Scientific arrogance

[SPhilly]

Let me begin by saying that I have a science degree and work in a profession that is very science oriented. I love this forum since it always seems to have intelligent and rational discussion about interesting topics (it may be scattered about but its usually there). My concern is with the people who claim to believe that science can explain everything.
Do you not realize that accepting every scientific theory as fact requires the same type of faith you criticize many of the religious posters for?

My biggest complaint is the recent treatment of ID. Most people dramatically mischaracterize this movement as a religious movement, which it is not. Granted many religious fanatic groups have adopted it as a way to get creationalism into schools but this is not the intent of the movement. What is wrong with having doubt about scientific theories? I thought this is what science was all about. Otherwise we would we still believe in spontaneous generation and the earth as the center of the universe (many “intelligent” people adamantly resisted change in these theories not all that long ago).
Every so often the “geniuses” and intellectually “Elite” among us proclaim that everything is known already and there is nothing of significance to learn. I feel this is happening today. I came from the teaching that the scientific view should be about knowledge, not preconceived notions or theories. Why are so many people that claim to be science oriented the most closed-minded??

If in the end ID causes more people to reexamine all aspect of evolution then is not something gained here? What might result is a stronger more elegant theory of evolution that can plug some of the current gaps. What is everyone afraid of? Imagine that, those that have the most faith in scientific theories seem the most frightened of any competition. Seems eerily similar to the bible thumpers that believe the world is only thousands of years old because The Book says so. They shy away from challenges too.

[Jeff V]

Good post. I'm very interested in the responses you'll get here as I've been trying to get answers to some of these same questions.

Jeff

[sexdrugsmoney]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Why are so many people that claim to be science oriented the most closed-minded??

[/ QUOTE ]

It's easier to work with a finite set of axioms? /images/graemlins/confused.gif

Catholic church also held the same view for many years about science BTW. (ie- dark ages) /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Do you not realize that accepting every scientific theory as fact requires the same type of faith you criticize many of the religious posters for?

[/ QUOTE ]

True but its a bit of a strawman. Science does not claim these theories as fact and anyone who claims they are fact is not being scientific.

Compare with religion which does claim that its teachings are fact.

chez

[Cooker]

[ QUOTE ]

What is wrong with having doubt about scientific theories?

[/ QUOTE ]

ID isn't about having doubts about scientific theory and the movement has nothing to do with firming up the current theory of evolution. People are doing that already and ID has nothing to do with that. You should have some doubt about scientific theories, and I think most scientists would agree. ID isn't about doubting evolution, it is about making evolution fit with God. That is why it is religion and not science. Religions can no longer deny that evolution is almost certainly correct, so they are scrambling to make it fit in with religion. It is not science to say "even if evolution is true there still could be a God." That is religion.

[SPhilly]

Thats exactly my point. If someone claims to be Catholic then it is safe to assume that that individual takes all those teachings to be fact (if they are in fact truly Catholic). If someone claims science explains everything then they are taking theories to be fact which is not what science teaches.
One is replacing science with religion the other is making science a religion.

[Jeff V]

I think your understanding of ID is a little off.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Thats exactly my point. If someone claims to be Catholic then it is safe to assume that that individual takes all those teachings to be fact (if they are in fact truly Catholic). If someone claims science explains everything then they are taking theories to be fact which is not what science teaches.
One is replacing science with religion the other is making science a religion.

[/ QUOTE ]

In that case, good point /images/graemlins/smile.gif

but I think its the point people missed when people claim religous theories are similar to scientific theories. ID is not science and should be kept to the philosophy/theology classes.


chez

[SPhilly]

[ QUOTE ]
ID isn't about doubting evolution, it is about making evolution fit with God.

[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding was that many of those in the begining of ID were not concerned about God whatsoever. The underlying belief was of an intelligent design that could have been other intelligent life, etc. If I were extremely religious and logical I would not need ID to make evolution fit with a concept of God.
I guess from a scientific standpoint I am more concerned with the arguments for and against evolution (as it is taught today) and less concerned with the motivation.

