How do theists "know" what is real?

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Compare, again, how science would do this. To declare that you have found a Truth, you must tell everyone exactly how you found it. You must release enough data and procedure for them to be able to repeat the same test and get the same answer. And if no one can repeat your answer, you have no Truth claim.


This is the difference. It is the difference in HOW WE KNOW whether something is a Truth.

Religion: uses the method of faith, cannot discern whether fraud has occurred.
Science: uses the method known as the Scientific Method and can discern fraud by transparency and irreproducibility.

Excellent illustration of two different mental frames, a point I attempted to make with remez. In short, we are what we know. A former workmate is an excellent automotive mechanic, and you might think that would translate into scientific curiosity. Nope. Loves the Creation Museum, just gushes about it.

Should I pray that my grass gets cut or should I go cut it? "Dear patron saint of lawns and lawn mowers, please...."

 

[Learner]

Compare, again, how science would do this. To declare that you have found a Truth, you must tell everyone exactly how you found it. You must release enough data and procedure for them to be able to repeat the same test and get the same answer. And if no one can repeat your answer, you have no Truth claim.


This is the difference. It is the difference in HOW WE KNOW whether something is a Truth.

Religion: uses the method of faith, cannot discern whether fraud has occurred.
Science: uses the method known as the Scientific Method and can discern fraud by transparency and irreproducibility.

Excellent illustration of two different mental frames, a point I attempted to make with remez. In short, we are what we know. A former workmate is an excellent automotive mechanic, and you might think that would translate into scientific curiosity. Nope. Loves the Creation Museum, just gushes about it.

Should I pray that my grass gets cut or should I go cut it? "Dear patron saint of lawns and lawn mowers, please...."

Hmmm, that's why I say it will depend on the merits of individuals. I mean you might as well say also ... Science itself, doesn't have any morals, charity or compassion either way you put it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Hmmm, that's why I say it will depend on the merits of individuals. I mean you might as well say also ... Science itself, doesn't have any morals, charity or compassion either way you put it.

how do you detect the morals of a truthbringer, then?

Someone tells me they managed missile guidance with two gimbal instead of three, i ask How? Then i go try to get the money guy to authorize some experiments.
Whether he's lying, or just mistaken, or onto something amazing, his motives aren't going to change my experiments.

Someone tells you the Archangel Mystafafon told them that pandemic masks are sweet (or abominable, whatever) in God's eyes, you...?
Pop a moral dipstick in his heart, or what?

 

[atrib]

We are still waiting for you to explain the context of your post talking about fraud in science and women in science. What was the point of this post if not to diss the scientific process? Are you unwilling to discuss this issue because you are now embarrassed by what you had written?

I don't know whether to take this as a joke or be concerned for you both. I'd also like to know what BOTH of you think I was trying to imply here - there must be something you're both trying to get at, because you' are asking me to anwser your strawman question, having a very different "context" to mine.

Still waiting a 3rd time?

The section you highlght being part of the ignored half in my original post ... was IN the context of foul play ..that the female scientist, for some time, didn't get the deserved recognition!!!

I’ve quoted your original post without editing in any way.

What is your point regarding women?
Your strange accusation of straw man is wholly at odds with the fact that we are asking you for clariffication. Instead, you obfuscate.

The point should be obvious from the example on the top. "As scientists, we like to think that science is a bastion of virtue, untouched by science fraud...etc..

The notion "to discredit the scientific method" was not my line of argument, it couldn't be, not by the post you quoted of mine!

The claim that scientists consider science to be a bastion of virtue, untouched by science fraud, is false. The opposite is true. Science recognizes that individuals can be subject to personal bias, and that scientific work is subject to error, which is why the method emphasizes independent testing and peer review. Science includes mechanisms to correct for such biases and errors, and anyone who knows anything about science, understands understands that. The argument is a misrepresentation of how most scientists actually view the scientific process.

You quoted this claim because you wanted to smear science, to imply that the scientific method could not be trusted. Only, being ignorant of how science works, you did not know that the scientific method includes mechanisms to detect fraud and error, and your argument fell flat. When this fact was revealed to you:

The scientific process emphasizes peer review and independent testing because we understand and acknowledge that humans can be biased, and that our reasoning and observations can be flawed. This is a feature, not a bug.

You started evading the question about your intent in posting this material because you realized you were wrong. You were asked about your intent about 5 times by at least two people, and instead of being honest and owning up to your mistake, you avoided the question. This behavior tells us a lot about your intellectual integrity, or lack thereof.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Compare, again, how science would do this. To declare that you have found a Truth, you must tell everyone exactly how you found it. You must release enough data and procedure for them to be able to repeat the same test and get the same answer. And if no one can repeat your answer, you have no Truth claim.


