Scientific fundamentalism?

[Durandal]

Of course not, but in the case of science, this clinging to your own theories helps the process of peer review along. Sure some scientists don't know how to let go, but most of them do. The ones who still hold on to aether theory are a minority. Just because some reputable scientists happen to be creationists doesn't mean the system doesn't work.

[The_Nice_Guy]

Worse, a lot of research nowadays is funded by organizations. It's impossible to have the sort of independent research we had in the past.

By having these organizations, often with vested interest, a lot of otherwise unacceptable bad science may fall through the cracks. Scientific objectivity is tough to maintain, especially when your patron might not be pleased with your results. The temptation is there to fudge them, and hope nobody notices.

The Nice Guy

[Durandal]

That's also true, but you see that more with the social sciences more than anything else, because statistics and human sampling are much easier to manipulate than the laws of physics.

Although I think that in the 80's, a book was published by a biology research group claiming that blacks were inherently mentally inferior to whites. Turns out that it was funded by a white supremecist group. Even before that information came out, the rest of the community tore the conclusions to shreds, though.

[Kuroneko]

Of course not, but in the case of science, this clinging to your own theories helps the process of peer review along. Sure some scientists don't know how to let go, but most of them do. The ones who still hold on to aether theory are a minority.

Maa... please don't make my point deeper than it really is... it was merely that they exist (or 'did exist', by now). Arguing for your pet theory is one thing, and is as you say important to the peer review process itself, but clinging to it long after it was debunked is something completely different.

Just because some reputable scientists happen to be creationists doesn't mean the system doesn't work.

That's a non-issue as far as I was concerned.

[Darth Wong]

You missed my point. I did not argue for any fault in those objective methods themselves. Hmm.. I guess one thing I questioned would be the scientists' ability to fully and unanimously live up to those ideal standards of objectivity.

That is the oldest dumb-fuck bullshit criticism of science in the world.

The whole POINT is that scientists don't NEED to fully and unanimously live up to their standards of objectivity. The fratricidal nature of the method ensures that the strongest theories survive, and the tendency of scientists to defend their own theories is irrelevant since OTHER scientists have an incentive to criticize those theories and judge them harshly if necessary.

[Kuroneko]

Oh for crying out loud... how many times must I repeat that in no way am I trying to criticize science in its entirety, but merely identify a group of people within it to whom the name "scientific fundamentalist" can reasonably applied.

If you don't like the name applied to any people, argue against that. But must you deliberately put my words so far out of context?

[Darth Wong]

Oh for crying out loud... how many times must I repeat that in no way am I trying to criticize science in its entirety, but merely identify a group of people within it to whom the name "scientific fundamentalist" can reasonably applied.

By misrepresenting the scientific method in order to pretend that acceptance of its validity is somehow wrong?

If you don't like the name applied to any people, argue against that. But must you deliberately put my words so far out of context?

Please explain the context in which it's OK to misrepresent the scientific method. A scientific "fundamentalist" would actually be the BEST scientist, since the fundamentals of science are a method which WORKS, so he would be strictly following it. This is totally unlike the fundamentals of theistic religion (mythologies and dogmas).

[Kuroneko]

By misrepresenting the scientific method in order to pretend that acceptance of its validity is somehow wrong? ... Please explain the context in which it's OK to misrepresent the scientific method...

Oh heck no. The people conforming to my proposed definition of "scientific fundamentalist" would be something along the lines of (ex-)scientists who have 'strayed' from the scientific method.

A scientific "fundamentalist" would actually be the BEST scientist, since the fundamentals of science are a method which WORKS, so he would be strictly following it. This is totally unlike the fundamentals of theistic religion (mythologies and dogmas).

Ah. Finally a proper argument against the proposal...

You're correct that it wouldn't conform to the notion of the "ideal" fundamentalist. Basically, I'm going by a somewhat more extreme version of the popular usage of the term rather than a dictionary-style definition. I see most of those who are commonly called (religious) fundamentalists as having a certain measure of hypocrisy--instead of following what their religion actually teaches, they use selective passages with a scewed interpretation (e.g. literal in times where it clearly shouldn't be) to justify their opinions, while being deaf to counter-arguments even from their own religion.

There are analogues among the scientific community.

[Darth Wong]

Oh heck no. The people conforming to my proposed definition of "scientific fundamentalist" would be something along the lines of (ex-)scientists who have 'strayed' from the scientific method.

Then the term "fundamentalist" would be wrong.

