• Badass_panda@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      It’s not worse than religion, it just is religion. Treating religion like it’s science only convinces those that want to be convinced.

      … But making science into a religion makes you less likely to doubt what “science” says. Since doubt is the basis of empiricism, removing it from science destroys the utility of science… and that’s bad.

      • Not_Alec_Baldwin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Cool, then we agree.

        When I say “science” I’m broadly referring to the scientific method, which is the assumption of a deep ignorance that can only be relieved by constant measurement and testing.

        • Badass_panda@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yes; it is not something you should “believe in”, which was my point. It isn’t an alternative type of faith.

      • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        But making science into a religion makes you less likely to doubt what “science” says.

        I think there’s a good argument to be made that there will inevitably be a subsection of the population that NEEDS to be told what to believe. They cannot function in a chaotic world.

        And I think it’s not a small minority either.

        By treating science like religion we limit the harm that these people can do. If they dogmatically follow something, let them dogmatically follow “the science”.

        • joonazan
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Unfortunately these people can’t distinguish actual science from bad science or completely made up things that claim to be based on science.

      • CarlsIII@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m curious, who are these people that treat science as a religion? Do you have any notable examples? I keep hearing about these people, but I have never seen them myself. I can’t help but feel like this is coming from religious people who would mistakenly say say that atheists have “faith” in science the way they have faith in a god.

        • Badass_panda@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, I’m an atheist… I hear what you’re saying, but this kind of person pops up all the time, some even on this thread iirc.

          Think of the kind of person who, without thinking critically about it or making any attempt to understand it, blindly starts sentences with, “Science teaches us ___”. No ability to differentiate scientific theory from pseudo scientific nonsense, and glad to half-remember something they learned poorly in high school to justify “through science” whatever crappy thing they want to do.

          Think if many an intel screed about “females” and “evolutionary psychology” or the pseudo scientific racism of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

          “Yes, but that’s not actually science,” I hear you say. Yes, that’s the point; it’s jumbled up dogma in service of being a dickhead, which is what I mean by “treating science like religion.”