i'll repeat it again... i don't understand how a qualified social scientist is saying the nonsense you are saying in this thread

you're literally siding with someone who for one denies the meaning of the word practitioner

and secondly who denies that greed and ignorance are qualities that all people possess including the subsection that actively practice science (which i said originally)

i mean your refutation is like me saying humans give birth to live young and then you saying that because i didn't say mammals then what i said isn't true

its mindbogglingly nonsensical

in fact, lets test this - is the statement "humans give birth to live young" false or not?

I, and Hedra42 for that matter, didn't say any of these things. I'm not letting myself get dragged into your swamp of lies and twisted words. You know you are backed into a corner, that's why you try to (unsuccessfully) weasel yourself out of all the moronic things you said. That's the whole reason this non-discussion is about semantics now instead of the potentially interesting but ultimately pointless and vacant topic.

Rol, who you should know is the mental coach of each and everyone around here, tells me to keep fighting but I'm getting tired of it. It's pointless. You  probably just enjoy to see how far you can go acting like a dimwit. You may lack any kind of debating or intellectual skills, but I am impressed with your persistence to make a fool out of yourself. You do have more stamina than me, I'll give you that.

Bye bye now!

how can i be backed into a corner when you can't address my statement? don't make me laugh

"That's the whole reason this non-discussion is about semantics now instead of the potentially interesting but ultimately pointless and vacant topic."

um... i just asked you to address my statement... hedra hasn't for like 10 posts now and you're refusing to do so now yourself

your posts here have either been to attack me or to argue semantics and that's a fact

"Rol, who you should know is the mental coach of each and everyone around here, tells me to keep fighting"

you haven't fought yet, since you haven't tried to address my statement just argue the semantics of it despite you claiming that's me

the rest of your post is more insults that do nothing to take the discussion anywhere just like before... maybe you're right and you should go have a rest

Honestly, the question is asinine at best.

Science is either understood to be a body of knowledge or a process of abductive inference via methodological naturalism.

Neither of these definitions would comport to intrinsic detriment to mankind.

Let's move forward to religion then...

Well, worst case scenario is that one radical religion takes over the entire world. That's a threat to humanity in the sense that many would die opposing such a regime but as far as extinction is concerned it's about as benign as influenza.

Better question:

Why do we have so many intelligent people believing in bronze age fairy tales in 2018 and how can we overcome this plague of profound naiveté?

but science produces technology right? and technology has been harmful to the planet and people, that was my point

When talking strictly about the human part of it, ignorance is the biggest of threats.

Since you are starting to contradict yourself and the conversation is starting to fragment, I'm going to take a different approach in my responses, gathering them into topics, complete with references to posts within this thread. If a link to a post does not refer directly to a statement, the statement will be contained within a quote tree in that post.

1. Claim: "i think what you are missing is that 'ignorance, greed' are indispensable aspects of the practitioners of science".

When I challenged this claim and asked you to provide evidence to back it up, you avoided doing so by instead replying:

"yeah... i've never met a human that wasn't ignorant or greedy to some degree... have you? " http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8687570

I picked up on that claim again because it specifically describes ignorance and greed as being indispensible aspects of the practitioners of science, and asked a second time for your evidence. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8687828

You continued to avoid providing evidence or responding directly to the fact that you had said this, by instead referring to the traits being applied to the whole of humanity http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8688841

While in a philosophical sense, there is truth in that no single individual can know everything, that is not the focus of the discussion. The focus of the discussion is your claim about ignorance and greed as indispensable aspects of the practitioners of science.

