I love science, but I stopped believing in the religion of Science.

[Nateskate]

In so many arguments, I've heard people defend science as the "truth". I love much of what scientific investigation has shown. It's a wonderful tool. However, people seem rather unaware of how political science is because of funding and prejudice.

History has proven that 400 hundred can be wrong and 1 can be right, but those who stand up against the tide can face persecution in their own community, and so there is as much sheep following the sheep as there is in every industry.

It's not just these wonderfully sacrificial people who never ever compromise. It's people who steal and sabotage each other's work. It's people who have to please an agenda to keep their funding. It's people who are afraid of conflicting with the current trend, because they can be easily replaced on the assembly line.

Has anyone else's faith in science been altered by the politics and bullying and the fudging of information to make the round peg fit the square hole?

[orangejuice]

I agree with you, though my trust in science hasn't been wholly dented. I think a true scientist is one who seeks to be objective and openminded. However, I think in some academic (and definitely within political) circles, the idea of science as objective and unbiased has been lost a bit. Some so-called 'scientists' seem more intent on pushing their own beliefs/values on others, and to convince people that "I'm right, you're wrong!"
This can happen with everyon though. It ultimately comes down to arrogance.

I have the greatest respect for scientists who use it as a tool to discover and learn about their world, rather than as a platform to make themselves look good or to denounce everyone else as stupid.

[veinglory]

A person who thinks science is about "truth" isn't, IMHO, a very good scientist--if they are any kind of scientists at all. Science is about doubt. Science is the idea that you should be willing to immediately change your mind about any and all facts you believe on the basis of new evidence. As such it is the opposite of faith.

[Nateskate]

Thanks for your comment orangejuice. I think people have this almost pius idea of scientists. In college, many of my friends were pre-med, and they were brutally competative. It was common for them to destroy competators experiments. My uncle was a lifelong scientist with the government, and it was a cut-throat environment.

So, when people say, "Science proves..." There are so many things that science proved which were later disproved.

I agree with you, though my trust in science hasn't been wholly dented. I think a true scientist is one who seeks to be objective and openminded. However, I think in some academic (and definitely within political) circles, the idea of science as objective and unbiased has been lost a bit. Some so-called 'scientists' seem more intent on pushing their own beliefs/values on others, and to convince people that "I'm right, you're wrong!"
This can happen with everyon though. It ultimately comes down to arrogance.

I have the greatest respect for scientists who use it as a tool to discover and learn about their world, rather than as a platform to make themselves look good or to denounce everyone else as stupid.

[Nateskate]

A person who thinks science is about "truth" isn't, IMHO, a very good scientist--if they are any kind of scientists at all. Science is about doubt. Science is the idea that you should be willing to immediately change your mind about any and all facts you believe on the basis of new evidence. As such it is the opposite of faith.

Thanks for your thoughts. Scientists are cut from the same cloth as the rest of us, although particular types might be drawn to science. But they vary between the ruthless and those who are pillars of virtue.

But what people forget is that science is also an industry, where some board is going to decide if a project gets funded. So the industry of science is tainted out of the gate. That's why there are conflicting reports about aspertane and other chemicals. The scientists are prone to fudge in the favor of those that pay the checks.

All humans have a blind side. I wanted to be a scientist from my youth. But the great scientists that I knew all had their blind sides. In fact, perhaps what made them great at science hindered their ability to understand life outside the test tube.

Many of them had to break things apart and if they couldn't, they couldn't accept them.

Here's an example. In relationships, some of my scientist friends tripped over "Why?" You couldn't say, "You're being too wooden...buy her flowers...don't talk about your boring projects..."

They faced relationships/women, like it was something that could be broken down in a test tube. And if they couldn't understand why a woman would want flowers, what's the point, they would shoot themselves in the foot relationally.

So this notion that these are all seekers of the truth, is more that these are people that can't accept what they can't break apart and put back together.

Common sense, instincts, love. In "Ride the Tiger", Jefferson Starship sang, "The tears in the eyes of a western man (rationalizes everything) he'll tell you about salt, carbon, and water...The tears in the eyes of an eastern man, he'll tell you about sadness and sorrow, and the love of a man and a woman."

But that's why you have these shows lampoon science, as in the Big Bang Theory, or the Nutty Professor, or the Professor on Giligans Island. These may be exagerations, but people do know people who are also exactly like these fictional characters. They become obsessed with proving "their point", their life's work. And then if the evidence suggests they were wrong, it's too devestating to face.

[veinglory]

Of course human nature is everywhere. Outside of science as much as inside, and so that does not specifically relate to how scientific works compare to non-scientific ones.

The degree to which one has faith in science relative to faith in other things should, I suggest, relate to qualities specific to science?

[Manuel Royal]

Science is a process for investigating the world; if somebody thinks it's a set of dogma that they have to "believe in", they don't understand the process.

[Cyia]

Theoretical science is very much about believing something that can't be proven. ;)

[veinglory]

There are areas of theoretical science that are speculative, at least at this time. But that tends to be outside of or at least marginal to what is considered a main defining quality of scientific knoweldge (use of hypothetico-deductive method, falsifiability).

[Shadow_Ferret]

Science is about discovery, investigating, seeking explanations to life's mysteries, looking for the rational behind the irrational.

As far as theories in science, no one is married to them. They are always being examined and if found flawed it is often discarded and replaced.

[veinglory]

And there is a culture associated with scientici endeavours. I think it is good to reralise that the human process of science is flawed, as are all the works of man. But there seems to be some kind of rebound scepticism that says science is no better than any other way of "knowing". But by its very nature it does=, when carried out honestly, produce more reliable and effective consensus information.

[Shadow_Ferret]

Tends to be more reliable than subscribing anthropomorphic explanations to how nature works.

[Drice]

And there is a culture associated with scientici endeavours. I think it is good to reralise that the human process of science is flawed, as are all the works of man. But there seems to be some kind of rebound scepticism that says science is no better than any other way of "knowing". But by its very nature it does=, when carried out honestly, produce more reliable and effective consensus information.

Perhaps the human process of science is flawed in that humans are flawed but the scientific process is not flawed in that it demands peer review of assertions and this tends to minimize the flawed human aspect of the system. Lots of critical eyes tend to help in that respect. I guess that is what you were saying...

Curious to understand what other ways of knowing there are, though.

I think that "knowing" through belief is fundamentally flawed. For example, knowing that there is a God because there are old stories that talk of some guy being handed stones with a carved message doesn't wash because that "knowledge" is based of pure faith. At this time, God is a concept that cannot be supported scientifically in any serious way.

I suppose that absolutely knowing is never possible, but the more evidence supporting a notion the more that notion can be known or thought of as being true. Always subject to the presentation of new evidence of course.

[veinglory]

I think the peer review process is currently one of the most flawed aspects. I do a lot of peer-reviewing for journals and it seems to me that the reviewers employed are often rushed, and not expert in the area or not putting in the time to check everything in paper.

The process between hypothesis formation and testing seems the most robust part of the human endeavor of science, the bits before and after seem most often to go wrong. Just IMHO.

[Roger J Carlson]

I think that "knowing" through belief is fundamentally flawed. For example, knowing that there is a God because there are old stories that talk of some guy being handed stones with a carved message doesn't wash because that "knowledge" is based of pure faith. At this time, God is a concept that cannot be supported scientifically in any serious way.You can't compare "ways of knowing" by assuming first that one is right. That belief cannot be proven scientifically does not prove that scientific knowing is better than belief knowing.

[veinglory]

I am with Roger and Stephen Gould on that one. There are different ways of knowing and different purposes to knowing, science is just one segment.

[orangejuice]

I like the fact that many aspects of science can be used to show us just how mind bogglingly awesome our universe is, and how tiny we are in comparison to it.
Small things, like the atoms and cells and DNA that make up our bodies and all living things, or huge things, like planets and black holes, all give me a feeling of awe.

If I was a scientist, I'd puruse the career not to show that I was 'right' or to pursue 'truth', though those can both be good endeavours sometimes, but simply to be amazed every day by the world around me.

[Drice]

You can't compare "ways of knowing" by assuming first that one is right. That belief cannot be proven scientifically does not prove that scientific knowing is better than belief knowing.

I was only applying rational thinking to the concept of faith based knowing and I can't make a case for it. Can you rationally explain "belief knowing" so that I might understand how it works.

I am with Roger and Stephen Gould on that one. There are different ways of knowing and different purposes to knowing, science is just one segment.

veinglory: Can you give a hint as to what knowledge systems Stephen Gould held to which you refer? I am still bound by a need to have some kind of explanation for something beyond "I know it's true because I believe it to be true. Therefore it must be true."

[Drice]

I like the fact that many aspects of science can be used to show us just how mind bogglingly awesome our universe is, and how tiny we are in comparison to it.
Small things, like the atoms and cells and DNA that make up our bodies and all living things, or huge things, like planets and black holes, all give me a feeling of awe.

If I was a scientist, I'd puruse the career not to show that I was 'right' or to pursue 'truth', though those can both be good endeavours sometimes, but simply to be amazed every day by the world around me.

Interesting. I too am awed by those things and I am not by any means a scientist, but it strikes me that to be a scientist involves a hefty dose of something more than sitting back and being amazed and awestruck. That sounds more like religion. Without the innate scientific need to know how and what is behind this stuff and backing theories with substantiation rather than supernatural fancy is not scientific.

[veinglory]

The late Stephen J Gould proposed that science and religion are "non-overlapping magisteria (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html)"

[MGraybosch]

They faced relationships/women, like it was something that could be broken down in a test tube. And if they couldn't understand why a woman would want flowers, what's the point, they would shoot themselves in the foot relationally.

In other words, they expected relationships to make sense? I keep making that mistake.

[Drice]

The late Stephen J Gould proposed that science and religion are "non-overlapping magisteria (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html)"

Thanks for the post(link). Interesting. I noticed that the only references to "knowledge" were made by popes who attempted to include their "knowledge" in with the "various fields of knowledge" in existence, presumably Biology, Geology etc. It should be noted that the Catholic Church is as well known as any organization for its propensity to rewrite history AKA alter facts or adjust knowledge. It seems to me that his NOMA principal was a cop out. Although he claimed to respect religions he said in dedicating that essay to Carl Sagan that, "Carl also shared my personal suspicion about the nonexistence of souls." Seems to me he may have respected them but did not believe in them nor their claims such as their belief in the existence of souls. I also am of the opinion that Gould did not hold their "knowledge" of such things in high esteem for the very reason that hocus pocus cannot be backed with fact.

Anyways, just my thoughts. I am going to do some more reading on this Gould fellow.

Thanks.

[Rhys Cordelle]

Of course they're non overlapping. Science doesn't deal in fantasy. That doesn't add any credibility to religious notions.

It's because of human error that something like the scientific method needed to come. It allows us to come to reasonable conclusions about reality that could be made common knowledge without each and every one of us needing to do thorough and in depth study of every single field of science before accepting it as factual. There aren't enough hours within a human lifetime to learn all there is to learn about the world around us, so we have to rely on other peoples research. At least with science we can have some assurance that current scientific theories are the best answers we currently have for various areas of research.

What is the alternative? Where are you going to get a more credible source?

I'm curious what you're referring to when you speak of scientists with unpopular theories being silenced. Who are these scientists? Are we talking about Intelligent Design here or something else? If their hypothesis can be supported by evidence then it doesn't matter if it's 400 to 1.

