Scientists as Kings?
Posted by: Deane F on 21 October 2005
This "The Register" article makes me go hmmm.Specialists generalising?
Despite the compelling arguments for not allowing the #$%&@
Xstians to run any damn thing of importance I still don't think it's reasonable or desireable to let the bloody scientists do the same.
Posted on: 30 October 2005 by Don Atkinson
quote:
I never meant to preculde the 'possibility - just that, there's no point in seriously considering it until there's some evidence for its existence. If one already believes that it exists, then that shuts down all further research - hence why I considered it an important issue in those areas of research. I don't preclude the possibility of you being the supreme being - it's just about as (un)likely to be the case as a 'god'.
Stephen,
We differ.
I consider that science is justified examining things on pure speculation (human imagination). How much evidence do you need, to justify research on the basis of evidence for its existence?????
Believing is no excuse to shut down all further research, whether that belief refers to an almighty being or the latest guess at what comprises the fundamentals of matter.
Finally, the lack of evidence today, about a supreme being, is no proof of its non-existence. Difficult therefore to reliably claim that its existance is just about the same as it is of me being that almighty.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 30 October 2005 by Deane F
The way this thread has unfolded gives me the distinct impression that many of the contributors, being comfortably off, having a good deal of control over their environments, and wanting for very little; are rather offended that the suggestion could be made that science doesn't give them the perfect reason to believe that humans are the real gods.
Posted on: 30 October 2005 by Don Atkinson
'comfortable' and therefore
quote:
........are rather offended that the suggestion could be made that science doesn't give them the perfect reason to believe that humans are the real gods.
Deane,
You've lost me on that one....????
There's not a lot that's easy about this life. I guess most of us have had our ups and downs. Some of us try to make the most of the ups, without being grotesquely selfish. In the overall history of modern humans, I guess that a 'comfortable' life has only been available for the masses (as opposed to a few king or emperors) for about 45 years, and then, only in western Europe, North America, Auz and NZ. (feel free to quible about the odd exception). Just read any of Dickens' books to realise how bloody hard life was in England 150 years ago and you'll realise why half the population left for places like NZ.
Religon has been around for as long as history. And if an Almighty does exist, he might have been around for ever. This last 'concept' seems to cause problems for the average scientist. As does the 'concept' that we haven't developed the mental agility yet to even begin to imagine the real functioning of 'existence' never mind any 'reason' for existence.
Of course, it could all be a fairly simple biochemical reaction, confined to an insignificant edge of the only universe that will ever exist. And some of the people who passionately believe this, are just as dangerous as some of the religous passionists.
As for the 'concept' that humans are the real gods, or that science gives us the perfect reason to believe this.......I for one am certainly not offended. Amused? yes. But not offended.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 30 October 2005 by Don Atkinson
Paul,
Briefly/simply......I have always managed to keep my limited experiences in physics, chemistry, biology in two distinct camps.
One, the 'scientific' one, is where we figure out, in more and more detail (we hope) just how the universe works, and where we develop models to enable us predict how events should work out with reasonable accuracy.
The other, the 'religeous' one, is where we wonder if we will ever discover why.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 30 October 2005 by Deane F
Don
It seems to me that one needs only scratch the surface of science to find blank and grey areas and areas upon which there is no consensus (cognitives versus behaviourists anyone?). But there seems to be a general idea that any set of beliefs about the world that isn't rooted in an investigation according to the scientific method is a laughable set of beliefs and certainly not a set of beliefs that should inform any area of public life.
That probably hasn't made my position any clearer, has it...
Deane
Posted on: 30 October 2005 by TomK
In the scientific world, every grey area requires further investigation. Using God to explain concepts our pathetic little minds can't get round is no different from saying it's "magic". Arthur C. Clarke made an appropriate comment about that.
