I suppose we need one of these.

Edit (20-02-2014): maybe a more positive title will make some difference?

Science explains, not describes.  Science can explain green by its wavelength, but cannot explain your perception of it...quite yet.

Hence science doesn't explain. It describes, and at best pretends to explain (I am not actually smiling. I just put a smiley here because this is internet, but really your blatant ceaseless self-contradictions are no fun, never were.)

I guess Oakdale is right.  Either you are slow or purposely acting dumb.  "There seems to be no obstacle that will keep science from explaining everything, right down to why you perceive green the way you do."  Is that in simple enough terms for you to wrap your little head around or do I need to break it down into smaller spoonfuls to feed you?  I think you have run out of insults about science and you are thus reduced to just playing dumb (are you drinking?)!    

"There seems to be no obstacle that will keep science from explaining everything, right down to why you perceive green the way you do."

Let there be *seems*! Lo and behold, *seems* overpowers everything that *is*! Bow down to the power of *seems* you vermin!!!

Seriously, you would be more representative on the fundie side of the debate. I am beginning to think God sent you to earth to give atheism a bad name so that everybody would get embarrassed and convert.

There seems to be no end to this childish game of yours either.  It's a human expression Eric, used by real people who understand it--there is an inference to this phrase that apparently you don't get.  Don't waste my time while you waste your life pointing out such trivialities, if you have nothing meaningful to say in response, then just say nothing--you do that most of the time anyway. 

There seems to be a gravitation attraction between any two objects that have mass, but actually science has not tested every combination of masses in the universe to verify this--is this the type of thing you are waiting for before believing anything scientific?  I'm quite sure it is.    

Science can (potentially at least), explain everything.

This is, James, not what science purports to do. It is, rather, the ideology of Scientism... Surely, you know this?

Science's methods of curiosity, openness, inquiry, theory building, hypothesis testing and so on can be adapted and developed to explore and try to scientifically explain anything.

So: That explains your absence from the "Scientists Say" thread! The percentage of blather coming from "respectable" and credentialed scientists hurts your case... (And -at least it should!- your feelings. No?)

This is, James, not what science purports to do. It is, rather, the ideology of Scientism... Surely, you know this?

That 'Science can (potentially at least), explain everything', may not be the Hippocratic Oath of scientists, but it is a reasonable statement for anyone to make based on the performance of science in the last century and the accelerating rate of new discoveries.  I'm sure that many scientists and students of science believe in the potential of science to explain all.  It is actually a belief in the potential of mankind.  

So: That explains your absence from the "Scientists Say" thread!    The percentage of blather coming from "respectable" and credentialed scientists hurts your case... (And -at least it should!- your feelings. No?)

Scientists are as human as those from any profession and, as humans, they are prone to error, exaggeration, missteps, unprofessionalism and generally saying foolish things--so what's to talk about.  You got a way to stop all the missteps and foolishness in the world?  Apparently though, you think of science as a particularly esteemed and important profession to wish to hold scientists to superhuman standards--I never would have thunk it of you.    

"Superhuman standards?" That's not how I'd put it; maybe you believe honesty, integrity and sincerity of purpose are unattainable -- for individuals. Still, the profession should require such. No?
I'd rather say that scientists should be held to the same standards as others... (Call it a form of "professionalism".)

It seems to me that saying "Science can (potentially, eventually) explain everything" goes too far! If you claim to disagree, you've probably disavowed questions you don't like -- i.e., those for which Science is ill- or un-equipped...

"Superhuman standards?" That's not how I'd put it; maybe you believe honesty, integrity and sincerity of purpose are unattainable -- for individuals. Still, the profession should require such. No?

I am neither trying to defend nor condemn what any scientist may say.  It's just that sometimes, people with great responsibility are expected, or even made, to say something/anything about the state of certain affairs as they see it and often before it is perfectly clear to them or anyone else actually.  Regardless of what these people say, there will always be times when they are wrong and there will also always be those who will condemn or misconstrue what was said.  It's a no-win situation that some professionals, including many scientists, are sometimes put into.  That is not to say that there are no irresponsible scientists, politicians, economists, religious leaders, police officials, news reporters, etc.  But why just scientists?    

It's just that sometimes, people with great responsibility are expected

What the hell are you talking about? A combination priesthood and royalty, it sounds like; call it by its name: Megalomania.

That explains a lot!

But why just scientists?

Ahm -- because someone insists "Science can explain everything!" (The "just" is your addition. But I can see why you'd put it there...)

What the hell are you talking about? A combination priesthood and royalty, it sounds like; call it by its name: Megalomania.

Hmmm, since I wasn't speaking specifically about scientists, it would seem that you believe there are no people who, by the nature of their occupation, are obligated to a greater social responsibility.  That's cool, we can check out how well anarchy works.

Ahm -- because someone insists "Science can explain everything!" (The "just" is your addition. But I can see why you'd put it there...)

How convenient for you that you left out the word "potentially", although I do prefer your suggestion of "eventually".  Science doesn't know everything yet, but it does seems to be moving along pretty well on its own--just be patient, we will colonize the universe soon enough.    