This is the difference. It is the difference in HOW WE KNOW whether something is a Truth.

Religion: uses the method of faith, cannot discern whether fraud has occurred.
Science: uses the method known as the Scientific Method and can discern fraud by transparency and irreproducibility.

Excellent illustration of two different mental frames, a point I attempted to make with remez. In short, we are what we know. A former workmate is an excellent automotive mechanic, and you might think that would translate into scientific curiosity. Nope. Loves the Creation Museum, just gushes about it.

Should I pray that my grass gets cut or should I go cut it? "Dear patron saint of lawns and lawn mowers, please...."

Hmmm, that's why I say it will depend on the merits of individuals. I mean you might as well say also ... Science itself, doesn't have any morals, charity or compassion either way you put it.

Scientific knowledge has no connection to individual merit. You may be confusing science with urban legend. Sure, some people, because of their scientific reputation are held in higher regard and given more credibility, but in the end other scientists will test their claims. There's fraud done by scientists, no doubt, but it pales in comparison to pious fraud.

If we're talking about knowing what is real I would certainly trust something I read in science. Science deals with reality, religion deals in myth and legend. A person who is trying to help themselves and needs knowledge on how to solve a problem is advised to listen to someone trained in that knowledge, not a dispenser of woo.

There are plenty of historical examples of people discovering that the woo was wrong, Kepler comes to mind. He didn't jettison all his woo, just realized that the science was right and the woo was wrong.

 

[James Brown]

I find it interesting that when science and faith disagree, those who practice faith have methods to explain away the science.

But when science appears to support their faith claim, they shout it from the rooftops.

 

[Learner]

The claim that scientists consider science to be a bastion of virtue, untouched by science fraud, is false.

You're in error. You can't be saying "no scientists at all" are saying that, are you?

The opposite is true. Science recognizes that individuals can be subject to personal bias, and that scientific work is subject to error, which is why the method emphasizes independent testing and peer review. Science includes mechanisms to correct for such biases and errors, and anyone who knows anything about science, understands understands that. The argument is a misrepresentation of how most scientists actually view the scientific process.

It maybe a misrepresentation of ALL scientists but then thats not what I'm debating about.

You quoted this claim because you wanted to smear science, to imply that the scientific method could not be trusted. Only, being ignorant of how science works, you did not know that the scientific method includes mechanisms to detect fraud and error, and your argument fell flat. When this fact was revealed to you:

Is there any moment that you can't refrain from making false assertions, bordering on telling fibs just because your shapeshifting an argument into another is not quite working?

The scientific process emphasizes peer review and independent testing because we understand and acknowledge that humans can be biased, and that our reasoning and observations can be flawed. This is a feature, not a bug.


You started evading the question about your intent in posting this material because you realized you were wrong. You were asked about your intent about 5 times by at least two people, and instead of being honest and owning up to your mistake, you avoided the question. This behavior tells us a lot about your intellectual integrity, or lack thereof.

So you don't like making mistakes about what you think I'm doing....hence the assertions telling me what I'm doing, knowing better than I know myself .. also see previous above.

 

[atrib]

You're in error. You can't be saying "no scientists at all" are saying that, are you?

I did not say "all scientists". Stop lying.

It maybe a misrepresentation of ALL scientists but then thats not what I'm debating about.

I have no idea what your fucking point is because you won't tell us. You have been asked to clarify your position about a dozen times, and you have evaded the question every time. You can clear this up right now by explaining what your point was, but you won't do that. What am I supposed to conclude from your behavior?

You quoted this claim because you wanted to smear science, to imply that the scientific method could not be trusted. Only, being ignorant of how science works, you did not know that the scientific method includes mechanisms to detect fraud and error, and your argument fell flat. When this fact was revealed to you:

Is there any moment that you can't refrain from making false assertions, bordering on telling fibs just because your shapeshifting an argument into another is not quite working?

I don't know what your argument is because you won't tell us. That is the fucking point.

You also called me a liar. Show me where I lied or misrepresented your position, or take it back and apologize.

The scientific process emphasizes peer review and independent testing because we understand and acknowledge that humans can be biased, and that our reasoning and observations can be flawed. This is a feature, not a bug.


You started evading the question about your intent in posting this material because you realized you were wrong. You were asked about your intent about 5 times by at least two people, and instead of being honest and owning up to your mistake, you avoided the question. This behavior tells us a lot about your intellectual integrity, or lack thereof.

