Is science starting to misrepresent itself?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
Sherlock Holmes

Is science starting to misrepresent itself?

Post #1

Post by 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.
Last edited by Sherlock Holmes on Wed Feb 09, 2022 2:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: Is science starting to misrepresent itself?

Post #251

Post by Jose Fly »

otseng wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 7:03 pm
Jose Fly wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 1:32 pm Greg (biologist, non-Christian): "Hey [Jose]. I looked at that thread in the Debating Christianity forum like you asked and my reaction is, why do you waste your time arguing with idiots?
Moderator Comment

Personal attacks are not allowed on the forum, even if it's in the third person.

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.
Thanks for the notice. I will not post any of the other responses I received, as they are waaaaaaaay more blunt (especially the ones from the Christians).
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Is science starting to misrepresent itself?

Post #252

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 7:03 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:53 pm Please, did you not read the inexcusable history of the AAAS and eugenics? you had nothing to say about that did you? perhaps you'd like to be an apologist for this?
Huh? What does that have to do with your belief that the AAAS constitutes a type of police force?
The AAAS were supportive and involved with the "science of eugenics" oddly enough - certainly in Europe, the Catholic church was opposed to this from the outset, funny how things turn out eh?

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: Is science starting to misrepresent itself?

Post #253

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 7:08 pm The AAAS were supportive and involved with the "science of eugenics" oddly enough - certainly in Europe, the Catholic church was opposed to this from the outset, funny how things turn out eh?
And therefore........?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: Is science starting to misrepresent itself?

Post #254

Post by Bust Nak »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 1:57 pm Yes and I disagree with rules being imposed by biased authorities as to what is and is not permissible insofar as pursuing science, doing science, inventing abstract ideas, performing thought experiments and so on, it is not necessary. By all means critique a theory once proposed but do not impose restrictions on the means one can use to devise the theory.
Again, there is no restrictions on the means one can use to devise the theory. I seem to be struggling to get this point across: "It's not scientific" is not a restrictions of what one might and might not do, it's a method of classification. Like you pointed out, Newton and others like him had drawn inspirations from their religion, no one here would have tried to restrict them from doing that, at the same time we would say that's not doing science.
Nothing wrong, except without an explanation at all it cannot be said to "have a natural explanation" can it? and so any other explanation based up on it by extension cannot actually be a natural explanation can it? yes it might be but that isn't the same as is.
I don't see why not, we've been saying things have a natural explanation for centuries without an natural explanation for the universe.
But if these things you choose to call "not doing science" are in fact necessary in order to do science then how can you refuse to include them in the "doing" of science? I have no issue with the criteria a theory must satisfy.
We have materialists/empiricists/naturalists producing scientific explanations just fine without appealing to anything other than purely materialistic/empirical/naturalistic means, so we can rule other things out.
One can, but equally one could not-assume materialism too, in either case we have our explanation, we can test it and so on but the assumptions upon which it is built differ, because they are simply assume we cannot give one assumption more credence than any other.
Why not? We give the assumption of materialism credence because it has produced tangible results in the form of modern technology.
So "God created the universe" is a possible assumption as is "The universe has always existed" or "The universe appeared out of nothing uncaused" and so on, but each of these is equally not a natural explanation.
Still happy to leave it as "I don't know."
I don't think it counts, well not as a scientific explanation (because it is not reductionist). I just want to emphasize that what we often glibly call a "natural explanation" is foundationally no different epistemologically from a supernatural explanation, in each case we assume something that itself remains unexplained scientifically.

The "supernatural" is a means of escape from infinite regress, it serves a very important explanatory purpose. Postulating that there is a "will" that can "act" materially outside of any "laws" eliminate the infinite regress inherent in reductionist explanations. I would not invoke it as part of a scientific explanation but nor would I prohibit it from the one's mental machinations as one contemplates the universe.
Why the need to escape from infinite regression, I don't see it as any less desirable than having to appeal to circular regression or prime mover. Each of the three horns of the Munchhausen trilemma has its downside. I am actually rather partial to infinite regression, it means there are always new mystery for scientists to solve.
Because its far better to class something as pseudo science on the basis of falsification. Why is assuming infinite regress or "something out of nothing" not also pseudoscience?
Because it's not dressed up as science.
The efficacy of the basis for our reasoning can best be judged by the end result, this is why most of the seminal scientists who drove the scientific revolution who were creationists are not regarded as pseudo scientists.
Right, again the reason for that is, these scientists don't dress up any of their non-empirical means as science.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Is science starting to misrepresent itself?

Post #255

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 7:31 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 7:08 pm The AAAS were supportive and involved with the "science of eugenics" oddly enough - certainly in Europe, the Catholic church was opposed to this from the outset, funny how things turn out eh?
And therefore........?
and therefore we should not uncritically place our trust in organizations, authorities, relying on them as sources of truth - like for example legitimizing abuse of disabled people or making up a new definition of "science", they've misled us in the past and they will probably mislead us in the future.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: Is science starting to misrepresent itself?

