User Tag List

First 89101112 Last

Results 91 to 100 of 126

  1. #91
    / nonsequitur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    512 sp/so
    Posts
    1,821

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    To me it seems somewhere between taking a piss on art because a lot of artists are douche bags, and rejecting education because the USA's education system is broken. It seems to miss the central point with possibly negative consequences.
    Uh, this is not limited to the US. Science as an industry needs an overhaul and no one is doing anything about it. I think you are missing the central point. There's no point in arguing over differences in the "philosophy" of science and the "philosophy" of religion when the reality of it doesn't reflect this philosophy. That was my point through and through. You can keep arguing over what you think science is and what science should be, but on an administrative and organisational level, science and scientific funding is as chaotic and unregulated as any industry - or even religious organisations.

    As someone who went into science for altruistic and idealistic reasons and sacrificed 14 years of my youth working towards becoming a scientist, I have more reasons than most to want to stay in science and defend science. But staying based on beliefs about philosophical ideals is ridiculous when reality constantly reminds me that they don't exist. Further, I find it amusing that most people who argue for the merits of science on philosophical grounds aren't even working in scientific research. If they were, they probably wouldn't be able to argue like they do with such moral fortitude.

    As I said from the start, there ARE people who do adhere to scientific principles and work for progress and knowledge. It's just that these people generally don't make it to the top (too much time in the lab and not enough time playing golf with funding agency managers?) and are at the whim of those who don't care about anything but their own careers. I respect those who are trying to make a go of it, but personally, I don't see any reason to stay and do the same.

    Also... I was in a position to whistleblow on misconduct but like many peons in the scientific industry in the same situation, the person I was up against is the favourite of the organisation and doing so would have too many personal repercussions. So I chose not to, and to just leave because it's healthier for me mentally to do so. Just because it seems like there are fewer scandals in scientific research doesn't mean that it is more credible than any other industry.

  2. #92
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsequitur View Post
    Uh, this is not limited to the US. Science as an industry needs an overhaul and no one is doing anything about it. I think you are missing the central point. There's no point in arguing over differences in the "philosophy" of science and the "philosophy" of religion when the reality of it doesn't reflect this philosophy. That was my point through and through. You can keep arguing over what you think science is and what science should be, but on an administrative and organisational level, science and scientific funding is as chaotic and unregulated as any industry - or even religious organisations.

    As someone who went into science for altruistic and idealistic reasons and sacrificed 14 years of my youth working towards becoming a scientist, I have more reasons than most to want to stay in science and defend science. But staying based on beliefs about philosophical ideals is ridiculous when reality constantly reminds me that they don't exist. Further, I find it amusing that most people who argue for the merits of science on philosophical grounds aren't even working in scientific research. If they were, they probably wouldn't be able to argue like they do with such moral fortitude.

    As I said from the start, there ARE people who do adhere to scientific principles and work for progress and knowledge. It's just that these people generally don't make it to the top (too much time in the lab and not enough time playing golf with funding agency managers?) and are at the whim of those who don't care about anything but their own careers. I respect those who are trying to make a go of it, but personally, I don't see any reason to stay and do the same.

    Also... I was in a position to whistleblow on misconduct but like many peons in the scientific industry in the same situation, the person I was up against is the favourite of the organisation and doing so would have too many personal repercussions. So I chose not to, and to just leave because it's healthier for me mentally to do so. Just because it seems like there are fewer scandals in scientific research doesn't mean that it is more credible than any other industry.
    First of all, my statement about the US education system was just another anology like the comment about artists, so there was no need for correcting that.

    Secondly, while I'm sure the corporate, plutocratic society we're moving toward impairs the functionality of the scientific community, what I take issue with is the last statement in bold. If I take it quite literally, than I think you're saying that organized religions would contribute just as much to our society as the scientific community, and I find that extremely difficult to believe even with a totally realistic impression of the scientific community.

    Also, there is a practical purpose in arguing over what science and religion can potentially be. To take the risk of using another anology, it's like saying that because you're in a corrupt democratic republic, there's no point in talking about the comparative merits of a democratic republic and a heriditary monarchy. For anyone that hasn't completely given up on humanity, there is a point, as a guide for how you want to influence the future.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  3. #93

    Default

    It is true now that science is a religion now because there is big group of people who believe in this thing.

  4. #94
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524
    Quote Originally Posted by roman67 View Post
    It is true now that science is a religion now because there is big group of people who believe in this thing.
    Science is a religion in, for instance, Christian Science.

    Christian Science is a 'scientific' religion founded by Mary Baker Eddy.

    And Christian Science speaks of Jesus as, Jesus Christ, Scientist.