So you don't like making mistakes about what you think I'm doing....hence the assertions telling me what I'm doing, knowing better than I know myself .. also see previous above.

You tried to attack science, you got called out, and now you are butthurt and throwing out insults like a spoiled child. Either learn to engage people with honesty, or stop posting nonsense and drop the subject.

 

[atrib]

I find it interesting that when science and faith disagree, those who practice faith have methods to explain away the science.

But when science appears to support their faith claim, they shout it from the rooftops.

It is amazing the lengths some religious people will go to to protest their support of the scientific method, while in the same breath declaring that the earth is flat, or that evolution is false. But it doesn't stop there; some of these people manage to get elected to school boards so they can try to impose their religious beliefs on other people's children in public schools, or they try to stop medical research into things like stem cells. Religion is dangerous, and its destructive influence should never be underestimated. Just look at this thread: we have one poster getting called out for a strawman attack, and the mind-boggling shenanigans this person will employ to try to defend his position. There are billions of people like this on the planet, many of them vote, and some hold high offices. It is a sobering and frightening thought.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I find it interesting that when science and faith disagree, those who practice faith have methods to explain away the science.

But when science appears to support their faith claim, they shout it from the rooftops.

Maybe it's nothing more than a demonstration of Dunning Kruger with a healthy dose of confirmation bias and another healthy dose of scientific illiteracy.

 

[Rhea]

This bit of arrogance is astonishing and deserves comment and context.

Or now since “merits of people, individuals, personal character,” are now the problem, perhaps the claim is that since science if filled with deceitful people, this is somehow an indictment of the scientific method, and that, again, this means we don’t need to talk about the lack of mechanism to detect fraud in religious faith.

I haven't got time to post a full response at the moment... but I think you got it at last?

“Got it at last”. What bullshit is this?

You’re the guy who says, “bring me a rock. No not that rick, no not that one, bring me a different rock” and refuses to ever answer “what kind of rock do you want”. Only, “just not this one, bring me a different rock.”


This is is dishonest crap.
You were asked over and over to just SAY WHAT YOU MEANT. Instead, you dodged and hid and then tried to blame OTHERS for you not being clear.

- You posted random quotes with no context. Remember that. You GAVE NO CONTEXT.
- You claimed people’s take on what you meant by it was wrong.
- you refused to say what you meant by it, when asked to clarify. Remember that. YOU REFUSED TO GIVE CONTEXT.
- People gave you so much patience trying to let you say what you did mean. SO MUCH PATIENCE.
- Now you claim that I “fianlly got it,” like the lack of clarity was something that I perpetrated.


You made a pathetic attempt to claim victory over something that you mucked up. Nope. This train wreck was your train wreck and it still is.

It was NEVER my argument line, your strawman claim that I was "against the science-method" as I was talking in context of people that abuse the methods regardless of whether one one religious or not!

That may have been what was going on in your head, but it was not what was going on on this page. And it is irrelevant in the face of your repeated refusal to clarify your argument line. This is another pathetic attempt to avoid responsiblility for your poor communication.

Right up top it should be clear from the beginning highlighted in red the very first line of my original post which you quoted and you still missed it!

I did not miss it, and your arrogant lack of reality doesn’t change that.
“Test everything” has no meaning and no context in your nonsensical claim that “people have biases” is some excuse for the failures to counter it by religionists.

The bit ignored I was referring to, whilst you were focusing on women in science for some reason... thinking there may be an argument to make here.

We focused on what you posted. And you were not arguing in good faith when you repeatedly refused to clarify your position.

continue later..

Don’t bother. You have proven that you are willing to play games, obfuscate, not be honest about your intentions and generally do the opposite of discuss and exchange ideas. I cannot trust that anything you write will be honestly presented or discussed.

I don’t need you to continue failing to contribute to the discussion. There’s been enough failing from you already.

 

[atrib]

I've got other post to address first (and bit of work) bear with me...

Another falsehood. You posted this three days ago, likely knowing fully well that you were never going to clarify. You do this a lot; you make some bullshit claim, you get challenged on it, you state that you will address the challenge at some future time, and you never do. Why this need for dishonesty? Is your personal integrity really worth so little?

 

[Learner]

It's strange coming from you two, calling out "dishonesty" and still .....you both persist on with the nonsense about "avoiding" your question asking " what do you mean about women in science?" Not liking my responses ... you STILL insist there is no context which has with the link in original post containing 'oddly enough' the line 'Women Scientists Who Were Snubbed Due to Sexism' i.e. meaning those particular women IN science were treated unfairly within the science community. How does one not understand that? You post several posts trying to portray and defend the false "dishonest" narratives, revealing that it's actually YOU (plural) who are dishonest.

