Scientific Proof Of God

[Brian Peacock]

... Most people can't see the Proof if it hit them in the face. They confuse "Scientific" with "Scientism"

What do you see as the essential differences between the two, and what do you think the consequences of such confusions are?

[Galaxian]

... Most people can't see the Proof if it hit them in the face. They confuse "Scientific" with "Scientism"

What do you see as the essential differences between the two, and what do you think the consequences of such confusions are?

There are many impulses working on the human mind, and each mind eventually reaches a balance between these forces; an equilibrium that makes its life tolerable. That's why during teenage years there's much confusion and vacillating between ideas, principles, beliefs, convictions, allegiances, devotions, and so on.
By the time the organism is 30 years old most of its concepts are settled in, and it take great effort to change the being. It's Overton Window needs to move, largely by following fads and trends. Unfortunately most people swallow the power hierarchy indoctrination that they've been raised with, by their parents, school, political declarations, main-stream-media, religion, group fashions, etc.
Most people are then stuck in their particular rut, by limited imagination, fear, learned helplessness, general anxieties, neuroses, laziness, or lack of capacity.
It is then easier and less traumatic to stay in one's comfort zone. It is a rational trap to justify one's predicament by thinking, "I don't know, and I don't care!". The creature has been successfully subjugated to accept whatever befalls it, and merely whimper quietly as it suffers.
The subject (as many governments call us) then must then accept the facade of whatever passes for reality: So, we get fashions that come and go, music, cinema & TV styles, or whatever. The young are particularly prone, and tend to carry their indoctrination with them as they age. One becomes allied to the style, and worships it as if it would be sacrilegious to question it... hence in many societies the penalty for apostasy is death.
A major part of social belief is science. But most people are only vaguely aware of what science is (as we see on this & other forums). Infact, they did poorly at school in mathematics & science, as did their teachers. And they're easily led by charlatans, many qualified but dishonest people who see easy pickings in bamboozling the weak minded, to line their pockets, using books, articles, and government & endowment grants.
When science is corrupted and merely followed by the masses due to its cryptic glamor and celebrity popularizers, many of whom will say whatever is the flavor of the month, when science is corrupted thus, it is then 'scientism', little better than religion. Charlatans then use the science as a dogma, to be followed religiously because questioning the "expert scientist" is heresy.
Some examples: Lord Kelvin, "Trains can not go faster than ...mph, because your head would blow off, if you stuck it out of the window!" Or, "Wegener's proposal of Continental Drift is bunkum, land doesn't just float around. LOL!". And MANY such pronouncements by learned professors poo-pooing those below them.
Today we have anthropogenic climate change. Yes, climate has and does change, but for many reasons. But there are corrupt 'scientists' who keep pushing the barrow because they want to fit in and get money and go to conferences and pick up adoring students. Such people are naive & gullible and are used by politicians in malevolent ways. One such pseudo-scientist being Paul Ehrlich... still shamelessly mouthing off:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS6EGoTuWNY

In the 1970's & early 80's these 'scientists' were warning about the coming ice-age. Then they changed their tune. But they need to get a constant source of funding. So it is now man-made global warming. And they know that the general public is none the wiser if they're lied to, and will keep dishing out the accolades & the comfortable salaries.
How does Galaxian know all this? Because Galaxian actually does research, and knows that water vapor has a 100 times greater effect as a greenhouse 'gas'. So a rise of even 50% in a minor constituent of the atmosphere (CO2 is just 0.04% of the air) is insignificant in terms of the greenhouse effect.
THAT is the difference between science & scientism. The above examples show that scientism, or the awe of using science as a mystical doctrine is just as prevalent among those who pretend to know fact from fiction, as among the general mass of ignoramuses.

[Rum]

Oh dear me.

[rainbow]

Because Galaxian actually does research, and knows that water vapor has a 100 times greater effect as a greenhouse 'gas'.

Your farts have a million times the effect as a greenhouse 'gas' according to research.

Eat less beans.

[Brian Peacock]

...
In the 1970's & early 80's these 'scientists' were warning about the coming ice-age. Then they changed their tune. But they need to get a constant source of funding. So it is now man-made global warming. And they know that the general public is none the wiser if they're lied to, and will keep dishing out the accolades & the comfortable salaries.
...

Is this not an example of 'Scientism' by your own definition, to wit the using of science 'as a mystical doctrine', because to apply this kind of objection, not only to the fact climate emergency but also to the necessity of action to address the climate emergency, presupposes that the role and goal of science is to provide absolute epistemological certainty rather than Science (big 'S') being a species of endeavour rooted in an explicit acknowledgement of human fallibility and which therefore develops a range of epistemologically sceptical methods which are brought to enquiries into the fundamental nature of things?

