Teach Me Science

[DavidLeon]

What is the scientific method and how is it different than the way we teach and learn ourselves? If I were the inventor of the airplane wouldn't I be employing the methodology of science just as if I were learning how to change a flat tire or make a website? How would they be similar and how would they differ?

[DavidLeon]

Peer review is a prepublication process where experts in the same field review a manuscript and evaluate its merits, look for mistakes, etc. For most new scientific results, given the level of detail and knowledge in the field that is required to thoroughly understand the material, only experts in the field are generally suitable for critical peer review. But that is just part of the process. If the peer review process results in a paper being published, then it becomes available for everyone to see and throw darts at, and that is where the real scrutiny begins. It is no longer only seen by a few people at the institutions of the author(s), or the reviewers for the journal, but by the community at large and at that point anyone is allowed to challenge the results and claims once it is formally published. I suppose that is also peer review by definition, but it never ends unlike the initial peer review prior to publication.

Excellent answer, thank you.

So it isn't a stagnant situation, and papers can be withdrawn, errata published, etc. as time rolls on. That is one of the huge differences between science and religion. The Bible or the Quran are generally not revised and updated over time because they are thought to be divinely inspired or the actual "word of God", and for the Quran I think it is expressly forbidden to alter anything whatsoever in it. If you publish a science paper that gets through initial peer review, and someone finds a mistake or problem with it, you can be sure it will be pointed out and challenged and result in some kind of action being taken to correct the issue.

I don't agree with this. The Bible is always being revised. New manuscripts have been discovered, language changes. From a doctrinal perspective or reformation variations in denominations indicate challenge, certainly. That's why I could never quite understand why scientific atheism is always so critical of religious disagreement.

[Miles]

So far all we have established is where your sister parked your car and that we know the Bible tells us we were created by God. If peer review isn't communicating the results as such, how do we deal with disagreement of your sister's peers, perhaps, in your missing car scenario or the atheist community's criticism of the Bible beginning in the 19th century?

To be sure, those peers who review work don't keep their conclusion to themselves. Their conclusions are passed along to the originating scientist(s), and dealing with a negative peer reviewal usually means going back to the drawing board to make adjustments.

What I'm getting at if peer review simply means that those in the same field review and agree or disagree on the findings it would be fairly closed or stagnant in a sense.

To be clear, peer reviewals are rarely, if ever, an all-or-nothing sort of thing. Most often the criticisms that arise are not deal breakers, but point out specific errors, mistakes in methodology, overlooked elements etc. etc. More than anything, looming peer review serves to keep scientists and such on their toes. Play by the rules or be prepared to get your reputation dragged through the mud a bit.

If all of the Christian denominations agreed upon one evaluation of the Bible, for example, that would be something. So if some of the neighbors said your sister didn't park the car but she let someone else drive it instead and that person didn't know where to park it . . . that sort of thing. To find two people that agree on much of anything can be a formidable task, especially if it's detailed as science and theology can be.

All of which comes down meeting performance and quality standards. One has to make sure all pertinent information is accounted for, AND that it's relevant: would it change the outcome of the answer? None of which is particularly crucial in finding where my car is, but can be extremely important in scientific research. Sometimes "doing science" ain't all that easy.

.

[Miles]

I don't agree with this. The Bible is always being revised. New manuscripts have been discovered, language changes. From a doctrinal perspective or reformation variations in denominations indicate challenge, certainly. That's why I could never quite understand why scientific atheism is always so critical of religious disagreement.

Just to clear up something here; what is "scientific atheism"? Most atheists identify their position simply as a rejection of the premise that a God or Gods exist, so where does science enter the picture?

.

[brunumb]

But we aren't trying to establish what the Bible says is true. That would involve a completely different series of tests. Up to a certain point, the supernatural, it wouldn't be difficult.

It wouldn't be difficult, it would more likely be impossible. If you think it's not that difficult, please describe the tests or criteria and their application for establishing the existence of the supernatural. So far no one has established the existence of the supernatural, nor has anyone established that any of the allegedly miraculous events described in the Bible are true. That's why we have the endless appeals to faith.

[brunumb]

That's why I could never quite understand why scientific atheism is always so critical of religious disagreement.

What exactly is scientific atheism, or are you simply using the term to disparage those who have confidence in the value of the scientific method in the search for knowledge?

[DavidLeon]

Just to clear up something here; what is "scientific atheism"? Most atheists identify their position simply as a rejection of the premise that a God or Gods exist, so where does science enter the picture?

Atheism and scientific are not the same things. Scientific atheism is atheism with science tagged onto it. It's a thing with militant atheists. I think it's the primary reason theists see atheists as religious. That and their stoic, dogmatic and xenophobic behaviorism.

