Religion and Science

[Drewcifer]

The same applies for gravity. And perhaps what pezcollectorguy is saying is that he finds no reason to withhold a complete reexamination of axioms and their corollaries, perhaps even the system thereof itself.

In other words, he is telling us to question our beliefs, it seems.

And you ignore what a belief is. Again.

That is what this whole discussion boils down to.

Whether or not someone 'believes' in a certain scientific theory or not, the physical realities on which it is based do not change.

Challenging popular ideas and thoughts and theories is an excellant way to grow intellectually, and often one person can change the world with the results.

Galileo did just that. He even challenged then current 'scientific' thought. Yet his theories were more than beliefs, they were theories derived through a well known process - scientific method:

I. The scientific method has four steps

1. Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2. Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena. In physics, the hypothesis often takes the form of a causal mechanism or a mathematical relation.

3. Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4. Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

Although many discarded his then so-called beliefs, his theories have stood true due to #3 and #4 above.

And this is one major difference between science and religion. The body of accpetd scientific thought is based on proof and reproducible results. Relgion is the accpetance of a belief on faith, the abscence of proof.

[The Apologist]

Aw, just forget it neoolong.

[neoolong]

Aw, just forget it neoolong.

Well that sure convinced me.

[Steve]

Hmm.... The outcome was as I suspected.

You know, having spoken with Dave many times in the past, I found his opinions and views to be quite... refreshing. At the very least, the view of a devil's advocate. Which is always a good thing.

You think it's "refreshing" to run into an idiot who thinks that science is no more rational than religion, and completely ignores all points of rebuttals by simply repeating his original idea without modification every time it's challenged?

*Mentally jots down note to lower estimate of Steve's intelligence by 30 IQ points*

He's not an idiot, just has problems with articulating himself online (And had to do so in a library). Discussing things with him face-to-face, I have discovered the true core of his argument.

Basically, science and the scientific method itself is a system of logic and reason, no belief involved. However, humans cannot apply it perfectly, and thus, some people begin to believe in things merely because they are claimed to be the result of science, much as some religious people believe in things simply because a "holy" book claims it is true.

The truth is, some people are too lazy to look into things, to do research, and thus they just believe what people say if the presentation is good and apparently reasonable.

Ideally, every time a theory popped up in a scientific journal (and not necessarily a legitimate one), we would all go out and test it ourselves. But mostly, we don't. We just accept what's written. Professional scientists may not, but laymen do.

That is the core of his view.

Finally, he will not be able to post for a while, netzero can't use pulse dialing and that's what's in his neighborhood. He regrets not waiting until he's back in class where he could check the board every day.

So, Mike, do you still intend to keep that cut estimate?

[Durandal]

Basically, science and the scientific method itself is a system of logic and reason, no belief involved. However, humans cannot apply it perfectly, and thus, some people begin to believe in things merely because they are claimed to be the result of science, much as some religious people believe in things simply because a "holy" book claims it is true.

I believe in Newton's laws of motion because cars start up and take me where I need to go.

The truth is, some people are too lazy to look into things, to do research, and thus they just believe what people say if the presentation is good and apparently reasonable.

That's absurd. Science's results are observable every day at all times. People may believe what science says, but it's not a blind belief, like religion. People believe in science because their computers, cars, microwaves and refrigerators work like they should.

Ideally, every time a theory popped up in a scientific journal (and not necessarily a legitimate one), we would all go out and test it ourselves. But mostly, we don't. We just accept what's written. Professional scientists may not, but laymen do.

Accepting claims at face value from a source which has proven reliable and objective time and time again throughout the course of history is different from accepting claims at face value from delusional men dressing up in white and spouting prayers. The general public isn't required to test scientific theories; that's what makes science so great. Other scientists test theories and see if they're true, so the public has confidence that if a scientist is wrong, some other scientist will eventually show it.

[pezcollectorguy]

I moved and did not have computer access for about a month. I'm sorry I left you guys in the middle of the conversation. I just want to say that I enjoyed some of the discussions and I hope to have more in the future! Have a ncie day all.

[XPViking]

Accepting claims at face value from a source which has proven reliable and objective time and time again throughout the course of history is different from accepting claims at face value from delusional men dressing up in white and spouting prayers. The general public isn't required to test scientific theories; that's what makes science so great. Other scientists test theories and see if they're true, so the public has confidence that if a scientist is wrong, some other scientist will eventually show it.

I would like to add that the public should be educated more in the basics of science. That is, a better informed public can make wiser decisions when it comes to matters of science. As well, an individual can test the claims of science by performing some basic experiments by himself.

I think the problem comes down to people seeing the value of science and how it affects their daily life. After all, everyone was taught the basics in school but forget it soon afterwards unless you use it in your job or if you naturally like it. As an example, I have an uncle who is a surveyor. He would look at a pile of dirt and wonder what the volume is and how much it weighs. Does Joe Public do this?

Hence, most people view science as mysterious and beyond the reach of mere mortals. That is, scientists are inaccurately portrayed as walking around in white lab coats and speaking incomprehensible things to the masses. Science then aquires an aura which perhaps some equate with religion.

pez: As it has already been pointed out, just because a person has a belief system does not make them all the same nor can all belief systems be attributed to one particularily identifiable system. In other words, cows have teeth. So do horses. Does that mean that everything that has teeth is a cow?

XPViking

[Durandal]

I think that politicians playing games with science is as much to blame as the education system for the staggering amount of scientific ignorance in the populace. Who is deciding whether or not intelligent design should be taught in schools? Politicians. These politicians had me and probably hundreds of other scientists outlining for them precisely why intelligent design doesn't belong in a science class, yet they failed to outrightly ban it. With shit like this going on, it gives people the perception that science is subject to political rules. Since democracy is, to most people, a formalized version of mob rule, they think that what the majority thinks is science should be portrayed as science.

Hell, I'd almost be in support of a limited separation of science and state, where basically the scientists tell the state, "Keep your fucking mouth shut about science, you ignorant twat. I didn't work 10 times as hard as you at university to have you telling the people what it is you think I do."

[XPViking]

Durandal,

Judging by your remarks, it would seem that you favor a technocracy. Although the present system is flawed, I do think that some form of representation from the public must be present. As I said, a better educated public is needed, not more walls thrown up.

XPViking

[Lagmonster]

Judging by Durandal's remarks, it would seem that he favors a technocracy. Although the present system is flawed, I do think that some form of representation from the public must be present. As I said, a better educated public is needed, not more walls thrown up.

You're both right.

Durandal's point about needing the scientific community to NOT answer to the popular opinion is valid. Research, even some highly controversial research, should not be held back just because people believe it should be.

On the other hand, people should at the same time be educated to the point where they can make more informed decisions about what to DO with all this knowledge that the scientific community is coming up with. Like splitting the atom: Do you make a power generator or a bomb? Those are choices the politicians make.

[Durandal]

Durandal,

Judging by your remarks, it would seem that you favor a technocracy. Although the present system is flawed, I do think that some form of representation from the public must be present. As I said, a better educated public is needed, not more walls thrown up.

XPViking

I more or less favor the decision-making process to exclude those who are not properly-informed enough to make a decision. Politicians studied political science and law in school, not science. These people are acting like scientists don't have any ethics at all, and that scientists need politicians and philosophers (in addition to the common dumbass) breathing down their necks about every fucking experiment.

No. Scientists have ethics boards. Let them make the final decision, with consideration, perhaps, to input from politicians and the general public.