What does it tell you when someone says "I don't believe in evolution"?

[wysinwyg]

Here is a list of five possibilities I am borrowing from @anon50609448:

(1) People who blindly accept their religion because they have been raised to do so.
(2) People who accept their religion because they have had personal experiences that lead them to believe there is a God/Have a personal relationship with Jesus
(3) People who blindly accept the conclusions of science because they have been raised to do so
(4) People who accept the conclusions of science because they have experience that makes the believe that the scientific method is a good way to find out things
(5) People who accept those conclusions of science that they are able to verify/understand themselves and have a notion of “provisional” acceptance for the rest

My argument all along is that someone in (3) is in the same exact position with respect to epistemic justification as someone in (1). I agree with you that people in (4) and (5) are not in the same exact position as someone in (1).

If you disagree, why do you disagree? Why is it inherently more justified for someone to believe in science only on the basis of cultural authority than it is for someone to believe in religion only on the basis of cultural authority?

Again, leave aside the fact that, in principle, someone in (3) can move into (4) or (5) by educating themselves. I’m talking about people in (1) and people in (3). If you make any argument about people in (3) that entails moving them into (4) or (5) then you are rebutting an argument that I am not making.

@Dave_Baxter

Not in an equivalent way as religious blind faith, though. In no circumstance is any faith, blind or otherwise, with something that both has been verified by scores of others, the proof documented, and available for scrutiny, the same kind of “blind” as religious blind faith which contains none of these elements.

But someone in (3) does not know that what they believe " has been verified by scores of others, the proof documented, and available for scrutiny". They haven’t checked to confirm that this is true. If they don’t know the reasons that their belief is justified then how can you say their belief is justified?

Do you mean you personally think such belief is justified? That’s beside the point. You’re in (4) or (5). I’m talking about people in (3).

@Dave_Baxter

This denies what “scientific results” are, which are long-term peer evaluated and constantly challenged knowledge.

It doesn’t deny what they are. It denies that the individual in question knows what they are. Because, by assumption, they don’t know what they are. If a person believes a scientific result without understanding what a scientific result actually is how is that person actually justified in believing it?

@Dave_Baxter

someone may not understand the mechanics of an individual science, but we all understand the mechanics of science itself, the scientific method.

I don’t think this is true. The participants in this discussion certainly do but many other people do not.

@Dave_Baxter

There isn’t really: in both cases the explanation would be the same, you’d either give it because you conducted the experiment yourself or because you read about it/heard about it. But what came out of your mouth would essentially be the same conclusion.

Simply untrue. Say someone tells me dark matter doesn’t exist. If I don’t have any first-hand knowledge of what “dark matter” means and why scientists think it exists then all I can say is: “Physicists believe dark matter exists” – a naked argument from authority. If I do have first-hand knowledge of what “dark matter” means then I can say: “Astronomers have demonstrated that stars orbit the galactic center at greater velocities than would be expected given the amount of matter estimated to be contained in the galaxy. The most plausible explanation for this effect is a sort of matter that exerts a gravitational force but does not otherwise interact with baryonic matter.” I don’t know how to explain this any more clearly than this: those are entirely two different statements coming out of my mouth.

@Dave_Baxter

There is, but not the difference you’re suggesting, which is one of trustworthiness.

As I’ve said numerous times, that is not what I’m suggesting.

@Dave_Baxter

Pointing out the similarities does not invalidate the distinctions. And the distinctions are not insignificant in the face of the similarities. They do not make electric and acoustic guitars just “guitars”. For practical real-world use and discussion, the differences must be acknowledged and accepted.

Again, this is purely a semantic argument that I simply do not give a shit about. If you don’t want to call if “faith” call it “felchwozz” or “lapadop”. Or anything. I don’t really care what word we use to denote the concepts being discussed.