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.

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 #231

Post by Bust Nak »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon Feb 21, 2022 1:27 pm Which of course is not an exhaustive hour by hour record of their lives.
Of course.
Yes, I'd call that pursuing knowledge.
And that's why the "pursuing knowledge" definition overly board to the point of uselessness.
I'm not sure I can agree, after all a long established definition of science is "the pursuit of knowledge by any means necessary".
Yeah, but look what that definition has forced you into agreeing, more on this at the bottom.
Well unless you're an empiricist it shouldn't matter, are you?
Close enough, materialist/naturalist/empiricist whatever. I am sure there are finer points to discuss as to how they are different, but lets not get side track by that.
Yes, you're correct you did answer, my apologies, but are you saying the "Yes" is conditional?
The yes is not conditional. My knowledge would increase, regardless of how I gain it. Whether it is scientific is conditional.
Wrong, we were talking about the established definition of "science" and how the AAAS feel it is necessary to change that definition as a pretext to accusing some of engaging in "pseudoscience" which in turn serves to instantly discredit someone questioning the efficacy of conjectured evolutionary processes. That is the motivation for making up a new definition is very obviously to protect the evolution doctrine from being challenged; this is clear from the letter that Jose shared, the context is crystal clear.
Okay even in this context, you don't have a case. The AAAS definition does not alter, but clarifies the nature of science. The motivation is a noble one and should be commented.
Yet the belief that "the natural world is governed by laws that we can discover and represent with mathematics" is something that motivates the physicist's pursuit of knowledge yet does not itself have a natural explanation.
That's debatable re: neuroscience and cognitive psychology. But so what if the motivation that drives scientists does not have a natural explanation?
Of course I would; if you were watching lots of news and tabulating the frequency of reports about - say - Ukraine vs US and EU sources of that news, then yes that would be a perfect fit for the social sciences. TV, radio, newspapers all play an important role in the social sciences.
Yikes, collecting data on say, how different channel reports on Ukraine is doing social science; collecting data on people who watch the news vs those who don't is doing social science. But watching TV itself? I watched a kids show, I've increased my knowledge of the lyrics to one song. Is that doing science? I watch it with my kid all the time and I know quite a number of songs. Does that make me a scientist? Songs play an important role in the science of child development after all. These shows could be inspiration for a brand new scientific theory.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Is science starting to misrepresent itself?

Post #232

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Bust Nak wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 5:48 am
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon Feb 21, 2022 1:27 pm Which of course is not an exhaustive hour by hour record of their lives.
Of course.
Yes, I'd call that pursuing knowledge.
And that's why the "pursuing knowledge" definition overly board to the point of uselessness.
I'm not sure I can agree, after all a long established definition of science is "the pursuit of knowledge by any means necessary".
Yeah, but look what that definition has forced you into agreeing, more on this at the bottom.
Well unless you're an empiricist it shouldn't matter, are you?
Close enough, materialist/naturalist/empiricist whatever. I am sure there are finer points to discuss as to how they are different, but lets not get side track by that.
Yes, you're correct you did answer, my apologies, but are you saying the "Yes" is conditional?
The yes is not conditional. My knowledge would increase, regardless of how I gain it. Whether it is scientific is conditional.
Wrong, we were talking about the established definition of "science" and how the AAAS feel it is necessary to change that definition as a pretext to accusing some of engaging in "pseudoscience" which in turn serves to instantly discredit someone questioning the efficacy of conjectured evolutionary processes. That is the motivation for making up a new definition is very obviously to protect the evolution doctrine from being challenged; this is clear from the letter that Jose shared, the context is crystal clear.
Okay even in this context, you don't have a case. The AAAS definition does not alter, but clarifies the nature of science. The motivation is a noble one and should be commented.
What does the AAAS definition achieve that was not already achievable? I mean the scientific revolution and all that it produced was not hampered was it by the "old" definition? What can we do with the new that we could not have done with the old? What evidence do you have that altering the definition in this way leads to something we could never have achieved without it?
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 5:48 am
Yet the belief that "the natural world is governed by laws that we can discover and represent with mathematics" is something that motivates the physicist's pursuit of knowledge yet does not itself have a natural explanation.
That's debatable re: neuroscience and cognitive psychology. But so what if the motivation that drives scientists does not have a natural explanation?
Simple, you cannot declare something to be natural if for it to exist we must invoke something that has no natural explanation.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 5:48 am
Of course I would; if you were watching lots of news and tabulating the frequency of reports about - say - Ukraine vs US and EU sources of that news, then yes that would be a perfect fit for the social sciences. TV, radio, newspapers all play an important role in the social sciences.
Yikes, collecting data on say, how different channel reports on Ukraine is doing social science; collecting data on people who watch the news vs those who don't is doing social science. But watching TV itself? I watched a kids show, I've increased my knowledge of the lyrics to one song. Is that doing science? I watch it with my kid all the time and I know quite a number of songs. Does that make me a scientist? Songs play an important role in the science of child development after all. These shows could be inspiration for a brand new scientific theory.
Science is a product of both human intellectual activity and an already existing universe, that human intellectual activity is influenced by things not present in our published explanations does not mean these things played no role in the production of the explanations, that they are not essential for the explanations to exist.

