• Solar Bear
    link
    fedilink
    English
    67 months ago

    If you think evidence-based reasoning is a form of religion, you need to check your house for gas leaks.

    • @Solumbran
      link
      -47 months ago

      Read again.

      I think that believing in science is a form of religion.

      • Solar Bear
        link
        fedilink
        English
        37 months ago

        Explain how you can rationally take science into account without believing it. I’m very interested in watching you try to untwist that pretzel.

        • @Solumbran
          link
          07 months ago

          Bayesian logic. Basically take information into account with a degree of credibility, but without considering that it is merely true or false. It’s simple really.

          • Solar Bear
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            Bayes’ theorem doesn’t mean “don’t believe anything”, you highschool dropout. It is a method of statistical analysis. Specifically, is a method of determining which unknown events are most likely connected to a known event based on the limited information we have. It’s not a general logical framework, and certainly doesn’t work the way you described it. In fact, it literally requires believing in some kind of first principle as a foundation from which you can then extrapolate the likelihood of the unknown. Expanded further since his death, the general idea of Bayesian inferencing requires repeatedly updating your assumptions based on new information. So it certainly doesn’t mean believe nothing; if anything, it means “believe the current thing until proven otherwise”.

            • @Solumbran
              link
              17 months ago

              Ah, personal attacks, the sign of honesty and strong argumentation. Are you okay?

              I never said to not believe in anything. Anything requires axioms including Bayesian epistemology, and that’s a nice strawman you tried to build. I said not to believe in science, as the point of science is to approach truths of reality without getting influenced by beliefs; believing in science as if it is just “truth provider” defeats the purpose as science itself tells to not believe it. Trying to paint that as “don’t believe anything” is absurd and dishonest.

              • Solar Bear
                link
                fedilink
                English
                17 months ago

                Ah, personal attacks, the sign of honesty and strong argumentation. Are you okay?

                I have zero patience for pseudo-intellectualism.

                I said not to believe in science, as the point of science is to approach truths of reality without getting influenced by beliefs; believing in science as if it is just “truth provider” defeats the purpose as science itself tells to not believe it.

                That is not the point of science. Science does not “tell us to not believe it.” What podcast did you hear that on?

                • @Solumbran
                  link
                  07 months ago

                  So you need patience to avoid being manipulative? Okay.

                  The point of science is to constantly attack what is considered to be true as a way to validate or invalidate it. That’s the point of the scientific protocol, to do your best to prove something wrong, and upon failure to consider that it might be true until proven wrong. You don’t go all “I think the earth is flat so I’ll do my best to find arguments as to why it is flat”.

                  • Solar Bear
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    27 months ago

                    You don’t go all “I think the earth is flat so I’ll do my best to find arguments as to why it is flat”.

                    That would definitionally not be believing in science, because that would be an entirely unscientific approach. Believing in science would lead you to do the opposite of this, actually.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          07 months ago

          All right, so this is their stupid fucking argument:

          Believing in someone’s research without studying it yourself is just religion.

          The reason why they’re fucking stupid is all the peer review that goes into it from professionals who specialize in the fields they peer review. While religion generally stands on the feet of “trust me bro”, trust in science has a bit more of a backbone. You, or someone you trust to be knowledgeable, can go back and fact check work.

          Aside from all of those arguments though, science is something you perform yourself. That in no way can be compared to a religion, as you can produce irrefutable results on your own with science. Not on all subjects, but I have yet to see religion produce irrefutable results using their methods on literally anything.

          • @Solumbran
            link
            -1
            edit-2
            7 months ago

            That’s not my argument.

            Instead of being uselessly insulting, feel free to read my other comments that explained my argument and you’ll see that this is not what I meant. Here for example: https://lemmy.world/comment/5589810

            • FiveM
              link
              fedilink
              English
              1
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              Your comment is inappropriately rude, and adds little more than hostility to the discussion.

              This is a moderator warning to revise it.

              • @Solumbran
                link
                17 months ago

                Being called “fucking stupid” isn’t rude, but calling out an useless participation because of that is rude?

                • FiveM
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  17 months ago

                  They’re both rude, and I don’t appreciate either. But

                  • You weren’t called “fucking stupid” – your argument was.
                  • TBF your argument appears pretty stupid
                  • @[email protected] made an attempt to parse your argument. That’s a positive contribution.

                  If you de-escalate and take time to explain your position better and they’re still rude to you, and someone reports their behavior, I’ll give them a similar warning.

                  • @Solumbran
                    link
                    17 months ago

                    Both were called fucking stupid, first the comment talked about “their argument”, then why “they’re stupid”.

                    Your opinion on my argument doesn’t seem like a very good reason, moderation wise.

                    And I already had explained my argument in details with another line of comments before this person left theirs. They made an attempt at attacking my argument without bothering to read what i wrote, for the sole purpose of being insulting. Thus my response saying that the comment was useless.