Asking for a friend.

[rainbow]

...
In the 1970's & early 80's these 'scientists' were warning about the coming ice-age. Then they changed their tune. But they need to get a constant source of funding. So it is now man-made global warming. And they know that the general public is none the wiser if they're lied to, and will keep dishing out the accolades & the comfortable salaries.
...

Is this not an example of 'Scientism' by your own definition, to wit the using of science 'as a mystical doctrine', because to employ this kind of objection, not only to the fact climate emergency but also to the necessity of action to address the climate emergency, presupposes that the role and goal of science is to provide absolute epistemological certainty rather than Science (big 'S') being species of endeavour rooted in an explicit acknowledgement of human fallibility and which therefore develops a range of epistemologically sceptical methods which are brought to enquiries into the fundamental nature of things?

Asking for a friend.

Scientists are only in it for the money

...and the sex. Except for the chemists. They do it for the drugs.

[Brian Peacock]

Writing down if something turns blue or not is a complete waste of time and no use to man nor beast, therefore Chemistry isn't even a real science.

[Galaxian]

...
In the 1970's & early 80's these 'scientists' were warning about the coming ice-age. Then they changed their tune. But they need to get a constant source of funding. So it is now man-made global warming. And they know that the general public is none the wiser if they're lied to, and will keep dishing out the accolades & the comfortable salaries.
...

Is this not an example of 'Scientism' by your own definition, to wit the using of science 'as a mystical doctrine', because to employ this kind of objection, not only to the fact [fact??? climate emergency but also to the necessity of action to address the climate emergency, presupposes that the role and goal of science is to provide absolute epistemological certainty rather than Science (big 'S') being species of endeavour rooted in an explicit acknowledgement of human fallibility and which therefore develops a range of epistemologically sceptical methods which are brought to enquiries into the fundamental nature of things?

Asking for a friend.

You don't need to ask for the cavalry, you're not under attack. You'd only need backup if you're unsure of the grounding of the arguments... thus scientism. So you couldn't 'win' by weight of argument, but rather by number of goons to initiate a brawl against Galaxian. And we see many examples of that on this & other forums.

No, the role & goal of science is to approach all knowledge & analysis with humility and objectivity, not emotional prejudice & dogma such as in this video with the buffoon crank 'Bill Nye the science guy':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UjXxAVayBEY

Check out his other crap, such as this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtW2rrLHs08


Notice how he conjures away mention of any other factors, such as water vapor, orbital mechanics, precedence without catastrophe (such as the Great Barrier Reef is just 10,000 (yes, ten thousand) years old, panic due to news repetition & population density, etc.
In court, the oath is "I swear to tell the truth, the WHOLE truth, and nothing but the truth". That is not Bill Nye's mantra. Rather, it is that he'll say what serves his purpose; whether that purpose is quackery or dictated to him by his paymasters. when one leaves out some of the facts, then one is LYING by omission!

But let's not focus on Bill, he's just another popularizer misguided fool or tool. Specializing in scientism, NOT science. There are many like him, such as the NIST inquiry professors, those timid or corrupt frauds. Whether it is fear or greed, or plain dumb-fuckery, arrogance or ignorance, there are MANY such people, both laypersons and highly qualified who have chronic "cognitive dissonance" and an impulse to fame and celebrity. That's why this planet desperately needs a superior species... Hopefully not far off...

[Rum]

You are an utter fool. Sadly you won’t ever realise it.

[Brian Peacock]

Yes, Mr Nye the bow-tie guy is a popularizer of science, and so it's somewhat uncharitable to hold him up as representing the entirity of scientific endeavour and then criticise it on that basis. That is a fallacious strawman.

If you're criticising him for employing metaphor, simile, analogue, or aphorism in his narrative explanations of science then you're merely criticising him for the way he communicates science and not Science for the way it communicates nor for what it communicates. However, maligning science is clearly your intent here so intellectual coherence is no doubt of secondary import to you.

Similarly, your requirements that Science should have a modest or low view of its importance and/or achievements (humility) is essentially another fallacious attempt at tone-policing the presentation of it's ideas and discoveries without regard or reference to said ideas and/or discoveries.

Likewise, in your premise that a science (and given the context of your earlier remarks, particularly climate and environmental science) communicated in this way--which is to say, popularized--is erroneously preferenced for "emotional, prejudice & dogma" over "objectivity", also underlines my previous point about fallacioiiusly taking the products of scientific enquiry, indeed of any such enquiry, to be essentially end-points of fixed, objective, absolute, unquestioned epistemological certainty. The observation that scientific progress is incremental and that so-called scientific truths are merely provisional and contingent rather than objective and absolute is all that is needed to refute that premise - and as you know, if your premises fail then so does your argument.

