Anti intellectualism directed against science.

[SelfSim]

Any time that they talk about a "change of kind" they refute any claim that they have of understanding.

So ToE provides explanations for how species evolve over time, but just the other day I noticed a proposed complexity mechanism for just how complexity evolves over time (ie: not just species).

The idea is that as the numbers of things increases over time, the numbers of sub units of those things also increases. The appearance of new things, comprised of those sub units and units, then increases suddenly, (sometimes hyperbolically), per unit of time .. and then I read the thread where the Cambrian 'explosion' was being debated ..

Looks to me that the 'explosion' of species in the Cambrian was more or less entirely predictable as an outcome of some minimum critical level of bio-complexity occurred (on top of the appearance of atmospheric oxygen).

Mind you, complex systems imposes quite a lot of demands on the intellect .. lots of conceptual modelling there ..

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Really? To understand the expansion of space takes some pretty high level mathematics. I will admit that I do not understand it. That does not mean that others do not understand it. And the ability to understand evolution is not that difficult. But sadly I have not seen a creationist that will allow himself to understand it. Any time that they talk about a "change of kind" they refute any claim that they have of understanding.

Really? To understand the expansion of space takes some pretty high level mathematics. I will admit that I do not understand it. That does not mean that others do not understand it. And the ability to understand evolution is not that difficult. But sadly I have not seen a creationist that will allow himself to understand it. Any time that they talk about a "change of kind" they refute any claim that they have of understanding.

Agreed.

 

[Tom 1]

Really? To understand the expansion of space takes some pretty high level mathematics. I will admit that I do not understand it. That does not mean that others do not understand it. And the ability to understand evolution is not that difficult. But sadly I have not seen a creationist that will allow himself to understand it. Any time that they talk about a "change of kind" they refute any claim that they have of understanding.

Yeah I should have added ‘the basic’ before facts. It just seems odd that someone would claim the average person can’t at least have a fundamental grasp of commonly known facts about the universe and human life etc.

 

[stevevw]

My point there is that beliefs, demonstrably, (objectively), produce people's notions of what is real and what isn't. Reality isn't the sole domain of science .. and I think that's the point they're trying to make. Science's reality however has the sole purpose of being useful, whereas belief based reality is more or less about corralling the troops for battle .. (aka: hostilities - as we both agree).
Is science's reality really a threat to freedom of choice(?) .. Hmm, I wonder(?)
Maybe religious folk have already broken through the perception of barriers constraining how to think, there(?)
I guess the impact of nuclear weapons added the exclamation point on the power of scientific thinking there, too(?)
They do have a valid point there .. but there should be no reason perceive the scientific method as a 'threat'. I think that perception might be because, being totally honest, there are political influences motivating 'doing' science thesedays (because of the funding process and competition therein).
Therefore there is an urgent need to be able to educate in ways of distinguishing between extreme subjective perceptions (belief based) meanings of what's real (not quite delusions .. but close to that) and science's way?
Logic is lurking underneath it all there too .. It frequently goes under the term of 'common sense', used by protesters against science, I think. One can be convinced by logic .. even when its based on an initial posit of believed-in 'truths'.
Yep .. its an extreme viewpoint .. but also a component of it is purely reactionary, (equal and opposite), IMO.
Scientific thinking determines a special kind of reality .. I call it 'Objective Reality', to delineate it from their belief-based purely personal subjective reality.
There's no sense for either 'side' in this argument, in rejecting either of these two demonstrably different methods we go about saying what's real .. and what isn't.
That's the equal and opposite reaction to science denying the belief-based method they're using to infer reality, IMO.
I think science need to pay attention to the objective test I'm referring to previously, IMO.

I was watching a video with Professor John Lennox about the logic of Christainity. Lennox makes a good point when the commentator is talking about how modern critics are pushing certain agendas and ideologies and rejecting reasoning and the science. He says that all these ideologies and emotive claims would go out the window when confronted with their bank manager.

This is a good point. People can take an anti-intellectual stand against the science but when it comes to discussing their finances or anything medical the science suddenly becomes all important and they want to know exactly what is going on, that the best intellects are on the job ensuring their safty and security and the best science is available to help them.

Lennox says people cannot live without truth and reasoning and most of the time the issues that people want to dispute and push their worldviews over the science are not really the important issues.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W5OPCtf-EhI&ab_channel=JohnAnderson

 

[tas8831]

Nothing wrong with science trying to reverse engineer God. What is bad is science shooting itself in the foot by rallying for (more often) or against that which is only theory and not established fact. Sometimes it is better to go back to the beginning and start fresh.

An interesting and revealing juxtaposition:
"Nothing wrong with science trying to reverse engineer God."
"...is bad is science shooting itself in the foot by rallying for (more often) or against that which is only theory and not established fact."

Hilarious.

 

[tas8831]

I was watching a video with Professor John Lennox about the logic of Christainity.

Lennox the mathematician?

 

[tas8831]

Scientists are 100% guilty of ridiculing people who question them.

Especially when the people who question them have been asking the same questions, making the same assertions, spewing the same insults for YEARS or decades, all the while claiming to have scientific backgrounds or to be smart enough to understand the subject matter, etc.

