My beef with Science

Great Debates
1

Before I start, this isn’t about my previous thread. I did enjoy those who did answer me and try to help me with my problem. Though right now, I am doubting Abe’s Flight and Fight syndrome.

First let me say, I don’t believe in creationism or evolution, in my eyes, they both fail to answer and legitimize how something came from nothing. In other words, blackness that suddenly spews forth rock, plasma, that eventually swirls about to create a universe sounds just as rediculous as a God floating down on a shimmering cloud and crafting man from sand.

As a person who worships or clings to nothing, I have no problem who have faith. Studies have shown that people who do believe in creationism live longer, have happier lives than people who don’t. I’m sure this because of their faith, or perhaps it’s because of their false euphoria. I have watched shows by so-called scientist, who seems to have nothing else to do but to dissect those who have faith. If these scientist would focus on things other than trying to make sure there isn’t a Heaven or Hell and put their attentions to things that plague society – like Aids, vicious STD’s, cancer then we would be a better world because of it.

It appears that Science has contrued a black and white world, where if it isn’t a book, can’t be explained, then it is obviously false. I was talking with a friend who worships science, and these are pretty much his replies:

Q) Can you possible say that the thousands of people who claim to see the visons of the Virgin Mary on the adobe towers of Jerusalem are lying?

A) They’re all delusional.

Q) What about the millions of people who claimed to be abducted by aliens?

A) They’re all delusional

Q) Ghosts?

A) They’re all delusional

Q) When I was in HS, I perfectly remember seeing events transpire in my dream. These were so vivid, that I could have simply wrote down my dream that night and it would have been synonymous with actual event.

A) Looking into the future is impossible. You’re delusional.

Q) Healing?

A) No, that’s what you call a Medical Miracle.

Q) What about those who claim to be healed by a healer? Who have all claimed to feel a warm touch flowing from the healer’s hand to their body?

A) They’redelusional.

Q) What about those who claim to be psychic?

A) They’re delusional

Q) What about those who have predicted things?

A) They’re delusional. They were wild guesses.

Q) Don’t you find it a bit peculiar that all through human history, people have claimed to have insight into the future. Some of which has actually came true?

A) They’re delusional. Wild guesses, that’s what they are.

I’m sure I could go on, but you get the point.

Answer me this. Why does Science close it’s eyes to the metaphysical? Does the prospect of something that can’t be explained scare and frighten you? Why is this almost militant resistance to something that could possibly be, but can’t be explained.

I do find it humorous that Science fanatics are the ones who enjoy playing with the magical cards with the pretty demons on it, playing the games that fantasize about magic and chivalry, and even television shows that depict flying spaceships armed with psychic crews. Could it possibly be that these people have some deep unknown love for the arcane, but for whatever reason, reject their fantasies to cross the line of entering their RL?

I’m sorry, but I am sick of the arrogance that both Religion and Science spews forth. I swear it’s either A) I’m right because Genesis 12:2 tells me so B) I’m right because of quantam theory 331213 tells me so. In both cases, they reject anything that can’t be proven with their tools and books. I simply don’t see the difference between current day religion and science:

  1. They both shove their ‘realism’ on everyone else.

  2. They insist those who don’t meets their paradigm of thinking to be crackpots, kooks, and otherwise wrong and delusional.

  3. They both close their eyes to the metaphysical – unless it benefits or puts them on a pedestal of course.

I’m not bashing science nor am I speaking an advocate of religion. They are both equally rediculous IMO. I propose my earlier question why does the metaphysical scare science?

Please spare me and don’t give me a link to Cecil. I stopped taking his views on this particular subject when the Straight Dope organization freely admitted that they are very much biased when it comes to this.

Thanks. (Yes, I am fully aware of the flames coming my way. Though I assure you starting a conflict is not my intent.)

Regards,

B. Williams

2

I’m not sure I understand. If you don’t hold to science, and you don’t hold to religion, what do you hold to?

What do you find unsatisfactory about evolution?

The “delusional” replies your firend gave you are gross oversimplifications.

If the metaphysical is real as you describe it, why can’t it be satisfactorily documented?

