Scientific racism, militarism, and the new atheists

[corpus callosum]

^^I think you overstate the case a little Citta, but I do understand your concerns.

I hope the OP forgives the slight derailing of this thread.

Orthodox Islam has parallels with other faiths which require of its adherents a blind and unquestioning acceptance of its doctrines and the delegation of any interpretations to those who are knowledgeable of its basis, with any independent reasoning being discouraged or downright heretical. The orthodoxy of Islam (Sunni) requires equal unquestioning acceptance of the Quran and the oral traditions, the Hadith, and I, speaking as a Muslim, do have some issues with this.And, I suppose, some may label me a heretic for my views (and Citta thinks Im ignorant, reality-denying and possibly insane! ) as I cannot regard 'blind' acceptance as in anyway virtuous.

They say that fear is the mind-killer with regards to the psychedelic experience but I think this can be extended to theological issues- fear of being labelled a heretic, apostate etc with the death of one of the greatest blessings we humans have, that being the capacity for independent thought.

I am of the opinion that oral traditions are questionable as we all know what Chinese whispers can do to the transmission of material not only from one person to the next, but from one generation to the subsequent ones. The compilation of Hadiths did not commence until a couple of centuries after the events they relate to and the 2 most authoritative collections (Bukhari and Muslim) were compiled by persons whose first language was not even Arabic but was Persian.This is enough to raise questions in my (heretical) mind.


Certainly its true that the Quran has verses which can be deemed violent or intolerant on first inspection but this is often not the case when the timing and events of their revelation is considered.The problems arise when the Scholars are deemed as being the only persons qualified to interpret them, or to state which verse supercedes or abrogates another. And depending on what ones motives/angle may be, the interpretations can be quite disparate. I suppose this is one of the problems with theology which cannot be bridged unless individuals are not made to be fearful of using their own intelligence and critical faculties.More heresy!!

The issue of apostasy has no clearcut pronouncement in the Quran, but a number of verses do allude to it, and various scholars have interpreted them in various ways.The Hadith, however, is clear and a tradition which is regarded as authentic does state death is the punishment for this.But, IMO, for the reasons outlined above I have grave reservations about this.

Does an Almighty Creator need me to take the life of someone who chooses to believe something different to me?

Is an Almighty Creator not fully capable of requiting someone for this in an Afterlife?


Would I get a pat on the back for blind adherence to an oral tradition of the utterings of virtuous BUT not prophetic individuals? (ie X said that Y said that the Prophet said.....).


Im exhorted to use my commonsense and faculties repeatedly in the Quran, so why must I suspend these when it comes to the Hadith?

For me, religion is a personal matter and I do find aspects of an organized religion distasteful which puts blind acceptance of material which is invalid as one of its core principles, but I can still see the beauty and wisdom of the essential tenets of all faith without being partisan.I personally choose to take the position "To you be your way and to me, be mine".

Religion is ultimately a simple business but is made complicated by people and their motives but its not IMHO, as simple as total blind unquestioning acceptance of what others say.Fear, a refusal to engage ones brain and a misplaced belief that being part of a herd is indicative of virtue is not how I see it. But admittedly I think Im in a serious minority of the sum total of Muslims.

 

[Jin]

its pointless to pick on a religion like that , the christians had hitler , hindus had asoka and apparently musilims came up with osama

whatever the case maybe , that does'nt speak up for the rest of the ordinary folk who are just merely human , born into a particluar faith at birth , hardly anyone gets a chhoice in these matters

humans have since the ages bent spiritual teachings , science or whatever they can use to wage war and conflict ,

no religion can or should be blamed for this , nor should science be pulled into the matter ,

hitler also used religion against the jews , the whites used skin colour argument against africans , men used to undermine women and in many cultures still do today , homosexuality is a taboo and punishable in some parts of the world , entheogen users are being persecuted all over the world ,

can you see the pattern , its not in religion or science

it has much to do with human nature and politics and cruelty inherent to some

also i repeat muslim chicks are hot , :twisted:

 

[Citta]

@corpus callosum

I am not sure what your point is, exactly. But first of all I do not think that you are ignorant, reality-denying or possibly insane because you can't regard blind acceptance as virtuous. I believe I have stated, and this has been one of my points (and Harris') all along, that lack of this critical thinking you show is one of the main problems in these issues. What I have said, though, is that Islam is a problem in our society today as it so consistently produces and justifies violence and bad behaviour, especially in the Muslim parts of the world. I have already argued for this at length, and if you wish more arguments for this I urge you to read Harris' very convincing examples and calm reasoning. So I do stand by the statement that if someone do not consider Islam, or any dogmatic belief systems that encourage violence and bad behaviour for that matter, to be a problem they are either ignorant, reality-denying or possibly insane. By following the logic that Islam (note that I say Islam, and not Muslims, which points to the fact that it is the system of beliefs that are the primary problem, not the adherents) does not pose a concern, you would have to not consider the ideology of nazism held by enthusiastic individuals to be of concern as well.

I agree with basically the whole of your post, so you are not really arguing against anything I have said (apart from saying I overstate things, but perhaps you didn't intend to argue against me in the first place). But you are a Muslim living in a civil, very modern society, so the culture and surroundings in which you hold your beliefs are very different from the culture and surroundings in which individuals in the Muslim part of the world hold their beliefs. Most people around you are not Muslim, and many of the strict tenets of Islam would not be accepted in the larger group you are a part of. This undoubtedly has an effect on your attitude towards your faith. So just because you, as a stable Muslim in the west are critical and don't support a lot of what is being done in the name of your faith, this do not by default make Islam unproblematic globally. For you, your faith may be a lot more than blind acceptance, but for these other mentioned people it is not necessarily so. They find, in their holy book and in the hadith, as well as in Muslim jurists and mobs and scholars the justification to kill, to practice violence against "law-breakers" and imposing completely, I would say, imaginary laws on both themselves and others that tell them how to live, and how not to live. What would happen if they did not have Islam at all? I find it hard to rationally believe that they would do the same crimes to humanity anyway, as many parts of Islam, taken strictly, directly encourage these preposterous acts.

Now, as I have indicated, Islam is really part of a more general, bigger problem; irrational, dogmatic beliefs with no proper, evidence-based and rational justification. This in and on itself is a problem, but it becomes a really huge problem when these belief systems contain encouragement to practice violence and impose laws on people that leads to suffering. Islam does this in a very great extent, a greater extent than all big religions today, as can be seen in its teachings, and as we see clear evidence of in the Muslim parts of the world. This can't be ignored simply because we have some irrational, almost perverse notion that religion is solely personal (which it is not in the real world) and should not be criticised the same way political convictions are. We do not hesitate to criticise nazism, stalinism, leninism or any number of political ideologies that have negative effects in the world, now do we? Why should a religion, another type of dogmatic ideology, be so different when it poses concerns and produces violent behaviour in its most enthusiastic adherents? How is this not a problem, when judging with the consistency of this violence in mind? Islam is pretty unique in these respects in our world today, as I have illustrated already in other posts, and which is even better illustrated in Harris's work.

@ jin

I don't think you seem to have read, or understood if you have, what I have been writing. It is not pointless to pick on a particular religion, or a particular set of beliefs and convictions, if this system reliably produces bad and violent behaviour all over the world. The problem is that humans have a potential to do bad things, and this potential is undeniably amplified by dogmatic and irrational belief systems or ideologies that encourage destructive and dangerous acts. We have to live with this fact, and so we have to live with the realization that certain such systems poses special threat. Today, such a threat is due to Islam. Furthermore, I have already explained that two myths about Muslim violence is not accurate; that the violence is due to Western occupation/politics, and that the violence is due to economic and environmental conditions. the perpetrators of these insane crimes explain their behaviour explicitly in the teachings Islam. Why would they lie?

