Which Is A Bigger Threat To Humanity? Science Or Religion?

[Hedra42]

o_O.Q said:

Hedra42 said:

I will tackle each of your responses to those statements of mine that you've quoted, in the boxes below.

You had, up until this point, been arguing about scientists in the past using faith in their work in the absence of future evidence, and I responded that this wasn't the case. So I am assuming that you are now arguing that scientists of the present use faith in their work.

 

You said in a previous post that we were talking about people who are educated on the subject. Please do not move the goalposts.

For the second time, you have taken a quote of mine out of context. The full quote is "Again, you are confusing belief / faith (where no proof is sought) with hypotheses and theories, for which scientists strive to obtain proof and verification in their quest for knowledge and understanding."

You do not understand the difference between belief/faith, and the methods scientists use in their work.

 

On to the (still) unsupported claims. For convenience, I have copied them from a previous post and put them in the box here.

Note that I didn't ask for you to give your own clarifications, I asked for supporting evidence - twice. So far you have not provided any evidence, and I will therefore not be drawn into any discussion about them.

 

These comments are related to the list of unevidenced claims. See my comment above this box.

 

What you mean is that ignorance and greed are indispensible attributes of scientists. In fact, what you actually said was: "i think what you are missing is that 'ignorance, greed' are indispensable aspects of the practitioners of science". This implies that ignorance and greed are specifically necessary in order to be a practitioner of science.

Now you are trying to wriggle out of it by including scientists as a subset of humanity and applying the traits to humanity as a whole.

I will assume, then, that you are backing away from your original claim.

 

It is actually a misquote from your OP, and I apologise for getting it muddled. I did, however, quote it correctly in the list of unevidenced claims further up the post, and I will therefore not engage in discussion unless you provide evidence.

 

Now on to your analysis of my final paragraph.

You asked me if I believed electrons existed. I pointed to evidence that showed images and a video of an electron. You replied that it was a bad example, but the point you were making was that "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence."

Faith is defined as a complete trust in someone or something. Belief is an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially without proof.  

Theory is a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained. A hypothesis is a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.  If conclusive evidence of the existence of electrons were not available, a scientist would not exhibit faith or belief in the existence of electrons. They would continue to work on the hypotheses and theories.

I have not said that you think hypothesis and faith are the same, I have said you have confused the two. In fact, I said that you had a lack of understanding of the difference between faith and hypothesis/theory. This lack of understanding was shown in your attempt to provide evidence supporting your claim "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence."

You are correct that bloodletting practices were accepted as verified treatments.  These were based on the scientific theories and knowledge of the time, backed up by a history of bloodletting going back thousands of years. Within that example, a scientist tested a hypothesis in 1828 to see just how effective bloodletting was on 'flu sufferers. No belief or faith was involved.

When did I deny that Piltdown Man was a lie? Piltdown Man was a hoax, but at the time, to the scientists involved, it was a real and exciting find. The scientists were the victims - the only people pushing lies were the people who devised the hoax in the first place - and those individuals were never identified.

The people that bled people were not ignorant. Definition of ignorant: lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated. They may appear ignorant in comparison to the medical professionals of today, but they were knowledgable physicians of their time. Bloodletting is beneficial in certain cases, and it is used in medicine today.

You are right that the bloodletting procedures were accepted verified treatments of the time. Where did I ever deny that? But you were trying to pass the practice off as evidence of 'faith' being used among the scientific community in the face of inconclusive evidence. I'm glad you seem to understand that this was not the case, and hope that you now understand the difference between 'faith' and 'hypothesis'.

 

"For the second time, you have taken a quote of mine out of context. The full quote is "Again, you are confusing belief / faith (where no proof is sought) with hypotheses and theories, for which scientists strive to obtain proof and verification in their quest for knowledge and understanding."

