Separation of Science and State

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

[HoreTore]

Nonsense.

Also, anarcho-capitalists are tards and conspiracy nuts.

[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.

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

[Strike For The South]

This isnt very good banter

[CBR]

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?

[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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[gaelic cowboy]

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.

[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.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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?

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

[The Stranger]

What are you talking about?

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

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