I suspect you’re reading too much in to lazy terminology. I doubt anyone who phrases something along the lines of “The scientific community agrees that…” to really means scientists are all acting as a singular bloc. They’ll typically be referring to a general consensus among the majority of the relevant subset of scientists. There can still be a minority who think differently and there will obviously be a large number of scientists who are entirely irrelevant to the specific topic. It’s a bit like journalists reporting on a number 1 album saying “Music fans loved it.”. In reality, most “music fans” will have ignored it, not being fans of that artist or genre and even if most fans of them did buy that album, there will always be a minority who dislike it. Regardless, the statement isn’t wrong as long as it’s understood in the relevant context. I don’t think talking about the “scientific community” in a similar way is wrong. There could still be some people overstating the certainty of scientific conclusions, theories or hypotheses but I think that’s somewhat separate from (or at least wider than) use of this specific phrase.
Being a chemist, I understand the science that I work at every day. You, on the other hand, sound like a typical atheist who thinks he alone speaks for the "scientific community". (Now comes the part where you tell me I can't possibly be who I say I am.)
Exactly. And perhaps it is lazy terminology, but it sounded like prejudicial language to me. Good synopsis.
I try to avoid personal questions or insults. That said...may I remind you what this tread is about? There is no such thing as a "Typical" Atheist, any more than a typical Christian. I am answering the thread questions as I usually do, and debating with another member who is not very good at it and seems to have difficulties with general comprehension. This is not unusual with the heavily religious.
I know what the thread is about, I started it. That said, I think Joe came closest to the answer I was looking for: Number one, when you make a blanket statement about what the "scientific community" thinks about (say) evolution, global warming, or what have you, there is a damn good chance that the people working in industry or government (whose jobs are not connected with either of those things) couldn't care less about what you or anybody else thinks about those subjects because it is of no interest to them. It's not unusual, with the heavily atheistic, however, to conclude that all "scientists" are necessarily atheistic, that all of them care as much about evolution (for example) and arguing with the "heavily religious" about it, or that for some reason scientists are preoccupied with whether or not there is a God. I say this as a general observation, no need to take it personally.
By the way, this is the thread that prompted this thread. http://www.politicalforum.com/science/432447-how-can-science-prove-there-no-gods.html
I resent that a little. I didn’t give you anything close to the answer we now know you were looking for (i.e. the pejorative point you were trying to make), you just twisted my answer to fit what you wanted to say. I stand by my conclusion that there is nothing wrong in using the term “scientific community” when referring to a general consensus among the relevant subset of scientists to the matter under discussion and most people will understand it in that context. Where (if) the phrase is misused, it’s a fault of the individual misusing it, not the phrase itself. The “heavily religious” often presume all scientists are atheists and actively seeking to attack religion or disprove God. Given both groups are minority fringes though, we can safely ignore them most of the time.
Yet you are unable to paste up a single quote from any post from me supporting you personal attack. Why?
And I resent THAT. It's just another way to stifle debate - relegate individuals who may or may not have a legitimate beef to the "fringes".
No, actually my analysis of the grandiose claims about the universe by 'hawingsesque reasonings' are right on. Pseudo scientists, with NO Data, faulty reasoning, & coasting on credentials & bluster do violence to the scientific method by DECLARING science, rather than going through the more difficult method of discovery. Your claim about me, however IS pure nonsense. It is just an ad hominem, with no rebuttal.
If that is the case it would not be my lack of specifics as much as YOUR inability to comprehend them when stated. This may help: I ain't makin' thangs comlexified for 'ya. May be ya ain't pickin' up on da Pigs needin' slop.
IOW, you confuse base personal attacks with specific rebuttal. Very revealing. - - - Updated - - - Cut then some slack. They are very debate challenged.
I thought we'd agreed that the assumption that all scientists are atheists isn't legitimate. Illegitimate beliefs can be safely ignored if their not going to impact anyone. If groups in the mainstream have them, they need to be challenged because the mainstream can have influence. For example, I'm sure some people think all Muslims should be locked up to prevent terrorism but we generally ignore them because they don't have any influence. If an elected politician expressed exactly the same view, we'd challenge it because they could have power to follow it through.
I'm sorry....did you say something about "Base Personal Attacks? Perhaps you might point out the one's I have provided, it's only fair considering I have done so for you.
Actually, that was the farthest thing from my mind. It should go without saying that scientists come in all shapes, sizes, creeds, and colors. MY point was (and I'll try to be a little clearer this time) that when people talk about what the "scientific community" thinks or says, how can they possibly know, unless the "scientific community" consists of people who agree only with them and with each other?
When people use that term, they're typically (and are recognised as) referring to some form of scientific consensus. They're not claiming all scientists have expressed an opinion or that all relevant scientists who have agree with that consensus.
Theres no need to. Anyone interested in reading examples of you committing fraud can go to: Religion & Philosophy Challenge for Christians: disprove evolution and a 6000 year old earth Ddyad Posts: #164 #174 #179 #181 #221 #226 #230
Now Cosmo, you can't find a single post from me denying evolution - that's why you didn't paste one up.
Spin it all you like. People can go to the thread and read it for themselves; that way they can also read the responses.
