Science says we must...

[LordTimothytheWise]

Is probably a bad idea.

 

[shinbits]

the way he was describing the PR process came off as synical and kinda sarcastic.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is probably a bad idea.

Science can take a hike.

Those who adhere to science alone learn to ignore the warning signs of junk religion, until they get a 7:47 wake-up call at 8:46; then they turn [back] to patriotism (instead of God) during the recovery phase of their initial shock, and God is still left at the back of the bus.

When the dust settles, and those who dared equate this with religion have been reamed over the coals by the unregenerates -- (who then in turn, blame it on religion) -- and Hellywood is finished with her prophets saying we should "forgive and forget"; then it's back to business as usual.

 

[callmeMurph]

Those who adhere to science alone learn to ignore the warning signs of junk religion, until they get a 7:47 wake-up call at 8:46; then they turn [back] to patriotism (instead of God) during the recovery phase of their initial shock, and God is still left at the back of the bus.

Uh.... what?

When the dust settles, and those who dared equate this with religion have been reamed over the coals by the unregenerates -- (who then in turn, blame it on religion) -- and Hellywood is finished with her prophets saying we should "forgive and forget"; then it's back to business as usual.

So what about all the Christians that have studied science since the beginning of science?

 

[AV1611VET]

Uh.... what?

You know --

They hang a flag on every doorpost and car window, etc.

So what about all the Christians that have studied science since the beginning of science?

No comment.

I'm talking about the unregenerates.

 

[lucaspa]

Science can take a hike.

You can't say that without also telling God to take a hike.

Those who adhere to science alone

That would be those who adhere to scientism. That's a very low percentage.

What's more, it has nothing to do with the opening post. Once again AV, instead of trying to discuss the topic, you are trying to derail it. Why do you do this?

 

[lucaspa]

Is probably a bad idea.

it's not that science really says "we must", but rather that science gives us the consequences of not doing something. Those consequences are such that no reasonable person could not but agree that we should do the recommendations.

But then comes the trouble. What about people who do not want to do the recommendations for selfish or economic reasons? People who want to smoke in public because they like to and don't care what happens to other people? Or people who run tobacco companies whose livelihood is tied up with people smoking?

Or, in the realm of climate change, people who do not want to take the effort to recycle or heads of oil companies who do not want alternative sources of energy because they will make less money?

What options are open to those people?

Well, the heads of companies could diversify into other products -- soft drinks for tobacco companies, solar power for the oil companies. Or, they can try to discredit the science. Convince everyone that the data is flawed, the scientists are corrupt, or that science is simply not a reliable form of knowledge. Anything rather than admit the consequences are valid.

And those that have selfish personal or economic reasons to try to deny consequences have a much better PR campaign than science does.

I do, however, agree with this:
"“The science says we must…” and reply, “Science only tells us what is. It does not, and can never tell us what we should or must do.” "

Yes, we could sit around and do nothing about climate change. What the article misses is that it is apparent, from the consequences, that this isn't a rational choice. So people who want to do nothing are still going to be attacking science.

I suspect that, in their chart, the phrase "Science tell us we should" comes mostly from the opponents of the science, not the proponents. And there the opponents of whatever change is being advocated have found a great strategy to get people to emotionally reject science.

Look how well it has worked on AV!

 

[Split Rock]

Science can take a hike.

As long as we all understand that you are not anti-science,... right?

Those who adhere to science alone learn to ignore the warning signs of junk religion, until they get a 7:47 wake-up call at 8:46; then they turn [back] to patriotism (instead of God) during the recovery phase of their initial shock, and God is still left at the back of the bus.

Junk religion? Do you mean creationism?

When the dust settles, and those who dared equate this with religion have been reamed over the coals by the unregenerates -- (who then in turn, blame it on religion) -- and Hellywood is finished with her prophets saying we should "forgive and forget"; then it's back to business as usual.

Sound like a bad "Hellywood" movie to me. Tell me, AVET.. do you hate "Hellywood" movies as much as science documentaries?

 

[Cabal]

Is probably a bad idea.

Meh, whatever.

If we were the neutral relayers of information that the author seems to think science should be, we'd probably be being condemned for being too passive.

Our discipline bases claims on evidence, and is open to the possibility of admitting error, which is a damn sight better than half of the shmos who are in the halls of power.

 

[Doveaman]

Science can take a hike.

You can't say that without also telling God to take a hike.

You can't say that unless you think God is science.

 

[AV1611VET]

You can't say that unless you think God is science.

That's their new religion: scientism.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

That's their new religion: scientism.

Scientism is actually an old religion...

"And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath divided under the whole heaven." -- Deuteronomy 4:19

"And they shall spread them before the sun, and the moon, and all the host of heaven, whom they have loved, and whom they have served, and after whom they have walked, and whom they have sought, and whom they have worshipped: they shall not be gathered, nor be buried; they shall be for dung upon the face of the earth." -- Jeremiah 8:2

"Let now the astrologers, the stargazers, the monthly prognosticators, stand up, and save thee from these things that shall come upon thee. Behold, they shall be as stubble; the fire shall burn them; they shall not deliver themselves from the power of the flame...." -- Isaiah 37:13-14

"Therefore night shall be unto you, that ye shall not have a vision; and it shall be dark unto you, that ye shall not divine; and the sun shall go down over the prophets, and the day shall be dark over them. Then shall the seers be ashamed, and the diviners confounded: yea, they shall all cover their lips; for there is no answer of God." -- Micah 3:6-7

 

[AV1611VET]

Scientism is actually an old religion...

I stand corrected --

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

I stand corrected --

Happens more than you know.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

Happens more than you know.

You should take notes and you'll impress more if you imitate AV God bless him.

"Any man worth his salt will stick up for what he believes is right, but it takes a slightly bigger man to acknowledge instantly and without reservation that he is in error." -- Peyton C. March, general, 1918

 

[AV1611VET]

You should take notes and you'll impress more if you imitate AV God bless him.

"Any man worth his salt will stick up for what he believes is right, but it takes a slightly bigger man to acknowledge instantly and without reservation that he is in error." -- Peyton C. March, general, 1918

Thank you, sir!

Reps going up!

 

[Cabal]

Lol, that quote applies how?

 

[lucaspa]

That's their new religion: scientism.

AV, Doveaman made a mistake thru ignorance of Christianity. I wasn't speaking about possible proponents of scientism, but about standard Christian doctrine.

Who is "they"? AV, scientism is a discredited philosophy. Your source makes that very clear. So exactly who do you think is practicing scientism?

"We live with poets and politicians, preachers and philosophers. All have their ways of knowing, and all are valid in their proper domains. The world is too complex and interesting for one way to hold all the answers. "
Stephen Jay Gould in the essay "William Jennings Bryan's last campaign" in Bully for Brontosaurus, 1991, pp. 429-430.

 

[lucaspa]

You can't say that unless you think God is science.

Not at all. Are you at all aware of the "two books" within Christianity?

God has two books, not just the Bible. The second book is Creation, which is the book science reads. So you can't tell science to take a hike without telling God to take a hike.

"To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy [science]; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both." Bacon: Advancement of Learning

 

[lucaspa]

Scientism is actually an old religion...

None of those are scientism, Agonaces. Didn't you read the website AV posted?

What you have in the quotes from the OT are nature worship, astrology, and false visions. NONE of those are scientism.

Look, if you are ignorant of what scientism is, read the website AV posted. Don't just post about what you don't know.