 

[Ambivalent]

Now, as I have indicated, Islam is really part of a more general, bigger problem; irrational, dogmatic beliefs with no proper, evidence-based and rational justification. This in and on itself is a problem, but it becomes a really huge problem when these belief systems contain encouragement to practice violence and impose laws on people that leads to suffering. Islam does this in a very great extent, a greater extent than all big religions today, as can be seen in its teachings, and as we see clear evidence of in the Muslim parts of the world. This can't be ignored simply because we have some irrational, almost perverse notion that religion is solely personal (which it is not in the real world) and should not be criticised the same way political convictions are. We do not hesitate to criticise nazism, stalinism, leninism or any number of political ideologies that have negative effects in the world, now do we? Why should a religion, another type of dogmatic ideology, be so different when it poses concerns and produces violent behaviour in its most enthusiastic adherents? How is this not a problem, when judging with the consistency of this violence in mind? Islam is pretty unique in these respects in our world today, as I have illustrated already in other posts, and which is even better illustrated in Harris's work.

i cant understand how can you concentrate solely and criticize Islam as being dogmatic and irrational, when the blind faith in Christianity has killed much much more people imo, in every cruel way you can imagine.

i think there are extremists in every religion through the timeline, who justified their deeds through their beliefs.

 

[Citta]

@Ambivalent:

You are perfectly right about the problems of Christianity! But you too, seem to have missed the point and not payed attention to what I have written. This happens again and again in this debate. Today, even though Christianity is every bit as irrational and (at least almost) every bit as dogmatic as Islam, do not pose near the same threat to global civil discourse the way Islam does. Christianity creates other silly problems, such as those in stem cell research, homosexuality and AIDS-policies in Africa, to mention a few, around the world. This warrants, together with the brutal history of Christianity, debate and critique. Sam Harris does this to a great extent with regards to Christianity and these issues, especially in the US. However, as mentioned and explained, Islam poses some serious problems and threats today that is not seen coming from other, big religions. This is why one can single out Islam with respect to these issues and discuss from there.

I have also said in your quote that Islam, and Christianity for that matter, are manifestations of a more general problem: uncritical thinking, scientific illiteracy, irrational beliefs and dogmas etc, and as said this general phenomenon is a problem, but it becomes dangerous when we have a system that encourages, sanctifies and can be seen to reliably produce violence and suffering. Islam is one of those systems, contrasted with for example Jainism or Mormonism, in our world today.

Please try to read and understand before claiming I, or Harris, do something that we actually don't, that we do something with a completely different and false premise than that which we actually have or quote out of context so important points are left out. Else this debate derails into nonsense and fails to address real and very important problems happening outside the confines of your (likely) relatively comfortable and safe life.

 

[jamie]

"If anyone thinks Islam is not a serious problem in our global society and global civil discourse I must say they are either ignorant, reality-denying or at worst insane. Islam is a real problem, period"

You can say all of those things about america..and many other developed countries, their beliefs and actions..so why single out Islam? That is ignorant.

Actally I sort of think Sam Harris is pretty biased when I think about it.

 

[jamie]

Also, all kinds of horrible shit have been done by people wearing the mask of science, which is exactly what this thread was about in the first place..why is people doing things with a mask of religion on any different?

People do horrible things and then find some text they can mintranslate or take some sort of science and twist it around to justify the actions they take. It happens over and over again.

America has done all kinds of horribe things claiming it was for god. They have raped and pillaged other nations and still do. I dont really understand why some people sit in america and complain about other people while not pointing a finger at their own government, military complex and industrial practices.

 

[Psychelectric]

Science is the best way for our species to understand the natural world, period. Is it flawless, no but science has the humility others dont. Its not too many topics and theory's that science community will claim as un deniable.

I disagree, I think there are much better ways of understanding the world than with quantification and objective data. I also don't agree that science has the humility that others don't, I can't tell you how many times I'm confronted with scientific hubris.

