Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
magnifier661 said:
Nicholas Copernicus - Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun.

Sir Francis Bacon - a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning.

Johannes Kepler - early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun.

Galileo Galilei - most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics.

Rene Descartes - generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology.

Blaise Pascal - French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and theologian. In mathematics, he published a treatise on the subject of projective geometry and established the foundation for probability theory.

Isaac Newton - Optics, Mathematics, and mechanics

I could go on, like the theists that presented the theory of the Big Bang, Planck time, and relativity.

I absolutely agree that, "GREED" is the true disrupter of science. I just hate those that try and say, "Theism doesn't support science". It's 100% false and those that try and claim it are only fooling themselves or have an agenda to discredit theism.
Click to expand...

you should double check your list by the way. A quick search has Galileo and Copernicus as heretics, with Galileo actually being tried by the inquisition. Kepler was shunned by the church and forced to move to avoid persecution. Descartes suppressed scientific information for fear of catholic wrath after Galileo's arrest.
 
donkiez said:
you should double check your list by the way. A quick search has Galileo and Copernicus as heretics, with Galileo actually being tried by the inquisition. Kepler was shunned by the church and forced to move to avoid persecution. Descartes suppressed scientific information for fear of catholic wrath after Galileo's arrest.
Click to expand...
Both were funded by the Church. Both have openly admitted being theists.
 
magnifier661 said:
I think that's the entire point I am trying to make here. Many against theism will try and blanket an entire group for the negatives, then claim it's the individual that discovered the pro science. You can be exhibit "A" as an example. Oddly, I'm sure you will claim non theists groups can be credited towards achievements in science and not the individuals.
Click to expand...

We are having two different conversations then. Intelligence is not limited to any specific religious or non religious person or limited to any religion.
 
donkiez said:
We are having two different conversations then. Intelligence is not limited to any specific religious or non religious person or limited to any religion.
Click to expand...
Okay, then I must have missed the boat here. It happens... I am merely trying to explain that all organizations or ideology has been guilty of forcing Agendas with Science.
 
Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science?

Because science can and has been created to support an agenda.

Let’s follow the money theme again. A certain foundation has donated millions of $$$ to universities as grants, including universities in OR & WA. However, the grants had strings attached.

Example: The foundation says a grant is available for $150,000 to find the best way to “protect” a specific environmental/economic concern. Note the grant said to “protect”, not “to improve” or “to balance”.

I have learned to hate the word “protect” when used to study an environmental/economic issue. Protecting something is a code word for stopping the use of. If the university says to the grant funder, the best option is not to protect something, the best option is to improve something and this is how to do it, or the best option is educate people in the use of, the school loses the funding.

The foundation has benefited two ways from funding “protect” university studies that creates science.

First, a university science study is created which the foundation can give to special interest groups it supports. However, the public often does not know who funded the study, and the strings attached to that money that controls the limits of the study, and the limits of the results of the science.

Second, we now have students that were involved in the grant entire jobs where they have an influence over others. Some become teachers. Instead of teaching how to improve things, they now teach our kids what they learned to teach from the study, which is how to protect, or stop the use of something. That is what many kids in the PNW are now learning and why, which often is not the best option.

A person that controls a very rich foundation has funded university studies to create the science that supports their own agenda, which was to stop some activity. If the money had been used to “improve” the activity, the ecosystem/economy would have improved, not declined.

Created faulty university science is a reality and taught in your schools today.
 
Last edited:
BlazerCaravan said:
And so we come to the downward slope of the curve, as worries about practicalities and survival will once again take the forefront, and we will lose the luxury of abstract thought. We return to the animal form, the animal law, the animal life... soon, we will have forgotten everything we'd learned, and our self-extinction will be complete. The only animal that committed self-genocide out of boredom.
Click to expand...

Just finished re-reading Wells' 'Time Machine' the other week. The dude might have really been on to something.
 
Nikolokolus said:
Just finished re-reading Wells' 'Time Machine' the other week. The dude might have really been on to something.
Click to expand...
If ever there were a time traveler, it'd be H.G. Wells...his were some of the first books I read as a kid.
 
riverman said:
If ever there were a time traveler, it'd be H.G. Wells...his were some of the first books I read as a kid.
Click to expand...
The last time I read the 'Time Machine' I was probably 17. With 20 years between then and now I was blown away by some of his seemingly prescient insights about the state of 'modern man' and where he might be headed - 120 years ago.

You can almost trace the line between Wells here to Fritz Lang's Metropolis and the commentary they made about how much technology and industrialization has done to dehumanize and devolve our species.

I'd recommend anybody to read it. I imagine it was heady stuff when it was first published, but it might be even more important and pertinent today . . . particularly for those who are so quick to denounce the scientific method and reason.
 
I think a lot of it stems from religion vs science. The notion that God created the Heavens and the earth to the science people is insane. Conversely, taking God out of the equation altogether riles the people of faith. For me, and a lot of Christians, I believe in both. For people not to believe that things have evolved is just stupid, but why can't that have been God's plan all along? On day 1 God created the Heavens and the earth. That "day" was probably not a 24 hour period as we know it now.

