[themitigating]

The "mass media" is not one organization. I haven't seen any news reports redefining what science is, feel free to provide evidence of that. Finally it's not a game of definitions because science has a specific meaning. You can't just change that meaning (even if you add a captial S) then be critical about it.

You're critical because some organization in the government lied? Nothing to do with science

You're mad because some scientist committed fraud? Nothing to do with science.

Peer reviewers aren't properly checking papers, that's their fault and or their university/company. Nothing to do with science.

The majority of scientists believed something through experiments that were faulty or limited data then later turned out to be wrong? That's how it works, science isn't perfect but what's the alternative?

If you aren't an expert in a field or willing to put massive amounts of time in researching something but you have to make a decision doing whatever the majority of people in a field say is the most logical course of action

[tsimionescu]

You're conflating two separate things - science as a concept, and the scientific establishment. As a concept, sceince obviously works and can't be changed. The scientific establishment is a bunch of people and institutions, and it's practices may or may not match with the concept of science, and may change with time.

To imagine an extreme case, Nature could start publishing theology papers instead of physics and biology - in that case, an important part of the scientific establishment would have stopped doing actual science. But, based on reputation, many people would keep believing what Nature prints and would still point to the new theology articles as "scientists have discovered that [...]".

This is what people mean when they say science is becoming a religion: not that the concept of what science is changing, but that certain parts of the scientific establishment are not doing science per se but that their conclusions are still regarded as scientific based on past reputation.

A specific example would be someone like Michio Kaku. He is nominally a scientist, and is often interviewed as a scientist and many believe he is there to present what science says. But he is in fact just some public speaker/sci-fi author who last practiced science decades ago and now revels in speculation and exaggeration. He is essentially a priest of scientism.

[themitigating]

", and the scientific establishment"

This isn't a thing. There's no unified organization of science, therefore making generalizations about it ss wrong. It would be just as wrong as saying "Fast food restaurants need to..", "The media always ...", "Black people should stop...".

----------

This is what people mean when they say science is becoming a religion: not that the concept of what science is changing, but that certain parts of the scientific establishment are not doing science per se but that their conclusions are still regarded as scientific based on past reputation.

That's not the fault of science that's the fault of either the SPECIFIC establishments or the person. Reputation is based on past actions like truthfulness, admitting fault, etc. Not only the specific of what they did. If a company made pizza and had a reputation for quality then decided to sell bagels is it wrong of me to trust the quality? If Nature had a good reputation with scientific papers and started publishing theology papers, then why is it wrong to trust them?

* the new theology articles as "scientists have discovered that [...]".*

I don't even get this example. If a theology article starts with that sentence then that's kinda weird, I would have to read more but say the article is just fraudulent or uses "science" to justify something. That's the fault of Nature for publishing it and the author for writing it. It has nothing to do with "science" (a process) or other "scientific establishments" (since they aren't a single organization).

----------

A specific example would be someone like Michio Kaku. He is nominally a scientist, and is often interviewed as a scientist and many believe he is there to present what science says. But he is in fact just some public speaker/sci-fi author who last practiced science decades ago and now revels in speculation and exaggeration. He is essentially a priest of scientism.

According to Wikipedia he seems to have done a great deal of scientific work -

"Between 1970 and 2000, Kaku had papers published in physics journals covering topics such as superstring theory, supergravity, supersymmetry, and hadronic physics.[13] In 1974, Kaku and Prof. Keiji Kikkawa of Osaka University co-authored the first papers describing string theory in a field form.[14] Kaku is the author of several textbooks on string theory and quantum field theory. An explicit description of the second-quantization of the light-cone string was given by Kaku and Keiji Kikkawa.[15][16]"

Is there some expiration on calling yourself a scientist? It looks like this was his life's work. Like if stop researching physics for a month then spoke on a podcast where I was called a physicist is that deceptive? I could understand if someone never did any research and was being presented as a scientist but hasn't this person earned that title? Finally if someone is a scientist and a person trusts them explicitly because of that then that's wrong but that's the fault of the person.

now revels in speculation and exaggeration

I don't know anything about him, these are subjective assessments, but assuming they are true: If he speculates as part of a discussion and it's obvious or he makes it clear that it's speculation that's not a bad thing. If he exaggerates then he shouldn't, that's a personal flaw that doesn't reflect on "science" or "scientific establishments"

He's also not a priest. The definition of a priest: "a person whose office it is to perform religious rites, and especially to make sacrificial offerings."

