Separation of Science and State

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[ajaxfetish]

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

Ajax

[Rhyfelwyr]

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

[ajaxfetish]

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

You're gonna need to explicate the dozen or so logical leaps connecting those two statements for me.

Ajax

[Sasaki Kojiro]

This:



Is answered by this:



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.

I like medieval buildings too, at least the ones nice enough to have not been torn down over the years.

But where's the answer? You said that scientific evidence is provided by the scientific method, and I pointed out that there is a huge amount of scientific evidence that is not tested or provided by the scientific method, does not have to be verified by the standards of the scientific method. Instead it is tested by the measuring tools themselves.

And I'm not sure what the dispute is supposed to be about, because religion has generally concerned itself with non scientific questions!!! The real contrast would be between the standards of philosophical argument and the religion method of appeal to authority in the form of tradition.

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

They can't force views that have been shown to be false.

[Greyblades]

North Korea does.

[The Stranger]

I like medieval buildings too, at least the ones nice enough to have not been torn down over the years.

But where's the answer? You said that scientific evidence is provided by the scientific method, and I pointed out that there is a huge amount of scientific evidence that is not tested or provided by the scientific method, does not have to be verified by the standards of the scientific method. Instead it is tested by the measuring tools themselves.

And I'm not sure what the dispute is supposed to be about, because religion has generally concerned itself with non scientific questions!!! The real contrast would be between the standards of philosophical argument and the religion method of appeal to authority in the form of tradition.

i will have to agree with sasaki here. though perhaps it is arguable that those tools you speak of are the result or an exponent of the scientific method in the sense that its verifies things ultimately by going outside (the mind and logic) and testing and retesting phenomena and then draw conclusions based on those results

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

i will have to agree with sasaki here. though perhaps it is arguable that those tools you speak of are the result or an exponent of the scientific method in the sense that its verifies things ultimately by going outside (the mind and logic) and testing and retesting phenomena and then draw conclusions based on those results

Measurement is just another form of testing. Think about it: you measure for new curtains, then you measure again to be sure your measurements are right. It's science writ tiny.

So far as we can deduce medieval building were built essentially by deciding how long and wide you wanted it, and then everything else was described by interceting arcs using a giant pair of compases.

[Shibumi]

Why stop at separating Science and State?

Separation of Sense and State - now that is the "in"-words of the religious wacksters!

[Askthepizzaguy]

I am still not getting the connection between science and religion here. Are people unaware that these are completely different kinds of concepts? I mean, they are both ideas... but that's like saying an apple is a baseball because they are both round.

Religion = a set of beliefs, usually organized into codes, doctrines, laws, and practices. These beliefs are based in faith, and not on falsifiable data, because a belief cannot be falsified. Even when presented with evidence to the contrary, one can still believe. Often times a religion will change, not because of falsification, but because of shifting societal values or cultural norms.

Science = a system of obtaining knowledge through hypothesis, testing, and falsification. That knowledge is then considered as useful, until it is replaced with something which has proven it false or at least questionable. Science as a system has become more formal, and the knowledge we have has changed, but it is just another name for how we learn things and test ideas. How we learn things and test ideas, is a wildly different concept from beliefs we hold which we refuse to test or cannot test.

So, one is like data sitting on your hard drive and the other is a system which adds data to your hard drive and updates obsolete data. Comparing the two without nothing the gigantic differences between them seems like intentional ignorance, and anti-intellectual propaganda.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Why stop at separating Science and State?

Separation of Sense and State - now that is the "in"-words of the religious wacksters!

I don't believe science and the state should be separate, this thread is to point out the hypocrisy of some peoples idea of secularism. Institutionalised separation of the church and state, by all means. But religion does have a role in the political sphere if people want it to.

You're gonna need to explicate the dozen or so logical leaps connecting those two statements for me.

Ajax

But who's logical leaps are they?

*postings*

So the reason religion and the state must remain separate, but science and the state must not, is that science is right?

I think similar logic was used by the theocrats of a few centuries ago to justify their rule...

[Sasaki Kojiro]

And what was wrong with the theocrat's logic? Hell, their logic was fine.

[ajaxfetish]

But who's logical leaps are they?

Looked like they were yours, since you took my statement and ended up with a conclusion that seemingly has nothing to do with it.

Ajax

[Askthepizzaguy]

So the reason religion and the state must remain separate, but science and the state must not, is that science is right?

Hey, if you want to ignore the entire content of my post, feel free, but then do me a favor and don't respond to it.

I never said any such thing, I said that science and religion are wholly separate, very different kinds of phenomena.

They are not competing, opposite viewpoints, that you can complain one or the other is being favored. You can be a totally religious fundy and still respect what science says about the universe. You can cling to a belief, but also understand that the belief itself is an assumption that cannot be falsified and is thus a different kind of knowledge; opinion.

Science, on the other hand, is a name for a formal method of gaining knowledge. Knowledge and how we gain knowledge are not the same, they aren't in competition, they are wholly different concepts.

The entire premise of this thread is based on a huge misunderstanding of the key concepts involved. That is why I won't bother to respond to why there is a separation between religion and the state, until the fundamental assumptions underlying this argument are revised.

-_- science is based on a set of beliefs as well. axiomas. and thus from the base out, they can be compared. to not even consider that point seems like intentional ignorance to me as well.

Breathing is based on a set of beliefs as well, such as the belief that if you breathe you will remain alive, and that remaining alive is a good thing.

I propose we separate breathing from the State, since we're being intentionally absurd and ignoring everything I just said.

Any concept that involves the conscious mind also involves thinking and arguably, "belief". That does not mean everything the brain does is comparable with everything else it does, and that it's all the same. Opinion is learning is thought? No.

Thinking is different from knowing, knowing is different from learning. Some things are beliefs, and others, are methods. Beliefs and methods are not the same. An apple and a baseball are not the same.

[The Stranger]

I am still not getting the connection between science and religion here. Are people unaware that these are completely different kinds of concepts? I mean, they are both ideas... but that's like saying an apple is a baseball because they are both round.

Religion = a set of beliefs, usually organized into codes, doctrines, laws, and practices. These beliefs are based in faith, and not on falsifiable data, because a belief cannot be falsified. Even when presented with evidence to the contrary, one can still believe. Often times a religion will change, not because of falsification, but because of shifting societal values or cultural norms.

Science = a system of obtaining knowledge through hypothesis, testing, and falsification. That knowledge is then considered as useful, until it is replaced with something which has proven it false or at least questionable. Science as a system has become more formal, and the knowledge we have has changed, but it is just another name for how we learn things and test ideas. How we learn things and test ideas, is a wildly different concept from beliefs we hold which we refuse to test or cannot test.

So, one is like data sitting on your hard drive and the other is a system which adds data to your hard drive and updates obsolete data. Comparing the two without nothing the gigantic differences between them seems like intentional ignorance, and anti-intellectual propaganda.

-_- science is based on a set of beliefs as well. axiomas. and thus from the base out, they can be compared. to not even consider that point seems like intentional ignorance to me as well.