h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'll tell you an example of a scientific fundamentalist. They might tend to discriminate against other scientists, on the basis of them having publicly announced they are religious.

Not promoting creationism, intelligent design. No flaws in their work scientifically. Just being religious.

It's (probably) a backlash against the above, but it appears to be fundamentalist anyway.

I note that when people from the Archbishop of Canterbury to Bryan Applyard talk about to 'scientific fundamentalists', it seems that Richard Dawkins and possibly Lewis Wolpert are about the only examples they seem to come up with.

Dawkins may be a thorn in the side of *some* religious people, but is respected by others. He does have an particular aversion to arguments from tradition, authority, or revelation, which a great many people share, and which he argues with passion and eloquence.
I'm not *sure* he's burnt anyone yet.

Amie: I think it's the intolerance that encapsulates all that we dislike about fundamentalists, so maybe you're right.

Potholer:

I really dislike Dawkins! It took me years to work out why - it's because he expresses his beliefs with *certainty*. That *really* winds me up, ....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

The thing about 'scientific fundamentalists' (if they exist) that sets them apart from religious fundamentalists is that a 'scientific fundamentalist' will never be able to say 'this is the Truth and you just have to accept it because there is no way that I can show you any evidence'. They may be too lazy or too weary to show the evidence, but the evidence would be available to investigators. If the evidence were not available, then they would not be 'scientific' fundamentalists. The difference between scientific 'truths' and religious 'truths' is that scientific truths bonk you on the head whether you believe in them or not, whereas it is the religious fundamentalists that do the bonking of unbelievers.

<< I really dislike Dawkins! doh It took me years to work out why - it's because he expresses his beliefs with *certainty*. That *really* winds me up,>>

Think about why it might be winding you up. Enough for you to start talking about scientific fundamentalists, as if there were some equivalence between teaching biology and suicide bombing.

Do non-fundamentalist religious people really express doubt about _everything_? Wouldn't that make them all agnostics?

Perhaps you are angry because he has better arguments than you and you are afraid that he may be right.

If she is a fundamentalist (of any 'flavour'), she will be saying 'this is the one and only truth...', which is what distinguishes fundamentalists from the rest. Evidence is immaterial to my argument, although it may be central to other, related, points.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Illogical, Captain. I have never said (I hope! ) that there is any comparison between the above. I have repeated over and over that what distinguishes the fundamentalist viewpoint is the belief that they have access to the One And Only Truth, and that they set about trying to impose that truth on others. Teaching biology, of itself, certainly does not meet those criteria. Neither does suicide bombing, for that matter....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Well, then, I'm afraid that an awful lot of scientists can't help but be fundamentalists under your definition. Some (perhaps all) scientific truths are, in fact, *the* truth: the water for my tea is heated by the released energy of chemical bonds during the combustion of natural gas, not by little elves kicking the water molecules around and not through the power of prayer. You say 'fundamentalism' and I say 'honesty'.

'Evidence is immaterial to my argument'



Does anyone else find that statement funny?

Hi Anhaga!

Because the point I am making applies to all fundamentalists, regardless of the subject(s) about which they have fundamentalist views, the 'evidence' (or lack of it) a fundamentalist provides in support of their perspective is not relevant.

The people who cause problems are those who try to impose their views on others. We humans have disagreed with one another since we invented language, and managed to live socially nonetheless. Given that it seems intrinsically human for us to have a range of beliefs, the only way we can fulfill our social potential is tolerance of other views, even if they're 'wrong'. Those who cannot tolerate dissent are the fundamentalists; they're the Baddies!

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Ascribe to the 'enemy' a really stupid point of view, then examine it, and conclude that it, and (by extension) they, are really stupid. 'Straw man', I think it's called.

I'm not going to get into name-calling, OK?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I knew what you meant about evidence and your argument. The phrase just seemed kind of funny.

And, you're right, it was a straw man, but I think the point is valid: There are scientific truths that are independent of belief. A person insisting that the world is round, that the earth goes about the sun (well, about the common centre of gravity) or that the stars shine due to internal thermonuclear reactions, is not being fundamentalist or insisting that their 'beliefs' are the only true 'beliefs'. They are simply acknowledging reality, whether they are particularly fond of that reality or not.