You are trying to take words related to religion, generalize them, then using that more general definition apply it to a scientist to claim that science is a religion. Yes, we all like to spice up our sentences : "I worship pizza" "He's the priest of this fraternity". Is the fraternity a religion now? Is Pizza my new God? (it is actually) Taylor Swift isn't a religion because her fans worship her and go to mass gatherings where she performs """rituals"""

Mostly I feel like you are trying to show that incorrect usage of terms, personal flaws, and companies that misuse titles and/or reputation make science a religion because there are people who explicitly trust science, like some do with religion. Let's address that:

--------------------------------------

"Trust the science"

Let's say you need to answer a question or make a decision about something you can research. Unless you are an expert in that field and/or are willing to put massive amounts of time learning and doing your own research, you should just trust what the majority of the people in that field agree on (i.e. trust the science). Why? Because what's the alternative?

If you want to call this worship, fine, but don't claim it's like a religion. Religions don't test their truths/claims and they don't think you should test them. They want you to have faith AND faith is the only option.

So you might say something like "oh but you have faith those scientists had the right data, weren't lying etc etc"

You can do your own research, read their papers, run your own tests if you wanted to. Yes it's difficult and for many nearly impossible but the point it the information exists. The evidence to backup scientific claims exists. If someone makes a claims but lied about the evidence, that's not science. If they want you to believe their claim, have no evidence, and there's no way to test the claim, that's a religion.

Sorry this was so long

[AnonCoward42]

> The "mass media" is not one organization. I haven't seen any news reports redefining what science is, feel free to provide evidence of that.

You really want to tell me that you never heard something along the lines of "Science says ..." or "the science"? Not buying it. The usage of science in mass media is a different one than the one you want to hammer home.

> Finally it's not a game of definitions because science has a specific meaning. You can't just change that meaning (even if you add a captial S) then be critical about it.

This is mostly self-soothing I suppose. Just denying reality outright.

> You're critical because some organization in the government lied? Nothing to do with science

Motte and bailey. You just mean the hard definition. As long as you deny that a soft definition exists, it's a bit hard to argue with you.

> You're mad because some scientist committed fraud? Nothing to do with science.

You should look up motte and bailey maybe. You seemingly don't know it, but you're playing that fallacy. (Also: stop projecting)

> Peer reviewers aren't properly checking papers, that's their fault and or their university/company. Nothing to do with science.

So you want to tell me that the actual scientific process in action has nothing to do with science.

> If you aren't an expert in a field or willing to put massive amounts of time in researching something but you have to make a decision doing whatever the majority of people in a field say is the most logical course of action

Who makes the election of what the majority of people in a field say? That's where the mass media (that is not one organization) comes into play. This is basically The Science™ meme in action.

[eastbound]

> You're critical because some organization in the government lied?

I’m critical because it’s systemic. And made in the name of science. For all intents and purposes, this is the science we’re subjugated to.

> You're mad because some scientist committed fraud?

Again, critical because it’s systemic and people have lost their jobs, entire families had to move regions because the father expressed doubts about a scientist, to be later revealed that doubts were correct. The amount of harm done over this science is unbearable to see.

[themitigating]

"critical because it’s systemic"

Good, I would hope the government basis it decisions on science.

"people have lost their jobs,"

I assume you mean people who didn't get vaccinated. That's their decision, a decision based on misinformation, emotions, or politics.

"because the father expressed doubts about a scientist, to be later revealed that doubts were correct"

What what were his doubts based on? Just because he later turned out to be right means nothing unless his claims were based on something substantial.

"The amount of harm done over this science is unbearable to see."

Covid killed 1.2 million people in the US. Your right wing self inflicted suffering over vaccines means nothing compared to this.

[eastbound]

You see, you’re doing it again.

Science can be perfectly faked. Mostly happens when people get over the top about it.

Trying putting uppercase “You guys killed 1.2m people, you murderers”. If I find a single bike accident among the number you shamed me with, then all your accusation falls in shambles.

Stop screaming numbers at people as if they were true. What you’re doing is not science, it’s screaming.

[themitigating]

"Stop screaming numbers at people as if they were true. What you’re doing is not science, it’s screaming."

Even if 50% of those deaths are incorrect the number is massive. I'm relaying stasticis by saying I'm screaming you're trying to counter my argument with an unrelated attack.

"Science can be perfectly faked"

Yes it can, is that happened here? Did doctors around the county all decide to lie for the purpose of?

What evidence do you have it's fake?