Science Deniers are Everywhere

Everybody is a philosopher, consciously or not.

Some "scientists" around remind me of watchmaker's thinking they know as much about time as Einstein did. The distinction between the technician and the truly insightful scientist is precisely made by the depth of philosophical sensibility one has and the other don't on fundamental problems related to the field. The very idea that X field has no philosophical implications shows the narrow-mindedness and DANGER some scientists pose by lacking proper general education. When one doesn't get attention to the full consequences and implications of one's work one is muddling in the dark! On this regard, I have one thing to say, super specialisation at the expense of general education needs control from Philosophy of Science...I don't care if that is done by the scientists themselves on their internal debates or if it is done on some philosophy department so long it is done. The most common mistake about Philosophy is confusing the thing, the field, with a history of philosophy and a decadence of good quality formal Philosophy. Philosophy HAS NO SPECIFIC house. It is done across all departments in all science fields mostly without anyone noticing it. That's the irony of it all!

This is self-important and ridiculous. You speak as if philosophy is some kind of sacred wisdom that has been handed down through the centuries. In truth, philosophy is closer to sociology than science. It grows from a set of untestable axioms based on the values of a given culture.

The practice of science; using experiments and data to achieve reproducible results and make testable predictions, no longer has anything in common with philosophy.

There is nothing more sad than philosophers crowing about how relevant they are.

Most physicists ignore the philosophers (and many say as much). We have outgrown them philosophical musings in favor of empirical data and experiments. When it comes to scientific questions (i.e. questions that can be tested objectively) philosophy is obsolete.

Modern science progresses just fine without philosophy. And most of us are happy about that.

I will add that there are questions that aren't scientific.

Scientific questions are questions that can be tested empirically. Scientists create mathematical models and then run experiments to show their correctness. Science is the best way to answer scientific questions.

Questions about what is "good" or what is "best" or what is beautiful aren't testable scientifically. I have no problem with philosophers answering these question. In fact, I object when people claim that science has anything to say about values or morality.

So let's let science answer the scientific questions. That's all I ask.

I believe the discussion here is becoming a little too abstract. There are self important poseurs among Scientists, Philosophers and just about every other grouping of people one can imagine. These are simply aspects of human nature to which everyone is subject. The study of science or even philosophy does not exempt one from vanity, ambition, greed or any of the other aspects of our natures.

Whether or not any human cultures or civic organizations should adopt some specific recommendation (or demand ) of scientists is a question that involves other considerations than just the science involved. There are often important human values at stake as well. This is a consideration that is unfortunately absent from most discussions over AGW. I often have the impression that the insistence that we immediately accept and enact the supposed demands of scientists comes mostly from people who themselves don't understand the science very well (most of the real scientists I know are intensely aware of both the uncertainties involved; our unfortunate rejection of nuclear power; the cost to humanity of the immediate implementation of current demands; and the prospect of newer better technologies to solve these problems.

What is Science is not a scientific question...it's not just about ethics or morality, it's about the foundations themselves in each field, the axioms you start with and why...none of it is scientific and yet is fundamental for understanding science.
(...finally I rest my case... you are self-described as a thinker, no need for my input...any actual informed person sees through ya!)

More, NONE of the fundamental questions, I repeat, NONE, is scientific in Nature. Not understanding why this is the case is a grave mistake on how you were brought up and educated. It spells profound dumbness and lack of understanding! The confusing of methodology with reason and its justification is mind boggling! Maths which is at the base of all Physics has nothing to do with science for instance...I really don't know what they teach people these days but a lot of great thinkers would be turning in their graves if they witness this bulshit!

Max the grand hypocrite!

Lol. For the record, Camlok is upset because I wouldn't accept his 9/11 conspiracy theory (involving secret military termites) as science .

Not at all, Max. And you pretend you are a science guy.

You absolutely refuse to discuss science. You are a science denier.

What do you mean by "fundamental questions"?

Science doesn't care about questions that can't be tested empirically. These questions are simply irrelevant to science. We leave the questions to philosophy. Science continues progressing just fine without philosophy.

Many prominent scientists now consider philosophy to be obsolete. Whether or not this is true, it is very clear that science is progressing in its own field without the need for philosophy.

I would also note that in many cases historically philosophy hindered science. You had the philosophy of the humors of the body which was developed by "reason" without a scientific process of experimentation. There was four elements (earth, wind, fire and water) which was developed by "reason" without the scientific process of experimentation. You had the harmony of the spheres and Aristotle's views of motion.

All of these ideas about nature were developed by reason... as philosophers have always done. Science has trumped philosophers at most every turn.

Again I will point out that it is science that is curing diseases, creating technology and finding planets. Philosophy just keeps spinning around in circles regurgitating ideas that can't be proven.

I believe that Philosophy has something to say about values and ideas about being (although personally I consider Philosophy to be a subset of sociology). But science doesn't care any more. Since the scientific process and the development of mathematical models around the time of Newton, philosophy has become obsolete in the realm of understanding how nature works.

I can tell you really like David Albert. For the record, I do not agree with Lawrence Krauss... he implies that science can provide meaning (something I do not believe).