[SPhilly]

[ QUOTE ]
ID is not science and should be kept to the philosophy/theology classes.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is where most of my difficulty arises in these debates. How do you draw the line between science and philosophy/Theology when both are (in their purest forms)pursuits of knowledge.
For example is theoretical physics with strings and membranes science or philosophy? Much of these theories revolve around complex mathematical models that no one can actually visualize (most cannot comprehend, myself included). Yet this is science right?
But if someone theorizes that something intelligent was involved in "planning" the universe then its relegated to theological non-sense.
My point being that both theories arive from attempting to explain things we do not currently have the capacity to understand. What makes one more valid than another? (at this point anyway)

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Compare with religion which does claim that its teachings are fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong ,chez.


[ QUOTE ]
That’s exactly my point. If someone claims to be Catholic then it is safe to assume that that individual takes all those teachings to be fact (if they are in fact truly Catholic).

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong, SPhilly.

To both – we take some (all the important stuff) on Faith. Some things have basis in fact – for example Jesus was a real person and taught certain things. (Anyone who disagrees that Jesus existed – take it somewhere else, I suggest finding a forum that suggest the Holocaust didn’t happen.)

[ QUOTE ]
If someone claims science explains everything then they are taking theories to be fact which is not what science teaches.

One is replacing science with religion the other is making science a religion.

[/ QUOTE ]


This seems to happen. Probably science does it at similar rates as religious do it (judging from this forum at least). Ironically, scientists sometimes feel it is safe to assume teachings about certain religions that simply aren’t true. I say "ironically", perhaps I should be more empathic and use the word "hypocritically", because often “scientists” feel they can assume things about some religions that simply are not in evidence (Perhaps, by assuming what they have heard is true or hearing misinterpretations of the particular religion).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
ID is not science and should be kept to the philosophy/theology classes.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is where most of my difficulty arises in these debates. How do you draw the line between science and philosophy/Theology when both are (in their purest forms)pursuits of knowledge.
For example is theoretical physics with strings and membranes science or philosophy? Much of these theories revolve around complex mathematical models that no one can actually visualize (most cannot comprehend, myself included). Yet this is science right?
But if someone theorizes that something intelligent was involved in "planning" the universe then its relegated to theological non-sense.
My point being that both theories arive from attempting to explain things we do not currently have the capacity to understand. What makes one more valid than another? (at this point anyway)

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing in particular makes one more valid that the other but that's no reason to confuse them.

It seems the big fear of IDers is that if its not science then it will be dismissed as nonsense but I assume they don't believe that the fear is justified. If they are interested in the truth then they should tackle that fear not attempt to confuse everything.

I'm not sure of the relevance of how hard it is to visualise some theories. I have almost zero visualisation skills so doesn't bother me. The distinguishing feature of science is that the theories produce testable hypothesis.

chez

[hurlyburly]

Good post!

[ QUOTE ]
Do you not realize that accepting every scientific theory as fact requires the same type of faith you criticize many of the religious posters for?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, which is why every theory needs to be tested and questioned and retested as new data is discovered. Any competing theory needs to withstand the same scrutiny as the one it challenges.

[ QUOTE ]
My biggest complaint is the recent treatment of ID... Why are so many people that claim to be science oriented the most closed-minded??

[/ QUOTE ]

Not being closed-minded. I've attempted to find validity with ID and can only find circle-speak. Either the data generated is held closer than the secrets of Scientology or it's just a mechanism to allow the religious to combat the theory of evolution. If you have some compelling data generated with ID as the basis, please share it. If ID is what it says, there should be someone out there working to display the repeating patterns, isolate them in different organisms, and successfully postulate other patterns based on those previous findings. It should greatly speed up or render unneccesary medical research and/or human genome mapping if the patterns are as appearent as suggested.