You're correct that it wouldn't conform to the notion of the "ideal" fundamentalist. Basically, I'm going by a somewhat more extreme version of the popular usage of the term rather than a dictionary-style definition. I see most of those who are commonly called (religious) fundamentalists as having a certain measure of hypocrisy--instead of following what their religion actually teaches, they use selective passages with a scewed interpretation (e.g. literal in times where it clearly shouldn't be) to justify their opinions,

That is the popular misconception. In reality, fundamentalists DO adhere very strictly to the text of their sources. They do NOT mutilate it or use "screwed interpretations"; they take everything at face value. The Bible really IS a hatemongering document; those who deny this are the ones who are using "selective passages".

while being deaf to counter-arguments even from their own religion.

Ignoring counter-arguments from peers is irrelevant, and the fact that you bring it up as a major point is indicative of a failure to recognize the logic of the situation. It doesn't matter where a counter-argument comes from; it is either valid or it isn't. According to fundie logic, their moderate peers' arguments are no more valid than those of atheists, satanists, or Hare Krishnas.

There are analogues among the scientific community.

Of course, but the term "fundamentalist" would be incorrect.

[Kuroneko]

Ignoring counter-arguments from peers is irrelevant, and the fact that you bring it up as a major point is indicative of a failure to recognize the logic of the situation. It doesn't matter where a counter-argument comes from; it is either valid or it isn't.

You misunderstand me, again, but this time I can see that I should have phrased it better.

What I meant was that the counter-argument would be within the framework of their own religion (i.e. grounded in the teachings of that religion), not that the person giving the counter-argument shares their religion. As you say, the latter is irrelevant, but I hope you will agree that counter-arguments for results that stay in the same system would be particularly potent from a logical point of view, since then there is no wiggle room for arguing for the soundness of one system against the other (i.e. "but what makes your system right instead of mine?" type objections).

That is the popular misconception. In reality, fundamentalists DO adhere very strictly to the text of their sources... the term "fundamentalist" would be incorrect.

Hmm... I saw numerous uses in precisely such a manner, across several religions, e.g. various militant Muslims being labeled as fundamentalists, while at the same time interviews with other Muslims (eh, sociology class some time ago) indicated that 'true' Islam is essentially pacifist, and the so-called fundamentalists are due to a horrible perversion.

Although, I'm willing to accept that the popular usage of the term is just plain wrong. (Hell, look what happened to the phrase "begs the question" (the popular misuse of which is actually one of my pet peeves)). If that's your position, I'm willing to accept that.

[Darth Wong]

You misunderstand me, again, but this time I can see that I should have phrased it better.

What I meant was that the counter-argument would be within the framework of their own religion (i.e. grounded in the teachings of that religion), not that the person giving the counter-argument shares their religion. As you say, the latter is irrelevant, but I hope you will agree that counter-arguments for results that stay in the same system would be particularly potent from a logical point of view, since then there is no wiggle room for arguing for the soundness of one system against the other (i.e. "but what makes your system right instead of mine?" type objections).

Actually, the counter-arguments come from people who practice a severely modified form of their religion. Actual fundies all march in virtual lock-step.

Hmm... I saw numerous uses in precisely such a manner, across several religions, e.g. various militant Muslims being labeled as fundamentalists, while at the same time interviews with other Muslims (eh, sociology class some time ago) indicated that 'true' Islam is essentially pacifist, and the so-called fundamentalists are due to a horrible perversion.

Then you saw a lot of bullshit. Did you bother to read any of the Koran to see if they were telling the truth, or did you simply accept their spin-doctoring as fact?

Although, I'm willing to accept that the popular usage of the term is just plain wrong. (Hell, look what happened to the phrase "begs the question" (the popular misuse of which is actually one of my pet peeves)). If that's your position, I'm willing to accept that.

No, the popular usage of the term is quite correct. Islamic and Christian fundies stick VERY rigidly to the fundamental source of their religious belief, which is the Koran and the Bible respectively. It is the moderates who are employing a "perversion" upon the source. I am amazed that you would actually take their word for it instead of checking the source yourself.

[Durandal]

Hmm... I saw numerous uses in precisely such a manner, across several religions, e.g. various militant Muslims being labeled as fundamentalists, while at the same time interviews with other Muslims (eh, sociology class some time ago) indicated that 'true' Islam is essentially pacifist, and the so-called fundamentalists are due to a horrible perversion.

This is descending into the realm of the "true Christianity" garbage. Moderate Muslims assume that Islam could never be the source of pain and suffering, so whenever pain and suffering can be traced directly back to it, they say that that wasn't "true Islam." It's massively circular reasoning.

[Kuroneko]

Humm. I can accept that my picture of fundamentalists was in error.

As someone who had zero interest in religion (even from a philosophical perspective) until quite recently, please forgive my ignorance.