Anti intellectualism directed against science.

[sjastro]

In another thread I have conversed with Randy Korotev a lunar geochemist.
Randy answers many queries from the general public on meteorites.
I asked him if he has been subjected to anti-intellectualism in the form of personal threats.

A few, not many.

One personal threat is bad enough, Randy's subject matter is something I would not have expected to rouse passions like evolution or cosmology.
Evidently being a scientist alone is enough to be threatened.

 

[Astroqualia]

Science isn't and has never been an issue.
What is an issue is that a new age religion, scientism, has replaced valid science at its core, that seeks to push pseudoscience propaganda towards folks, under the guise of "science", when it clearly is thinly veiled funded propaganda in order to achieve specific agendas.

We don't have issue with scientific data.
We have issue with the false interpretations of that scientific data.

 

[Astrid]

Science isn't and has never been an issue.
What is an issue is that a new age religion, scientism, has replaced valid science at its core, that seeks to push pseudoscience propaganda towards folks, under the guise of "science", when it clearly is thinly veiled funded propaganda in order to achieve specific agendas.

We don't have issue with scientific data.
We have issue with the false interpretations of that scientific data.

False interpretation is a specialty, the lifeblood
of creationism and astrology.

Do you have something in mind?

 

[Astroqualia]

False interpretation is a specialty, the lifeblood
of creationism and astrology.

Do you have something in mind?

No, it really isn't the lifeblood of creationism.
It comes down to if you believe the Bible, or if you want to come up with endless humanistic arguments against it. Regardless of what humans say about it, man's wisdom is still foolishness to God. I would file scientism firmly under that category.

I wouldn't say astrology and creationism as similar in that way. Just because a group of human scientists decide collected data has X interpretation, does not mean that Y interpretation is wrong. It means that the scientists are willing to believe that X interpretation is the truth as the most desirable belief, and Y interpretation is undesirable to who funds the scientists jobs, or to their own preconceived beliefs.

For example, climate alarmism being a joke that only those who don't know how to detect slanted data believe in.

 

[Astrid]

No, it really isn't the lifeblood of creationism.
It comes down to if you believe the Bible, or if you want to come up with endless humanistic arguments against it. Regardless of what humans say about it, man's wisdom is still foolishness to God. I would file scientism firmly under that category.

I wouldn't say astrology and creationism as similar in that way. Just because a group of human scientists decide collected data has X interpretation, does not mean that Y interpretation is wrong. It means that the scientists are willing to believe that X interpretation is the truth as the most desirable belief, and Y interpretation is undesirable to who funds the scientists jobs, or to their own preconceived beliefs.

For example, climate alarmism being a joke that only those who don't know how to detect slanted data believe in.

Ok.....sorry I asked.
Hope you recover.

 

[Astroqualia]

Ok.....sorry I asked.
Hope you recover.

Recover from what, exactly? The desire to seek the truth inside of a mountain of lies?

 

[sjastro]

Science isn't and has never been an issue.
What is an issue is that a new age religion, scientism, has replaced valid science at its core, that seeks to push pseudoscience propaganda towards folks, under the guise of "science", when it clearly is thinly veiled funded propaganda in order to achieve specific agendas.

We don't have issue with scientific data.
We have issue with the false interpretations of that scientific data.

Who is 'we' in this case?
Do you realise 'we' is the terminology used by anti-intellectuals to distinguish themselves to those they perceive as elitist in this case scientists.
Anti-intellectualism can range from stereotyping these 'elitists' to certain behavioral patterns such as being dishonest to threatening to kill them.
There is no justification for anti-intellectualism.

 

[Astroqualia]

Who is 'we' in this case?
Do you realise 'we' is the terminology used by anti-intellectuals to distinguish themselves to those they perceive as elitist in this case scientists.
Anti-intellectualism can range from stereotyping these 'elitists' to certain behavioral patterns such as being dishonest to threatening to kill them.
There is no justification for anti-intellectualism.

You can use those tactics to undermine my points, instead of actually addressing the content I speak of, if you so desire, that is fine.

We is me and those who believe as I do, nothing more, nothing less.

If it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck,...

 

[sjastro]

You can use your intellectually dishonest conversational tactics to undermine my points, instead of actually addressing the content I speak of, if you so desire, that is fine.

We is me and those who believe as I do, nothing more, nothing less.

If it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck,...

Now you are engaging in literal somersaults with personal attacks.
You used the term 'we' in two successive sentences that's too much of a coincidence to be passed off as poor grammar.
This is clearly an us versus them argument and has all the hallmarks of anti-intellectualism which you seem to be justifying.

