Separation of Science and State

Is there a name for it like with secularism?

Anyway...

An article

So if a religious nut decides his holy book reveals the 'truth' and wants to restrict peoples liberty by telling them they can't eat pork, obviously he can't do that.

But if a scientist decides the scientific method reveals the 'truth' and says the timber industry can't use a forest because of the environment, he gets away with it.

Even more worryingly, these scientists often get much of their funding off of the government and so will naturally dance to its tune.

The only solution to protect against this tyranny is the separation of science and state.

Also, the scientific method should only be taught in school as one of many ways of looking at the world. Science doesn't belong in the classroom any more or less than religion does. Well of course many people will say science is obviously right, but since when did that give them a right to force their views on everyone?

Discuss.

Nonsense.

Also, anarcho-capitalists are tards and conspiracy nuts.

Your troll powers are weak my young Padawan

The scientist displays evidence which is then testable by someone else, this idea is then accepted until proven otherwise.

The religious guy just says god told me and that's it.

Quote:

---

But if a scientist decides the scientific method reveals the 'truth' and says the timber industry can't use a forest because of the environment, he gets away with it.

---

He would obviously have to offer some evidence of environmental damage.

That, I think, is the difference between science and religion. Science can and has been wrong plenty of times, but it is at least based on something tangible.

This isnt very good banter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

He would obviously have to offer some evidence of environmental damage.

That, I think, is the difference between science and religion. Science can and has been wrong plenty of times, but it is at least based on something tangible.

---

Tangible?? Is that not related to stuff like facts and knowledge and stuff? Who cares about that when all you need is to read one book and then go by your gut/god feel?

The author of that article has obviously never spent even 5 minutes talking to a scientist. This is creationist propaganda at its worst and uses two of the most annoying arguments for what has got to be the umpteenth time.

So let me state for the record that...
1) Science is not a religion.
2) Scientists are not some homogeneous cabal. Scientists actually have some pretty massive incentives to argue with each other and to prove each other wrong. When 95%+ of scientists agree on something (evolution, global warming, etc.) than you can be pretty dang sure that there is a HUGE amount of evidence behind it.

i all invite you to read and join in the debate: Omniscience?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woad&fangs

The author of that article has obviously never spent even 5 minutes talking to a scientist. This is creationist propaganda at its worst and uses two of the most annoying arguments for what has got to be the umpteenth time.

So let me state for the record that...
1) Science is not a religion.
2) Scientists are not some homogeneous cabal. Scientists actually have some pretty massive incentives to argue with each other and to prove each other wrong. When 95%+ of scientists agree on something (evolution, global warming, etc.) than you can be pretty dang sure that there is a HUGE amount of evidence behind it.

---

imo a religion is an instute used to supress the people and to keep in power a select group of individuals who believe in a certain truth that allows no other truth to co-exist within the same domain (intelligble domain). what turns a belief into religion is usually when it is not seperated from the state, because a state cannot accept another dominant power within its legal boundaries. sometimes the state is the instrument of the religion, usually the religion is instrument of the state. regardless of whatever original intentions were, science can be used in a similar way and therefore would be turned into some sort of religion. because at the base of every religion is faith and faith cannot be proven or disproven, and since unless its logic or math faith is at the basis of everything synthetical, science can qualify as a religion.

as for argument 2) neither does that go for any religion as shown already by the countless splinter groups within christianity let alone when you would take in account all religions globally. whatever they have all in common though is that they believe in an methaphysical entity. according to your reasoning then we could be pretty sure that it is true that such an entity exists...

its is true that most classic religions are nothing alike science. yet because a zebra is nothing alike a dolphin doesnt mean they arent both mammals.

i am aware that i twist the rules because i have a quite different interpretation of what qualifies something as a religion

People who are religious believe in a metaphysical entity =/= Scientists accept evolutionary theory
People who are religious believe in a metaphysical entity = Scientists use the scientific method

My comment was addressing specific issues, not the philosophies as a whole. The judge of which philosophy is a more accurate depiction of the world should be based on results. In the results department, I'll take the scientific method over prayer any day.

edit: You gave math as an exception. What makes math logic better than science logic or religion in your eyes? In addition, what is your opinion of math in the sciences? Does more math equal a more true answer in your eyes? I'll be involved in mathematical biology research this summer so I am curious about your answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woad&fangs

People who are religious believe in a metaphysical entity =/= Scientists accept evolutionary theory
People who are religious believe in a metaphysical entity = Scientists use the scientific method

My comment was addressing specific issues, not the philosophies as a whole. The judge of which philosophy is a more accurate depiction of the world should be based on results. In the results department, I'll take the scientific method over prayer any day.

edit: You gave math as an exception. What makes math logic better than science logic in your eyes. In addition, what is your opinion of math in the sciences? Does more math equal a more true answer in your eyes? I'll be involved in mathematical biology research this summer so I am curious about your answer.

