Is science starting to misrepresent itself?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Over the past thirty, perhaps even forty years, it's become increasingly clear to me how what is sometimes presented as "god vs science" or "creationism vs science" and so on, is actually the root of many of the perceived problems with these two areas of human thought. Because these are presented as contrasting, as alternative ways of interpreting the world, many people just assume that there is an underlying incompatibility.

But there is no incompatibility at all, there never was and the false implication that there is arose quite recently in fact. The vast majority of those who contributed to what we today call the scientific revolution and later the enlightenment, were not atheists - this might surprise some but it is true and should be carefully noted.

The growth of militant atheism (recently spearheaded by the likes of Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens) has seen increasing effort placed on attacking "religion" and discrediting those who might regard "god" and "creation" as intellectually legitimate ideas, by implying that the layman must choose one or the other, you're either an atheist (for science) or a theist (a science "denier").

It is my position that there is no conflict whatsoever, for example God (an intelligent agency not subject to laws) gave rise to the universe (a sophisticated amalgam of material and laws) and we - also intelligent agencies - are gifted by being able to explore, unravel and utilize that creation.

There is nothing that can disprove this view, there is no reason to imply that those who adopt it are deluded, incompetent, poorly educated or any of that, that attitude is a lie and its reinforced at every opportunity in this and many other forums.

[Difflugia]

Since your post ends in an insult I won't spend much time replying other than to say that advocating that the universe was created by an intelligence is not to deny science

Speculating that it might be isn't science denial. The antievolution screeds are the science denial.

and implying that because I may hold such a view that I am "therefore" opposed to Covid vaccination

Must every argument be answered with a straw man? You're a creationist, but I was neither claiming nor implying that you're antivax. It's the same intellectual and emotional process, but I don't think you need to be both. It's the same kind of flawed thinking that turns into geocentrism or the stereotypical flat-earth claims, but I don't think you're one of those, either.

is a personal insult that I find particularly inexcusable in that I am an asthmatic and my wife has a genetically based rare disease called Bronchiectasis that has some genetic similarity to Cystic Fibrosis and is a chronic condition that appeared unexpectedly (as this disease seem to do) in her mid 50s.

I'm sorry for your and your wife's conditions. I hope that you've sincerely mistaken my intentions and this isn't just one more attempt at emotional manipulation through tone trolling.

You have no f*****g idea how many Republican anti vaccination fanatics I've had to argue with these past two years.

They're certainly more dangerous than creationists, at least in the short term.

You wanted to insult rather than politely disagree, to simply disagree with me was it seems asking too much of you, well we're done, I want nothing to do with you.

I'll miss you, Pot.

[otseng]

You have no f*****g idea how many Republican anti vaccination fanatics I've had to argue with these past two years.

Moderator Comment

Note even coded profanity is not allowed on the forum.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #25]

I want to argue what I argue, which is that the AAAS definition is not the definition of science, the specious phrase "seek natural explanations" has never been part of the historic, established definition, the AAAS have made up their own definition.

I'll second Jose's request for just one example in the history of humans doing science where a non-natural explanation has been adopted.

We're not speaking of the past, we're speaking of the future, what yet remains to be discovered, understood, explained.

You seem to be carrying on this argument mainly to leave the door open for a supernatural explanation for something in science, and getting bent way out of shape when it is challenged.

No, my position is that there never was a door in the first place, this AAAS definition adds a door, a gate with rules, I don't agree to that, it has no historic precedent other than perhaps League of Militant Atheists.

Just give one example of a non-natural explanation that has been accepted by science and you win. Short of that, the AAAS definition is perfectly fine and certainly not the horrible, world-disrupting description you're making it out to be.

You mean accepted by the AAAS? You're asking me to give an example of something that the AAAS would regard as not a natural explanation and at the same time they accept as an explanation when they say they won't accept such a thing as an explanation? can you really not see the absurdity of what you ask?

Such definitions are politically motivated, they require we accept the AAAS as the arbiter of truth, they, their leadership, decide what is and is not science, as I said earlier this is regressive, it goes against all that I have seen and learned about how we discover knowledge, we do not need a Ministry of Truth to police this, man, this is getting even more like the Catholic authorities of Galileo's times.

