If I were an Atheist

[Jericho]

No one knows everything. They may claim it, but we all know that that is impossible.

[Hatshepsut]

Do you have a point?
I can't see one.

Yah. There are fashion trends in science just like anything else. Much of what we call "scientific fact" is really Political Correctness.

[Mudhammam]

Pilots take aviation weather people seriously and so should we. I'm willing to defer to the better-informed opinion of climatologists. But that's trust, a form of belief. And facts never come in future tense, so the predictions of these climatologists are also a form of belief. We see nothing wrong with believing, provided the beliefs are in accord with generally accepted standards for such things. That remains as true in our scientific era as it was for Essenes hiding in a Dead Sea cave twenty centuries ago.

When predictions are made on the basis of an enormous body of facts and mathematical principles, they're usually a safe bet; sure, you can say that trusting scientific consensus is a "form of belief," but when that belief is of the substantial sort that allows NASA to safely put a man on the moon, comparing it to religious belief is just downright disingenuous.

[downbeatplumb]

Do you have a point?
I can't see one.

Yah. There are fashion trends in science just like anything else. Much of what we call "scientific fact" is really Political Correctness.

I could not disagree more.

There are no fashion trends in science, there are new facts/evidence/evaluations that emerge which make the current scientific view as acurate as current knowledge allows.

The scientific methodology is designed specifically to lessen the impact of what people "reckon" to be true and deals instead with what can be proved with the evidence.

Until there is evidence things are just a hypothesis.
Which is why the existence of dark matter for example is still debated, it explains a lot of phenomena but has not actually been found itself.(As far as I know)

[robvalue]

Political correctness in science? Is this a joke, I don't get it I really don't.

As for my earlier point, I've encountered a lot more theists than atheists who will hold fast that they cannot be wrong. They say they cannot be mistaken about the religion, they cannot be deceived, all the stuff is real full stop and it's not a matter of belief. This applies to several of the theists we have here. Whereas most atheists in my experience will admit, when pressed, that they could be wrong about things.

This is just my experience. I would hope that if you bring up the subject of uncertainty people would have the intellectual honesty to admit that it's a problem we can't ignore, but sadly religious dogma often treats this "doubt" as a sin, and so they hold steadfast. It is kind of a killer for sensible conversation, I reached that point recently in a discussion here with someone and it's kind of pointless to continue.

Another dangerous aspect of religion, clinging to absolute certainty in the absence of evidence or a rational argument. Anyone who thinks they cannot possibly be wrong has the potential to cause themselves and others serious trouble; as well as being unable to properly learn or accept new evidence.

[Cyberman]

Yah. There are fashion trends in science just like anything else. Much of what we call "scientific fact" is really Political Correctness.

Such as?

[Hatshepsut]

Yah. There are fashion trends in science just like anything else. Much of what we call "scientific fact" is really Political Correctness.

Such as?

The extreme danger levels imputed to cigarette smoke, for example. Fifty years ago the doctors would smoke by the hospital bedside. Nowadays health brochures talk about "third-hand smoke," which is the residue or trace of tar on a smoker's hair and clothes, as a killer of small children.

Of course smoking is objectively known to be bad, and I can see the resulting indoor air pollution as also bad. At the same time, the political attitude has changed to become violently against tobacco. I suspect this leads to its dangers being dramatized and inflated to some degree. The people who yell about "third hand" smoke are often the same ones who say that smoking marijuana is good for you. I think there should be a scientific consensus that smoke hurts your lungs regardless of what is burnt, but that gets in the way of Political Correctness, which is stumbling over its feet to approve of pot and get rid of tobacco.

I like science, but I refuse to be blind regarding the social influences on its practice.

---

Pilots take aviation weather people seriously and so should we. I'm willing to defer to the better-informed opinion of climatologists. But that's trust, a form of belief.

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.

[FatAndFaithless]

You do realize the actual studies and data are entirely separate from the marketing and publicizing of that data, right?

[robvalue]

Erm... yeah, the part where someone misrepresents the data is not science anymore. So if that's the case here, you're not actually criticising science.

Oracles? You can't be serious surely. Conflating "faith" with "confidence" is what is happening here I expect.

[Hatshepsut]

You do realize the actual studies and data are entirely separate from the marketing and publicizing of that data, right?

Yah, and most of the time I don't have truck with modern methods for data collection and analysis. In fact, these have never been so good as they are now. 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.

I don't think the problem affects cosmology and evolution too much. These topics aren't matters of great political controversy and few organizations fight battles for ascendancy over them (Ken Ham's Kentucky sideshow aside).

Climate change is probably somewhere in the middle. H2O, CO2, and CH4 are all greenhouse gases and their concentrations have gone up since 1960. There's enough evidence to be concerned about, and attempt to plan for, possible adverse impacts. Yet I often see climate change presented as an apocalypse bound to destroy civilization and kill all the world's poor, when poor people are more resilient than Westerners, if not being hounded or shot at by armed groups and governments.