Not according to this 1997 survey. I find it highly unlikely that the percentages would change so dramatically in the course of a single year.
Reread the original posted article and you’ll see that it’s talking about the exact same study, and there are two groups’ results being presented:
Actually, I misspoke. They are both copies of the same original study, but the one in JThunder’s link makes no mention of dividing the population of scientists beyond the “general” category.
I don’t think it is the same study, Ptahlis. The article you cited referred to a 1998 study, whereas the one I cited referred to a 1997 study. The numbers are also widely disparate; for example, the article I cited showed that 40% of the scientists polled believed in God, while 45% did not. These appear to be two studies performed by Edward Larson at two different times, yielding vastly different results.
So I would be cautious about concluding that 93% of scientists don’t believe in God, as the numbers seem to vary greatly depending on how you select the sample. (Without further details on how the samples differed and how the methodology changed, we can’t make any conclusions one way or another.)
Now, some skeptic is bound to come along and say, “Well, Larson obviously found a way to improve his study, so the 1998 results must be more accurate!” That’s wild speculation though, and hitherto unsubstantiated. One could just as well speculate that he subsequently altered the methodology so as to produce results that he found more palatable. Or perhaps there was just some fundamental flaw in the way these studies were conducted. Either way, the vastly different results indicate that we should not be quick to accept either one.
Okay, I just realized that Ptahlis link mentions the following:
Again, the year threw me, as this one refers to a study dated in 1996(!). Presumably, it’s the one that was belated reported in 1997.
So it’s incorrect to say that 93% of all scientists reject God’s existence, as this only applies to a subset of the group – specifically, members of the NAS. I think Larson is too hasty in concluding that this is due to the academic credentials of the NAS, as this is a premature conclusion. (Hint: Most theistic scientists that I know would probably not join the NAS, due to their church obligations and para-church activities. Groups often have a tendency to be self-selecting, and so I think it’s foolish to evaluate the “greater” scientists based solely on their NAS membership.)
This is just silly.
Science is the only path to truth because “truth” is defined as the nature of the universe our observations show us.
Experimentation is just a way to make observation more convenient – instead of merely waiting for key observations to surface, we attempt to induce them.
Science cannot lead to any number of other “truths”. But so what? Those truths are necessarily subsets of scientific truth.
JThunder, this is futile. “Right” and “wrong” are by definition arbitrary designations assigned by humans. What else could they possibly be? They’re words, JThunder. Read a dictionary.
As for science being the one path to “truth” (let’s call it facts instead, to avoid the wrath of g8rguy), let me describe the experiment I performed to determine this.
I took a bunch of people and gave some of them the inclination to find things out, observe and experiment, and gave some of them the inclination to, well, sit around and pray. I then stepped back for forty-thousand years and observed the results.
After that period, the first group had accomplished, among many other things, the following:
- the wheel
- the arch
- agriculture
- metal working
- boatbuilding
- navigation and mapmaking
- roads
- pyramids and other huge buildings
- eyeglasses
- monoculars, binoculars and telescopes
- steam power
- bookprinting
- formulation of Newton’s Laws
- gunpowder
- railroads
- medicine
- formulation of evolution
- cars
- photography
- indoor plumbing
- motion pictures
- surgery
- flight
- the theories of relativity
- nuclear, solar and wind power
- space flight
People working by other methods had accomplished:
- a couple of bent spoons. That’s about it.
Science gets results. That’s how we know it works. No other method does to any appreciable degree, and I’d be hard-pressed to find a single instance of a non-scientific method accomplishing anything at all in the real world.
Now, to head your two objections off at the pass:
Q1. What about the A-bomb, H-bomb etc?
A1. Quite right, they belong in the list as well. I never said the scientific method was good, just that it worked. These things show science gets results, just like my other examples.
Q2. The wheel wasn’t produced by science! The scientific method is only X years old!
A2. Do you know what science is? Science is looking at the world and noting what you see. Science is trying things to see if they work, keeping what works and discarding what doesn’t, letting each piece of progress rest firmly on its forebears. What we call the scientific method (double-blind studies, control groups etc) is merely a set of rules to make sure that science gets the best results possible. It tries (successfully, if properly applied) to eliminate experimenter bias and similar problems that contaminate the results.
If you don’t get it now, I doubt you ever will.
Quite right. I fell into the same “prove” trap. Science today says that we can’t know what’s on the other side of a singularity, but perhaps someday we’ll show that this is wrong.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by JThunder *
Quite the contrary; I’m the one who’s claiming that science IS NOT the one path to truth. You’ve cited one of the reasons why it isn’t.
[/quote
Saying that science does not prove anything is not the same as saying it is not the one path to “truth.” A correct proof jumps you to the truth directly. Science wanders towards it, using a circuitous path. You’re the one who keeps talking about proofs, and assuming that proofs are somehow necessary to reach truth. Prove that!
