What are "anti-science views"? What makes them "anti-science" exactly?
The most popular example that comes to mind is a creationist who vehemently denies evolution. It's not only because of his/her faith beliefs that they deny evolution, but if you have ever had conversations with or read articles/blogs posted by (some) creationists, they don't seem to understand evolution, from a scientific viewpoint. There are creationists however, who seem to understand evolution, but still see it as a competing with their beliefs, so they dismiss it. Dismissing science because it doesn't align with one's spiritual beliefs can come across as anti-science.
I'm a bit put off by a vision of science that emphasizes conformity and the need to hold orthodox non-heretical views. It's a bit... medieval.
lol
Must true "anti-science views" be actual hostility to science?
I don't think that anti-science people necessarily have a hostility towards science, rather they sometimes hitch a ride on pseudo-science's back, and try to present those ideas as being on par with accepted scientific beliefs and theories. There's nothing wrong with presenting new ideas, theories, etc but I think the problem comes in when those ideas are submitted as fact based, or widely accepted scientific beliefs. (Coinciding with the article, this could be due to the fact that some people don't know what they don't know, and think that their ideas are as worthwhile as proven scientific methods and beliefs.)
Or are they belief in ideas that contradict accepted scientific beliefs?
Yes, this. (my opinion) Keep in mind, the article is discussing how many people aren't aware of how little they may know about a subject, yet debate subjects as if they are an expert.
These can often be the classic cranks, but I wouldn't call cranks 'anti-science' exactly. They often love science but overestimate their own abilities in whatever scientific subject they are opining about. Occasionally it's kind of grandiose, they think that they are the new Einstein or something, without having ever studied physics.
We see something that might be similar when evolutionary biologists like Dawkins or Coyne pose as authorities on the philosophy of religion or physicists like Krauss or Tegmark turn metaphysician. Or when pretty much any university professor tries to speak authoritatively on subjects like politics, largely unrelated to their own technical areas of expertise, on the basis of their PhD degree in their own subject and their prestigious academic appointment.
Exactly, I think this falls into the category, as well. My opinion only, but I'd say when people are unwilling to concede when they're presenting silly ideas, or going off the rails during a science discussion, they can come across as anti-science.
In the case of the classic crank, I think there might be some truth to that. I think that it also applies to the professor who acts like a professorial appointment in one subject makes them authorities on all subjects.
Yep, agree.
But other things get called "anti-science" too. We also see professionally-qualified scientists what hold unpopular positions on particular controversial technical issues in their own areas of expertise. Some of them may actually go so far as to question ideas that most of their colleagues consider given and effectively axiomatic. There are astrophysicists who cling to steady-state cosmologies and don't buy the "big bang" for example.
And on boards like Sciforums and elsewhere, we sometimes see the term "anti-science" being extended to those who believe in God or less controversially, in a universe that might arguably exceed the scope of metaphysical naturalism. (Which might arguably make you "anti-science", Wegs.)
I'm not anti-science, though. I'm not looking to replace scientific ideas with my spiritual beliefs. For those who do that, they should be mindful that they're coming across as intellectually dishonest. (even if that's not their intent)
The issue that worries me is how laypeople are supposed to relate to science. There's a body of opinion that demands that whenever an assertion is preceeded by "scientists say", laypeople are therefore obligated to believe it on pain of being denounced as "anti-science". (Reminds me of the doctrines of the medieval church.)
Well, we should all start by admitting we don't know what we don't know. If someone is unable to do that, and they truly know very little about a particular subject (not just science), then they are going to look foolish when debating with others who are more well versed on the topic. Some people don't want to learn truths, Yazata. They like their versions of truth, and we can see that presented a lot in the hard science sections of this forum, for example. There is a pseudo-science section of SF and also one for discussing the paranormal, etc...and those sections are for discussing topics that fall outside of the accepted science topics.
Then as now, most laypeople weren't technically trained in the subject, whether theology then or science now. But for whatever reason, the assertion doesn't seem entirely plausible or credible to some people and these individuals withhold automatic knee-jerk assent.
The idea is reminiscent of this board's "weak atheism", the idea that atheism isn't denial of the existence of God (which would presumably require evidence and argument) but merely lack of belief in God (which arguably carries no burden of proof). Laypeople can take a similar approach to various scientific beliefs and make similar arguments about burden of proof. Simply saying "I don't believe it" (withholding assent) without going further and claiming that it's wrong might (arguably) require no additional justification at all, unless an additional premise is inserted that people should believe for some reason. Except that the reasons for particular scientific beliefs are typically very technical, assuming they exist at all, and well beyond the expertise of the layman who is effectively being told to shut up and accept authority.
Not sure if I'm misunderstanding these points here, but I don't know if spiritual beliefs, atheism, agnosticism, etc fall into the same category, because personal belief systems are subjective. My view of spirituality will differ from the next person's view, and so on. However, it would be wrong of me to present my spiritual beliefs as objective facts, and if others disagree, I label them as ''wrong.'' Of course, one could read the Torah, or the Bible and come away with various interpretations, yet there are actual Bible scholars who exist and debate that stuff for a living. (each believing that they're ''right.'')
Edit to add, the italicized text in purple in the OP, is from the article.
