[FoRK] Mythbusting the standard religious anti-science line

[Jeff Bone]

On Dec 3, 2007, at 1:40 PM, Sat N wrote:

> Lets see..
>
> Science...
>
>>> a) Unaccountable leadership
>
> Fits the criterion...each scientist runs with their own hypothesis,
> what can't be proven becomes an axiom...

Axioms support theories;  theories are always tentative.  The only  
things which are deemed "true" in any significant sense are things  
which are repeatably observable.

>>> b) Restricted information flows (ignoring data from anyone outside
>>> their community)
>
> Of course, never share the key details with laymen. Share it only with
> other scientists...

There's an important difference between the publishers of scientific  
journals and scientists themselves.  Many if not most scientists  
deplore the closed nature of the journals.  Some scientists actively  
work against that tendency by making their results (pre-prints of  
papers, data sets, etc.) broadly and freely available via various  
means (arxiv, personal websites, etc.)

>>> c) "Respecting those who think similarly above those who think1
>>> differently" (a la Nietzsche)
>
> Of course, laymen are stupid, scientists are superior.

Lion's proposition here may be true to a limited extent --- many  
scientists may agree that those who "think similarly" (about the  
subject of inquiry, at least) are more worthy of respect than those  
who do not.  That is, again, an epistemological assessment;  the  
knowledge gained through the application of the scientific  
epistemological method is regarded as being in some sense more  
"reliable."  That's inherent in the epistemology.  However that's not  
the same as saying that laymen are stupid --- nor is it correct to  
say that this elitist.  In fact, science (broadly speaking) is the  
most egalitarian of all means of gaining --- at least, AFAIK.  All  
you have to do is observe, reason, and make your case;  no special  
credentials, memberships, revelations from God, etc. necessary.  You  
can even be e.g. a lowly patent clerk doodling on stolen notepads at  
night...

>>> d) Self-righteousness (belief in one's intrinsic moral superiority)
>
> Yes....Science is the absolute truth

Nonsense.  Science doesn't even grant the notion of "absolute truth"  
any ontological standing whatsoever.

>>> e) Reliance on hatred of a shared enemy as a unifying force
>
> Yes....Religion is the shared enemy

Unlike most religions, which have a notion of a "shared enemy" as a  
common rallying theme, science doesn't *have* enemies.  It's a means  
of ascertaining the facts about the world we live in, not a social  
phenomenon.

>> Lets take some groups and such and put them ot the test.
>
> So, what does this prove?

That you, Sat, apparently have no idea whatsoever what "science" is.

jb