"Science is a religion"

[Mole]

I apologize, I'm not expressing myself clearly.

I did not mean to say scientific facts are a leap of faith. I should have said scientific "fact". If you make bullshit look sciencey and academic, many people can't tell the difference. We take it on faith that the findings in question, were discovered using the scientific method. But we never really check. All the scientists have to say is: "Yup, we scienced it. Trust us." And many people will just assume they did their due diligence.

Look at all the damage Jenny McCarthy did with all her BS about autism and vaccinations. The assurance that there was some science there somewhere, and that some doctors agreed, was enough to fool countless people.

Sure, we are surrounded by pseudo science from Mary Baker Eddy's Christian Science of the 19th century to pseudo science about autism and vaccinations in the 20th century.

And closer to home we have the pseudo science of Mrs Briggs and Mrs Myers and mbti.

And, dear Forever_Jung, Jung himself wrote that his book, "Psychological Types", is based on no empirical evidence, and so is at best pseudo science, and at worst, religious ramblings with no basis in reality.

I find the magazine, "Skeptical Enquirer", to be good at exposing pseudo science.

 

[Forever_Jung]

Sure, we are surrounded by pseudo science from Mary Baker Eddy's Christian Science of the 19th century to pseudo science about autism and vaccinations in the 20th century.

And closer to home we have the pseudo science of Mrs Briggs and Mrs Myers and mbti.

And, dear Forever_Jung, Jung himself wrote that his book, "Psychological Types", is based on no empirical evidence, and so is at best pseudo science, and at worst, religious ramblings with no basis in reality.

Yes, but Jung wasn't asking for the same kind of territory as scientific fact. Jung basically boiled psychological types down to being a practical guide for personal development, understanding different sorts of people and as a therapeutic tool. He wasn't super dogmatic about it, or make a bunch of biological claims. I don't think he'd care much for the way we approach his typology.

The difference between false claims about autism and the pseudo-psychology of personality type is that the latter has practical value. As long as you're not taking Myers-Briggs too seriously and just using it as a rough guide it can help you. If it works, it works. If you believe patently false things about autism, the knowledge still won't be helpful. It will fail you every time.

 

[iwakar]

Nope, but there are plenty of people who treat it as such, both skeptics and supporters of said "science."

 

[Coriolis]

Nope, but there are plenty of people who treat it as such, both skeptics and supporters of said "science."

It is much easier to idolize science or to vilify it, than to try to understand it. Ignorance in either direction is dangerous, and the antithesis of scientific thought.

 

[roman67]

Nope, but there are plenty of people who treat it as such, both skeptics and supporters of said "science."

In these world lots of people supports science.

 

[iwakar]

It is much easier to idolize science or to vilify it, than to try to understand it. Ignorance in either direction is dangerous, and the antithesis of scientific thought.

Yes. Deification and assigned infallibility is equally problematic.