BTW, you have not mentioned what another path to the truth is. If you are claiming that there is another path to the truth, it’s time for you to show it.
I’ll say it again, slowly. The scientific method does not prove anything. A theory can always be falsified with new information. A theory gets closer to the truth the more information we have, and the more chances of falsification there are which do not falsify it. It may never get there, but it gets close, a lot closer than anything else, whether philosophy or religion.
Priceguy et al. have already responded to JThunder’s posts so I’ll just repond to this:
I think there’s a difference between accepting an unproven asumption as fact (i.e. faith) and using unproven assumptions because they seem to give useful results. Scientists know those assumptions are unproven and can be disproved tomorrow.
100 years ago, one of the fundamental principles of science was that the universe worked according to physical laws and therefore everything had predictable outcomes. Then we started finding observations that seemed to contradict this. Some scientists had faith on this assumption and therefore had trouble accepting the new observation (e.g. Einstein) but we eventually accepted it. Now scientists accept the notion that, for example, the trajectory of a photon cannot be measured or predicted to an arbitrary precision. If we find evidence to challenge other assumptions (e.g. laws of physics seem to be different on other galaxies or in the past), I’m sure the scientific community would eventually accept it.
All, but you said that truth can only be discerned through scientific means. You made a claim regarding “right” and “wrong,” so I expect you to provide a scientific experiment to substantiate your claim.
The fact that you cannot, and that you must appeal to a dictionary instead, proves my point quite dramatically.
And I’ll say it again, s.l.o.w.l.y. I have no problem with what you said. Your objection is only a problem for those who claim that science is the only way we can ever know anything – that it is the only possible way we can know the truth. (Hint: For someone to conclude that it’s the only possible avenue to truth, that person must be able to prove that truth cannot be uncovered in any other way. Otherwise, they cannot legitimately make that claim.)
I don’t have a problem with the fact that science doesn’t truly prove anything. However, if one claims that there is NO OTHER way to know something – that there is absolutely no other possible means to discern the truth – then they must be prepared to provide proof. Without proof, they cannot make this claim with any measure of honesty.
Keep it up, scr4.
Every single time you utter something without using the scientific method, you are proving my point. (Remember, you’re the one who said that this is the only means we have to discern truth.) I notice that you have yet to cite even a single experiment in your impassioned defense so far.
So please, keep up the good work! I rather enjoy seeing you disprove your own case.
Now this debate is leaving the realm of silly and entering the domain of stupid.
How can a definition be considered “true” or “false”? How can an experiment be performed to validate a definition?
Science can show us whether anything matching the definitions we create exists, but that’s all. Definitions alone don’t lead to truth, except possibly by logical deduction, which can only be performed through observation.
Jthunder: You are correct. There is no way that the scientific method can really be used to prove the validity of the scientific method. Of course, the scientific method can’t really “prove” anything in the first place – any theory can later be disproven or modifed as new information becomes available. And , of course, the whole idea of asking the scientific method to prove it’s own validity is laughably circular, much like those who try to prove the Bible is true by only referencing the Bible itself (“See! The Bible says right there that it is true!”]
As I’ve posted in another thread, even an atheist must take some things on “faith” (although some would disagree whether reliance on fundamental assumptions is really the same thing as faith). The difference between this type of “faith” and that held by theists is that one has successfully been able to make accurate predictions time and time again, while the other has not. I have “faith” in the principle of causality, and that “faith” allows me to predict events with a surprising degree of accuracy. Religious faith, however, is almost completely useless when it comes to accurately predicting anything at all.
Having said that, however, I would submit that there is a way in which the scientific method might be used to validate itself. Simply put, the scientific method holds that a theory that explains observed phenomena is assumed to be true in the absence of counter-evidence. If I posit as a theory that the scientific method is suffient to explain all that is knowable, this theory remains valid until somebody can provide a counter-example. So far, I have yet to see anybody offer credible evidence of something that is knowable that can not be explained by using the scientific method. Therefore, the theory stands as valid. Q.E.D.
Regards,
Barry
And if this were a debate about whether science gets results or not, or whether it’s a useful tool, then you would have a point. But it isn’t, so you don’t.
Nobody here denies that science is an incredibly valuable tool that gets results. The debate, however, is whether is is the only means by which truth can be known. You should know this, since you’ve been an active participant herein.
In short, nothing in your example proves your point at all. You are defending a position other than the one under discussion. In logic, this is known as a strawman argument.
And if I had claimed that we should abandon science, or that it was a tool for evil, then you would have a point as well. Since I made no such claim though, you are arguing against a position which nobody has sought to defend. (Rather a futile exercise, wouldn’t you say?)
Again, please stick to the issue at hand. The issue is whether science is the only way to find truth. Don’t get sidetracked on irrelevant side-issues, as these don’t reflect well on your case.
And AGAIN, if I had raised that objection, you would have a valid point. Since I did not though, this is simply an irrelevant point – a strawman argument.