You do have a point. There are some who propose, others who prefer to dispose, frequently with disdain for those with the courage to think a new thought.

Without them, who to test the new thought, or find it’s merits? How to sort the good ones from the foolish?
What’s your point?

3

Why don’t we try it this way? Ask each question, and instead of giving what you think is the common answer of the “typical” scientist, let those who wish to give their own answers. That is typically how knowledge is gathered. :slight_smile:

4

What makes you say thay science closes its eyes to the metaphysical? Is it simply because you don’t agree with the results scientists get when they do inquire into the metaphysical? Whose eyes are closed then?

You’re shocked at the scientists’ bad faith when they respond to a metaphysical claim, “I don’t believe it. Give me hard evidence.” Bad faith or not – why is the hard evidence so hard to come by? Why should anyone believe something they cannot verify for themselves?

Scientists put all their cards on the table. (And if they don’t, they’re kicked out of the game.) Metaphysicians insist that they can only play if their allowed to hide cards up their sleeve.

I know who I’d rather play poker with.

5

It isn’t evolution. It is how it all began, and I don’t believe the utter nothingness suddenly exploded and then the planets started to form. Though I will admit that Evolution is up in the air with me, since I see no difference between someone from 1800 than in present day in 2000. Even if evolution moves slow as molasses, there ought to be some minute changes and differing characteristics.

I understand he gave me simple answers, but isn’t that what would have been inherently spewed if I had asked it here? Let’s not run in circles here. If I asked you, ‘Why are your take on psychics?’ I’m sure your reply would be pretty much synonymous with friends, claiming that they are delusional, frauds, or plain idiots.

My breaking point was watching a television show on the Discovery channel. It was called ‘Between the Life and Death’ or something similar. Where scientist had the gall, to focus an entire show about how there is no such thing as a Heaven or a Hell. I don’t believe in either, but it angered me alot.

These scientist have nothing better to do, despite there are a myriad of afflictions plaguing mankind, than to ‘prove’ that religion is wrong. If Scientist spent just 10% of the time they unneedlessly focus on disproving religion, I’m sure we would have cures for the most maligant diseases by now. Don’t worry, I am constantly on the religion boards telling them how they are on AOL.

I don’t believe no one has a right to do this. Not science, not religion, not anyone.

Regards,

B. Williams

6

Honesty wrote:

Not to turn this into yet another evolution thread (groan), but:
[ul]
[li]The population of the poppered moth in England in the 19th century was observed to shift radically from one dominated by light-colored moths to one dominated by dark-colored moths.[/li][li]The average adult male shoe size in 1900 was size 8. The average adult male shoe size in 2000 is size 11.[/li][li]There have been some observed instances of speciation: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html, and http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html.[/li][/ul]

Most scientists definitely do not spend their time trying to disprove religion. A tiny, tiny fraction of scientists are “militant atheists” with a beef against religion, and are “out to get” religion. They may have gotten into their particular field of science as part of their anti-religion vendetta. But these few individuals are not at all representative of the scientific community at large.

There are even evolutionary biologists who are (shock, gasp) Christians!

7

Honesty:

You said:

“I don’t believe the utter nothingness suddenly exploded and then the planets
started to form.”

There are good logical reasons to think that this is precisely what happened. Unfortunately they are not particularly easy to understand. Do you understand the arguments and are you prepared to discuss what particular aspects you find unsatisfactory or are you making the classical “argument from ignorance (not an insult, just a term”)

Then:

" I will admit that Evolution is up in the air with me, since I see no difference between someone
from 1800 than in present day in 2000. Even if evolution moves slow as molasses, there ought to be some minute
changes and differing characteristics. "

Usually it moves a lot slower than that. What people from the 1800s have you observed that you have found no difference with? If I told you that on average, we are a lot taller now, would that satisfy your problem with evolution?

“If I asked you, ‘Why are your take on psychics?’ I’m sure your reply would be pretty much
synonymous with friends, claiming that they are delusional, frauds, or plain idiots.”

I would say that that was an extraordinary claim. As such it requires evidence to back it up. If the claim of psychic powers was constantly repeated without any reason for me to actually believe it, I might conclude that the person making the claim was either stupid, delusional or a fraud. FYI The Amazing Randi has offered a $1,000,000 prize to anybody that can produce a repeatable and provable supernatural phenomenom. The money is still there, so if you think you know somebody, go for it.

