Scientific fundamentalism?

Cap'n Hector · Post by **Cap'n Hector** » 2003-03-12 01:46pm

I was thinking about fundies today, and it occured to me that, overall, they're characterized by illogical belief in something...it might not have to be religious.

It occured to me that I know a few people who might qualify as scientific fundies, having an irrational reasoning about science to the extent that ideas are ignored if they don't agree with that. This is different from the rational scientific mindset, which requires evidence. The irrational scientific mindset will refuse to use certain pieces of evidence.

Now, my example is a person who will not accept any historical accounts as they can't be verified by him. He also refuses to accept certain scientific principals that he can't verify on his own.

I'm not seeing people on the Board thinking this way.

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2003-03-12 02:04pm

An "irrational scientific" mindset is an oxymoron. A scientific mindset, by definition, must be logical. The people you described have what could probably be described as pseudoscientific mindsets, or borderline sophistry in the case of someone who refuses to accept historical evidence he can't personally verify.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-12 02:27pm

For the last fucking time, science isn't a belief system. You can't have an fundamentalist or extremist view of it. It's a method that you apply to solve problems. Ignoring ideas that aren't scientific (like intelligent design and creationism) is just a natural consequence of the application of the scientific method. It's not "fudnamentalism."

Cap'n Hector · Post by **Cap'n Hector** » 2003-03-12 02:36pm

Durandal wrote:For the last fucking time, science isn't a belief system. You can't have an fundamentalist or extremist view of it. It's a method that you apply to solve problems. Ignoring ideas that aren't scientific (like intelligent design and creationism) is just a natural consequence of the application of the scientific method. It's not "fudnamentalism."

And if you look at my post, I wasn't saying it was. I was talking about how misapplication of the scientific mindset can result in a kind of fundamentalism.

In no way was I saying that science was a belief system. The ideas that were being ignored were things like accepted history, based on the so-called fact that there is no way you can trust the author of the document, and that it can't be experimentally verified.

It's a warped, incorrectly applied version of the scientific mindset.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-12 03:47pm

It occured to me that I know a few people who might qualify as scientific fundies, having an irrational reasoning about science to the extent that ideas are ignored if they don't agree with that. This is different from the rational scientific mindset, which requires evidence. The irrational scientific mindset will refuse to use certain pieces of evidence.

Hmm... I think I get what you're talking about. People who don't believe in certain scientific concepts, say microbiology, because they have never personally experienced it. Well, while I personally don't know anyone quite like that, nor could I plausibly conceive of such a person, I won't deny that they exist.

What I will say is this: While I believe that it is necessary to take certain things on faith (like the fact that certain historic events occured), I think it is also necessary to not blindly accept the studies of others. After all, people believed for a long time that the world was flat and never questioned it. I know that's a bit outside of your argument, and I know that people who reject history are both ignorant and, in a very neanderthal-ish kind of way, fundie. Very observant of you, though I've never really observed anyone of this nature.

ben · Post by **ben** » 2003-03-12 03:57pm

Would those that believe in cold fusion count?

Cap'n Hector · Post by **Cap'n Hector** » 2003-03-12 04:11pm

ben wrote:Would those that believe in cold fusion count?

Yes.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-12 04:16pm

ben wrote:Would those that believe in cold fusion count?

No. They count as morons.

Frank Hipper · Post by **Frank Hipper** » 2003-03-12 04:36pm

Tatiana Proskourikoff, a giant in the field of Maya epigraphy, and a staunch atheist, felt that religion should not be mentioned in studying Maya history. Is something like that what you had in mind?
BTW, she also refused to listen to Bach, who signed his works "to the greater glory of God".

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-03-12 04:38pm

Durandal wrote:
ben wrote:Would those that believe in cold fusion count?
No. They count as morons.

Fundamentalists are, by virtue of being fundamentalist, morons.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-12 06:04pm

The term "fundamentalist" simply refers to someone who clings doggedly to the fundamentals of a worldview, belief system, or philosophy. In the case of Christianity or Islam, that means the Bible or the Koran, hence fundies are always Biblical or Koranic literalists.

A science fundamentalist would presumably cling to the fundamentals of science, but those fundamentals are a rational method, not a collection of dogmas and mythological stories. So the notion of a "science fundamentalist" is a silly idea. What you are talking about is people who do NOT understand the scientific method, and are confusing it with a distorted version peddled by creationists in which direct observation is required for every single prediction of a theory rather than simply to verify that the mechanism functions (it's a bit like saying that we've observed gravity, but we haven't directly observed gravity a million years ago, so we can't say there was any).

