Science vs. Religion Flow Charts...pretty funny...

[Jamnt]

[oldtimecanuk]

1. I like that lol..eom

:)

[Hav]

2. .

:popcorn:

Bookmarked ;).

[annabanana]

3. very good

Fundamentalism, a Threat Abroad, a Threat at Home.

[Little Wing]

4. Flawed

The "Revolution" link should point to "Perform Experiment"

[Greyskye]

11. I would argue...

...that it should say "Bad Theory" as opposed to "Revolution". There is already a "Perform Experiment" task later in the flow chart.

[Bjornsdotter]

5. I'm speechless

:rofl:

Cheers

[Ian David]

6. They're missing stuff

On the faith side:

1) Kill anyone who disagrees with you.
2) Use your ideas as an excuse to kill people who disagree with you on unrelated matters.
3) Use your idea to frighten people into obedience.
4) Use your idea to get money from people.


On the science side:

1) Apply for grant.
2) Break idea into several smaller ideas.
3) Publish each smaller idea as its own thesis paper to increase your number of publications.
4) Apply for more grants based on your extraordinarily high number of published papers.

[Dudley_DUright]

9. There is even a name for the smallest idea get away with publishing

in a scientific journal to maximize your publication count. It is called the "Least Publishable Bit". :-)

[Evoman]

21. Actually, we in the science biz call it, I'm not kidding you, "Salami Science"

:rofl:

[intheflow]

12. Add to the science side...

5) use science to develop chemical, biological, and conventional weapons.

Seems to me that science and religion have both had their hands bloodied by war.

[roguevalley]

18. you forgot some science-side stuff

make your science fit your preconceptions
massage the evidence to fit the benefactor that is paying for it
take money from corporations to lie, twist and distort science
have the government quash some and promote those who are maleable

[Ian David]

28. That's not how science works. That's how REPUBLCKERS work. n/t

[roguevalley]

35. then you have forgotten about tobacco and pharmaceutical

scientists and others who won't buck the system. science is filled with people who are as heretical to what science should be as there are in religion. to portray it otherwise is to deny reality. unfortunately. I believe, IMHO, that the point of this thread was to show reason exists in only science in the most absolute way. reality disproves that. if that wasn't so, then the EPA library would still be open.

[Ian David]

38. That's not science. That's political manipulation disguised as science. n/t

[roguevalley]

39. its scientists working their profession for lies. sure its manipulation

but its done with the consent and willingness of scientists, many of them with great credentials and long careers of distinction. a lot of the studies put out by scientists are done with corporate money. its not a distinction that they do it for money. they still use their science. some actually believe their own lies. no one is perfect. weather science is a great example of this.

[Ian David]

40. They're scientists, but they're not doing Science.

It's like comparing a surgeon who heals people to the magician who "saws a lady in half" at childrens' parties.

[cosmik debris]

30. You seem to confuse science with capitalism

One is a system for economic manipulation driven by self-interest, the other is a system for ordering and improving knowledge driven by curiosity and the need for better understanding. Sorry you can't see the difference.

[roguevalley]

34. you forget that not all scientists opperate by the ethics one demands

from science. to overlook the commercialization and the opportunism by a lot of scientists, who willingly whore for corporations -tobacco and pharmaceutical come to mind- is to project only part of what science has become these days. science is not pure anymore than faith is all evil.

[cosmik debris]

36. You can't say that whoring for corporations is science.

It may use science, but it is not science. It is whoring.

[roguevalley]

37. true. and if they truly believed what they did, no amount of money

could move them. they debase science when they do.

[Evoman]

22. Bwa hahahahaha

Thats hilarious. And I mean the science stuff too...its so true. If there is anything wrong with science these days, its the stupid way grants are set up, and the fact that if you want to get a grant, you have to publish in a journal that is "good", and not just one that is relevant.

Why should I have to submit to "Science" when another journal fits the article better, and why should it affect funding?

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

7. Trouble with your chart is that it is flawed

First of all, it equates two things that aren't comparable--I know too many scientists who are spiritual and attend regular worship services.

Second of all, it implies that a religious person never changes their ideas, which is absurd. One of the main tenets of my order is that you evolve spiritually throughout your life, taking on concepts and discarding them as you find that they are not Truth. The founder of our Order, Haz. Inayat Khan, didn't just talk about changing old beliefs and ideals--he said, "Shatter your ideals on the Rock of Truth". Most spiritual folk I know actually welcome the advances of science, because in their eyes (and mine) they help us better understand the universe; and to understand the universe is to better understand the true nature of God.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

8. I agree, there are too many scientists who pollute their minds with faith.

if they were really smart, they'd give that shit up. Faith makes them worse scientists.

Being spiritual, as you use it, probably means something else. I simply refer to organized religions. (which I detest equally, without racial, social or cultural bias - they are all detestable)

[jgraz]

15. I once knew a scientist who was an alcoholic, then killed himself

That must mean that suicidal drunks have some sort of truth that the rest of us are missing. Somebody get me a drink!

[bluerum]

10. Science does not reveal Gods nature. God reveals the nature of science.

[More Than A Feeling]

13. Sounds pretty...what's it mean?

:shrug:

[cosmik debris]

31. It probably means the bluerum

Was a liberal arts major rather than a science major in college.