 

[abaddon]

'Women Scientists Who Were Snubbed Due to Sexism' i.e. meaning those particular women IN science were treated unfairly within the science community. How does one not understand that?

Can you explain it to me?

I know how to understand the linked article, and read it. I understand it to mean there has been some sexism in scientific circles. So, I understand the information in the link.

What I don't understand is what it means regarding science itself, which is separable from the people who do it (both theists and atheists).

Are you just suggesting that science isn't a guide to morality like religion is?

Maybe that is how you expected it to be understood?

Thank you if you answer. And if not, then ok.

 

[Learner]

'Women Scientists Who Were Snubbed Due to Sexism' i.e. meaning those particular women IN science were treated unfairly within the science community. How does one not understand that?

Can you explain it to me?

I know how to understand the linked article, and read it. I understand it to mean there has been some sexism in scientific circles. So, I understand the information in the link.

What I don't understand is what it means regarding science itself, which is separable from the people who do it (both theists and atheists).

Cheers, I'll answer...


Science itself was a bad explanation, an explanation from the viewpoint that science methods were tools - anyone can use them, theists and atheists.

Are you just suggesting that science isn't a guide to morality like religion is?

Maybe that is how you expected it to be understood?

Thank you if you answer. And if not, then ok.

As the above, I erroneously posted hastlily with science tools perspective in mind, as mentioned above. I left out one crucial element which gives morality. I left out Humans!! It should have been obvious to me before posting, you can't have one without the other, science is both. So I would be wrong to say Science couldn't have morals. But keep in mind ..when humans are involved, tools and all, we can still abuse our positions in Science and Religion.

 

[bilby]

Cheers, I'll answer...


Science itself was a bad explanation, an explanation from the viewpoint that science methods were tools - anyone can use them, theists and atheists.

Are you just suggesting that science isn't a guide to morality like religion is?

Maybe that is how you expected it to be understood?

Thank you if you answer. And if not, then ok.

As the above, I erroneously posted hastlily with science tools perspective in mind, as mentioned above. I left out one crucial element which gives morality. I left out Humans!! It should have been obvious to me before posting, you can't have one without the other, science is both. So I would be wrong to say Science couldn't have morals. But keep in mind ..when humans are involved, tools and all, we can still abuse our positions in Science and Religion.

Science tells you what is possible - what you can or cannot do. You can accelerate a rocket to such a high speed that it never comes back down. You can't accelerate it to light speed.

Science tells you nothing whatsoever about what you should or should not do.

Religion tells you nothing about what is possible - indeed it frequently tells us that ANYTHING is possible, for gods, if not for men. That's demonstrably wrong - not everything is possible for men, and almost all god concepts are impossible, with the remainder being irrelevant.

Religion is constantly trying to say what we should or should not do. There are commandments and instructions about all kinds of shit, such as what (or who) you should or should not eat, wear, fuck, marry, worship, etc., etc. But it has not (and cannot have) a factual basis for these rules, other than through the use of science.

Science says "don't eat pork that's been raised in unsanitary conditions and kept unrefrigerated, because if you do you are likely to contract a disease and or become infested by parasites".

Religion says "don't eat pork because god says not to, therefore it's wrong".

One of these is a good rule for educated adults; The other is a bad rule but perhaps better than nothing for children and other ignorami.

Science makes no moral rules; Religion makes lots, but has no valid basis for making them.

If you want facts, science is the only effective way to get them.

If you want morals, philosophy is the only effective way to get them.

The only thing religion is effective for is getting compliance - which you could also get by simple use of force or the threat of force. But compliance with arbitrary rules is good only for tyrants.

 

[abaddon]

So I would be wrong to say Science couldn't have morals.

I think you'd be right to say that.

Don't mix up the people and what they do. It's the humans that have morals. Science is an indifferent tool. The methodology that includes fraud-detection isn't an imposition of morality on humans, it's an aspect of the knowledge-seeking in science. Fraud is made publicly known to safeguard knowledge, not to improve people's characters. If someone improves upon their character while they're in the lab or the field "doing science", that's their own private unscientific activity.

But keep in mind ..when humans are involved, tools and all, we can still abuse our positions in Science and Religion.

Yes but MUCH more easily in religion. There's no equalizing these morally or any other way, if that's what you were trying to do.

Science doesn't make the people who do it more ethical people. Religion tries to and maybe some people use it for that successfully.

As for knowing what's real, that's where science shines.