The trouble is, that while the scientific community is open minded and accepts that questions must be asked an answered, those who are deeply rooted in the religious world don't. I don't rule out the existance of a higher being, by no means do I do that. God knows I've experienced so many family deaths (and I'm in that situation at the moment) that I've taken comfort in the idea that perhaps death isn't the end. I'm just not prepared to use God as an explanation for everything we can't understand.
My favourite definition of "faith" is "the willingness to believe what one knows not to be true".
Posted on: 30 October 2005 by Deane F
Tom
I agree with a lot of what you're saying. What troubles me is when scientists assume an ascendency in society (albeit one given to them by laypeople) and think that is it okay to make such statements as "we shouldn't teach children that because it isn't scientific".
Oh, and "faith", to me, is a decision informed by uncompleted knowledge.
Deane
Posted on: 31 October 2005 by Stephen Bennett
quote:
Originally posted by Deane F:
Tom
I agree with a lot of what you're saying. What troubles me is when scientists assume an ascendency in society (albeit one given to them by laypeople) and think that is it okay to make such statements as "we shouldn't teach children that because it isn't scientific".
Deane
Which scientists have ever said that? If you're referring to the IC debate, many scientists (including me) say that 'we shouldn't teach children that
in science class because it isn't scientific'.
I'm all for teaching belief and myths in the appropriate school forum. Would you want art appreciation taught in science class? The proponents of IC see it as a
science. They do not understand the nature of scientific thought and that's the problem and the danger.
Regards
Stephen
Posted on: 31 October 2005 by Deane F
I was never taught intelligent design theory at school.
But then, I was never taught about the scientific method; the process of dissemination; the shortcomings of the peer-review process; the approach of science to values and morals.
I was taught a model of the atom that was decades out of date.
I was taught that scientific "facts" were, in fact, truths.
Posted on: 31 October 2005 by Stephen Bennett
quote:
Originally posted by Deane F:
I was taught that scientific "facts" were, in fact, truths.
To be fair, Deane, That's not science's fault.
regards
Stephen
Posted on: 31 October 2005 by Don Atkinson
quote:
To be fair, Deane, That's not science's fault.
To be fair, Stephen, a lot of it is.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 01 November 2005 by Stephen Bennett
quote:
Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
quote:
To be fair, Deane, That's not science's fault.
To be fair, Stephen, a lot of it is.
Cheers
Don
How can 'science', a concepteptual thing, be responsible for bad teaching
. Or are you implying that the scientific method is flawed in some way?
Scientists and teachers may be flawed. But you can't blame science for that!
Regards
Stephen
Posted on: 01 November 2005 by Deane F
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Bennett:
How can 'science', a concepteptual thing, be responsible for bad teaching
. Or are you implying that the scientific method is flawed in some way?
Scientists and teachers may be flawed. But you can't blame science for that!
Regards
Stephen
Stephen
Your post seems to imply that science exists in a world apart from other human endeavours and collectives because it is "a conceptual thing".
Posted on: 01 November 2005 by Stephen Bennett
quote:
Originally posted by Deane F:
Your post seems to imply that science exists in a world apart from other human endeavours and collectives because it is "a conceptual thing".
No, of course not. But you can't blame a concept for its practical implimentation. It's like blaming the colour blue for appearing in a childs painting of a red rose. I just don't see how you can blame the scientific concept, which by its very nature implies free thought, logic, experiment, open collaboration and updating of ideas based on evidence, for someones poor teaching at school.
Regards
Stephen
Posted on: 01 November 2005 by Stephen Bennett
quote:
Originally posted by Stephen Bennett:
quote:
Originally posted by Deane F:
Your post seems to imply that science exists in a world apart from other human endeavours and collectives because it is "a conceptual thing".
No, of course not. But you can't blame a concept for its practical implimentation. It's like blaming the colour blue for appearing in a childs painting of a red rose. I just don't see how you can blame the scientific concept, which by its very nature implies free thought, logic, experiment, open collaboration and updating of ideas based on evidence, for someones poor teaching at school. To go back to your previous statement, 'science' doesn't teach you that 'facts are facts', teachers do.