It is not logical to claim that any explanation is natural when every explanation rests upon unexplained things because unless you can prove that those unexplained things have natural explanations they might actually not.

I'll publicly retract the above if you can show me any explanation for anything that does not rest upon an assumption, something lacking its own explanation - can you do that?

This is why the AAAS definition is invalid, it masks the deep epistemological challenges inherent in all science and it arose specifically because of evolution and the desire to stifle or even eliminate dissent, that's the only reason it's there nobody ever cared for such a clause until evolution developed into a fanatical ideology, nothing "noble" about it at all.

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 #233

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon Feb 21, 2022 5:37 pm Jose I told you why terms like "prayer" and "mediation" might be relevant to some people, how the vary nature of thought is integral to "doing science" and you respond by dismissing that as a "dodge"? who are you to dismiss prayer or meditation or music or gardening or marijuana if they help some people prepare for a demanding intellectual challenge?
More goalpost moving/straw man tactics. I never said anything about whether prayer and mediation are relevant to some folks. The point at hand is that you apparently think praying and meditating constitute "doing science".

So as I promised, I sent a link to this thread to some of my colleagues and I've gotten responses. First, I'll note that I only sent it to colleagues who are also friends of mine. I didn't think it would reflect well on my professional status if I sent it to everyone I work with. Also, two of my colleagues who responded consider themselves to be Christian.

Before I post their responses I want to give you fair warning.....they're not at all kind. One was rather critical of me for "wasting my time" arguing with you and all of them were pretty blunt and harsh towards you. With that in mind, do you still want me to post them? If I do, I will post them in their entirety with only my real name and offensive words deleted.
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Is science starting to misrepresent itself?

Post #234

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:39 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Mon Feb 21, 2022 5:37 pm Jose I told you why terms like "prayer" and "mediation" might be relevant to some people, how the vary nature of thought is integral to "doing science" and you respond by dismissing that as a "dodge"? who are you to dismiss prayer or meditation or music or gardening or marijuana if they help some people prepare for a demanding intellectual challenge?
More goalpost moving/straw man tactics. I never said anything about whether prayer and mediation are relevant to some folks. The point at hand is that you apparently think praying and meditating constitute "doing science".
How do you know it isn't for some people?
Jose Fly wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:39 pm So as I promised, I sent a link to this thread to some of my colleagues and I've gotten responses. First, I'll note that I only sent it to colleagues who are also friends of mine. I didn't think it would reflect well on my professional status if I sent it to everyone I work with. Also, two of my colleagues who responded consider themselves to be Christian.
As you wish.
Jose Fly wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:39 pm Before I post their responses I want to give you fair warning.....they're not at all kind. One was rather critical of me for "wasting my time" arguing with you and all of them were pretty blunt and harsh towards you. With that in mind, do you still want me to post them? If I do, I will post them in their entirety with only my real name and offensive words deleted.
It's rather telling that these responses you speak of from the outset seem to violate the basic rules of discourse within the forum (might that have been the Christian I wonder?), of course you and you alone are responsible for what is posted under your username.

