Support NeoGAF

[state-of-the-art]

I don't think that you can be a psychologically healthy person these days and not be at least somewhat skeptical of those who promote a science as 'fact' and proceed to offer a political remedy that everybody else must observe. The Nazis were convinced that it was science that decidedly concluded that the Aryan race was superior to all others, and in every way they considered significant. They surely had plenty of case studies and academic works to back up that thesis.

Are the climate change people - a good number of scientists and like-minded political class allies - doing the same thing? Could they be deceiving us for their own selfish gain? They propose a solution that involves them getting huge amounts of government funding and political influence. Wouldn't it be rational for common folks to be suspicious of that?

And why is it 'climate change'? After all, wasn't it 'global warming' for years? Who decided to change the term? And why so suddenly? Say what you want about dumbass Republicans, but remember that they did read '1984' in public high schools; so they are well aware of Orwellian language tricks such as this.

 

[Freezie KO]

I hope every Democrat or liberal who mocks Republicans for anti-scientific thinking, including the author of this article, is an atheist. Otherwise, you're being a bit hypocritical.

 

[Kapura]

I hope every Democrat or liberal who mocks Republicans for anti-scientific thinking, including the author of this article, is an atheist. Otherwise, you're being a bit hypocritical.

it is fallacious to believe that science and religion need come into conflict. They only clash where people let them.

 

[Freezie KO]

it is fallacious to believe that science and religion need come into conflict. They only clash where people let them.

They can exist in the same mind, due to cognitive dissonance, but not rationally. If you believe in spirits, souls, gods, demons, or anything unprovable, then you are thinking in an unscientific manner.

The point of this article is to rally liberals to point and laugh at the Other, the Republican who doesn't believe in man-influenced climate change. And by all means, that's a valid target. But if you believe in magic, then you probably shouldn't throw stones at someone else's glass house.

 

[Kapura]

They can exist in the same mind, due to cognitive dissonance, but not rationally. If you believe in spirits, souls, gods, demons, or anything unprovable, then you are thinking in an unscientific manner.

The point of this article is to rally liberals to point and laugh at the Other, the Republican who doesn't believe in man-influenced climate change. And by all means, that's a valid target. But if you believe in magic, then you probably shouldn't throw stones at someone else's glass house.

bro you sound like all of the first year university students I have ever talked to rolled into one. Religion answers questions that Science is not equipped to. Religion does not need to imply cognitive dissidence,

 

[Freezie KO]

Religion answers questions that Science is not equipped to.

Like what is the center of the universe? When did the first humans appear? And how come we got lightning?

 

[Kapura]

Like what is the center of the universe? When did the first humans appear? And how come we got lightning?

Like what our purpose is and what happens to our consciousness after we die. Don't be so condescending.

 

[Freezie KO]

Like what our purpose is and what happens to our consciousness after we die. Don't be so condescending.

All questions I listed were answered by religions incorrectly until scientific methods were sufficient to answer them.

"what our purpose is" - False premise. First you need to prove that we have "a purpose." Then the question can be answered.

"what happens to our consciousness after we die" - We actually have an answer. Thanks to the Neurochemistry we pretty much know that the brain is responsible for our consciousness. Once the brain goes, there's nothing else. It's a depressing answer, but science has already answered this one.

 

[jorma]

Like what our purpose is and what happens to our consciousness after we die. Don't be so condescending.

It's funny how all the religions answer these sorts of questions differently. I don't think religion actually answers these questions, they just give you an insight in what people thought of these issues 2000 years ago.

 

[Kapura]

All questions I listed were answered by religions incorrectly until scientific methods were sufficient to answer them.

"what our purpose is" - False premise. First you need to prove that we have "a purpose." Then the question can be answered.

"what happens to our consciousness after we die" - We actually have an answer. Thanks to the Neurochemistry we pretty much know that the brain is responsible for our consciousness. Once the brain goes, there's nothing else. It's a depressing answer, but science has already answered this one.

Your answers aren't good enough. Religion's are. Sorry.

 

[archnemesis]

Like what our purpose is and what happens to our consciousness after we die. Don't be so condescending.

