DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**SpecialOFFER** · 03-25-2008, 01:01 AM

Atheism is a religion also most certainly

I feel that science in some ways is a religion, in that many people accept the modern tenets of science on faith because they don't have the knowledge or ability to comprehend the actual science behind it. The complexity of scientific understanding, combined with the general lack of ability to communicate on the part of most scientists (those of you who date scientists will know what i'm talking about

) mean that the 'common person' is generally both unable to determine the validity of scientific statements themselves, and very much at risk of being 'converted' by a rogue 'scientist' who is able to communicate but does not necessarily tell the truth (Kevin "Natural Cures" Trudeau, anyone?).

Solution:
1) Greater dissemination of the ability to judge the validity of scientific theories. This includes a) a greater understanding of the underpinnings of science, which is taught in high school but often is too specific, and taught poorly such that kids don't actually learn it (GIGO), and b) teaching directly how a scientific theory should be judged - both how to identify a valid theory (ie doesn't claim what it can't prove) and how to parse the theory into what it actually is saying.
2) Teach scientists how to write/speak to the People, and teach that it is IMPORTANT. Many scientists are unable to converse without jargon to the point that they actually don't know what the jargon means in plain english - which tells me they don't know what it means at all (or that they don't know english...) Richard Dawkins was a good start, but that needs to be EVERY scientist, or at least a good portion of them.

03-25-2008, 01:01 AM	#3
SpecialOFFER Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 613 Senior Member	Atheism is a religion also most certainly I feel that science in some ways is a religion, in that many people accept the modern tenets of science on faith because they don't have the knowledge or ability to comprehend the actual science behind it. The complexity of scientific understanding, combined with the general lack of ability to communicate on the part of most scientists (those of you who date scientists will know what i'm talking about ) mean that the 'common person' is generally both unable to determine the validity of scientific statements themselves, and very much at risk of being 'converted' by a rogue 'scientist' who is able to communicate but does not necessarily tell the truth (Kevin "Natural Cures" Trudeau, anyone?). Solution: 1) Greater dissemination of the ability to judge the validity of scientific theories. This includes a) a greater understanding of the underpinnings of science, which is taught in high school but often is too specific, and taught poorly such that kids don't actually learn it (GIGO), and b) teaching directly how a scientific theory should be judged - both how to identify a valid theory (ie doesn't claim what it can't prove) and how to parse the theory into what it actually is saying. 2) Teach scientists how to write/speak to the People, and teach that it is IMPORTANT. Many scientists are unable to converse without jargon to the point that they actually don't know what the jargon means in plain english - which tells me they don't know what it means at all (or that they don't know english...) Richard Dawkins was a good start, but that needs to be EVERY scientist, or at least a good portion of them.
	Quote