Perhaps if the people who question them were, for a change, sincere, honest, and willing to learn, the "questioner" would not open themselves up to the ridicule they bring upon themselves?

On this forum alone, I have encountered people:
who have claimed to have been "studying" evolution for 30 years yet who did not know what an "allele" is or understand that museum skeletons are held together with wire and screws; to have studied biology for decades yet declared that the coccyx "anchors" the nervous system; who have been on this forum for years and been presented with specific types of evidence that they had requested only to ask for the same thing dozens of times; etc. etc. etc....

Ridicule, at some point, is all such folk have earned.

 

[tas8831]

Scientist Ridicules Religious Folk Who Don't Believe Him.

Scientist ridicules creationists that they catch plagiarizing things over and over and pretending to understand science.

 

[AV1611VET]

Scientist ridicules creationists that they catch plagiarizing things over and over and pretending to understand science.

Exposing them isn't enough? they have to be ridiculed?

 

[SelfSim]

Exposing them isn't enough? they have to be ridiculed?

As educators, they can't just leave 'em behind the rest of the pack in thinking, now, can they?

What would be the point of doing that?

 

[Oneiric1975]

Exposing them isn't enough? they have to be ridiculed?

There is often a VERY steep price to pay when one conducts themselves less than honestly in the sciences.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is often a VERY steep price to pay when one conducts themselves less than honestly in the sciences.

Welcome to CF, Oneiric!

 

[Speedwell]

Exposing them isn't enough? they have to be ridiculed?

Yeah, if the creationists keep it up long enough it begins to look silly.

 

[SelfSim]

There is often a VERY steep price to pay when one conducts themselves less than honestly in the sciences.

Its hard enough to understand the counterintuitiveness of science, without adding to that by way of ignorance of its reasoning and the arrogance of forcing one's own confusion into the discussion.
(Welcome to the forum ..)

 

[Oneiric1975]

Its hard enough to understand the counterintuitiveness of science,

Science is the antithesis of "counterintuitive". The problem many folks have with science is that it is a strictly rules and logic based system that doesn't allow for the kind of information "short cuts" humans are prone to normally.

without adding to that by way of ignorance of its reasoning and the arrogance of forcing one's own confusion into the discussion.

Science does reserve some of its harshest responses for those who break the "rules".

 

[SkyWriting]

Especially when the people who question them have been asking the same questions, making the same assertions, spewing the same insults for YEARS or decades, all the while claiming to have scientific backgrounds or to be smart enough to understand the subject matter, etc.

Perhaps if the people who question them were, for a change, sincere, honest, and willing to learn, the "questioner" would not open themselves up to the ridicule they bring upon themselves?

On this forum alone, I have encountered people:
who have claimed to have been "studying" evolution for 30 years yet who did not know what an "allele" is or understand that museum skeletons are held together with wire and screws; to have studied biology for decades yet declared that the coccyx "anchors" the nervous system; who have been on this forum for years and been presented with specific types of evidence that they had requested only to ask for the same thing dozens of times; etc. etc. etc....

Ridicule, at some point, is all such folk have earned.

God never promised you a rose garden.
We don't all get worshiped as we wish.

 

[SkyWriting]

Science is the antithesis of "counterintuitive". The problem many folks have with science is that it is a strictly rules and logic based system that doesn't allow for the kind of information "short cuts" humans are prone to normally.
Science does reserve some of its harshest responses for those who break the "rules".

There are no rules. Just harsh responses to opposing thought.
The battles within the scientific community are epic and well documented.
Sides have always launch personal attacks in the open.
Plus "peer review" groups are composed of mad men
reviewing the work of other foul madmen.

What is revealing is how much attention they pay
to people who refuse to believe them. Like it's not
the salesman's fault to not sell his story.

Poor salesman.

 

[Oneiric1975]

There are no rules. Just harsh responses to opposing thought.
The battles within the scientific community are epic and well documented.
Sides have always launch personal attacks in the open.
Plus "peer review" groups are composed of mad men
reviewing the work of other foul madmen.

What is revealing is how much attention they pay
to people who refuse to believe them. Like it's not
the salesman's fault to not sell his story.

Poor salesman.

So you're saying that you don't really know anything about science, then?

 

[SkyWriting]

So you're saying that you don't really know anything about science, then?

But I do know something about the history of science and how it is reinvented by design. But nothing about what you imagine it to be.


https://marinescience.ucdavis.edu/s...-images/CAMEOS_science_map_Renate_Eberle1.jpg
-
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_02

 

[Oneiric1975]

But I do know something about the history of science and how it is reinvented by design. But nothing about what you imagine it to be.


https://marinescience.ucdavis.edu/s...-images/CAMEOS_science_map_Renate_Eberle1.jpg
-
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/howscienceworks_02

How many peer reviewed papers do you have? What is your experience with the larger processes of science in general?

The reason I ask is because what you described doesn't really comport with reality. It isn't a perfect system but it does have rules and it isn't just "salesmanship" that gets an idea over the finishline.