 

[Astroqualia]

Now you are engaging in verbal somersaults with personal attacks.
You used the term 'we' in two successive sentences that's too much of a coincidence to be passed off as poor grammar.
This is clearly an us versus them argument and has all the hallmarks of anti-intellectualism which you seem to be justifying.

All right, I did edit the post to be more politically correct. But facts are facts, dishonesty is dishonesty. Somersaults where? Because you disagree with it?

Using we twice is not bad grammar. It's not making an us vs them argument. It's exactly what I said it was.

Nobody is justifying or talking about anti intellectualism except for you.

The fact is, you're just attacking my semantics instead of actually addressing the point at hand. Is that the best argument you got, no argument at all?

 

[sjastro]

All right, I did edit the post to be more politically correct. But facts are facts, dishonesty is dishonesty. Somersaults where? Because you disagree with it?

Irony overload; you edit out term "intellectually dishonest" to be politically correct only to directly accuse me of dishonesty instead.

Using we twice is not bad grammar. It's not making an us vs them argument. It's exactly what I said it was.

Nobody is justifying or talking about anti intellectualism except for you.

The fact is, you're just attacking my semantics instead of actually addressing the point at hand. Is that the best argument you got, no argument at all?

The point I addressed is your own anti-intellectualism based on your grammar which clearly conveys an us versus them attitude including the deliberately vague references to scientism and pseudoscience (based on what?)
I also note in the opposition to vaccination thread how you refer to mainstream as 'evil folk'; don't tell me it's another case of semantics or poorly constructed grammar.
This is textbook anti-intellectualism along with the associated conspiracy theories thrown in for good measure.

 

[Mountainmike]

Much comes back to the fundamental concept of “ what we know” “what is truth”. A book well worth the read ( although I am not convinced by all his conclusions is “ science before science” Rizzi. A well respected quantum physicist going back to the basics of analysing “what is truth” Truth is a product of experience. Experience is a product of limits of observation and senses.

Just because a scientist says something , or an argument is a product of an intellectual process , does not make it de facto true. Nor does it make it generically true beyond the narrow context of the limited data which it portrays.

The world of psychology also matters. In the seminal work on persuasion by cialdini, he noted experiments that showed unreasonable influence of perceived authority- professors, apparently are believed to be physically taller than mere doctors! ( seriously!) He also noted informational conformance - the willingness of people to accept without question the view of those they perceive with authority in situations where they have neither time or sometimes ability to study underlying data. People are willing to accept the view of those they perceive in authority in areas way outside their sphere of competence or direct experience. People accept their speculation way beyond the limits of what they can say with certainty.

Every day we hear the words “ expert says”, and the “ experts” look down with contempt on those who don’t accept their words without question. That contempt is the problem.

Should we for example accept the views of “ expert” economists of the IMF or central banks who told us that (eg ) U.K. not joining the euro would sink it, that a vote to brexit would start a run on the banks. Hundreds of professors in the U.K. ran joint adverts to tell us their “expert” view that we must not ignore before the vote.. Every single one of them was wrong! Reality is these “ experts” including IMF missed 2007 completely! Nowhere in their reports for 2006 or 2007 is highlighting a meltdown. They missed the biggest economic event in the last 50 years yet still get upset if we ignore them. Brexit apparently was populism ahead of ( their idea of) fact.

Reality is too much of what is opinion is presented as though it were fact, and “experts” are reaping the reward of being wrong too often, and of speculating on what they don’t know.

So to questions of this forum. Dawkins utterly ridicules any who don’t agree with his worldview. He claims evolution as “ close to a fact” that explains life ( by which he means life was an unguided progression from simple chemicals. Yet even now he has no idea at all of how the leap to the minimum cell we know, a self evolving designing, complex biochemical factory of 10000++ proteins and 100++ genes. No intermediate is either postulated or has ever been observed. It’s a complete blank. So it is not a “fact” just speculation, Dawkins has no right to ridicule. He has an opinion that is all, and some of his ideas are farcical.

You can think what you like of such as Rupert sheldrake. He is marmite. What matters in science is evidence. His experiments on families who know who is ringing them is way beyond random chance so the experiments deserve attention. It raises questions on the nature of consciousness.

Yet Dawkins ( and even worse wolpert at The royal society who should have known better) refused even to engage with that evidence before doing ( what this section on the forum does) - ridicules what it does not believe, and tries to debunk without studying evidence. The sneering of “ experts” is part of why people no longer listen to them , or at best take them with a deserved pinch.

But the great questions are unresolved. Is consciousness just a chemical process, if so confined to the brain? Mounting evidence says it is not. So even if Evolution eventually manages to plot a profile from chemicals to life, there is the whole other question of consciousness.

There is also a lot of physical evidence science will never explain.

So if “ experts” want people to listen, they should start with humility and explain in all cases what is more certain and what is pure speculation. They should not extrapolate beyond what is experience without highlighting when they do. They should certainly not ridicule. Science is useful but has limits on what it can say about the universe.