So I then went and analysed the claim step-by-step to help you see the fundamental flaw with veracity of your claim, which is the inclusion of the word 'indispensible'. Using 'indispensible' (definition: absolutely necessary) implies a need for ignorance and greed to being a practitioner of science. I even offered you the chance to modify the claim if the analysis showed the claim was not as you meant it. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8689968

You then replied that it was not about "needing", http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8688070 . I will therefore take this to mean that you would prefer to remove the word 'indispensable' from your claim, so that it reads  'ignorance, greed' are aspects of the practitioners of science"

However, when Chizrum said “It was YOU who said scientists need to be ignorant and greedy. You literally said it in this quote (emphasis on the bold) "i think what you are missing is that 'ignorance, greed' are indispensable aspects of the practitioners of science".”, you then contradicted yourself in your reply by saying “yes i didn't deny it, i'm pointing out that he's rewording what i said to make it sound illogical even though its obviously true”  http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8690050

To summarise, you made a claim, which, when challenged to provide evidence to back it up, you avoided by attributing ignorance and greed to humanity as a whole. When pressed on the analysis of the claim, you admitted that it wasn't quite as you intended, but then backtracked on yourself by saying that it was obviously true.

Either way, I still disagree with it, and I am still waiting for a link to evidence to back up the claim

2. Claim: "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence"

You had previously provided three sources of evidence to back this up. One was on a hoax archaeological find, another on bloodletting and a third on research into amalgam fillings. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8687156

I established that none of the three sources proved the claim, because the claim was talking about the present day scientific community and the sources dealt with examples in the past. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8687828

So you offered a replacement source, http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae251.cfm to back up the claim.

Unfortunately, this link shows no proof that "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence". It is a question asked by an ordinary person, "What is a singularity and why do all laws of physics break down at singularity?" followed by an answer from a person with M.A. level qualifications in the field. The nature of the answer demonstrates a scientist's reliance on hypothesis (definition: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation) and theory (definition: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.) It cites examples and previously established physical laws, and talks about which types of theories cover the physics surrounding singularities. It also points out where new theories are required, but at no point is faith involved on the part of the scientist.

Therefore your claim still remains unproven.

3. Hypothesis and Theory versus Faith and Belief

I will begin with reiterating the definitions of these four concepts.

Hypothesis definition: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

Theory definition: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

Faith definition: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Belief definition: an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.

In my initial response to your claim that “in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence” I explained how theories are not proposed to be believed in, but to be tested, proved, disproved or modified. I backed this up with a link to a source written by Albert Einstein, which demonstrated how, through scientific process, the theory of relativity came about. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8687156

You said - “i know of people employed in scientific fields that believe in the big bang and most likely you do also... i think what you meant to say is people educated on this topic” http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8687828 

In the same post, I replied that these people may support the big bang theory but to say they believe in the big bang was wrong.

You tried to refute this by saying “you don't think people just believe in some things because an authority in the field told them and they just trust the authority?” http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8688070 and I had to remind you we were talking about people who were educated on the subject. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8688690

However, your comment about people believing in things just because they trust the authority is a perfect example of ‘faith’, as it is shown in the definition above.

In this case, then, scientists would be the authority, because they are the ones who are continuing the work on the hypotheses and using the theories to explain the origins of the universe, while the non-scientists would have faith in the scientist's work and believe their hypotheses and theories to be true.

4. Faith and Ignorance among Scientists of the Past

a. Faith

This argument evolved from the claim in point 2, and its background is as follows:

You submitted 3 sources to back up your claim "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence" the one on amalgam fillings was immediately discarded and we focused on the archaeological hoax and bloodletting. The bulk of this argument can be found in the quote trees of post http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8687828 and I shall summarise it below. 

On the subject of bloodletting, you implied that faith was employed prior to the advancement of medical science: “before medical science advanced they believed in these procedures without adequate evidence... so how does that not substantiate my claim?”

On the subject of the archaeological hoax, you implied that faith was employed because the level of scientific testing of the time was not advanced enough to call the authenticity of the find into question.

In both cases, you tried to argue that faith was being employed despite there being clear evidence within the sources you provided showing  adherence to scientific methods and knowledge of the time.

When I said “That doesn’t mean that obsolete theories and practices can be regarded in hindsight as ‘faith in bs’, you replied “but we aren’t looking at this from the context of being there at the time, but from here in the present.” http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8688070

The bolded is not a valid argument, unfortunately. Those theories and practices of the time were derived from Scientific Method which scientists of the past followed in the same way as they do today. The examples that you gave contain clear evidence of it; they did not rely on faith.

