Welcome to Gaia! ::

So...you've invented a new term for know-it-alls? Real impressive. Did you know they come in conservative religious varieties too? /sarcasm

Science is not a religion, and having an know-it-all attitude in it doesn't make it one either.

@ jole-rhan

Relativity is a Theory that can never be proven. That is simply the Nature of the Theory - if you don't like it, consult a dictionary or a Science Professor. Both are however, the best thing we have to go on. I tried to take pains to distinguish my post from those which discard this genuine Scientific Learning.

I included Relativity as a basis for comparison for Evolution. While both theories are technically unprovable, the Scientific world accepts them based on statistically significant Evidence.

String Theory failed the only test we had for it - end of that discussion. We go back to the drawing board to bend it around to see if it can fit the facts.
Meanwhile, we have material to argue about ESP and Gravity's influence on fetuses in the womb (the basis for astrology). Kinda awkward, isn't it?

Its not about "being afraid of progress" like this guy supposes. What I'm complaining about is how this guy is proposing we put faith in untested, potentially dangerous technology when we have the means to actually test it! And we can test things from traditional medicines that previous scientific work has indicated may actually be more than superstition.

As you'll note in my post, I cited examples of where this behavior has previously unleashed horrors upon our world. Please try to follow my hyperlinks.

On the biolsci.org link - even if you only scroll down to the conclusion, please read it. Then, go to that website's front page to see that it is a reputable scientific journal. The results of that one study were so significant, that the journal has allowed anyone to view the study.


@Mothette:

What distinguishes this from just another way to say "arrogant douche" is the focus. The particular targets of this prospective slur like to think of themselves as the pinnacle of rationality, when their rationality is plainly failing them. Their idea of rationality excludes even the pretext of a religion. Thus, codifying a religion for what they already follow is the greatest slap in the face.

And please, don't argue with the Anthropology guy about what "is" and "is not" a religion, unless you want some TLDR-posts about behaviors of religions, and various competing academic definitions for the word "Religion". I don't feel like doing that again on this guild - not tonight anyway. Ask someone who's been here longer, if you don't believe I've done it.

Lemme just say that the definition which is most popular in the West these days boils down to this:
"the subset of culture relating to beliefs about the world". The arrogant douche in the video is acting on his beliefs about the world, starry-eyed agenda included, even gathering a sub-culture of followers among Atheists. If you look him up, you'll likely see that. I thusly recognize him as the High Priest of his own Sect of Scienceism, marked by discussions on others' "Denialism" when so much as a question is raised.

This isn't aimed at every Atheist, just the ones who want to blame questions or objections to mindless "Progress" on what they consider "superstition".

I view all ideas that say, "I'm right, you're wrong, regardless of empirical evidence," as a socially-transmitted mental disease. As much as Atheists might like this idea and consider themselves immune, the point was to demonstrate otherwise, in light of viewing this speaker.

This was really just meant as a means to give form to a rant that wouldn't come out otherwise. New "words" and all, were just a means to that end.

But now that I look at it, I've convinced myself. If someone wants to actually take it up and go somewhere with it, be my guest.

I understand the basic premise your coming from, but I couldn't get much further beyond that. Considering atheists specifically lack belief in deities and you're trying to get them to take it as an insult, I don't see where this is much more than a troll attempt. If Artto is correct and you're mis-construing what's presented in the video even more so.

And now I'm going to have to watch the video to see what actually has to be said.

I fail to see how you have countered my point yet. "[They] like to think of themselves as the pinnacle of rationality, when their rationality is plainly failing them" - that's the exact definition of a know-it-all, not proof of a religion.

Artto also made very clear points about your definition of a religion.

*note: post was split, but re-merged when I fix the errors.

University student here.
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm


Not every implication of Relativity can be tested. Therefore, by definition, it is not a Law. The same goes for the Archaeological record.

String Theory has literally NO evidence, and failed its first chance at attaining any. Therefore, it is not a Scientific Theory. Bother me about String Theory, Evolution or Relativity again, and I will know that you either cannot or will not read my posts.


I'm tempted to say you have a knack for taking supporting evidence as the point being made. However, as Echinacea falls into both categories, I'll say that this is a difference of interpretation.

In this link: http://goo.gl/ADb0B Specter discusses the long history of tricksters in so-called herbal medicine (and I'm not denying that they exist today), and acknowledges how nutrition helped cure scurvy and other ailments. However, there is no discussion on how aspirin was discovered: http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blaspirin.htm

Intentional or otherwise, I believe that this mis-classes medicine as if helpful drugs only came from a laboratory. Meanwhile, the under-studied Essiac Tea's four main ingredients have demonstrable anti-cancer agents, and people scoff it off "hucksters peddling magic broth". Essiac finds no funding for it's study.


No, we shouldn't have to test for everything. However, when Mercury is a key ingredient in the vaccine's preservatives, we might wanna test that it won't give people mercury poisoning. This was only done *after* people raised concerns about their perceived link between the vaccine and Autism. And now, we have scientists investigating the uncanny similarities between Autism and Mercury poisoning.