[ QUOTE ]
If in the end ID causes more people to reexamine all aspect of evolution then is not something gained here? What might result is a stronger more elegant theory of evolution that can plug some of the current gaps. What is everyone afraid of? Imagine that, those that have the most faith in scientific theories seem the most frightened of any competition. Seems eerily similar to the bible thumpers that believe the world is only thousands of years old because The Book says so. They shy away from challenges too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I almost agree with you here, except that I haven't seen ID show me anything that it provides scientifically. If anyone could explain the changes that an ID researcher would implement, or how it can benefit science, I'm dying to know.

[SPhilly]

[ QUOTE ]

To both – we take some (all the important stuff) on Faith. Some things have basis in fact –


[/ QUOTE ]
Is this not just a matter of semantics? I mean a very religious person would say "I have faith in God" could that same person say "The existence of God is not a fact"?? Of course not so where is the distinction? Besides without all the "important stuff" what else is there?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Compare with religion which does claim that its teachings are fact.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Wrong ,chez.

[/ QUOTE ]

'christ is the son of god' is claimed to be an absolute fact by some religons isnt it?

or have I misunderstood these religous folk?

chez

[slickpoppa]

There is affirmative evidence is support of evolution. There is no affirmative evidence in support of ID. ID merely says that life is too complicated to have evolved on its own, so something must have designed it and that something must be god. But of course there is still the question of how god got here.

[hurlyburly]

So you're comparing quantum physics with ID? ID has to show something for it's efforts. Right now it's just hijacking the data that biologists have gathered using a different scientific method. If it really wants to shake the foundations, it needs to show that it impacts something using independent means.

[ QUOTE ]
My concern is with the people who claim to believe that science can explain everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously it hasn't or we wouldn't need scientific research any longer.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you not realize that accepting every scientific theory as fact requires the same type of faith you criticize many of the religious posters for?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nobody should treat scientific findings as "the word of God", or you are just like Christians who view a 2000-year old book as (literally) the word of God.

[ QUOTE ]
My biggest complaint is the recent treatment of ID. Most people dramatically mischaracterize this movement as a religious movement, which it is not.

[/ QUOTE ]

True to a large extent. Unfortunately, I think the "science of ID" has become somewhat synonymous with "creation science" either due to unfair characterization by non-theists or by its promotion by theists, or more likely both.

[ QUOTE ]
Granted many religious fanatic groups have adopted it as a way to get creationalism into schools but this is not the intent of the movement.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oops, I just said that, sorry. But whether it is the intent or not, I am uneasy that it may be the result.

[ QUOTE ]
What is wrong with having doubt about scientific theories? I thought this is what science was all about. Otherwise we would we still believe in spontaneous generation and the earth as the center of the universe (many “intelligent” people adamantly resisted change in these theories not all that long ago).

[/ QUOTE ]

Doubt is what makes reasonable thinkers reasonable.

[ QUOTE ]
Every so often the “geniuses” and intellectually “Elite” among us proclaim that everything is known already and there is nothing of significance to learn.

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously, these people would be neither genius nor intellectually elite.

[ QUOTE ]
I feel this is happening today. I came from the teaching that the scientific view should be about knowledge, not preconceived notions or theories.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed.

[ QUOTE ]
Why are so many people that claim to be science oriented the most closed-minded??

[/ QUOTE ]

Not everyone who espouses science gets the real message. Just like not everyone who espouses Christianity gets Jesus's real message. However, what you (or others) may view as "close-minded" may be anything but. I am firmly against the notion of a God as described by the Bible. I would guess that most of the Christians on this forum would say I am close-minded to theism or ID based on my posts. They would be wrong. In fact, I have significant misgivings towards the theory of evolution, for example. However, I believe that a theory based on the scientific method of observation, hypothesis, validation is far superior to a theory based on "the Bible says so" or "I have faith" -- I am close-minded to conclusions based on such mystical explanations which have no means of being validated other than "faith."

[ QUOTE ]
If in the end ID causes more people to reexamine all aspect of evolution then is not something gained here?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on what exactly is taught and how they go about reexamining those aspects.

[ QUOTE ]
What might result is a stronger more elegant theory of evolution that can plug some of the current gaps.