"A greater social responsibility" sounds like the sort of phrase used by reformers; and monsters... There are, however, codes of ethics and professional standards, which are both more particular and in addition to the common requirements.
Such are what I referred to, both here and in other threads.

@Oakdale
Funny how you see the concept "social responsibility" as monstrous, but have nothing to say about the cosmic colonial ambitions expressed in the same post. Mises-Rand-Hayek type sociology has evidently had the intended effect on you.

Funny how you see the concept "social responsibility" as monstrous,

Funny, how someone as intelligent as you (claim to be...) can mis-read a simple statement!

It's the presumption of self-proclaimed elites, "our betters" (or should that be masters?), who'd decide for the rest of us what's right, and -for our own good, of course- implement their decisions, will-he, nil-he...
I'm sure you can think of a few examples of such that deserve to be called monstrous. No?

(If you can't, I'll gladly supply them. )

Funny how you see the concept "social responsibility" as monstrous,

[removed ad hom for readability]

I'm sure you can think of a few examples of such that deserve to be called monstrous. No?

(If you can't, I'll gladly supply them. )

QED

Now, feel free to supply the examples and make your intentions clear for everyone, not just me and you.

It's the presumption of self-proclaimed elites, "our betters" (or should that be masters?), who'd decide for the rest of us what's right, and -for our own good, of course- implement their decisions, will-he, nil-he...

Supposing that my reading comprehension is still good enough, the statement above was not "ad hom". Quite the opposite: it was enlightening.
 

You're right, Barulheira, that it's not directly the same ad hom as the sentence that occurred just before the quotation. However, it's not enlightening either. The most straightforward interpretation would be that it's a sweeping jump from the ad hom that occurred just before, tied with the queer view of the concept of social responsibility. The generalisation does not reveal anything enlightening, because in a sense it's accusing elites of what they are actually supposed to do - to motivate and underpin right behaviour.

The accusation is rather hilarious because Oakdale himself has all the worst marks of the attitude he accuses "elites" of. It's pretty obvious that he uses "elites" with all the same connotations - and the same level of hyprocrisy - as Laura Ingraham. But this would be an ad hom again

It's the presumption of self-proclaimed elites, "our betters" (or should that be masters?), who'd decide for the rest of us what's right, and -for our own good, of course- implement their decisions, will-he, nil-he...

Is no one more qualified (better), than you at math, physics, economics, religion or trash removal?  All of these are important functions in our world and there simply are some people in a better position to make informed comments to society on these and other subjects, than others.  Not because of their wealth, heritage or IQ (elitism), but normally based on ability, experience, insight and positive public opinion.  Not everyone is trying to take over the world Mr. Paranoid.    

The most straightforward interpretation would be that it's a sweeping jump from the ad hom that occurred just before

Only for individuals prone to see such attacks everywhere...

Now, feel free to supply the examples and make your intentions clear for everyone, not just me and you.

Well, just from the last century, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao come to mind.

Now, feel free to supply the examples and make your intentions clear for everyone, not just me and you.

Well, just from the last century, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao come to mind.

And these guys are related to social responsibility how? The concept, if they even used it, was by no means central to them. For Hitler, it was central to erase the injustice of the WWI and to make Germany a great nation. For others it was class struggle, and brave new communist world. Social responsibility was hardly there. I grew up force-fed Lenin's and Brezhnev's speeches, but I only noticed the concept tangentially emerging in Gorbachev's speeches.

Anyway, your point is clear. Social responsibility = evil. Colonisation of the universe = bleh. It's amply proven now that I didn't misread anything, because this is precisely how I read it at first. I don't remember who at the old My Opera occasionally admitted being the fan of Ann Coulter, but you fit the profile.

Anyway, your point is clear. Social responsibility = evil.

You must have some sort of System that assigns meaning in such a counter-intuitive way. Well, whatever it is, you're welcome to it...

If someone has Answers to Questions of social organization, say... Why is it too much to ask, that they present them, argue for them; and accept that their "convictions" don't justify coercion of others?
It's easy to be wrong enough to warrant blame, without compounding it by being grandiose, no?

If someone has Answers to Questions of social organization, say... Why is it too much to ask, that they present them, argue for them; and accept that their "convictions" don't justify coercion of others?
It's easy to be wrong enough to warrant blame, without compounding it by being grandiose, no?

You mean you actually have such questions? All I see is your own entrenched presuppositions shining through. Therefore I make this suggestion: Present yours first, then I will present mine.

Oh, I didn't say I had such answers or that I harbored such questions. I'm quite willing to live and let live!

Oh, I didn't say I had such answers or that I harbored such questions. I'm quite willing to live and let live!

Knowing you, this straightforwardly means: "I don't have the answers and therefore nobody else has them either. I am not interested in the questions and therefore those who demonstrate interest in them are only pretending."

For you, ersi, that's an almost perceptive reading! Close enough for Government Work...
But you should have added: "Attempting to impose answers I disagree with upon me might be a casus belli! Consider yourself forewarned..."

Social responsibility = evil. Colonisation of the universe = bleh.

Is there anything bad or evil about colonizing the universe?  I know this is off on a bit of a tangent, but it will become our new manifest destiny.  Nobody else, that we know of,  is claiming the territory--and there is sooo much of it.