Regards
Stephen
Posted on: 01 November 2005 by Don Atkinson
quote:
Originally posted by Deane F:
I was taught that scientific "facts" were, in fact, truths.
To be fair, Deane, That's not science's fault.
Stephen, you are in danger of falling into the trap as a typical scientist.
Deane was making a point about scientists. You, without warning, changed the subject ever so subltly to science itself. You might not have even realised you were doing it. Typical scientist as far as i'm concerned.
We all know that science is about dicovering the factual substance of this universe. If all scientists would only behave in your utopian, open, sharing, educating sort of way, then a few more of us might be interested in the few feeble facts they think they have discovered.
If scientists continue peddling their half-developed theories, (supported by a couple of trivial experiments showing doubtful correlation), as universal "truths" or even scientific "facts", then no wonder scientists and science, get a bad press.
Fortunately, there are a fair few scientists who operate close to your utopian ideal. But their voices are weak and largely unheard. Tell them to speak up.
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 01 November 2005 by Paul Ranson
quote:
I was taught that scientific "facts" were, in fact, truths.
But scientific 'facts' are in fact objectively true in a way that facts found by a jury (for instance) cannot be.
Bohr's model of the atom dates from 1913, I think it's still relevant.
Paul
Posted on: 01 November 2005 by Stephen Bennett
quote:
Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
quote:
Originally posted by Deane F:
I was taught that scientific "facts" were, in fact, truths.
To be fair, Deane, That's not science's fault.
Deane was making a point about scientists. You, without warning, changed the subject ever so subltly to science itself. You might not have even realised you were doing it. Typical scientist as far as i'm concerned.
Don
Don
You've obviously completely misunderstood my postings. I agreed that Deane was talking about scientists and or teachers. I went on to suggest that you can't blame science itself for their failings. Deane was suggesting that something is wrong with science because he was taught badly. I disagree that makes 'science' a bad thing in itself. What on earth is the problem with that statement?
quote:
If scientists continue peddling their half-developed theories, (supported by a couple of trivial experiments showing doubtful correlation), as universal "truths" or even scientific "facts", then no wonder scientists and science, get a bad press.
Something we can agree on!
They do speak up, by the way - if you know how to filter the wheat from the chaff. Do you have a scientific background, Don?
Regards
Stephen
Posted on: 01 November 2005 by Stephen Bennett
quote:
Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
, then a few more of us might be interested in the few feeble facts they think they have discovered.
Don
I can't let this go unchallenged. Feeble facts? Relativity? The big bang? DNA? Evolution? Penicillin? Sanitation? Space exploration? Electricity? Magnetism? Gravity? Lasers (in your Naim CD)? Wind energy? Vaccine? Aeroplanes?
Goodness, feeble indeed.
Stephen
Posted on: 01 November 2005 by Don Atkinson
Paul, Stephen, Deane et al
A jury has to make a decision based on "facts". These are collected by various parties and presented as evidence, or "facts". Unfortunately, the jury, and most of the other participants, never know for certain whether the evidence is fact or fiction. Or whether it is the entire evidence, or only part of it.
Science is very similar. You never know whether you have all the evidence, or only part of it. The bit that you do have, might be useful (eg in engineering), but is it the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?....dificult to be sure.
Bhor painted a neat description of the atom. It was very useful. Science moves forward a little. Then a few little quirks crop up (or ar they quarks?) and we realise we were only looking at part of the picture.
Or some mathematician tells us that two bodies heading towards each other, each travelling at 1,250 mph relative to the surface of the earth, are approaching each other at 2,500 mph. Most of us can grasp this and see its usefulness. Then along comes Einstein, who tells us this isn't quite correct.
We then have school and university science teachers (are they scientists ?) descibing each of the above concepts as "truths", without so much as a word of warning about the possible limits of scientific knowledge. Of course, its much easier to teach (and to grasp) "facts" as if they were "truths". But at least on this grown-up forum, lets recognise the limitations of our scientific knowledge, in debates such as this. Of course, we can accept "facts" as facts for all our other topics, such as why do LPs generally sound better than CDs, or when grasping with the odd brain-teaser.......
