Denialism. Why people believe unbelievable things.

Sinisterly

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfVsfOSbJY0

golfmanwl

Eh hem.....

golfmanwl

Never have I seen such a succinct answer to this. From the Bill Nye (evolution) vs. Ken Ham (creationism) debate, which is VERY good watching, look for it on Youtube.



edit for picture that fits

Ah, the difference between faith in God and not faith in God.

golfmanwl

Never have I seen such a succinct answer to this. From the Bill Nye (evolution) vs. Ken Ham (creationism) debate, which is VERY good watching, look for it on Youtube.



edit for picture that fits

on the surface that would seem very succinct, but it's actually a massively stupid question. If science cannot prove that something does not exist then in fact by definition nothing could change someone's mind that believes God does exist.

That depends on perspective. Some people might think it's massively stupid (using your words) to believe in things that can't be shown to exist.

Example: I believe in invisble unicorns. You can't prove there aren't invisible unicorns. So I'm right and you're dumb.

:noway:

If you believe in something that can't be proven to even exist...well... you're welcome to. But stay away from science and debate. Because you're not intellectually honest. You believe whatever you like because you want to. Science deals in reality, ie things which are actually shown to exist.

I guess you don't believe in wind since you can't see it, touch it, taste it or smell it.

fast_eddie_72

Eh hem.....

Because Time Magazine is "science". lol Didn't they do a "scientific" look at Intelligent Design a few years ago? Magazine headlines are always the best sources for real science. I saw Dr. Oz on one at the supermarket with a great new diet! Must be science.

CJisinShape

Never really understand why I get silence in response to what appears to me to be a well-thought out, logical, non-combative viewpoint. Ugh. Am I just wasting my time? Lets try again:


The fact is, we are constantly being told what the facts are, and that we should believe them. But scientific fact keeps changing. In addition, what is observable, like humans, or simpler, an ant, has not yet been fully understood even after thousands of years of study and observation have been made. Nevertheless, the scientific community will attempt to explain the brilliance of nature by dumb accident, and string bits and pieces of ideas to support the conclusion, while being unable to observe or test these ideas.

I know I'm dating myself to admit this, but when I was in college, my professor was working on the Human Genome Project. He said that he was disturbed by the ideologues in his field, who essentially, like the article you mentioned, are blinded by their belief -- in macroevolution. He took issue with their unwillingness to admit that there are many, very large holes in the theory (enough to throw turkeys through, was the phrase he used). Where was their scientific curiosity, their empirical quest for truth?

An archaeologist finds in the sands, a broken piece of pottery. They will carbon date it back to a certain time in history and paint a picture for us about the people who made the "sophisticated" artwork. And yet, another scientist will consider a human being, for all our symmetry and beauty and consider this incredibly sophisticated art as something NOT designed? Ask an artist how difficult it is to draw hands, ask a roboticist how difficult it is to make a robot walk and not fall over. The brilliance in the earth is astounding.

George Washington Carver embraced science and faith, and was a better scientist for it. He enraged other scientists, because his method of discovery was not the scientific method, and yet he continued to make an abundance of scientific discoveries. When brought before congress to testify, they asked him where he was able to attain such knowledge. "From an old book," he said. "What book?," they asked. "The Bible," he replied. They asked, "does the Bible say anything about the peanut?" No, but it does say about the God that made the peanut.

Scientists are still making discoveries about humans and ants, although we have been studying both for thousands of years. Very sophisticated, I would say.

So you are arguing for Creationism? Which method of creationism? The Judeo-Christian 6 day model? The Egyptian rising from the sea? The Fon of Western Africa believe that the creation deity was carried from place to place by a rainbow dragon. The Mayans believed that man was made from Maize because they did not have a soul when made from wood.

I understand that Intelligent Design can be an attractive view of how we got to where we are but I feel that it is the easy way out and does not answer the "how" that science seeks. Also, depending on your cosmology, it opens up the question of "why" which can then muddy the waters and obstruct research.

As I stated above, both religion and science can suffer from views of immutability. I have yet to meet a scientist who feels that they know all of the answers or are not open to new views. That being said, there are plenty of scientific theories that have been researched and tested to the point that they are accepted as fact yet some scientists continue to peel back the layers of the onion.

I am disappointed you didn't address my points, but I will address yours. Whatever religion, God made himself known through the creation, so that everyone is without an excuse. The fact that we don't know the facts is proof of mystery in the creation. It is God's glory to hide it, and man's glory to find it (computer programmers, game designers, writers, movie makers and artists that concept very well).

