Science is screwing up the battle for America's minds.

[andros]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

He was arrested, of course.

I’m going to regret this, I know.

What was the charge?

[Fiveyearlurker]

@Left Hand of Dorkness

Even so, I know for certain that technicians who work with clones are often very emotional. There was a case in the news a few years ago about a scientist working on the Dolly Project who first tried to get a male sheep, but whose results were disastrous: due to an error in the DNA replication, the ram ended up covered in penises (penes?). One in the right spot, but another on each foot, one on the end of its nose, one above each ear, and a good two dozen others, sprouting all over the body.

Worse, that sheep got turned on by just about anything.

The technician felt terribly for the sheep, of course, but he just couldn’t deal with the situation. So he finally decided to put it out of his misery, and took it tot he roof of his building and pushed it off.

He was arrested, of course.
Daniel

Am I being wooshed?

[Scott_Plaid]

Oh, I wish you hadn’t said that.

[Bricker]

@andros

I’m going to regret this, I know.

What was the charge?

Making an obscene clone fall.

[Fiveyearlurker]

@Bricker

Making an obscene clone fall.

I’m sorry, sir. We’re going to have to ask you to leave.

[andros]

Ow. Ow ow ow ow ow.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Bricker

Making an obscene clone fall.

Thanks, Bricker!
Daniel

[Johnny_L.A]

Now, that was a fucking goat!

[Kimstu]

@lekatt

In the real world scientists believe the brain creates consciousness, if you mention the word spiritual they will remind you the supernatural doesn’t exist. Push them and they will call you ignorant.

I think you’ve got some “straw scientists” there. All the real-life scientists I know, and I know quite a few, agree that there is no scientific evidence for the supernatural, and that the supernatural doesn’t exist as a material, natural phenomenon. (Pretty much by definition: if it’s supernatural, then it’s not natural and so it doesn’t have to abide by the laws of nature.)

But science cannot settle the question of whether or not the supernatural really exists, because science can’t test or quantify supernatural phenomena, by definition. If you happen to know some arrogant “scientificist” scientists who insist that science is the only measure of reality, they are expressing a faith-based belief, not a scientific fact. They do not speak for scientists or science in general.

@lekatt

You said: “You see that some scientists perform experiments that involve animal suffering. And in a muddled way, you think that science itself must be somehow responsible for that, so you blame science.” So you think I am muddled for thinking science is responsible for what scientists do? Very strange type of logic.

Not really. It’s no stranger than correcting people who fall into the fallacy of, say, blaming Christianity in general because some individual Christians persecute non-Christians.

To blame the behavior of some individuals on certain ideas that they share with other individuals who don’t behave the same way is indeed muddled, and you should stop doing it.

@lekatt

If science is “morally neutral about emotions” then science can’t be trusted to do the right thing any more.

Well, duh. How can you “trust” a morally neutral epistemological tool to bear the responsibility of moral choice and guidance? It is not the job of science per se to “do the right thing”, any more than it is the job of calculus or linguistics or knitting or baseball to “do the right thing”. All of those disciplines are simply clusters of concepts and activities with their own, limited sets of goals and rules. It’s the responsibility of the human moral agents who engage in them to make sure that they are being applied in morally acceptable ways.

Again, you’re mixing up science per se with certain contemporary professional subcultures involving the practice of science by various people. If you really want to talk about the behavior of some members of some scientific professional subcultures, you should do so explicitly, rather than making sweeping sociological claims about “science” and having to be corrected all the time because you’re misusing the term “science”.

[Johnny_L.A]

@Kimstu

Well, duh. How can you “trust” a morally neutral epistemological tool to bear the responsibility of moral choice and guidance? It is not the job of science per se to “do the right thing”, any more than it is the job of calculus or linguistics or knitting or baseball to “do the right thing”. All of those disciplines are simply clusters of concepts and activities with their own, limited sets of goals and rules. It’s the responsibility of the human moral agents who engage in them to make sure that they are being applied in morally acceptable ways.

Carl Sagan:

Science may be hard to understand. It may challenge cherished beliefs. When its products are placed at the disposal of politicians or industrialists, it may lead to weapons of mass destructions and grave threats to the environment. But one thing you have to say about it: It delivers the goods.

[Loopydude]

@andros

Ow. Ow ow ow ow ow.

I have but this to add: We need Barf Smiley.

[lekatt]

@Fiveyearlurker

I really, really think (based on years of reading your posts) that this statement is the root of where you are misinformed.

I (as a scientist) will NEVER say that the supernatural (which I guess we’re defining as ghosts, or spirit, or astrology or your favorite NDEs, or really whatever you want) doesn’t exist. I will merely say that there is not sufficient evidence to say that it DOES exist. And, by definition, the supernatural is an extraordinary claim, and will require extraordinary evidence.

If experiments proved the spirit tomorrow, I think that would be wicked cool.

Those experiments happened years ago.

I don’t believe there is sufficient evidence to indicate there is not sufficient evidence. How about you?

[andros]

I have sufficient evidence that you are deliberately mischaracterizing your “opponents” in order to buttress your own rhetorical points.

[Loopydude]

To say his mischaracterizations are deliberate implies a sufficient level not only of insight into other posters’ thoughts, but indeed, cohesion, that cannot be inferred from bulk of his posts.

[tomndebb]

In the real world scientists believe the brain creates consciousness, if you mention the word spiritual they will remind you the supernatural doesn’t exist. Push them and they will call you ignorant. This is how science behaves to those who don’t believe as they do. This thread is full of examples.

This goes beyond misunderstanding.
This is false.
You are lying.

That there are some scientists who behave in the way you describe is true. When you make it a blanket statement about “scientists” or “science” in spite of the fact that numerous posters over several years (many of them scientists) have pointed out that this does not describe their beliefs or their approach to science, and when we have provided links to actual published scientists who have spoken of their own religious beliefs, then you are simply lying.

Religious doctrine should be accepted on faith, say the Christians. Do not use critical thinking or logic, only faith is acceptable.

Again, a statement that is simply false. There are some Christians who oppose critical thinking or logic, but there is a very long tradition of Christian thinkers, including, but not limited to, Augustine of Hippo, Anselm, Duns Scotus, Albert, Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Newton, Newman, Kierkegaard, Tillich, and hundreds of others who applied both thought and logic, both to the physical world and to matters of faith. You have not made a point of posting this nonsense, before, so I do not know that you have been corrected. You may simply be famously wrong about Christian thinkers, but you lie about science and scientists.

[monavis]

@tomndebb

This goes beyond misunderstanding.
This is false.
You are lying.

That there are some scientists who behave in the way you describe is true. When you make it a blanket statement about “scientists” or “science” in spite of the fact that numerous posters over several years (many of them scientists) have pointed out that this does not describe their beliefs or their approach to science, and when we have provided links to actual published scientists who have spoken of their own religious beliefs, then you are simply lying.

Again, a statement that is simply false. There are some Christians who oppose critical thinking or logic, but there is a very long tradition of Christian thinkers, including, but not limited to, Augustine of Hippo, Anselm, Duns Scotus, Albert, Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Newton, Newman, Kierkegaard, Tillich, and hundreds of others who applied both thought and logic, both to the physical world and to matters of faith. You have not made a point of posting this nonsense, before, so I do not know that you have been corrected. You may simply be famously wrong about Christian thinkers, but you lie about science and scientists.

Did you read “The City Of God” by Augustine? In it he states;" it is impossible for the world to be round". In his age that was considered a fact, if he were here today, I think he would change his mind about a lot of his beliefs.

Monavis

[tomndebb]

@monavis

Did you read “The City Of God” by Augustine? In it he states;" it is impossible for the world to be round". In his age that was considered a fact, if he were here today, I think he would change his mind about a lot of his beliefs.

Actually, if that line was in there, I missed it (when I read it 30+ years ago).

On the other hand, I do know that Augustine, in his essay on Genesis made the very important statement in chapter 19:

39. Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking non-sense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although “they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion.”

[monavis]

In answer to the OP, I would say science is making people think,I do not see that screwing up peoples minds. Those who find it challenges their beliefs do not have a very strong faith and I believe,(notice I said believe) are afraid they may be wrong. People in many cases do not like to think for them selves,if they did Science would not be a challenge to them.

Monavis

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Bricker

The two propositions are not mutually exclusive.

Consider a black box. We may shoot a particle into it and observe the result. We may infer things from that result. We do not claim to have solved the black box, though, even if we can consistently predict the result of a given particle shot in a given direction.

I don’t see the metaphorical result, though. If God exists and is responsive to what humans do, say or believe, all evidence suggests the results are not consistently predictable. Nations full of devout still suffer earthquakes and hurricanes, murderers go unpunished by fate (I expect O.J. Simpson will live into comfortable old age, for example, as opposed to being hit by lightning) and life generally is pretty much a crapshoot. If God is a “black box” and we can get consistently predictable results out of him/her/it, would you be so kind as to provide some examples of this comforting cause-and-effect? Without such, I’d have to conclude from your premises that God’s black box gives random results, which indicates very poor design.

And if your response is that the design is simply beyond our understanding, then where does this consistent prediction come from?

[SteveG1]

@tomndebb

Actually, if that line was in there, I missed it (when I read it 30+ years ago).

On the other hand, I do know that Augustine, in his essay on Genesis made the very important statement in chapter 19:

That just happens to be one of my most favorite quotations if all time