[FoRK] Practicing Science: Secular vs. Religious Ideology

[Jeff Bone]

On Jan 10, 2008, at 4:01 PM, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar wrote:

> Hi Jeff,
>
> On Jan 9, 2008, at 6:04 PM, Jeff Bone wrote:
>>> Heck, I'll go further -- most of the "religious evil" problems  
>>> Jeff is fond of complaining about can be traced directly to  
>>> Surowiecki's list of failures:
>>>
>>> * homogeneity
>>> * centralization
>>> * divisions
>>> * imitation
>>> * emotionality
>>
>> Absolutely true, but the "systematic belief in completely  
>> preposterous bullshit" aspect of things is a force multiplier for  
>> all of the above. :-P ;-)
>
> That is the one area where we disagree, and I would _love_ to see  
> you provide some empirical support for your position.
>
> From all the data I observe, materialistic (Marxist, Maoist,  
> Confucionist, etc.) groups have *exactly* the same failure modes as  
> religious groups, with consequences at least as devastating.
>
> Since you're so fond of the scientific method, do you think you can  
> come up with rigorous definitions and verifiable data to back up  
> your claim?
>
> Or would you consider that kowtowing to the "institutionalized  
> science" you don't see as worthy of your allegiance?

As I see it, Dr. Ernie, extraordinary claims require extraordinary  
proof.

Since your camp is THE one making extraordinary claims, I feel the  
(initial) burden of (extraordinary) proof is on you.

Oh, wait, right, you can't provide it.  In fact, doing so would  
undermine the whole *vaaaalue* of your system, since it's all based  
on FAAAITH.  Believing DESPITE the total lack of evidence of any kind  
is a BADGE OF HONOR, and a requirement for admission to the club.

So game over.  You have no standing whatsoever to insist that anybody  
engage in a reasonable critical discussion of your system, since you  
by definition cannot do the same!

Any effort on my, or anyone else's, part to engage you on that basis  
would simply be wasted;  you can't have a rational debate with  
somebody who is by their own admission irrational.

Zzzzt, thanks for playing.

jb

PS - cf. Dawkins' rationale for not debating Creationists.