This is irrational fanaticism, it originates in the fanaticism and dogma that has come to dominate biology with the huge importance that attaches to evolution.

[Sherlock Holmes]

I want to argue what I argue, which is that the AAAS definition is not the definition of science, the specious phrase "seek natural explanations" has never been part of the historic, established definition, the AAAS have made up their own definition.

Except that's not true. Science has operated via methodological naturalism since science has existed. And it's not like AAAS is the only scientific entity that has said as much.

The very concept of "natural explanations" never existed historically, for most of the time that science has developed, the possibility of supernatural was either taken for granted or simply never came up, it was not a concern, nobody cared that there might be a "god" involved somewhere.

If you have an example of science being done under a framework other than methodological naturalism, then present it.

That the AAAS feel the need to introduce a doctored, misleading and frankly regressive definition, bodes ill, it really does, freedom to think underpinned the development of science in Europe, this obsessive evolution fanaticism has nothing to offer anyone.

Again, if you think AAAS stating that science operates via methodological naturalism is something new that they invented all on their own, you are massively mistaken.

This is a strawman Jose, the actual argument I made (not the imaginary one you seem to wish I had made) is that the AAAS insertion of "seeking natural explanations" has no historic precedent, and I am correct. You are welcome to show me some other organization that includes this phrase in their definition of "science".

All through the scientific revolution, the enlightenment there was never any concern about this, most, the vast majority, of contributors to science had no concern about to what extent God might play a role.

Likely to this day there's no concern for most practitioners, I doubt many physicists care if or to what extent a "god" might be a factor in reality, I doubt many mathematicians or cosmologists do, that there might or might not be some "god" does not prevent them doing their research - it never did.

This obsessive, fretting about what "science is all about" emanates primarily from the dogmatic evolutionists, it is almost always this particular group that grumbles on and on about this, it is - in my experience - very rare indeed for me to engage with physicists, cosmologists, mathematicians and encounter the nervous fretting about what "science really is" and be told "but clearly you don't understand science" and so on. It is always mentioned in the context of evolution, it is indeed odd that this one discipline is the primary source of militancy.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #1]

There is definitely an incompatibility between science and young Earth creationism. If you don't want that incompatibility to further reinforce the view of "religion vs science," sort yourselves out: Disown the creationists, call them out any chance you get, shame them into silence. Theists need to do this because they won't listen to us.

the actual argument I made (not the imaginary one you seem to wish I had made) is that the AAAS insertion of "seeking natural explanations" has no historic precedent, and I am correct. You are welcome to show me some other organization that includes this phrase in their definition of "science".

The fact that "science" was once known as natural philosophy does set a historic precedent, don't you think?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Since SH has cited Wikipedia as an authoritative source....

Methodological naturalism, this second sense of the term "naturalism", seeks to provide a framework of acquiring knowledge that requires scientists to seek explanations of how the world around us functions based on what we can observe, test, replicate and verify. It is a distinct system of thought concerned with a cognitive approach to reality, and is thus a philosophy of knowledge. It is a self-imposed convention of science that attempts to explain and test scientific endeavors, hypotheses, and events with reference to natural causes and events.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)

More....

From Stanford:

...naturalism can be separated into an ontological and a methodological component. The ontological component is concerned with the contents of reality, asserting that reality has no place for “supernatural” or other “spooky” kinds of entity. By contrast, the methodological component is concerned with ways of investigating reality, and claims some kind of general authority for the scientific method.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/

From Berkeley:

In 2005, the Kansas State Board of Education enacted a seemingly minor change in the state's science teaching standards. Up to that time, science had been defined in a standard way as "the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us."

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/natural_matters

From the US National Academy of Sciences:

Science requires that scientific explanations of phenomena be based on events or mechanisms that can be observed in the natural world. This is how science builds a base of shared observations and ideas to which new knowledge can be added.

For example, scientists studying the characteristics of plants and animals in Hawaii look for natural explanations for those characteristics.

https://www.nap.edu/read/10865/chapter/4

So the claim that the AAAS unilaterally "made up" the notion that science operates according to methodological naturalism is just plain false (and quite honestly, absurd).