Lets cut to the heart of this, shall we. You, fairbanks, are a zealot, you love to argue and you are rather set in your views which makes any discussion with you nearly impossible because you rarely if ever concede to valid points. As someone who proposes philosophical ideologies you can argue and argue until your heart is content, you can spin words to make a point and do the same game that every single propagandist has for years. I know this game. In fact I'm convinced that you don't actually give a shit about the truth of this, you don't continue a discussion to gain any understanding, you're trying to "win" an argument. And this childishly egocentric way of being I find quite ironic.

You're trying to push your dogma by spouting a lot of anti-scientific rhetoric, you have the same mentality that racists do except your bigotry is not targeted at skin color, but at the advancement of technology. You're like a Luddite who uses a computer, the irony makes me laugh.

I've seen you argue about how technology is "weakening" man or some bullshit along those lines (I will post a link when I get to my computer, unless someone else wants to link it. I'm sending this post on my phone)

If you want to preach that racism is wrong, then I believe with this crowd you will be preaching to the choir, likewise I dont think thats what you want to do. You decide to tie science down with the word "racism" to incite an argument. The sad thing is that you yourself are using false logic and poor arguments to support your claims, you point to the history of eugenics and things like that when you fail to realize that the science of the Third Reich is not valid at all given what we know about DNA. In fact race itself by genetics isn't really a valid way to look at the human species. Racial bias is predominately a cultural thing, it's a cultural bias that has in the past sadly been warped by politics using "science" as a term to obfuscate racist propaganda (which I don't need to discuss as this has been mentioned numerous times).

Your beef is with science. Which I find sad because you don't seem to understand how science is utilized, your word choices indicate that you don't "trust" science. You say you think there are better ways of understanding the world over quantification a and objective data, well I think you miss the point of what this tells us about reality. The world and the universe operates on a series of laws, science attempts to understand these laws to help build a better world by adapting our technology to our greater understanding. That's it. You are trying to make it out to be more than it is by adding spin to a very simple concept of what science is.

You seem to view science as a game set up by cold calculating robots, which in my view seems to conflate the mindset of efficiency bureaucrats and the curious minded scientist

The problem you have is with the robotic minded people with narrow minded views of how to apply science, that is really your beef, which means your beef is with the politics not science. So in future arguments please start addressing your problems with politics and stop conflating and interlacing them with science. You need to unravel this misunderstanding that you've built up in your head.

"Scientific hubris" is that any different than your "Luddite guilt pride", lol. Come on, you're quite aggressive in your dogma and your views, it comes across as very hypocritical to me. Which I find rather childish and have no respect for.

Also when someone is right about something they can come across as prideful or arrogant, such as when a creationist "debates" (i use the term quite loosely) an evolutionary biologist, the biologist might come across as prideful or arrogant claiming to know more about the subject than a creationist arguing that the world is only a few thousand years old or discussing species diversity. They come across as prideful for knowing more about the subject, because, (this may come as a shock) . . . they do. Scoentists typically know more about the subject they study than a layperson the biproduct is that sometimes the come across as know-it-alls for merely trying to educate those who don't want to be educated.

Honestly I try to view the world through art using science as the scaffolding to layer and build upon. Such things are not mutually exclusive, as I think you are trying to make them. Though I'm not so sure I can only infer your intentions from your rhetorical choices. It's the merging of the logical mind and the creative mind that leads to the better things in our world to ignore one side is to lose the greater picture. True bliss is found treading the wavy line between Yin and Yang.

That's just my views, Im just calling it as I see it. I hope I haven't offended you, that's not my intention. I just think you need to step back and reevaluate the message you are trying to convey.

 

[jamie]

^well he actaully stated more than once that he was talking about psuedo-science. People who use pseudo-science to justify racist acts(like eugeneics)..It is even what the wikipedia definition says.


To be honest I dont trust science either the way it is practiced..becasue I dont trust a large portion of the people who either practice it, or oversee what sort of science is allowed to take place. It is no wonder people dont trust that system the way it currently works.

