My beef with Science

Great Debates
41

Here I was going to offer up an analysis of the difference between scientists(who can be creeps) and Science, but I’ve been beat to it by other posters. (Ah well, they did it better than I would have anyway.)
Now then Honesty…

I seriously doubt that you understand it. Even most creationists won’t say that evolution is unfounded, simply because of the preponderance of evidence that supports evolution. (they may say that the evidence is being interpreted incorrectly, or that it is a mistake to apply science to it, but they don’t say that it’s unfounded.)

Just pointing out here that this is completely unrelated to evolution, but you knew that right?

I’m not going to go into where you’re wrong here because, again, better posters than I have addressed this, I would suggest you read their posts. Also reading one or more of the many evolution Vs creation threads will help you out on this issue(as many of them make short forays into the Big Bang theory as well.)

Why? As far as I can tell all the available evidence supports that viewpoint.

Again, is there a reason you do? (Other than the simple unwillingness for it to be the end of course- very few people want to die.

I’m guessing they deal with it just like all other people do. They mourn, they turn to religion to comfort them, etc. Are you implying that scientists are necessarily athiests?

42

I’ll just reply en mass (and quickly because I must go teach) to a few different posters:

You have made some interesting points, and I do want to clarify that it is not my intention to put down science as a whole. I would agree with the contention that: In the long run science does make progress. Sometimes this takes hundreds of years, but such is life. As one poster noted, I have been focusing on science in the short term, and indeed I have. the point I have been trying to make is simply that scientific achievements must be evaluated with a critical eye, and science should not be considered “truth” but rather “possibilities”

In reference to the Dr. Sobell incident be clarified by scientists, perhaps I should have been more clear in noting that it was bureaucrats, lawyers and politians which eventually cleared things up, not scientists…so in fact in this one instance science was aided by outside sources.

In reference to the big bang, I have seen fewer theories expoused with such acclaim which hinge on such flimsy evidence. I am aware of the alternative theories positied by other theorists (and many of them were indeed worse)but I suspect it is only a matter of time before “BigBang” is disproven.

I also note many of the posters are involved in technical fields…in which you may not get an exposure to the philosophical machinations of science (I appologize if I am wrong). But this may shield you from science at its worst, and preserve your more naive impressions of science. Also I have noted (and I appologize for the generalization) that physicists tend to avoid scientific introspection in general, and insist on the “perfection” of science (Carl Sagan was perhaps a noted exception to this).

At any rate I am the first to acknowledge that there is MUCH that is good to science, but we need to be honest about the weaknesses.

Oh and I noted someone mentioned replications…again this is indicative of your naivete (again I do not mean this insultingly)…replication of research is an ideal but fairly rarely practiced (although I will give physics a nod in noting it happens in that field more than any other). Replicated studies are generally unpublished, hence few people actually engage in them.

the problem I

43

I’ve just got to toss in my two cents on some of the topics addressed in this thread, as they are important to me.
Re: Science and metaphysics. Science really has nothing to say about the metaphysical, as metaphysics is usually untestable. Science does not claim metaphysics cannot exist because it cannot falsify metaphysical hypotheses. Many scientists, including me, maintain metaphysical belief systems that do not fit into the testable realm of science.
Re: The reliability of science.
Avalongod does have a point, in that science doesn’t really work the way you’re taught it does in high school or in college. The biases, personalities, limited resources, and that there are finite limits to our knowledge all contribute to a lack of perfect objectivity.
However, I am far from sure that this makes science as dogmatic as religion. It seems pretty clear to me that the rate of change of ideas and beliefs in science is much faster, perhaps by orders of magnitude, than the rate of change of ideas and beliefs in religion.
In addition, science values and encourages critical thinking. While this doesn’t prevent some ideas from passing into acceptance without rigorous scrutiny, most new ideas must pass through considerable criticism, opposition, and testing before they can become generally accepted. It’s all this punishment that new ideas must endure which I think is one of the strengths of science. Unlike religion, science makes a serious effort to weed out the ideas that don’t fit in with the world around us. Religion makes little or no such effort.
I also have difficulty believing that a great number of scientists falsify data. Given the drastic consequences if this is discovered, and the work habits of other scientists I know, I doubt it is very frequent. Obviously some do, but they are the exceptions in my opinion. Much more common is the use of techniques that will bias the result (perhaps honestly, perhaps not) an excellent example of this can be seen in the research that followed the Exxon Valdez oil spill. But with a careful and critical eye, this can be detected.

Like avalongod, I agree that science should be viewed with a critical eye. But it should not be discounted as a source of reliable information.

44

Wevets: you summarized the tension between science and metaphysics very well. I wish more scientists and more metaphysicians remembered both sides of that.

I wish we could keep this to an epistemological discussion. (Ooh, look! He said epistemological!) There is no question that individual scientists engage in less than pure dealings. Likewise, there’s no question that many politicians are corrupt, but it’s still interesting to engage in a philosophical analysis of democracy.

45

The problem seems to be scientists who declare that there is no god and theists who declare the earth is 6000 years old. If each respected the others’ turf we’d have less conflict.

The truth is though, I kind of like the conflict. Keeps things interesting! :wink:

46

The most obvious problem with it being the probable confusion of cause and effect. Those elderly who didn’t go to church as often probably didn’t because they were sick…

47

This has become a very interesting thread. This is a subject I have thought about a lot and care about. Luckily, or unluckily as the case may be, just about everything I have to say on the subject has been said already, so I’ll spare everyone the repetition.
I would like to comment on science’s supposed failure to explain the origins of life:

I don’t think that’s what Science “says” at all. In recent decades, scientists have begun to realize that evolution by natural selection doesn’t really say anything about how life started. Far less work has been done on this subject than on evolution itself. Science does not know how life started, and I think that is generally well acknowledged by scientists. However, theories are being proposed, studied, and debated. In my opinion, these theories have been getting better over time. Look at how the discovery of ribozymes revolutionized the subject. One of the most interesting and, IMHO, promising theories is in the book At Home in the Universe by Stuart Kaufmann. Let’s not turn this into a debate on his ideas - I just want to point out that he does a good job explaining how it could have happened. Note I said “could”. In the book, he acknowledges that we may very well never know the details of how it actually happened.

But that’s how Science works! There are questions that can’t be definitively answered by looking out the window. Theories are proposed, debated, refined, over and over. Hopefully, they get closer and closer to the truth. But we can never stop and say, “Eureka! This is the Truth!” Science is a constant process, and nothing is too sacred to be questioned. Granted, this is the lofty ideal, and scientists, being human, don’t reach it. But I think as a group, they do a pretty good job of it.

Ack. Now I’m getting off into areas I said I wasn’t going to go. I guess my position is that science deserves to have a little slack cut for it. It’s not perfect, and it doesn’t have all the answers to everything under (and over) the sun. That’s OK. We’re working on it.

48

And that is why we do not use them as much as (for example) reason and memory when we are discussing science. By the same token, we use those things more when we are discussing religion.

The obsession with science as the provider of a complete world view is on an epistemological level the exact same thing as the obsession with religion. It’s more politically useful for the people to be interested in science, if they absolutely must choose, but they’re both symptomatic of a sort of weak desire to be provided with a complete and comprehensible world view on a silver platter. Better would be to exercise all of the mental faculties, and build a more complete world view using all of your understanding, rather than to keep on trying to draw a field of flowers using only the red crayons.

49

I have thought a great deal about this, and appreciate all of the thoughtful posts from people on both sides of the issue.

I have come to some conclusions based upon many of the posts:

1.) As I noted I have been involved in journal review processes…this means I see a lot of the bad science that is weeded out. As some people have noted it is indeed quite possible I have let this colour some of my impressions (indeed I have seen falsified results firsthand and it is a shame). While I still approach science critically I will concede perhaps I have generalized and unfairly accused some responsible scientists. And for that I shall appologize. I have indeed seen science at its worst, and had the personal pleasure of denying bad scientists publication, and perhaps that has made me cynical.

2.) I never meant to imply science was not useful, quite the opposite. As a scientist, I find all of science wonderful, fascinating, and a worthwhile pursuit. But I have always found the science=truth perception to be naive, and am honestly a bit offended when some scientists (perhaps a minority) present their still tenuous theories as fact. But it may also be the fault of the media that takes the ball and runs with it far more than scientists intended. Some scientists are worse than others (Hawking I found to be pretentious, while Sagan is and shall always be my hero. Skinner and Freud clearly outstepped the limits of their knowledge, while others such as Erikson, Ainsworth and Beck were more humble)

3.) I found this debate to be exceptionately enlightening, and hope others have as well. I think we can all agree that science, while flawed, is a worthwhile and important endeavour. I am actually curious to (sorta) to the original question…or at least a version thereof…is science superior to other modes of inquiry in addressing “metaphysical” questions? Do people think science will ever be able to answer the big metaphysical questions?

50

This may be one of the most futile threads I’ve seen in a long time. Honesty has as much as said “I refuse to accept science”. He rejects its theories, he rejects its practice, he rejects its practitioners. Likewise, religion. He’s basically dared all of you to convince him in the face of an obstinate refusal to give science (or religion) a charitable hearing.

Honesty, more than enough has been said here to give you sufficient insight into science to at least suspend judgement on the sincerity and validity of science and scientists. If you’re really interested in learning why science and the metaphysical don’t mix, you’ll have to reread the responses with a less hostile eye.

You claim to be a person who worships or clings to nothing; you seem to cling to your scepticism, or to worship some private metaphysics that you’re not sharing with us.

51

Speaking as a fairly devout Catholic…

I happen to be as skeptical about most supernatural or paranormal claims as any atheist. The rational Christian’s attitude toward miracles was summed up nicely by G.K. Chesterton: “Yes, I believe in miracles. I also believe in lions, but I don’t expect to see them on every streetcorner.”

In short, if a friend of mine tells me he saw a lion walking down the street, I’d concede that it was POSSIBLE, but I’d think it far more likely that he was either drunk or pulling my leg. That’s exactly the same way I’d react if he told me he was clairvoyant, or could talk to the dead.

As a CHristian, it goes without saying that I believe in many things that strike some people as absurd. It does not follow that I should give creedence to EVERY absurdity.

52

Which is exactly as it should be, Hansel. If s/he is not prepared to accept any particular truth because s/he wants to, then s/he should bear an open - but skeptical - mind. Doubt is essential to wisdom, and it is not the enemy but the purifier of faith.

53

The way I read the OP is this: The realms where Science and Religion clash is pointless and futile and annoying (well, part of the OP, anyway).

The parts where “Science” tries to disprove “Religion” is just a complete waste of time, and ideas where “Religion” tries to prove itself by “Scientific” means is also a complete waste of time. Science is about unlocking the secrets of our world, so we may harness it and make our lives easier, whereas Religion provides a haven for the doubts about our place in the universe.

So I don’t think Honesty was saying “Science sucks, and Religion sucks…” It’s more of “Science and Religion, at the same time, sucks.” In other words, the combination of the two is where his beef seems to lie.

Honesty, if I’m off-base, feel free to say so… but that’s what I picked up from reading your posts. But, if I’m correct… I agree with you.

54

avalongod -
Thanks for the clarification. I think you and I agree that science, like everything else in the world, is not perfect. As a method for understanding, science is excellent. Of course, scientists are still human and they do human things. Therein lies the benefit of peer review and data verification. (but I’m preaching to the choir here!)

hansel -
You’re right that Honesty may not be convinced of anything in this thread, but it’s certainly an interesting topic of discussion for the rest of us :slight_smile:

55

Astorian - how do you decide what “supernatural” things you believe in? I have good reason to believe lions exist, if I can trust my eyes (and Marlin Perkins). In fact, I have seen lions in my very own city, in zoos and circuses. I can imagine an animal escaping from its cage due to an inattentive keeper, or many other possibilities. I have heard of such events occurring (tho with species other than lions). Therefore, I find it very conceivable that a lion could end up on the street corner.

Of course, the above reasoning relies upon the “theory” that I am actuially experiencing what I “believe” I am seeing through my eyes. It may be a delusion, I may have been dreaming up til now, objects may “exist” only when I view them, etc. But I have been getting along in this world pretty well operating on the theory that when I see a chair, I can sit on it, and my butt won’t land on the floor. Everything, even our own existence, is theory, if you wish to take it to that extreme. But some theories have served pretty well as guides to action and predictors of consequences.

So I know lions exist, and I passed by the street corner this morning. But water to wine? Feeding the multitde? Raising from the dead? Assumption of the virgin? Why not Uri Gellar bending spoons while you are at it?

56

My point was that Honesty’s mind isn’t open. He has already rejected science and religion; when he discusses it, he presents a caricature of a zealot, not a picture of a scientist. Unless he opens his mind a bit, then he’s asked nothing more than for other posters to assault the high walls of his forcible disbelief so he can be sure they’re secure.

57

I think it is very important to polarize this debate into two seperate issues:

  1. What do Science and Religion make claims to? (What are their repsective “domains”?)
  2. What do scientists and religious individuals make claims to?

One is an issue of epistemology and positivism, the other is an issue of objectivity and fallability.

(This is so cool, I never get to epistemology in casual conversation… :slight_smile: )

Tackling the second issue first, I think part of the problem is individuals, whether consciously or unconsiciously overstep the bounds of science and present it as science, when clearly it is not. A theory or paper that has first been presented to a journal for peer review is no more “scientific truth” than a bill on a congressman’s desk is a law. The problem is we can all agree (in some cases) when something isn’t yet scientific truth, but declaring that something is is a much trickier proposition (there is no scientific congress to vote something into law, or scientific president to veto or sign a theory into “truth”).