Those are three strawman arguments in this point alone, Priceguy. Have you been keeping count?
It could very well be that the wheel was arrived at by a rudimentary application of the scientific method. (Personally, I rather doubt that, as I doubt that process was as clear as you described, but for the purposes of this discussion, ;et’s assume that it was.) This still doesn’t prove your point, though. Granting that the wheel arose through the application of science does NOT mean that science is the only pathway to knowledge, and so your point remains unsubstantiated.
So again: Demonstrate that there are absolutely NO OTHER WAYS in which knowledge can be acquired, except through science. If you can’t prove this, then you don’t truly know this to be so, and so your bold, grandiose claim lacks a foundation. (And remember: Science is the only tool in your epistomelogical toolbelt, so this is the means which you can use.)
Certainly it’s correct that if one chooses to define “truth” as in essence, “that which can be found by observation,” and “science” as “that which we do when we observe,” we’ve established that you can find truth by science. We’ve not established that we can’t find truth elsewhere, note, unless you change “truth” to mean “that which we can only find by observation.” So yes, it’s possible to define the debate out of existence. Grand.
Of course, I rather expect that you’ll offer these as the correct definitions of all the terms, but I hope you recognize that not everyone agrees with your definitions.
I think I’m missing something here. As I understand it, you’ve established to your satisfaction the following:[ol]
[li]Truth can only be reached by science.[/li][li]Science cannot lead to certain things.[/li][li]These things are subsets of scientific truth.[/li][/ol]Of course, as subsets of scientific truth, they’d darn well better be reachable by science after all, hadn’t they? So either I’m misunderstanding you, which is entirely possible, or there’s an inconsistency present.
Moving along to Priceguy, now… I get the sense that you’d agree with TVAA’s definition of truth, so I’ll not comment on that further.
However, the little “experiment” you posited showed this: science is a fruitful path towards learning about aspects of our universe and allowing us to make cool toys. What it didn’t show in the slightest is what you claimed it did: science is the only path towards learning about our universe. There, I’m afraid, we really are stuck. It’s not, to my mind, a particularly important thing to demonstrate, but barring its demonstration, its not a claim one can make from the perspective of a scientist. That’s not a problem; science needn’t encompass everything for it to be a good, valuable, and tremendously important tool. But it’s something we oughtn’t to forget, either.
This
is just plain silly. When last I checked, “fact,” “truth,” “observation,” and “science” were also words. And of course, just like “right” and “wrong,” they stand for concepts. And fundamentally, these concepts are things we humans have imposed on reality to help us make sense of it. So, too, with “right” and “wrong.”
Lastly, scr4, I agree that there’s an important distinction between accepting an unproven assumption as fact and accepting an unproven assumption as fact unless shown otherwise, as we do in science. What isn’t clear to me is whether this distinction really applies here. Were one of the unproven assumptions in a religion to be shown incorrect, its adherents would have to come to grips with it, and those with half a brain would reject it as false. Some would persist, of course, but that’s a problem of stupidity, not of religion.
On preview, TVAA, you do realize that this: “How can a definition be considered ‘true’ or ‘false’?” jibes rather poorly with the concept that your definition of truth is correct?
Why should I bother, since you have demonstrated that you have no understanding of what the scientific method is, and refuse to accept other people’s explanations?
In any case, I probably did get carried away and said that the scientific method is the only way to discern the truth. I take that back. I should have said that as of now, the scientific method seems to be the best way of learning the nature of the universe. The use of the scientific method has led to the discovery of numerous theories which proved useful. On the other hand, cultures that did not value the scientific method produced theories that turned out to contradict observations or or failed to make any useful and testable predictions. Therefore, the scientific method dictates that we should use the scientific method for now. The scientific method cannot by its nature prove that something (including itself) is The Truth. It is however a method of weeding out incorrect theories, and it has so far passed its own test.
There, happy now?
Agreed, which is why it’s a self-refuting claim. (It’s also why I don’t use that approach to justify my belief in the Bible, as that is a foolish approach indeed.)
I’m glad you agree there. Even science requires bulding on certain scientifically unproven fundamentals (e.g. the laws of logic), for example.
I would strongly disagree with you on that point, but that’s a subject for another thread.
Absolutely agreed. In a sense, the scientific method does validate itself. This does not mean that it’s the only means to knowing truth though (and, if I’m reading you correctly, I suspect that you’d agree).
I thought I’d emphasize this because some people seem to think that g8rguy and I are attacking the valdiity of science. We are not. That is not the matter under debate.
Well, according to my argument, the scientific method not only validates itself, it also validates the theory that the scientific method is the only means to knowing the truth. The theory that the scientific method is the only means to knowing the truth will remain valid until such time as somebody evidence to the contrary. Such counter-evidence would be in the form of something that is knowable that can not be explained by using the scientific method.
I realize that is a rather circular argument, but that’s what you asked for.
Regards,
Barry