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.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[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.

What would the earth look like if it actually had been created 6,000 years by a god say, but with all the details carefully setup to make it look much much older?

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?

The argument that this can't be true because its silly for God to fool us is also useless, there might be no "fooling" going on at all, it might in fact be setup to make us think, think about why we believe what we believe.

You misunderstood me, science can and does show the earth to be very very old but only if we begin with a particular set of untestable assumptions, if we choose some other set of assumptions then science shows something else.

Time and time again here - I blame science education - I encounter people who have no idea that science is nothing to do with truth, this is a fundamental aspect of science yet it seems nobody in the US has ever had this explained to them.

[Jose Fly]

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".

Already done. And to be clear, I just posted a few of the ones I found; there are plenty more.

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.

FYI, when it comes to how they do their work, I'll take the statements of actual scientists over your empty assertions every time.

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.

That's funny, because the reality is that were it not for creationists' efforts to try and change science to allow "God did it" to be an acceptable explanation (see Dover, PA and Kansas for examples), few if any of us would even be talking about this.

It's interesting though....earlier you told me that God was not a scientific explanation for the universe, but here you're grousing about atheists and evolutionists allegedly changing science to exclude gods as explanations. Maybe you should take some time and figure out a consistent position.

[Jose Fly]

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"

????????????? What in the world? You're actually equating "scientists must make assumptions" with "science doesn't operate via methodological naturalism"? That's such a bizarre argument, I'm at a loss for words.

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?

The fundamental, untestable assumption is that what we observe, experience, and study is actually reality and not some sort of illusion or mass delusion. Sheesh.

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.

Wow....this is just weird. Apparently you believe that "fanatical evolutionists" are dominating all of science to the point that they have completely changed how science is practiced across the world and in every field.

Bizarre.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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"

????????????? What in the world? You're actually equating "scientists must make assumptions" with "science doesn't operate via methodological naturalism"? That's such a bizarre argument, I'm at a loss for words.

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?

The fundamental, untestable assumption is that what we observe, experience, and study is actually reality and not some sort of illusion or mass delusion. Sheesh.

That assumes that your sensory apparatus faithfully conveys trustworthy information about the outside world, a reasonable assumption but still an assumption, not at all testable which is precisely what I said.

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.

Wow....this is just weird. Apparently you believe that "fanatical evolutionists" are dominating all of science to the point that they have completely changed how science is practiced across the world and in every field.

Bizarre.

No, I never said anything like that.

[Sherlock Holmes]

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".

Already done. And to be clear, I just posted a few of the ones I found; there are plenty more.

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.

FYI, when it comes to how they do their work, I'll take the statements of actual scientists over your empty assertions every time.

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.

That's funny, because the reality is that were it not for creationists' efforts to try and change science to allow "God did it" to be an acceptable explanation (see Dover, PA and Kansas for examples), few if any of us would even be talking about this.

It's interesting though....earlier you told me that God was not a scientific explanation for the universe, but here you're grousing about atheists and evolutionists allegedly changing science to exclude gods as explanations. Maybe you should take some time and figure out a consistent position.

What did I actually write that's confused you? (hint - quote me, don't paraphrase - that's how a real objective scientist would argue with me, use actual data, facts)

[Jose Fly]

That assumes that your sensory apparatus faithfully conveys trustworthy information about the outside world, a reasonable assumption but still an assumption, not at all testable which is precisely what I said.

And it no way equates to allowing "God did it" as an explanation in science.

No, I never said anything like that.

Yeah, you kinda did. You said the phrase "seeking natural explanations" was added to "appease fanatical evolutionists". Why would the AAAS and the other science organizations I cited feel any need to "appease fanatical evolutionists"?

What did I actually write that's confused you?

As I said, previously you told me that God is not a scientific explanation for the universe, but here you're grousing about science not allowing God as an explanation for things.

[Sherlock Holmes]

That assumes that your sensory apparatus faithfully conveys trustworthy information about the outside world, a reasonable assumption but still an assumption, not at all testable which is precisely what I said.

And it no way equates to allowing "God did it" as an explanation in science.

No, I never said anything like that.

Yeah, you kinda did. You said the phrase "seeking natural explanations" was added to "appease fanatical evolutionists". Why would the AAAS and the other science organizations I cited feel any need to "appease fanatical evolutionists"?

What did I actually write that's confused you?

As I said, previously you told me that God is not a scientific explanation for the universe, but here you're grousing about science not allowing God as an explanation for things.

If you can't show the data to backup this claim then I can hardly discuss it can I? Are you saying I've posted contradictory statements? if so what are they?