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 01 November 2005 by Stephen Bennett
quote:
Originally posted by Don Atkinson:
Or some mathematician tells us that two bodies heading towards each other, each travelling at 1,250 mph relative to the surface of the earth, are approaching each other at 2,500 mph. Most of us can grasp this and see its usefulness. Then along comes Einstein, who tells us this isn't quite correct.
Don
You just summed up the beauty of the scientific method and the failings of belief in one statement. Well done.
Facts are facts until something that better explains it comes along. Sometimes 'old facts' are still useful (as Nasa will tell you about Newton's view of the universe) but no scientist worth their salt will hang on to 'facts' when evidence points the other way. The general public sometimes misunderstand scientific debate as arguments over accepted evidence. It's not. It's arguments over interpretation.
Going back to IC, it's proponents suggest that, because evoluntionary scientists can't decide exactly how evolution occurs then it must be wrong and IC, thus, right. Show a (good) scientist evidence of IC and they'd take notice. Show them evidence of the existance of santa and they'd take notice. A scientific background gives one an
open mind - not, as you seem to suggest, exactly the opposite!
Stephen
Posted on: 01 November 2005 by Don Atkinson
quote:
Do you have a scientific background, Don?
Nope. Just a passing interest in the development of the universe and what might, or might not, make it tick. I read the occasional book and magazines (such as New Scientist etc etc
Like millions of others, I did A Level maths, physics and chemistry and got 'A's in the two maths and 'B's in the physics and chemistry. I got a 2.1 in civil engineering at Nottingham but then took up flying and later flying instruction. More recently I have kept my hand in at engineering as a consultant.
Both flying and engineering rely heavily on an understanding of matter and materials and the laws of motion etc, which science can furnish with reasonable accuracy, or vice-versa ie engineering and flying are limited by our scientific knowledge.
BTW, I agree that relativity, the Big-Bang, etc etc are all exciting developments. My point is that we don't know how much of the real picture they actually portray.
Or wether they really are the "truth"
Cheers
Don
Posted on: 01 November 2005 by HTK
When did the scientific community start spouting "facts"? Sure, lay people, the media and school teachers will refer to scientific fact, but no scientist worth their salt will speak in such absolute terms. Apart from anything else, it's unscientific!
There's no problem with IC. Why shoiuld there be? But taught is schools as a science? That's a BIG problem.
Cheers
Harry
Posted on: 01 November 2005 by Paul Ranson
quote:
Or some mathematician tells us that two bodies heading towards each other, each travelling at 1,250 mph relative to the surface of the earth, are approaching each other at 2,500 mph. Most of us can grasp this and see its usefulness. Then along comes Einstein, who tells us this isn't quite correct.
I don't see Einstein disputing this.
And Newton suggested that the force on a body is proportional to its rate of change of momentum, again Einstein agrees.
Bohr's model of the atom is an interesting example. It was a leap of imagination, but it fits other facts and is valid. As a model or theory it is 'true'. Perhaps it's too abstract a concept.
Paul
Posted on: 01 November 2005 by Stephen Bennett
I think one of the main problems with the public perception of science and scientists lie with the media. So called 'science' correspondents are usually arts graduates with little sound scientific background and are often responsible for gross oversimplification of scientific data. In the last month, both the Guardian and the Telegraph had scanning electron microscope images of virii on their covers - with no scale bar!
When they can't even get these simple things right, there's little hope for more complex arguments. This is why we often get the 'butter is good for you' one week followed by 'butter is bad for you' the next. Of course the actual researchers will never state it like this (unless they work for an evil empire like the milk producers - but that's another story). However, the 'science correspondents' will usually reduce complex results to over-simplified conclusions.
Ben Goldacre wrote an interesting article on this very thing in the Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,12980,1564369,00.htmlRegards
Stephen