    However the 'scientific' religion of Christian Science is not science. It doesn't practise the scientific method. And no science department of any university in the world grants a degree in Christian Science.

  5. #95
    / nonsequitur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    512 sp/so
    Posts
    1,821

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    Secondly, while I'm sure the corporate, plutocratic society we're moving toward impairs the functionality of the scientific community, what I take issue with is the last statement in bold. If I take it quite literally, than I think you're saying that organized religions would contribute just as much to our society as the scientific community, and I find that extremely difficult to believe even with a totally realistic impression of the scientific community.

    Also, there is a practical purpose in arguing over what science and religion can potentially be. To take the risk of using another anology, it's like saying that because you're in a corrupt democratic republic, there's no point in talking about the comparative merits of a democratic republic and a heriditary monarchy. For anyone that hasn't completely given up on humanity, there is a point, as a guide for how you want to influence the future.
    I think that if you're talking about a personal level, religion has benefited a lot of people. Contributions to society is not only measured in things like average lifespan and infant mortality rate. To me, quality of life is much more important, and if you go look up the straw polls, religion actually makes people happier. Science.. may extend lives. But it's less the lifespan and more what you do with it that matters.. Also, I'd like to say that while extremist religion gives society terrorists, lynch mobs and the crusades, ethics-less scientific "progress" gives society thalidomide babies, Chernobyl and nuclear proliferation. Both science and religion can be twisted. Both are twisted because it's done by humans. With a completely realistic impression of the scientific community, it is better to be skeptical than swallow the next big-pharma-produced wonder-drug that comes along claiming to cure restless leg syndrome.

    I don't see a practical purpose in arguing over what science and religion "can potentially be". Because all you're limited by is imagination, really, and these words are defined in many different ways by many different people. Arguing about "the ideal" is hardly useful when social scientists, scientists and philosophers can't even agree on what the ideal is! The idea of the "scientific method" is actually relatively new itself. Philosophically speaking it only came about in the 20th century in an effort to try to define "natural studies" under an umbrella word. If you look at the historical perspective of the idea of the "scientific method", it's a retrospective definition of rich-boy research from the 17th-19th century (most notably that of Robert Boyle). It's no wonder then, that no one adheres to "the scientific method" in reality. The way that definition came about was itself suspect, and most research conducted today would be incredibly inefficient if the supposed "scientific method" was used. Read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, it's the most-cited social science paper in history.

    Exactly! I believe that there is no point in talking about the relative merits of a democratic republic and an autocratic government. It all depends on the specific people in charge! Otherwise the conclusions that you draw are so general that it's completely useless, whether speaking about current reality or for formulation of policy in the future. Just like I do not criticise "science" in general and simply point out that administrative methods, means of obtaining funding and the peer-review process do not help the objective research process or adhere to what people believe science to be, it's ridiculous to use preconceptions of religion or science (that make up an incredibly narrow slice of what it actually IS) to draw broad conclusions about either subject.

  6. #96
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    CROW
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,032

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsequitur View Post
    Uh, this is not limited to the US. Science as an industry needs an overhaul and no one is doing anything about it. I think you are missing the central point. There's no point in arguing over differences in the "philosophy" of science and the "philosophy" of religion when the reality of it doesn't reflect this philosophy. That was my point through and through. You can keep arguing over what you think science is and what science should be, but on an administrative and organisational level, science and scientific funding is as chaotic and unregulated as any industry - or even religious organisations.

    As someone who went into science for altruistic and idealistic reasons and sacrificed 14 years of my youth working towards becoming a scientist, I have more reasons than most to want to stay in science and defend science. But staying based on beliefs about philosophical ideals is ridiculous when reality constantly reminds me that they don't exist. Further, I find it amusing that most people who argue for the merits of science on philosophical grounds aren't even working in scientific research. If they were, they probably wouldn't be able to argue like they do with such moral fortitude.

    As I said from the start, there ARE people who do adhere to scientific principles and work for progress and knowledge. It's just that these people generally don't make it to the top (too much time in the lab and not enough time playing golf with funding agency managers?) and are at the whim of those who don't care about anything but their own careers. I respect those who are trying to make a go of it, but personally, I don't see any reason to stay and do the same.

    Also... I was in a position to whistleblow on misconduct but like many peons in the scientific industry in the same situation, the person I was up against is the favourite of the organisation and doing so would have too many personal repercussions. So I chose not to, and to just leave because it's healthier for me mentally to do so. Just because it seems like there are fewer scandals in scientific research doesn't mean that it is more credible than any other industry.
    So it's just like any other industry?
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  7. #97
    / nonsequitur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    512 sp/so
    Posts
    1,821

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    So it's just like any other industry?
    Yup. That's the point that I'm making. It's more regulated than most aspects of business, but if you're talking about finding some moral reason that makes science better or worse than any other industry, there really isn't one. People in general stick to ideals only if it suits their purpose.