I raised that very point earlier because you forwarded an argument which suggest that because science--again, specifically climate and environmental science--was 'wrong' in the past then it's likely to be 'wrong' in the present and 'wrong' in the future also. Your epistemic hypothesis thus presented moved swiftly to conclude with the silly notion that scientists (again, particularly climate scientists) were far more concerned with making a living that with revealing the mysteries of the universe - as if scientific endeavour should somehow transcend the current Capitalist socio-economic paradigms and be undertaken in a spirit of egalitarian self-sacrifice that eschews such base material needs such as food, shelter, and gin. To my mind that kind of pleading casts Science as a kind of mystical search for immaterial truths - which by your own definition is 'Scientism' all the way down.

Seems to me that you're keen to castigate science for what it isn't while all the time insisting that it should tend towards being the very thing you say it should never be. this is why I think you are confused about what Science is.

And finally, on a small scientific point: yes, water vapour has particular and well documented thermal properties, as indeed do gases like CO2. Now consider what will happen on a planet just like ours that is warmed by a sudden injection of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere - particularly consider this with regards to evaporation from those large bodies of water we call oceans. If you have been following along dispassionately, and if you have a cursory understanding of the planetary water cycle, you'll have hypothesised that increasing levels of water vapour in the atmosphere may be a consequence of global warming over time rather than the cause of global warming. You'll be glad to hear I'm sure that others collected the data and explored the properties of different molocules and have confirmed this hypothesis for you experimentally - something which you can confirm for yourself with an internet connection. Water vapour does play a part in atmospheric thermal exchange, but not the one you think it does.

With your objection to climate science now thoroughly debunked I expect you to either deny the legitimacy of the scientific understandings that contradict your world view or to shift the goalposts of the discussion in order to argue on a different front. This is because I have no expectation of you showing (or having) any interest in any information which does not confirm the world view you've been primed and triggered to regurgitate - to wit, that maintaining the status quo is the only response a climate emergency that maintaining the status quo has already produced.

[Rum]

Brian, while your patience is laudable and your arguments perfectly sound do you think perhaps you have too much time on your hands?

Glaxo is not going to respond to your perfectly reasoned reply with anything other than you too are being duped and that the likes of Nye, Brian Cox, Richard Dawkins and the rest don’t have a clue what they are talking about. But Glaxo does.

[rainbow]

But let's not focus on Bill, he's just another popularizer misguided fool or tool.

OK we won't

Now prove the world isn't flat.

[Galaxian]

Yes, Mr Nye the bow-tie guy is a popularizer of science, and so it's somewhat uncharitable to hold him up as representing the entirity of scientific endeavour and then criticise it on that basis. That is a fallacious strawman.

That interpretation is entirely your concoction.

If you're criticising him for employing metaphor, simile, analogue, or aphorism in his narrative explanations of science then you're merely criticising him for the way he communicates science and not Science for the way it communicates nor for what it communicates. However, maligning science is clearly your intent here so intellectual coherence is no doubt of secondary import to you.

That too is your own limited understanding. And maligning 'science' is NOT my intent. I disparage 'scientism'.

Similarly, your requirements that Science should have a modest or low view of its importance and/or achievements (humility) is essentially another fallacious attempt at tone-policing the presentation of it's ideas and discoveries without regard or reference to said ideas and/or discoveries.

Again, we evidently speak different languages. I spoke of humility as a requirement of 'scientists', not of the ocean of knowledge or of the methodology.

Likewise, in your premise that a science (and given the context of your earlier remarks, particularly climate and environmental science) communicated in this way--which is to say, popularized--is erroneously preferenced for "emotional, prejudice & dogma" over "objectivity", also underlines my previous point about fallacioiiusly taking the products of scientific enquiry, indeed of any such enquiry, to be essentially end-points of fixed, objective, absolute, unquestioned epistemological certainty. The observation that scientific progress is incremental and that so-called scientific truths are merely provisional and contingent rather than objective and absolute is all that is needed to refute that premise - and as you know, if your premises fail then so does your argument.

Hence the need for "humility & objectivity" (of the 'scientist', not of the philosophy of science). A true scientist or serious science popularizer would not stagger from predicting an ice-age in the 1980's to predicting global heating in the 2000's. That is either an agenda, stupidity, or fame driven scheme. Most of the same data sets were available in those decades. As some wit once said, "Scientific revolutions must wait for the old professors to die." However only 20 years went by for climate superstitions to be flipped over completely. So something else must have been at work.