You do not understand the difference between belief/faith, and the methods scientists use in their work."

i give further analysis on this addressing another quote from you

 

"What you mean is that ignorance and greed are indispensible attributes of scientists. In fact, what you actually said was: "i think what you are missing is that 'ignorance, greed' are indispensable aspects of the practitioners of science". This implies that ignorance and greed are specifically necessary in order to be a practitioner of science.

Now you are trying to wriggle out of it by including scientists as a subset of humanity and applying the traits to humanity as a whole."

humanity are the practitioners of science... what else could i be talking about?

my last answer

"but i mean what am i supposed to say to someone that doesn't acknowledge that greed and ignorance are inherent to human beings?"

who else besides humans have been the practitioners of science? are you claiming ancient aliens or something?

the word practitioner all by itself is a term that always refers to humans

google's definition - "a person actively engaged in an art, discipline, or profession, especially medicine"

 

"You asked me if I believed electrons existed. I pointed to evidence that showed images and a video of an electron. You replied that it was a bad example, but the point you were making was that "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence.""

you acknowledged here that i did reconsider my claim about electrons, so why bring it up again?

 

"I have not said that you think hypothesis and faith are the same, I have said you have confused the two."

using a claim that i already retracted... curiously you didn't acknowledge my replacement claim about singularities i wonder why?

 

"You are correct that bloodletting practices were accepted as verified treatments.  These were based on the scientific theories and knowledge of the time, backed up by a history of bloodletting going back thousands of years. Within that example, a scientist tested a hypothesis in 1828 to see just how effective bloodletting was on 'flu sufferers. No belief or faith was involved."

well obviously there was since they proceeded to continue using a harmful procedure

when a hypothesis is proven false you discard the experiment... to continue to utilise whatever methods you've been working on shows faith since you've discarded the obvious signs that you've been wrong 

for example: http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/10/27/bloodletting-is-still-happening-despite-centuries-of-harm/

"It took the great bloodletting wars of the 1800s to begin turning the tide against the practice. The prominent doctor Benjamin Rush (a signer of the Declaration of Independence) set off a fury when he began bleeding people dry during the 1793 yellow fever epidemic in Philadelphia. By all accounts, Rush was a bloodletting fanatic and in general a real piece of work: “unshakable in his convictions, as well as self-righteous, caustic, satirical, humorless, and polemical,” writes doctor Robert North in a biography."

the fact that its still practiced today(in a harmful way as it was in the past) is indicative of what i'm talking about

 

"The people that bled people were not ignorant. Definition of ignorant: lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated."

yeah... and the practitioners of this method lacked the knowledge and awareness to question their belief in it... i don't see how you can deny that

 

" They may appear ignorant in comparison to the medical professionals of today, but they were knowledgable physicians of their time. Bloodletting is beneficial in certain cases, and it is used in medicine today."

yes they are ignorant when viewed through the lens of our current level of development, which is what i said and you disagreed with

obviously i couldn't have been talking about when these practices were accepted

"ignorant" generally by default has the present day as the context

 

"When did I deny that Piltdown Man was a lie?"

"" You have also demonstrated your lack of understanding about the continuing progress of scientific study by describing historical knowledge and practices as utilising 'faith', having 'ignorance' and 'pushing lies'.""

you weren't specific so i used piltdown man as an example of a clear lie that was pushed

 

"For the second time, you have taken a quote of mine out of context. The full quote is "Again, you are confusing belief / faith (where no proof is sought) with hypotheses and theories, for which scientists strive to obtain proof and verification in their quest for knowledge and understanding."

You do not understand the difference between belief/faith, and the methods scientists use in their work."

i give further analysis on this addressing another quote from you

 

"What you mean is that ignorance and greed are indispensible attributes of scientists. In fact, what you actually said was: "i think what you are missing is that 'ignorance, greed' are indispensable aspects of the practitioners of science". This implies that ignorance and greed are specifically necessary in order to be a practitioner of science.

