How society survives the world after the Truth is set on fire

[SemperFiDawg]

How society survives the world after the Truth is set on fire

At some point during the COVID-19 pandemic, we stopped believing our institutions of science.

nypost.com

Pretty good article. I was particularly interested in the assessment of science though I thought it didn't go far enough.

“The science says” is the enlightened equivalent of the word of God — whatever follows is beyond dispute.
Most Americans have viewed science as the model and guarantor of pure objective truth.

Scientific institutions have enjoyed enormous prestige among the public.

The COVID-19 pandemic, and the dreadful performance of the experts and institutions, ended this idyll....Many untruths were proclaimed....In many cases, the falsehoods were deliberate.

The scientific method rejects authority and invites criticism.

During the pandemic, this was turned on its head, as science was worn as a mantle of authority and invoked to crush dissent.

and sadly this:

Nevertheless, no lessons were learned from the episode. No mistakes have been admitted; instead there has been quite a bit of doubling down. No one has been held accountable.

 

[WaltL1]

How society survives the world after the Truth is set on fire

At some point during the COVID-19 pandemic, we stopped believing our institutions of science.

nypost.com

Pretty good article. I was particularly interested in the assessment of science though I thought it didn't go far enough.




and sadly this:

I didnt read the article because I had to stop here -

“The science says” is the enlightened equivalent of the word of God — whatever follows is beyond dispute.

That ^ shows a complete lack of knowledge of the scientific process.
You cant hammer science with one hand because "they get stuff wrong" and then claim with the other hand that results are "beyond dispute".

Or more likely, its intentionally written for people that wont question such a ridiculous claim.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

I didnt read the article because I had to stop here -

You shouldn't have because what followed addressed your exact objection.

 

[WaltL1]

You shouldn't have because what followed addressed your exact objection.

At your suggestion I'll read the whole article. Maybe I jumped the gun. Or maybe not.

 

[WaltL1]

SemperFiDawg said:
You shouldn't have because what followed addressed your exact objection.

At your suggestion I'll read the whole article. Maybe I jumped the gun. Or maybe not.

Ok, I jumped the gun a bit.
I actually agree with a number of points that were made.
A few points dont sit "technically" right to me. Such as -

Even science, as we have seen, now yields to myth.

Its not the science itself that yields to myth, its the humans involved that can twist things around.
Overall, I'm glad you prodded me to read the whole thing.

 

[ambush80]

"And it goes without saying — but must be said nonetheless — that we should begin by criticizing our own most passionately held positions.

A robust skepticism of received ideas, for example, has been a sign of wisdom from Socrates to modern science."

I question extra hard when told "Do not question". Started back in Sunday School.

 

[bullethead]

Not all scientists represent the scientific method. They are two distinctly different representations entirely.
9/10 times, follow the science means follow my agenda and my agenda is the result of who is paying me the most to find a predetermined outcome.

Ricky Gervais said it the best:
"Science is constantly proved all the time. You see, if we take something like any fiction, any holy book… and destroyed it, in a thousand years’ time, that wouldn’t come back just as it was. Whereas if we took every science book, and every fact, and destroyed them all, in a thousand years they’d all be back, because all the same tests would [produce] the same result."

The tests don't lie. The presenters do.

 

[ambush80]

Not all scientists represent the scientific method. They are two distinctly different representations entirely.
9/10 times, follow the science means follow my agenda and my agenda is the result of who is paying me the most to find a predetermined outcome.

Ricky Gervais said it the best:
"Science is constantly proved all the time. You see, if we take something like any fiction, any holy book… and destroyed it, in a thousand years’ time, that wouldn’t come back just as it was. Whereas if we took every science book, and every fact, and destroyed them all, in a thousand years they’d all be back, because all the same tests would [produce] the same result."

The tests don't lie. The presenters do.

It's a fair bet that something like a holy book would arise again. There's evidence that our chimp cousins perform rituals that appear to be religious. If a species develops the cognitive ability to understand causality and temporality, they most likely would come up with a creation myth or the existence of supernatural powers.

 

[bullethead]

It's a fair bet that something like a holy book would arise again. There's evidence that our chimp cousins perform rituals that appear to be religious. If a species develops the cognitive ability to understand causality and temporality, they most likely would come up with a creation myth or the existence of supernatural powers.

I, and Ricky, do not doubt that another, if not multiple, holy books would arise again. The difference is that they would be different stories that contain different gods and would most likely be in different parts of the world.

 

[ambush80]

I, and Ricky, do not doubt that another, if not multiple, holy books would arise again. The difference is that they would be different stories that contain different gods and would most likely be in different parts of the world.

They might have all the same basic elements, a creation story, the idea of a God(s), some mandates outlining sins, some claim about "chosen people", admonition against other Gods. Some would point to the similarities as proof in Divine Revelation or some Universal morals.