Are you going to come up with an arguement to support some idea that we should all blindly trust "science" in todays world? Why? We all know corperate interests seem to win against scientific fact and any real scientific progress in many instances.

 

[Psychelectric]

To be honest I dont trust science either the way it is practiced..becasue I dont trust a large portion of the people who either practice it, or oversee what sort of science is allowed to take place. It is no wonder people dont trust that system the way it currently works.

Are you going to come up with an arguement to support some idea that we should all blindly trust "science" in todays world? Why? We all know corperate interests seem to win against scientific fact and any real scientific progress in many instances.

It seems you too need to unravel the concept of science from its misuse.

If you want to talk about corporate interests and how they misuse science then do that. But don't confuse yourself any further by stating that you don't trust science. Why? Because you don't trust corporations. That's not logical. Just say you don't trust corporations.

Can't you separate the 2 in your mind?

People need to stop conflating science with other things.

And also, are you goofy, no scientist or rational person ever "blindly" trusts the conclusions of a scientific hypothesis. The foundation of scientific practice is that it has to be repeatable and verifiable to be a valid conclusion. So WTF are you taking about?

Also sorry if this comes across as rude, but your position doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe I misunderstood your point. If I did could you try to

 

[jamie]

yeah you must have misunderstood my point. Please re-read my post and dont assume I said things that I never said.

I made it pretty damn clear that I dont trust science THE WAY IT IS PRACTICED. From the people who fund much of it to the people who decide what even makes it to the public and how it is presented. As much as you would like to sit around and idealize about this being a perfect process it is not. Sorry. It is steeped in dogma. Am I sopposed to trust something that goes on that I am not made aware of? What makes it to the public is what is allowed to make it to the public. The public are informed often on scientific facts only when it benifits certain people that fund that science. There are multiple examples of this.

I think you know what I meant anyway and want something to argue about. I never attacked science directly..only the entire process that brings it to the public and how it is abused.

Real scientists sit in the middle of dogma from both sides..from who funds their work to what is allowed to come out aftewords. So no, I dont trust that process to much. I have no reason to. When our society is enlightened enough to stop letting dogma and greed get in the way of real scientific progress being made available in full to utilize to better all of our situations and bring greater understand to all, then I will say that I trust it.

You can argue semantics all day long if you want..

 

[Psychelectric]

yeah you must have misunderstood my point. Please re-read my post and dont assume I said things that I never said.

I made it pretty damn clear that I dont trust science THE WAY IT IS PRACTICED. From the people who fund much of it to the people who decide what even makes it to the public and how it is presented. As much as you would like to sit around and idealize about this being a perfect process it is not. Sorry. It is steeped in dogma. Am I sopposed to trust something that goes on that I am not made aware of? What makes it to the public is what is allowed to make it to the public. The public are informed often on scientific facts only when it benifits certain people that fund that science.

I think you know what I meant anyway and want something to argue about. I never attacked science directly..only the entire process that brings it to the public and how it is abused.

Whoa buddy, sorry about that. I understood what you meant when you stated "the way it's practiced". I know how science gets misused by corporations and politics, I addressed that in my other post.

I reacted strongly to the phrase about trusting science. You used the phrase "blindly trust "science" and that miffed me a bit, so I reacted strongly. As I've stated, scientific hypothesises are never blindly trusted, thats how science works. Being verifiable conclusions and all that.

So no I wasn't trying to argue with you just to argue. Your point seemed conflicted to me. So I addressed it, a bit strongly and if that offended you, I'm sorry for that. It was a simple miscommunication brought in by the use of somewhat aggressive language.

It happens, especially on online forums.

But you clarified it, and for that thanks. Like I said I didn't mean to offend, just clarify. I could have chosen my words better, but alas I didn't.

