In Order To Help Humanity Make Better Decisions

[_Philo Sofee]

https://www.bettermovement.org/blog/201 ... your-enemy

It appears that the problem is a scapegoat has been invented for so many troubles of people, and science has become that scapegoat. This issue is vital to make sure we come down on the right side of the fence. Yes it's important to identify the problems we are having, it's also equally important finding out a real solution rather than just casting witless blame as if that will help anymore than sucking a thumb helps solve problems.

[_Maksutov]

Pinker is a treasure. Excellent points.

[_mentalgymnast]

https://www.bettermovement.org/blog/2013/is-science-your-enemy

From the blogger:

I am very encouraged to see on my Facebook timeline and in various other parts of the fitness and wellness blogosphere, that a distinctly pro-scientific attitude seems to be becoming more fashionable.

Does being pro-scientific necessarily entail a disbelief in a creator/God? Is he conjoining one with the other?

Regards,
MG

[_Res Ipsa]

Did you read Pinker’s piece? He’s defending science from attacks made by theists and certain flavors of academics. Did you see Pinker address your question?

[_Philo Sofee]

Did you read Pinker’s piece? He’s defending science from attacks made by theists and certain flavors of academics. Did you see Pinker address your question?

Of course he didn't. MG has God on the brain as I do, only my perspective is more realistic.....

[_mentalgymnast]

MG has God on the brain as I do, only my perspective is more realistic.....

So, again, what would be your answer to my question?

Does being pro-scientific necessarily entail a disbelief in a creator/God?

Regards,
MG

[_Philo Sofee]

MG has God on the brain as I do, only my perspective is more realistic.....

So, again, what would be your answer to my question?

Does being pro-scientific necessarily entail a disbelief in a creator/God?

Regards,
MG

Did you read Pinker's piece?

[_mentalgymnast]

Did you read Pinker's piece?

I've read Pinker in the past. I did not read this piece. Do I need to in order to have you respond directly to my question?

You can even keep it simple and to the point if you want.

Regards,
MG

[_Meadowchik]

YES! We need rationality to proceed. Not conversion of others to our subjective beliefs, but a common set of values of rationality and humanism in addition to personal belief. Our children, their children, and their children will thank us.

[_Lemmie]

Did you read Pinker’s piece? He’s defending science from attacks made by theists and certain flavors of academics. Did you see Pinker address your question?

Of course he didn't. MG has God on the brain as I do, only my perspective is more realistic.....

Well, that's how he derails a thread. He quote-mined a single sentence out of the OP link containing the words "pro-scientific attitude" and arbitrarily connected that with his stilted "disbelief in a creator [mis-used slash] God." And now, three posts in to his derail, even after admitting he didn't even read the Pinker piece the OP refers to, he is simply repeating his off-topic question. If he had even read the Pinker quotes in the OP link, he would have seen what a non-sequitur he is pushing.

From the OP, quoting Pinker:

Scientism, in this good sense, is not the belief that members of the occupational guild called “science” are particularly wise or noble. On the contrary, the defining practices of science, including open debate, peer review, and double-blind methods, are explicitly designed to circumvent the errors and sins to which scientists, being human, are vulnerable.

And after the nonsense pushed about "scientism" by a certain Patheos blogger, this Pinker quote was a breath of fresh air:

Demonizers of scientism often confuse intelligibility with a sin called reductionism. But to explain a complex happening in terms of deeper principles is not to discard its richness.