What exactly is scientific atheism, or are you simply using the term to disparage those who have confidence in the value of the scientific method in the search for knowledge?

I was an atheist until I was 27. I was taught evolution throughout school like everyone else. My family, my friends that were atheists, didn't believe in evolution. Thought it was stupid.

I don't see evolution as a result of the scientific method or the search for knowledge. I see it as the typical nonsense of Greek philosophy becoming popularized during the industrial revolution and the advent of intercontinental travel due to the steam powered engine. At a time when people began to seriously question traditional religious beliefs and their social functions but were still prudish. For example, the legs on a piano had to be covered. Exotic animals were then first shipped from locations all over the world. Chimpanzees, perceived as similar to humans, were dressed in human attire.

It seems that there was an eagerness to justify a growing disbelief in God and evolution was embraced. Science began to be used as a symbol of a Utopian future, ideally perfect in respect of politics, laws, customs, and conditions. Information, independent thought, and freedom are promoted.

[DavidLeon]

To be sure, those peers who review work don't keep their conclusion to themselves. Their conclusions are passed along to the originating scientist(s), and dealing with a negative peer reviewal usually means going back to the drawing board to make adjustments.

My perception of peer review was that it was essentially dogmatic. Either fit in with current science or take a hike. A method of control. Like Expelled! No Intelligence Allowed.

To be clear, peer reviewals are rarely, if ever, an all-or-nothing sort of thing. Most often the criticisms that arise are not deal breakers, but point out specific errors, mistakes in methodology, overlooked elements etc. etc. More than anything, looming peer review serves to keep scientists and such on their toes. Play by the rules or be prepared to get your reputation dragged through the mud a bit.

Like . . . Expelled! No Intelligence Allowed.

All of which comes down meeting performance and quality standards. One has to make sure all pertinent information is accounted for, AND that it's relevant: would it change the outcome of the answer? None of which is particularly crucial in finding where my car is, but can be extremely important in scientific research. Sometimes "doing science" ain't all that easy.

What about when it goes wrong and doesn't prevent a fraud from taking place for four decades or more? What I mean is with all of this procedure in place how is such a thing possible?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to DavidLeon in post #10]

You are trying to insinuate the theory of evolution with the absence of a theory on where life came from? Could you demonstrate how an experiment to ascertain evolution would look?

The Theory of Evolution (TOE) says nothing about how life originated ... only that it did via some means. Lots of people make the mistake of thinking that TOE should explain origin of life when it makes no statement of any kind on that issue. TOE only describes how life diversified once it did form, independent of how that initial event happened (could have been a god creation, or abiogenesis, panspermia, etc. ... TOE does not address that issue at all).

As to experiments on how to ascertain the validity of TOE, there are 150+ years of observations, countless scientific articles, books, etc. on the subject. It is the digesting and analysis of that giant mountain of data that led to TOE moving from the hypothesis stage to the theory stage where it sits now. There has been sufficient evidence from the fossil record, direct observations on short lifetime species, and the genetics work of the last 50+ years to confirm TOE as a valid theory. A little Googling could easily keep someone busy for days or weeks just plowing through all of the available documentation on TOE.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to DavidLeon in post #17]

What about when it goes wrong and doesn't prevent a fraud from taking place for four decades or more? What I mean is with all of this procedure in place how is such a thing possible?

I expect you are referring to the Piltdown Man hoax. The reason that hoax was able to carry on for so long is that it was a good enough hoax to fool the techniques and knowledge of the day. But that is a rare example of something lasting that long before being sorted out. You can be sure people were trying as no one believed it for most of the period. But anthropology and the fossil record were not nearly what they are today (or near the end of that hoax) so it passed muster for far too long. But it was eventually shown to be a fraud and that is what counts. Took longer than it should have, but it was good enough to fool the knowledge of the day so it took longer than normal to uncover as a hoax.

[DavidLeon]

But we aren't trying to establish what the Bible says is true. That would involve a completely different series of tests. Up to a certain point, the supernatural, it wouldn't be difficult.

It wouldn't be difficult, it would more likely be impossible. If you think it's not that difficult, please describe the tests or criteria and their application for establishing the existence of the supernatural. So far no one has established the existence of the supernatural, nor has anyone established that any of the allegedly miraculous events described in the Bible are true. That's why we have the endless appeals to faith.

I think you misunderstood. It wouldn't be difficult to establish what the Bible says is true aside from the supernatural. I may have asked this of someone else, but now that you mention it, what can you compare a possible test of the existence of the supernatural inasmuch as science has an idea something exists but they can't establish it. Something like string theory.