“My breaking point was watching a television show on the Discovery channel. It was called ‘Between the Life and Death’
or something similar. Where scientist had the gall, to focus an entire show about how there is no such thing as a
Heaven or a Hell. I don’t believe in either, but it angered me alot.”

Why? If he presented alternative explanations that better fit the described phenomenom why should this anger you.

“These scientist have nothing better to do, despite there are a myriad of afflictions plaguing mankind, than to ‘prove’ that
religion is wrong. If Scientist spent just 10% of the time they unneedlessly focus on disproving religion, I’m sure we
would have cures for the most maligant diseases by now. Don’t worry, I am constantly on the religion boards telling
them how they are on AOL.”

This smells like a rant. It’s false. Scientists don’t disprove. They examine and produce careful theories that attempt to best fit the phenomenom described. THen they test these theories. In this manner they provide us with knowledge. We use this knowledge to invent things like vaccines, autos, eyeglasses, lifesaving medical procedures, put men on the moon etcetera.

I’m sure the scientist that “disproved” bloodletting as a cure-all pissed a few people off in the process. He might have saved a life or two as well. Unless you would prefer to have your open heart surgery performed by a witch-doctor with bamboo instruments, or are afraid you will sail off tyhe end of the world, I’m sure you see my point.

8

Tracer: the shoe size difference isn’t evolution, just better nutrition! (I.e. bigger animal, not different species.)

9

Scylla
Without them, who to test the new thought, or find it’s merits? How to sort the good ones from the foolish?

What’s your point?

Honesty
when the Straight Dope organization freely admitted that they are very much biased when it comes to this.

Is the admission of bias always to be taken as a Fault? I also find extremes in either Religion or Science to be
troubling. However an objective and “Honest” cynical regard to one’s own beliefs is necessary. The products of both Religion and Science have great benifits as well as great dangers. I do not feel that each must be exclusive of the other. To me the question is What and Why do you believe, personal integrity and understanding your real motives for those beliefs (ideas) are what is really important,

Besides as demonstrated in some many Threads on this and other boards IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE OR DISPROVE ANYTHING TO SOMEONE UNLESS YOU AGREE ON BASIC ASSUMPTION…

Also Thanks For starting this …

10 
 If you don't believe in either then why would it anger you that someone would say it didn't exist? You seem to have a lot of strong feelings for someone who doesn't hold to faith or science.
 And are you sure these scientist have nothing better to do but sit around and debunk faith? I would imagine that most of those scientiest have fields of study that were outside the immediate realm of the Discovery Channel show.
 If you're so sure they can find a cure why don't you become a scientist and figure out how easy it is.

Marc

11

I actually found a lot to agree with on both sides of this argument. I do have some experience with science, so let me see if I can give something of an “insider” approach:

1.) The actual scientific view on the “metaphysical” has nothing to do with whether such things exist or do not exist. They are simply beyond the realm of what can be studies scientifically. For example, humans may have a “soul” which may go to heaven, but since we can measure neither, it is not a scientific question. doesn’t mean it is false. Perhaps in the future we WILL be able to study such things scientifically…for example in Greek times the concept of the “atom” seemed metaphysical, but now we can at least infer atoms from various physical phenomenon.

2.) The inability of science to study many “metaphysical” entities, is often the fault of science itself. To claim that something metaphysical does not exist…say the human soul, is also to make the claim that current science has reached its pinnacle and there are no advances to be made. This would be an extremely arrogant statement (though scientists have been making such statements since the greeks)

3.) I think Scylla made reference to the “Big Bang” theory…and I am actually quite familiar with both the philosophy (a word not chosen by accident) and empirical evidence which supports it…and actually the evidence is fairly weak, and could be interpreted in other ways…what we may be having here is scientist coming up with a theory, then interpreting the evidence to fit the theory. “big Bang” is far from a proven theory and has a LOT of majour flaws on all levels…logical, theoretical, and empirical. Evolution is in MUCH better shape as a theory, but also needs some refining. Keep in mind too that the two dominant theories in physics…Relativity and Quantum theory actually contradict each other…they can’t BOTH be right.

4.) There is no question that religion and science are engaged in an informal war, but this is nothing new either. That said, I would suspect that the majourity of scientists at very least maintain an open mind about metaphysical concepts, and particularly religion.

5.) Given that the statement “There is a god.” is not scienifically testable, making the assertion “There is no god” is also not scientific. Scientific discoveries do not disprove a creater being, in fact it may be that science is discovering the way a creater being thinks/works etc…

6.) We also make the false assertion that humans today have reached the pinnacle of understanding and that if we can’t grasp it, it doesn’t exist. It may be that there are some questions (Nature of god, nature of the human mind, creation of the universe…if there was any starting point) that are simply to complex for us to understand. Think of a chimpanzee, contemplating the nature of the moon. As intelligent an animal as he may be (and probably thinks himself such) he probably can’t understand the moon. To a limited extent we can understand those things that we can scientifically test. But ultimately science is only useful for a limited set of questions, and does not reveal the “secrets of the universe” such as they might be.

:slight_smile:

12

Posting this for Philbuck, who accidentally posted this in the wrong place (Hm, there’s been a lot of these lately.)
Philbuck
Member
Registered: Apr 2000
Posts: 4

Scientists don’t attempt to put forth an “explanation” of the origins of the universe. If a cosmologist says, “All of the energy in the universe began expanding from a single point 9.3 billion years ago”, they’re not making a decree in the same way that Genesis describes Creation. They’re telling you what current theory and observational evidence point to. No scientist worth anything will attempt to explain how or why anything happened before the universe was 10^-43 seconds or so old; it’s just what most everything seems to indicate.

It seems that your post reflects simply a misunderstanding of the ideas and ways of science, and makes incorrect comparisons to religion. Scientists (or at least the ones who know what they’re doing) make their claims based on the evidence they have and logical extensions from theory. Yeah, they’re wrong a lot, but unlike religion, science can accomodate revealations of falsehood.

And as someone mentioned, your synopsis of conversation with your friend reveals merely oversimplification of very complex issues.

13

I agree with Philibuck, although in defense of Honesty, scientists are really not all that good at being as objective as they should. There are a lot of good reasons for this…usually professional reputations are hanging on these theories, scientific conflicts are usually at least as bitter as religious ones (no inquisitions yet, but close), and most importantly scientists are human. Science is actually very poor at self-correction as I noted earlier, and engages in a lot of the same self-correction that religion does. Scientists also fudge data, rerun statistics until they get what they want, and data snoop. It happens a LOT more than you would think.

I say all of this with a heavy heart, as one who actually does science in Psychology, and physics. I used to have the same impression as Philibuck, but sadly, that just ain’t the way that it is.

14

This is, of course, entirely ridiculous. Science is built on the concept of self-correction.

This is also ridiculous. Religion is not a self correction system, far from it. Does the term “dogma” ring a bell?

And when they’re caught their findings are thrown out and their professional reputations are ruined. This is because it is contrary to the very purpose of science to do these things.
The main problem that I see you having, if you’ll pardon me putting all sorts of words into your mouth, is an epistemelogical one. The strictly scientific view of truth is very different from the commonly held pragmatic view, and almost diametrically opposed to the religious view. Within the structure of science, something is true only if it is empirically supported, if it stands the test of the scientific method, if it can be repeated again and again. In other words, it’s a rather strict view of truth.

When using this view there is, in fact, little truth(compared to the other views) and what there is, is always suspect to change upon additional evidence. Naturally, this means that there is a large amount of unverifiable, at least at this point, ideas, “facts” etc. As far as science is concerned these are not true. They may not necessarily be false- as that is also strictly defined, but they are definitly not true.

When, on the other hand, most people talk of truth, they are not using as rigorous a method to discover it, and as a result are more able to deal with the world as a whole. (If one was only able to deal with what was empirically proveable then one would have some trouble performing most basic interactions) Of course, this can lead to certain conflicts between the two, when the two ideals collide with each other.

It’s not that scientists are close minded, or that they completely disregard anything unconventional, they simply are dealing with a much much stricter definition of truth.

15

Initial Entry:

Actually, the comments I made earlier are not ridiculous at all, but the state of affairs of modern science. For the record I mistyped with the “self-correction” comment and that should read something to the effect that neither science nor religion engage in self-correcting behaviour for the most part. In essence both science and religion are dogmatic. that scientists also engage in “cheating” behaviours is also far more common that you think…and no most of them are not caught/thrown out of professional organizations.

You seem to adhere to a very naive veiw of science…that scientists are noble objective dispassionate finders of scientific truth. And of course scientists work very hard to project this image, but it is simply not the case.

You are correct in noting that science is built on the concept of self-correction. Christianity is also built on the concept of compassion and mercy. But a lot happens in both that completely contradicts the underlying concept. To be self-correcting scientists would have to be willing to abandon theories they have spent perhaps decades building, and millions of dollars in grant money. This image you portray, that such individuals simply give in to new ideas is, once again, naive.

I hope you will not take my use of naive as an insult…you seem quite eloquent in the basic conception of what science is supposed to do (I get the impression from you post that you do not think I am similarly aware, but I assure you that I am). But the presentation you give is the one that scientists feed the public at large, and represents the ideal, but not the actual situation. Words like “rigorous” and “objective” make science sound good, but little happens in science that is either. Scientists do not wait for rigorous testing of their theories before presenting them as “truth”…Big Bang theory is actually one of these, but a better example is the “Cold Fusion” debacle of 1986(?)

For some other readings on this you may wish to consult Francis Bacon (one of the founders of empirical methodology) who himself notes (in Novum Organum) that humans will likely be unable to actually use empirical methods faithfully due to their fallability and emotionality, as well as any number of scientific philosophers:

Thomas Kuhn (Structure of Scientific Revolutions in particular)

Lyotard

even Karl Popper, who has much to due with the “modern” conception of falsifyability, makes somes notes on this.

I perhaps sounds more critical of science than I intend…I for one love science and a making it my life’s work, but one must approach it, like everything else, with a critical eye.

16

Honesty:

As has been already said, at least implicity, evolution has nothing to do with “how something came from nothing”. It’s about how things changed after they came to exist, no matter how they came to exist.

At least in theory, scientists do not claim that something that is known to exist is false or impossible. If it’s unexplained, it’s just unexplained. Take your first example, a scientist should not claim that there are no reports of people seeing “visons of the Virgin Mary on the adobe towers of Jerusalem”. Conversely, people who attempt to explain such occurrences (scientifically or otherwise) should not claim that there is only one explanation (scientific or otherwise) for these phenomena without some evidence. For some, their faith is evidence enough; for a good scientist testing scientific theories, faith in anything (Supreme Being, IPU, Science, or whatever) is not sufficient evidence.

It’s worth restating what has already been said; possible scientific explanations have already been offered for all of your examples, and in some cases there are more than one possible explanation. On what basis do you reject those explanations?

In some cases, such as your “looking into the future” example, there is good reason (lots of evidence) to believe that the claim is indeed impossible. There is some merit in investigating such cases; but we have limited resources and must allocate them where they seem to do the most good. So you typically do not get Manhatten-project type, expensive, crash-priority scientific programs whenever someone shows up claiming to be able to do something when there is a lot of evidence that they cannot. However, the payoff for proving a major scientific theory wrong is huge; so, even if the probability of success is small, there’s almost always a few scientists who are willing to expend a little effort in further investigation.

All that said, it’s foolish to deny that we, scientists and lay people, are imperfect beings. There are times when some scientists lie. There are times when some scientists irrationally cling to their beliefs and reject new ideas without appropriate evaluation. There are times when scientists fail to conceive of the possibility of extending and modifying current “wisdom”. Those times occur far more often than we would like but, IMHO, not a large percentage of the time. The self-correcting nature of the scientific process has detected and corrected many, many such occurrences; probably not all … but science is an evolutionary process, and (as far as we know) there’s no end to the process.

What basis do you have for a claim that scientists spend any noticeable amount of time attempting to disprove religion?

avalongod:

First a nit: The Standard Model includes and is compatible with Special Relativity, it’s General Relativity that conflicts.