Meanwhile, this idiot published articles to basically tell those same people to "SHUT UP" about how certain vaccines weren't thoroughly researched; when they demanded research that hadn't been conducted, he belittled them - now that the results are in on his side, he parades it around like he was right the whole time. Yeah, that's really consistent with his stance encouraging skepticism.

If you'll do some friggin homework, you'll find that he's doing the same thing by encouraging Genetically Modified foodcrops. See the study linked from biolsci.org in my initial post - the results show unforseen risks. As the GM corn wasn't studied properly before, its out there in the environment, pollinating other corn to grow, undetected, in other farmers' fields. Before studies on the safety of this product had been conducted, he was touting unverifiable information about how we "need GMOs to survive the future".

And that's all you have to contribute? A "Yeah, what he said!" That's why I would choose to go back in time in the speaker's hypothetical scenario, not because of the garbage he miscast as the motives for his opposition.

Yes, and what does that say about the Republican Party, the other extreme? Among local matters, some Republicans have been quoting Bible verses to justify laws that make no sense outside of the modern Christian worldview. It appears that the Republican party has been overtaken by a religion.

Mussolini defined Fascism as "the union of religion, government and corporation". Add this religious influence to how the Republican Party is known for being "business friendly", and we may possibly arrive at what I consider the Republican Party to be - Christian Fascism.

Yes, that definition has been criticized for being somewhat vague. Would you prefer I spoke about religion as built on "a belief in animating spirits", and exclude half of Taoism, all of Confucianism, The Church of Satan, Dischordianism, and a host of other religions?

Or should we just look at the habits related to those beliefs, and ignore the difference between agnostics, some atheists, and armchair believers?

Or would you prefer ol' Durkheim's idea? Religion as a dichotomy of sacred vs profane, necessitating an organization of believers (a "Church"), which prescribes a concept of morality based upon those beliefs. Sacred is this Science, profane is the "Denialism", the particular church is the mass of folks who enjoy Specter's books, and the morality is encouraging Scientific progress.

Or, would you prefer the dictionary?
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

1 - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

The universe:

cause - big bang.
nature: we're finding that out with Science!
purpose: not discussed - same as the belief shared with other religions (Confucianism, Many sects of Taoism, modern forms of Satanism, Discordainism, etc).

The "Superhuman Agency" discussed is... "Science!" And as I've already stated, Morality is encouraging it's progress.

Devotional / ritual observances are not necessary to qualify as a religion in this definition, but we can discuss conferences, viewing certain television programming, and reading certain books - if you like.


No, but religions, especially in the case of Fundamentalism, do offer a degree of certainty that doesn't otherwise exist. My point is that Atheists are not immune to this social phenomenon.

So suddenly, since I have an idea, put together some observations and supporting evidence, you wish to imply that I'm a know-it-all? I hope this is just me getting defensive.

If you intended to suggest this by posting a "clever" double entendre, I would hate to look at how you do in school. Even if your grades are stellar, this wouldn't be a good sign for you education or intellect, and you would be showing that you, according to this hypothesis, have no means to argue except for name calling and earlier cited parroting. I certainly hope this isn't the case!

I agree with this. It's not so much that these people are know-it-alls, it's that they shut out anything that they disagree with without even putting it through proper logical tests, let alone empirical tests if possible. These sorts of people think that humans know far more than they do- Really, we don't know much of anything.

Not that science is bad, but to follow the prophecy of a man in a white coat is really not that much different from following the prophecy of a man in a black coat.

What we need to start understanding is that science is a tool- It is a measure and a rule by which we can empirically figure things out about the world. Any extrapolation based on evidence is really just that- An extrapolation, a guess.

@ Artto - I take a personal offense to the idea that the several religions that I listed as not requiring that concept are somehow not religions. Those same religions, if they have a creation story, describe the process of creation rather than the motive for creation.

And the points that "we don't need, to make this concept fit the definition" are either optional according to the definition itself, or demonstrably do not fit the reality.

And capitalizing words is a way to denote names. significant places, or institutions, much less at the beginning of every sentence. When ascribing to science the qualities of a deity, it makes sense to be consistent. Otherwise... well, sometimes I'm ascribing that proper-noun status as is actually correct, or as a means to mock this Sect of Atheism. And sometimes, my finger slips, and I don't catch it.

And Artto, since we're devolving to playground insults: on the topic of Know-It-Alls, it takes one to know one.


Thank you. It's good to be heard.


My problem is where he uses the disquiet about vaccines to set himself up as a scientific authority, and to paint opposition to his ideas of progress as "backwards".

And then, he uses this position of illegitimate authority to plug GMOs as "necessary" and arguably to slam the idea that medicine can come from plants.

I originally watched the video looking for some discussion on the sociological effects of Creationism / Creation Science disputing Evolution and the Archaeological Record.

May I ask which scientific publication you read for that discussion of Relativity? I'm interested in digging up some of those details for myself.