According to our current understandings, the consciousness is directly tied to the brain and it will disappear once it stops functioning. There isn't much support for earlier hypotheses, like for instance that the pineal gland is the principal seat of the soul.

 

[rdrr gnr]

Like what our purpose is and what happens to our consciousness after we die. Don't be so condescending.

Brilliant. Between this thread and the denying Earth's age thread, GAF has delivered in the nonsense and the I-can't-believe-I-am-reading-this-in-the-21st-century department.

Consciousness is scientific question and will have a scientific answer whether you want to accept that or not. Religion has no exclusive insight to nature -- human or scientific. It never has and it never will.

Unless, you're trolling. I'm terrible at that figuring that out.

 

[Lafiel]

it is fallacious to believe that science and religion need come into conflict. They only clash where people let them.

I'm not so sure if this is completely true; but it would be better for society if more religious people believed this.

 

[Kapura]

Consciousness is, and always has been, at least somewhat philosophical in nature. I can't agree with anybody who thinks otherwise.

 

[Freezie KO]

Your answers aren't good enough. Religion's are. Sorry.

Can't tell if sarcastic.

Needless to say, I'm entertaining this digression to prove my point. That it's enjoyable to make fun of other peoples' unscientific thought, but you'd better make sure your own house is clean first.

 

[rdrr gnr]

Consciousness is, and always has been, at least somewhat philosophical in nature. I can't agree with anybody who thinks otherwise.

Yes, consciousness has its origins in an inherently metaphysical construct; a scientific answer is just the logical conclusion to such a question. It's the only way in which we can say something substantive about what consciousness actually is. I've had this debate before, and I don't particularly want to get into again, but if one wanted to, one could continue to redefine consciousness as something increasingly abstract -- taking it out of the realm of scientific into the realm of woo-woo. But as far as emergent (evolved) consciousness is concerned, all the literature points towards a materialistic (neurochemical) answer. Besides, what domain a particular construct was once relegated to is wholly irrelevant unless you want to be particular dense about it.

Can you give me an insight religion has had that is exclusive to religion itself, i.e., it does not logically correlate to some evolutionary or non-religious philosophical constructs?

 

[Kapura]

Can't tell if sarcastic.

Needless to say, I'm entertaining this digression to prove my point. That it's enjoyable to make fun of other peoples' unscientific thought, but you'd better make sure your own house is clean first.

no, you were saying that religious people are incapable of scientifically rigorous thought. You were shittalking.

 

[Lafiel]

Consciousness is, and always has been, at least somewhat philosophical in nature. I can't agree with anybody who thinks otherwise.

Depends on which way you look at it - if you are looking at it from a "why?" perspective, then yes that is a philosophical question in a sense, but when it comes to the "how" neuroscience has you covered there, not metaphysics / philosophy.

 

[Freezie KO]

no, you were saying that religious people are incapable of scientifically rigorous thought. You were shittalking.

I said the exact opposite (see: post 304). I said that you could entertain both rational (scientifically rigorous thought) and irrational thought in the same mind, due to cognitive dissonance.

It's a matter of degrees. Even the most fundie of fundies isn't going to deny gravity. Yet for emotional reasons (fear of death, want of meaning, etc.) people are still willing to believe in unscientific things. One of these emotional reasons is political belief, which ties back into the OP nicely.

 

[Karma]

no, you were saying that religious people are incapable of scientifically rigorous thought. You were shittalking.

I think he was saying it is hypocritical to mock a group for anti-scientific thinking when you believe in a magic man in the sky.

 

[Kapura]

I said the exact opposite (see: post 304). I said that you could entertain both rational (scientifically rigorous thought) and irrational thought in the same mind, due to cognitive dissonance.

It's a matter of degrees. Even the most fundie of fundies isn't going to deny gravity. Yet for emotional reasons (fear of death, want of meaning, etc.) people are still willing to believe in unscientific things. One of these emotional reasons is political belief, which ties back into the OP nicely.

"I hope every Democrat or liberal who mocks Republicans for anti-scientific thinking, including the author of this article, is an atheist. Otherwise, you're being a bit hypocritical."