Excellent example! The sun goes around the earth. I have seen it most days of my life, although I have to accept on faith that it does so at night, when I can't see it. While my body and mind remain focussed on Earth, this is the most convenient and useful perspective.

I could even derive the equations of motion of the rest of the universe with the Earth at its centre, but we all know it would be hugely complex, and that the perspective you present as 'reality' would be much more useful here.

The fact of the matter is that this example relies on nothing more or less than a simple shift of origin (as in cartesian graphs), for reasons no more profound than convenience.

There is often a different perspective which can prove useful in particular situations. This is one example. To put any one perspective forward as *the* perspective is (at the least) rash, wouldn't you say?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Bollocks. You're not contrasting a scientific perspective with something else: you're contrasting two scientific perspectives, one of which is based on incomplete evidence and must be modified absurdly when confronted with new evidence. Nonetheless, they are two scientific perspectives.

The issue I think you really are trying to address is the idea something quite different. As I understand it, you are suggesting not only that there are realms of 'knowledge' that the scientific method cannot approach, but that these realms of 'knowledge' can be 'known' by some other method. As well, there is the suggestion that somehow a hypothetical scientific fundamentalist would try to impose the scientific method upon the users of these other methods. I find this a little absurd. Workplace discrimination against someone who is quietly religious is just that: Workplace discrimination. It is not 'scientific fundamentalism'. Criticism of individuals who claim to be using the scientific method but are actually using something else is not 'scientific fundamentalism, it's simply calling a liar on their lie.

As for what I call 'other methods', if they produce results that can be reproduced by others, then I'm afraid they're not other methods: they're science. And if they produce results accessible to only one, well, they don't add anything to the store of human knowledge, do they?

Not at all. For non-astronomical purposes, the sun-goes-around-the-earth is *more* useful in everyday human life, which is why it remains in use. I'm sure I already pointed out the absurdity of trying to calculate the motions of an earth-centred universe, so why emphasise the difficulty - "must be modified absurdly" - of doing so? More straw men?

As for "new evidence", the older and simpler theory remains useful today, in the light of evidence which is not new, but actually centuries old. I can work with my car's velocity without having to include relativistic corrections!



I'm not anti-science, and you have completely missed my point, it seems. I started off talking about a characteristic of the fundamentalist perspective that (I believe) is damagingly anti-social. It applies to fundamentalists of *all* flavours.

Your attempts to discredit the very notion of a science-ist fundamentalist says all you need to say, I suspect.

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Who do the 'scientific fundamentalists' try to silence, imprison, exile, torture, maim or kill?

Do they go around beating children who don't believe in the Law of Gravity?

Do they stand on street-corners berating people for not understanding the difference between Stress and Strain?

Do they push leaflets though people's doors with incredibly poor pastel artwork on the cover depicting a bunch of happy atoms, and articles inside encouraging people to learn more about chemistry, or telling people that scientists consider homosexuality to be wrong?

I agree, Potholer (can one agree with a question?) I fear that the most obvious and biggest straw man on this thread is the scientific fundamentalist. I certainly don't see Dawkins, or any other scientist that I'm familiar with, as being a fundamentalist in anything similar to the ways that Bin Ladin or Robertson, for example, are.

Odd linguistic hoops though. I'd be willing to bet that fundamentalism was originally a self-given name, as in going back to the fundamentals of their religion.

Pattern-Chaser, using your definition of fundamentalism, as with your definition of science of faith based, it could surely be applied to absolutely anything where any sort of alternative belief can be found?

Is there any room in your view of the world to ever point out when someone is talking bollucks?

Where did that spring from? I have said that (IMO) fundamentalists are distinguished by their wish to impose their views upon others. This could take the form of (for example) collectively poo-pooing (sp?) someone who suggests that scientists too can be fundamentalists (they're human, after all, yes? ) ... or it could be more extreme.

Remember that, in the eyes of fundamentalists, their own actions are reasonable and justified....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

I see few circumstances when saying so can be anything but a gratuitous insult. But I'm willing to learn: can you give me an example where saying someone is "talking bollocks" contributes to the discussion in *any* positive way?

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"