(May 1, 2015 at 11:00 am)Hatshepsut Wrote:

(May 1, 2015 at 1:44 am)Nestor Wrote: When predictions are made on the basis of an enormous body of facts and mathematical principles, they're usually a safe bet...comparing it to religious belief is just downright disingenuous.

Perhaps they are a safer bet. But psychologically, belief in scientific prediction isn't much different than belief in oracles. We take comfort from science in much the same way as pre-scientific societies were reassured by oracles.

It is impossible for you to be more wrong about this.

Science is about finding the truth and the method, if correctly followed, is designed to do away with prejudices.

The idea is that you test an idea to destruction. You do experiments that could disprove it. Then it's opened to peer review for others to check the results.

It is not perfect but it is the best that man has come up with to get to the truth of things and is so far removed from religious dogma as you can get.
There is a reason that the world has progressed so far since the method was started and was held back so much when religion ruled.

(May 1, 2015 at 11:20 am)Hatshepsut Wrote: Even so, various factors such as pressure from a study's financial sponsor can influence the results. The plaintiff's bar has alleged this in connection with the FDA approval studies for Vioxx and other drugs later pulled from the market.

You...do know how faulty/inadequate/flawed studies are discovered and discredited...right? It's with more science. It's a self-correcting process.

If you're bemoaning the atrocious job the media and other agenda-driven organizations portray science, then join the club. If you're worried about flawed studies sponsored by unscrupulous agencies, then again, join the club. The thing is that neither the anemic mass media marketing of scientific data nor the sinister skewing of studies by powerful lobbies are actually science, and these sorts of incorrect ideas are corrected only by science.

(May 1, 2015 at 11:00 am)Hatshepsut Wrote: Perhaps they are a safer bet. But psychologically, belief in scientific prediction isn't much different than belief in oracles.

I can't speak for everyone, but for me it's far different. For me, psychologically I feel far far better believing in scientific 'predictions' than I do in religious ones.

(May 1, 2015 at 11:00 am)Hatshepsut Wrote: Perhaps they are a safer bet. But psychologically, belief in scientific prediction isn't much different than belief in oracles.

That statement is ridiculous at best. Science is meant to provide us with true answers, after rigorous testing and checking is completed. Religion is impossible to test, check, or even study...because it is all based on opinion and faith. For someone to even feel comfortable believing in something that is basically just an overused opinion is, simply put, insane.

(May 1, 2015 at 11:28 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: The thing is that neither the anemic mass media marketing of scientific data nor the sinister skewing of studies by powerful lobbies are actually science, and these sorts of incorrect ideas are corrected only by science.

Agreed. But institutionalized science won't step in to correct things until someone realizes something is wrong. And applies some pressure. And often, not until an "old guard" of proponents for an older paradigm retire from the university, clearing the way for younger minds to approach the problem with a fresh perspective. Thomas Kuhn's 1962 book The Nature of Scientific Revolutions may be relevant here.

(May 1, 2015 at 11:10 am)robvalue Wrote: Oracles? You can't be serious surely. Conflating "faith" with "confidence" is what is happening here I expect.

Faith and confidence are both synonyms for trust. There's a difference between oracle and science in terms of methods and outcomes, the latter which usually favor science. But psychologically, our trust in one has the same characteristics as our trust in the other. We feel reassurance, approval, a sense of belonging whenever we have this societal thing in common which we trust. Science replaced oracle over the 18th to 20th centuries as our "roadmap" for how things work, but it serves the same function.

(May 1, 2015 at 11:55 am)Hatshepsut Wrote:

(May 1, 2015 at 11:28 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: The thing is that neither the anemic mass media marketing of scientific data nor the sinister skewing of studies by powerful lobbies are actually science, and these sorts of incorrect ideas are corrected only by science.

Agreed. But institutionalized science won't step in to correct things until someone realizes something is wrong. And applies some pressure. And often, not until an "old guard" of proponents for an older paradigm retire from the university, clearing the way for younger minds to approach the problem with a fresh perspective. Thomas Kuhn's 1962 book The Nature of Scientific Revolutions may be relevant here.

So I'm still not sure what your complaint is here. I've already agreed that science can arrive at incorrect conclusions, and I agree that some of those conclusions can persist until someone takes it upon themselves to test them again.

Are you unsatisfied that it can get things wrong? No process is perfect, but the scientific process is the best thing we have.

(May 1, 2015 at 11:49 am)Jericho Wrote: That statement is ridiculous at best.  Science is meant to provide us with true answers, ...

Note that little word, "psychologically." Oracles were meant to provide true answers, and until science supplanted them, they did so to the comfort and satisfaction of the people using them. You must remember that pre-scientific people didn't have the background and education you take for granted today. They got comfort where they could. Psychologists know that a feeling of comfort is important enough to human well-being that humans will spend considerable time trying to make themselves more comfortable.

The atheistic belief system you see on this forum and elsewhere has formulaic texts, iconography, recognition rituals, and many of the other trappings familiar from the old religions. It's that tribe thing, baby!  

(May 1, 2015 at 11:59 am)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Are you unsatisfied that it can get things wrong?  No process is perfect, but the scientific process is the best thing we have.

No. I'm pointing out that science gives lots of people comfort. And if the hornet's nest of replies my posts have stirred up is an indicator, people who take comfort from science are just as defensive about their preferences as anyone else. Science isn't just an "objective" thing floating out there for Mr. Spock to admire. It's very near and dear to our very emotional hearts.

There is no atheistic belief system. You seem to have some misconceptions, equating atheism with scepticism.

This isn't the first time people have tried to tu quoque atheism with religion and frankly it is ludicrous.

I think we also need to be clear what a scientific prediction is. Scientists make an observation about some aspect of the Universe, construct a tentative working model to account for it, then test that model. In order to do that, they need to know what it is they're looking for, so they can recognise falsification of the model. Thus they will make predictions about what they would expect to find under varying conditions - if x is true, we should see y; if not, perhaps we will find z.

When the first skeleton of Archaeopterix was found, it was missing its head. Palaeontologists recognised it as a reptile and predicted that it would have a beak-like snout and teeth, instead of a regular bird's beak. Creationist palaeontologist Sir Richard Owen, who hated the idea of evolution, predicted that Archaeopterix would turn out to be a large bird from Noah's Ark, with a normal bird's beak. Subsequent finds proved his prediction wrong and that of other palaeontologists right.

That's how prediction works in science; you modify your hypothesis based on what you find.

(May 1, 2015 at 11:10 am)robvalue Wrote: Oracles? You can't be serious surely.

He is serious.
And don't call him Shirley.



Sorry. Some one had to do it....