[Dommo]

I talked a bit about this in a separate topic not that long ago in the Atheism forum.

Basically I broke down "Truth" into this.

1. Provable truth (basically exists only in terms of mathematics or logical constructs).
2. Experimental Truth (Truth that approaches Provable as the number of trials approaches infinity. Essentially using statistics and observation to prove the existence of something)
3. Falsifiability (The ability to demonstrate the falseness of something. This is FAR easier to accomplish then proving something to be true, and is kind of the inverse of rules 1 and 2)
4. Unknowable (Something that can't be falsified, can't be proven through logic/math, and something that can't be experimentally validated)

Science thrives on these principles, and I apply them to every thing I do in my real life.

The whole god question falls into category 4, because as far as I know, no one has managed to falsify the god question(prove it to be false), no one has experimentally validated the existence of a god, and no one has proven mathematically that a god exists. The question is basically unknowable. Hell we can't even agree on what "Defines" the god in question. Is it a Greek type of god? A super intelligent AI? The god of the old testament? The flying spaghetti monster? That's why I put it in the unknowable, and why a lot people have a hard time grasping that(even some scientists), I'll never understand.

[Ruv Draba]

You can't compare "ways of knowing" by assuming first that one is right. That belief cannot be proven scientifically does not prove that scientific knowing is better than belief knowing.From a knowledge perspective the biggest problem with belief-knowing is its own history of inconsequential prognostication and outright failure. From an ethical perspective, I have a problem with the authority and influence claimed by people who can't clinically demonstrate any competence.

Science may not always remain the only game in town but I think we're kidding ourselves not to acknowledge that emotional insight is heinously unreliable, and not to recognise the self-interest, ignorance and outright deceit underpinning the bulk of its practice.

[AMCrenshaw]

I don't trust all of modern medicine. I have no tolerance for BS like Yaz birth control, or mood enhancers that cause kidney cancer in .01 % of its users' population, or Alzheimer meds that cause irregular (but potentially lethal) bowel movements, or lack thereof. The field of medicine leaves much to be desired, including an ethical component.

These problems are really no fault of the scientific method. Just as Holy Wars are no result of the Golden Rule.




AMC

[benbradley]

The late Stephen J Gould proposed that science and religion are "non-overlapping magisteria (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_noma.html)"
That sounds similar to the idea that religion and science are orthogonal (independent), and that idea has been around a long while. I forget the name of the big proponent of that - I heard about the idea and its early proponent from some friends who are a bit more well-read than I am.

But I don't quite agree with that viewpoint, as I'll show:
Of course they're non overlapping. Science doesn't deal in fantasy.
But that doesn't stop religion from maning claims about the physical world. The scope of science has been encroaching on religious claims since at least Galileo and Kepler, and perhaps much earlier (the first proof that the square root of two is irrational may have caused an uproar at the time).

A couple hundred years ago many people believed that physical illness was caused by not praying enough. It has since been discovered that regularly washing one's hands is much more effective than regularly putting one's hands under one's chin. This and the belief that the Earth is the center of the Universe are just two claims that religion has backed away from because of the discoveries of science.
That doesn't add any credibility to religious notions.

It's because of human error that something like the scientific method needed to come.
I'm reminded of Shannon's development of information theory and one of its practical applications, TCP/IP (which sends information reliably over an unreliable transmission medium), and I'm thinking of how these might be analogous to the scientific method which produces fairly reliable conclusions from the unreliable inputs of humankind.

But perhaps that deserves another thread...

On the other hand, that very idea is a response to the OP's claim to "believe in" either science or the "religion of science." This is like saying a carpenter "believes in The Hammer." "What do you mean, I ''believe in it?' It's just a tool - I use it every day. Do you believe in toilets?"

Science is a tool, and not in the "urban dictionary" sort of meaning of tool.
It allows us to come to reasonable conclusions about reality that could be made common knowledge without each and every one of us needing to do thorough and in depth study of every single field of science before accepting it as factual.
I think one important aspect of science is that one CAN learn how these conclusions were made. Anyone (with enough dilligence and reasonable intelligence) can learn enough of a subset of science to verify or invalidate some important scientific conclusions. Science is effectively "open source."
There aren't enough hours within a human lifetime to learn all there is to learn about the world around us, so we have to rely on other peoples research. At least with science we can have some assurance that current scientific theories are the best answers we currently have for various areas of research.

What is the alternative? Where are you going to get a more credible source?

I'm curious what you're referring to when you speak of scientists with unpopular theories being silenced. Who are these scientists? Are we talking about Intelligent Design here or something else? If their hypothesis can be supported by evidence then it doesn't matter if it's 400 to 1.
:popcorn:

[Ton Lew Lepsnaci]

Theoretical science is very much about believing something that can't be proven. ;)

Hi Cyia, that's a tempting conclusion, but not true.

Relativity theory originated as pure theory and so did many other branches of science. Ultimately these theories were backed up by experiments.

The theoretical scientists who proposed them did so to extend the framework of existing science (tested by experiments) to clarify parts of nature they could not (yet) fit in the existing context. They made their theories fit as best as possible with the existing results. They did not "believe" something that can't be proven. They simply proposed something they would bank on to be true (given the current knowledge) but none of them would argue it was simply true based on their belief. First experiments need to back it up and theories get thrown out when they do not fit the facts. Even when they are backed up by facts they only hold until refuted in future trials by new knowledge.

If you mean by "believing that something is true" that the scientists would bet on it being true when they developed the theory, I would probably go along with that (they would hardly bother otherwise to propose it), but none would claim it to be a correct theory without all checks and balances in place. Even after that, they would keep an open mind.

I like orangejuice's comments on what scientists do, they do more than that but being in awe of the universe is definitely an inspiring part of it.

This has all been captured much better in:

http://www.cosmolearning.com/documentaries/richard-feynman-take-the-world-from-another-point-of-view/

Well worth the time spent viewing it. It addresses a lot of the ongoing discussion.

[Nateskate]

In other words, they expected relationships to make sense? I keep making that mistake.

Lol. Understanding love is a lifelong venture. Understanding another soul is no less, because it often takes a lifetime for the most soul-searching to begin to understand themselves.

[Nateskate]

I talked a bit about this in a separate topic not that long ago in the Atheism forum.

Basically I broke down "Truth" into this.

1. Provable truth (basically exists only in terms of mathematics or logical constructs).
2. Experimental Truth (Truth that approaches Provable as the number of trials approaches infinity. Essentially using statistics and observation to prove the existence of something)
3. Falsifiability (The ability to demonstrate the falseness of something. This is FAR easier to accomplish then proving something to be true, and is kind of the inverse of rules 1 and 2)
4. Unknowable (Something that can't be falsified, can't be proven through logic/math, and something that can't be experimentally validated)

Science thrives on these principles, and I apply them to every thing I do in my real life.

The whole god question falls into category 4, because as far as I know, no one has managed to falsify the god question(prove it to be false), no one has experimentally validated the existence of a god, and no one has proven mathematically that a god exists. The question is basically unknowable. Hell we can't even agree on what "Defines" the god in question. Is it a Greek type of god? A super intelligent AI? The god of the old testament? The flying spaghetti monster? That's why I put it in the unknowable, and why a lot people have a hard time grasping that(even some scientists), I'll never understand.

I love your practical thinking. However, I think your conclusion about "the God question" falling into category four is wrong. And I'll explain why.

The only way the "God question" could fall into that category is if God didn't exist, or it was beyond God's ability to reveal himself. And if either were true, then why bother seeking in the first place? But if God is real, and God is indeed able and desiring to reveal himself, then what are the pre-conditions that make a revelation favorable. And how many of us are willing to meet those preconditions if they do exist?

The thing that makes the spiritual interesting are the claims of people who do "know". And I don't mean those who "know" = "Suspect" = "Want to believe their tradition is true" = "Hope they get a bonus if they don't question a tradition".

There is a vast difference between. "Know" and "Know", if you get my drift.

There are countless people who claim to "know" something in the experiential sense. They tasted, touched, saw, heard, saw evidence of..."

But herein lies the major dilemma. Who really knows, vs, who is deluded, who had a halucination, who misinterpreted data, who was just blatantly misled.

And in fact, even if something is real- in the sense there is a spiritual realm, are there true experiences of interactions between humans and spirit that can mimic a religious experience. In other words, can someone pray to a hole in the floor and encounter some spirit pretending to be God, that isn't God?

Somes secular mindsets automatically clump all religious experience into those sub-categories (it didn't really happen), because of an inherent belief that since the beginning, no one has had a genuine encounter with God. And so that belief taints their objectivity. They begin their quest "not wanting to believe" and even "refusing to believe"

Rather, a scientific mind should never jump to that conclusion, or it is not looking at the basic principles of verification, and mathematical probabilities.

In a sense, to truely be objective, test tubes have to be checked at the door, because the methods for testing to see if people had/have experienced God, is not measured in a glass tube. It is through seeking out the eye witnesses, using a tool to sort out who indeed had something that sounds like a true experience, and to ask what the preconditions (if any) were there. Were they seeking God? Did they make changes in their lifestyle? Were they demanding or humble?

Secular bias is no less prevalent than religious bias, and bias blinds the objectivity of the searcher.

[Roger J Carlson]

Originally Posted by Roger J Carlson http://absolutewrite.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4333600#post4333600)
You can't compare "ways of knowing" by assuming first that one is right. That belief cannot be proven scientifically does not prove that scientific knowing is better than belief knowing.
I was only applying rational thinking to the concept of faith based knowing and I can't make a case for it. Can you rationally explain "belief knowing" so that I might understand how it works.

Originally Posted by Roger J Carlson http://absolutewrite.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4333600#post4333600)
You can't compare "ways of knowing" by assuming first that one is right. That belief cannot be proven scientifically does not prove that scientific knowing is better than belief knowing.
From a knowledge perspective the biggest problem with belief-knowing is its own history of inconsequential prognostication and outright failure. From an ethical perspective, I have a problem with the authority and influence claimed by people who can't clinically demonstrate any competence. I think you are both misunderstanding my statement, so perhaps I was unclear. Let me try again.

Drice was comparing two "knowing" systems: science and belief. But he was comparing one system (belief) by the standards of the other (science). In essence he said that science (that is, rational thinking) was right and since belief is not rational, it must be wrong.

Suppose I said, cars are better than bicycles because they are faster, can carry more people, and are climate controlled. That's not really a fair comparison because it assumes the qualities of the car are superior to those of the bicycle. However, if you believe that fresh air, exercise, and non-polluting are the better qualities, then bicycles are better than cars.

So what if rationalism or prognostication are not the most important things for some people? What if their knowing system brings healing or comfort?

Millions of people around the world believe in acupuncture, healing touch, or homeopathy. They "know" that it has helped them even though there is little to no rigorous scientific proof that they work. Many hospitals (including the one I work for) are now embracing many alternative medicines. Personally, I am sceptical of alternative medicines, but it is clear that they often bring comfort and healing to many people.

What if your knowing system brings happiness? There seems to be some evidence that *Believers are happier than atheists (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1581994/Believers-are-happier-than-atheists.html) presumably because the believer's knowing system offers them something that rational thought cannot. Perhaps this type of belief may not bring comfort or happiness to you, but it does to them.

*By the way, I'm not proposing the truth of believers being happier than athiests. I don't want to create another derail. It's just an example of how a knowing system might be judged.