One could hardly call such people fundamentalists; they are getting the fundamentals WRONG, not right.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-03-12 09:02pm

Seems like a weak sort of solipsism to me.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-12 09:21pm

As a little spinoff question, I'd like to see how people view the Church of Christ the Scientist. I go to school down the street from their church in Boston, and they harass people constantly with their surveys and try to sell books by this guy whose name escapes me now. But I digress.

Pu-239 · Post by **Pu-239** » 2003-03-12 10:29pm

Queeb Salaron wrote:As a little spinoff question, I'd like to see how people view the Church of Christ the Scientist. I go to school down the street from their church in Boston, and they harass people constantly with their surveys and try to sell books by this guy whose name escapes me now. But I digress.

oxymoron

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-13 12:33am

Queeb Salaron wrote:As a little spinoff question, I'd like to see how people view the Church of Christ the Scientist. I go to school down the street from their church in Boston, and they harass people constantly with their surveys and try to sell books by this guy whose name escapes me now. But I digress.

Well let's see. These are the people who withold medical treatment from their children because it was God's will they get sick, and only his will can save them, correct?

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-13 12:45am

Durandal wrote:
Queeb Salaron wrote:As a little spinoff question, I'd like to see how people view the Church of Christ the Scientist. I go to school down the street from their church in Boston, and they harass people constantly with their surveys and try to sell books by this guy whose name escapes me now. But I digress.
Well let's see. These are the people who withold medical treatment from their children because it was God's will they get sick, and only his will can save them, correct?

Among other things, yes.

Actually, that's a funny thought. I remember a few cases a year or so back when a couple from Massacusetts was arraigned on parental negligence because they had refused to treat their sick child with modern medicines. Instead they fed the baby non-lethal (but non-beneficial) herbs and natural medicines. If this refusal of treatment is negligent, then how are the practices of CoCS (::Laughs at the anagram::) any different?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-03-13 01:12am

Queeb Salaron wrote:Actually, that's a funny thought. I remember a few cases a year or so back when a couple from Massacusetts was arraigned on parental negligence because they had refused to treat their sick child with modern medicines. Instead they fed the baby non-lethal (but non-beneficial) herbs and natural medicines. If this refusal of treatment is negligent, then how are the practices of CoCS (::Laughs at the anagram::) any different?

It's religious. This means it's a sacred cow and we can't touch it, even if people die as a result. Welcome to God-fearing country, where the "tolerant" people pat themselves on the back for saying that it doesn't matter what religion you have ... so long as you DO have one.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-13 01:19am

Queeb Salaron wrote:Among other things, yes.

Then they're quite obviously idiots who are completely unfit to raise children. These parents should have their children taken away if they're going to let them suffer while medical care is readily available.

Actually, that's a funny thought. I remember a few cases a year or so back when a couple from Massacusetts was arraigned on parental negligence because they had refused to treat their sick child with modern medicines. Instead they fed the baby non-lethal (but non-beneficial) herbs and natural medicines. If this refusal of treatment is negligent, then how are the practices of CoCS (::Laughs at the anagram::) any different?

They aren't. Claiming that your freedom of religious expression gives you a license to be a negligent parents (or in Reverend Phelps' case, a horrific monster who savagely beats his children for no reason) is ludicrous, and I can't believe that people actually get away with such claims.

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-13 01:23am

Darth Wong wrote:It's religious. This means it's a sacred cow and we can't touch it, even if people die as a result. Welcome to God-fearing country, where the "tolerant" people pat themselves on the back for saying that it doesn't matter what religion you have ... so long as you DO have one.

Yeah. I fucking hate that word, too... "tolerant." The whole country preaches tolerance: Tolerance for gays and lesbians, transsexuals, bisexuals, blacks, hispanics, inter-racial people, asians, various religious groups.....

First of all, you only "tolerate" bad things. Your school-teacher always used to say "I won't tolerate bad behavior," and so on.

Second of all, when the fuck are we gonna start tolerating upper- and middle-class caucasian Christians? Because it's THEIR bullshit that I can't tolerate.

(Disclaimer: I'm obviously not blaming all upper- and middle-class caucasians for the problems of the country. But those who are to blame are generally upper- and middle-class caucasians. That's the fact of the matter.)

Queeb Salaron · Post by **Queeb Salaron** » 2003-03-13 01:24am

Wow... I just read that last post that I put up... And even I don't know what the fuck I was saying. Sorry guys, it's late. I thought I was making sense. OBVIOUSLY I wasn't.

UltraViolence83 · Post by **UltraViolence83** » 2003-03-13 02:57am

There, there. I went through exactly the same thing not 24 hours ago.

As I've mentioned in several other threads already, recently I've run afoul of such people. The kind of people that accept every belief and treat science as if it were one, so they can all feel good about themselves. My God, when will these fucking people learn that science is more like a tool, in that it's there for everyone to see, and can be used. Or like a weapon and wielded.

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2003-03-13 05:02am

Darth Wong wrote:A science fundamentalist would presumably cling to the fundamentals of science, but those fundamentals are a rational method, not a collection of dogmas and mythological stories. So the notion of a "science fundamentalist" is a silly idea. What you are talking about is people who do NOT understand the scientific method...

However, science as it is actually practiced by the scientists is much more of a sociological phenomenon than the objective ideal of scientific method you're talking about. On this level, the notion of a "scientific fundamentalist" becomes less silly and becomes somewhat of a common occurence. At every paradigm shift (and indeed at many 'lesser' disagreements), there are those that cling, rather vehemently, to the established theory. When Einstein came along, there were those that still maintained the established aether theory. When Bohr and Heisenberg came along, there were those that rejected them. And some of them have persisted in their views even in the face of numerous evidence that their established theory is flawed. Perhaps it is this class which we can call "scientific fundamentalists."

I guess it depends on how you wish to view a scientist: some kind of Popperian ideal, in which case no man is a true scientist, or merely a person that participates in the 'scientific community', which is such merely by virtue of people en masse regarding it as scientific. By no means do I mean to imply that those are the only alternatives on how to view a 'proper' scientist; I proposed this kind of extreme sociological view for clarification only.

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2003-03-13 05:48am

Andrew J. wrote:Seems like a weak sort of solipsism to me.

You're a solipsist? So am I!

...

I'm sorry, I know that was tasteless, but I just couldn't resist.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-03-13 09:42am

Kuroneko wrote:However, science as it is actually practiced by the scientists is much more of a sociological phenomenon than the objective ideal of scientific method you're talking about.

Bzzzzzzzzt. Wrong. There are politics in science, to be sure, but the methods employed by scientists are objective, and your examples below are proof of that.

On this level, the notion of a "scientific fundamentalist" becomes less silly and becomes somewhat of a common occurence. At every paradigm shift (and indeed at many 'lesser' disagreements), there are those that cling, rather vehemently, to the established theory. When Einstein came along, there were those that still maintained the established aether theory. When Bohr and Heisenberg came along, there were those that rejected them. And some of them have persisted in their views even in the face of numerous evidence that their established theory is flawed. Perhaps it is this class which we can call "scientific fundamentalists."

That's how science works! When someone comes along with radical theories like Einstein did, the rest of the community tries to poke holes in them, criticize them and find out what's wrong with them. Their motivations might be personal or political, but if the theory is sound, it will make it through the process of peer review without much trouble and become commonly accepted. Peer review helps maintain objectivity.

I guess it depends on how you wish to view a scientist: some kind of Popperian ideal, in which case no man is a true scientist, or merely a person that participates in the 'scientific community', which is such merely by virtue of people en masse regarding it as scientific. By no means do I mean to imply that those are the only alternatives on how to view a 'proper' scientist; I proposed this kind of extreme sociological view for clarification only.

Sociologists are wannabe scientists.

Kuroneko · Post by **Kuroneko** » 2003-03-13 11:20am

Durandal wrote:Bzzzzzzzzt. Wrong. There are politics in science, to be sure, but the methods employed by scientists are objective, and your examples below are proof of that.

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.

Durandal wrote:That's how science works! When someone comes along with radical theories like Einstein did, the rest of the community tries to poke holes in them, criticize them and find out what's wrong with them. Their motivations might be personal or political, but if the theory is sound, it will make it through the process of peer review without much trouble and become commonly accepted. Peer review helps maintain objectivity.

I'm glad we're basically in agreement thus far. Let me attempt to clarify my point, however.

My point was that when a radically new theory is introduced and is indeed found to be superior (e.g. relativity), there are still those that cling to the
previously established theory (e.g. aether) even when faced with massive evidence that they're wrong. It is for those that do this with the most zeal that I proposed the name "scientific fundamentalist". Ironically, it is possible for them to have been model scientists under the old paradigm.

In the end, scientists are still human. If they have invested a sufficient amount of work in the old paradigm... well, no one likes to find out that their life's work was essentially wrong. Some of them simply would not accept that.