Comments on: Portraying Science as Faith and Consensus as Dogma http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/archives/203/portraying-science-as-faith-and-consensus-as-dogma Keeping the Radical Right at Bay Fri, 21 Nov 2008 04:22:25 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.11 by: Dave http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/archives/203/portraying-science-as-faith-and-consensus-as-dogma#comment-5020 Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:36:01 +0000 http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/archives/203/portraying-science-as-faith-and-consensus-as-dogma#comment-5020 Woops. I see you cover my second point rather nicely in your "Real Science vs. Creation Science" story. Good on Dr "L". Woops. I see you cover my second point rather nicely in your “Real Science vs. Creation Science” story. Good on Dr “L”.

]]> by: Dave http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/archives/203/portraying-science-as-faith-and-consensus-as-dogma#comment-5019 Wed, 29 Aug 2007 18:29:13 +0000 http://www.bay-of-fundie.com/archives/203/portraying-science-as-faith-and-consensus-as-dogma#comment-5019 Two points here. I live in South Africa and get to see the humiliation of Aids all around. South Africa has the highest Aids incidence in the world, and its leaders really do not like taking responsibility blaming the sexual behaviour of its people for the epidemic. Easier then to just pretend that Aids is a "syndrome" unrelated to HIV, and draw on the "science" of the denialists. I don't condone this approach, but I can at least see where it is coming from. The second point is that the portrayal of science as faith is an accusation levelled at mainstream Aids science. Actually, the denialists are guilty of portraying faith as science. Faith has all the properties needed to be a denialist. Selective use of evidence and documentation is one of the techniques used by faith (as evidenced by the anti-homosexuality selectively gleaned from Leviticus) . Faith also likes to set the outcome prior to undertaking the investigation. Really not science at all. And 99% of scientists will accept they are wrong if you can bring the evidence. This is really not faith at all. Apart from this, you have a fun blog. Keep rolling the stories. Two points here. I live in South Africa and get to see the humiliation of Aids all around. South Africa has the highest Aids incidence in the world, and its leaders really do not like taking responsibility blaming the sexual behaviour of its people for the epidemic. Easier then to just pretend that Aids is a “syndrome” unrelated to HIV, and draw on the “science” of the denialists. I don’t condone this approach, but I can at least see where it is coming from.

The second point is that the portrayal of science as faith is an accusation levelled at mainstream Aids science. Actually, the denialists are guilty of portraying faith as science. Faith has all the properties needed to be a denialist. Selective use of evidence and documentation is one of the techniques used by faith (as evidenced by the anti-homosexuality selectively gleaned from Leviticus) . Faith also likes to set the outcome prior to undertaking the investigation. Really not science at all. And 99% of scientists will accept they are wrong if you can bring the evidence. This is really not faith at all.

Apart from this, you have a fun blog. Keep rolling the stories.

]]>