Science may not always remain the only game in town but I think we're kidding ourselves not to acknowledge that emotional insight is heinously unreliable, and not to recognise the self-interest, ignorance and outright deceit underpinning the bulk of its practice. By the structure of the above sentence, you seem to be saying that self-interest, ignorance, and outright deceit are the underpinnings of science. I can't believe that's what you mean, so I'll assume you meant they were the underpinnings of emotional insight. :)

However, I believe one of Nate's points was that there is more self-interest, ignorance, and outright deceit underpinning science (or perhaps the business of science) than is often acknowledged.

[AMCrenshaw]

A great post, Roger.

Healing and comfort don't necessarily have anything to do with truth, but certainly have a lot to do with meaning. I think the distinction between facts and beliefs that provide meaning is a necessary one. In my opinion, a danger arises when facts assert a particular meaning and when a meaningful belief asserts particular facts.

For example, it's when science exhorts (tells me) what to do with my brain that it oversteps its boundaries. It's when religion tells me that the Holy Spirit is the Absolute and Definite Truth that it oversteps its boundaries.




AMC

[Nateskate]

I think you are both misunderstanding my statement, so perhaps I was unclear. Let me try again.

Drice was comparing two "knowing" systems: science and belief. But he was comparing one system (belief) by the standards of the other (science). In essence he said that science (that is, rational thinking) was right and since belief is not rational, it must be wrong.

Suppose I said, cars are better than bicycles because they are faster, can carry more people, and are climate controlled. That's not really a fair comparison because it assumes the qualities of the car are superior to those of the bicycle. However, if you believe that fresh air, exercise, and non-polluting are the better qualities, then bicycles are better than cars.

So what if rationalism or prognostication are not the most important things for some people? What if their knowing system brings healing or comfort?

Millions of people around the world believe in acupuncture, healing touch, or homeopathy. They "know" that it has helped them even though there is little to no rigorous scientific proof that they work. Many hospitals (including the one I work for) are now embracing many alternative medicines. Personally, I am sceptical of alternative medicines, but it is clear that they often bring comfort and healing to many people.

What if your knowing system brings happiness? There seems to be some evidence that *Believers are happier than atheists (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1581994/Believers-are-happier-than-atheists.html) presumably because the believer's knowing system offers them something that rational thought cannot. Perhaps this type of belief may not bring comfort or happiness to you, but it does to them.

*By the way, I'm not proposing the truth of believers being happier than athiests. I don't want to create another derail. It's just an example of how a knowing system might be judged.

By the structure of the above sentence, you seem to be saying that self-interest, ignorance, and outright deceit are the underpinnings of science. I can't believe that's what you mean, so I'll assume you meant they were the underpinnings of emotional insight. :)

However, I believe one of Nate's points was that there is more self-interest, ignorance, and outright deceit underpinning science (or perhaps the business of science) than is often acknowledged.

Hi Roger. I enjoy your reasoning. And it makes sense. I'm going to tell a little about where I'm coming from, because I grew up without religion, and drifted into atheism. But it wasn't religion that caused me to question my atheism, it was science.

Science would say that's not possible, because they say that it's a grand slam dunk that science debunks religion, something that I think lots of people say because they've bought into an archetype, rather than because they have really looked at this all objectively.

I started out very scientifically oriented. In fact, it was a science teacher that converted me to atheism. But it wasn't the ascertion that some church made, or some book made, it was genetics class that first caused me to doubt my doubts.

Genetics, first of all, proves there is no such thing as a simple life-form. This name was given to one cell organisms which we now know are extremely complex life-forms.

Bit by bit, science is able to break down things to their smallest part, and at the smallest level, nothing is simple. Change the atomic weight of this or that element, and the Universe is impossible.

But it was the whole idea of the entire evolutionary process that began to bother me from a mathematical standpoint. I was an atheist at this point. And so you might say I doubted my faith in what science was telling me.

In the evolutionary process, there are a variety of views. However, at this time, classic Darwinism was taught, which is sort of, "If you need to reach the leaves at the top of the tree, you grow a long neck over billions of years...ignoring the leaves on the ground."

Evolution is sort of moving away from Darwinism. But, all the same, the simple gene carries a code so complex, it might carry trillions of bits of information. And that code is not evolutionary friendly. At best, the program itself allows for adaptation, which does not suggest evolution. A Chameleon is not evolving everytime it changes color. It's programed to adapt to its environment.

And so, if you use fruit flies, or whatever, generally, random mutations are never beneficial. They almost always weaken the organism, and often a break in the gentic code will make the organism unable to breed and pass the broken genetic material. And even if there is a break in the code, it is not uniform. If the child is born with a mutation that can get passed down- let's say it doesn't have a right arm- the next generation might be missing a left leg, and not a right arm.

So, the notion that a favorable mutation can occur that causes the girraffe to lengthen its neck over time is not mathematically plausible. Mutations happen when there is a trauma to the gene, not as a result of a need in the environment.

But then you have to look at speciation, in which mutations are frequent events, and you keep getting these split-offs, and the favorable mutations stick. People constantly use time as an excuse to argue that mathematic impossibilities are possible. If you give a billion years, then it's more likely that swamp ooze will turn into an olympic decathalete, and an eagle, and a horse, and all these wonderful things.

If we look at the immune system of just our own organism, humans, there are many thousands of events taking place when one bug enters our body. The immune system has redundency in case of a system failure.

So, when people say we have no excuse to believe, I don't buy that argument. Science in fact makes everyone question. In my generation, the greatest atheists in the world say, "Isn't mother earth grand", assigning intelligence to nature. In this generation, they say, "The Universe always makes a way..." another quasi-religious statement that infers there is intelligence in the way of things.

Now, this only caused me to question my atheism, and my assertions. I'm not saying that this made me believe in a belief system, but it made me question my assertion that there was no God, no intelligence in the Universe. Even in my day, scientists were buying into the alien seeding theories to patch the wholes in evolutionary theory, again suggesting that intelligent life had something to do with the wonders we see.

Sorry for this long-winded thing. But insofar as "It makes some people feel good", in my mind, truth was truth. If God existed, then not believing in God didn't make God vanish. But if God did not exist, then all the wishing in the world didn't make it so.

And so, I kind of disliked the idea of accepting that it was okay to justify a false belief because it comforted someone. Yeah, maybe self-hypnosis works, or possitive thought...etc. And that was okay for some. But deep within, I simply wanted to know what was true. Could God be known? Did God reveal himself anywhere at any time? Is there life after death? Who has died and come back and told us? Do miracles happen?

Science, philosophy, and even theology often said it's impossible to know. I never bought that. If it's impossible to know, then all things are relative. Then the Universe, the Earth, Us, are a mathematical impossibility that happened. Logic means nothing. Reason means nothing. But we know that logic and reason do mean something.

The bottom line is this. We all have bias. There's religious bias. There's scientific bias. There's atheistic bias. Truth does not bend to bias. It is. If we're wanting truth, then our own archetypes may have to die.

[Dommo]

My point with unknowable isn't that a question is inherently unknowable, but that it CURRENTLY is unknowable.



Science, philosophy, and even theology often said it's impossible to know. I never bought that. If it's impossible to know, then all things are relative. Then the Universe, the Earth, Us, are a mathematical impossibility that happened. Logic means nothing. Reason means nothing. But we know that logic and reason do mean something.

I disagree. There's nothing mathematically impossible about our existence at all. It's just a case of being the needle looking out into the haystack.

When you've got a galaxy with a 100 billion stars, and trillions of galaxies, and each of those stars probably averaging a few planets each, then even the most improbable occurrences start becoming likely. Add into the fact that even as I speak thousands of stars are being born in our galaxy alone, likewise new worlds are forming from the ashes of dead stars, I highly doubt that life is all that rare.

I don't doubt that there is some serious bias, but truth can only exist where it can be defined concretely. That's why I raised the question of defining what a god is. If we can't define what we're actually trying to ask, then how can we know when we've got a possible solution? It's like me being to told to go build a house without consulting the person hiring me. What I perceive as a good house might not agree with them. Hence why I meet with them and we both try to define what we want the house to be. Without some level of agreement on defining something, or being able to set up some kind of tangible measuring stick, it's impossible to prove you know something.

There's nothing wrong with something being unknowable, in fact it's a real part of everyday physics. For example, if you look at thermodynamics in general, you learn that the overall trend is for everything to break down into total chaos and unpredictability. The scary thing is that once you understand the implications of the science, and the proven engineering that results from it, you realize that nothing is forever. Heck your refrigerator is basically increasing the chaos in your kitchen in order to keep your food cold, and it's increasing the chaos a lot more than it's creating order inside of itself, in fact in its own little way your refrigerator is speeding up the demise of the universe.

[Ruv Draba]

So what if rationalism or prognostication are not the most important things for some people? What if their knowing system brings healing or comfort?Then it's not a system of overcoming ignorance but overcoming misery. Call one 'knowledge' and the other one 'joyful conviction' or the like, and nobody should be confused.

The problem is that systems of joyful conviction also presume to explain and prognosticate on objective things. And as history shows repeatedly, people can be joyfully convinced about anything, no matter how untrue it may prove to be.

[Roger J Carlson]

Then it's not a system of overcoming ignorance but overcoming misery. Call one 'knowledge' and the other one 'joyful conviction' or the like, and nobody should be confused.

The problem is that systems of joyful conviction also presume to explain and prognosticate on objective things. And as history shows repeatedly, people can be joyfully convinced about anything, no matter how untrue it may prove to be.I didn't use the word "knowledge". I was careful to use "knowing system". It may sound like sematics, but it was a deliberate response to veinglory's use of "ways of knowing" and Drice's request for clarification. The non-rational thinker can still "know" things. I don't see why we should use a different word for it, just to please rational thinkers (of which, by the way, I am one).

My wife can reach conclusions, that is "knows" things, with very little in the way of rational thought. She can start with point A and intuitively jump to point E. I have to go from A to B to C to D to E. Most of the time, she's right -- frighteningly so. So often, in fact, that in critical or time sensitive situations, I've learned to defer to her "knowledge".

Now, it may be that she is subconciously going through the same rational process that I do, only much quicker. However, that would be a supposition that can never be proven. I can never know how her mind is working, and in fact, she doesn't either. When I ask her how she knew, she cannot tell me.

So perhaps intuition is another "way of knowing" that is neither science nor belief or perhaps parts of both.

[Nateskate]

My point with unknowable isn't that a question is inherently unknowable, but that it CURRENTLY is unknowable.





I disagree. There's nothing mathematically impossible about our existence at all. It's just a case of being the needle looking out into the haystack.

When you've got a galaxy with a 100 billion stars, and trillions of galaxies, and each of those stars probably averaging a few planets each, then even the most improbable occurrences start becoming likely. Add into the fact that even as I speak thousands of stars are being born in our galaxy alone, likewise new worlds are forming from the ashes of dead stars, I highly doubt that life is all that rare.

I don't doubt that there is some serious bias, but truth can only exist where it can be defined concretely. That's why I raised the question of defining what a god is. If we can't define what we're actually trying to ask, then how can we know when we've got a possible solution? It's like me being to told to go build a house without consulting the person hiring me. What I perceive as a good house might not agree with them. Hence why I meet with them and we both try to define what we want the house to be. Without some level of agreement on defining something, or being able to set up some kind of tangible measuring stick, it's impossible to prove you know something.

