Why fake understanding or knowledge?

[Zzyzx]

.
In many of these threads people pretend to know about nature but then demonstrate near total ignorance. How can one, in good conscience, act as though they know about extremely complex natural processes that take years or decades to master – and to dismiss legitimate scholarship, extensive research, years of study with a wave of their (arrogant) hand?

Case in point: After studying Earth science since the 1960s and teaching at university level, I have some command of the subject (but do not claim expert status). Even knowing that, people who have not studied the subject at all set out in debate to teach me about Earth science.

Many discuss evolution without even understanding what the term means, let alone the factors involved. Most mistakenly assume that evolution means the same as origin of life – totally different topics. An advanced geneticist need not have any concern about origin of life. However, many who read scripture or listen to sermons assume that they know all that is necessary to critique and criticize the conclusions of legitimate researchers.

Does it reflect on one's credibility when they pretend to have knowledge that they do not have?

Why would one do such a thing?

[ElCodeMonkey]

zzyzx, 51 percent plus 18 percent (and I did refer to pretty much those numbers in my reference to the book, above) still equals 'most.' As in, more scientists are theists than atheists; as in, there are not more atheist scientists than theist ones.

I am not a math whiz but:

Notice that the 18% spiritual is added to 33% god believers to EQUAL 51% – (you don't add the 18% again). That means the percentage of AAAS members who are spiritual (18%) or religious (33%) = 51% have some belief in a higher power.

And, fifty-one percent is certainly not most, but may be properly called "many."

"Many" doesn't reflect the reality...that the majority (however slim the margin may be) of scientists are theist. "Many" could still be a minority.

One percent.

However, I'm willing to compromise here, and go with 'the majority,' rather than 'most.'

Technically, 51% constitutes a majority. You may claim that if you like.

It might be more representative and realistic, however, to say (as I would) that about half the AAAS scientists identify themselves as either spiritual or religious.


Shall we explore "What does that tell us?"

I think I should add here that "spiritual" doesn't have to mean anything about God or a particular religion at all. And depending on how they ask the question for the poll, they can get quite the wide range of answers. I learned from a previous poll that they deemed some 80% of people "believe in God" because they answered yes to the question, "Do you believe in something higher than yourself?" I'm not sure who the 20% were that would so no to such a question! But anyway, spiritual often means only that one might meditate, see power in good, believe in a concept of Chi or even of Karma. It doesn't mean they believe in God or even that they believe in anything supernatural. When I was seeing a counselor, he recognized my need to make a difference on a "spiritual" level. He meant it as changing people's outlook on life, to seek honor, integrity, wisdom, etc. He considered it the spiritual side of humanity. So I would absolutely not add the 18% to the 33%. It could mean anything. The 33% should stand alone. That's my 2 cents anyway.

[Zzyzx]

[Replying to post 40 by ElCodeMonkey]

My personal observation / guesstimate based on knowing quite a few people in the sciences is that the percentage of believers / religious is probably 10% and maybe as much as 20% but not likely any more than that. Again, that is nothing more than personal opinion.

I agree that the construct of survey questions can profoundly affect results -- but have no suggestion how a question might be worded to minimize bias. Perhaps it would require a series of questions?

[Joab]

I agree with Joab. You said there are "many more" examples (indicating Newton was one such example) where natural sciences were totally and completely wrong.

I disagree, but I do appreciate you writing out your arguments and objections to my position (something that Joab has failed to do).

What is it you would like me to explain about this question, what arguments would support this question, what objections not contained in this question would you like me to supply?

Jax, the entire history of science is full of examples where a new scientific theory comes along and renders the previous theory useless. Ptolemy posited that Earth was at the center of our solar system, and nearly 1000 years later he was proven wrong by Copernicus. Similarly, Newtonian physics was shown to be inadequate with the inception of Einstein's general theory of relativity. There are many more examples of how the natural sciences were totally and completely wrong. So for you to say that 'hard' science is not a matter of opinion seems rather dubious because the scientific fields are dominated by opinions and dissent. A more appropriate description to make about science is that some aspects of the scientific disciplines are questioned and criticized by those with dissenting opinions while other aspects of science are pretty solid and are therefore immune from criticism and dissent.

Without quote mining, do you contend that the BLUE is a summary of those two sentences?

Because that is how it reads to me.

It would seem that someone else possesses a deficiency in comprehension.
Your attempt at projecting your superiority needs to be supported by at least an appearance of superiority, or it just looks silly.