I raised that very point earlier because you forwarded an argument which suggest that because science--again, specifically climate and environmental science--was 'wrong' in the past then it's likely to be 'wrong' in the present and 'wrong' in the future also. Your epistemic hypothesis thus presented moved swiftly to conclude with the silly notion that scientists (again, particularly climate scientists) were far more concerned with making a living that with revealing the mysteries of the universe - as if scientific endeavour should somehow transcend the current Capitalist socio-economic paradigms and be undertaken in a spirit of egalitarian self-sacrifice that eschews such base material needs such as food, shelter, and gin. To my mind that kind of pleading casts Science as a kind of mystical search for immaterial truths - which by your own definition is 'Scientism' all the way down.

I wrote no such thing. You're reading what you want to read in my post. It is obviously impossible for any scientific idea to be always wrong (in the past, present, and future). Nor does science always progress upwards. Some concepts of the past were thrown out, replaced, but later found to be correct (see examples in Greek science).
You seem to be intent on equalizing all people...in this case, scientists. No, typically, as with any other trade, those who rise to the top & become well known are usually the sociopaths & narcissists. A moment's thought should convince you of that. Any alternative conclusion is woo & based on wishful thinking. And, yes, the ideal scientist is detached from temporal corruption and follows research dispassionately. But of course that scenario does not exist. So there's egos & personality flaws involved.

Seems to me that you're keen to castigate science for what it isn't while all the time insisting that it should tend towards being the very thing you say it should never be. this is why I think you are confused about what Science is.

That above paragraph is garbled. It is you who is confused...

And finally, on a small scientific point: yes, water vapour has particular and well documented thermal properties, as indeed do gases like CO2. Now consider what will happen on a planet just like ours that is warmed by a sudden injection of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere - particularly consider this with regards to evaporation from those large bodies of water we call oceans. If you have been following along dispassionately, and if you have a cursory understanding of the planetary water cycle, you'll have hypothesised that increasing levels of water vapour in the atmosphere may be a consequence of global warming over time rather than the cause of global warming. You'll be glad to hear I'm sure that others collected the data and explored the properties of different molocules and have confirmed this hypothesis for you experimentally - something which you can confirm for yourself with an internet connection. Water vapour does play a part in atmospheric thermal exchange, but not the one you think it does.

The above assessment is totally unscientific. The planet does not get increasing levels of water vapor due to Carbon Dioxide. You are fixated on CO2 causing global warming. The percentage of greenhouse effect caused by CO2 is miniscule, it does NOT cause runaway emission of water vapor from oceans & other bodies of water. The vapor balance of the atmosphere is governed by the phase & entropy diagrams & tables, established by experiment & calculation & used for over a century in physics & engineering:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_diagram
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_(data_page)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_diagrams
You can find far more technical dissertations about the above. But I think Wikipedia is concise & to the point. If you cannot understand the above, we have a lost cause.

With your objection to climate science now thoroughly debunked I expect you to either deny the legitimacy of the scientific understandings that contradict your world view or to shift the goalposts of the discussion in order to argue on a different front. This is because I have no expectation of you showing (or having) any interest in any information which does not confirm the world view you've been primed and triggered to regurgitate - to wit, that maintaining the status quo is the only response a climate emergency that maintaining the status quo has already produced.

No, what has been debunked, by yourself, is your pretense that you understand the very complicated science of atmospheric thermodynamics and of climate variations. And that you feel comfortable simply following the fashionistas in whatever claptrap they spew.

Explain this goal post: Why is it that CO2 rise FOLLOWS temperature rise in the climate record? Your hypothesis indicates that CO2 should rise BEFORE temperature increase, not after it! And why is the converse also true; that CO2 falls FOLLOW temperature falls? In other words, that it is temperature that drives the CO2 levels, not the other way around. So you see that a little knowledge can be dangerous, since you are naively led by the nose by those who want to screw you!

[Galaxian]

Glaxo is not going to respond to your perfectly reasoned reply with anything other than you too are being duped and that the likes of Nye, Brian Cox, Richard Dawkins and the rest don’t have a clue what they are talking about. But Glaxo does.

As the saying goes: Out of the mouth of babes..., and even a broken clock is right twice a day. So, yes, Galaxian DOES have a deeper & more profound insight that Nye, Cox, & Dawkins. But your twice a day instant is over, so don't try to fathom the verity of the pearls of wisdom thrown your way... just trample them underfoot. Makes no difference to me...

[rainbow]

Explain this goal post: Why is it that CO2 rise FOLLOWS temperature rise in the climate record?

It just Arrrh!