 

[Rhea]

Don't mix up the people and what they do. It's the humans that have morals. Science is an indifferent tool. The methodology that includes fraud-detection isn't an imposition of morality on humans, it's an aspect of the knowledge-seeking in science. Fraud is made publicly known to safeguard knowledge, not to improve people's characters. If someone improves upon their character while they're in the lab or the field "doing science", that's their own private unscientific activity.

I would argue that while science and the scientific method do not intend to tell people what to do, the transparency and public detection of fraud does impose morality on people by having clear consequences. In many respects, that’s the only way morality works - by social pressure to do what is accepted. And science does this better than religion in a million ways because it has clear rules and very likely consequences. Scientists to act and react to the moral choices driven by the pressures of peer review.

Science does not decree morality in a vacuum. It exposes morality and people adjust their behavior to exhibit that which is socially promoted. “Good Science” is a moral behavior just as obeying drunk driving laws.

Science doesn't make the people who do it more ethical people. Religion tries to and maybe some people use it for that successfully.

As for knowing what's real, that's where science shines.

I would further argue that Science does make people more ethical.

“When we know better, we do better.”

Science provides knowledge of the consequences of actions; real consequences, not just making a god pissy. Science shows what littering does. Science shows what bullying does. Science can calculate the costs of shoplifting (and probe the motivations for it). Science shows the consequences for failing to husband our planet.

mor·al
/ˈmôrəl/

noun
plural noun: morals
1.
a lesson, especially one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience.
"the moral of this story was that one must see the beauty in what one has"
Similar: lesson, message, meaning, significance, signification, import, point, precept, teaching

2.
a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do.
"the corruption of public morals"

Science has changed the social morals of our societies as it taught us about homosexuality, capital punishment, chain gangs, spousal abuse, the effects of welfare and food insecurity. Add species extinction, pollution, health practices and the moral behaviors associated with them.

Moreover, science can learn, as the examples above demonstrate.

And therein lies its greatest advantage over religion, in either scientific fact, hypothesis or moral guidance.
Science can learn.
Religion - cannot. It has no mechanism whatsover to learn. Everything about it is written in stone and cannot be changed. No one (Christian) - no. one. - will tear out portions of their bible that are proven to be out of date. Like slavery. They will not change, they cannot.

So above and beyond science’s mechanism to detect fraud and deceit, science also has the mechanism to better itself. A mechanism to discover new information. A method. A path with built in checks against human nature along the way.


There is no comparison in which it is valid to say, “but science is just as bad,” because the existence of a method to learn and self-check makes that a lie.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I would argue that while science and the scientific method do not intend to tell people what to do, the transparency and public detection of fraud does impose morality on people by having clear consequences. In many respects, that’s the only way morality works - by social pressure to do what is accepted. And science does this better than religion in a million ways because it has clear rules and very likely consequences. Scientists to act and react to the moral choices driven by the pressures of peer review.

Science does not decree morality in a vacuum. It exposes morality and people adjust their behavior to exhibit that which is socially promoted. “Good Science” is a moral behavior just as obeying drunk driving laws.





I would further argue that Science does make people more ethical.

“When we know better, we do better.”

Religion is a way to assign blame. Blame Hurricanes and plagues on gay people or for not sacrificing enough goats. Bring in evil spirits and good spirits. The world isn't perfect because we ate an apple with a snake in a magic garden.

Religion is for when you need an easy, immediate, emotional answer that feels good but can't be tested. Any religious claim that cannot be scientifically verified is gift-wrapped bullshit. We'd still be thinking the stars and planets are in some kind of perfect symmetry if we were relying on religion to solve problems. Religion is a kind of scientific anarchy where anything goes and brute control wins.

Science is just fine without religion. Religion needs science for even a scintilla of legitimacy.

 

[abaddon]

...the transparency and public detection of fraud does impose morality on people by having clear consequences. In many respects, that’s the only way morality works - by social pressure to do what is accepted. And science does this better than religion in a million ways because it has clear rules and very likely consequences. Scientists to act and react to the moral choices driven by the pressures of peer review.

Everywhere I've worked had rules, and I considered some to be unethical but obeyed because of consequences. I was judging by something else than what's "socially promoted" because I'm not a conformist. People don't become "good" by conforming.

We know how to wreck the world more effectively using science and applying it in technology, so talking as if there are only benefits is a bit one-sided. It's a mixed bag knowing all this information, not because the info (science) is innately bad but people and society have some ugly values among their morals.

How "good" the overall institution (science) is, depends on what people do with it. So to sum up, I'm having a hard time thinking ethics and an institution's rules are the same thing. Or that information is inherently good when the good (or bad) in it depends entirely on the values of the persons who use it. And overall, the judgments being applied by any of us here are unscientific.