Now you are trying to wriggle out of it by including scientists as a subset of humanity and applying the traits to humanity as a whole."

humanity are the practitioners of science... what else could i be talking about?

my last answer

"but i mean what am i supposed to say to someone that doesn't acknowledge that greed and ignorance are inherent to human beings?"

who else besides humans have been the practitioners of science? are you claiming ancient aliens or something?

the word practitioner all by itself is a term that always refers to humans

google's definition - "a person actively engaged in an art, discipline, or profession, especially medicine"

You are addressing my first point on confusing belief/faith with scientific methods, by giving further analysis on another point of mine which is totally unrelated -  your claim that one needs to be greedy and ignorant to be a scientist. And you have addressed it by pasting the definition of practitioner from Google, lol!

 I'm not going to argue any more about this with someone who is obviously in denial.

"You asked me if I believed electrons existed. I pointed to evidence that showed images and a video of an electron. You replied that it was a bad example, but the point you were making was that "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence.""

you acknowledged here that i did reconsider my claim about electrons, so why bring it up again?

 

Uh, because you asked me to show you where you said that a hypothesis or theory is the same as faith. That conversation began with you asking me if I believed in electrons which then led on to your claim "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence," leading to my questioning the level of your understanding of the difference between hypothesis /theory and faith / belief. Check the original post out yourself.

"I have not said that you think hypothesis and faith are the same, I have said you have confused the two."

using a claim that i already retracted... curiously you didn't acknowledge my replacement claim about singularities i wonder why?

Well all you did was mention the word 'singularities'. I don't know how you'd expect a reaction from that.

"You are correct that bloodletting practices were accepted as verified treatments.  These were based on the scientific theories and knowledge of the time, backed up by a history of bloodletting going back thousands of years. Within that example, a scientist tested a hypothesis in 1828 to see just how effective bloodletting was on 'flu sufferers. No belief or faith was involved."

well obviously there was since they proceeded to continue using a harmful procedure

when a hypothesis is proven false you discard the experiment... to continue to utilise whatever methods you've been working on shows faith since you've discarded the obvious signs that you've been wrong

You obviously have a short memory, or else you didn't read the evidence you posted on bloodletting earlier on in this thread. The scientist who tested the effectiveness of bloodletting on flu sufferers found that it didn't have any benefit. If you read the evidence you provided for me more closely, you'll see that as medical knowledge improved, physicians had to persuade patients that blood lettings were not necessary. So I maintain - no belief or faith was involved, except perhaps on the part of the patients. From the evidence you provided, physicians generally adhered to verified procedures based on the knowledge at the time.

the fact that its still practiced today(in a harmful way as it was in the past) is indicative of what i'm talking about

It may be practiced in a harmful way in certain parts of the world, but bloodletting still has its place in modern medicine in developed countries. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/3858087.stm

 

"The people that bled people were not ignorant. Definition of ignorant: lacking knowledge or awareness in general; uneducated or unsophisticated."

yeah... and the practitioners of this method lacked the knowledge and awareness to question their belief in it... i don't see how you can deny that

 

" They may appear ignorant in comparison to the medical professionals of today, but they were knowledgable physicians of their time. Bloodletting is beneficial in certain cases, and it is used in medicine today."

yes they are ignorant when viewed through the lens of our current level of development, which is what i said and you disagreed with

obviously i couldn't have been talking about when these practices were accepted

"ignorant" generally by default has the present day as the context

You didn't say they were ignorant when viewed through the lens of our current level of development. You implied were ignorant, and challenged me to deny it. Just a little reminder for your short memory:

uh and are you really saying that these people were not ignorant? are you kidding me right now? lol

so people that bled people out to cure them weren't ignorant? ok lol

 

"When did I deny that Piltdown Man was a lie?"

"" You have also demonstrated your lack of understanding about the continuing progress of scientific study by describing historical knowledge and practices as utilising 'faith', having 'ignorance' and 'pushing lies'.""

you weren't specific so i used piltdown man as an example of a clear lie that was pushed

Then perhaps you should do research first before making unevidenced claims  on message boards.