[scourge99]

The thing is, science is a method of observation: a way for us to learn how the physical universe works, and how to manipulate its laws to our advantage. Religion is about something altogether different; different purpose, different subject, different methods.

Is it not the position of the Mormon church and an overwhelming majority of it's followers that the Book of Mormon is an accurate, historical account of ancient native Americans? Specifically, does science support or reject the Mormon church's claims that ancient Hebrews traveled across the ocean, bred with native Americans which then split into two warring factions called Laminites and Nephites?

You say: It would seem science is a method of observation: a way for us to learn how the physical universe works, and how to manipulate its laws to our advantage ... until it disagrees with theology. Then the theist rejects science, in part, or in whole.

This cherry-picking of science done by theists does not go unnoticed. It seems particularly two-faced when a theist claims to be an advocate and supporter of science yet contradicts herself by rejecting scientific findings that conflict with her religious beliefs.

The thing is, it is a fact that most scientists are still theists---and still quite good at it. It is a fact that it is quite possible to separate one's religious beliefs and learning from stuff that must be learned from the scientific method; a devout Mormon can still invent TV, for instance.

I suppose its possible that some religious people can compartmentalize their beliefs that conflict with science or go through the motions of doing research and studies even though they fundamentally reject their work as wrong. For example, a Young Earth Creationist can accurately perform carbon dating or publish papers on the age of certain strata. But it certainly creates a personal conflict, one in which the scientist is forced to confront the conflict between his religious beliefs and science (or try to avoid thinking about it).

But i agree that there are many aspects of science that do not conflict with religious belief.

is there some requirement of which I am not aware that, if someone has any belief at all with which you disapprove (as not having been proven satisfactorily to you by means of the scientific method) that they cannot, then, be considered 'scientists' in any other field?

No. i have made no attempt to define who is or isn't a "true scientist", "true atheist, or "true christian" nor do i care to. Its a silly endeavor and nothing more than a distraction from the points I've made.

It seems to me that such a perspective is every inch as unrealistic and fanatical as any young earth creationist putting his fingers in his ears when the name Darwin is uttered in his hearing.

You are the one who claimed that religion and science are not in conflict. That they deal with "something altogether different; different purpose, different subject, different methods. " I have shown that claim as false with but one example of Mormon beliefs that are in conflict with science. Do you need more examples?

Science and religion do not conflict at every turn, but they do at some.

[WinePusher]

Me personally, I don't like to debate subjects I know nothing about.

Same here, I just wish that others on this forum would try to do the same. There many people on this site who try to debate topics they know nothing about and they just end up embarrassing themselves and derailing the debate.

My strengths are in science and religious studies. I dabble in politics. I learn more about politics from people such as Winepusher, and Darius.

Thanks Nick, but imo you seem to have a pretty thorough understanding of politics and economics. It's your opinions that I have trouble with, not your understanding.

I declined a debate topic with Wolf, because neither of us were physicists.

Well, you don't need to have an academic degree in order to debate on this forum. Also, having a strong academic and educational background isn't going to bolster your arguments and make you a better debater. Instead of obsessing about the person making the argument, why not just focus on the argument itself? What does it matter to you if someone over the internet has a 'fake' or 'genuine' understanding? Stop making things personal and focus only on the argument presented. It's the internet, get over it and lighten up.

Btw Nickman, when I say 'you' I am not speaking to you directly. I am speaking about all those 'debaters' on this site who obsess about people's 'understanding' and 'educational backgrounds.'

[Joab]

That isn't what I said is it? I didn't say that Newtonian Physics was totally and completely wrong, I said it was inadequate. I chose my words very carefully, so please refrain from ascribing a false position to me. My position is that Newtonian physics (specifically Newton's conception of Gravity) is inadequate, NOT totally and completely wrong.

In that case what do you propose is the antecedent for this statement?
There are many more examples Extracted from this sentence:

There are many more examples of how the natural sciences were totally and completely wrong.

Immediately following this statement?

Similarly, Newtonian physics was shown to be inadequate with the inception of Einstein's general theory of relativity

I suggest that you misspoke and didn't mean to claim that newtonian physics was the antecedent of the statement that there are many more like it.

Puffing out your chest rather than admitting such a meaningless mistake does nothing to support your credibility. Good luck in the future.

[Strider324]

I followed that sentence with another sentence stating that there are other examples of how natural sciences were totally and completely wrong.

No, you didn't.

Yes I did. The fact that you have to resort to making up stuff that is blatantly false shows what type of debater you are. I'll keep this in mind the next time you respond to one of my posts.

Good plan. I will keep in mind that when you make errors, you entrench yourself in them while claiming "I'm right and everybody else is wrong!!". Should work out for both of us.

