Sunday, June 12, 2016

Distrust of Science: A Baker's Dozen of Possible Reasons

It is the case, apparently, that the American populace has a general distrust of all sciences. That includes those sciences which are, in general, legitimately empirical. What might be the most obvious reasons for such widespread distrust? I can think of quite a few - although I personally do respect the sciences which are empirical and conscientious in their disciplines.

The generation of distrust of science has multiple sources which seem obvious:
1) Phony, arrogant, self-referencing "science" experts spouting Truths from an environment of philosophical Relativism.

2) Obviously bad science, and reports of high percentages of false scientific papers: the continual overturning of "settled science" (nutrition, health, drugs, anthropology, psychology, medicine, cosmology, Quantum Theory, trees of life, "missing links", non-objectivity of AGW (measurement manipulation and computer sims), suspicion of particle science conclusions; unfalsifiable String Theory; irrational claims by Hawking, Krauss, Dawkins, Dennett, et. al., irrational claims by brain neurological mind theorists).

3) Political enforcement of certain questionable, unfalsifiable "sciences".

4) The use of unfalsifiable sciences for Leftist political redistribution of global assets and wealth.

5) The failure of philosophical materialism, both in logic and in religion.

6) The top-down diktat of unfalsifiable, untestable evolution as a Necessary Truth of existence: direct political and legal attack on religion. "Theory AND Fact" is obviously false, and reflects onto actual legitimate sciences which actually do have both theory and contingent facts.

7) The denial of any essence inherent in "life" which differentiates it from death, or from material mineral existence which is driven completely by the deterministic entropic four forces of physics.

8) The insistence that the human mind is a purely physical entity.

9) The denial of choice and agency in humans (humans are subject to pure determinism of the four forces of nature and initial conditions regressing back to the Big Bang).

10) The failure of reputable sciences to defend themselves from non-falsifiable, non-empirical faux science, and to de facto capitulate to them instead. (E.g.,Modern Biology could and should divorce itself from evolution; Astronomy should divorce itself from Cosmology; Anthropology has already divorced itself from being a science).

11) The misuse of science in the killing of human embryos - lack of ethics.

12) The misuse of science in the manipulation of living human embryos, resulting in deformation and death.

13) General Atheistic lack of consistent, coherent moral principle. Plantinga points out that although Christianity and Islam are polar opposites, they are closer together than to Atheistic "Naturalism" (Philosophical Materialism). The religious distance from Atheist determinism is an unbreachable chasm which evolution faces from the side of Atheistic Determinism. This failure of an illegitimate, non-falsifiable, non-testable, Appeal to Authority "science" projects onto all legitimate objective empirical sciences, which do nothing to distance themselves from the illigitimacy.
If you think of some that I missed, add them in the comments.


JBsptfn said...

Stan, check this out:

Christian Cadre: Bi-Weekly Report about Ben Love from

This is a report I did on that article you talked about. In the comments, a certain someone had some negative things to say about you in the first comment, and in their most recent one, they are going off about how the mind is from physical processes or something.

Stan said...

Hm. Like always, IMS stakes out an obviously stupid position and defends it as if he is god incarnate. To hear him tell it, there is no real causation, just a bunch of variables coming together. Causation in science is easy to define. X causes Y when it is found that for every X there must be Y as a result, and Y requires X always, when all other variables are held constant or are removed completely. This is the nature of a valid experiment. In a deterministic, molecular universe, there are never multiple causes for a single effect.

I didn't read as far as any "mind" comments. IMS is a troll. He is a "pretend" expert on every subject, the troll version of "Cliff Claven", on the "Cheers" TV series. He invents his own logic and his own facts as he goes. He alone in the entire universe understands Entropy. He alone understands whatever subject he is pontificating upon. Everyone else is stupid. Being an intellectual lightweight and fraud, he has no intellectual humility. He doesn't accept any of his blatant fallacies, because they don't fit his personal logic. He should be treated like a troll and ignored into darkness. Never feed a troll.

JBsptfn said...

I can see why Victor Reppert blocked him. He just can't see the fallacy of his world view. He also attacks other idiots to his site, like Merrill and Papalinton. Joe Hinman kicked Merrill's butt in a debate on the Sec Web or somewhere, and Merrill still came back with the same crap.

And now, IMS posted a stupid link of an entry he did about Ex-atheists, and how "scientific understanding" leads to a naturalist world view (typical scientism):

The Skeptic Zone: The Ex-Atheist

BTW, Stan, did you get my E-mail about a guy by the name of The Weekend Fisher? He is a Christian who did an entry (the link is in the e-mail) about how rationality is a natural process or something.

Stan said...

Re: Weekend Fisher
Yes I got it, and I started a write up which I haven't finished yet... but I will.

JBsptfn said...

Looking forward to seeing that.

However, while he made a stupid comment in the comments section of that entry I showed you (that people who believe in an immaterial consciousness are like people who believed in intelligent design 10 years before Origin of Species), don't be too hard on him in your write-up. He is a Christian, not an idiot troll like IMS or some of the morons that comment on his blog.