I did say that the explanation for the presence of the universe cannot be a scientific one, yet I don't see how my recent remarks about the AAAS making up a new definition, conflicts with this.

If anything it's completely consistent with it, if a scientific investigation indicates that a non-scientific explanation is warranted then right there the AAAS definition can be seen for what it is - ludicrous.

[Jose Fly]

If you can't show the data to backup this claim then I can hardly discuss it can I?

Huh? What "data" are you talking about?

Are you saying I've posted contradictory statements? if so what are they?

I did say that the explanation for the presence of the universe cannot be a scientific one, yet I don't see how my recent remarks about the AAAS making up a new definition, conflicts with this.

For the third, and last, time.....earlier you told me that God is not a scientific explanation for the universe, but here you're grousing about God not being an acceptable explanation in science. But if you're now clarifying that it's not really that God isn't a scientific explanation for the universe, but there can be no scientific explanation for the universe at all, then I'll just say that your belief is noted.

If anything it's completely consistent with it, if a scientific investigation indicates that a non-scientific explanation is warranted then right there the AAAS definition is ludicrous.

Again, what the AAAS stated isn't unique to the AAAS, and it's consistent with what other science organizations have stated. I realize you don't like that and strongly disagree, but again....when it comes to how scientists do their work, I'll go with what actual scientists say over your assertions every time.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #41]

What would the earth look like if it actually had been created 6,000 years by a god say, but with all the details carefully setup to make it look much much older?

Probably just like we see it today, but how can you possibly postulate that a god being did such a thing, or would? It is a meaningless hypothesis as far as science is concerned, and given that no gods of any kind have ever been demonstrated to exist it is also a highly unlikely explanation. There's no basis for believing such a far fetched explanation for which there is no evidence. On the other hand, the current geological explanation is based on a vast amount of physical evidence that is consistent, and does not require venturing into supernatural speculation.

The argument that this can't be true because its silly for God to fool us is also useless, there might be no "fooling" going on at all, it might in fact be setup to make us think, think about why we believe what we believe.

Or it might just be a silly idea with no basis to believe it has any relevance to the real world. If you're going to claim that a god might have undertaken the effort to make a young earth look old, with all of the details and changes needed to actually do that, you need a better hypothesis than that it might have been done to make us think about why we believe what we believe. It might have been done to fool us just as well ... but both are equally unlikely to be correct.

You misunderstood me, science can and does show the earth to be very very old but only if we begin with a particular set of untestable assumptions, if we choose some other set of assumptions then science shows something else.

What "untestable assumptions" are you referring to? No untestable assumptions are required to determine that the Earth is far older than 6000 years, by nearly 6 orders of magnitude. What are these untestable assumptions?

Time and time again here - I blame science education - I encounter people who have no idea that science is nothing to do with truth, this is a fundamental aspect of science yet it seems nobody in the US has ever had this explained to them.

Science has nothing to do with truth? Science attempts to understand the natural world and provide explanations for how things work. If these explanations are never disseminated for everyone to challenge then you never get the iterative process needed to arrive at the "best" explanation, which is the goal. "Truth" is always the goal if truth is defined as "that which is true or in accordance with fact or reality."

[Sherlock Holmes]

If you can't show the data to backup this claim then I can hardly discuss it can I?

Huh? What "data" are you talking about?

The quoted text from my post is the "data", you understand perfectly.

Are you saying I've posted contradictory statements? if so what are they?

Well, what are they!

I did say that the explanation for the presence of the universe cannot be a scientific one, yet I don't see how my recent remarks about the AAAS making up a new definition, conflicts with this.

For the third, and last, time.....earlier you told me that God is not a scientific explanation for the universe, but here you're grousing about God not being an acceptable explanation in science. But if you're now clarifying that it's not really that God isn't a scientific explanation for the universe, but there can be no scientific explanation for the universe at all, then I'll just say that your belief is noted.

No, not "grousing" if you're too sloppy to quote what I actually say then I can only wonder how sloppy your professional work must be.

This is a discussion/debate, it is customary to quote one's opponents remarks when challenging something they said in the past, you're too sloppy to do that or you dare not do it because what I actually wrote is likely nothing like what you think, so don't keep playing dumb.

If anything it's completely consistent with it, if a scientific investigation indicates that a non-scientific explanation is warranted then right there the AAAS definition is ludicrous.

Again, what the AAAS stated isn't unique to the AAAS, and it's consistent with what other science organizations have stated. I realize you don't like that and strongly disagree, but again....when it comes to how scientists do their work, I'll go with what actual scientists say over your assertions every time.

Then you'll continue to be wrong won't you.