Al jazeera TV science vs religion.

[mauricio]

Seen this bullshit video? that fucking intro man. I had seen the host before debating maajid nawaz on islam, so I already new he was a moron.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cv3wTRLh7Xk

Why can't they understand the fundamental difference between science and other ideologies. Science is describing phenomena, meanwhile ideologies like religions are normative: they tell you what to do and how to do it.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

You seem to want to discount the many rotten things science for all its good has produced.  Science is neither good nor bad so putting it above all else fails just as putting faith above all else fails.  Science can do great things, but can just as easily produce things so toxic that a teaspoon can kill thousands.

[mauricio]

You seem to want to discount the many rotten things science for all its good has produced.  Science is neither good nor bad so putting it above all else fails just as putting faith above all else fails.  Science can do great things, but can just as easily produce things so toxic that a teaspoon can kill thousands.

Science is simply not a normative ideology, science does not tell you to use nuclear theory to create a bomb and use it on people.  Science is an epistemic ideology and a series of methodologies. It is about how to acquire knowledge not about how to live, behave or achieve an utopia. That's all I said. I never tried to discount scientists producing dangerous inventions. Simply that saying things like "science has unleashed killing on an industrial scale" is completely moronic.  It is like blaming a stone rather than the one who throws it and the ideology that commands him to do so. Science is a very powerful tool to generate predictive models. Whether it is used for evil or good depends on the individual and the normative ideologies, like ethics, that he adheres to.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

There's still no denying that science in the wrong hands does nobody favors. You are right in that science in and of itself is just science, but the same could be said for religion.  The problem is when people get involved.

[mauricio]

There's still no denying that science in the wrong hands does nobody favors. You are right in that science in and of itself is just science, but the same could be said for religion.  The problem is when people get involved.

The distinction is religion is mainly normative while science is mainly descriptive. That is a very important distinction. Religion commands you to take a wide array of actions depending on interpretation dealing with all facets of human life, some of which end up infringing on the self determination of others. Meanwhile science only commands you to follow certain methodologies when studying the universe in order to avoid your bias and to test things objectively to find facts. They are fundamentally different.

[Baruch]

The distinction is religion is mainly normative while science is mainly descriptive. That is a very important distinction. Religion commands you to take a wide array of actions depending on interpretation dealing with all facets of human life, some of which end up infringing on the self determination of others. Meanwhile science only commands you to follow certain methodologies when studying the universe in order to avoid your bias and to test things objectively to find facts. They are fundamentally different.

Except in the case of vivisection, and particularly the vivisection of humans ;-(  Aside from that, science can be ethically neutral.  I think it is ethical to dissect the dead.  It gets dicey when we do things to lab animals (particularly monkeys) and then do a mercy killing, and then dissect.

Scientism isn't science.  Scientism is an ideology that is frequently confused with science.  Scientism is to science what Social Darwinism is to evolution.  For some people, they are confused coming from the science side ... they let their ethical guard down.  For other people, they are confused coming from the layman side (it takes an expert to be a scientist) ... they see the scientism not the science.  Scientism should be a target of opposition, same as any other ideology.

[aitm]

Scientism should be a target of opposition, same as any other ideology.

I have had my share of religious"isms" and would be happy to give scientism a shot at being the voice of unopposed ideology. I see very little that would suggest it could be worse.

[peacewithoutgod]

Why can't they understand the fundamental difference between science and other ideologies. Science is describing phenomena, meanwhile ideologies like religions are normative: they tell you what to do and how to do it.

Science isn't an ideology, religion is, and the difference is very important. If science was ideological, then it would not be science.

[peacewithoutgod]

I have had my share of religious"isms" and would be happy to give scientism a shot at being the voice of unopposed ideology. I see very little that would suggest it could be worse.

You cannot be ideological and truly scientific at the same time. The Nazis and the Soviets tried to, and that is why the bulk of what their experiments yielded for humanity was atrocities.

Therefore, I think what's needed is the complete removal of ideology from the equation, which I admit I don't know is possible.

Also, do you think we could avoid playing into their hands by not using terms such as "sciencism" and "New Atheist", you know words which were invented for the purpose of trivializing science and belittling atheists by those wishing to take back their eroding power over people's minds at the expense of both? Do you think we could stand together on opposing such illegitimate, nonsense words for what they are, so that we can mitigate as much as possible the confusion they cause for those looking on?