  8. #98
    Theta Male Julius_Van_Der_Beak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    CROW
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/so
    Socionics
    LII None
    Posts
    9,032

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nonsequitur View Post
    Yup. That's the point that I'm making. It's more regulated than most aspects of business, but if you're talking about finding some moral reason that makes science better or worse than any other industry, there really isn't one. People in general stick to ideals only if it suits their purpose.
    Naw, it's interesting because I'm thinking about going into it, so I appreciate that you gave me a more realistic perspective of what it might be like. It doesn't discourage me, but I like getting some down-to-earth knowledge.

    Basically, what I've found is that people are people, and people being people, you're sometimes going to have to deal with bullshit. You can't really escape that, and there's no group that really lacks that. This works for the positive aspects of people as well. What you're saying sounds like further evidence of that.

    I wouldn't really call science a religion anymore than I would call history or the design industry a religion. It's not a valid comparison. It might be more useful to compare antitheism to religion. That's more equivalent because we're talking about belief systems without obvious applicability to the external world.
    [Trump's] rhetoric is not an abuse of power. In the same way that it's also not against the law to do a backflip off of the roof of your house onto your concrete driveway. It's just mind-numbingly stupid and, to say the least, counterproductive. - Bush did 9-11


    This is not going to go the way you think....

    Visit my Johari:
    http://kevan.org/johari?name=Birddude78

  9. #99
    / nonsequitur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    512 sp/so
    Posts
    1,821

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    Naw, it's interesting because I'm thinking about going into it, so I appreciate that you gave me a more realistic perspective of what it might be like. It doesn't discourage me, but I like getting some down-to-earth knowledge.

    Basically, what I've found is that people are people, and people being people, you're sometimes going to have to deal with bullshit. You can't really escape that, and there's no group that really lacks that. This works for the positive aspects of people as well. What you're saying sounds like further evidence of that.
    Yeah. I went into science already knowing this, but my priorities changed along the way because I realised that being constantly reminded of how people are unethical about science, which I've had a passion for since forever, was making me miserable. Seeing politically connected people moving up when they are publishing rubbish and seeing people who are really good scientists out of money is incredibly depressing for someone who genuinely cares about science in general. Plus there's the no-life years (just under a decade) of struggle as a lowly-paid postdoc after below-poverty-line 4-5 years of grad school hoping to be part of the 5% of science PhDs that make tenure... There are some who are willing to make those sacrifices and take that chance. I'd suggest doing something else unless you can't imagine being ANYTHING BUT an academic scientist. If you're hoping to be able to have some semblance of a family life and want to have financial stability in your 30s, I don't recommend it.

    Quote Originally Posted by msg_v2 View Post
    I wouldn't really call science a religion anymore than I would call history or the design industry a religion. It's not a valid comparison. It might be more useful to compare antitheism to religion. That's more equivalent because we're talking about belief systems without obvious applicability to the external world.
    Same here, to me, it's like comparing apples and socks. Of course, "obvious applicability" is also a subjective term though - church records dating back to the 1800s are awesome for epidemiology studies and working out epigenetic changes in disease!

  10. #100
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524
    Quote Originally Posted by nonsequitur View Post
    there is no point in talking about the relative merits of a democratic republic and an autocratic government. It all depends on the specific people in charge!
    We have discovered that power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and that even a benign autocrat doesn't remain benign for long.

    And we know that it does not depend on the people in charge, it depends on the type of institution.

    For instance, liberal democracy optimises freedom, equality and prosperity, while autocracy, theocracy, authoritarian or totalitarian States, have no interest in freedom and equality, and impoverish their people.

    Your ideas are so wrongheaded, I wonder where they are coming from.

Similar Threads

  1. Why Science is so Hard to Believe
    By Hard in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 156
    Last Post: 03-17-2015, 03:38 PM
  2. [Other] What is your favorite quote...
    By jck221 in forum The NF Idyllic (ENFP, INFP, ENFJ, INFJ)
    Replies: 72
    Last Post: 07-09-2014, 05:43 PM
  3. Is religion a science?
    By Magic Poriferan in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-02-2013, 11:27 PM
  4. Science is nothing more than magic that actually works.
    By onemoretime in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 08-06-2012, 09:20 AM
  5. Is your Religion your Race?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 86
    Last Post: 12-24-2009, 04:43 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO