Unique Atheism

905

Sorry I didn't get back to yis yesterday.

I had Francis Galton in mind, not Darwin as the source for eugenic policies. I always get them mixed up. I suspect, though, that Galton was probably influenced in some small way by Darwin.

A better example of science commenting in the public sphere is the example I gave much earlier: the condemnation of 'alternative medicine'. Now, I'm sure this meant in a 'there's no evidence for many aspects of it yet, there's no reason to believe that some alternative techniques won't be validated by proper research one day, but in the meantime...' What the public is going to get out of this, I think, is 'alternative medicine is wrong, our ways are right'. So even a direct statement from a scientist may be misinterpreted, in my opinion.

I would agree with joe_chicken, there's no difference between the 'faithful' on either side. Wicknight put a lot of misunderstanding of science down to religious modes of thinking, which may be true. But it might also be the case that people have set ways of believing, which would treat science just as they treat religion. The source of this belief-mode is not religion, it precedes it.

A final note of interest: the whole 'science as a new religion' idea first originated, not with critics, but with scientists themselves. Actually it was Francis Galton who first remarked drew the analogy.

Scofflaw

joe_chicken wrote: »

But in a practical sense we're looking at the end result: the Faithful/"faithful"

And my question is, what's the difference?

When people are convinced of a truth, does it matter whether they came to it by a rational thought filled process or being told; "that's just the way it is".

I think a lot of us on this forum have the idea of what you mean by the "faithful". There's plenty of people on boards who we could relate this category to. People with little scientific knowledge who grasp onto half baked theories and quote them as fact in conversation, we've all met or know these types of people.

But in reality aren't we all like this? Maybe, if you're looking into a microscope or analysing a waveform from a spectrometer you're gonna be skeptical about using words like truth. But when faced with putting faith in these same scientific truths in your everyday life, you wouldn't bat an eyelid.

Sure. I'd pretty much agree with that. Most people take up "scientific facts" is a garbled, half-assed way - more like "cargo science", really.

There's not really much that can be done about that, except be a little responsible when it comes to interpreting science into the public sphere - and there's the problem.

joe_chicken wrote: »

But what if the effects of the short term experiments effect our judgment of the longterm. I think in a world where our scientific endeavors didn't effect us intrinsically you could make that argument, but that's not the case, so I have to disagree with that last point.

Hmm. I'm not sure your point stands up at all. We can't judge the long-term effects in advance, so it's impossible to determine in advance whether scientific discoveries are inimical or beneficial in most, if not all, cases.

cordially,
Scofflaw

joe_chicken

Scofflaw wrote: »

Hmm. I'm not sure your point stands up at all. We can't judge the long-term effects in advance, so it's impossible to determine in advance whether scientific discoveries are inimical or beneficial in most, if not all, cases.

Ok, I get that bit.

The point I was making was how do we define what is "inimical or beneficial". These definitions are wrapped up in who we are. Science can lead to discoveries that change who we are (short term as well as long term) and therefore move the goal posts of what is good and bad. I suppose it's just another layer of complexity in scientific morality, a morality feedback loop I think I'd call it (if I was inclined that way ).

When I think about it more, I suppose it's a long winded way of saying what you've already said:

"it's impossible to judge whether the longterm effects of a scientific discovery will be beneficial or not"

I suppose that sentence scares me, more than it reassures me.