[/ QUOTE ]

Possibly, although I think more emphasis on the findings of quantum physics and relativistic physics are much more powerful means of awakening a desire to reexamine previous paradigms and question what everything really means.

[ QUOTE ]
What is everyone afraid of?

[/ QUOTE ]

A bunch of theists who rely more on faith than the scientific method getting their curriculum into science classes.

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine that, those that have the most faith in scientific theories seem the most frightened of any competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Genuine scientists should never be afraid of "competition" in terms of other theories, as long as those other theories have the same burdens of observation, hypothesis, validation as the rest. There are lots of competing theories of the universe, and most physicists weren't afraid of such radical concepts like superstring theory and the like.

[ QUOTE ]
Seems eerily similar to the bible thumpers that believe the world is only thousands of years old because The Book says so. They shy away from challenges too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Real scientists welcome the challenges of competing views as all real progress has come on the heels of scientific findings or theories which dramatically changed the current way of looking at things.

In summary, a scientist shouldn't be "arrogant" about a particular theory, but rather the scientific method itself. I am sure that theists will read your post and respond along the lines of "you tell 'em!", but they will be missing the point. It's not the supremacy of any particular theory that makes me place science over religion, its the supremacy of the method! Religion has it all figured out. The little book tells in black and white how the universe was created, and why we're here, and what's beyond. The religious man who takes all those pages at face value and thinks he has the universe figured out is a fool and is missing out on exploring the greatest imaginable challenges to the human mind.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
My concern is with the people who claim to believe that science can explain everything.

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't seen anyone here who has claimed that. Can you provide a link to such post(s)?

Since man is not omniscient, I don't claim science can explain everything. However, I do claim that reason is man's only valid means of gaining knowledge, and that the scientific method is the systematic application of reason to understand the natural universe. Thus, although we can't know everything, we can know some things via the scientific method.

[ QUOTE ]

Do you not realize that accepting every scientific theory as fact requires the same type of faith you criticize many of the religious posters for?


[/ QUOTE ]

The degree of certainty to the truth of scientific theories should be in proportion to the evidence which supports it. That's an application of reason, not faith.

For example, when the theory of plate tectonics and continental drift was first formulated, it was doubted by many if not most scientists. It was not considered a "fact." Since then, overwhelming supporting evidence was gathered until it became a universally accepted theory in the mainstream scientific community. No "faith" is required, only an objective assessment of the evidence. Similarly for the theory of evolution.

It is a common tactic by creationists to attempt to destroy the distinction between reason and faith, and thereby between religious dogma and rational inquiry. Once everything becomes a matter of "faith," well, then who is to say one person's faith is more correct than another's?

[ QUOTE ]
My biggest complaint is the recent treatment of ID. Most people dramatically mischaracterize this movement as a religious movement, which it is not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, it's obviously not a scientific movement since there is no proposed theory, nor significant body of published research in the mainstream scientific literature. Even if it were a scientific objection to evolution (which it isn't), that still doesn't make it a theory in it's own right.

ID is perhaps a religious based political movement, which uses pseudo-scientific jargon as propaganda.

[ QUOTE ]
What is wrong with having doubt about scientific theories?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nothing is wrong with that, provided the doubt is based on evidence. In fact, one way for a scientist to make a name for him or herself is to publish scientific evidence which tends to falsify an established scientific theory.

[ QUOTE ]

Every so often the “geniuses” and intellectually “Elite” among us proclaim that everything is known already and there is nothing of significance to learn.


[/ QUOTE ]

Again, who has claimed this?

[ QUOTE ]

If in the end ID causes more people to reexamine all aspect of evolution then is not something gained here? What might result is a stronger more elegant theory of evolution that can plug some of the current gaps. What is everyone afraid of?

[/ QUOTE ]

If a scientist provided scientific evidence which falsifies the current theory of evolution, it would be hailed as revolutionary. Nobody is "afraid" of supposed challenges to evolutionary theory. ID isn't taken seriously in the scientific community simply because it isn't science, and does not in any way challenge or cast doubt upon the theory of evolution.

