Hacker News Reader

Comment by tivert | Hacker News Reader

> People can be indoctrinated into science, I suppose, but more often it's something rational minds arrive at.

Come on. That's myth that beggars belief. Did you somehow independently arrive at science by yourself as a rational mind? Of course not. It's a set of values and habits of mind that you absorbed and where explicitly taught from childhood (e.g. were indoctrinated into).

> A rational adherence to science isn't a worship of "gods" it's the understanding that it's a rational approach to gaining knowledge and understanding the universe.

And religion is (frequently) the understanding that gods should be worshiped in a certain way, which is also totally rational within that understanding.

> 'gods' don't enter into it unless they are the subject of a hypothesis/theory/experiment.

You're taking my statement too literally.

It's very hard to get out of one's own mindset to see it for what it is .

View on HN

> Come on. That's myth that beggars belief.

Hardly.

> Did you somehow independently arrive at science by yourself as a rational mind? Of course not.

Actually, yes. I was raised in a religious household and rejected religion, and absolutely 'discovered' science.

> It's a set of values and habits of mind that you absorbed and where explicitly taught from childhood (e.g. were indoctrinated into).

That's simply not true. These attempts to equate science with a religion are always so disingenuous and show a fundamental misunderstanding.

> And religion is (frequently) the understanding that gods should be worshiped in a certain way, which is also totally rational within that understanding.

It's the faith in gods based on absolutely nothing which is irrational. Come on.

> You're taking my statement too literally.

No, I got what you were saying, I was just making a point to refute your false equivalence.

> Actually, yes. I was raised in a religious household and rejected religion, and absolutely 'discovered' science.

I wouldn't count that as "discovering science." Maybe it would be more accurate to say you found it?

>> It's a set of values and habits of mind that you absorbed and where [most likely] explicitly taught from childhood (e.g. were indoctrinated into).

> That's simply not true. These attempts to equate science with a religion are always so disingenuous and show a fundamental misunderstanding.

Except science is exactly as I described, because (in this context) it's an ideological construct used by its adherents to make sense of the world and gain a sense of righteousness. It's therefore a construct privileged by them. That's often accomplished by a little mental game, that works much like when a job description is written to fit a particular person and reject others. It's not very surprising to see that truth insistently denied, because to accept it would undermine the the work the construct is being used perform.

Science is also a means to technology, but we're not really talking about that.

> No, I got what you were saying, I was just making a point to refute your false equivalence.

I'm not so sure you did, because you proceeded to construe "god" literally not metaphorically.

> I wouldn't count that as "discovering science." Maybe it would be more accurate to say you found it?

This is just semantics.

> Except science is exactly as I described, because (in this context) it's an ideological construct used by its adherents to make sense of the world and gain a sense of righteousness.

It'snot as you describe though, because the point you miss is that it is the product of rational thinking. That's a fundamental difference.

> I'm not so sure you did, because you proceeded to construe "god" literally not metaphorically.

The point was neither type of 'god' is applicable or relevant.

> This is just semantics.

Not really, because the difference is rather significant here.

> It's not as you describe though, because the point you miss is that it is the product of rational thinking. That's a fundamental difference.

There's that little mental game I was referring to.

> The point was neither type of 'god' is applicable or relevant.

There you go again. Maybe substitute in "ideological construct" for god and you'll finally get it.

> Not really, because the difference is rather significant here.

No, it really isn't. It's 100% semantics. The context makes the meaning clear.

But how about you explain what you think the rather significant difference is to progress the discussion? So it isn't just is too/is not which it seems to be becoming.

> There's that little mental game I was referring to.

Sure, an accusation without basis.

> There you go again. Maybe substitute in "ideological construct" for god and you'll finally get it.

No, I get it, and my reply made that clear. It seemed to have passed you by, possibly because you seem hyper-focused on semantics.

As an aside, are you religious yourself? I typically only see these lines of argument from people that are and feel defensive.

The defining characteristic of science is that one can independently arrive at a logical conclusion by observing cause and effect. There is no belief or indoctrination necessary. Having faith in science is an oxymoron (although it's all too common).

> The defining characteristic of science is that one can independently arrive at a logical conclusion by observing cause and effect.

I'm not sure it's about observation of cause and effect. There are excellent youtube videos about the strangeness of time and how cause and effect are convenience terms. Reason is the basis for science, which we construct practices around that are effective in describing the physical universe.

Having a unique characteristic is not sufficient to differentiate a practice that serves the same purpose as any other religion. Other religions are more sociologically founded and aimed, but they serve a similar niche.

ie There's not a practical way to test out every scientific fact (although many have died trying), given the wealth of knowledge that exists and extreme costs to even perform the experiments. Faith in science is not an oxymoron, unless you want to define faith tautologically, to assert it is so.

Yes it is.

Predictable reliable cause and effect is entirely sufficient to cleanly differentiate science from religions that have no such demonstrable experiments.

> There's not a practical way to test out every scientific fact

They're documented - pick one that ionterests you and lets go on the reproduction.

Can we say the same about any "fact" of a religion? - WE can about the bulk facts in science.

That's your cleaving differentiation.

> > There's not a practical way to test out every scientific fact

> They're documented - pick one that ionterests you and lets go on the reproduction.

In all fairness, I made a straightforward statement and you have assumed I said something else - I did not say any single scientific "fact". This is not the point that I was making (trying to disprove a fact).

> Can we say the same about any "fact" of a religion?

You're getting into the weeds here. If I have a religion that's called AlmostScience that includes a fairy tale that teaches morality but otherwise teaches the history and practices of the scientific method. Is it not a religion? I'm making an equivalence claim and you're attacking details of a strawman religion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com