- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: When did science become a religion?
Posted on 9/17/21 at 3:42 pm to LSUconvert
Posted on 9/17/21 at 3:42 pm to LSUconvert
quote:quote:
Scientism requires faith. Like all religions.
This is a huge false equivalency, but I'd be surprised if you could even correctly name what science requires faith in.
Scientism and science are different. Read the previous post in this thread for a description of each.
0
Posted on 9/17/21 at 3:54 pm to TulaneFan
Science has always been a religion. Remember that they teach theory's as facts. Accepted science!
Posted on 9/17/21 at 3:55 pm to TulaneFan
quote:A few hundred years ago when people realized that they could justify their rebellion against God. It really picked up steam in the past century, though.
When did science become a religion?
Posted on 9/17/21 at 3:56 pm to c on z
quote:
If your Hypothesis results in you being in the hospital, then you would want to reevaluate your way of thinking.
Pretty much all innovation requires risk taking that leads to injury. As usual, you have an all time bad take.
Posted on 9/17/21 at 4:04 pm to TulaneFan
Don't confuse Progressivism with Science.
Progressives use whatever science is convenient to promote their religion: Tyranny.
Progressives use whatever science is convenient to promote their religion: Tyranny.
Posted on 9/17/21 at 4:06 pm to TulaneFan
When science became "science!"
This post was edited on 9/17/21 at 4:12 pm
Posted on 9/17/21 at 7:51 pm to TulaneFan
quote:
Since when are we supposed to disregard all of this and blindly follow science as some kind of absolute, unquestionable doctrine?
Since the MSM falsely claim that "the science is settled" in regards to global warming in the 1990's and 200's, but have now changed it to "Climate change".
It could possibly go back to evolution which became its own science religion. No proof of evolution has been found. It is still a theory, but is taught as fact.
Posted on 9/17/21 at 8:01 pm to TulaneFan
I think it came about around the time Climate Change took root. It was at that point some figured out the control they could wield if they bastardized science.
Posted on 9/17/21 at 8:07 pm to ThinePreparedAni
quote:I like this. Most people parroting "I follow the science!" are, in fact, following the media's proclamations about "science", rather than actually holding any specific knowledge of the subject at hand.
Posted on 9/17/21 at 8:08 pm to TulaneFan
When the left began using climate change as a political tool. Politics is turning "science" into a religion because hard science doesn't stir passions like "science".
Posted on 9/17/21 at 8:20 pm to TulaneFan
It's not even just that science has become a religion, it's pseudo science. Science, in and of itself, often can only make inferences, and sometimes it can't explain things at all. But these people don't even follow the scientific method. You are supposed to start with a prediction and work to disprove your own theory, and see if your theory stands up to testing or fails. If it fails, start with a new hypothesis.
But progressives (and Darwinists)always start with a conclusion, and then make everything else fit into their narrative. They make everything unfalsifiable. No matter how much you try to reason with them and show them actual scientific evidence to refute them, they can always move the goal posts and then claim that YOU are a science denier.
We were supposed to be in an ice age right now, according to "scientists" 40 something years ago, then we were supposed to be burned to death by the Sun, and now that heat isn't accelerating any more than it does in a normal heating cycle, rather than just admit that they were wrong, they just say "climate change"... BOOM, "you can't deny us now. Clearly the weather is changing".
Wow, brilliant discovery.
But progressives (and Darwinists)always start with a conclusion, and then make everything else fit into their narrative. They make everything unfalsifiable. No matter how much you try to reason with them and show them actual scientific evidence to refute them, they can always move the goal posts and then claim that YOU are a science denier.
We were supposed to be in an ice age right now, according to "scientists" 40 something years ago, then we were supposed to be burned to death by the Sun, and now that heat isn't accelerating any more than it does in a normal heating cycle, rather than just admit that they were wrong, they just say "climate change"... BOOM, "you can't deny us now. Clearly the weather is changing".
Wow, brilliant discovery.