From the article on Methodological Naturalism:

According to Robert Priddy, all scientific study inescapably builds on at least some essential assumptions that cannot be tested by scientific processes; that is, that scientists must start with some assumptions as to the ultimate analysis of the facts with which it deals.

Kuhn also claims that all science is based on an approved agenda of unprovable assumptions about the character of the universe, rather than merely on empirical facts. These assumptions—a paradigm—comprise a collection of beliefs, values and techniques that are held by a given scientific community, which legitimize their systems and set the limitations to their investigation.

(I've said very similar things here several times in this forum and been attacked for not "understanding science" and so on, go figure!)

This should make it clear to you that the phrase "seeking natural explanations" has no place in a formal definition of "science", I mean how could it? If all scientific explanations are reducible to a set of unprovable, untestable assumptions than on what grounds can one police those assumptions?

If you can't police the assumptions then obviously you can't police explanations based upon them!

This is why there's no need for this rather silly and seemingly desperate phrase "seeking natural explanations" it adds nothing of value, masks the true philosophical nature of all science and has only one purpose - appease the fanatical evolutionists who confuse hypothesis with fact.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #1]

There is definitely an incompatibility between science and young Earth creationism. If you don't want that incompatibility to further reinforce the view of "religion vs science," sort yourselves out: Disown the creationists, call them out any chance you get, shame them into silence. Theists need to do this because they won't listen to us.

What does "disown the creationists mean"? and who is the "us" that are not being listened to?

The problem also is that there is no incompatibility between science and claims of age, science cannot be used to prove the age of the earth is > 6,000 years. I myself do not adopt that view but it is an entirely rational view. There is absolutely no way we can show that the earth was not created 6,000 years ago with an inbuilt appearance of great age.

The only way to argue that the earth is far older is to introduce untestable assumptions and untestable claims are the very thing Jose says are not science! yet science sits atop them!

This is why I object to the insertion of "seeking natural explanations" it attributes a kind of certainty and truth to science that really is not there, it masks the fact that scientific knowledge always rests upon the unknown, it tries to pass scientific claims off as truths. Why lie to young minds? why pretend science is something that it is not?

So we should not argue these cases using science, it has no use, science has epistemological limits and if this is not understood one starts down a very slippery slope. Any claims like "science proves the earth is far older than 6,000 years" is a lie, why it is a lie is vitally important to understand yet children won't understand if they are repeatedly lied to.

the actual argument I made (not the imaginary one you seem to wish I had made) is that the AAAS insertion of "seeking natural explanations" has no historic precedent, and I am correct. You are welcome to show me some other organization that includes this phrase in their definition of "science".

The fact that "science" was once known as natural philosophy does set a historic precedent, don't you think?

Explain?

[Bust Nak]

What does "disown the creationists mean"?

Make them choose between religion and creationism. Tell them they are not welcomed into your churches if they are caught defending it. Denounce organisation like the Answers in Genesis. Stop inviting "cintelligent design proponentist" for talks or debates. Most importantly stop giving support to those trying to push creationism in science class.

and who is the "us" that are not being listened to?

Militant atheists.

The problem also is that there is no incompatibility between science and claims of age, science cannot be used to prove the age of the earth is > 6,000 years. I myself do not adopt that view but it is an entirely rational view. There is absolutely no way we can show that the earth was not created 6,000 years ago with an inbuilt appearance of great age.

How is it rational though? That science cannot disprove an unfalsifiable claim is enough to make the claim rational?

So we should not argue these cases using science, it has no use, science has epistemological limits and if this is not understood one starts down a very slippery slop.

You say that but it is the creationists who are encroaching into scientific epistemological limits when they attack evolution or geology.

Explain?

Science has been about looking for natural explanation even before it was known as "science."

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #37]

The problem also is that there is no incompatibility between science and claims of age, science cannot be used to prove the age of the earth is > 6,000 years. I myself do not adopt that view but it is an entirely rational view. There is absolutely no way we can show that the earth was not created 6,000 years ago with an inbuilt appearance of great age.

This really has to be the most outrageous set of comments you've made so far. Science has shown the Earth to be far older than 6000 years from so many different disciplines that it is 99.9999% certain (or however close to 100% something can be in science). Refusing to acknowledge this is just pure science denial of the first order.