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 #235

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:45 pm How do you know it isn't for some people?
Because meditating and praying isn't "doing science" for anyone.
It's rather telling that these responses you speak of from the outset seem to violate the basic rules of discourse within the forum (might that have been the Christian I wonder?), of course you and you alone are responsible for what is posted under your username.
Like I said, I will remove any offensive words. Are you still interested?
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 #236

Post by Bust Nak »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 10:53 am What does the AAAS definition achieve that was not already achievable? I mean the scientific revolution and all that it produced was not hampered was it by the "old" definition? What can we do with the new that we could not have done with the old? What evidence do you have that altering the definition in this way leads to something we could never have achieved without it?
The very fact that it specify which kind of explanations are acceptable as scientific, count as something that isn't achievable by the old definition. Watching TV counted as doing science according to the old definition, now it doesn't.
Simple, you cannot declare something to be natural if for it to exist we must invoke something that has no natural explanation.
What's wrong with just chucking it into the pending pile with an "I don't know, I'll look into it later" without invoking any non natural explanation? We've managed just fine so far.
Science is a product of both human intellectual activity and an already existing universe, that human intellectual activity is influenced by things not present in our published explanations does not mean these things played no role in the production of the explanations, that they are not essential for the explanations to exist.
That's fine, the problem is what label we put on those things, regardless of what role they played in the production of the explanation. The requirement for repeated testing falsifiable hypothesis is not negotiable, so label only these bits as doing science.
It is not logical to claim that any explanation is natural when every explanation rests upon unexplained things because unless you can prove that those unexplained things have natural explanations they might actually not.
Why not just assume there are laws acting on material quantities, without even attempting to justify said assumption with natural explanation?
I'll publicly retract the above if you can show me any explanation for anything that does not rest upon an assumption, something lacking its own explanation - can you do that?
Does "I think therefore I am" count? Either way, I don't think it's a big deal if an explanation isn't grounded on some fundamental truths, certainly not a big deal enough to remove the "natural" label.
This is why the AAAS definition is invalid, it masks the deep epistemological challenges inherent in all science and it arose specifically because of evolution and the desire to stifle or even eliminate dissent, that's the only reason it's there nobody ever cared for such a clause until evolution developed into a fanatical ideology, nothing "noble" about it at all.
What's wrong with stifling and eliminate pseudo-science? You want to address deep epistemological challenges in science, that's the domain of philosophy. It never bothered philosophers when it's pointed out to them that they are not doing science, it has only ever bothered pseudo-scientists.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Is science starting to misrepresent itself?

Post #237

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Jose Fly wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:52 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:45 pm How do you know it isn't for some people?
Because meditating and praying isn't "doing science" for anyone.
It's rather telling that these responses you speak of from the outset seem to violate the basic rules of discourse within the forum (might that have been the Christian I wonder?), of course you and you alone are responsible for what is posted under your username.
Like I said, I will remove any offensive words. Are you still interested?
You decide what you post Jose, not me.

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 #238

Post by Jose Fly »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 1:21 pm
Jose Fly wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:52 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:45 pm How do you know it isn't for some people?
Because meditating and praying isn't "doing science" for anyone.
It's rather telling that these responses you speak of from the outset seem to violate the basic rules of discourse within the forum (might that have been the Christian I wonder?), of course you and you alone are responsible for what is posted under your username.
Like I said, I will remove any offensive words. Are you still interested?
You decide what you post Jose, not me.
I'll start with the one that was mostly focused on me.

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? Yes, I know the weather isn’t all that great but surely you have better things to do with your time! Arguing over praying being science? I suppose if that’s what you want to do though.

To answer the question (how would I react if you told [our group] that we would pray at meetings and you’d funded a prayer group) I would immediately object and if you persisted I would leave the meeting and report you to your supervisor. Anyone with a basic high school education should know praying isn’t conducting science. If it was, then I guess devout Muslims do science five times a day!

Really man, please find something better to spend your time on. So some [name calling] on the internet things praying is science. Who cares? I don’t and neither should you.

Take care and talk to you soon."
Being apathetic is great....or not. I don't really care.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Is science starting to misrepresent itself?

Post #239

Post by Difflugia »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 10:53 amIt is not logical to claim that any explanation is natural when every explanation rests upon unexplained things because unless you can prove that those unexplained things have natural explanations they might actually not.