At best, something gains general acceptance by the scientific community as “true” if it agrees with all known experimental observation, until such time as new evidence to the contrary surfaces. Implicit in the scientific notion of “truth” (and, I would debate whether Science ever truly claims to have “truth” or merely puts forth the best model of observed phenomena) is the presumtion of fluidity: “If you discover evidence “E” which contradicts “X”, then X is no longer true.”

Perhaps it is an inherent limitation of each respecitve discipline that when confronted with “E” and “X”, Science simply shrugs and readily discards the old “truth” (again, I’m not sure that the notion of static truth hasn’t been imposed from the outside), whereas fundamentalist Religion I believe (feel free to correct me with my apologies in advance) would respond “X is Cannon, therefore E cannot be true.” Many would find Science’s readiness to change its fundamental “truths” overnight very disconcerting, whereas others find Religion’s dogmatic adherance to “truths” which appear to be contradicted by observable evidence to be equally disconcerting.
In part, I believe the fault comes from us expecting too much from Science. Here is how I belive one of the aforementioned questions posed to a Scientist ought to go:

*TM: How did the universe begin?

Mr. Spock: There is not enough data available to draw a definitive conclusion.

TM: Dammit Spock, that’s not good enough! I need answers! Speculate. Give me conjecture. What’s your best guess?

Mr. Spock: Based upon the available evidence, it would be reasonable, based upon observed phenomena such as the three degree background radiation, current matter density in known space, …

<TM glazes over>

<TM taps foot impatiently>

TM: Get to the point. What’s the point of having a Science Officer if you walk me through the entire process before giving me the final answer?

Mr. Spock: …to conclude that all matter, and the space it occupies originated…Sir? Implicit in the “final answer” are the observations and procedures which were used to obtain it. I can give you objective measurements, such as the charge of a proton, as fact within a margain of error, but as for the conclusions drawn from those facts, I can only give you the best hypothesis available which agrees with all known evidence. If I simply “give” you the answer, it would be imprecise.

TM: Spock, when I want a lecture in philosophy I’ll ask for it. From now on, when I ask you a scientific question, I want you to respond with the most likely theory based upon all available evidence without any epistemological disclaimers. Is that clear?

Mr. Spock: That would be imprecise.

TM: That’s fine. I don’t have time for all the details, I need big picture.

Mr. Spock: But then there is no way for you to know the varying degrees of certainty behind any given “best” theory.

TM: SPOCK! ANSWERS! N-O-W!

Mr. Spock (clearly disgusted):A big “bang.”

TM: THANK YOU! <sighs> Now why…

Dr. M: **Dammit TM, he’s a Scientist, not a Theologin.
*
Sorry…I thought (hoped) that might be more amusing than the pedantic discourse I almost committed. The content is more or less the same. (Extraction of meaning is left as an exercise for the reader.)

I know personally, when I’m trying to impress a woman by explaining the emmision spectra of transition metals, I don’t ordinarily preface the conversation with a disclaimer about the known limits of quantum theory, the incomplete state of our scientific knowledge, and the limits of what Science can “know”. If she thinks I have Perfect Knowledge of Absolute Truth:
a) whose fault is that anyway?
b) who am I to disagree with such a charming young woman?
Am I being an irresponsible scientist?
Maybe.

Do I get invited back to more parties than the guy who is still explaining the conceptual roots of Positivism?
Heck yeah. :wink:

Is it generally understood that I’m just giving the best current theory for all known data and nothing more?

If it isn’t, it should be now.

I hereby renounce all future moral responsibility for anyone mistaking Science for Truth.

I’ve gone on too long already, so I’ll save the ramble on True, False, Unproven, and Unproveable and the OJ analogy for another day. :slight_smile:

58

That was fun. Too bad about the extra bloding.

59

A scientist who can channel Mr. Spock? I love it!

Live long and prosper MetallicAsh!

60

That’s basically what I am saying. They don’t ‘suck’ so to speak, but they have failed miserably and repeatedly in their goal. I came here thinking I had an open mind, but from reading these posts, I agree that I am close-minded on this issue. For this I am shamed, so please don’t think ill of me if I don’t reply to further postings. (I will continue to read the thread as long as it is active however)

There is really nothing to sway my stance on this issue.
Thanks for the constructive criticisms, I appreciate it. I also apologize for everyone for even posting, this isn’t a debate if the poster is unwilling to be swayed. I didn’t realize how strongly I felt about this till now.

Regards,

B. Williams