[RJT]

Chez and SPhilly,

[ QUOTE ]
Is this not just a matter of semantics? I mean a very religious person would say "I have faith in God" could that same person say "The existence of God is not a fact"? Of course not so where is the distinction?

[/ QUOTE ]

That person should say the second sentence. He should probably say it this way “The non-existence of God is not a fact.“ But, same thing. It is faith, not fact. A person may live his life as if it is fact - and we believers try to do that, I think. So, no I don’t think it is a matter of semantics. It is you restating what believers say in your own words (and thus changing the meaning.)

[ QUOTE ]
Besides without all the "important stuff" what else is there?

[/ QUOTE ]

I only qualified it with “important stuff” so as to be accurate without thinking too hard. I couldn’t think of any minor things that aren’t too based on faith. I am not positive, outside of things like Jesus being a real person, I couldn’t think of anything off hand that is fact. “Minor stuff” like John the Baptist and the Apostles being real folk probably are facts. Don’t really know enough about extant texts to say that historians agree they were for sure real or not.


[ QUOTE ]
'christ is the son of god' is claimed to be an absolute fact by some religons isnt it?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, chez. It is a statement we believe in, we have faith in it. We might even be able to say that we have faith that it is true. We, (I) never would say, “because I have faith that it is true, therefore it is true.”

[ QUOTE ]
or have I misunderstood these religous folk?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t know if you misunderstood them or if they state such things and they misspeak themselves. Either way, this appears to be a very big misunderstanding here on the forum. I am really not sure who is to blame. But, from what I have read on the forum this impression is prevalent and seems to be a cause for a lot of confusion.

Interesting suggestion that Christians don't claim their beliefs are true, but I think I disagree based on the majority I have met. I respect your position however and its admirable to acknowledge the limits of certainty.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
Interesting suggestion that Christians don't claim their beliefs are true, but I think I disagree based on the majority I have met. I respect your position however and its admirable to acknowledge the limits of certainty.

[/ QUOTE ]


Well, I ask you next time the subject comes up to educate them to the proper us of the English language. For one to say “a (any) belief is for a fact true” creates further erosion of the English language (not that my use of grammar, vocabulary, and diction is so great - not to mention punctuation, I don‘t know what happened when I was taught commas. I must have a mental block.) let alone to erode ones own religion by allowing non believers to think them even sillier than they might otherwise.

Trust me if a scientist said to me evolution (and I probably in it too, I really don't know much about it. What I do know of evolution makes sense. For now, I have no practical use for it so I don‘t study it further.) is a fact; I would say “Fine, prove it. Otherwise don’t speak such statements.”

[ QUOTE ]
Trust me if a scientist said to me evolution ... is a fact; I would say “Fine, prove it. Otherwise don’t speak such statements.”

[/ QUOTE ]

As would I.

But if that scientist said "there appears to be some evidence supporting this theory", I would concur.

[Piers]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Do you not realize that accepting every scientific theory as fact requires the same type of faith you criticize many of the religious posters for?

[/ QUOTE ]

True but its a bit of a strawman.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I would go further and say the whole post is a strawman argument.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Trust me if a scientist said to me evolution ... is a fact; I would say “Fine, prove it. Otherwise don’t speak such statements.”

[/ QUOTE ]

As would I.

But if that scientist said "there appears to be some evidence supporting this theory", I would concur.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ditto, what you said.

[theben]

ID is a big load of something

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
No, chez. It is a statement we believe in, we have faith in it. We might even be able to say that we have faith that it is true. We, (I) never would say, “because I have faith that it is true, therefore it is true.”

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused, maybe coz I'm tired maybe you will clear this up for me by the morning (ok afternoon).

Religon. Belief in some unconditional propositions about the nature of the world as in 'belief that jesus is the son of god'

That is, belief that some fact about the world is the case.

Science Belief in some conditional propositions about the nature of the world as in 'belief that if the theory of evolution is correct then man descended from primate'

That is, belief that some fact is true if the theory is true.