There is clear implication that you cannot be "scientific thinking" if you are not an atheist. You are continually condescending, which is counterproductive. And you know the really interesting part? I'm not religious at all. I've never attended a religious ceremony of any kind. I just think very well, so I got to thinking "If some of religion's teachings can be scientifically disproved, why do people still follow religions?"

the only answer to that question that makes sense is that religion can provide some things that science cannot.

I think he was saying it is hypocritical to mock a group for anti-scientific thinking when you believe in a magic man in the sky.

See, this is condescending and counterproductive. That's like a religious person saying that you're putting your faith in braided wire when you trust any computer's computation. It's not representative of the belief and it's insulting to boot.

 

[Freezie KO]

There is clear implication that you cannot be "scientific thinking" if you are not an atheist.

You are not thinking scientifically (with regards to a specific issue) if you are not an atheist. I never said anything about your capability to think scientifically.

You probably think scientifically every day. You see a door, you recognize that it's probably not a delusion, so you open it. You drop something, and based on previous observation, you expect it to fall. See? Scientific thought.

But this thread is about singling out a group to laugh at them for thinking about a certain issue (climate change) unscientifically. But I'd bet a whole bunch of the ones doing the mocking also think about certain issues (death, meaning, spirits, gods, monsters) unscientifically. I felt that needed to be checked.

I just think very well, so I got to thinking "If some of religion's teachings can be scientifically disproved, why do people still follow religions?"

the only answer to that question that makes sense is that religion can provide some things that science cannot.

Certainly. Religion can offer comfort, hope, and community. None of those have anything to do with what is actually true. It's up to the rationalists among us to distance those things from what is actually reality.

 

[Trent Strong]

I hope every Democrat or liberal who mocks Republicans for anti-scientific thinking, including the author of this article, is an atheist. Otherwise, you're being a bit hypocritical.

Good point.

 

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

Yes, consciousness has its origins in an inherently metaphysical construct; a scientific answer is just the logical conclusion to such a question. It's the only way in which we can say something substantive about what consciousness actually is.

These are non-scientific a priori statements. A Popperian frowny face for you!

Saying something "substantive" is quite different from experiencing something "substantive". Poetry (in the widest sense of the word, which may or may not include religion) offers a bridge. Quantization of qualia, not so much.

No idea represents or signifies itself. It always points to something else, of which it is a symbol. - Meister Eckhart

The material monist has two heads.

 

[Dead Man]

I don't like the suggestion that it is only Republicans that deny. People of all stripes deny science in a multitude of ways.

http://www.newscientist.com/special/living-in-denial

 

[hukasmokincaterpillar]

I don't like the suggestion that it is only Republicans that deny. People of all stripes deny science in a multitude of ways.

http://www.newscientist.com/special/living-in-denial

Agreed. Also somewhat related is the Dunning-Kruger Effect.

 

[Mgoblue201]

I don't like the suggestion that it is only Republicans that deny. People of all stripes deny science in a multitude of ways.

http://www.newscientist.com/special/living-in-denial

I am tempted to say that some people believe in certain proven empirical truths for the same tribal reasons that other people deny them: not because their arguments are necessarily superior, but because of entirely sociological matters guided by cultural affiliation (the same person who grew up in an evangelical home would believe the complete opposite if their experiences had been different). For the most part, our beliefs are determined our circumstances.

With that said, I think that the Republican party has definitely made a tenet out of reality denial much more than the Democrat party has, though not necessarily because they are biologically different. Does that make them "less intelligent"? If the study in the OP is to be believed, then an otherwise intelligent person, motivated by ideology, falls prey to the same biases of lesser intelligent people but are much more capable of coming up with slightly sophisticated defenses of their position to fool others and themselves.

However, I also think that, as the Republican party cedes the intellectual ground, its ideas are becoming more and more difficult to defend and, consequently, many intelligent people are migrating away from the party. Most current Democrat solutions to healthcare, immigration, pollution, etc. were once Republican policies considered quite conservative approaches to the problem, while the Republicans move farther and farther out to some intellectually unsustainable place.

 

[ViperVisor]

What are the odds that these thousands of people who have dedicated their lives to the study of climate have overlooked something so obvious and simple, and that a few casual observers on an internet forum have identified their critical error? On the contrary, if Climatologists have made an error, it is likely obscure and opaque to virtually anyone but the most well versed, or else it would have already been found.