To put it simply, scientific method and faith are two completely different things:

Scientific method – definition: a method of procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses.

Faith – definition: complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

You cannot say that the theories and practices of the time transform into faith or vice-versa depending on whether your viewpoint is from being there at the time or from here in the present.

b. Ignorance

I will start with the definition of Ignorance: a lack of knowledge or information.

You challenged me, as to whether I really believed the physicians in the bloodletting example were not ignorant.

“…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” http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8688070

“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” http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8688841

Despite me maintaining that they were knowledgeable physicians of their time, even though they may appear ignorant in comparison today,  you then tried to tell me that you had been saying that all along (no evidence of this in the thread) and that I had been disagreeing with it (despite you quoting me as actually saying it) and even trying to cover your tracks by then making up the idea that “ignorant” generally by default has the present day as the context. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8688841 (no proof of that anywhere on the internet!) 

But regardless of the amusingly self-contradictory route you took, it seems that we both agree that medical practicioners of the time may have appeared ignorant when compared with modern knowledge and standards, but they certainly were not ignorant in their own time.

5. Lack of Evidence

I am still waiting for links to sources of evidence to support the list of claims in the box at the bottom of the  post http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8689968    

(Edit) And BTW I would thank you to lay off the false accusations aimed at me in other discussions:

"you're literally siding with someone who for one denies the meaning of the word practitioner" http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8690112

I actually posted the definition of the word practitioner in my analysis of your claim: "Ignorance,  greed are indispensable (definition: absolutely necessary) aspects (definition: a quality) of the practitioners (a person actively engaged in an art, discipline, or profession, especially medicine) of science.http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8689968

"um... i just asked you to address my statement... hedra hasn't for like 10 posts now" http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8690148

Really? Here are all the posts in which I have addressed it.

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8690148

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8687828

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8688690

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8689968

and of course, this post. My last 4 consecutive posts on this thread have addressed it.

I see you're not that experienced in debating over religion (or any other ideology, for that matter) in the internet. Basically their tactics is to debate ad nauseum over something, or the argument is reducted to a level where the the topic at hand loses it's meaning.

In the first example, a "philosophist X" said that because chocolate looks like shit, it tastes like shit. And this is what you debate about: you stick into the X's argument and demand everyone else to disprove it.

In the second example, you debate over the taste of candy by making an argument,  that candy consists mostly of carbohydrates, and all carbohydrates consists of chains of simple sugars (only the length of a chain of sugar differs), so all candy must taste the same. And you demand everyone else to disprove what you said about the sugar chain. 

"When I challenged this claim and asked you to provide evidence to back it up, you avoided doing so by instead replying:

"yeah... i've never met a human that wasn't ignorant or greedy to some degree... have you? ""

that was my evidence... the practitioners of science = humans... humans are greedy and ignorant

...therefore "i think what you are missing is that 'ignorance, greed' are indispensable aspects of the practitioners of science".

i honestly can't put it any better than this(edit)... actually i'll use your wording and say that indeed ignorance and greed are necessary qualities to the practitioners of science since practitioners are people and people are always greedy and ignorant

with regards to evidence for my claim... the entire field of sociology has established that the traits i identified are present in all people, do you have a rebuttal to that?

"You then replied that it was not about "needing", http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8688070 . I will therefore take this to mean that you would prefer to remove the word 'indispensable' from your claim, so that it reads  'ignorance, greed' are aspects of the practitioners of science"

However, when Chizrum said “It was YOU who said scientists need to be ignorant and greedy. You literally said it in this quote (emphasis on the bold) "i think what you are missing is that 'ignorance, greed' are indispensable aspects of the practitioners of science".”, you then contradicted yourself in your reply by saying “yes i didn't deny it, i'm pointing out that he's rewording what i said to make it sound illogical even though its obviously true”  http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8690050"

i didn't contradict myself, i said that you reworded what i said... i mean you even quoted me where i said it right there

"So you offered a replacement source, http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae251.cfm to back up the claim.

