Poll

Which of the following groups do you trust when it comes to scientific research and reporting?

Preview

Too broad of categories (Score: 4, Insightful)

by billshooterofbul@pipedot.org on 2014-11-05 14:38 (#2TX6)

There are billions of Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists and Agnostics. I wouldn't automatically dismiss any research by any of them. Nor would I automatically trust it because it came from one of them.

Now, if I have more information about a particular group an individual comes from, I can certainly do that. Like, if it comes from The Institute for Creation Research I'm not trusting anything they say. Or if they are funded by a large oil company and do climate research...

Re: Too broad of categories (Score: 1, Insightful)

by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-11-05 15:14 (#2TX8)

Hmm... your point of view is valid. But there are others. For instance you wrote:
Or if they are funded by a large oil company and do climate research...
Yes, people have reasons to fake research results. They may be paid to do so. They may do it to get funding and/or fame. Those reasons are equally valid for religious and not religious people. However, unlike Atheists and perhaps Agnostics, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists can have an extra incentive to fake results. One more kind of temptation. So statistically one should be more careful about what religious people say.

Of course, this is only statistics, there should not be an automatism to dismiss their research. There is no Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist hive mind. Cheating is always done by an individual.

Re: Too broad of categories (Score: 1)

by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-11-05 20:24 (#2TXE)

However, unlike Atheists and perhaps Agnostics, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists can have an extra incentive to fake results.
If you mean to say that Christians, Muslims & Buddhists have incentive to fake results to suit/support their religious beliefs, then atheists have the same problem. Their "extra incentive" would be to fake results to undercut evidence that might lend supports to any of those same beliefs, at every opportunity.

Swap Indian Jones with Richard Dawkins, and tell me that, upon discovering the ark or the grail, he wouldn't have just re-hidden the artifact, and never said a word about it to anyone...

Re: Too broad of categories (Score: 1, Insightful)

by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-11-05 21:01 (#2TXF)

There are concrete examples how religious people faked 'evidence' to support their religious world view.
A nice example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beringer%27s_Lying_Stones

Since there isn't anything to 're-hide' for atheists, your statement is unprovable and therefore empty. Perhaps you could ask Richard Dawkins what he would do? For atheists it is not important whether a god exists or not. They just don't see any evidence for its existence so they don't care. Give only one irrefutable proof and most of them would immediately accept its existence. I would. Tough in that case I'd immediately try to enlist with Satan.

Re: Too broad of categories (Score: 1)

by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-11-05 21:53 (#2TXG)

There are concrete examples how religious people faked 'evidence' to support their religious world view.
A nice example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beringer%27s_Lying_Stones
Except that was a hoax intended to discredit someone, not to prove someone's beliefs. The hoax only just happened to have some religious connotations.
Since there isn't anything to 're-hide' for atheists
That's complete nonsense. There are a huge number of religious artifacts out there. Nothing that proves the existence of an all-powerful being, of course, but lots and lots of artifacts none-the-less.
Perhaps you could ask Richard Dawkins what he would do?
Perhaps you could ask any Christian, Muslim, or Buddhist scientists what they'd do?
For atheists it is not important whether a god exists or not. They just don't see any evidence for its existence so they don't care. Give only one irrefutable proof and most of them would immediately accept its existence.
Also complete nonsense. Like any other religious group, atheists are all across the spectrum.
I would.
Your particular position on the spectrum is not the textbook definition of the term, nor typical of all adherents. In fact what you've described is closer to agnostic than atheist.

Even if you dismiss the dogma involved, any one of them who has a flourishing business publishing books or whatnot, would be hesitant to undermine their life's work and risk their highly lucrative business.

Re: Too broad of categories (Score: 1, Insightful)

by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-11-05 22:06 (#2TXH)

Your particular position on the spectrum is not the textbook definition of the term, nor typical of all adherents. In fact what you've described is closer to agnostic than atheist.
I expected something like that. But no. An agnostic says it cannot be decided whether there exists a god or not. For an atheist there is not enough supporting evidence for one to even think about the possibility if its existence. Or in other words: For an agnostic the question cannot be answered. For an atheist the question does not even exist. Nevertheless, for an atheist it is not important that there is not a god. Therefore there is no incentive to fake one away. And those with a flourishing business publishing books, if they really find irrefutable evidence that against all probability god exists, I don't know how many of them would dare to go on denying him. ;-D

Re: Too broad of categories (Score: 2, Insightful)

by wootery@pipedot.org on 2014-11-05 23:57 (#2TXJ)

Nevertheless, for an atheist it is not important that there is not a god.
Any by what process, pray, did you find this to be self-evident and universal?

What's important to an atheist is entirely dependent on the individual, no? Atheist just means they don't believe in god, or that they believe there is no god. It says nothing of how 'important' they consider this to be.

Moderation

Time Reason Points Voter
2014-11-10 07:38 Insightful +1 wideglide@pipedot.org

Junk Status

Not marked as junk