Comment by torial | Hacker News Reader

Comment by torial | Hacker News Reader

I thought the first part was great. Loved "You mock the simplicity of the two-color view, yet you replace it with a one-color view".

Then it tanked. I couldn't help but feel that straw man arguments were used for the examples of those who claim science is a faith. Sigh. Ok, how about a few things that make some scientists and especially the media seem like they belong to a religious or evangelical movement rather than one of discovering the truth: * believing in something no matter what the evidence and coming up with bizarre explanations for things because the evidence contradicts the theory. * saying the science is "settled". Seems like a dogmatic view if I ever saw one. * reluctant to share data to someone who disagree * appeals to experts ("Like most scientists agree") to replace the actual need to show that data fits into a coherent theory

Global Warming scientists seems to fit into this camp more often than others.

But really, you look at different disciplines. In archaeology, some guy was just claiming he might have found the first spot that civilization started, and it was from 12000 years ago (if I remember right). How does he know? Why make claims for that? Why not just stick to "oldest known", rather than sensationalize it?

Why also does every show have to talk about either evolution or global warming? I watched a great Bobby McFarrin special on music, and all these scientists involved kept talking about evolution, and "since we know evolution is true then X" and the hilarious part was that all the scientists came to contradictory conclusions. :-) Why not just leave the whole "evolution is true" part out, and just follow the data where it leads?

Great post. For some people science is absolutely a religion. These folks don't know enough to try and falsify the theory they believe but they have no issue trashing people who aren't as convinced.

> people who aren't as convinced

...but who somehow feel that they do know enough to try and falsify a theory?

> for some people science is absolutely a religion

Quoth the OP: If science is a religion, it is the religion that heals the sick and reveals the secrets of the stars. It would make sense to say, "The priests of science can blatantly, publicly, verifiably walk on the Moon as a faith-based miracle, and your priests' faith can't do the same." Are you sure you wish to go there, oh faithist? Perhaps, on further reflection, you would prefer to retract this whole business of "Science is a religion too!"

If science gets credit for healing the sick, does it also take the blame for deaths caused by nuclear weapons? Blatant, public, and verifiable. Praise worthy? Not in my book.

> does it also take the blame for deaths caused by nuclear weapons?

In my view, yes, it does, and science needs to learn from that (and countless other mistakes). It's certainly not universally praise-worthy. But it does provide a way for ethical people to reliably improve the human condition.

Who said anything about praise? Yes, my deity can be angry, but my faith is still more true than yours, o Christian.

The same science that lets you heal the sick also tells you how to kill people.

>...but who somehow feel that they do know enough to try and falsify a theory?

You don't have to try to falsify a theory not to believe it. Agnostic is also a valid position (so long as you're not trying to influence others one way or another).

Also, your comment smacks of "you aren't qualified to do anything but agree". Personally, when I hear someone say that one would need years upon years of training before being qualified to even have an opinion I wonder what controls are in place to ensure this qualification process isn't tainting their thinking.

For example, long time programmers of some awful programming language will report that it "works just how I think", but in fact long repetition has programmed them to work and think this way.

>Quoth the OP

Ah, but you've misunderstood me. I'm not saying science is a religion itself, rather that some people put blind faith into it. I've seen plenty of people ridiculing others for not believing in some theory, but when engaged they don't really know anything more than "most people believe this".

I once saw a self-proclaimed Christian ridiculing a non-Christian about some moral issue. When I asked how many times he had read through the bible he admitted he had never read the whole thing. I don't see much difference between this and what I see from some laymen "champions of science" I've encountered.

Why is it hilarious that scientists disagree?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com