There's nothing wrong with something being unknowable, in fact it's a real part of everyday physics. For example, if you look at thermodynamics in general, you learn that the overall trend is for everything to break down into total chaos and unpredictability. The scary thing is that once you understand the implications of the science, and the proven engineering that results from it, you realize that nothing is forever. Heck your refrigerator is basically increasing the chaos in your kitchen in order to keep your food cold, and it's increasing the chaos a lot more than it's creating order inside of itself, in fact in its own little way your refrigerator is speeding up the demise of the universe.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. The question I had, wasn't if something was true in the theoretical sense, but in the experiential sense. Sure, I may theoretically know that someone loves another, but until I am loved by someone, love is an abstract to me.

The reality of God meant little unless it meant something on a personal level. If God hated us, didn't know about us, was indifferent to us, then the theoretical "if" didn't mean much. However, if God knew and cared, and impact our lives, then I thought it was beneficial to know.

And so I looked, not knowing at that time if there would be an answer. What did I look for? What was true? Are there spirits? What is ESP? Is it real or a hoax? How do people prophecy about future events? Do people really get healed. Is there such a thing as demon possession like in the exorcist.

So, the question of God does not exist in a vaccum. There are many associated questions. If God exists, does God care? Does God intervene?

But this whole thing is not about winning arguments. It never was for me. It was about whether life was worth living, about futility vs. meaning. I didn't particularly like the hand I was dealt in life, and in a way I was angry, depressed. I thought about death alot.

In the mental place I was in, life after death was an important thing to sort out. I didn't want to go from the proverbial frying pan into the fire. But if that was all there was, my wishing it away didn't change anything.

So I searched as if my life depended on it. I'm not speaking appologetics. Arguing serves no purpose, nor does a philosophical maze that leads to no point.

It was "yes or no". God exists or God doesn't. God is relevent or not. There is or isn't life after death. Logic says that truth doesn't bend. If it is true for one it doesn't stop being true if another doesn't like the answer.

Now, I have come to many answers along the way, experiential answers. I'm no longer saying, "I know nothing".

But insofar as science, scientific minds may want me to prove what I know. But since experience, what I taste and touch, see, hear, and feel, can't be handed to another person; I can only say what I have experienced. But until another experiences it, there will always be room for doubt.

Yet, the testimony of credible witnesses is often the only means to discern if something is likely true.

[Ruv Draba]

I didn't use the word "knowledge". I was careful to use "knowing system". It may sound like sematics, but it was a deliberate response to veinglory's use of "ways of knowing" and Drice's request for clarification. The non-rational thinker can still "know" things. I don't see why we should use a different word for it, just to please rational thinkers (of which, by the way, I am one)

My wife can reach conclusions, that is "knows" things, with very little in the way of rational thought. She can start with point A and intuitively jump to point E. I have to go from A to B to C to D to E. Most of the time, she's right -- frighteningly so. So often, in fact, that in critical or time sensitive situations, I've learned to defer to her "knowledge".Thanks for some interesting comments, Roger.

I'm married to such a wife too, and my compliments to you on an excellent choice of person. :) I absolutely consult with Mrs D on intractable problems too -- especially problems about people -- because her insights are often illuminating -- even if they're sometimes prone to big biasses.

I've spent a lot of time talking to Mrs D about what knowledge looks like to her. I've concluded that to her 'knowledge' is 'intuitive speculation she's convinced about and acts on', and I think she'd agree with that. The basis of her conviction is often how people make her feel, and what has happened at times when she's had similar feelings before.

She's a spiritual person and often a mystical person but not a religious person, but I think that definition is a fairly good one to describe the sort of conviction I often see in religion and mysticism. A common theme in religion and mysticism is that feelings are important -- even purposeful -- and a guide toward better truths.

I have no problem at all with that, as long as feelings are not conflated with the truths themselves. (And in fairness, I also have speculations and convictions I act on, but I do so expecting them to be wrong.)

So perhaps intuition is another "way of knowing" that is neither science nor belief or perhaps parts of both.In a Myers-Briggs frame, rationals are considered intuitives too -- in that they tend to intuit order from logical chaos. The other intuitive group are the idealists, who do with feelings what rationals do with thought. Where I collect causes and effects, Mrs D collects feelings and emotions and consequences.

She has a knowledge-base from which she makes decisions, as do I. Hers is sometimes extraordinarily effective (especially in areas like predicting people), and sometimes disastrously misleading (especially in confusing manner with intention, or systems where personal motives don't apply).

I have no problem saying that Mrs D has a knowledge-base; the problem is in being clear on what the knowledge is about. To exaggerate for illustration, an Idealist may be convinced that the earth is flat simply because of how he feels when talking to other people who believe the earth is flat. Perhaps flat-earthers are nicer, more agreeable people who are great at giving directions around town. Perhaps round-earthers are solitary, crotchetty gum-suckers who don't know where the nearest 7-11 is... to an Idealist, this can create strong bias toward trusting flat-earthers. In a Rationalist, it doesn't.

So an Idealist (not Mrs D but some other) might say 'I know that the earth is flat'. And a Rational might incorrectly interpret this to mean 'I've found the edge of the world, or spoken to several credible, independent sources who have'. But that's not what it means at all. What I think it means to an Idealist is something very complicated, like:
I trust flat-earthers implicitly -- I believe in their sincerity and desire to help me. I do not believe that they wish to lead me astray. And I have a deep worry about walking off the edge of the world by accident. They were able to put me at ease by telling me that the edge of the world is safely far from me -- six thousand miles East of here, in fact, and they're in broad agreement that it is. On the other hand, I feel that round-earthers neither understand my concerns nor care about them. Also they can't assure me that I'm safe if they're wrong.
My point is that intuitive-feelies have an extraordinarily good knowledge-base about people and motives and psychologies. They use that as a lens to draw on the information of others about the world, and to consult themselves for What's Important. But I'd argue that the subject of that knowledge-base is people and not the world.

This pretty much picks up why I'm simultaneously grateful for religion and mysticism and deeply irritated by it. It also resonates a little with Stephen Jay Gould's notions of magisteria -- though I think it's more complex than he made out.

I'll get back to my earlier point though... one can talk about religious knowledge (or mystical knowledge) but history keeps telling us that one can't conflate it with knowledge about the world. I think that Drice's original comment was pointing out that our only good way to discover what the world is like is to go and look methodically... and that's true.

Your comment is that there's more to our world than simply objects -- and that's also true; there's what objects mean to us, and there are also feelings and apprehensions to which no object may attach (e.g. the edge of the world). But my comment is that when religion presumes to talk about objects as objects it has to defer to science, or risk looking stupid.

[Rhys Cordelle]

Nateskate, I think you're misinterpreting natural selection. The way you state it makes it sound like the animal starts evolving with longer and longer necks with a specific goal in mind, e.g. reaching the leaves on the tree. That's not the case at all.

If the taller variations of the animal are able to reach the lower leaves of a tree and eat those, then they have a favorable chance of survival over their shorter peers because they have greater access to food sources. There's no evolutionary goal in mind, it's purely about how their genetic mutations help or hinder their survival rate.


I'd also suggest that atheism and science are not dependant on eachother. You can be a christian scientist (though not a fundamentalist, to be sure), and you can be an atheist who is skeptical about such things as evolution and the big bang. Atheism is about disbelieving claims of knowledge about a god. It is not about replacing the concept of god with the practice of science. Nor is the goal of science to disprove god.

[veinglory]

You can be a fundamentalist sxientist in some areas. In my university they tended to accumulate in the chemisty department. And, statistically, a recent US survey showed that the majority of scientists are Christian.

[Rhys Cordelle]

Of course. The majority of the US are christian, so that shouldn't be surprising.

[Nateskate]

Nateskate, I think you're misinterpreting natural selection. The way you state it makes it sound like the animal starts evolving with longer and longer necks with a specific goal in mind, e.g. reaching the leaves on the tree. That's not the case at all.

If the taller variations of the animal are able to reach the lower leaves of a tree and eat those, then they have a favorable chance of survival over their shorter peers because they have greater access to food sources. There's no evolutionary goal in mind, it's purely about how their genetic mutations help or hinder their survival rate.


I'd also suggest that atheism and science are not dependant on eachother. You can be a christian scientist (though not a fundamentalist, to be sure), and you can be an atheist who is skeptical about such things as evolution and the big bang. Atheism is about disbelieving claims of knowledge about a god. It is not about replacing the concept of god with the practice of science. Nor is the goal of science to disprove god.

In my case, I considered myself a scientific atheist. Atheism doesn't have one shade. But more and more I realized that I was sort of protesting what I saw as unfairness in the world, reasoning that a good God wouldn't run the Universe this way.

However, as I looked more and more at what was right rather than what was wrong, my assumption was thrown into question.

As far as science and belief, I've known many scientists who believe in God. In a sense, the questions aren't whether there's a case for faith. Rather, many of the objections are based upon "time". But we're fixated on time in the sense that everything is measured by a clock. Time is a relative thing. Time varies, especially near an event horizon.

Now, there are scientific organizations, but they're like political organizations, in that they have agendas that may attract and repel scientists, depending on their political views and even religious or non-religious views. So, when these organizations poll their memberships they may find a leaning in one direction or another.

You're right about the goals of science. I'm speaking more towards what I think are archetypes of science. This may sound weird. But I've noticed that my deeply scientific friends are unique, just like my friends who are engineers. And my artistic friends are different than both.

My scientific and engineer friends had one thing in common. They were slow to believe anything. They both liked to pick things apart to see how they worked. And they were certain they could fix anything, whether it was a phone, a radio, or whatever. Sometimes they could and sometimes they just made a mess.

But when it came to relationships they were the same way. You couldn't just say "Do this or do that," even if it worked. THey always had to know why it worked, and if it couldn't be explained by logic they almost protested.

In a sense, doubting Thomas was perhaps the most scientific of the twelve apostles. He wanted proof. He wanted to stick his hand in the nail marks. He wasn't anti-religion. He simply didn't want to get things wrong and had a different burden of proof than the others had.

I'd say that my science friends approached religion like that. They had to look at it from everywhich way. And if they agreed with nine out of ten things, whereas most would say- that's enough, they would get stuck on number ten and fixate on it.

But in a sense, that stick-to-it-ness was how they solved problems. They would take the phone apart, and they had to look at all these books and all these arguments.

Now, in the simple sense, the principle, you can judge a tree by its fruit is a pretty good philosophical point. If someone is ripping people off, we wouldn't trust them to invest in.

But in a scientific sense, that's a short-cut. You look at the fruit without discecting the tree. You didn't dig up the roots, or look at the leaves. You didn't biopsy the bark. The fact that they didn't mislead you nine times doesn't mean you should trust them for number ten. And if they can't get a resolution on number ten, then they might get frustrated and chuck the whole thing.

That doesn't mean ten is wrong. But if ten is one of those things that the rational mind can't wrap around, that becomes a major stumbling block.

[benbradley]

I'd also suggest that atheism and science are not dependant on eachother. You can be a christian scientist (though not a fundamentalist, to be sure), and you can be an atheist who is skeptical about such things as evolution and the big bang. Atheism is about disbelieving claims of knowledge about a god. It is not about replacing the concept of god with the practice of science. Nor is the goal of science to disprove god.

While there's undoubtedly a negative correlation between being a scientist and being a christian, it doesn't preclude a person from being both, even a fundamentalist Christian.