 

[SelfSim]

..You can think what you like of such as Rupert sheldrake. He is marmite.

Marmite
noun
noun: marmite; plural noun: marmites

1. an earthenware cooking container.
   noun
   TRADEMARK IN UK
   noun: Marmite
2. a dark savoury spread made from yeast extract and vegetable extract.[/QUOTE]

!

 

[Mountainmike]

Marmite
noun
noun: marmite; plural noun: marmites

1. an earthenware cooking container.
   noun
   TRADEMARK IN UK
   noun: Marmite
2. a dark savoury spread made from yeast extract and vegetable extract.

![/QUOTE]
I’ve no idea where you live.
In the U.K. “marmite” is an expression used to describe someone who seems to cause a divisive emotive reaction: people love or hate them with few in between.
That’s because marmite the product is the same. People love it or hate it.

 

[VladTheEmailer]

So if “ experts” want people to listen, they should start with humility and explain in all cases what is more certain and what is pure speculation. They should not extrapolate beyond what is experience without highlighting when they do. They should certainly not ridicule. Science is useful but has limits on what it can say about the universe.

There are tons of Books, Magazine articles and Research papers showing why it is a waste of time and the "Experts"(as you call them) know that. Why should they waste their time trying to convince people that refuse to listen?

 

[Mountainmike]

There are tons of Books, Magazine articles and Research papers showing why it is a waste of time and the "Experts"(as you call them) know that. Why should they waste their time trying to convince people that refuse to listen?

Refuse to listen or we are wasting our time listening?

I could have chosen others.
It was once said of economists, that if there are 10 economists they have 11 opinions.

They have nothing on epidemiologists!

Take the “ expert” who said that if Sweden continued the “ madness” of not locking down they would have 50000 deaths minimum and probably more. How did that work out??

Same “expert” formed U.K. lockdown policy! His predictions have been woeful on all past epidemics. The question is why we listened!
If we have discovered three things about epidemiologists
(1) they don’t agree with each other by a wide margin
(2) they demand we listen to their ever changing narrative
The kicker - always look for the hidden motive:
(3) they all get full pay to stay at home however badly they do, so why wouldn’t they vote to lockdown?

The editor of the main U.K. doctors journal even disagrees with himself. Does he bother read what he wrote the previous month? Doesn’t he love talking down to people!

I’m a postgrad physicist. I am always conscious of what I don’t know.
as someone who did a lot of math modelling in a defence context I was only to happy to air reservations on the model. That is the responsible thing, because lives could be lost if it was wrong.

These “ experts” should take the same view.

In this forum context evolutionary scientists should admit they don’t have a clue about how the minimum cell developed: if they did they would sketch an intermediate simpler cell. They can’t. It’s all speculation. Stop telling us it is a fact.

If an environmental scientist is guessing on thin data, he should say so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Recover from what, exactly? The desire to seek the truth inside of a mountain of lies?

Do you really desire to seek the truth? Or are you merely trying to defend what you already believe, but fear is wrong?

If one really wants to seek the truth one has to be willing to start from scratch. For example when it comes to beliefs the Bible is the claim. It is not the evidence. How would you rationally test the claims of the Bible?

 

[Mountainmike]

Nobody starts from scratch. Can you derive maxwells equations? I’ll wager you would get lost in quantum theory and relativity math: both of which raise fundamental Questions on the limitation of modelling if assumed to model the world not observations of it. Do you really understand them? But I’ve little doubt you will try to use them as part of science as some support for your atheist faith.

But I’ve thrown down various challenges on evidence.
So you research so called Eucharistic miracles . They point at a central tenet of our faith. If they are valid they also disprove Darwin’s theory by the very criterion Darwin himself stated as falsifying his theory.
If you contend they were faked , how were they faked? Believe them or not the science is fascinating. Just one simple question for example: Why are white cells which are evidence of life surviving in vitro when they dissolve in hours post mortem and in vitro. How was that detail faked?

This is the problem with statements like yours. When I mention any, such as Cochabamba , or shroud of Turin, nobody can tell me how it is possible to fake them even with today’s technology, and much of the forensics will have been invisible to fakers. The forensics unknown at the time so why were they copied?

Yet such questions are usually met with objections that show the objectors have not studied them, accusations of gullibility when I am reading credible forensics, finally sneering contempt. The contempt can only come from one place. A faith response not reasoned reaction to something the objector doesn’t believe.

Do you really desire to seek the truth? Or are you merely trying to defend what you already believe, but fear is wrong?

