No, what I’m displaying here is the arrogance of science. To make broad, sweeping claims with supposed facts that often times they do not fully understand. Case in point would be The Bell Curve, which is not debunked even though you seem to believe it is for whatever reason. The data used by the scientists for this book was history of IQ scores. Scores were analyzed, put their impeccable statistical analysis and churned out with their conclusions then analyzed by some extremely qualified professionals. The conclusions were as I pointed out. Minorities, impoverished, single mothers, women in general are all intellectually inferior. This book was then put forth by the scientific community with absolute certainty and social policies enacted. Few people bothered to question exactly what an IQ test actually tests.
Same thing can be said for global warming. Millions, if not billions, of dollars are being lobbied across the world over this issue. The conclusions are “blurry” to use your word and the data is inconclusive and little understood. Yet people are in fact proposing economic warfare on countries that do not comply with the highly debated conclusions. Agendas are being pushed by scientists wanting grant money and their name in magazines alongside politicians wanting a vote. Insurance rates in coastal cities skyrocketed because scientists made the blanket claim that global warming would generate massive, unseen before hurricanes. No hurricanes, but science is still marching on with their claims.
Chaotic is correct by saying that ideas and evidence change. The flaw in the logic is indeed to keep believing in science because some day science will get it right. Similar to staying in a bad relationship cause one day that person will be a rock star.
There’s a lot of faith involved in people’s belief of science. People believe the authority of science, because science seems to know what is going on with the world. Science has a great gig going for it in regard to having people believe it. Were aliens to land on the front lawn of the White House tomorrow, science would begin claiming to understand aliens. Suddenly aliens are a scientific matter, no longer paranormal. Acetaminophen, Tylenol, was being used by herbalists long before modern medicine “discovered” its existence. Yet this is considered a medication, not an herbal remedy even though it remains largely untouched. Science once again stepping forward to claim something while talking down what was before. Those that believe in herbal remedies or have faith based practices dealing with them are still wrong, even though modern medicine uses their concoctions.
Another example might be the practice of nurses to offer holistic care. Nurses are encouraged to pray with their patients or to at least allow them to pray, working the religious observations into their care. Nurses are encouraged to support a patient’s beliefs in regards to death and illness, to not argue with them. Nursing is now considered an evidenced-based practice, meaning evidence must be supplied before practice can be implemented. Evidence is supplied that people with religious views, hope and a belief in the spiritual have better outcomes and experience less anxiety. Course, this is another illustration of the human mind and not of religion.
Also, let us be fair at least in regard to institutions and ideology. Invariably every argument involving religions, especially Christianity, brings up the Crusades or the Inquisition. The institutions of religion are constantly dragged out as a criticism for the ideology. Please do not attempt to avoid the same fate by stating that I am confusing institution with practitioner. The “disease of homosexuality” was put in the DSM which is a massive, well funded and well respected publication of modern medicine. This was not some little publication that can be brushed off and disowned.
I would like to believe that you are not naďve enough to believe that science is an open-community. Perhaps at its inception it was, similar to how Christianity was open in the beginning with its wandering disciples and wise men. The scientific community is no more open to public skepticism by a lay person than the institution of the Catholic Church is to a non-believer. I’m sure there are stories of backyard scientists making discoveries with their little microscopes. Certainly there are papers written by the rare sparks of invention or inspiration. Similar to the rare prophet that sparks up or the odd document of religious inspiration discovered from an unlikely source.
Do I believe in science? Certainly, to an extent I have to believe in science. When one of my patients tells me that there is a demon outside her window telling her to kill her roommate, I don’t go sprinkle holy water outside. When one tells me that we are all devils and she is a servant of God, I start asking for ativan. When someone says that Jesus is in their room, I don’t kneel down to worship wherever he believes the image to be. If someone asks me how to get rid of their allergies, I’m more likely to recommend Benadryl or something similar. I am a product and subscriber to the religion of science, but I also keep a healthy dose of skepticism for that religion as well as my own regarding Christianity.
When faith, in either science or the paranormal, blinds you to the possibility of other things than indeed the argument is pointless.