I've been there myself (or somewhere quite close, both figuratively and literally, in church basements), though I admit that eventually changed when I (against advice, of course) pointed my inqusitive and skeptical mind toward the beliefs I had acquired (which just happened to almost perfectly match the beliefs of those around me). I really need to work on that memoir.

Martin Gardner is well-known as, if not a degreed scientist himself, a science writer and co-founder of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_Skeptical_Inquiry), and he's also a Christian.
You can be a fundamentalist sxientist in some areas. In my university they tended to accumulate in the chemisty department. And, statistically, a recent US survey showed that the majority of scientists are Christian.
If (say) 55 to 60 percent of US scientists are Christian, it's because the US population is (say) 80 to 90 percent Christian. The majority of scientists in the USA being Christian is mainly a reflection of the overwhelming majority of Christians in the overall US population.
In my case, I considered myself a scientific atheist. Atheism doesn't have one shade. But more and more I realized that I was sort of protesting what I saw as unfairness in the world, reasoning that a good God wouldn't run the Universe this way.

However, as I looked more and more at what was right rather than what was wrong, my assumption was thrown into question.
You say "your assumption" as if it were the only one. From the previous paragraph, it appears you assumed that if there was a God running the Universe it's a "good God." On the other hand, I suppose a "bad God" is fairly rare in religion and philosophy.

But in the context here I don't even see what your assumption was.
As far as science and belief, I've known many scientists who believe in God. In a sense, the questions aren't whether there's a case for faith. Rather, many of the objections are based upon "time". But we're fixated on time in the sense that everything is measured by a clock. Time is a relative thing. Time varies, especially near an event horizon.
It took a moment to noodle out what you likely meant by this, but presiming I've discovered what you meant, the "objections based on time" you refer to are the Christian claims of a young (7,000 to 10,000 years old) Earth versus scientific claims of a much older (around 5 billion years) Earth. This has no connection whatsoever with the changes in passage of time with acceleration or gravity (as near an event horizon). You're mixing oranges and a painting of a pipe.

[Rhys Cordelle]

What's your position now Nateskate? Are you a christian? A deist?

[Ruv Draba]

I want to write some things around the edges of Nateskate's comments, which I found interesting. Especially I want to write about skepticism and what I think is its role in human thought. I do so as someone who is frequently (but not always) a skeptic, and very skeptical when I am.

Science would say that's not possible, because they say that it's a grand slam dunk that science debunks religionScience debunks beliefs related to objects -- including its own beliefs. It's not at all particular about what it debunks. The act of investigating objects in their own context highlights our ignorance. Really, the whole job of skepticism in science is to recognise our ignorance before we're tripped up by it. This limits what we can claim to know, but also increases the quality of our knowledge.

The scientific method is built in part on controlled skepticism but science is not a religion of skepticism and neither is every skeptic a scientist. So let's talk about skepticism, science and atheism because the three are often seen as one thing and they're not.

Skepticism is not personality or ideology; it's actually a choice about how we will manage our knowledge, just as personal or food hygeine is a choice. A casual approach to food hygeine won't necessarily give us food-poisoning, but if we don't want food poisoning then a more meticulous approach will help avoid it. Many skeptics have a keen eye for the quality of truth and the quality of evidence -- just as a housekeeper may have a keen nose for food that has not been handled well and might be a bit off.

Skepticism is a position we undertake from a place of acknowledged ignorance. If we're knowledgable we have no need for skepticism. If we're ignorant but don't realise it, any skepticism we have is useless -- it really becomes a form of cynicism. To be skeptical (as opposed to cynical) we need to be clear on what we don't know and also have a fair idea of what it would take for us to know something.

But skepticism lets us set the bar at different levels. Two skeptics won't necessarily have the same standards of quality for truth or evidence -- and they might set the bar higher or lower in different situations. The reasons we choose to adopt skeptical positions may vary -- a proposition might be inconvenient, or high risk to adopt, or culturally repellent, or politically inexpedient... So we can have various motives for being skeptical -- from idealistic through to pragmatic; from altruistic to selfish.

Science requires skepticism as part of its method, but it also requires consensus on how high to set the bar. As much as possible, scientists try to make the bar-setting objective -- in other words, rather than choosing the bar from personal preference we try and let nature itself tell us what the bar should be. In practice though, bar-setting is a matter of expert judgement and risk management. We want to set the bar high enough that stupid mistakes don't get seen as proof, but low enough that we can get useful results.

Scientists need a lot of training to know how to set the bar -- and before we can even design an experiment we generally need to go to our worst enemies (the scientists who hate our theories) and ask them where the bar should be set. It's that step I think, which underpins the core of scientific ethics: we have to set the bar to please our enemies, not our friends -- and then we have to design experiments that can jump over the bar.

(Religion seldom bothers doing that by the way -- religions pick standards of evidence to please their faithful; not to please their enemies. Therein lies a problem when religion tries to appeal to/lean on/challenge science).

Every scientist must become a skeptic on matters of objective evidence, but not every skeptic is a scientist -- though many skeptics clothe their skepticism in scientific language. When people say 'science has disproved religion' they may be skeptics but they're not being scientists. A scientist is meticulous to define terms, set the bar for truth, define an experiment then report it and make careful conclusions. A scientist might prove that a statue's tears are canola-oil, but that's not proof that one religion or all of them are a crock.

The term 'atheism' is actually part of the language of religion. To see this consider: if everyone in the world were Christian, they'd still call themselves Christians because the term refers to a figure that Christians follow. If everyone in the world were Jewish they might not call themselves Jews, but they would have in their language somewhere a concept meaning 'we revere the tanakh' or 'we obey G-d's law'.

Atheists don't need a name for themselves; 'atheist' is a name created and applied by the faithful and subsequently taken up by sociologists and the like. So when we try and characterise an atheist we really can't, except in comparison to some religion. 'Why are you an atheist?' does not always have an answer. 'Why don't you believe what I do?' is a much easier question to answer.

Many skeptics naturally become atheistic simply because religion, in setting its own bar for evidence, fails to meet the atheist's evidentiary bar. Some people are atheistic for other reasons though -- e.g. they may simply not have any use for religion, and never bother to go looking for evidence.

But many skeptics can be religious too... They set their bar for truth to some high level and in their judgement, a religion meets that. But since skeptics may set different bars, the faith of one skeptic does not constitute proof to other skeptics.

The same is true in science. I have scientific friends -- duly skeptical -- who are happy to embrace religion. They don't necessarily accept every religious claim -- they'll often want evidence -- but they'll accept the religion broadly. This however doesn't mean that the religion is 'proven'; it just means that the scientist doesn't feel that religious belief compromises scientific discipline -- and although I'm an atheist I can attest that generally, it doesn't.

Evolution is sort of moving away from Darwinism.Darwin's work is more theoretical framework than mechanism. The framework was confirmed by specific observations -- e.g. biologists can actually confirm changes to species arising from changes to environment... when factories in the Victorian era started pumping out soot, pale moths bred darker pigmentation so that they wouldn't stand out against trees and get eaten. And the fossil record shows a lot of support too.


And so, if you use fruit flies, or whatever, generally, random mutations are never beneficial. They almost always weaken the organism

Genetic mechanisms are an ongoing area of study. We know that many mutations aren't beneficial but Darwin never expected them to be. We've found that some mutations become immediately beneficial (e.g. dark moths becoming lighter), while others become occasionally beneficial (e.g. when the environment changes catastrophically). But there is an awful lot of selection going on... Millions of sperm cells never fertilise eggs; thousands of eggs never get fertilised and so on...

So, the notion that a favorable mutation can occur that causes the girraffe to lengthen its neck over time is not mathematically plausible.Well, it's actually occurring on observable populations (e.g. the darkening moths, bacterial response to antibiotics, insects producing resistance to pesticides), and the changes are being tracked both in function and these days, genetics... So 'it's not mathematically plausible' just means 'I don't understand it' -- which is fair, because most people actually don't. It's complex and wonderful but it's still explicable and well-understood.

We all have bias. There's religious bias. There's scientific bias. There's atheistic bias. Truth does not bend to bias. It is. If we're wanting truth, then our own archetypes may have to die.All of that is true, but how we manage our knowledge allows us to deal with many kinds of bias.

[Nateskate]

While there's undoubtedly a negative correlation between being a scientist and being a christian, it doesn't preclude a person from being both, even a fundamentalist Christian.

I've been there myself (or somewhere quite close, both figuratively and literally, in church basements), though I admit that eventually changed when I (against advice, of course) pointed my inqusitive and skeptical mind toward the beliefs I had acquired (which just happened to almost perfectly match the beliefs of those around me). I really need to work on that memoir.

Martin Gardner is well-known as, if not a degreed scientist himself, a science writer and co-founder of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_for_Skeptical_Inquiry), and he's also a Christian.

If (say) 55 to 60 percent of US scientists are Christian, it's because the US population is (say) 80 to 90 percent Christian. The majority of scientists in the USA being Christian is mainly a reflection of the overwhelming majority of Christians in the overall US population.

You say "your assumption" as if it were the only one. From the previous paragraph, it appears you assumed that if there was a God running the Universe it's a "good God." On the other hand, I suppose a "bad God" is fairly rare in religion and philosophy.

But in the context here I don't even see what your assumption was.

It took a moment to noodle out what you likely meant by this, but presiming I've discovered what you meant, the "objections based on time" you refer to are the Christian claims of a young (7,000 to 10,000 years old) Earth versus scientific claims of a much older (around 5 billion years) Earth. This has no connection whatsoever with the changes in passage of time with acceleration or gravity (as near an event horizon). You're mixing oranges and a painting of a pipe.

I had a strict belief in evolution. And I saw the question of God's existance as separate, at least at the first. Genetics made me question evolution. RNA and DNA were first of all, extremely complex. Just look at how long it's taken to map one gene.

So, I began to question evolution first.

But, when I questioned whether God was real, I didn't even take the evolutionary question into the mix. Simply, was there a supernatural realm? Were there spirits? What about claims of prophecy? How does that work?

I figured that if God existed, that didn't mean that evolution wasn't how things came to be.

But I also had many questions from a scientific standpoint. Where in the heck were the past generations of skyscrapers, airplanes, electronics.

In the evolutionary model. Humans were about as smart as we are for what, a hundred thousand years or more? And if you take into account birthrates and expansion of nations, how come there were so few people in the world, let's say eight thousand years ago?

In our recorded history, it takes roughly six or seven thousand years for an intelligent species to go from spears to nuclear arms, from huts to skyscrapers, from scratching in the dirt to super computers.

How come people were so stupid for the past hundred thousand years that there aren't layers upon layers of civilizations?

If it takes six thousand years for us to populate a planet, with some room for expansion, we should have filled the world many times over by now.

But it's a combination of many things. Sheep- can't exist at all without humans to watch out for them. They're really really stupid animals with virtually no self-defense. They will graze themselves into extinction.

Now, if you follow the evolutionary argument, that maybe there were sabertooth sheep at one time, with giant claws, but then humans domesticated them, how many thousands of years would it take for them to become like the dumb sheep we know?

Now, lets go back and factor in that humans had to be civilized and tending sheep that far back, and therefore fairly intelligent, then why did every major invention only happen in the last six or seven thousand years?

Forget bones. Where were the spaceships? The previous generations of satellites?

Mathematically, even if you had an ice-age every fifteen or twenty thousand years, and mankind was thrown back into a new stoneage, mankind should have reached a scientific pinacle time and again throughout history.