This post was edited on 9/17/21 at 8:22 pm
Posted on 9/17/21 at 8:23 pm to TulaneFan
I’ll try to sum up what I’ve seen since I’ve now been a professional scientist for just over a decade.
To put simply, the current state of science when applied to many fields are such that we are truly trying to understand concepts and physical behavior about the world around us (eg. climate change) with unsuitable tools (stochastic process modeling/measurement, probability theory, statistical analyses, etc.). What this has done is allowed scientists to apply techniques that are considered scientifically valid to phenomena that are not accurately described by said techniques and still pass peer review because it’s ‘the best we can do’.
Then it just becomes rinse and repeat so the research dollars just grow and grow. Meanwhile, nobody in the political world is smart enough to know they’re getting fed bull shite so the scientist just keep playing the puppets for fools.
Start putting mandates on climate scientists that they lose their jobs, funding, and journal publications if it turns out their projections are wrong and you’d see a much different landscape.
To put simply, the current state of science when applied to many fields are such that we are truly trying to understand concepts and physical behavior about the world around us (eg. climate change) with unsuitable tools (stochastic process modeling/measurement, probability theory, statistical analyses, etc.). What this has done is allowed scientists to apply techniques that are considered scientifically valid to phenomena that are not accurately described by said techniques and still pass peer review because it’s ‘the best we can do’.
Then it just becomes rinse and repeat so the research dollars just grow and grow. Meanwhile, nobody in the political world is smart enough to know they’re getting fed bull shite so the scientist just keep playing the puppets for fools.
Start putting mandates on climate scientists that they lose their jobs, funding, and journal publications if it turns out their projections are wrong and you’d see a much different landscape.
Posted on 9/17/21 at 8:25 pm to TulaneFan
Never has been.
But junk-science... quite the following.
But junk-science... quite the following.
Posted on 9/17/21 at 8:30 pm to CFDoc
Yeah I imagine there simply have to be "answers" or "conclusions" or whatever y'all may call the results of a study in order to get paid, however that works. Nobody wants to hear "we just can't give you an answer to this with any degree reliable certainty". That probably doesn't result in further funding.
Also, this section of society has gone the way of pretty much everything else: if there are 5 different conclusory possibilities for a particular matter, and if you have something riding on only one of those 5 specifically, you can find any number of scientists who will happily support your position. Hired guns.
Also, this section of society has gone the way of pretty much everything else: if there are 5 different conclusory possibilities for a particular matter, and if you have something riding on only one of those 5 specifically, you can find any number of scientists who will happily support your position. Hired guns.
Posted on 9/17/21 at 8:55 pm to CFDoc
there is a scientific topic that leans on religion just a bit
the concept of infinity, without end
Put up your best telescope in the clear night air and look out at infinity
the Hubble telescope sees many times further than your best, but it still looks at infinity
It is said that far enough out the dimensions of time and distance become one.
I believe in infinity even though no mortal person has ever seen it.
Posted on 9/17/21 at 9:25 pm to Trevaylin
quote:
there is a scientific topic that leans on religion just a bit
There’s literally an infinite number of these types of topics.
Posted on 9/17/21 at 9:34 pm to CFDoc
for the scientism's, I would agree
Posted on 9/17/21 at 9:37 pm to TulaneFan
quote:
Since when are we supposed to disregard all of this and blindly follow science as some kind of absolute, unquestionable doctrine?
Especially the interpretation of science from cultists who don’t even understand basic principles of Biology?
My favorite science topic is currently origins of life. I find it illuminating when these cock sure know it all atheist biologists are constantly stumped by Creationists. I’ve watched countless YouTube vids where the Creationists will tell the evolutionary biologist that they can have every protein, carbohydrate, lipids, sugar …whatever they say is required to form a living replicating cell and they say you can take those elementary ingredients and go make a living cell in their controlled laboratory. Guess what? They can’t do it and in all likelihood will never be able to do it.
Posted on 9/17/21 at 9:39 pm to TulaneFan
quote:
When did science become a religion?
The same time it became an opinion
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News