 

[Jin]

@ jin

I don't think you seem to have read, or understood if you have, what I have been writing. It is not pointless to pick on a particular religion, or a particular set of beliefs and convictions, if this system reliably produces bad and violent behaviour all over the world.

i do understand your concern here , however education is slowly taking care of that , more and more people are denying religion , my point is there is no use raising this here at a psychadelic forum , as psychadelics are their own religion which have nothing to do with any other

The problem is that humans have a potential to do bad things, and this potential is undeniably amplified by dogmatic and irrational belief systems or ideologies that encourage destructive and dangerous acts. We have to live with this fact, and so we have to live with the realization that certain such systems poses special threat. Today, such a threat is due to Islam.

again as you agree its ultimately human potential to do bad things , lets put the blame there too , also i havent read the Quaran and am neither a muslim so can't comment what is written there , yet i suppose a thing writen by humans can always have a few inconsistencies , does'nt really still nullify the valuable teachings that might be found there , and afterall violent and ignorant people will be violent and ignorant even without any book to guide them

Furthermore, I have already explained that two myths about Muslim violence is not accurate; that the violence is due to Western occupation/politics, and that the violence is due to economic and environmental conditions. the perpetrators of these insane crimes explain their behaviour explicitly in the teachings Islam. Why would they lie?

this is a very good point , it explains away easily how ignorant and violent some people are , obviously these people have been brainwashed with all the negative teachings they can find in the book to justify there actions , possibly they believe in what they are doing and have no life ,

yet what is the point of bringing this up in a psychadelic community , where all religions are null and void as hyperspace is its own religion , where it does'nt matter what cast,creed,colour,sex , religion you are , dmt without any bias will easily show one what its capable off

as a psychadelic community we should not be really biased towards anything , and the topic of religion should not create any fuss in our community ,

possibly other objective normal people should do all the bias's , fight wars and create violence , let us leave the responsiblity of creating biases or supporting them on the shoulders of normal people , let them fight the wars

psychadelics are their own religion , i repeat we here are nexians , there is no use discussing this silly problem of the material world here when hyperspace is the only true temple of the soul

be it a hindu , christian , muslim , budhist or any other if one has'nt been to hyperspace or experienced any psychadelic then they really have no right to call themselves nexians

hyperspace is one true temple , church and mosque , knowing this we should discard problems of ordinary reality like dust and not create tension in our community , again i repeat this is a human problem related to human society , we should overlook this and let normal monkeys find a way to solve this or whatever , let us continue smoalking moar DMT before eventually the nuclear strikes destroy all the world

edit : Citta i am not arguing with anything you're saying , i understand your concern is genuine , however i only see this as a potential tension creating element which might not be the best considering we are a peaceful community , expecially different from any other religion out there

 

[jamie]

yeah you must have misunderstood my point. Please re-read my post and dont assume I said things that I never said.

I made it pretty damn clear that I dont trust science THE WAY IT IS PRACTICED. From the people who fund much of it to the people who decide what even makes it to the public and how it is presented. As much as you would like to sit around and idealize about this being a perfect process it is not. Sorry. It is steeped in dogma. Am I sopposed to trust something that goes on that I am not made aware of? What makes it to the public is what is allowed to make it to the public. The public are informed often on scientific facts only when it benifits certain people that fund that science.

I think you know what I meant anyway and want something to argue about. I never attacked science directly..only the entire process that brings it to the public and how it is abused.

Whoa buddy, sorry about that. I understood what you meant when you stated "the way it's practiced". I know how science gets misused by corporations and politics, I addressed that in my other post.

I reacted strongly to the phrase about trusting science. You used the phrase "blindly trust "science" and that miffed me a bit, so I reacted strongly. As I've stated, scientific hypothesises are never blindly trusted, thats how science works. Being verifiable conclusions and all that.

So no I wasn't trying to argue with you just to argue. Your point seemed conflicted to me. So I addressed it, a bit strongly and if that offended you, I'm sorry for that. It was a simple miscommunication brought in by the use of somewhat aggressive language.

It happens, especially on online forums.

But you clarified it, and for that thanks.