This is where I ended my postings last time there was a back and forth I got into online after linking to articles debunking their many misconceptions.

It was on a football forum so I used it as an analogy.
Imagine someone only watched 1 game and you have watched 100. Who has the better idea about a football question? It is possible in that 1 game they perceived something to answer a specific question better but overall they are severely lacking. And it is more like 1000 to 1 when talking about specialist in a field. The scientists in that area are about the only ones that can check themselves. The anti-science people have abused that fact and some of those assholes being scientists themselves.

 

[Dead Man]

I am tempted to say that some people believe in certain proven empirical truths for the same tribal reasons that other people deny them: not because their arguments are necessarily superior, but because of entirely sociological matters guided by cultural affiliation (the same person who grew up in an evangelical home would believe the complete opposite if their experiences had been different). For the most part, our beliefs are determined our circumstances.

With that said, I think that the Republican party has definitely made a tenet out of reality denial much more than the Democrat party has, though not necessarily because they are biologically different. Does that make them "less intelligent"? If the study in the OP is to be believed, then an otherwise intelligent person, motivated by ideology, falls prey to the same biases of lesser intelligent people but are much more capable of coming up with slightly sophisticated defenses of their position to fool others and themselves.

However, I also think that, as the Republican party cedes the intellectual ground, its ideas are becoming more and more difficult to defend and, consequently, many intelligent people are migrating away from the party. Most current Democrat solutions to healthcare, immigration, pollution, etc. were once Republican policies considered quite conservative approaches to the problem, while the Republicans move farther and farther out to some intellectually unsustainable place.

I agree with most that, but I still feel it is not useful to pretend this only happens to Republicans. Lots of 'touch feely' leftist individuals deny science too, just not within the mainstream Democrat party so much. Republicans are currently the most visibly anti science political party, but they are far from alone.

 

[Mgoblue201]

I agree with most that, but I still feel it is not useful to pretend this only happens to Republicans. Lots of 'touch feely' leftist individuals deny science too, just not within the mainstream Democrat party so much. Republicans are currently the most visibly anti science political party, but they are far from alone.

That's party of my point, that people who identify themselves with certain groups tend to fall into specific tropes. I think Nassim Taleb makes the point in The Black Swan that once you start accepting certain beliefs, you tend to accept correlated beliefs, even if they may change over time. For example, those on the left are probably more likely to fall for the current anti-vaccine fad. I can only surmise why this is, but I suspect that people rarely reason each belief independently but take entire ideologies wholesale, especially if those in your social group have already adopted them.

 

[Dead Man]

That's party of my point, that people who identify themselves with certain groups tend to fall into specific tropes. I think Nassim Taleb makes the point in The Black Swan that once you start accepting certain beliefs, you tend to accept correlated beliefs, even if they may change over time. For example, those on the left are probably more likely to fall for the current anti-vaccine fad. I can only surmise why this is, but I suspect that people rarely reason each belief independently but take entire ideologies wholesale, especially if those in your social group have already adopted them.

Interesting observation, I agree with your reasoning here, lots of people do adopt ideologies wholesale from peers.

 

[Brimstone]

Buried in the Pew report was a little chart showing the relationship between one’s political party affiliation, one’s acceptance that humans are causing global warming, and one’s level of education. And here’s the mind-blowing surprise: For Republicans, having a college degree didn’t appear to make one any more open to what scientists have to say.

So Japanese scientists are Republicans? The JSER report from a couple of years ago had 4 out of 5 the scientists in the report concluding global warming isn't a direct result of human activity.

 

[ragemasher13]

That's party of my point, that people who identify themselves with certain groups tend to fall into specific tropes. I think Nassim Taleb makes the point in The Black Swan that once you start accepting certain beliefs, you tend to accept correlated beliefs, even if they may change over time. For example, those on the left are probably more likely to fall for the current anti-vaccine fad. I can only surmise why this is, but I suspect that people rarely reason each belief independently but take entire ideologies wholesale, especially if those in your social group have already adopted them.