I think it’s important to note that both the Standard Model and General Relativity are unambiguously known to be correct in the sense of “making incredibly accurate predictions in all but the most violently extreme of circumstances”. The fact that they are incompatible does indeed mean that there’s something wrong in one or both of them, but the fact noted above and the fact that the incompatibilities are impossible to measure with our current technology makes it devilishly difficult to figure where the error(s) is(are) and what to do about the incompatibility.

I have no comment on whether or not religion and science are engaged in an informal war; but there are many people who claim that is not so, therefore there is a question.

Say WHAT? {grin} What self-correction does religion engage in? Specific examples and evidence that this alleged self-correction is a process that occurs regularly, please …

17

Please provide a citation for any one of these studies. Thank you in advance.

18

Honesty…from what I have read recently scientists have manipulated, supressed, and destroyed data that did not fall into their agenda much in the same way that organized religon has manipulated it’s doctrines.

Check out the net…there are sites that will tell you of scientists that were witch hunted down and drummed out by the mainstream community because they discovered something that didn’t seem to fit. There are quite a few of them from the 20s and on who have found evidence that man may be older than the established community believes. But this did not fit with their theories so they were ridiculed, cut off from research funds, and their findings were deliberately not published. Didn’t make a lot of sense to me either. Why not jump all over these possiblilites and study them further? Guess scientists are after all human and sometimes jealous, narrowminded, and fallible.

Needs2know…I’m with you on this…I think both communities, religous and scientific can be self-rightous and hypocritical.

19

Yikes - lots to talk about. Although I can agree with much of what Avalongod talked about, I thank Initial Entry and JonF for replying as I would have. It seems like Honesty and Avalongod have had bad experiences with particular people in science or religion, not with science or religion itself. Personally, from my daily work with scientists/engineers, I think that the “cheating” that avalongod talked about is rare (and when it occurs, it won’t hold up to the scrutiny of other scientists). I think the perceived war between science and religion is unfortunate and unnecessary. But the problem arises when some of the claims of religion are disproven through science (Honesty - not that science is out to disprove religion, but as scientific studies are done, it is found that some of the interpretations of religious doctrine do not match the evidence). Also, the two sides demand different standards of evidence (verifiable proof vs. scripture/revelation).

20

Just a couple of nit-pics myself:

JonF:

1.) You have a somewhat naive view of the self-correcting nature of science. In theory that is what it is supposed to do, in practice it takes a great deal of effort to actually happen. Read Thomas Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions. This viewpoint you are expousing is the version that elementary teachers tell their students…“science is object, self-correcting, blah blah blah…” and that simply isn’t the reality. Not that there aren’t ANY scientists that are capable of this…there are a few brilliant souls, but they are the exception not the rule.

2.) Also remember, in addition to the strain of publish or perish on scientists, a good percentage (I am resisting the urge to say most) of scientists have a flair of narcissism in their personalities. this does not render them the most objective.

3.)As far as this quote goes:
“Science is actually very poor at self-correction as I noted earlier, and engages in a lot of the same self-correction that religion does.”
If you were reading carefully you will note in an earlier post I already noted that I mistyped here and meant to compare science to religion vis-a-vis their both not being self-correcting. Science, like religion tends to be rather dogmatic

4.) You seem to poo-poo the problems between Quantum Theory and RElativity. I am glad that things that were and are of great concern to Einstein, Hawking and others, do not bring you pause.

5.) In regards to this quote:
“making incredibly accurate predictions in all but the most violently extreme of circumstances”.
This in no way is an indication of the validity of the theory, and no physicist would claim otherwise as you do. Consider that the same statement could actually be made for Newtonian physics…in fact it is Newtonian physics which continues to be applied to most space program missions. Nonetheless, though such observations may have practical use in prediction, Newtonian physics is pretty much considered to be false. In fact the same statement could be said for Ptolemaic physics (sun travelling around the Earth) which actually was very accurate in predicting the motion of the stars, but of course was as off the mark as one could get.

Ultimately I am sure your grade-school teacher would be charmed to note you have such continuing faith in science. A little bit of caution and critical evaluation might be helpful however.