Yeah sorry..I just feel like people get too caught up in the semantics of this whole thing and then the real issue gets overshadowed..which is that science at the core is legit and definatly have proved useful for certain things..but the process itself that brings it to the public and makes use of scientific progress is corrupt in many areas. So even if the actaul scientific method is sound that does not do most people any good because they have no part in any of that..all they see is what they are told and what is implemented in our society. A discussion about what science really is is sort of mute becasue I think that pretty much most people already understand that and what they are adressing is the dogmas that the whole thing is encased within.

 

[Psychelectric]

Real scientists sit in the middle of dogma from both sides..from who funds their work to what is allowed to come out aftewords. So no, I dont trust that process to much. I have no reason to. When our society is enlightened enough to stop letting dogma and greed get in the way of real scientific progress being made available in full to utilize to better all of our situations and bring greater understand to all, then I will say that I trust it.

You can argue semantics all day long if you want..

Jamie, I agree with that position 100%. And no I don't care to argue semantics, it's a waste.

 

[Gowpen]

Guys.............. Culture is NOT your friend !(or science). Global viewpoints (however scientific)perceived through 'cultural' bias, either by example or actual, is not adding anything to this thread by splitting hairs.
Science IS science, anything else is not.

It (this thread) reminds me of the Athiest, who 'believes' in the absence of GOD & The Religious who believe 'in' GOD, both 'fully' focused on GOD. Then the Gnostic who finds this to be a superflurouse conundrum. Nothing but arguments will result in thier conversations.

There was an idea called 'po', put forward by Edward de'Bono that I would like to make available here. I have seen and found this to be a very useful concept and mind tool to help me understand (sometimes) other peoples ideas.
I leave you with some photos to help everyone shake hands and grow even bigger.
Love and Peas G

 

[Mr.Peabody]

They're all great, but the last one's the best.

That's been my goal this whole thread is to try to help people quit arguing, and get on the real topic at hand.

jamie brought up a good point, about how science provides something useful, but then the useful thing gets lost on its way to the public. It gets corrupted by the same issues that have plagued humanity from the onset of civilization.

So how could it be changed?

Someone asked a question a while back, why is science a good title for someone to hide their false ideas behind?

I had thought about this a bit, and I believe the answer is that it is because science is trusted. It does have a good track record of proving results, and for centuries now people have witnessed noticeable changes in their lives due to science. It's tangible.

So, when someone has some screwball idea like, "I'm better than people who have a different skin color" all they need is a few wisps of scientific knowledge cobbled together to get people to buy it--at least for a time. But then, as we've discussed thoroughly, real science is done, and shows the falsity. Unfortunately, this sometimes comes too late.

So what's the answer? Well, like many (maybe most?) problems today it's education!

The more people know about the scientific process, and the less ignorance there is, the less people will be fooled by liars claiming science.

This is why I get a little serious when I debate about science. It's important. Almost any time I debate how science works it is a result of my counterpart in the argument being ignorant. Sometimes it's actually valid, but most often people just don't understand.

Unfortunately, fairbanks wasn't clear in what he was saying (if you're reading, don't be down about it man!) and originally it seemed he was attacking science itself, when he was really just trying to point out a serious issue. It was not science that justified racism. In reality science was the unassuming bystander who's good name got dragged into a mess created by vile people with ill intentions.

 

[imPsimon]

To sum up science:

A method for obtaining data and in the same time, the data obtained by the method.
That's it.

In relation to Mr.Peabody's post, one thing that can be done to prevent the
misuse of scientific data in all it's forms is to make the data available to the public.
Make laws so that science payed by taxpayers is available to to the same people that payed for it.
(This have been done in some places??)
The more minds (processing power) and the more data (reference points) you have the "easier" it
is to sort out the gunk.
Even better would be to opensource this data but I have no idea if that would work in
practice or if there would be any economical implications.

Is there any data on how much research is done by the private sector as
opposed to research payed by taxpayer?