Hi Dark,

Yes, I see your point. I think for certain people science has become
their religion and rather than using it as a tool to help aid in the
discovery of truth they treat it as absolute truth even though science
has been known to lead to errors. Some of them as heatedly debated as
religious doctrines of faith.

For example, former Vice President Al Gore made a comment that there
was a consensus among scientists about global warming. That happens to
be far from true. There have been many climatologist's who have gone
on the record calling global warming a bunch of political bull crap.
So who is right and who is wrong?

So for guys like Richard Dawkins to come out and tout that science is
the be all and end all of any subject when science is just as open to
interpretation and error as religion only goes to show for some people
like Dawkins science is their religion. There are certain things like
memes that have no scientific basis, but Dawkins is on the front line
trying to prove that religion, values, etc are memes that are passed
on from generation to generation the way genes are. Its crackpot
science at its worst.

To be honest its exactly for reasons like this I consider myself to be
an agnostic. I take a neutral position on anything that is in doubt.
There are far too many people lined up on one side or another of an
issue and there is very little factual evidence to back up their
claims. There are ultra atheists out there like Dawkins who want to
prove any and all religions as absolutely false, but often overlooks
many of the theories and explanations he is touting are in doubt and
are by no means supported by all scientists as fact. Then, there are
ultra religious people who will fanatically state this or that
religion is a fact rather than their belief even though there is
little in the way of provable evidence for that belief. I personally
feel in the lack of evidence to prove one theory or another the best
choice is not to take sides until there is enough evidence to pick one
side or another beyond a reasonable doubt. True science, skeptical
science, should do this, but unfortunately many people in the
scientific community are just as fanatical about their scientific
theories as religious extremists.

To give you an example in the God Delusion Richard Dawkins equates
rasing our children in a church is child abuse. He suggests that
children should be taken away and raised by the state. That's a
fanatical position if I have ever heard one, and isn't much different
than the Hitler Youth in Natzi Germany. The reason Dawkins takes such
an extreme view is that he can't stand the idea that people don't
agree with his scientific point of view so children should be
indoctrinated in science by force if necessary. Thankfully herein the
U.S. we have the freedom of religion and parents are aloud to raise
their children in science, religion, or whatever they believe as long
as it is within reason.

Cheers!



On 8/13/12, dark <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Tom.
>
> this I'm afraid isn't the objection to science I was considdering, sinse
> it's not just the case that "science cannot explain" certain things, rather
>
> there are certain flaws and inconsistancies in the scientific method that
> means you need to fill in a lot of gaps via personal opinion.
>
> for instance, there is the famous problem of induction which has been around
>
> sinse David hume. namely, how can you be certain that any inductive line of
>
> reasoning is ultimately going to end in the same conclusion all of the time,
>
> the famous, well all the swans I've seen are white so all swans must be
> white line of thinking.
>
> more seriously than that, there is the problem of experimental regress. when
>
> a scientist sets up an experiment occurs according to a set of strict
> principles set by that scientist, ie, experimental conditions. The
> experiment however is not exactly replicatable, because nobody can have the
>
> same conditions, nor are the conclusions of the scientist necessarily shown
>
> by the previous data.
>
> for instance, a lot of findings of sir humphry davy about the movement of
> gasses were unable to be replicated by his contemporaries because the
> equipment he used was very unique, however most people believed him because
>
> of his reputation as one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century.
>
> there is then, the even more serious problem of paradigm shift, that when
> two opposing scinetific viewpoints colide, it is not actually a case that
> one will relinquish their theory, rather, you will have two competing modes
>
> of scinetific expression,, and the one that "wins" so to speak is the one
> that grabs most people's attention.
>
> This is not to say science doesn't work, or that study of science is not
> worth while, only that we should remember sicnece is not the stablishment of
>
> ultimate, absolute truth, but the construction of human opinions about the
> universe, ---- consistant opinions perhaps, but ultimately opinions none the
>
> less.
>
> the germ theory of desease for instance cannot currently explain the causes
>
> of cansa and several other immunological reactions, sinse no foreign
> organisms are nvolved, and our understanding of the human mind is barely
> begun.
>
> so, while I two have an interest in science, I do not follow people like
> richard dorkins who think that science is some sort of new religion, and
> that we are always uncovering truth with it, sinse the past shows sicnece is
>
> just as prone to error and mistakes, ---- heck at one time it was
> scientifically believed that the sun was the center of the universe, or that
>
> germs were spontaniusly generated from within rotting meet and other matter,
>
> rather than being unique in themselves.
>
> Beware the grue!
>
> Dark.
>

---
Gamers mailing list __ [email protected]
If you want to leave the list, send E-mail to [email protected].
You can make changes or update your subscription via the web, at
http://mail.audyssey.org/mailman/listinfo/gamers_audyssey.org.
All messages are archived and can be searched and read at
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected].
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the management of the list,
please send E-mail to [email protected].

Reply via email to