Post #256

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 9:49 am
Jose Fly wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 7:31 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 7:08 pm The AAAS were supportive and involved with the "science of eugenics" oddly enough - certainly in Europe, the Catholic church was opposed to this from the outset, funny how things turn out eh?
And therefore........?
and therefore we should not uncritically place our trust in organizations, authorities, relying on them as sources of truth - like for example legitimizing abuse of disabled people or making up a new definition of "science", they've misled us in the past and they will probably mislead us in the future.
Do you take this approach with all organizations? For example, would I be justified in not trusting any Christian organizations or authorities given all the horrid things they've advocated and done over the last 100 years or so?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Is science starting to misrepresent itself?

Post #257

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 2:24 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 9:49 am
Jose Fly wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 7:31 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 7:08 pm The AAAS were supportive and involved with the "science of eugenics" oddly enough - certainly in Europe, the Catholic church was opposed to this from the outset, funny how things turn out eh?
And therefore........?
and therefore we should not uncritically place our trust in organizations, authorities, relying on them as sources of truth - like for example legitimizing abuse of disabled people or making up a new definition of "science", they've misled us in the past and they will probably mislead us in the future.
Do you take this approach with all organizations? For example, would I be justified in not trusting any Christian organizations or authorities given all the horrid things they've advocated and done over the last 100 years or so?
I do and so should you.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: Is science starting to misrepresent itself?

Post #258

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 3:06 pm
Jose Fly wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 2:24 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 9:49 am
Jose Fly wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 7:31 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 7:08 pm The AAAS were supportive and involved with the "science of eugenics" oddly enough - certainly in Europe, the Catholic church was opposed to this from the outset, funny how things turn out eh?
And therefore........?
and therefore we should not uncritically place our trust in organizations, authorities, relying on them as sources of truth - like for example legitimizing abuse of disabled people or making up a new definition of "science", they've misled us in the past and they will probably mislead us in the future.
Do you take this approach with all organizations? For example, would I be justified in not trusting any Christian organizations or authorities given all the horrid things they've advocated and done over the last 100 years or so?
I do and so should you.
No thanks. I'm not the type of person who evaluates something an organization said recently by looking at what they said 100 years ago. And to be honest, I see your bringing up eugenics as nothing more than mud-slinging, as in....."Here's how the AAAS defines science"...."Oh yeah, well the AAAS supported eugenics 100 years ago, so there!"

Also, I should point out yet again that the AAAS is not the only science entity that has defined science that way (as I showed earlier). So even if your rather juvenile smear was at all relevant, one response would be to point that out.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Is science starting to misrepresent itself?

Post #259

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 3:54 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 3:06 pm
Jose Fly wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 2:24 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 9:49 am
Jose Fly wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 7:31 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 7:08 pm The AAAS were supportive and involved with the "science of eugenics" oddly enough - certainly in Europe, the Catholic church was opposed to this from the outset, funny how things turn out eh?
And therefore........?
and therefore we should not uncritically place our trust in organizations, authorities, relying on them as sources of truth - like for example legitimizing abuse of disabled people or making up a new definition of "science", they've misled us in the past and they will probably mislead us in the future.
Do you take this approach with all organizations? For example, would I be justified in not trusting any Christian organizations or authorities given all the horrid things they've advocated and done over the last 100 years or so?
I do and so should you.
No thanks. I'm not the type of person who evaluates something an organization said recently by looking at what they said 100 years ago. And to be honest, I see your bringing up eugenics as nothing more than mud-slinging, as in....."Here's how the AAAS defines science"...."Oh yeah, well the AAAS supported eugenics 100 years ago, so there!"

Also, I should point out yet again that the AAAS is not the only science entity that has defined science that way (as I showed earlier). So even if your rather juvenile smear was at all relevant, one response would be to point that out.
I did not smear the AAAS, be careful Jose, you often tread on thin ice:
To smear someone means to spread unpleasant and untrue rumors or accusations about them in order to damage their reputation.
I bring up eugenics because it was unfortunately supported to a large degree by the scientifically literate, the educated class, the doctors, the scientists, it received huge support from institutions that were held in high regard by the public like the AAAS.

I make no apologies for pointing out how trust in such institutions carries risks, it did then and does still today.

User avatar
Jose Fly
Guru
Posts: 1462
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2022 5:30 pm
Location: Out west somewhere
Has thanked: 337 times
Been thanked: 906 times

Re: Is science starting to misrepresent itself?

Post #260

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Feb 23, 2022 5:36 pm I bring up eugenics because it was unfortunately supported to a large degree by the scientifically literate, the educated class, the doctors, the scientists, it received huge support from institutions that were held in high regard by the public like the AAAS.

I make no apologies for pointing out how trust in such institutions carries risks, it did then and does still today.
That would be a relevant point had anyone said anything like "We must always trust what organizations say, without question".

EDIT: I'll also note how interesting it is to see you say that organizations like AiG are real, genuine scientific entities even though they specifically require their employees to automatically reject any data that conflicts with their reading of the Bible, while at the same time you chastise the AAAS for defining science as being limited to natural explanations, and in doing so you advocate that science should be free of such restrictions.

So how is it that you're just fine with AiG's mandate but are bothered by AAAS' definition? Shouldn't you be at least as bothered by AiG's requirements as you are AAAS' definition?
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Post Reply