Religious Scientists V
I'm not sure what it means to be "religious about science," other than to accept science as the only method of obtaining objective truth. We can all have hunches about things, but in order for these things to gain the status of truth, the scientific method is the only way for some of us. Even then, we feel that we can only strive for better models to understand reality, but never being certain that we can ever really get there. Is that being religious about science or is it just being logical?
Let us return to those thrilling days of yesteryear, before
Mozina stole Zeuzzz's conversation ...
A normal scientist may get new data that shows the old data to be wrong, and he will just forget about the previous results. The religious scientist tries his hardest to keep the figures he previously worked out were significant in some way in the literature. And thus starts the downward spiral into crackpot-en-dom. After finding his religious revelation he has no intention of loosing it. To him its the secret of the universe that can be used for boundless purposes. So he'll probably invent something metaphysical like Aether Quantum Dynamics to explain why he's right and everyone else is wrong.
The way I interpret what Zeuzzz wrote in the OP is like this ...
Normal Scientists
They are on a quest to understand nature and is thus willing & able to suppress their innate sense of how things ought to be, in favor of the revelation of how things really are, through science & logic. They are willing to be surprised, and more importantly, they are able to recognize when they have been wrong and need to retrace some steps, or even start all over again. They are willing to consider any evidence, regardless of how it seems to fit with any innate sense of how things ought to be.
Religious Scientists
They are on a quest to prove that their innate sense of how things ought to be is in fact true of nature. This idea is to them equivalent to a religious doctrine of faith which is true by definition, a postulate in the full mathematical sense. Hence, it is not necessary to consider any contrary evidence, since you know in advance that it is wrong and so not worth the waste of time. So they are unwilling to consider any evidence that is contrary to their innate sense of how things ought to be.
Of course, real people are rarely all one or all the other, but a mix of the two. All real people want to see their innate sense of how things ought to be win out in the end. This includes normal scientists, who will try to make it work. But they will eventually see the light, so to speak, and with some variability for individual differences, realize that the universe is the way it is, not the way they want it to be. Einstein was a paragon of "normal scientist" as he plowed through the revelation of special & general relativity, an elegant statistical mechanical demonstration of the sizes of molecules, and the very surprising re-adoption of the particle nature of light. This is really the pinnacle of letting the universe, and not prejudice, lead the way. But the very same Einstein became a "religious scientist" when it came to his rejection of quantum mechanics, based on a combination of the really religious idea that "God does not play dice", and his own innate sense of how orderly things ought to be, and how disorderly they became under the rule of quantum mechanics. One man capable of being both a "normal scientist" and a "religious scientist", almost at the same time.
Mozina, please don't bother to answer this with any of your drivel, unless you actually have something to say that relates to the OP.
Don't count on it. You have to understand that his common
modus operandi is to blatantly hijack any thread he can find, and force everyone to discuss his ideas. It is very disrespectful towards the people who are hounded out of their own threads, just to satisfy Mozina's desire to be the center of every conversation. But, then again, we already know that Mozina is not infected with the disease of respect for others, so it is predictable behavior.
Certainly, Mozina is one of the most extreme examples of a "religious scientist", in this context, that you will ever encounter. At least Einstein, while he might have been thoroughly in the "religious scientist" camp when it came to quantum mechanics, was never ignorant about it. He knew & understood it as well as its founders and adherents, so even if wrong, his criticisms were insightful and not lightly dealt with. Mozina, on the other hand, is the very personification of ignorance glorified; he knows nothing, knows that he knows nothing, and is proud of it. He hides behind an aggressive mask of refusing to "bark math on command" so as to avoid revealing that he does not understand math at any level, primarily because he does not think math worthy of caring about in any case.
One thing certain is that Mozina does not respect science, as we know it, at any level. He rejects anything & everything that does not appeal to his own established & infallible religious doctrine of faith. Combine that kind of obstinance with that kind of ignorance and you are unlikely to get anything intelligent in the end, as experience has borne out.
.
!