My opinion on this subject is best explained by Richard Feynman. I will see if I can dig up the relevant video when I have time.

I'm not sure what a "science denier" is. I doubt your father-in-law denies all well established premises that are based on validation through the scientific method. Does he think the sun revolves around the earth, that life can spontaneously come into existence in decaying matter, or that the moon is made of cheese?

Obviously he has chosen to accept certain premises based on his religious beliefs rather than the consideration of known facts and their extension into sound theories.

I believe he's woefully wrong (as you apparently do as well) but why do you care so much? Who is he harming with his beliefs? Science? I don't think so. Facts are fact and the truth is the truth, but unless he is in a position to somehow influence young impressionable minds with his clearly erroneous premises, or harm those who express beliefs contrary to his own, what is the damage he's causing, and how could it ever be worth getting into a fistfight?

If you've chosen to shut your mouth when he goes on with his silly claims, you've made the right choice. Now make another good one and don't let it bother you. If he's nice, kind and your kids love him, what more do you want from him?

If he's trying to convince your kids that the earth is only 8 thousand years old etc than you should be able to intervene (after you leave his presence) and set your kids straight without making them believe their grandfather is a fool.

I get that your venting here and maybe that's all you occasionally need to do. It can't hurt your relationship with him or your kids' regard for their grandfather, but I encourage you to not only not engage with him on these topics (and risk a fist fight) but let them pass you by without agitation. He believes as he does for a reason.

It appears clear that faith is very important to him and he is all in on the particular fundamentalist views of his religion. Based on your description he doesn't seem like a person who states these beliefs in an effort to knowingly aggravate you. It may be that he doesn't firmly hold these beliefs himself but feels the need to assert them with you in order to reinforce them internally.

I doubt you expect him to fully grasp quantum mechanics and if he made an assertion concerning the nature and behavior of sub-atomic particles that was clearly contrary to current theory, he wouldn't be any less wrong than he is on the subjects you've outlined, and you might not even realize he was wrong. Assuming you did though, would it engender the same reaction you've expressed here? I doubt it.

People can be wrong about a lot of things without being venal and based on your post, it seems clear that your father-in-law is a decent fellow or at least you think of him that way. Appreciate his good qualities and stop worrying about what nonsense he may believe.

Wise words, Finn. I guess it bothers me that he (or anyone) can so easily put aside the obvious for the sake of spiritual comfort. It seems cowardly to me. It bothers me because I expect more. No, it won't ever come to a fist fight, that's just me exaggerating. Not too many years ago it may have lead to a heated argument, but I see what's more important now: his relationship with my children rather than me proving (?) myself "right".

The Scientific Method-Richard Feynman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY

Any damage he may have done with pushing these beliefs has been done long ago (his influence on my wife and her sisters) but that's for them to overcome or not, depending on their character. I doubt he has any real influence on any young people now.
I should just humor a silly old man. But isn't that the most disrespectful thing I could do? If I respect him shouldn't I try to help him understand? Not everything, not quantum mechanics (surely), but at least some basics?

It is quite laughable when progressives make a show about being devotees of science and then abandon it when it suits their largely politically driven beliefs.

GMOs are the products of major corporations (And specifically that evil entity known as Monsanto) and major corporations not only don't care about people's well being if there is profit to be had, they intentionally want to hurt people. (In case you think this is an exaggeration, visit any of the numerous anti-GMO; anti-Monsanto websites) Therefore, GMOs are bad. It matters little that there is even a greater degree of consensus among scientists, within the applicable fields, that GMOs are not harmful than there is that climate change is a certain calamity for humans and one which they have brought on themselves.

Proponents of a woman's right to have an abortion have made the claim that ultrasound readouts that might suggest that a fetus is more of a person than the mother might have thought, are a fraudulent scam perpetrated by evil defenders of the patriarchy who wish to control women's bodies.

Fracking results in tap water than can be set ablaze.

And so on.

Ideology seems to trump most things and certainly science can't disabuse an ideological zealot of something they feel they must believe.

It's important to note, I think, that science is a means for learning the truth about the way the universe and all within it operates. It is not a body of truths, and one of the ways science arrives at the truth (or the closest possible approximation of it) is by challenging the assertions of those (including scientists) who claim to have it all figured out.

I vividly recall my 10th grade Chemistry teacher telling our class that everything he was teaching us about the structure and behavior of atoms was considered obsolete by contemporary scientists. When asked why then was he teaching it to us he replied "The State requires that I do."

Was he a science denier? Were we who thought everything the State required us to learn was highly suspect science deniers?

The recent so-called "March for Science" was particularly laughable as the organizers on their website very markedly pronounced that poverty, colonialism, transgender rights, unrestrained capitalism and every other topic that was a hot button for progressives were issues of science. The intent was clear: Science provides perfect truth. We love science and science agrees with us. Those who don't agree with us are science deniers and superstitious and ignorant morons. And what was the primary message of the March (other than all of our progressive views are based on science and therefore undeniable)? That the government needs to spend more money investing in science.

Well then you are someone who doesn't try to claim that science supports your decisions that are primarily based on personal considerations of ethics or morality. Kudos. This isn't a liberal or conservative point of view.