[otseng]

Puffing out your chest rather than admitting such a meaningless mistake does nothing to support your credibility. Good luck in the future.

Moderator Warning


Please do not make any comments of a personal nature.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[dianaiad]

zzyzx, 51 percent plus 18 percent (and I did refer to pretty much those numbers in my reference to the book, above) still equals 'most.' As in, more scientists are theists than atheists; as in, there are not more atheist scientists than theist ones.

I am not a math whiz but:

Notice that the 18% spiritual is added to 33% god believers to EQUAL 51% – (you don't add the 18% again). That means the percentage of AAAS members who are spiritual (18%) or religious (33%) = 51% have some belief in a higher power.

And, fifty-one percent is certainly not most, but may be properly called "many."

"Many" doesn't reflect the reality...that the majority (however slim the margin may be) of scientists are theist. "Many" could still be a minority.

One percent.

However, I'm willing to compromise here, and go with 'the majority,' rather than 'most.'

Technically, 51% constitutes a majority. You may claim that if you like.

It might be more representative and realistic, however, to say (as I would) that about half the AAAS scientists identify themselves as either spiritual or religious.


Shall we explore "What does that tell us?"

You are quite right, and I was sloppy. I didn't go to the Pew Research poll to look at your numbers, and was going by that book I referenced. The numbers there are closer to the ones I claimed, from her sample.

When I went to the survey to which Pew sent me (the one they claim is the source of their conclusions on scientists and religion) I found two interesting things:

The Pew sample size was more than ten times the size of the sample in the book, and was taken by survey and not interview (as the book's was). That would seem to be an indication of more accuracy on Pew's part...at least for a question as straightforward as whether one is religious, 'spiritual' or forgetaboutit.

However, all the scientists were chosen from the AAAS...which is a left leaning organization: the majority of members are academics rather than scientists in the private sector, and academics tend to be overwhelmingly liberal and not affiliated with any religious organizations. Not that this invalidates the study completely, but essentially, since the membership of the AAAS represents, at around 150,000 scientists, (rounded up), it indicates a possible problem.

According to the Congressional Research Service, There were nearly 5.9 million scientists and engineers in the US, and (putting my tongue between my teeth and doing the math...now WHY couldn't they have just done this for me?) of this number, physical scientists comprise 4%, life scientists are 4%, mathematicians comprise 2%. they separate computer geeks and engineers from the above folks, but the AAAS allows such folks to join. Shoot, highschool students and undergrads can join the AAAS at a special discount. *I* can join, and trust me, I ain't no scientist. Academics get a discount.

Doing the math....the government says that there are about 590,000 "pure" scientists (subtracting the computer geeks and the engineers), and the AAAS takes up a fuzzy quarter of that...or rather, considerably less becase the AAAS allows those discriminated against computer geeks, engineers, high school students and undergrads...and dinosaur hunter enthusiasts...to join, with a solid preference for academics.

What does this mean?

It means that the Pew survey is a really good one...if you are surveying the membership of the AAAS. It used a larger sample. It did exclude from its sample those who were not based in the US, as well as grade school and high school teachers.

I think that there is an automatic bias of getting the sample all from one organization comprised of scientists, students and teachers who agree with the goals and methods of that organization. The organization (and I have no problem with it, by the way) itself is, in its goals and aims, not willing to deal with those who identify as religious, publicly. In terms of bias, I think it's a little like taking a sample of returned Mormon missionaries and using that to find out how many Americans, in general, know a second language. The results are going to be skewed a wee bit, I think.

So we have a problem here. The book used a small sample...of scientists in general both academic and in private life, but it was small, and an interview type study (which is hard to quantify objectively). The Pew study had a larger sample, but in a way it was self selected: kind of like a poll about Obama's popularity from Fox News viewers.

Shoot, I don't like either one of 'em, now.

Tell you what: let's call it even; half of American scientists are religious or spiritual.

I guess what that means is...obviously it's possible for religious people to be good scientists...and pretty darned good ones, at that.

[Zzyzx]

I guess what that means is...obviously it's possible for religious people to be good scientists...and pretty darned good ones, at that.

I agree 100% -- and have known several personally.

I respect those who make a clear distinction between their scientific work and their religious beliefs (and avoid, insofar as possible, allowing one to infringe upon the other).

Just this morning in another context I was discussing Gregor Mendel, the "Father of Genetics" -- a Monk -- whose work (during the middle 1800s) and methods were quite scientific and whose observations and conclusions were groundbreaking.