Which brings us back to my earlier post, which the non-scientist atheists have so desperately ignored.

Christian fundamentalist refusal to believe in evolution is stupid, yes, but ultimately harmless.

The Science that Democrats choose to deny, vaccines, adult stem cell research, cancer discoveries including the ABC link, lead to thousands of avoidable deaths every year.


And Freezie, you sound like a 16 year old kid pissy that rebelling against mommy and daddy isn't enough so you just picked up your first Nietzsche picture book. Its hilarious how pompous, arrogant, and wrong your arguments are.

Keep going.

 

[scar tissue]

They can exist in the same mind, due to cognitive dissonance, but not rationally. If you believe in spirits, souls, gods, demons, or anything unprovable, then you are thinking in an unscientific manner.

Thanks fuck someone has the balls to say this. There are (or mostly "were") plenty of good religious scientists, but at the heart of it all, the two are always at odds.

 

[FlyingTeacup]

So Japanese scientists are Republicans? The JSER report from a couple of years ago had 4 out of 5 the scientists in the report concluding global warming isn't a direct result of human activity.

the japanese society in general is very hierarchical. A collective opinion is often made by one or two old dudes, unless you want your career to end. The reason why they have such high conviction rate in their justice system, not because the police there are mostly supercops.

 

[ragemasher13]

Thanks fuck someone has the balls to say this. There are (or mostly "were") plenty of good religious scientists, but at the heart of it all, the two are always at odds.

ROFL

I'm a scientist for a pharmaceutical company. All of the PhD's and scientists with Master's Degrees in my department are very religious, and it has never had any interference with their work. Hell, one geneticist I work with is an open Creationist. It does not affect his ability to sequence, discover SNPs, or do anything else in any way.

You're a bigot, so is the guy you quoted.

And like most bigots, you guys are also idiots.

But still, keep going. Hearing sixteen year olds without any real education try to say that scientists can't be religious is highly amusing. Its like hearing a first grader say that girls can't be doctors, or firemen.

 

[Alucrid]

Which brings us back to my earlier post, which the non-scientist atheists have so desperately ignored.

Christian fundamentalist refusal to believe in evolution is stupid, yes, but ultimately harmless.

The Science that Democrats choose to deny, vaccines, adult stem cell research, cancer discoveries including the ABC link, lead to thousands of avoidable deaths every year.


And Freezie, you sound like a 16 year old kid pissy that rebelling against mommy and daddy isn't enough so you just picked up your first Niche picture book. Its hilarious how pompous, arrogant, and wrong your arguments are.

Keep going.

Nietzsche?

 

[Fari]

You're a bigot, so is the guy you quoted.

And like most bigots, you guys are also idiots.

But still, keep going. Hearing sixteen year olds without any real education try to say that scientists can't be religious is highly amusing. Its like hearing a first grader say that girls can't be doctors, or firemen.

Are all your posts this angry?

 

[ragemasher13]

Nietzsche?

^Good catch, its early.

 

[RobotMafia]

This has been a fun last few pages to read with my coffee! Oh my at mr. rage.

 

[cubicle47b]

Hearing sixteen year olds without any real education try to say that scientists can't be religious is highly amusing.

That's not what they said at all. Fitting name.

 

[Orayn]

Are all your posts this angry?

Some are just passive-aggressive and include a snide remark about him having said all that needs to be said and promising no further participation in the thread. He's cute like that.

 

[Angry Fork]

To further explain the post I was quoting;

To grant advocates of science at least some leeway; scientists approach the creation of knowledge in a different way than theists. They take their experiences based on indepth methodology and formulate a workable theory which is subject to change over a period of time based on progress in research methodology and tools available to scientists.

In contrast, theists primarily rely on evidence largely personal in nature and not subject to the same kind of rigorous internal checks as scientists. The system isn't open to advancement in methodology.

Where the two are the same is their reliance on a fundamental theory of knowledge which relies on the validity of the external senses, the belief in an external world independent from their own perceptions. In the absence of an objective, extraneous existence science is whittled down to a self-verifying system with no basis to overcome the religious.

A simple thought experiment to elaborate;

A blind, deaf man sits on the side of the road. Two others approach from different directions. As these three men meet an earth shattering event occurs. The blind and deaf man feels intense heat and intense vibrations.