As for the easy way out - you flip the switch and the light turns on. A small child can grasp this. Knowledge of the how and why is not required to know the what, nor is it needed to UTILIZE it. George Washington Carver asked God for answers. He got them. He did not have a hypothesis, he didn't use controls in his experiments. It wasn't scientific - it was brilliant. Scientists in his day were appalled, but they did not make a fraction of the discoveries he made. Knowledge is great, wisdom is better.

I'm always impressed with the ability to write or speak so many words and yet convey no coherent thought.

You need it more concise? Ok.

1. The most brilliant people in history believe in God.
2. Some of the controversial ideas in science are ideologies themselves and lack evidence.
3. Science needs to go back to studying things for more knowledge instead of setting up experiments in such a way that supports their ideology.

Succinct. Concise. I like the longer version myself.

But the longer version has nothing to do with your concise version lol.

1. There were also many that did not believe in God and were punished for their views.
2. Have already argued that immutability of ideas is a flaw that can plague both science and religion. Science suffers in both cases.
3. I thought we didn't need to know how the light switch worked?

Also, I only see one time when George Washington Carver was brought before Congress. It was in 1921 and it was not to find out why he was so smart but rather for him to testify and consult in support of a tariff bill to protect the US peanut industry. They were enamored with his presentation of all the things he could do with a peanut and he testified much longer than scheduled. I find no records of the scientific community being appalled with him.

This is in now way meant to disparage the man, his brilliance or his contribution to science. I will point out, though, that he was a student of the scientific method because he was a professor who taught students and other farmers. These lessons did not start with "go out into the woods and start talking to God."

Also, your comments and argument seem to be out of place in this discussion since I do not think anyone stated that scientists need to be atheists.

First, I hope you got something from both the long/short versions, even if they make different points;-). I don't want to derail the discussion by focusing on Carver. He chose to publish his findings in a booklet he gave to farmers with food recipes included, instead of scientific journals. He was once asked why he didn't marry and he said he wouldn't be able to explain why he had to get up at 4am every morning to talk to the flowers. Perhaps this discussion is not directly about the op idea, but the article mentioned climate change deniers are akin to creationists.

golfmanwl

Climate issue aside.

The usage and burning of fossil fuels is bad for the environment and we are running out.

I can agree with that, as all reasonable people should.

It's like abortion (LOL, now we've got almost all the hot button issues in this thread)....no matter what side of the abortion debate one falls on, all reasonable people should be able to agree that the fewer there are of them the better it is.

CJisinShape

You listed Sigmund Freud and Stephen Hawking in your list? Well, lets just agree to disagree.

:laugh: You laud Carver and dismiss Hawking?! Oh that's rich.

One makes revolutionary breakthroughs in the study of the universe, the other came up with many uses for peanuts, not including peanut butter.

You must be joking.

He didn't invent peanut butter.

Which is why I said, "not including peanut butter".

Yes, you did.

Alehmer

I think we're going pretty far afield here with the religion thing from denial of overwhelming scientific evidence, but oh well.

I think it's the utmost arrogance for a mind that cannot picture with any real accuracy, say, 10,000 marbles to accurately understand the desires and motivations of a singular consciousness able to will all of creation into being and invest it with infinitesimal detail. It would be like your pet goldfish understanding String Theory.

If God is real, then it is beyond all possible human understanding, and laughably so.

The most important part of the Scientific Method to me is the idea that when you put forward an idea, it is your duty not to prove it, but to attempt to disprove it through good experimentation. If, and only if, you cannot prove yourself wrong can you claim that you may be right. At which point you happily invite everyone else in the community to try to prove you wrong as well.

This is an incredibly hard standard to live to, and there's a lot of crappy science out there that doesn't embody this. But the fact that this is the standard by which science is judged is incredibly inspiring to me, and I think if we had a glimmer of this attitude in our own lives and thought processes the world would be a much better place.

I will try to do it myself as well, but the next time you, dear reader, come across an issue you have a strong reaction to, do yourself a favor and don't go hunting for the evidence that supports it, but the evidence that defies it with an open mind and decide for yourself.

Go_Mizzou99

This topic is in the wrong forums. Throw it into an academic forum and you might receive more desired responses (depending on what kind of response you wanted, I wouldn't know).

Yep. It's not chit-chat, not fun, not games. NEXT!

^^^Now, unbelievably, this makes sense ^^^

CJisinShape

Climate issue aside.

The usage and burning of fossil fuels is bad for the environment and we are running out.

I can agree with that, as all reasonable people should.

It's like abortion (LOL, now we've got almost all the hot button issues in this thread)....no matter what side of the abortion debate one falls on, all reasonable people should be able to agree that the fewer there are of them the better it is.

Reasonable. They don't serve that on Fox or MSNBC.

golfmanwl

Eh hem.....

