Starboy

I am curious if there is such a thing as a science fundamentalist. If so, would those who were science fundamentalist hold the idea that scientific fact and theory is truth and some if not all of it is absolutely true. I would be interested in knowing what your thoughts are on this and if you would consider yourself a science fundamentalist?

Starboy

eh

Perhaps you are thinking of scientism? There are people who have replaced science as their religion, without understanding much that actually goes on. For example, you might see someone reject logic, and say a state of nothingness created the universe, simply because they misunderstand a scientific article they've read.

So yeah, I suppose you could consider them to be some kind of fundy.

Starboy

Hi eh, I was not aware of scientism. Are there any scientimists in the house?

I am

An absoloutly true scientific theory is an oxy-moron. Perhaps the most important feature of the scientific method is the error correcting mechanism.

Autonemesis

Do you mean "Are there scientists who interpret their instrument readings and experimental results literally?" Yes.

Splat

The beauty of science is that its practitioners are rewarded for iconoclasm. No idea, theory, or fact is so sacred that it couldn't be brought down (or at least modified) by contrary evidence, more parsimonious or encompassing theory, etc.

That's not to say that there aren't people who are so wedded to ideas that they'll defend them no matter what (i.e., fundamentalists), but it's hard to pull that off if you're a scientist. If nobody will fund your research and nobody will publish or read and cite your work, you're dead. Religious fundamentalists, on the other hand, can always find friends.

Synaesthesia

I'm a science fundamentalist. I think science and it's associated intellectual culture has created an epistemic revolution. 'Prosasic' scientific matters are indeed having pivotal influence on philosophy and metaphysics. God is not the only ghost of the shrinking gaps.

To answer your question, I think science has been suggesting that 'absolute truth' is something of a goose chase. Indeed developing a better idea of how truth relates to us is a central project, not axiom, of science.

Albion

Richard Dawkins is a "the material world is all there is" hardliner. He's close to being as fundamentalist as the religious fundamentalists he battles with.

NialScorva

I'm a rather committed believer that empirical experience is all the reality that matters and science is an ever increasingly accurate methodology for determining truth.

Fiach

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Starboy:
[QB]I am curious if there is such a thing as a science fundamentalist. If so, would those who were science fundamentalist hold the idea that scientific fact and theory is truth and some if not all of it is absolutely true. I would be interested in knowing what your thoughts are on this and if you would consider yourself a science fundamentalist?

SR: Good Morning heathens and non-heathens alike on this dank rainy cold windy moring by the shore of the North Sea.

SR: I am a neuroscientist working in molecular genetics and neurobiological behaviour. I am well published on the subjects and have degrees from prestigious univerities of Great Britain. I a as a scientist cannot accept anything as a "slam dunk" absolute. The main core of science is that all of of our theories are evidence based using strict criteria of testing and evidence evaluation. There are multiple time that our theories are discarded because new discoveries make them obsolete. I have seen this happen during my own career. Once Myasthenia gravis was thought to be due to a deficiency of Acetylcholine at nerve-muscle synapses. It seemed rational. You give an enzyme inhibitor that keeps Acetylcholine around longer and people improve. It made sense but it was wrong beause new data showed that there was damage to motor endplates on the muscle, inflammatory cells, suggesting an autoimmune process. Then Dan Drachman of Hopkins U. in USA found the antibodies, Anti-Acetylcholine antibodies that attacked the motor endplate. These damaged endplates did respond better to higher concentrations of acetylcholine. But not because of acetylcholine deficiency but because antibodies attacked the receptor endplates. Now we have successful anti-immune therapies that control the potentially fatal disease. Perhaps we will later find out more about why the person develops those antibodies.

SR ur knowledge of real facts do increase exponentially. But if the evidence is misinterpreted or the testing protocols are badly designed, faulty conclusions can be made. That is why we test and retest. We are open to any new data, and we are quite fickle about our cherished knowledge, tossing it away when better data is obtained. Unlike religion, nothing in science is sacred. It is all subject to periodic review and challenge. There is no higher achievment than a young scientists finding a new theory that debunks an older cherished one. We all do this. And it is heroic.

SR:In religion such challenges to the truth of scipture is called heresy, or infidelity. Those who challenge are ostracised from their churches. In the old days the heretics were burned at the stake. The recent trial of a Church of England Bishop for denying the divinity and resurrection of Jesus was considered a heretic instead of a brave hero seeking truth.

SR:The fact that Jesus never said he was God never bothers most believers. That other people call hims a god, is hearsay and faulty evidence. If the rules of science were applied to Christianity, that cult would have long died out. The Church Father knew this, and that is why dissent is forbidden. Science is the opposite, in that challenge of assumptions is encouraged. All major reported findings of studies are not accepted until an independent team of researchers can reduplicate the results. If they can't then the results are not accepted. (i.e. cold fusion.)

SR:So many fundies and religionists in general fail to understand scientific method. Or perhaps they fear the consequences of applying reason the religous belifs.

Fiach (the Raven)