Where did all of those civilizations go? How did all that history get etcha-sketched out of existence? Why do we go back like ten thousand years, and when we dig, we find a bronze age, an iron age, a stone age, but no other computer age?

[Nateskate]

I want to write some things around the edges of Nateskate's comments, which I found interesting. Especially I want to write about skepticism and what I think is its role in human thought. I do so as someone who is frequently (but not always) a skeptic, and very skeptical when I am.

Science debunks beliefs related to objects -- including its own beliefs. It's not at all particular about what it debunks. The act of investigating objects in their own context highlights our ignorance. Really, the whole job of skepticism in science is to recognise our ignorance before we're tripped up by it. This limits what we can claim to know, but also increases the quality of our knowledge.

The scientific method is built in part on controlled skepticism but science is not a religion of skepticism and neither is every skeptic a scientist. So let's talk about skepticism, science and atheism because the three are often seen as one thing and they're not.

Skepticism is not personality or ideology; it's actually a choice about how we will manage our knowledge, just as personal or food hygeine is a choice. A casual approach to food hygeine won't necessarily give us food-poisoning, but if we don't want food poisoning then a more meticulous approach will help avoid it. Many skeptics have a keen eye for the quality of truth and the quality of evidence -- just as a housekeeper may have a keen nose for food that has not been handled well and might be a bit off.

Skepticism is a position we undertake from a place of acknowledged ignorance. If we're knowledgable we have no need for skepticism. If we're ignorant but don't realise it, any skepticism we have is useless -- it really becomes a form of cynicism. To be skeptical (as opposed to cynical) we need to be clear on what we don't know and also have a fair idea of what it would take for us to know something.

But skepticism lets us set the bar at different levels. Two skeptics won't necessarily have the same standards of quality for truth or evidence -- and they might set the bar higher or lower in different situations. The reasons we choose to adopt skeptical positions may vary -- a proposition might be inconvenient, or high risk to adopt, or culturally repellent, or politically inexpedient... So we can have various motives for being skeptical -- from idealistic through to pragmatic; from altruistic to selfish.

Science requires skepticism as part of its method, but it also requires consensus on how high to set the bar. As much as possible, scientists try to make the bar-setting objective -- in other words, rather than choosing the bar from personal preference we try and let nature itself tell us what the bar should be. In practice though, bar-setting is a matter of expert judgement and risk management. We want to set the bar high enough that stupid mistakes don't get seen as proof, but low enough that we can get useful results.

Scientists need a lot of training to know how to set the bar -- and before we can even design an experiment we generally need to go to our worst enemies (the scientists who hate our theories) and ask them where the bar should be set. It's that step I think, which underpins the core of scientific ethics: we have to set the bar to please our enemies, not our friends -- and then we have to design experiments that can jump over the bar.

(Religion seldom bothers doing that by the way -- religions pick standards of evidence to please their faithful; not to please their enemies. Therein lies a problem when religion tries to appeal to/lean on/challenge science).

Every scientist must become a skeptic on matters of objective evidence, but not every skeptic is a scientist -- though many skeptics clothe their skepticism in scientific language. When people say 'science has disproved religion' they may be skeptics but they're not being scientists. A scientist is meticulous to define terms, set the bar for truth, define an experiment then report it and make careful conclusions. A scientist might prove that a statue's tears are canola-oil, but that's not proof that one religion or all of them are a crock.

The term 'atheism' is actually part of the language of religion. To see this consider: if everyone in the world were Christian, they'd still call themselves Christians because the term refers to a figure that Christians follow. If everyone in the world were Jewish they might not call themselves Jews, but they would have in their language somewhere a concept meaning 'we revere the tanakh' or 'we obey G-d's law'.

Atheists don't need a name for themselves; 'atheist' is a name created and applied by the faithful and subsequently taken up by sociologists and the like. So when we try and characterise an atheist we really can't, except in comparison to some religion. 'Why are you an atheist?' does not always have an answer. 'Why don't you believe what I do?' is a much easier question to answer.

Many skeptics naturally become atheistic simply because religion, in setting its own bar for evidence, fails to meet the atheist's evidentiary bar. Some people are atheistic for other reasons though -- e.g. they may simply not have any use for religion, and never bother to go looking for evidence.

But many skeptics can be religious too... They set their bar for truth to some high level and in their judgement, a religion meets that. But since skeptics may set different bars, the faith of one skeptic does not constitute proof to other skeptics.

The same is true in science. I have scientific friends -- duly skeptical -- who are happy to embrace religion. They don't necessarily accept every religious claim -- they'll often want evidence -- but they'll accept the religion broadly. This however doesn't mean that the religion is 'proven'; it just means that the scientist doesn't feel that religious belief compromises scientific discipline -- and although I'm an atheist I can attest that generally, it doesn't.

Darwin's work is more theoretical framework than mechanism. The framework was confirmed by specific observations -- e.g. biologists can actually confirm changes to species arising from changes to environment... when factories in the Victorian era started pumping out soot, pale moths bred darker pigmentation so that they wouldn't stand out against trees and get eaten. And the fossil record shows a lot of support too.



Genetic mechanisms are an ongoing area of study. We know that many mutations aren't beneficial but Darwin never expected them to be. We've found that some mutations become immediately beneficial (e.g. dark moths becoming lighter), while others become occasionally beneficial (e.g. when the environment changes catastrophically). But there is an awful lot of selection going on... Millions of sperm cells never fertilise eggs; thousands of eggs never get fertilised and so on...

Well, it's actually occurring on observable populations (e.g. the darkening moths, bacterial response to antibiotics, insects producing resistance to pesticides), and the changes are being tracked both in function and these days, genetics... So 'it's not mathematically plausible' just means 'I don't understand it' -- which is fair, because most people actually don't. It's complex and wonderful but it's still explicable and well-understood.

All of that is true, but how we manage our knowledge allows us to deal with many kinds of bias.

Thanks for your polite reply. In some ways I'm a fan of skepticism. In a hunt for truth, we can't just accept anything based upon someone saying, "this is true."

But again, my own approach for truth is somewhat nature and nurture. As a young child I was questioning whether the Universe was bound. This is before I was school age. I would get frustrated, because my nature liked to think of a bound Universe, but then my seeking mind would say, "What's on the other side?"

Then my mind couldn't wrap around an unbounded Universe, because I kept imagining that you'd run out of stuff eventually. Is there an endless nothingness? Where does it end?

Most kids are wondering what's for breakfast, and I'm frustrated because I can't find an answer.

Likewise, I can't imagine no beginning. The big bang sounds nice, but what was going on for the eons before that?

So, in a sense, I think we have an inborn "Why?" We humans are looking not only at the stars, but some of us are looking past the stars from the time we look up.

I think that approach to all things is as genuine as we can get. I think that people who do not question "Why?" who accept what others tell them is true, are at great risk for being misled, whether in science, politics, religion, relationships, all of life.

But for some to suggest that an archetype can only exist in science or religion is to be open to deception. Why can't people agree on simple things, like an economic model? A political model? We are prone to archetypical thinking, followers and not independent thinkers.

Scientists are not immune to archetypes. And that is the point I'm trying to make.

I absolutely believe in religious archetypes. How could prejudice have existed in a religious society if religious people were immune to their own societal archetypes? But that doesn't mean there is no spiritual truth that can be learned.

But to suppose that science is immune to the same kinds of bias is just not realistic, because human nature likes to jump to conclusions, and fill in the blanks.

So in a sense, I believe the hunt for truth starts with our realization that it's very easy to be misled, and to become a sheep in the negative sense of following things without thinking them through.

The notion that I'm the only one in the Universe, or my group is the only objective group in the Universe, is the beginning of being misled.

[veinglory]

I see a lot of people suggesting that scientists think they are infallible, or other people think scientists are infallible. I am wondering where this idea comes from? Who has ever suggested that science is any different form other human activities in being subject to error, corruption and bias? Science differs only that had has a built in system that should, in enough time, detect these errors (need for replication, need for falsifiability, peer review etc).

[Nateskate]

I see a lot of people suggesting that scientists think they are infallible, or other people think scientists are infallible. I am wondering where this idea comes from? Who has ever suggested that science is any different form other human activities in being subject to error, corruption and bias? Science differs only that had has a built in system that should, in enough time, detect these errors (need for replication, need for falsifiability, peer review etc).

I agree with you. But people don't realize just how many dollars are at risk based upon scientific outcomes. In this arena especially, we can see how far personal bias can bend objectivity. People can lose jobs if they don't find the "right" answer when billions of dollars are at risk. I'm not saying that this means they're crooks. However, it's like referees, they are prone to be influenced by the crowd.

[Gehanna]

A couple hundred years ago many people believed that physical illness was caused by not praying enough. It has since been discovered that regularly washing one's hands is much more effective than regularly putting one's hands under one's chin.

Oddly enough, it may take an act of God to get hand washing statistics up!

Gehanna

[Ruv Draba]

Scientists are not immune to archetypes. And that is the point I'm trying to make.No they're not, but they're among the quickest people in society to tear archetypes apart. Artists may be quicker, but scientists are perhaps more constructive -- they'll tear apart any paradigm if they can find a better one. Artists will sometimes tear apart paradigms even if they can't find a better one. :)

But to suppose that science is immune to the same kinds of bias is just not realistic, because human nature likes to jump to conclusions, and fill in the blanks.As good skeptics, scientists do not like to jump to conclusions and a good skeptic is happy to keep something blank until something demonstrates its right to fit.

Scientists aren't immune to bias but they do quickly become highly resistant to the biases they know about. One of the things scientists do when they get together is exactly what you do -- ask what's outside the box. This helps expose possible biases and once they're exposed, scientists are quick to innoculate themselves against such biases by changing experimental procedure. (Failure to do that exposes them to the scorn and ridicule of their enemies -- who as you recall, get to set the bar on their experiments.)

When I try and characterise the values underpinning scientific skepticism I'd normally describe it as 'pragmatic altruism'. A scientist's skepticism can normally be allayed by answers to questions like 'Does it work? Is it necessary? Is it efficient? Is it robust? Will it help people?' It's those kinds of questions which decide where the bar for evidence gets set.

[Ruv Draba]

I agree with you. But people don't realize just how many dollars are at risk based upon scientific outcomes. In this arena especially, we can see how far personal bias can bend objectivity. People can lose jobs if they don't find the "right" answer when billions of dollars are at risk. I'm not saying that this means they're crooks. However, it's like referees, they are prone to be influenced by the crowd.Actually, most scientists aren't motivated by personal greed. To see this, realise that these clever people generally sacrifice a huge amount of their potential earnings getting educated, then take jobs that generally pay a lot lower than other jobs they could take.

Generally speaking, scientists are motivated by pride (a desire for reputation), challenge (they're like Sudoku addicts) and a genuine love for their subject. While individual 'bad egg' scientists do turn up, and occasionally 'bad egg' teams, understand that the filtering which occurs before someone can be a scientist is very stringent -- it goes on for decades; and the tangible rewards of being a scientist are very few. The idea that scientists would all conspire to hoodwink the laiety might make a good Dan Brown sort of novel, but it's about as likely as imagining that all the Catholic families in the world (say) would simultaneously burn their family Bibles.

If you ever have many scientists as friends you'll find that generally the problem is that it's hard to get them to go along with lies -- especially lies about factual matters. They're renowned for speaking the truth at inopportune times -- no matter how unpopular or unpleasant. (You sort of have to get used to that with them, if you want to keep scientists as friends.)

