Oolon Colluphid

True. So am I. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Cobblers. I’m sure he’s written (I’ll find the quote if you like) that if some compelling contrary evidence were shown to him, he’d give up evolution (that being what he mostly talks about). Or, presumably, anything else. Show him something persuasive, and he’ll be persuaded. He simply has no time for airy-fairy claptrap.

This is the diametric opposite of the religious fundamentalist mindset, where the more persuasive the evidence, the more they dig in. (Hang around E/C for a bit if you don’t believe me.)

Dawkins, like me, is hardline in that the scientific method has been shown to work fantastically well, precisely by rejecting supernatural explanations. Allowing in the supernatural therefore means throwing out just about every hard-won scientific success. That thinking may be hardline; I don’t see how it makes anyone fundamentalist. In science, there is always the willingness to change in the face of evidence. Fundamentalists cling to ideas even despite evidence.

Everyone should be very hardline on this. Show me the evidence, and make it bloody good evidence. Otherwise, sod off, you gullible daydreamers.

TTFN, Oolon

[ August 06, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

nogods4me

How about someone like Fred Hoyle, with his "airplane from a junkyard" and his "Steady State" theory, is he behaving like a science fundamentalist? refusing to alter his view even in teh face of compelling evidence?

Synaesthesia

Albion ,
R Dawkins feels no need to pull his punches and so he's smeared by his opponents as close-minded.

He is perhaps indelicate in his rhetoric, but that does not mean that he is unable to support his position. Indeed his positions are routinely misrepresented and his arguments are generally ignored. How ironic that people do that in the same breath that they call him a dogmatic fundamentalist.

Secular Pinoy

Carl Sagan is the high priest of Scientism, and I must admit, I've become somewhat of a scientism advocate because of him. It's not dogmatism or fundamentalism, but an outlook that acknowledges that there could be scientific explanations for almost all things, and that science and its method is the best and most reliable, though not perfect, way of coming closer to the truth, without actually reaching it.

Starboy

Thank you all for your posts. It doesn't appear that there are many science extreemist amoung this group. I only visit this forum. Of those that frequent other forums would you say that this is a representative group?

Arrowman

I think one can only really be "fundamentalist", in the sense I think you mean, in relation to a particular idea, doctrine, book etc - not a discipline in general (and I think this is implicit in most of the replies so far).

So a "Fundamentalist Christian" is defined by their belief in the Bible (not Christianity) as literal, inerrant truth.

Applying the same definition to a "science fundamentalist" - I suppose one might apply the term to someone who believes that "nature is all there is" - I'm not sure it would make sense to say "science is all there is" any more than one could say "music is all there is".

Or more specifically, one might be blindly devoted to a particular theory or hypothesis and its inerrancy (in your eyes).

But - as has been pointed out above - the final piece in the puzzle is not just the passionate belief (a la Dawkins) but the refusal to acknowledge the possibility that one might be wrong (which lets Dawkins and just about every other scientist off the hook).

So, in conclusion, I think it is by definition impossible to be a "science fundamentalist" because a "True Scientist" (TM) will always be open to the possibility they are wrong. Then again, we're all human and some scientists have been know to hold on to their pet theories just a tad past their expiry date.

In answer to your last questions - yes, I think this is a representative group. There is a broad mix of philosophical, political, religious and metaphysical positions represented on this board. But only one attitude to science and critical thinking

Vorkosigan

Thanks, Oolon.

Morgan

There are a great deal of science fundamentalists, and they all seem to share one thing in common. They all seem to be atheist fundamentalists as well.

By science fundamentalist, I don't mean someone who simply believes in pretty much everything scientific. They defend all science and refuse to accept the existance of anything that has not been proven by science.

Personally, I have no time for these people. They believe that science exists and that nothing else does as fervently as Christian fundamentalists believe the opposite.

Coragyps

Hi, Morgan, and welcome to II! If you want to introduce yourself *formally*, you can do so over <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=43&SUBMIT=Go" target="_blank">here.</a>

Autonemesis

OK. See ya!

Or not!