 

[bullethead]

They might have all the same basic elements, a creation story, the idea of a God(s), some mandates outlining sins, some claim about "chosen people", admonition against other Gods. Some would point to the similarities as proof in Divine Revelation or some Universal morals.

In Rickys quote he says "wouldn't come back just as it was"
There is no doubt that the stories would be similar in elements, but somebody else is getting the glory.

 

[ambush80]

In Rickys quote he says "wouldn't come back just as it was"
There is no doubt that the stories would be similar in elements, but somebody else is getting the glory.

They might not come up with quite the same theoretical physics like String Theory, Inflation or Multiverse.

 

[bullethead]

They might not come up with quite the same theoretical physics like String Theory, Inflation or Multiverse.

The tests that work out now which give us undeniable repeatability will also work out in 1000 years.
Theoretical physics are a different ballgame for sure.

 

[livinoutdoors]

Oh great science! How i worship thee!

 

[Spotlite]

Not all scientists represent the scientific method. They are two distinctly different representations entirely.
9/10 times, follow the science means follow my agenda and my agenda is the result of who is paying me the most to find a predetermined outcome.

Ricky Gervais said it the best:
"Science is constantly proved all the time. You see, if we take something like any fiction, any holy book… and destroyed it, in a thousand years’ time, that wouldn’t come back just as it was. Whereas if we took every science book, and every fact, and destroyed them all, in a thousand years they’d all be back, because all the same tests would [produce] the same result."

The tests don't lie. The presenters do.

Ricky Gervais said it the best:
"Science is constantly proved all the time. You see, if we take something like any fiction, any holy book… and destroyed it, in a thousand years’ time, that wouldn’t come back just as it was.

This is where Ricky is admiring he’s clueless about this whole God thing - a lot of people aren’t just believing a written story.

Science - a man made system that operates within parameters made by man - of course it proves itself to man.

 

[WaltL1]

This is where Ricky is admiring he’s clueless about this whole God thing - a lot of people aren’t just believing a written story.

Science - a man made system that operates within parameters made by man - of course it proves itself to man.

Science - a man made system that operates within parameters made by man - of course it proves itself to man.

I think the same ^ can be said about organized religion.

 

[WaltL1]

It's a fair bet that something like a holy book would arise again. There's evidence that our chimp cousins perform rituals that appear to be religious. If a species develops the cognitive ability to understand causality and temporality, they most likely would come up with a creation myth or the existence of supernatural powers.

our chimp cousins perform rituals that appear to be religious

Or man, who defined what they think religious rituals "look like" are trying to cram their behavior into what man deems a religious ritual looks like.
In other words, if there was no religion we would just say "thats a behavior that monkeys do".

 

[bullethead]

This is where Ricky is admiring he’s clueless about this whole God thing - a lot of people aren’t just believing a written story.

Science - a man made system that operates within parameters made by man - of course it proves itself to man.

That would sound a little bit more believable if you were championing for all of the worshippers worldwide who experience all of what they feel is the God thing and not just the only God thing that you so happen to beleive in.
You have to at least acknowledge that there are so many different people who believe in different Gods and have formed different religions around those gods because they never heard about all of the other gods and religions.
Their stories differ because man thought of them and wrote them.
People were worshipping gods for thousands of years before the god you worship joined the club and then it was a few more thousand years until his believers think that he handed the CEO title over to his kid.
You can say that you have ruled all of the others out personally for you, but that doesn't eliminate the people just like you who are arguing for their authenticity.
All of you are different because the beliefs started differently at different times.

Ricky isn't saying that religion would go away or that people only believe because of written stories.
He is saying that if all traces of all religions were to be wiped clean, in a thousand years, there would still be religions, but they wouldn't be as they are right now. People will still get their god thing on and be just as passionate about it, the people will tell different stories than are told today.
Your only evidence to the contrary is your own personal wishful thinking and what you have interpreted to be an experience from the god that you so happen to believe in....meanwhile, millions of other people have taken your stance long before the god you believe in had ever been thought up.

Meanwhile, evwry single one of those same people had items fall down and not up due to gravity. That test was the same for millions of years and keeps on validating itself over and over today and in 1000 years from now. That isn't because of Man perimeters. It is because it is a set part of the conditions that allow it which existed long before man ever existed. Man just found a way to give it a name and devised repeatable tests which all end in the same result repeatedly. Trees fell down a billion years ago, they fall down now, and they will fall down in a thousand years. Man has absolutely nothing to do with it.

 

[ambush80]

Or man, who defined what they think religious rituals "look like" are trying to cram their behavior into what man deems a religious ritual looks like.
In other words, if there was no religion we would just say "thats a behavior that monkeys do".

I think they will look similar, evidenced by the fact that wherever they arose around the world, they kinda do, even if the peoples had no contact with each other. I imagine if space aliens have religion it would cover the same bases that ours do.

 

[Spotlite]

I think the same ^ can be said about organized religion.

I’d agree. I’m not associated with organized religion.