Pride, challenge and geeky obsessions can lead scientists into errors (like announcing a result too soon, or refusing to acknowledge the validity of a better result, or not abandoning bad lines of research) but other scientists tend to pull them into line quickly through exactly the same motives. :) So science as a whole tends to be a very healthy endeavour -- especially in the applied sciences where results stand for themselves.

[Roger J Carlson]

I think individual scientists are not overly biased. However the business of science is no longer about individual scientists doing science (if it ever was). Science is also about big business, politics, and mass media.

Big business funds research that unsurprisingly supports their business. Political Action Committees and Parties fund research whose conclusion invariably supports their political beliefs. The mass media reports "Scientists Say Icecaps Melting" at the same time as "Scientists Say New Ice Age Coming", when in fact, neither group of scientists actually said any such thing. The actual reports would have spoken about probabilities and likehoods, not inevitabilities, but that's not what the public hears.

So scientists get backed into corners, defending conclusions they never actually made, but would look like they were waffling if they didn't. As a result, their reputations become tied to one particular camp, and objectivity becomes suspect.

[veinglory]

I think individual scientists are not overly biased. However the business of science is no longer about individual scientists doing science (if it ever was). Science is also about big business, politics, and mass media.

I spent most of my life, up till a year ago, as a working research scientist who was worked in major labs on four continents. I have yet to be involved in a single project where business, politics or the media was even mentioned.

Most of them were funded primarily by core unversity funding (salaries, overheads) and large givernment funds which I assure you do not push political agendas in any effective way (e.g. NIH). There was some industry funding along the lines of "does our widget work?" where the company genuinely wanted to know whether their widget worked or not. Almost all the research I was involved in was dreamed up by academics based on their personal curiosities, who decided exactly what they wanted to do, and then sought funding for it--making only minor accomodations to the funding agencies almost always in the form of adding something to the projects rather than changing it.

There is a lot wrong with research--waste, mendacity, academic dogma defenders, useless research etc. but very few people directly involved in it could come away beleiving that the typical research scietist gives a flying fractal about politics or the media.

[Nateskate]

Actually, most scientists aren't motivated by personal greed. To see this, realise that these clever people generally sacrifice a huge amount of their potential earnings getting educated, then take jobs that generally pay a lot lower than other jobs they could take.

Generally speaking, scientists are motivated by pride (a desire for reputation), challenge (they're like Sudoku addicts) and a genuine love for their subject. While individual 'bad egg' scientists do turn up, and occasionally 'bad egg' teams, understand that the filtering which occurs before someone can be a scientist is very stringent -- it goes on for decades; and the tangible rewards of being a scientist are very few. The idea that scientists would all conspire to hoodwink the laiety might make a good Dan Brown sort of novel, but it's about as likely as imagining that all the Catholic families in the world (say) would simultaneously burn their family Bibles.

If you ever have many scientists as friends you'll find that generally the problem is that it's hard to get them to go along with lies -- especially lies about factual matters. They're renowned for speaking the truth at inopportune times -- no matter how unpopular or unpleasant. (You sort of have to get used to that with them, if you want to keep scientists as friends.)

Pride, challenge and geeky obsessions can lead scientists into errors (like announcing a result too soon, or refusing to acknowledge the validity of a better result, or not abandoning bad lines of research) but other scientists tend to pull them into line quickly through exactly the same motives. :) So science as a whole tends to be a very healthy endeavour -- especially in the applied sciences where results stand for themselves.

I think that it may well depend on the situation. I'm only speaking of situations I know of. But there are some really great examples of backstabbings that would make for good novels. Patent stealing...etc. I agree that pride is a massive motivation. But that works both ways. Someone who invests a lifetime to prove a point and has all these books in their name verifying that they are experts and this is true, has a great deal to lose when facts begin to expose that they didn't fact-check enough.

There are industries that are at risk. Obviously, the worst in history is probably the Tobacco industry.

My guess is that now more than ever money drives science. There's academic research where funding is competative, and there's industry, and government. And I'm not saying individual scientists. But the people who hire/fire, oversee... the ones that are paid to get it done are the one that get or lose bonuses based upon results. Where there are bonuses objectivity is threatened.

[Ruv Draba]

I think individual scientists are not overly biased. However the business of science is no longer about individual scientists doing science (if it ever was). Science is also about big business, politics, and mass media.Maybe popular science is, but popular science lags behind real science by 10-40 years. The people who popularise science seldom do science. What they do instead is sell information and influence people. They are not scientists any more than a TV anchor is a journalist; but if we see them explaining science in a white coat, we can confuse them with the people who did the science.

So scientists get backed into corners, defending conclusions they never actually made, but would look like they were waffling if they didn't. Fortunately, most scientists are highly introverted and media-shy. In my science career I did just one radio interview; I once stood in academic garb and threw paper aeroplanes for charity (and to my discomfort was misnamed the Dean of my Faculty) and I turned down a bit of cash offered to me for being a media stooge just once. I gave two newspaper interviews. One was for an education program I was running; another was entirely unrelated to my discipline, but related to a guy I'd met on-line who'd died playing a computer game that I also played.

I'd be one of the more outgoing ones.

Scientists are not generally trapped by media or big business money. They generally shun one and the other largely ignores them.

[Ruv Draba]

Someone who invests a lifetime to prove a point and has all these books in their name verifying that they are experts and this is true, has a great deal to lose when facts begin to expose that they didn't fact-check enough.Generally when an hypothesis is disproven it's not because of lack of fact-checking (scientists are meticulous about that). It's generally because either a better hypothesis has come along, or better experimental technique is available or both.

Scientists do sometimes resist such change, but in the same way that a skier tries to resist an avalanche -- it might make a difference in the short term, but not in the medium to long term. :)

My guess is that now more than ever money drives science.Ha ha ha...:roll:

That's like saying sex drives seminaries, or Islam is what makes people drink. :)

Good luck trying to make big money as a scientist. Good luck even trying to get a secure job...

[Roger J Carlson]

Maybe popular science is, but popular science lags behind real science by 10-40 years. The people who popularise science seldom do science. What they do instead is sell information and influence people. They are not scientists any more than a TV anchor is a journalist; but if we see them explaining science in a white coat, we can confuse them with the people who did the science.

Fortunately, most scientists are highly introverted and media-shy. In my science career I did just one radio interview; I once stood in academic garb and threw paper aeroplanes for charity (and to my discomfort was misnamed the Dean of my Faculty) and I turned down a bit of cash offered to me for being a media stooge just once. I gave two newspaper interviews. One was for an education program I was running; another was entirely unrelated to my discipline, but related to a guy I'd met on-line who'd died playing a computer game that I also played.

I'd be one of the more outgoing ones.

Scientists are not generally trapped by media or big business money. They generally shun one and the other largely ignores them.Then the American Cancer Society was wrong about this Tobacco Industry Study (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/MED/content/MED_2_1x_American_Cancer_Society_Condemns_Tobacco_ Industry_Study_for_Inaccurate_Use_of_Data.asp)or this study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1766143/)or this study (http://today.ucsf.edu/stories/uc-study-uncovers-tobacco-industry-efforts-to-undermine-secondhand-smoke-li/)? (I could list more.)

I don't want to get into the Climate Change debate, but there are scientists -- real scientists -- on both sides. I don't usually like to link Wiki references but the Global Warming Controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy)article gives an overview of some of the players on both sides.

The Republican War on Science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Republican_War_on_Science)of the Bush years is being replaced by Climate Gate (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/09/eveningnews/main5955012.shtml) in the press.

This is not about science, you say? Ah, but it is. Again, I'm not talking about individual scientists (especially those in the trenches), but the business of science -- the funding, promoting, and reporting of science -- is highly political. There's too much money involved for it not to be.

[veinglory]

But science comes predominantly from working scientitsts, via academic articles. The world does with that information what it wants--can't do much about that. But science is what scientists do. And if by political, you means a party politic agenda, is is surprisingly absent. You can beleive what you like, but as a scientists I have to say the evidence doesn't greatly support the idea that science is political driven. It remains stubbornly curiousity and personality driven, even when it really should be a little more pragmatic.

And yes, I left research in order to make money. Research so is not the way to get rich. Anyone smart enough to work as a full time scientific researcher in any capacity is smart enough to make ten times the money doing something else. Research is, increasingly, a calling--much like the seminary. You go into debt to get a degree and then sacrifice you lifelong earning potential to pursue subjects that fascinate you. Dedicated active research scientists are a strangely incorruptable lot, with a few unfortunate exceptions.

[Roger J Carlson]

But science comes predominantly from working scientitsts, via academic articles. The world does with that information what it wants--can't do much about that. But science is what scientists do. And if by political, you means a party politic agenda, is is surprisingly absent. You can beleive what you like, but as a scientists I have to say the evidence doesn't greatly support the idea that science is political driven. It remains stubbornly curiousity and personality driven, even when it really should be a little more pragmatic.

And yes, I left research in order to make money. Research so is not the way to get rich. Anyone smart enough to work as a full time scientific researcher in any capacity is smart enough to make ten times the money doing something else. Research is, increasingly, a calling--much like the seminary. You go into debt to get a degree and then sacrifice you lifelong earning potential to pursue subjects that fascinate you. Dedicated active research scientists are a strangely incorruptable lot, with a few unfortunate exceptions.I could say much the same about Christianity. Christianity is what Christians do. Most Christians I know are loving, kind, incorruptible, and would tell you that politics do not affect their beliefs.

And yet it cannot be denied that the business of Christianity (that in organized Christianity) is fraught with bias, politics, egos, and personalities. This colors not only the view of the media and public about Christianity, it also affect how individual Christians react.

Being a pastor is not the way to become rich either, but there is a lot of money in religion.

Christians are largely apolitical in so far as politics affects their beliefs. Mostly, their beliefs affect their politics. Not all are Republican, although the media seems to imply that.

So Christianity is not just what individual Christians do. Christianity has a corporate identity that is also affected by what non-Christians think and do.

In the same way, science is not just what scientists do. It is also what non-scientists do with and to science and it affects the way that scientists think.

Here's what a Pew Poll (http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1548)tells us about what scientists think:Half of scientists (50%) say that political groups or officials have too much influence on the direction of research in their specialty, while 47% disagree. Scientists who primarily address applied research questions (55%) are more likely than those involved in basic research (45%) to say that political groups or officials have too much influence. In addition, more scientists working in government (62%) and industry (56%) say political groups or officials have too much influence than do those in non-profits (45%) or academia (45%).

and this (http://people-press.org/report/?pageid=1549):In contrast, most scientists (56%) perceive the scientific community as politically liberal; just 2% think scientists are politically conservative. About four-in-ten scientists (42%) concur with the majority public view that scientists, as a group, are neither in particular.So scientists themselves are divided on whether politics or business affects science.

[veinglory]

I accept the paralell entirely. But I would argue that those in "business" (by which I dont mean legit commercial use of science like making medical pharmaeceuticals) are not those I consider "real" scientists--they are parasites that feed off real science. Likewise those fleecing people for millions to buy luxury yatchs (rather than support a great church and making money for charity) might not meet everyone's idea of a 'real' Christian. But in either case these idiots should not cause one to not "believe" in science or Christianity unless you actually just don't believe in what these two things really are (in theory and/or typical practice). Just because a dog has fleas does not make it a bad dog...