I'll publicly retract the above if you can show me any explanation for anything that does not rest upon an assumption, something lacking its own explanation - can you do that?

This is why the AAAS definition is invalid, it masks the deep epistemological challenges inherent in all science...
You're just claiming that because we can't prove that empirical observations match reality, it's turtles all the way down and we might as well be creationists. That's not a "deep epistemological challenge," but an apologetic dodge. "What I see represents reality" is certainly a leap of faith, but also one that we test all the time, both informally and formally. We've got a pretty good handle on what the boundaries are and how we can be fooled. In fact, the rules of the scientific enterprise have been updated through time in order to eliminate those gaps when possible and minimize them otherwise. Christian apologetics takes the exact opposite approach, specifically because when one minimizes the epistemological gaps, one also (coincidentally, I'm sure) minimizes the crannies in which theism may hide.

I doubt you'll take me up on it, but I'll recommend anyway that you reread Meyer and pay closer attention than you did last time. Whatever he is now, Meyer was at least trained as a scientist and knows that the places that less-informed creationists see God aren't viable. There's a reason that his argument is limited to the Cambrian, that he won't (despite your incorrect impression) quite declare natural science to be falsified, and that he still needs to widen the epistemological gap by asking to redefine science. Meyer isn't showing the limitations of science, but is unintentionally showing the limits of creationism.

There are historians, scientists, and philosophers that wrestle with epistemology, but the goal is to make epistemological frameworks better. Your apologetic approach is to instead claim that science is flawed in terms of naturalism, so supernaturalism is valid. You're moving in the wrong direction. Seeing a candy wrapper in an otherwise clean stream is a reason to pluck out the candy wrapper, not an excuse to start dumping sewage.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Is science starting to misrepresent itself?

Post #240

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Bust Nak wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:57 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 10:53 am What does the AAAS definition achieve that was not already achievable? I mean the scientific revolution and all that it produced was not hampered was it by the "old" definition? What can we do with the new that we could not have done with the old? What evidence do you have that altering the definition in this way leads to something we could never have achieved without it?
The very fact that it specify which kind of explanations are acceptable as scientific, count as something that isn't achievable by the old definition. Watching TV counted as doing science according to the old definition, now it doesn't.
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.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:57 pm
Simple, you cannot declare something to be natural if for it to exist we must invoke something that has no natural explanation.
What's wrong with just chucking it into the pending pile with an "I don't know, I'll look into it later" without invoking any non natural explanation? We've managed just fine so far.
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.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:57 pm
Science is a product of both human intellectual activity and an already existing universe, that human intellectual activity is influenced by things not present in our published explanations does not mean these things played no role in the production of the explanations, that they are not essential for the explanations to exist.
That's fine, the problem is what label we put on those things, regardless of what role they played in the production of the explanation. The requirement for repeated testing falsifiable hypothesis is not negotiable, so label only these bits as doing science.
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.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:57 pm
It is not logical to claim that any explanation is natural when every explanation rests upon unexplained things because unless you can prove that those unexplained things have natural explanations they might actually not.
Why not just assume there are laws acting on material quantities, without even attempting to justify said assumption with natural explanation?
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.

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.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:57 pm
I'll publicly retract the above if you can show me any explanation for anything that does not rest upon an assumption, something lacking its own explanation - can you do that?
Does "I think therefore I am" count? Either way, I don't think it's a big deal if an explanation isn't grounded on some fundamental truths, certainly not a big deal enough to remove the "natural" label.
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.
Bust Nak wrote: Tue Feb 22, 2022 12:57 pm
This is why the AAAS definition is invalid, it masks the deep epistemological challenges inherent in all science and it arose specifically because of evolution and the desire to stifle or even eliminate dissent, that's the only reason it's there nobody ever cared for such a clause until evolution developed into a fanatical ideology, nothing "noble" about it at all.
What's wrong with stifling and eliminate pseudo-science? You want to address deep epistemological challenges in science, that's the domain of philosophy. It never bothered philosophers when it's pointed out to them that they are not doing science, it has only ever bothered pseudo-scientists.
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? 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.

Post Reply