---

your point being? a) you dont make right analogies. b) even if it were correct it would be meaningless because the scientific method is any more valid than any other once it comes down to the rudimentary ontological level of the debate.

math/logic isnt better in my eyes. its just that it they are analytic truths and therefor require a different approach. i think you agree with me that a "bachelor is unmarried" is different statement than "all men are tall"

and ofcourse it is your right to take science over prayer any day. i never said you shouldnt or you couldnt. but in what you say is the argument that i make. when it comes down to it, it is just what you like to believe, what you would take over something else any point of the day. its not a solid proof, it is not a truth, but it is gut feeling and upbringing as well in some case. and things being based on result would make it pragmatic not truthfully and i never denied the pragmatic succes of science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Your troll powers are weak my young Padawan

The scientist displays evidence which is then testable by someone else, this idea is then accepted until proven otherwise.

The religious guy just says god told me and that's it.

---

Paradigm blindness. Scientific "evidence" is provided and tested by the "scientific method". That is no different than religion, where religious evidence is presented and religious methods are used to test that evidence.

Philosophically speaking they are equitably useless/useful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Paradigm blindness. Scientific "evidence" is provided and tested by the "scientific method". That is no different than religion, where religious evidence is presented and religious methods are used to test that evidence.

Philosophically speaking they are equitably useless/useful.

---

unfortunately paradigm blindness would mean I have to accept there may be another method to figure out the world other than the scientific method.

By your calculation it should be possible to build a church foundations, walls, roof etc etc by the religious method and trust it will stand up.

they have been building houses walls and roofs thousands of years before there was anything that remotely looked like the scientific method.

again science and the scientific method are something completely different than technology. though it is true that science is most dominant in the technological domain and nowadays technology is so dependent on science that they cant really be separated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

they have been building houses walls and roofs thousands of years before there was anything that remotely looked like the scientific method.

again science and the scientific method are something completely different than technology. though it is true that science is most dominant in the technological domain and nowadays technology is so dependent on science that they cant really be separated.

---

And yet only the scientific method can tell you why the church stands up the religious method has no such ability.

Plus your not giving enough credit to the deductive powers of ancient peoples, just cos they may not have called it science does not mean they did not understand that different alloys gave differnt properties in casting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Paradigm blindness. Scientific "evidence" is provided and tested by the "scientific method". That is no different than religion, where religious evidence is presented and religious methods are used to test that evidence.

Philosophically speaking they are equitably useless/useful.

---

What are you talking about? :dizzy2:

When they measure something, it's evidence. It's provided by a ruler or a scale or a thermometer, not by the scientific method :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

And yet only the scientific method can tell you why the church stands up the religious method has no such ability.

Plus your not giving enough credit to the deductive powers of ancient peoples, just cos they may not have called it science does not mean they did not understand that different alloys gave differnt properties in casting.

---

it does so only you wouldnt believe it. and no it probably wouldnt provide empirical evidence, because that is the scientific method.

deducing is part of the scientific method it is not solely the scientific method. so i dont see your point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

What are you talking about? :dizzy2:

When they measure something, it's evidence. It's provided by a ruler or a scale or a thermometer, not by the scientific method :dizzy2:

---

empirical evidence is different than per example logical evidence and empirical evidence is the (sole) ingredient of verification is scientific.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

deducing is part of the scientific method it is not solely the scientific method. so i dont see your point.

---

Because your were trying to say that merely because people did not have Ipods and whatnot they must have thought buildings stood up because of god.

People were easily smart enough to know that they stood up because they put mortar in between the stones and then built the stone courses up layer by layer.

they did not call it science but they did have the evidence that could prove badly built walls fall down.

That is one of the weirdest sites I have ever been to in my 5 seconds of browsing it. The fact that they didn't cite Feyerabend's Science in a Free Society also possibly hints that they might be ignorant of his work or have ripped off it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Because your were trying to say that merely because people did not have Ipods and whatnot they must have thought buildings stood up because of god.

People were easily smart enough to know that they stood up because they put mortar in between the stones and then built the stone courses up layer by layer.

they did not call it science but they did have the evidence that could prove badly built walls fall down.

---

-_- if you dont read what i write than there is no point in exchanging words.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

-_- if you dont read what i write than there is no point in exchanging words.

---

if you dont understand your own words I cant help you

that is what your implying when you say

Quote:

---

they have been building houses walls and roofs thousands of years before there was anything that remotely looked like the scientific method.

---

This intimates that people could not understand what they were doing merely because thay did not have a concept of the scientific method, this is wrong they understood well why the building stood up they just didnt sit around thinking about it too much.

Uhm....

The hypothetical-deductive method has been around since man first started using tools... And its also the reason why man learned to use tools...

There's no appreciable difference in reasoning between either method. Both require some kind of inherent logical consistency, both require a simple “law” of causality that makes QED after a proof a logical consistent statement, both extensively use empirical evidence as well as inductive and deductive logic and both are specifically designed to explain the empirical evidence. The difference is in the predictions that they make. Science purely limits itself to reasoning about empirical evidence, i.e. this bridge design will support that much weight. Religion however goes two or three steps further and offers damnation and salvation based on essentially the equivalent of nothing but pure extrapolation of previous theories. So that's theory a assuming theory b assuming theory c explaining some empirical evidence. Example:

After praying to $deity some person is cured. Religion first theorises that praying to $deity will work for curing, then goes on to theorise the existence of $deity and finally theorises that $deity has the “power”/“ability” to cure. After that we take a leap of faith (litteraly) and jump to the concluding theory that $deity may be able to grant you an after life (i.e. the ultimate cure, the cure of death...).

