The Ownership of Science

[GaryAnderson]

In this topic I’d like to discuss who should use science to support their position. 
Should it be atheists, theists, any other group, or just all people in general without any discrimination?
Science is basically a tool which allows us to understand the How but not the Why sometimes. Science is a strict peer-reviewed process which can change its position based on new evidence. So Science doesn’t care either way of the implications and this is as close as we can get to an unbiased process. 
The question is do you folks here have any problems with any groups using science to support their position?
My answer to this question is : I don’t have any problems with anybody using science to support their beliefs. Anybody can use it without discrimination.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sounds like no one owns it. I can't imagine why any person wouldn't want to refer to some scientific observation to make their case, if there's one available. I think you'll find that the people here are more concerned with the mis-use of science, or the use of psuedo-science as though it were science.

I think it's perplexing when people do that because there's really no need, you know? If a person refers to pseudo science or intentionally misrepresents some legitimate observation - they do so even though it's entirely likely that their meaningful beliefs could have been justified without all the chicanery.

[Brian37]

In this topic I’d like to discuss who should use science to support their position. 
Should it be atheists, theists, any other group, or just all people in general without any discrimination?
Science is basically a tool which allows us to understand the How but not the Why sometimes. Science is a strict peer-reviewed process which can change its position based on new evidence. So Science doesn’t care either way of the implications and this is as close as we can get to an unbiased process. 
The question is do you folks here have any problems with any groups using science to support their position?
My answer to this question is : I don’t have any problems with anybody using science to support their beliefs. Anybody can use it without discrimination.

Nobody "owns"  scientific method. But it is also wrong to use science to point to a religious club. A computer works in Japan, Iran, Australia, and America. Planes fly into every country. Vaccines work in every country. It is true that religious people can and do value science, but ethical scientists do not bastardize scientific method just to act as a billboard ad to point to their club. 

The children's hospital "St Jude" may seem well intended, and it does try to cure childhood cancer. But the name alone implies, "look what we did, there for the Catholic Jesus is the one true God". That part I do not like. It is great they want to save kids from cancer, but there is no God trying to save them.

But I have over 20 years of debate online seen arguments from Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists whom all argue that science points to their club. Point being, scientific method is not about supporting one's own personal bias, but objectively seeking out answers regardless of personal bias.

[GaryAnderson]

Sounds like no one owns it. I can't imagine why any person wouldn't want to refer to some scientific observation to make their case, if there's one available. I think you'll find that the people here are more concerned with the mis-use of science, or the use of psuedo-science as though it were science.

Yes. The mis-use of science. This is where we are going to get into interpretations again.

Here’s an example:
The universe exists and the Big Bang happened.

An atheist says : I don’t know why it exists. It just is.
An agnostic atheist, let’s take the scientist Michio Kaku for example, will philosophize and says : There’s a multiverse that exists which creates new universes and Big Bangs randomly.
A theist will say: God created this universe because it’s fine-tuned for life.

Who is mis-using science here?

[brewer]

Ownership of science?  

Used appropriately, no problem,............. used inappropriately, problem.

Edit: The atheist statement should probably read 'I/we don't know yet but god is not a credible answer'.
The agnostic should include 'It's possible'
The theist statement contains no science, only magic.

[GaryAnderson]

In this topic I’d like to discuss who should use science to support their position. 
Should it be atheists, theists, any other group, or just all people in general without any discrimination?
Science is basically a tool which allows us to understand the How but not the Why sometimes. Science is a strict peer-reviewed process which can change its position based on new evidence. So Science doesn’t care either way of the implications and this is as close as we can get to an unbiased process. 
The question is do you folks here have any problems with any groups using science to support their position?
My answer to this question is : I don’t have any problems with anybody using science to support their beliefs. Anybody can use it without discrimination.

Nobody "owns"  scientific method. But it is also wrong to use science to point to a religious club. A computer works in Japan, Iran, Australia, and America. Planes fly into every country. Vaccines work in every country. It is true that religious people can and do value science, but ethical scientists do not bastardize scientific method just to act as a billboard ad to point to their club. 

The children's hospital "St Jude" may seem well intended, and it does try to cure childhood cancer. But the name alone implies, "look what we did, there for the Catholic Jesus is the one true God". That part I do not like. It is great they want to save kids from cancer, but there is no God trying to save them.

But I have over 20 years of debate online seen arguments from Jews and Muslims and Hindus and Buddhists whom all argue that science points to their club. Point being, scientific method is not about supporting one's own personal bias, but objectively seeking out answers regardless of personal bias.

Sounds like you hate the word “hope”.

[zwanzig]

Theists shouldn't be using science to support their beliefs if it all comes back down to "faith" anyway. Essentially faith is saying that observation or evidence doesn't matter, so, using science feels like a waste of time for them. If theists could actually use science to support/prove their claims then there wouldn't be atheists and there would be no need for faith. Because then anything god related would simply be science, it would just be facts.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sounds like no one owns it.  I can't imagine why any person wouldn't want to refer to some scientific observation to make their case, if there's one available.  I think you'll find that the people here are more concerned with the mis-use of science, or the use of psuedo-science as though it were science.

Yes. The mis-use of science. This is where we are going to get into interpretations again.

Not really, but if we have to argue What Is Words And How Do They Do!?! from the outset, your objections are almost certainly going to be inane.

Here’s an example:
The universe exists and the Big Bang happened.

An atheist says : I don’t know why it exists. It just is.
An agnostic atheist, let’s take the scientist Michio Kaku for example, will philosophize and says : There’s a multiverse that exists which creates new universes and Big Bangs randomly.
A theist will say: God created this universe because it’s fine-tuned for life.

Who is mis-using science here?

Pretty simple, and simply inane.  The universe isn't fine tuned for life.  You're a puddle of water marveling at how perfectly the hole was made for you. Your hypothetical theist is wrong on the facts - and spouting speudoscientific claptrap, instead.

[GaryAnderson]

Theists shouldn't be using science to support their beliefs if it all comes back down to "faith" anyway. Essentially faith is saying that observation or evidence doesn't matter, so, using science feels like a waste of time for them. If theists could actually use science to support/prove their claims then there wouldn't be atheists and there would be no need for faith. Because then anything god related would simply be science, it would just be facts.

Yes but science cannot and will not give us the answers to existential questions such as “Why does the universe exists” or “why do we exist” so some people like Michio Kaku and other theoretical physicists make leaps of faith based on educated guesses to attempt to answer “the why”.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is that another one of your faith based positions? Thought this was a thread about science. It appears to me that any discussion of who owns or who can use science is irrelevant, as you're chielfly concerned with rejecting it at the outset.