> This is not at all accurate; the faith people express in science is generally identical to the faith other people express in religion, with no difference in the reasons, motivations, or justifications offered.
I think this is fundamentally incorrect. People believe in science because it produces results in the form of correct predictions and devices.
Just look at nutrition science as an example for why this isn't so.
Salt, fat, cholesterol, fructose, etc have each gone through several wild swings in good for you / bad for you. The science is entirely unsettled, yet forms the backbone of many doctors' recommendations.
Then, when the science gets taken in by mainline cultural space, it gets blown up into all sorts of utterly nonsensical, mystical woo-woo. Somehow moderation turns into paleo, vegan, fruitarian, or alkaline based diets.
People shoot wheatgrass or fast on lemon juice. All sorts of vaguely scientific sounding bullshit that isn't backed up by actual data.
You can't just pick and choose what is scientific and what isn't to try an conflate reason with religion. That is an argument in bad faith (ahem).
Further, using statements like "entirely unsettled" in reference to science is a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. It's not "settled" like religious arguments where everybody agrees to a particular interpretation of the holy book. Science either works and we make stuff with it, or it doesn't and it gets tossed away.
"making stuff with it" is not the entirety of the scientific method. I suspect you know this. What you are arguing here is nonsense. Science isn't perfect and doesn't claim to be, so pointing out some corner case and saying "here, this bit is wrong" can't be used to dismiss the entire scientific method.
If you want to argue in that fashion, I'd like to point out to you that praying doesn't always work, so all religions must therefore be bunk.
The word 'science' has been co-opted by con men. Yet it's basic tenants like the critical method and repeatable experiments have provided me with far more value than half a life filled with religious 'teaching'.
But people make no distinction between believing in science in the same area where it makes correct predictions, and believing in "science" in an area where it has nothing valid to say, because it makes correct predictions somewhere else.
To most people, science is just a word, and they support it because they know that that is the right thing to do.
> In Indonesia, the Kantus of Kalimantan use bird augury to select locations for their agricultural plots. The anthropologist Michael Dove argues that two factors will cause farmers to make plot placements that are too risky. First, Kantu ecological models contain the Gambler's Fallacy and lead them to expect that floods will be less likely to occur in a specific location after a big flood in that location (which is not true). Second [...], Kantus pay attention to others' success and copy the choices of successful households, meaning that if one of their neighbors has a good yield in an area one year, many other people will want to plant there in the next year.
> Reducing the risks posed by these cognitive and decision-making biases, the Kantu rely on a system of bird augury that effectively randomizes their choices for locating garden plots, which helps them avoid catastrophic crop failures.
> The patterning of bird augury supports the view that this is a cultural adaptation. The system seems to have evolved and spread throughout this region since the seventeenth century when rice cultivation was introduced. This makes sense, since it is rice cultivation that is most positively influenced by randomizing garden locations.
> Whatever the process, within 400 years, the bird augury system had spread throughout the agricultural populations of this Borneo region. Yet it remains conspicuously missing or underdeveloped among local foraging groups and recent adopters of rice agriculture, as well as among populations in northern Borneo who rely on irrigation.
> This example makes a key point: not only do people often not understand what their cultural practices are doing, but sometimes it may even be important that they don't understand what their practices are doing or how they work.
> not only do people often not understand what their cultural practices are doing, but sometimes it may even be important that they don't understand what their practices are doing or how they work.
this is so wrong, it's "not even wrong".
It's always important to determine why something worked or didn't. If we did not do that, we would never be able to produce enough food to feed ourselves. Ignorance and blind adherence to nonsense is what creates famines in the first place.
I think this is fundamentally incorrect. People believe in science because it produces results in the form of correct predictions and devices.