[veinglory]

Um, research science is politically liberal because is it predominantly made up by politically liberal people (perhaps because the pay sucks and you do it to help society). Saying that means science is "effected" by politics equivilent to saying Agriculture is political because most of the people who farm are politically conservative--in which case almost every endeavor is political and why pick out science as an example?

So yes, there are qualities to the research endeavor that mean most people in them lean liberal and research is not done my some kind of demographic-free population of eunichs. I would add that most researchers (in the US) are Christian, does this mean research serves the church?

I am not saying researchers are apolitical, I am saying research does not substantially bend itself to party political ends for the very reason that the outcome is emergent, not determined in advance. What the researcher finds is what they find and we have methods, including cultural indocrination and peer-review, to stop them from cheating. And most research really is some guy who totally wants to understand why the N1 receptor is wiggly, or ants take slaves, or chickens like to watch television. Which is about as political as a hole in the ground.

Finally I would add that of the hundred of researchers I have worked with, I generally could not even tell you what their politics were, nor indeed whether they beleive in God. We conceptualised, funded, carried out and published research in topics including social issues without ever thinking to discuss such things. To me that shows how unimportant they are to the process.

In fact to some extent all we share was the beleif that science would help answer the questions and solve the problems that most intrigued us. As I moved between very liberal and very conservative places, this never changes--not did the topics being studied or the results being obtained. On some occassions I was hired for a job without them even knowing my gender.

[Ruv Draba]

the business of science -- the funding, promoting, and reporting of science -- is highly political. There's too much money involved for it not to be.I think we need to talk a bit about how pure and applied sciences work to show why the money doesn't have as much influence on truth as we might think.

Applied science is the stuff that gives us products and solutions. Aspirin, radar, the Internet... that stuff is applied science. It arises from scientists trying to solve problems for the public. The public is the natural audience for applied science, and virtually all applied science is evaluated under the rubrics of 'Does it work' and 'Can I do it too'? Aspirin works, radar works, the Internet works -- so it doesn't really matter who funded it or for what purpose.

So when a tobacco-company funds a study to say that cigarette-smoking whitens teeth, that's a (mis)application of Applied Science. It's deliberately meant to influence the public and often it succeeds.

But it doesn't much influence scientists themselves.

A bad study in applied science can be detected in four ways: a flawed experiment design, data that is inconsistent with familiar results, biased conclusions and publication that evades peer review. A trained scientist can literally spot a dodgy applied science report in seconds. Such reports annoy the hell out of them because it defames the profession and they'll normally write irritated letters to Lancet and local newspapers about it.

But does the public listen? Well that depends on communications media. Will the editor of the local paper publish a scientist's irate letter? Will a science journalist pick up on a letter to Lancet and follow up? That depends on the smarts and ethics of the journalist, and newspaper editorial policy, and who their main advertising sponsors are.

So what the public sees as applied science can be skewed by communications media but what scientists see as applied science tends not to be so skewed. A bad report funded by the tobacco lobby, say, has very little impact on scientists other than to annoy them.

So that's how bad science works on the applied side, but what happens on the pure side? Firstly, there's a lot less money in pure science than applied. Applied science has all the schmexy jobs with industry and the royalties from patents. Pure scientists are the ones with the arse out of their pants. Where applied science gives us aspirin and gene therapy, pure science gives us Relativity, Natural Selection and gas chromatography.

The public generally aren't interested in gas chromatography (which is why pure scientists often need to patch their trousers), but they do love the theories. They turn such theories into entertainment (e.g. Back to the Future), philosophy (e.g. is there another me in an alternate reality?) and politics (how can I use this theory to beat up my foes)? Indeed, the public often think that the purpose of pure science is either entertainment, philosophy or politics but that's because they don't realise that it was never published for their edification.

Pure science is actually published for scientists.

Einstein's theories of relativity might've been entertaining for the public, but to physicists they were critical and much-needed tools. So pure science tends to be evaluated by scientists under the rubric of 'How can I use this'? and 'Does it work'? That's not how the public evaluates pure science though. Under entertainment, philosophy and politics, the public asks 'How funny is it? What does it say about me? Who can I beat up with it?'

I'd like to respectfully suggest that while the public have a lot of right to comment on applied science, what they think about pure science is largely irrelevant. They're not qualified to evaluate it and not equipped to use it, except to amuse themselves and squabble over. It's important that scientific theories are taught because science is its tools. But we need to understand that what we're teaching is tools -- not philosophy, not entertainment and not politics.

So, to recap: politics affects what science gets funded, but tends not to affect the scientific reception of results. Politics plays a part in communications about applied science, but its impact on applied science itself is pretty limited. Politics plays a part in the public reception of pure science, but scientists don't much care how the public receives pure science because they're not the target audience. To a biologist, evolution is about as political as a spanner.

[benbradley]

...
Now, lets go back and factor in that humans had to be civilized and tending sheep that far back, and therefore fairly intelligent, then why did every major invention only happen in the last six or seven thousand years?
You tell me. It seems you have an answer here you're only implying, and not spelling out.
Forget bones. Where were the spaceships? The previous generations of satellites?

Mathematically, even if you had an ice-age every fifteen or twenty thousand years, and mankind was thrown back into a new stoneage, mankind should have reached a scientific pinacle time and again throughout history.

Where did all of those civilizations go? How did all that history get etcha-sketched out of existence? Why do we go back like ten thousand years, and when we dig, we find a bronze age, an iron age, a stone age, but no other computer age?
Again, you tell me. I'm not sure where you're trying to go here. You appear to be equating making supercomputers with tending sheep.

[Nateskate]

Generally when an hypothesis is disproven it's not because of lack of fact-checking (scientists are meticulous about that). It's generally because either a better hypothesis has come along, or better experimental technique is available or both.

Scientists do sometimes resist such change, but in the same way that a skier tries to resist an avalanche -- it might make a difference in the short term, but not in the medium to long term. :)

Ha ha ha...:roll:

That's like saying sex drives seminaries, or Islam is what makes people drink. :)


Good luck trying to make big money as a scientist. Good luck even trying to get a secure job...

Lol. I don't mean the money that scientists make. The money that that corporations make that keep the scientists employed. There is always someone that pays the bills, and someone that leans on someone that pays the bills. I'm not inferring that scientists themselves are making fortunes.

These days, basic job security is highly valued.

My guess is that University research is far less imfluenced, because there are funds that aren't attached to outcomes. And the only things that might have sway are the philosophical views of a department, and donors.

[Nateskate]

You tell me. It seems you have an answer here you're only implying, and not spelling out.

Again, you tell me. I'm not sure where you're trying to go here. You appear to be equating making supercomputers with tending sheep.

That's not the case. I was speaking to the fact that I was seeing holes that nobody was explaining.

And again, this does not speak to the basic reason for this thread, which was to point out that I no longer view science with a religious zeal.

This is in fact posted on a philosophical/religious discussion board. And as such, I was explaining why I began to question my own beliefs in Darwinism. I was seeing "holes", these massive argumental holes that nobody was talking about.

Archetypical thinking does not like "holes". And people would skip ten steps and say, "We know..." therefore we can ignore these monster holes that nobody else is trying to discuss.

So, let's just open this to everyone who thinks they have an answer. Let's just say that I had a question, one of many many questions.

Why aren't we more amazed that every cell in the human body is like a city? Someone brings in the food. Someone takes out the trash. Everything gets moved through this massive highway.

Coming from an atheistic background, almost militant atheism where I wouldn't touch a Bible, and would stand up for my non-belief, I'm just explaining my mental process.

This is about what "I" see and think, but it is also open to comments, disagreements, alternative opinions.

People love jumping to the end of the story. Skip the thinking and just pick a side and throw things. I'm not like that. I don't like that mentality.

[Ruv Draba]

These days, basic job security is highly valued.Scientists don't get much basic job security these days, and haven't for two decades or so -- though it varies a bit by country. Tenure is fairly rare; science is an itinerant profession -- scientists often globe-trot following money, facilities and good teams. When they can't get research jobs they generally fall back on teaching.

As knowledge-workers, the main asset a scientist has is reputation. We don't engage heart-surgeons who have a history of letting patients die under the knife, and neither do we hire scientists who have a history of fudging data. As I pointed out earlier, the benefits of perhaps a bit more funding are unlikely, and the costs of being tarred with the brush of fraudulence are overwhelming.

[veinglory]

Job security? It is to laugh.

[veinglory]

As for ignoring the whole and skipping to the end, both of those things are kind of the opposite of science. In philosophy you used to be able to say "most rocks sink in water" and be happy. Science asked why some of them don't. Science is about filling the holes in a completely obsessive, pedantic way. And if that can't be done burning the cloth entirely and weaving a new one. ...and then picking at the holes in it.

I remember the first time a full professor totally launched an attack on one of my original ideas and tore it into little bits. It was the first day I felt like a real scientist, because he saw my ideas as worth trying, and in the case succeeding, to tear apart. He didn't care what the end of the story was, and in time--neither did I.

Science is a little zen like that. Many researchers work their whole life and never answer the question they are working on, although they often live to see the question become obsolete and get replaced by new questions... And almost any research paper generates more new questions than answers.

I don't believe in science like a religion--that would be rather missing the point. But as a methodology, culture, profession I am rather fond of it. It is productive, and rather charming. But as a way to get money, power, prestige, job security, benefits and/or chicks... a dead loss.

[Nateskate]

Scientists don't get much basic job security these days, and haven't for two decades or so -- though it varies a bit by country. Tenure is fairly rare; science is an itinerant profession -- scientists often globe-trot following money, facilities and good teams. When they can't get research jobs they generally fall back on teaching.

As knowledge-workers, the main asset a scientist has is reputation. We don't engage heart-surgeons who have a history of letting patients die under the knife, and neither do we hire scientists who have a history of fudging data. As I pointed out earlier, the benefits of perhaps a bit more funding are unlikely, and the costs of being tarred with the brush of fraudulence are overwhelming.

I have a number of friends who are in that position of finding research grants or they risk losing their jobs. It's a great deal of pressure. It's kind of heart-breaking really, because when they have family they often can't find another job in the area forcing some pretty difficult choices. Others are hired, and then funding unexpectedly dries up, and they're without a job.

[veinglory]

I eventually gave it up out of a pressing need to save for my retirement and buy luxuries like health insurance.

[SLake]

I have a number of friends who are in that position of finding research grants or they risk losing their jobs. It's a great deal of pressure. It's kind of heart-breaking really, because when they have family they often can't find another job in the area forcing some pretty difficult choices. Others are hired, and then funding unexpectedly dries up, and they're without a job.

Unpleasant. Never thought about careers in religion? They seem more secure.

Good luck with that.

[Ruv Draba]

I have a number of friends who are in that position of finding research grants or they risk losing their jobs.Yes, and elsewhere Veinglory mentioned scientific mendacity... I've seen it represented nowhere worse than it is in grant applications. Grant processes are stupid to start with, and made worse by the need to sustain jobs -- sometimes for oneself; sometimes for one's colleagues. Scientists generally don't misrepresent their results, but they absolutely do misrepresent the potential of their investigations when money is involved. Some still have the good grace to be ashamed of that, but alas, many don't.

[Nateskate]

Unpleasant. Never thought about careers in religion? They seem more secure.

Good luck with that.

Well, for those who are doing that for the right reason, not for money or ambition, I'd say it's even harder with no job security.