| How much of science is scientific? Given that science
| is the closest thing modern society has to religion,
|
| Are you capable of reflecting on the essential differences
| between believing without evidence and understanding based
| on evidence?
|
| Obviously your statement is false. In fact, in the context
| you've used the words, the 2 things are opposites.
|
You're demonstrating my point. For you, science
absolutely cannot be questioned. It's objective
fact. That's a pretty good definition of dogmatic
religious belief. Yet you apparently believe that
religion is, specifically, dogmatic belief opposed to
science. If we're going to look at it fairly and
objectively we would have to conclude that your
view and "practice" of science is essentially a
fundamentalist religion, no different from any other
fundamentalist religion in that it involves dogmas
that can't be questioned. That's what I was talking
about.
You accepted the study as accurate science that's
based on evidence, but why do you assume it's
"objective" fact just because it's official science?
The study was done by people. Those people had
a vested interest in the outcome. What they passed
off as a scientific study is in part a deliberately skewed
marketing device. That isn't new. People are constantly
using "science" to make their case. Corporations hire
the "high priests" of science to cook up research that
supports their business model. The research, in some
cases, might be quite good. But the "science" that comes
out of that research could still be mere propaganda,
depending on how it's presented.
I wouldn't be surprised if those "scientists" in
Oklahoma were honestly trying to do good, honest
research. But if they can't clearly look at their own
preconceptions then they *will* do dishonest
research with all the best intentions. They probably
assumed, in the darker recesses of their minds, that
calling into question the sanity and intelligence of
GMO doubters was a service to truth and science.
What we were initially talking about was GMOs
and organic food. You and Frank both dismissed
the general public as idiots who don't understand
even the most rudimentary ideas in science. Yet
neither of you has offered your own opposing
(or even concordant) views and reasoning on the
topic. If you value science then why not address
the topic rationally, with whatever evidence or
experience you might be able to apply that could
shed light? Do you not find the issue at all interesting?
There's an old saying (I don't know where it
comes from) that the wise man is he who knows he
doesn't know. If we can't fully call into question
what we take to be truth, then how can we really
practice science? How could we reason and reflect?
Dogma is not necessary to understanding. Dogma is
an act of fear. But anything we refuse to question,
refusing to entertain even the possibility that we might
be capable of being wrong, is dogma, even if it's the
functionality of DNA or the sun rising in the east. We
don't need dogma to understand how the sun rises.
To the extent that we're dogmatic -- adamantly
certain that we know what's true -- even our
most advanced scientific theories would still be no
more than pre-recorded data that we play back as
needed, like a prepubescent child who has learned
to hold opinions but who isn't yet capable of reasoning.
(I expect everyone here has had the experience of
being approached by a supremely confident 12 y.o.
who proclaims that "you should" this or "you should"
that. "You shouldn't drink." "Fat is bad for you." Etc.
Whatever it is, they heard it from an adult and now
they're greatly pleased to be the proud owners of
a shiny, new opinion.
Just so with the devotees of
science. Their opinions are moldable because they
assume anything dressed up as science is objective
truth. (And of course they're assuming there is such
a thing as objective truth. But maybe we have enough
on our debate plate at this point without getting into
the ultimate dogmatic keystone of modern science:
the assumption that objective observation of truth is
possible.