Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Starboy · 08-07-2002, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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.

Welcome Morgan,

You bring up a good point. If I don't like people telling me what to believe then I probably shouldn't go around telling others what they should believe. I only wish Christians understood this.

Starboy

[ August 07, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]

TooBad · 08-07-2002, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Morgan:

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.

I seriously doubt that there are any "science fundamentalists" in this sense, who are not permanently confined to a padded cell for their own safety. Would you care to cite an example of someone who actually fits this description?

Morgan · 08-07-2002, 11:37 AM

I'm afraid I have met them; none that you would have heard of, so it would be pointless to cite them as an example. You'll have to take my word on it.

Many simply follow Science blindly without ever questioning what Science tells us. This is as dangerous as Christian fundamentalism.

Vorkosigan · 08-07-2002, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Morgan:
I'm afraid I have met them; none that you would have heard of, so it would be pointless to cite them as an example. You'll have to take my word on it.

Many simply follow Science blindly without ever questioning what Science tells us. This is as dangerous as Christian fundamentalism.

How can one "follow" science? What do you mean by this? Name some prominent individuals you consider science fundamentalists. We're all dying to know who these people are.

Vorkosigan

Quetzal · 08-09-2002, 06:59 AM

I sense a "scientists reject [insert favorite theory here] a priori, therefore they are fundamentalists" argument coming.

Morgan: I would appreciate an example of the type of argument you refer to. You state:

Quote:

I'm afraid I have met them; none that you would have heard of, so it would be pointless to cite them as an example. You'll have to take my word on it.

Many simply follow Science blindly without ever questioning what Science tells us. This is as dangerous as Christian fundamentalism.

Please provide some evidence for your assertion that such people exist. I'm very curious as to on what basis you make this claim. After all, you wouldn't want us to "take someone's word on it" without evidence, would you?

Autonemesis · 08-09-2002, 07:31 AM

Come on Morgan! It's been two days since you asserted that there were these dangerous science fundamentalist people. I know you said your time is valuable, but we're dying to know more.

ohwilleke · 08-09-2002, 09:56 AM

Fred Hoyle is just the example I was thinking of. Someone reluctant to adopt newly proposed theories.

There was an interesting study that suggested that birth order was a big predictor of how scientists take stances on controversial issues in science. First borns, only childrens, and children who grew up with much older siblings and hence were effectively only children, tend to support established positions in science against new theories hoping to fight off quakery. Second or later birth order scientists tend to support new radical changes to existing scientific theories before they have solid support.

Birth order's effect on these positions was surprisingly strong.

Thus, while there is not much dispute over what eventually will become consensus answers, there are systemtic differences in the scientific community over how quickly scientists are willing to accept new challenging ideas -- about how much proof is considered sufficient.

Corey Hammer · 08-09-2002, 10:08 AM

If you define fundamentalist as someone who cannot see inconsistencies in their belief system and ignores evidence contrary to it, there's only one "science fundamentalist" I can think of, B.F. Skinner. For those who don't know, Skinner was an experimental psychologist of a radical behaviorism bent. He defined the Stimulus - Response system of Operant Conditioning.

He disdained anything that smacked of theory, wanting only things that were observable. However, that "-" between stimulus and response is not something observable; thus it is theoretical. He also denied to his dying day that cognition exists, despite the fact that research on cognition had proceeded well and made successful predictions.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-07-2002, 11:37 AM	#23
Morgan Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: UK Posts: 89	I'm afraid I have met them; none that you would have heard of, so it would be pointless to cite them as an example. You'll have to take my word on it. Many simply follow Science blindly without ever questioning what Science tells us. This is as dangerous as Christian fundamentalism.

08-09-2002, 07:31 AM	#26
Autonemesis Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: I've left FRDB for good, due to new WI&P policy Posts: 12,048	Come on Morgan! It's been two days since you asserted that there were these dangerous science fundamentalist people. I know you said your time is valuable, but we're dying to know more.

08-09-2002, 09:56 AM	#27
ohwilleke Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Denver, Colorado, USA Posts: 4,834	Fred Hoyle is just the example I was thinking of. Someone reluctant to adopt newly proposed theories. There was an interesting study that suggested that birth order was a big predictor of how scientists take stances on controversial issues in science. First borns, only childrens, and children who grew up with much older siblings and hence were effectively only children, tend to support established positions in science against new theories hoping to fight off quakery. Second or later birth order scientists tend to support new radical changes to existing scientific theories before they have solid support. Birth order's effect on these positions was surprisingly strong. Thus, while there is not much dispute over what eventually will become consensus answers, there are systemtic differences in the scientific community over how quickly scientists are willing to accept new challenging ideas -- about how much proof is considered sufficient.

08-09-2002, 10:08 AM	#28
Corey Hammer Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 368	If you define fundamentalist as someone who cannot see inconsistencies in their belief system and ignores evidence contrary to it, there's only one "science fundamentalist" I can think of, B.F. Skinner. For those who don't know, Skinner was an experimental psychologist of a radical behaviorism bent. He defined the Stimulus - Response system of Operant Conditioning. He disdained anything that smacked of theory, wanting only things that were observable. However, that "-" between stimulus and response is not something observable; thus it is theoretical. He also denied to his dying day that cognition exists, despite the fact that research on cognition had proceeded well and made successful predictions.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.