders that the entire world will be demanding as the impacts of climate change set in.

David Lewis - 22 February 2012 09:15 AM

I tend to agree there is nothing quite like the almost total denial that climate is an issue that we see in the Republican Party in the Democratic Party.  {...} But when reactor construction moves to China he pretends it isn’t happening.  Australian power producers expect to be able to order turnkey nukes from China after the Chinese get the process of building them down pat after a few dozen.  Perhaps the US will be in that position as well, unable to compete with China building modular small breeders that the entire world will be demanding as the impacts of climate change set in.

Wait a minute, where did that come from, think Non Sequitur.  What’s this got to do with pondering bias when evaluating information… a little maybe but seems like a derailment.

Why not start a fresh thread of your own. 
define it a bit better and you got a conversation getter. 

Links that support claims are also welcome.

For issues where the left exhibits motivated reasoning, there are a few good examples in the second half of Joseph Heath’s _Economics without Illusions_, which is about economic myths of the right and left.  (BTW, rg21 should certainly read the first half of that book…)  Economics seems to be an area where there are at least equally bad arguments on both sides of the right-left political spectrum.

Jim Lippard - 25 February 2012 11:01 AM

For issues where the left exhibits motivated reasoning, there are a few good examples in the second half of Joseph Heath’s _Economics without Illusions_, which is about economic myths of the right and left.  (BTW, rg21 should certainly read the first half of that book…)  Economics seems to be an area where there are at least equally bad arguments on both sides of the right-left political spectrum.

Have any examples to share?