In your eyes, is science a religion?
Added: is one more “absolute” than the other?
#simpleQ
^you just dont get it.
Have you heard the good news about our lord and savior, the omnissiah?
No, what we’re discussing is that the blind second hand faith in all science by people who don’t practice it and can’t and don’t differentiate between fields of science, degree of proof, weak vs strong theories and level of general consensus is on par with the blind faith found in religion.
In other words, you have huge quality and integrity differences from one field to the next in science that comes down to agency issues and level of available evidence. You also have huge differences in consensus and evidence from one theory to the next. Scientists get this, they have the time and care to understand the nuance and approach findings with skepticism. The twitterverse? Not so much. They parrot every pop sci headline, treating a small theoretical finding as if it’s law while ignoring lack of consensus, not examining data integrity or agency issues and acting like theoretical cosmology is on the same plane as observed Newtonian physics. These people are not unlike a religious zealot. Full of misplaced belief in something they don’t understand and easily gamed by bad findings masquerading as fact.
But obviously, this type of nuance and discussion doesn’t fit neatly into a meme so some people can’t get past debating science vs religion.
_To quote BS: what we’re discussing is that the blind second hand faith in all science by people who don’t practice it and can’t and don’t differentiate between fields of science, degree of proof, weak vs strong theories and level of general consensus is on par with the blind faith found in religion. _
^This. My point is that the “blind, second-hand faith in all science” is not “on par with the blind faith found in religion”.
#ComparingApplesToOranges
Righhhhht.
Like that empirical evidence for 11 dimensional string theory. There’s actually more empirical evidence of Jesus’s existence than there is for an 11th dimension.
Or the fact that Monsanto was ghost writing research for the EPA and EPA scientists were openly talked about squashing toxicity reviews for glycophosphate.
I can literally make an entire thread of documented cases of falsified or misrepresented data used to further careers that went for ages before detection.
Blind faith in science is literally blind faith in humanity (humans do the science), which is very much comparable with blind faith in religion. I mean, humans wrote a book about other humans who saw and interacted with Jesus. So in fact,we’re all just playing telephone with empirical data.
#ApplesToApples
Since you’re set on being dogmatic, lets play a game: you use empirical data to prove that Glycophosphate is a non-carcinogen and I’ll use empirical data to prove that Jesus died and rose from the cross.
Blind faith in religion is worse than blind faith in science. It really comes down to incentives. Religion incentives following dogma, where as you are rewarded in science by turning dogma on their head. Neither is perfect, but one system is structured much better. The fact you know about fabricated science is partly due to the self critiquing nature. This doesn’t mean that the replicability crisis isn’t a real concern, but I still think it is clear that even if two systems are flawed, one can be superior to the other.
^^Except science deals with things that can be measured, tested, and verified; religion deals with things that can, by definition, only be taken on faith.
Thus science and religion can’t be checked/investigated/examined/explored/scrutinized on the same level.
#FACT
Dude, AGAIN, nobody is getting into a better or worse than here. Get nuance.
Really, when have they ever measured an nth dimension where n>10? How did you verify and test that?
Also, if it’s so easily measurable and verified, where’s my proof on glycophosphate?
#FTFY
Hey Walter… #chill
Welcome to the troll fight of the century ladies and gentleman i’m your host and color commentator GuyonaBuffalo. Tonight we have a spirited debate between two well known Water Cooler trolls of our favorite forum for analysts.
TALE OF THE TAPE
BlackSwan:
Ethnicity: White Height: Unknown Weight: Unknown Special Talent: Vengeful brooding hate spiral when called out. Does his best work when on the ropes.
Hashtag
Ethnicity Unknown Height: Unknown Weight: Unknown Special Talent: Brevity. Excellent with quick jabs.
Halftime word count
BlackSwan: 1,292 words Hashtag: 718 words
Judge’s Scorecard Quit giving a fuck 2 pages ago.
Is hashtag asian or indian? The bets are on!
Actually, with the amount of hashtags he uses, he may be a white teen girl
I do not accept that religion and science are making different types of claims. The only reason we think religion currently makes claims about unprovable things is because science has so thoroughly eroded the prior claims people now ignore. For example, saying Jesus rose from the death is a biological claim. Discussing the fact there is a God often trespasses on physics. This is not somehow separate from science. And over time, as our understanding in science grows, religion will attempt to explain less and less.
You made an explicit comparison, which I’m disagreeing with. Did you miss the nuance? 
RE:"Blind faith in science is literally blind faith in humanity (humans do the science), which is very much comparable with blind faith in religiRon.
#TryAgain
Ok guys let me try to sum this up:
Religion : You need love
Science : Observe and gather evidence to make a conclusion
Is there really anything else?
Also, blind faith in religion means trusting in God.
Blind faith in science is just stupid.
This thread makes a lot more sense if “religion” is substituted for “the truth” throughout this thread.
ie. 'People are following science like religion"
FTFY : “People are following science like it is the truth”