Also, there is a big difference between scientific laws vs scientific theories
 
magnifier661 said:
Let them off? I would never do such a thing... But remember that "The Church" was in the four front back in the day for scientific research. In fact, many of the great scientists back then actually developed methods and theories we still use today.
.
Click to expand...

By the church you mean the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church was never in the forefront of scientific research from its inception. The Church began by destroying classical learning, burning libraries, murdering scholars. The Dark Ages lasted 1000 years. 1000 years of no development in Europe, although science did progress in the Middle East, Asia, and Central America. Even now, when Pope Francis accepts science of global warming, he rejects science on population and on the nature of sexual orientation. The Protestant Reformation in Europe opened the door to the rationalists of the 18th and 19th century but they too had to fight their church.

It is true many great scientists of yesteryear developed methods still in use. And most were believers. But they had to fight their church. Bruno was burned at the stake, Galileo forced to recant, Copernicus exiled.
 
Mediocre Man said:
I think a lot of it stems from religion vs science. The notion that God created the Heavens and the earth to the science people is insane. Conversely, taking God out of the equation altogether riles the people of faith. For me, and a lot of Christians, I believe in both. For people not to believe that things have evolved is just stupid, but why can't that have been God's plan all along? On day 1 God created the Heavens and the earth. That "day" was probably not a 24 hour period as we know it now.
Click to expand...

That is both a strength and the hypocrisy of Christian based religions. The ability to so easily move from the literal to the figurative as the literal is proved wrong. Reinterpreting the actual word of god to a new meaning is how Christianity will continue to prosper in the future.
 
crandc said:
By the church you mean the Catholic Church? The Catholic Church was never in the forefront of scientific research from its inception. The Church began by destroying classical learning, burning libraries, murdering scholars. The Dark Ages lasted 1000 years. 1000 years of no development in Europe, although science did progress in the Middle East, Asia, and Central America. Even now, when Pope Francis accepts science of global warming, he rejects science on population and on the nature of sexual orientation. The Protestant Reformation in Europe opened the door to the rationalists of the 18th and 19th century but they too had to fight their church.

It is true many great scientists of yesteryear developed methods still in use. And most were believers. But they had to fight their church. Bruno was burned at the stake, Galileo forced to recant, Copernicus exiled.
Click to expand...
I am not saying "The Church", as in "Catholic Church" has their hands clean, but they definitely funded much research for science. Btw, I'm not catholic and do not support their ideology. The reference is theists have been very influential in the progress of science. Using the "dark ages" as the totality of their contribution is laughable. Can I use the communists to generalize the entire "non believer" community as well?
 
magnifier, we are talking about two different things. I never denied that believers, including Christian believers, including Catholic, have made important and even critical contributions to science. Of course they had. My post was about the Catholic Church as an institution being anti-science, to the point of burning at the stake.

And more recently, the opposition to teaching modern biology, largely from Protestant but also Muslim and Jewish fundamentalists.

In fact the very idea that nature follows given laws was declared heresy.
 
crandc said:
magnifier, we are talking about two different things. I never denied that believers, including Christian believers, including Catholic, have made important and even critical contributions to science. Of course they had. My post was about the Catholic Church as an institution being anti-science, to the point of burning at the stake.

And more recently, the opposition to teaching modern biology, largely from Protestant but also Muslim and Jewish fundamentalists.

In fact the very idea that nature follows given laws was declared heresy.
Click to expand...
I must have misunderstood you then. Sorry
 
BlazerWookee said:
I could have, but didn't want to.

(trying to keep a straight face)
Click to expand...
That's because u are stuck in the dark ages. How the fuck does a race that can travel through space and time decide a crossbow is the best weapon to use?!
 
Mediocre Man said:
The part about molesting altar boys is probably something he doesn't support. I can't speak for mags though.

Oh thats gonna get me in trouble with someone, I'm sure
Click to expand...
Why leave out the choirboys, MM? WTF? Are they not cute enough for you?
 
magnifier661 said:
That's because u are stuck in the dark ages. How the fuck does a race that can travel through space and time decide a crossbow is the best weapon to use?!
Click to expand...
It's a LASER crossbow. LASER.

And I can shoot the Patchouli stank off of a hippie at fifty paces with one...
 
crandc said:
to the point of burning at the stake
Click to expand...

I think you will find "the church" meaning the Catholic church never burn anyone at the stake. Some misinformed ass holes wearing robes did though. There is nothing in the teachings of Jesus
about burning anyone at the stake or anywhere else, so a man that takes up this activity under the robes of the church is simply abusing his assumed power.

We have a similar misuse of power going on today with the current Pope touting Climate change. You know damn well he has no science behind him on how to stop climate change, but he does like the idea of Carbon Tax money getting distributed about. I think he intends to play a big role in where it is distributed.
 
3RA1N1AC said:
Probably to the needy. You know, like Jesus would do.
Click to expand...

I don't recall Jesus backing a scam to fleece everyone for needs of the needy. Sound more like Robin Hood. But what ever, I am sure
you will not like the fleecing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top