One man, an ardent scientist, proclaims it do be a quake. This man is a seismologist who had seen the rictor scales vibrating. He received word from other stations around the world verifying this as an earth quake. He also observes plumes of smoke and observes the rock cleavage, finding out he is on a fault line. He writes all this out on brail and gives it to the blind, deaf man.

The other man is a pious man. He looks across the horizon and sees rays of dark light shooting up from the ground. A demon appears on the horizon, taunting the pious man. A magical pony trots by telling the pious man, "Run sir, it is Lucifer!" This pious man had seen the pony on numerous prior occasions, always accompanied by foreboding and the appearance of the demon. He writes all this out on brail and gives it to the blind, deaf man.

Now this man must decide, without any personal verifying faculties, who is correct. This man is the tabula rasa. How does he decide? Each man has their own internal verifying system of an inductive and deductive nature. Each has supporting evidence of different kinds and equal normality or consistency.

It is hard, but one must put themselves in the shoes of the blind, deaf man to remove the bias of what they perceive. How are they to distinguish themselves from who they think is the crazed beggard?

What if the guy could see and hear? Like ...most of the world? And yet most of the world is religious. Let's not blame it on indoctrination, fear of the unknown, willful ignorance etc. instead let's shit on science and act like there's a huge conspiracy for scientists to permeate false information?

A blind/deaf man is going to have a really tough time in this world. He's not going to understand much at all without a tutor/care taker let alone seismology or complex scientific topics. Most ordinary people don't understand science why would using this guy as an example prove anything about whether science is true or not. If science has evidence to back up it's claims then it's not faith. Period.

Even scientific topics with incredible amounts of data/evidence (evolution) is still called a 'theory' because it's an ongoing process. It's under a different definition of theory. And I already explained earlier not everyone has the time/inclination to become an astrophysicist just to find out if scientists are telling the truth or not. Some of the posts in here regarding science are blowing my mind. The creationists have found a couple people on their side and now they come out of the woodwork, I had no clue we had more than only 1-2 creationists on this site. (Not talking about you btw I know you're just presenting an argument but other posts I've seen in the thread.)

ROFL

I'm a scientist for a pharmaceutical company. All of the PhD's and scientists with Master's Degrees in my department are very religious, and it has never had any interference with their work. Hell, one geneticist I work with is an open Creationist. It does not affect his ability to sequence, discover SNPs, or do anything else in any way.

Bullshit in every sense of the word. You're making this up to win an argument, have some more dignity than that.

"ALL" of the scientists are "very" religious? A creationist with a genetics PHD/Masters degree whatever? The fuck is this shit. If that's possible at all it's one in a million and you know it. It's not impossible for scientists to be religious but I guarantee the majority would be at least agnostic. They make not take sides or care about religious debates but they sure as shit aren't going to be creationist. They wouldn't be proper scientists if they were.

 

[jorma]

Well if i was that blind man, my first question would be if anyone else saw the demon and the magical pony that the pious man was referring to. And then i'd make my decision from there...

 

[Monocle]

Your answers aren't good enough. Religion's are. Sorry.

What a whimsical statement. I really can't tell if you are joking.

If you're serious, you might want to consider the idea that an answer is only as good as its justification. Religion claims to offer answers to life's big questions, but those answers are formulated to confound the new questions that they raise, rendering evidence irrelevant. You end up with a heap of "answers" that explain nothing at all.

 

[Tim-E]

As a lefty, I want to punch every single anti-vaccine person in the face.

 

[140.85]

Animated GIF images. Refuting arguments since 1987.

 

[Orayn]

Animated GIF images. Refuting arguments since 1987.

That post contained a Godwin and a baseless 1984 comparison. That's very bad form and GIF-worthy on its own.

 

[Monocle]

Animated GIF images. Refuting arguments since 1987.

The gif is a more eloquent response than that post deserves.

 

[KHarvey16]

I love the "Herrrp derrrrp they changed the name those trixsy scientists!" argument. No one changed the name. It's still global warming. The media mostly calls it climate change because morons were looking out their window and asking why it could still snow.