If one really wants to seek the truth one has to be willing to start from scratch. For example when it comes to beliefs the Bible is the claim. It is not the evidence. How would you rationally test the claims of the Bible?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nobody starts from scratch. Can you derive maxwells equations? I’ll wager you would get lost in quantum theory and relativity math: both of which raise fundamental Questions on the limitation of modelling if assumed to model the world not observations of it. Do you really understand them? But I’ve little doubt you will try to use them as part of science as some support for your atheist faith.

LOL! There is no "atheistic faith". Don't accuse others of your weaknesses. My atheism is based on the fact that no theist can even come close to matching the burden of proof required for their faith. Look at Muslims. Why don't you believe in Allah? I can tell you why, it is because they have as little evidence for their beliefs as you have for yours. If you applied the standards that you apply to other beliefs to your own you would quickly become an atheist too.

But I’ve thrown down various challenges on evidence.
So you research so called Eucharistic miracles . They point at a central tenet of our faith. If they are valid they also disprove Darwin’s theory by the very criterion Darwin himself stated as falsifying his theory.
If you contend they were faked , how were they faked? Believe them or not the science is fascinating. Just one simple question for example: Why are white cells which are evidence of life surviving in vitro when they dissolve in hours post mortem and in vitro. How was that detail faked?

I don't think that you understand what is and what is not evidence. As to various claimed miracles the burden of proof is upon you. You need to show how your sources are reliable. And I sincerely doubt that any evidence that you can find for them rises to even a fraction of the strength of that of the evidence for evolution.

This is the problem with statements like yours. When I mention any, such as Cochabamba , or shroud of Turin, nobody can tell me how it is possible to fake them even with today’s technology, and much of the forensics will have been invisible to fakers. The forensics unknown at the time so why were they copied?

Oh my, oh my!! The Shroud? Are you kidding me? If that is the best that you have then you lose. The Shroud was debunked in 1988, if I recall correctly. It was shown to be a fraud through carbon dating. The Shroud has been replicated using technology of that time. I have never heard of Cochabamba, but if you are impressed with the Shroud then it is probably laughable too.

Yet such questions are usually met with objections that show the objectors have not studied them, accusations of gullibility when I am reading credible forensics, finally sneering contempt. The contempt can only come from one place. A faith response not reasoned reaction to something the objector doesn’t believe.

The Shroud has only earned contempt. It would be hypocritical to complain about the contempt. The evidence used in the sciences meets a rather simple standard. A very reasonable standard. Would you care to learn what is and what is not scientific evidence and why?

 

[Mountainmike]

Thanks: you Demonstrated every single point I made.
Now go back and read them.

When asking why atheists never seem to study forensic evidence of such as “so called” Eucharistic miracles I stated this

“ Yet such questions are usually met with objections that show the objectors have not studied them, accusations of gullibility when I am reading credible forensics, finally sneering contempt. The contempt can only come from one place. A faith response not reasoned reaction to something the objector doesn’t believe.”

Your reply ticks all the boxes.

btw “ there is no god” is a belief, a faith. Agnosticism don’t know/ don’t care is more intellectually viable.

It seemingly allows you to gloss over the lack of any postulated viable precursor intermediate to the minimum cell, the scientific reality of abiogenesis is “ don’t know” how life started. Even Dawkins admits it, keep up!

You will never know how good the evidence is because you refuse to look at it before take a verdict. Why? How scientific is that? Not.

I posed a question about white cells. Your answer is????? It might just surprise you if you looked, Credible forensics from labs whose day job is criminology. There are dozens of science books on the shroud, sadly your faith in assumption of fraud stops you reading them? Why else if you are so certain?

Contempt not reason demonstrated. The atheist faith is certainly too strong to allow objective study of evidence.

LOL! There is no "atheistic faith". Don't accuse others of your weaknesses. My atheism is based on the fact that no theist can even come close to matching the burden of proof required for their faith. Look at Muslims. Why don't you believe in Allah? I can tell you why, it is because they have as little evidence for their beliefs as you have for yours. If you applied the standards that you apply to other beliefs to your own you would quickly become an atheist too.



I don't think that you understand what is and what is not evidence. As to various claimed miracles the burden of proof is upon you. You need to show how your sources are reliable. And I sincerely doubt that any evidence that you can find for them rises to even a fraction of the strength of that of the evidence for evolution.



Oh my, oh my!! The Shroud? Are you kidding me? If that is the best that you have then you lose. The Shroud was debunked in 1988, if I recall correctly. It was shown to be a fraud through carbon dating. The Shroud has been replicated using technology of that time. I have never heard of Cochabamba, but if you are impressed with the Shroud then it is probably laughable too.



The Shroud has only earned contempt. It would be hypocritical to complain about the contempt. The evidence used in the sciences meets a rather simple standard. A very reasonable standard. Would you care to learn what is and what is not scientific evidence and why?