Because Time Magazine is "science". lol Didn't they do a "scientific" look at Intelligent Design a few years ago? Magazine headlines are always the best sources for real science. I saw Dr. Oz on one at the supermarket with a great new diet! Must be science.

Believe it or not, they don't actually DO the science, they interview scientists and report on the science the scientists do.
You must not get out much.

BTW, Seventeen the magazine is not 17, not made by 17 yr olds, and is in fact not an actual 17 yr old. It is a magazine that targets itself to not only 17 yr olds, but also other teens.

And don't ever read a newspaper. It will totally confuse you. Those stories are just reports of what's happened or happened to others. Poor you, thinking all those things happening to the same reporters over and over.


Wait...I get it now...you are intentionally demonstrating that selective denial that the OP was referring to. Job well done!

1pandabear

I have an engineering degree; i have a background in data collection, data analysis, and modeling.

When your model fails to make accurate predictions, it's wrong - you have failed to account for significant variables.

If you're changing your model to fit your observations, it's wrong - you have failed to account for significant variables, but now you've shown a bias to a desired output.

And *that* my friends, is the definition of 'anti-science'.

Science is the pursuit of the truth, not an agenda.

Science moves forward as information is gathered and new models are made based on the information, to pose new questions; changing the model does not necessitate failing to account for significant variables, and changing the model is not an indication of bias, it is an indication of observation and reason.

fast_eddie_72

Eh hem.....

Because Time Magazine is "science". lol Didn't they do a "scientific" look at Intelligent Design a few years ago? Magazine headlines are always the best sources for real science. I saw Dr. Oz on one at the supermarket with a great new diet! Must be science.

Believe it or not, they don't actually DO the science, they interview scientists and report on the science the scientists do.
You must not get out much.

BTW, Seventeen the magazine is not 17, not made by 17 yr olds, and is in fact not an actual 17 yr old. It is a magazine that targets itself to not only 17 yr olds, but also other teens.

And don't ever read a newspaper. It will totally confuse you. Those stories are just reports of what's happened or happened to others. Poor you, thinking all those things happening to the same reporters over and over.


Wait...I get it now...you are intentionally demonstrating that selective denial that the OP was referring to. Job well done!

Go with God, my combative friend. Thank you for serving as an example of His love and understanding.

CJisinShape

Just wanted to thank the contributing posters for a lively discussion. It was among the more civil discussions I've seen, and while there were a few unnecessary comments, it didn't get too heated in here.

mank32

OMFG.

there is only one thing i truly care about re: this subject:

can't measure it = can't agree on it = can't use it to get along peacefully in the world

if we all stuck to what we can agree upon (e.g. those things which we can observe & measure) we'd fight less. we are never going to agree on things we can't observe/measure, so keep all those pretty little beliefs in your head, where they belong.

side note: the only time i ever encountered "Critical Thinking" in my education was a class of that name offered at a Methodist-affiliated 2-yr junior college in rural GEORGIA. crazy, huh? taught by a retired 5-star general. best class evar.

bennettinfinity

I have an engineering degree; i have a background in data collection, data analysis, and modeling.

When your model fails to make accurate predictions, it's wrong - you have failed to account for significant variables.

If you're changing your model to fit your observations, it's wrong - you have failed to account for significant variables, but now you've shown a bias to a desired output.

And *that* my friends, is the definition of 'anti-science'.

Science is the pursuit of the truth, not an agenda.

Science moves forward as information is gathered and new models are made based on the information, to pose new questions; changing the model does not necessitate failing to account for significant variables, and changing the model is not an indication of bias, it is an indication of observation and reason.

Change the model, and change the conclusions. You can't change the model to *fit* the conclusion.

ETA:
I am not a denier
I am not a believer
What I am, is a skeptic - show me a model that doesn't have to be fudged and contorted to account for past predictions that didn't bear out, develops a track record of reasonably accurate future predictions (say 10 years of metrics within a 95% confidence interval) and I'll be a believer. Further, if that model suggests that my own personal activity contributes to the aggregate change measured (and NOT say 99% related to solar activity), I would most likely be willing to modify my behavior.

Until that happens, I feel like I'm being asked to take a lot on FAITH; I reserve the right to think critically.

QuietBloom

Just wanted to thank the contributing posters for a lively discussion. It was among the more civil discussions I've seen, and while there were a few unnecessary comments, it didn't get too heated in here.

+1

penrbrown

*snicker*

That last line was brilliant.

For $5 I can help you be brilliant too.

But for $4.99 I can help YOU be wise. Maybe we could just trade?

You would still owe me a penny.

Just sayin.

In my country there are no pennies. :P

sklarbodds

Just wanted to thank the contributing posters for a lively discussion. It was among the more civil discussions I've seen, and while there were a few unnecessary comments, it didn't get too heated in here.

+1

+2