Arguing for a separation of “science” and “state” is useless, since it effectively asks for a separation of “reasoning” and state. Arguing for separation of “religion” and “state” is not quite so useless because all it does is restrict us to empirical evidence.

Of course historically this arose for very different reasons: religion has a tendency to have its followers brutally slaughter those who do not follow it and generally interfering with the personal freedom of non-believers. There's as much empirical evidence to suggest God exists as there is to suggest that all religions are inherently violent. But both are a leap of faith and a jump to conclusions based on other theories, for there is plenty of countering evidence which directly contradicts the theories on which these statements are founded.

This:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

What are you talking about? :dizzy2:

When they measure something, it's evidence. It's provided by a ruler or a scale or a thermometer, not by the scientific method :dizzy2:

---

Is answered by this:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

it does so only you wouldnt believe it. and no it probably wouldnt provide empirical evidence, because that is the scientific method.

deducing is part of the scientific method it is not solely the scientific method. so i dont see your point.

---

Science measures, but measurement is not the only way of gaining information. In answer to why the Church stands up, it stands because all it's arcs were drawn in alignment and the stone is perfectly balanced, or as near as possible. Medieval architects understood form, but they didn't understand things like tensile strength and loadbearing supports. That's why medieval buildings look so different to modern ones, and personally I prefer them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Of course historically this arose for very different reasons: religion has a tendency to have its followers brutally slaughter those who do not follow it and generally interfering with the personal freedom of non-believers. There's as much empirical evidence to suggest God exists as there is to suggest that all religions are inherently violent. But both are a leap of faith and a jump to conclusions based on other theories, for there is plenty of countering evidence which directly contradicts the theories on which these statements are founded.

---

This is not an accurate statement, most religions have been, mostly, very tollerant. Persecution of Christian heretics in the form of torture and burning didn't get off the ground until about 1250 AD in most of Europe, and was illegal in England until 1401, when the infamus lex ad infernus (or something, I forget the name) was passed. That's 800-1000 years of relative peace. Similarly, Christians and Muslims were able to get along reasonably well even while the Crusades were ongoing.

The exception is during times of war, but one only has to look at conflicts of the 20th and 21st Centuries to see that is not a facet of religion, but of human nature.

Rhy's point, I believe, is that 300 years ago Science would have been castigated and restricted for dissagreeing with "obvious" religious truths, while today the opposite is happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

if you dont understand your own words I cant help you

that is what your implying when you say



This intimates that people could not understand what they were doing merely because thay did not have a concept of the scientific method, this is wrong they understood well why the building stood up they just didnt sit around thinking about it too much.

---

your analogy is wrong.

technology: this is how you build a house, stone by stone.
science: mortar consists of this and that and will dry at this min temp and this max temp because (and the important part is the BECAUSE, it only really starts after the because) we have tested this in 1000 occasions and it has been retested by 10.000 other scientists and all got the same result.
belief/faith/metaphisics/religion/whateveryouwanttocallit: mortar (consists of this and that and) will dry (at this min temp and that max temp) because god wants it so. [per example]

im not saying that the ancient masons didnt know how to build a house, neither am i saying that they didnt know how to improve from experience. they very well understood what they were doing. they saw lightning flashes and thought it was the gods who showed their fury. now think that lightning comes from electrical discharge. the lightning flash is still the same as it was 100.000 years ago, whichever explanation we give to it. only because those masons gave a different explanation doesnt mean they didnt know what they were doing.

and why would you assume that people then would think less about how a building stood up or similar matters than people now?

That website was the biggest facepalm I have read this month. From the article:

BUT, the same Judeo-Muslim majority can get Pork products BANNED from America if a Jewish scientist proves that eating pork is harmful for health.

This is absolutely ridiculous. It's conflating that somehow because the scientist had a viewpoint that coincided with the evidence he turned up that his evidence is suddenly invalidated. Secondly, a single "scientist" does not prove anything! For this Jewish scientist to get pork products banned due to being unhealthy, he needs to have his findings verified by at least 2 or 3 other independent scientists/scientific teams/agencies.

And most importantly, by proving that pork is harmful for health, the scientist has not worked towards getting it banned at all! The scientist shows his findings and these findings are used by politicians who ban and unban things. No decent scientist would get politically entangled with his findings, because his credibility would automatically take a hit because you have to be impartial and objective to be open to findings that go against your hypothesis.

Example: The one guy whose findings indicated that vaccines cause autism (and campaigned to get rid of vaccines) was exposed as a fraud who falsified his work. His credentials have been stripped from him.

Make faith falsifiable in the same way scientific theory is and then the two will be comparable.

Ajax

So people can use the government to force their views on people if they are falsifiable?