catholicguy #fundie

catholicguy #fundie freeratio.org

But that's just the point, see. Science isn't based on personal experience. That's where your reasoning is at fault.

So the theory of macro-evolution wasn't based on the personal experiences of Charles Darwin (combined with a rigged publish/peer review process)?

The reason science will never get past seeing THIS [miracles] as personal experience is because it doesn't have the tools to study, replicate, corroborate it. That isn't my fault or any fault in my reasoning. It is a shortcoming of science.

If there is good evidence for the supernatural, science will gladly investigate, but it will not investigate simply because of mere stories.

Science HAS investigated it. The point is that science cannot, and will not, meet "pseudoscience" on a level playing field just yet. Even if it wanted to, stumbling blocks exist in the form of a rigged publication/peer review system and the almighty dollar. The upshot is that atheists gleefully slip through the toll gates without paying a penny. Yeah, that does annoy me, especially when they rub salt into the wound with arrogant condescending behaviour, trying to learn those silly theists a lesson. But I take pleasure in this, that every time I talk to an atheist it really does feel like I'm talking to a dead man walking. It's just a matter of time. Did I say that out loud?

44 comments

old comment by Doubting Thomas

Yeah, that peer review process is "rigged" because they don't allow unscientific nonsense to pass through unchallenged.

And science and pseudoscience can never meet on a level playing field because pseudoscience does not play by the rules. In fact, there are no rules in pseudoscientific ideas because it's pretty much "anything goes." If you can think up a wacko theory, it stands unchallenged along with other wacko theories. But when held up to the light of science they're seen for the ridiculous ideas they are.

And nice how you take pleasure in thinking that other people are going to burn for eternity. Just another example of Christian love.

old comment by

That's because pseudoscience uses techniques that can't pin down anything. I mean, take ghost hunting for example. While the chances of crap happening to your picture because of a damaged camera or mishandling the film has gone down because of digital cameras, digital cameras have their own unique set of flaws that can create ghostly images. Looking for electromagnetic fields? They occur naturally. Sudden chills? Possibly a draft. I personally feel that it's possible for ghosts to exist, but there just isn't enough evidence in any one case to definitively say "this is a ghost and nothing else."

And by the way, most theists have long since accepted science. It's not evil. It doesn't hate left-field theories either; there have been some animals recognized by science that were just cryptozoological theories for years. Like the coelacanth and the giant and colossal squids.

old comment by David B.

"So the theory of macro-evolution wasn't based on the personal experiences of Charles Darwin (combined with a rigged publish/peer review process)?"

No, it's based on a huge mountain of observation and inference that is; detailed in full in leading scientific journals, displayed in public in museums around the world, spectacularly successful in predicting the age and location of expected transitional forms.

And Darwin's personal experiences are irrelevent as the term wasn't coined until nearly 50 years after his death (n.b. by biologists, not creationists).

"The point is that science cannot, and will not, meet "pseudoscience" on a level playing field just yet."

The scientific playing field is based on verifiable facts and reproducible experiments, it's only not level because pseudoscientific and supernatural beliefs have a glaring lack of both.

"every time I talk to an atheist it really does feel like I'm talking to a dead man walking"

Everything dies, even stars and planets. I'm not the one who has to talk to an imaginary friend to cope with this fact.

old comment by John

Scientists are not concerned with the supernatural any more than a plumber is concerned with your electrical wiring. The job of science is to find natural explanations. Evolution is a natural explanation that has yet to be proved wrong. It doesn't mean that life couldn't have been created by supernatural means. It simply means we have a logical alternative that doesn't involve God performing magic.

As for scientists trying to teach those "silly theists" a lesson- first, science doesn't conflict with belief in God. It only conflicts with a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible, something which isn't a problem for the majority of Christians. Second, the "silly theists" bring scorn on themselves when they come out with stupid stuff like "if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys around?"

old comment by Sisyphus

I remember hearing a rant along these lines from a doctor I used to work for. He'd written a"paper" he was hoping to have published about the importance of spiritual healing with regards to physical health. He had no hypothesis. His "experiment?" consisted of asking 25 various faith healers if they thought spiritual healing was important and why (no control group, no voices for the opposition) and was incensed that his "paper" was rejected by every journal he submitted it to.

He yelled and screamed for hours about the "rigged peer review process" and was apoplectic by the time he got around to how he was being discriminated against.

I wish I'd had a camera. :-S

old comment by Anon-e-moose

"Science HAS investigated it. The point is that science cannot, and will not, meet "pseudoscience" on a level playing field just yet. Even if it wanted to, stumbling blocks exist in the form of a rigged publication/peer review system and the almighty dollar."

What you're using right now: a computer.

Peer reviewed up the wazoo, researched, advanced, proven to work. Intel, Nvidia, Dell, Hewlett-Packard, Lenovo, Acer, Asus, Apple, Creative Labs, Samsung, Western Digital, Seagate, you name it.

When you can prove that HD cases filled with water will work - as well as water RAM - get back to us. Because as so-called 'Pseudoscience' claims, water - in Homeopathy - supposedly has memory, then when you can patent a process for good ol' H2O to replace flash memory in the latest SSDs (thus a Nobel Prize will be yours for the asking!), then I'm afraid that 'Pseudoscience' has no right to be in the same competition, never mind any of it's stadiums: least of all one with a pitch that is level. [/Euro 2016]

Exactly, Darwin had no access to DNA, that wasn't discovered yet, it has spawned a new evolutionary synthesis. It still continued to confirm most of the old scientific theory, but offered light to correct and improve models and understand the way mutations happen, give clues about abiogenesis, etc. Evolution is discovery, not human opinion. Science also keeps developing new "senses" to look at the world. Claiming that the fantastical writings of an ancient author and the knowledge of science are the same is a false equivalence fallacy, presenting a straw man of science. For the same reason, the scientific consensus is superior to the opinions of individual scientists.

When science will be able to study the supernatural, it will not be the supernatural. Science studies the "supernatural" all the time, for the people in the past who considered it mysterious. We now know, for instance, that lightning is not an angry Thor. That sacrificing virgins to volcanoes will not prevent them, because they have a natural geological origin. That bush fires are not angels. That brains are unreliable and self-deceiving, that hallucinations are not a window to "a higher reality". That the fantasies of the mind are only that, which is contrasted with knowledge development using the scientific method. Et cetera.

And interestingly, you're confusing science with atheism. The problem is that your pseudoscientific arguments are untenable, not that scientists are atheists. If you provide evidence for your method, they will notice and replicate your results. Assuming that you post them in the relevant peer reviewed journals.