Unfortunately, this link shows no proof that "in the scientific community there is a fair deal of faith in things that do not at present have conclusive evidence". It is a question asked by an ordinary person, "What is a singularity and why do all laws of physics break down at singularity?" followed by an answer from a person with M.A. level qualifications in the field. The nature of the answer demonstrates a scientist's reliance on hypothesis (definition: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation) and theory (definition: a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.) It cites examples and previously established physical laws, and talks about which types of theories cover the physics surrounding singularities. It also points out where new theories are required, but at no point is faith involved on the part of the scientist."

lol the link literally says that we need new physics laws that do not exist yet (a lack of evidence) "It also points out where new theories are required" to verify the hypothesis, or in other words evidence that does not exist

sounds like faith to me but if you disagree so be it lol

"You said - “i know of people employed in scientific fields that believe in the big bang and most likely you do also... i think what you meant to say is people educated on this topic” http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8687828 "

you initially said that "These people you refer to are not scientists."

to me saying there are scientists who believe in the big bang theory... i then stated that i know of scientists who do and that you probably intended to mean only people who are active in the field we discussed

so you were wrong and i corrected you

" “you don't think people just believe in some things because an authority in the field told them and they just trust the authority?” http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8688070 and I had to remind you we were talking about people who were educated on the subject. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8688690"

no, i only mentioned that to correct you, i was talking as i said about people who believe in these things because an authority told them and they include as i said previously scientists in other fields

they have faith that what they are told is correct, even though as you acknowledge the theory breaks the laws of physics

" I explained how theories are not proposed to be believed in"

and my post on singularities all by itself disproves this claim since as you have acknowledged that relies on evidence that has not yet been presented

"Despite me maintaining that they were knowledgeable physicians of their time, even though they may appear ignorant in comparison today,  you then tried to tell me that you had been saying that all along (no evidence of this in the thread) and that I had been disagreeing with it (despite you quoting me as actually saying it) and even trying to cover your tracks by then making up the idea that “ignorant” generally by default has the present day as the context. http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8688841 (no proof of that anywhere on the internet!) 

But regardless of the amusingly self-contradictory route you took, it seems that we both agree that medical practicioners of the time may have appeared ignorant when compared with modern knowledge and standards, but they certainly were not ignorant in their own time."

if you are going to deny that the word ignorant by default is a comparison to the present state of the user then we really can't have a conversation on this since you don't understand the meaning of the word or how its used in relation to language

"regardless of the amusingly self-contradictory route you took"

its only contradictory if you don't understand what ignorant means though, as i said your understanding of the word means i can't say something like "the people of the past were ignorant" and that's pretty much the main way ignorant is used

"On the subject of bloodletting, you implied that faith was employed prior to the advancement of medical science: “before medical science advanced they believed in these procedures without adequate evidence... so how does that not substantiate my claim?”

On the subject of the archaeological hoax, you implied that faith was employed because the level of scientific testing of the time was not advanced enough to call the authenticity of the find into question.

In both cases, you tried to argue that faith was being employed despite there being clear evidence within the sources you provided showing  adherence to scientific methods and knowledge of the time."

yeah exactly in both cases they didn't have any evidence to justify their actions or beliefs so therefore there was faith involved

"clear evidence within the sources you provided showing  adherence to scientific methods and knowledge of the time."

no that's not true the bloodletting procedure was carried out disregarding the evidence of its harm and with regards to piltdown man the claims were believed despite scepticism from some about the hoax because they were desperately searching for a missing link and chose to continue its promotion because they wanted to forward that narrative

"and of course, this post. My last 4 consecutive posts on this thread have addressed it."

no you haven't, because you can't, all you have done so far is attempt to attack my wording, not address the point i made

Would you mind elaborating on how new theories and/or evidence involve faith?  What exactly is the hypothesis they are trying to support?  And who are they?