[Canuckistanian]

14. And how many spiritual truths have been discovered lately?

I'd say it's been pretty much static since the 7th century.

All that's changed is the interpretations.

Sorry, that's not intellectual progress to me.

[roguevalley]

20. I agree with you. To assume that faith makes you static is wrong.

The spectrum of faith is so long and flexible, it makes me feel that there is a chance for goodness to prevail in the world. I was a protestant once. Now, I am a seeker of truth to the origins of my belief and the great force that animates us all, no matter where that takes me. I am not more a person of faith like some of the heretics that have made all people of faith sigh than Jerry Falwell is a good man. You cannot generalize this stuff. The truth is so much more different.

[Morgana LaFey]

16. Frankly, the pro-science folks posting at DU

remind me much more of the Faith diagram than the Science flow chart.

:shrug:

Sad but true.

[More Than A Feeling]

19. Why do you say that?

[Evoman]

23. "Pro-science" folk!

:rofl:

[varkam]

24. We're fundamentalists, y'know.

:crazy:

[Evoman]

25. I just wonder why anybody would categorize themselves as

"anti-science" like its something to be proud of. And maybe those people should get the fuck off the internet, no?

[varkam]

26. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch.

I know people who pride themselves on not reading books. Such people tend to see intelligence as a sign of weakness, usually because they choose not to have any.

[cosmik debris]

32. Ignorance is bliss.

Some people take that to extremes. I guess they figure that the less you know, the happier you will be.

[roguevalley]

41. are you saying those of us discussing this are anti-science? I'm

not. this is the problem. intolerance. no discussion. just get the hell off.

[varkam]

42. He was commenting on a poster using the phrase

"pro-science folk" thereby implying that there are "anti-science folk" and remarking on the unfortunate nature of such individuals.

[roguevalley]

44. ah. thank you. :)

[Evoman]

43. Lol. wtf?!!

What are you going on about....please re-read my thread, and re-read the post I replied to. Then come and apologize to me, or we are done.

[roguevalley]

45. my statement wasn't clear. people who ridicule want the discussion

over. intolerance ends discussion, getting the hell off of the point and ending it. it wasn't directed toward you. if 'we are done', fine.

[Evoman]

47. We are done. nt

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

49. yes,

with some posters here, it is black and white---either for us or you're stupid. Frankly, I'm getting disgusted with the smug intolerance I've found here at DU, and am wondering if it is worth it to even post here.

[Evoman]

52. This is ridiculous.

I can't believe your passive aggressive attacks on my character. Did anyone even understand what I meant?! You know what? Forget it....say whatever you like. Be that way.

[struggle4progress]

46. Not everyone who noisily claims to be a scientific thinker is really a scientific thinker,

just as not everyone who claims to be religious is really religious.

Obnoxious assholes come in all flavors. So do good people.

[charlie]

17. I like this one

from the same guy:

[Dogmudgeon]

56. Now THAT is a Scientist

And he began -- and ended -- with First Principles:

Women. Lots of hot, intelligent women.

Or, as they were known in te sexist patois of his day, broads.

--p!
Surely you're joking, Mr. Pig!

[Meshuga]

27. Like I said when this chart...

...was posted in a later thread, this faith flow chart is great to explain fundamentalism but a terrible representation of people of faith as a whole. Not all people of faith subscribe to this chart to answer their scientific questions or even their theological questions. In other words, this chart is a nice way to paint people of faith with a broadbrush.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

29. You are right

and to turn off moderate and progressive people of faith. I will tolerate atheists--that is their life's path--but I expect them to tolerate mine and not assume a lot of things about it that are untrue.

[Igel]

33. I rather liked a quasi-philosophical discussion of

the nature of explanation I once read. It dealt with the first 'scientific revolution' back in Bacon's day, and why all of a sudden the explanations that had been adduced were suddenly rejected by a lot of people and replaced by new ones, while conservatives continued to accept the old ones and rejected the new ones.

It also explored why every 50-100 years the same kind of rejection/acceptance controversy is repeated, and the causes of it. It was written in the 1930s, but dealt as well with the disputes going on in society at that time as it did with disputes in society in the 1600s and 1700s and 1800s and today.

Both groups ask 'why?' as the fundamental question (after 'what?', of course, with 'how?' being the link between the two answers). But they intend radically different things, and since they usually don't like discussing their assumptions about what an 'explanation' is they never get anywhere (except for phonologists, it seems, with a spate of articles a while back on 'explanation in phonology' ... but they still don't get anywhere).

[Rabrrrrrr]

48. Wow - that's pretty ignorant. And very unscientific.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

50. Right

thanks for saying it so succinctly.

[cosmik debris]

51. When the subject line says "pretty funny"

You shouldn't expect scientific enlightenment. If you did expect that, then you too are "pretty funny".

[Rabrrrrrr]

53. Did I expect that?

Please, enlighten me further.

:eyes:

[cosmik debris]

54. I have no idea what you expected

That is why I made the conditional statement "If you did expect that..."

So what did you expect when you read the header "pretty funny", scientific enlightenment?

[Rabrrrrrr]

55. Perhaps I expected something "pretty funny" but found something ignorant and unscientific.

Perhaps that didn't cross your mind. Perhaps it did. I don't know. I'm not a mind reader.