These are fundementally different and is the difference I was trying to highlight earlier. Have I still got it wrong?

chez

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, chez. It is a statement we believe in, we have faith in it. We might even be able to say that we have faith that it is true. We, (I) never would say, “because I have faith that it is true, therefore it is true.”

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused, maybe coz I'm tired maybe you will clear this up for me by the morning (ok afternoon).

Religon. Belief in some unconditional propositions about the nature of the world as in 'belief that jesus is the son of god'

That is, belief that some fact about the world is the case.

Science Belief in some conditional propositions about the nature of the world as in 'belief that if the theory of evolution is correct then man descended from primate'

That is, belief that some fact is true if the theory is true.

These are fundementally different and is the difference I was trying to highlight earlier. Have I still got it wrong?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
That is, belief that some fact about the world is the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Change this to: “That is, belief that some theory of the world is the case”

Then I think you got something.

One definition of belief:

Belief: the conviction that certain things are true.

This does not say: The certainty or the proof that certain things are true.

The key word is “conviction”.


[ QUOTE ]
That is, belief that some fact is true if the theory is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I buy this. Prove the theory is true then we have no need for belief. We got the proof. To believe in a fact is redundant.

Hope this makes sense. You might be tired, but I just had a Tanqueray and tonic and a few glasses of Cabernet.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]


As would I.

But if that scientist said "there appears to be some evidence supporting this theory", I would concur.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll say that various things such as Coulomb's law are facts, even though I cannot prove them, just because experimentally the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of Coulomb's law being true. This doesn't mean that it is proven, it just means that all current evidence points to it being true. Since proof is impossible, hundreds of years of evidence sans counterexample is a pretty good substitute. I think there is a healthy body of things that science says are true that it is pretty valid to think are true. That's the point, isn't it?

Science as a religion is a valid point, but the difference with science is that people will explain in the open what they are thinking, and you are in principle capable of deciding whether they are full of [censored] or not. This isn't even possible in principle in most matters of faith. While for the layman a similar amount of faith is needed, the stated processes by which the answers are received are themselves valid criteria by which to judge the accuracy and quality of the answers. A process that leaves itself open to doubt and correction is also key.

[evil_twin]

[ QUOTE ]
My biggest complaint is the recent treatment of ID. Most people dramatically mischaracterize this movement as a religious movement, which it is not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I stopped reading here. ID is based on the idea that a supreme creator being had a hand in the design of every living thing. Sounds pretty damn religious to me.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, chez. It is a statement we believe in, we have faith in it. We might even be able to say that we have faith that it is true. We, (I) never would say, “because I have faith that it is true, therefore it is true.”

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm confused, maybe coz I'm tired maybe you will clear this up for me by the morning (ok afternoon).

Religon. Belief in some unconditional propositions about the nature of the world as in 'belief that jesus is the son of god'

That is, belief that some fact about the world is the case.

Science Belief in some conditional propositions about the nature of the world as in 'belief that if the theory of evolution is correct then man descended from primate'

That is, belief that some fact is true if the theory is true.

These are fundementally different and is the difference I was trying to highlight earlier. Have I still got it wrong?

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
That is, belief that some fact about the world is the case.

[/ QUOTE ]

Change this to: “That is, belief that some theory of the world is the case”

Then I think you got something.

One definition of belief:

Belief: the conviction that certain things are true.

This does not say: The certainty or the proof that certain things are true.

The key word is “conviction”.


[ QUOTE ]
That is, belief that some fact is true if the theory is true.

[/ QUOTE ]

I buy this. Prove the theory is true then we have no need for belief. We got the proof. To believe in a fact is redundant.

Hope this makes sense. You might be tired, but I just had a Tanqueray and tonic and a few glasses of Cabernet.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think its clear. We can play with the words facts, conviction, certainty etc. but they don't change the key difference, that religous beliefs are directly about the world whereas Scientific beliefs are conditional beliefs.

Obviously some scientists achieve such a confidence in the theory that they drop the conditional but this isn't necessary for science.