The "inbuilt appearance of great age" just makes it worse as that leaves science completely and assumes a creator who did this purposely to fool us (or some other equally silly reason). I've heard this same thing said about Noah's flood ... that God wiped out all the the geological traces that would have been overwhelming if such a flood had happened, also presumably to fool future generations of humans.

If you don't believe that science can show (and has done so in spades) that the Earth is far older than 6000 years then how can you accept anything at all in science?

[Sherlock Holmes]

What does "disown the creationists mean"?

Make them choose between religion and creationism. Tell them they are not welcomed into your churches if they are caught defending it. Denounce organisation like the Answers in Genesis. Stop inviting "cintelligent design proponentist" for talks or debates. Most importantly stop giving support to those trying to push creationism in science class.

Well I don't attend churches, I don't invite anyone to talk about anything either.

As for denouncing organizations I'm willing to speak frankly about any organization, I'm also willing to challenge anyone in this forum I disagree with them whatever their label might be.

As for "trying to push creationism in science class" I don't really know what specifically you mean, why? when? what exactly did they ask for?

and who is the "us" that are not being listened to?

Militant atheists.

Well I don't pay much attention to people like Dawkins for example, I'm no fan of that kind of militancy myself whatever it might represent.

The problem also is that there is no incompatibility between science and claims of age, science cannot be used to prove the age of the earth is > 6,000 years. I myself do not adopt that view but it is an entirely rational view. There is absolutely no way we can show that the earth was not created 6,000 years ago with an inbuilt appearance of great age.

How is it rational though? That science cannot disprove an unfalsifiable claim is enough to make the claim rational?

Well it can't disprove or prove - there's the dilemma, how do we decide what we believe when all options are based on untestable claims?

When I say rational I mean as rational as any other assumption, assuming the apparent age of the earth is real vs assuming the apparent age is just apparent - are equal options, they lead in different directions, one can reason from each of them intelligently.

Some claim is not irrational just because it might not fit in with other claims we already believe, if we've been raised (as most of us have) to believe the earth really is old, that the state it is in indicates great age, that the state reflects rates of radioactive decay, slow geological change, slow evolution of ever more complex life then of course we will initially balk at the claim "the earth is only 6,000 years old". But if it really had been created 6,000 years ago to look exactly as it looks - how could we tell?

So I don't define irrational as meaning clashes with existing beliefs, it might clash and often does, but that fact alone does not make it irrational if are existing beliefs might be wrong in some way.

So we should not argue these cases using science, it has no use, science has epistemological limits and if this is not understood one starts down a very slippery slop.

You say that but it is the creationists who are encroaching into scientific epistemological limits when they attack evolution or geology.

Well in an intellectually free society any claim should be able to be challenged by anyone; if their case has merits then it should be able to stand critical scrutiny, I don't think we can declare certain claims to be unquestionable, absolute truths, this is what the Catholic church did to society at the time of Galileo, we don't need that kind of draconian setup where we are put on trial for questioning official truths.

This why I think philosophy should be taught in US schools, that is where the critical thinking skills cane be developed. If we do that right then we'll have a society that's intellectually equipped to evaluate ideas fairly, rationally without prejudice or hatred or violence.

We are on a path where we are telling kids what is true rather than helping them develop the abilities needed to discover this for themselves, I do not think claims made by evolution advocates should receive special, official protection, be afforded special status. Their claims are claims and if there really is "overwhelming evidence" for them then that will suffice.

Explain?

Science has been about looking for natural explanation even before it was known as "science."

Well the "natural" in "natural philosophy" pertains to nature, it is nature that's being studied. No researcher in science (for many centuries) really had any need for things like "seeking natural explanations" it was unimportant, unhelpful. Science has progressed absolutely fine without this kind of fretting about the nature of knowledge. It's a huge amount of fussing over nothing, I doubt any cosmologist or physicist or mathematician gives two hoots about whether they are "seeking natural explanations" we must go wherever the evidence leads us, we cannot impose philosophical materialism on society just because a bunch of fanatical evolutionists have had their feathers ruffled!