[Baruch]

Science isn't an ideology, religion is, and the difference is very important. If science was ideological, then it would not be science.

Ideally yes.  But present climate change deniers would ... deny that ... that the climate change scientists are clearly liberals.

And during the Stalin era there was Lysenko trying to invent dialectical biology ;-)

Scientists and science are hard to separate.  Scientists are clearly ideological in many cases.

[Baruch]

You cannot be ideological and truly scientific at the same time. The Nazis and the Soviets tried to, and that is why the bulk of what their experiments yielded for humanity was atrocities.

Therefore, I think what's needed is the complete removal of ideology from the equation, which I admit I don't know is possible.

Also, do you think we could avoid playing into their hands by not using terms such as "sciencism" and "New Atheist", you know words which were invented for the purpose of trivializing science and belittling atheists by those wishing to take back their eroding power over people's minds at the expense of both? Do you think we could stand together on opposing such illegitimate, nonsense words for what they are, so that we can mitigate as much as possible the confusion they cause for those looking on?

That was very ideological of you ... in a grammar Nazi way ;-)

[peacewithoutgod]

That was very ideological of you ... in a grammar Nazi way ;-)

Baruch, I want you to go to a legitimate dictionary and look up the word "ideology", and then come back and point out exactly what part of what you quoted me on that you think is "ideological". I'm only suggesting that those who understand what something is can work better together in communicating what that really happens to be, when it's what we mutually understand. It's clear that you think science is a set of ideas, and that coundn't be further from the case - it's a process, and it is that process more than the ideas which are under attack by those whose self-interest is in the woo business. Why would you think we would need to defend the ideas which science has produced when scientific processes do the job for us? I could care less, and I could really laugh my ass off when somebody actually tries to use science to attack evolution and climate change, but what isn't a joke is how the very process of scientific thought has been subverted by brainiacs such as Ted Cruz, who knowingly cherry-pick its steps, rearrange them, and then go "There - this is how science is supposed to work!".  It makes every bit as much good sense as saying "Jesus flew up to the sky on a cloud, sporting holes in his hands after he died, and I know this because the Bible said so". If he had attacked the Scientific Method on it's merits as a guideline to scientific thought, then at least it would qualify as an argument, but instead he engages in deliberate sabotage of the method which has stood on it's merits for centuries because it actually works, pitching it all wrong to millions who avoided studying so much as their seventh grade life science while in school. So if you don't want to go down the road of Cruz, I suggest you take a break from all your relentless posting, and for once actually stop and think for a moment...maybe two. Oh, and while you're at it, look up the Scientific Method too.

[Baruch]

Baruch, I want you to go to a legitimate dictionary and look up the word "ideology", and then come back and point out exactly what part of what you quoted me on that you think is "ideological". I'm only suggesting that those who understand what something is can work better together in communicating what that really happens to be, when it's what we mutually understand. It's clear that you think science is a set of ideas, and that coundn't be further from the case - it's a process, and it is that process more than the ideas which are under attack by those whose self-interest is in the woo business. Why would you think we would need to defend the ideas which science has produced when scientific processes do the job for us? I could care less, and I could really laugh my ass off when somebody actually tries to use science to attack evolution and climate change, but what isn't a joke is how the very process of scientific thought has been subverted by brainiacs such as Ted Cruz, who knowingly cherry-pick its steps, rearrange them, and then go "There - this is how science is supposed to work!".  It makes every bit as much good sense as saying "Jesus flew up to the sky on a cloud, sporting holes in his hands after he died, and I know this because the Bible said so". If he had attacked the Scientific Method on it's merits as a guideline to scientific thought, then at least it would qualify as an argument, but instead he engages in deliberate sabotage of the method which has stood on it's merits for centuries because it actually works, pitching it all wrong to millions who avoided studying so much as their seventh grade life science while in school. So if you don't want to go down the road of Cruz, I suggest you take a break from all your relentless posting, and for once actually stop and think for a moment...maybe two. Oh, and while you're at it, look up the Scientific Method too.

Ideology = having a strong POV that is impervious to new evidence

"invented for the purpose of trivializing science and belittling atheists by those wishing to take back their eroding power over people's minds at the expense of both?"

sciencism = scientism?

Scientism = the use of science for ideological purposes