It is necessary for religon and this draws a clear line between the two.

chez

[SPhilly]

[ QUOTE ]

In summary, a scientist shouldn't be "arrogant" about a particular theory, but rather the scientific method itself. I am sure that theists will read your post and respond along the lines of "you tell 'em!", but they will be missing the point. It's not the supremacy of any particular theory that makes me place science over religion, its the supremacy of the method! Religion has it all figured out. The little book tells in black and white how the universe was created, and why we're here, and what's beyond. The religious man who takes all those pages at face value and thinks he has the universe figured out is a fool and is missing out on exploring the greatest imaginable challenges to the human mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I agree with this 100%. I am not a proponent of ID in any way. My complaint was more with those who dismiss ideas in the name of science. Having spent some years pouring over mostly medical related research I could show hundreds of instances of bad scientific method that show up in respected peer-reviewed literature. Everytime something hits the mass media (I know this is not a reputable science medium) I can look at the research that is being sited and laugh at how misrepresented it is. I often wonder how prevalent this is in other branches of science. Thats all.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

In summary, a scientist shouldn't be "arrogant" about a particular theory, but rather the scientific method itself. I am sure that theists will read your post and respond along the lines of "you tell 'em!", but they will be missing the point. It's not the supremacy of any particular theory that makes me place science over religion, its the supremacy of the method! Religion has it all figured out. The little book tells in black and white how the universe was created, and why we're here, and what's beyond. The religious man who takes all those pages at face value and thinks he has the universe figured out is a fool and is missing out on exploring the greatest imaginable challenges to the human mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I agree with this 100%. I am not a proponent of ID in any way. My complaint was more with those who dismiss ideas in the name of science. Having spent some years pouring over mostly medical related research I could show hundreds of instances of bad scientific method that show up in respected peer-reviewed literature. Everytime something hits the mass media (I know this is not a reputable science medium) I can look at the research that is being sited and laugh at how misrepresented it is. I often wonder how prevalent this is in other branches of science. Thats all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mustn't go too far. Just as bad scientists can give science a bad name, so religous fanatics can give religon a bad name. There's no incompatibility between religon and science except with those fanatics who insist some old text contains the literal truth.

chez

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

Mustn't go too far. Just as bad scientists can give science a bad name, so religous fanatics can give religon a bad name. There's no incompatibility between religon and science except with those fanatics who insist some old text contains the literal truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there is a pretty fundamental inconsistency between the mindsets needed for good science and good religion. Interpreting scripture literally is sort of a side issue, to my mind.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Mustn't go too far. Just as bad scientists can give science a bad name, so religous fanatics can give religon a bad name. There's no incompatibility between religon and science except with those fanatics who insist some old text contains the literal truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think there is a pretty fundamental inconsistency between the mindsets needed for good science and good religion. Interpreting scripture literally is sort of a side issue, to my mind.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not sure what you are saying, gump, care to restate or elaborate?

[gumpzilla]

Sure, it's quite simple. Science is inherently about doubt, quantifying it and making hypotheses based on observed facts. Religion is almost always about beliefs that are not based on observable facts, and are supposed to be taken on faith, usually without doubt. So a religious scientist is applying two very different styles of thinking to the two endeavors. There's nothing wrong with this - "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - but I think it's pretty clear that there's a massive inconsistency between the two viewpoints.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, it's quite simple. Science is inherently about doubt, quantifying it and making hypotheses based on observed facts. Religion is almost always about beliefs that are not based on observable facts, and are supposed to be taken on faith, usually without doubt. So a religious scientist is applying two very different styles of thinking to the two endeavors. There's nothing wrong with this - "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - but I think it's pretty clear that there's a massive inconsistency between the two viewpoints.

[/ QUOTE ]

But the domains of religon and science can be distinct, and are distinct for many religous folk who are scientists.

There not all bible thumpers.

chez

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]

But the domains of religon and science can be distinct, and are distinct for many religous folk who are scientists.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying they aren't. What I'm saying is just that the frame of mind necessary for accepting any religious doctrine that I'm familiar with is very different from that necessary in science. I think this and cultural reasons are why you find so many scientific atheists.