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]

advocating that the universe was created by an intelligence is not to deny science

But it's not doing science.

Why not? if scientific investigations lead me to the conclusion that the universe was created, how is that not - in some way - "doing" science?

God (an intelligent agency not subject to laws) gave rise to the universe

How would you expect a scientist (cosmologist or physicist) to respond to a claim like this?

That all depends upon who the scientists or cosmologist are (I suspect the late John Barrow to pick one example, would have been completely unfazed) but in this forum I'd expect insults, innuendo and disparaging remarks about me being an anti-vaxxer and so on.

[Jose Fly]

Whether I do or do not isn't the issue, you may want to make it the issue but it isn't, this isn't about me - remember? must we go over all that again?

LOL...I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about your belief that science should include non-natural explanations. If you don't have any examples of what you're talking about, I'll let that speak for itself.

I simply do not and have not given my consent for the AAAS to redefine the term "science".

Well, I seriously doubt there's a single scientist that's ever existed who is at all interested in your consent.

The definition is in the public domain, it has been established over centuries in thousands of universities and books printed in hundreds of languages across the world.

Since my childhood I've read science books, the definition and emphasis on knowledge has been an integral theme it has defined science for me and millions of people, that the AAAS with their fretting about evolution want to make up their own definition matters not, the definition is what it was when I was a child and I do not need the AAAS or you to impose your "modern" definition upon me, thankfully we do not live - yet - in an Orwellian 1984 society.

You can believe that all you like, but it's not like AAAS is the only scientific entity that's described science that way. Science has operated according to methodological naturalism since....well...since there's been science. If you disagree, then show an example of science that includes non-natural explanations.

Again, why must you write "Maybe you should go to the next scientific conference near you and give a presentation"? is that your argument? is that how a trained, intelligent scientist argues his case? I guess it is, personal attack and innuendo is the norm here it seems.

LOL...you sure do have thin skin. FYI, that was a serious statement. If you really think me and my colleagues across the world have been doing our jobs wrong by operating according to methodological naturalism, then why not present that to a gathering of actual scientists? Abandoning methodological naturalism would be perhaps the biggest paradigm shift in the history of science, so I would think you'd be quite eager to get started making your case.

But if you want to restrict it to anonymous postings on an obscure religious message board, that's your choice.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Whether I do or do not isn't the issue, you may want to make it the issue but it isn't, this isn't about me - remember? must we go over all that again?

LOL...I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about your belief that science should include non-natural explanations. If you don't have any examples of what you're talking about, I'll let that speak for itself.

I simply do not and have not given my consent for the AAAS to redefine the term "science".

Well, I seriously doubt there's a single scientist that's ever existed who is at all interested in your consent.

The definition is in the public domain, it has been established over centuries in thousands of universities and books printed in hundreds of languages across the world.

Since my childhood I've read science books, the definition and emphasis on knowledge has been an integral theme it has defined science for me and millions of people, that the AAAS with their fretting about evolution want to make up their own definition matters not, the definition is what it was when I was a child and I do not need the AAAS or you to impose your "modern" definition upon me, thankfully we do not live - yet - in an Orwellian 1984 society.

You can believe that all you like, but it's not like AAAS is the only scientific entity that's described science that way. Science has operated according to methodological naturalism since....well...since there's been science. If you disagree, then show an example of science that includes non-natural explanations.

Again, why must you write "Maybe you should go to the next scientific conference near you and give a presentation"? is that your argument? is that how a trained, intelligent scientist argues his case? I guess it is, personal attack and innuendo is the norm here it seems.

LOL...you sure do have thin skin. FYI, that was a serious statement. If you really think me and my colleagues across the world have been doing our jobs wrong by operating according to methodological naturalism, then why not present that to a gathering of actual scientists? Abandoning methodological naturalism would be perhaps the biggest paradigm shift in the history of science, so I would think you'd be quite eager to get started making your case.

But if you want to restrict it to anonymous postings on an obscure religious message board, that's your choice.

Jose - stick to the current theme which is the definition of science as established through precedent over centuries and thousands of universities and books across the globe has not been that espoused by the AAAS in the letter you shared, it has not, IT HAS NOT this is not even a controversial claim.

It has never included the intellectually specious clause "seeks natural explanations" never ever have I seen that in all my years!

I know enough about science and history and astronomy, particularly western European (which pretty much embodies the scientific revolution) to know what the definition of science is.

[Jose Fly]

Jose - stick to the current theme which is the definition of science as established through precedent over centuries and thousands of universities and books across the globe has not been that espoused by the AAAS in the letter you shared, it has not, IT HAS NOT this is not even a controversial claim.

It has never included the intellectual specious clause "seek natural explanations" never ever have I seen that in all my years!

I know enough about science and history and astronomy, particularly western European (which pretty much embodies the scientific revolution) to know what the definition of science is.

If you want to argue via dictionary, I'm not really interested. Science has operated according to methodological naturalism since there's been science, and no dictionary can change that. If you want science to change and operate under some other framework, then state what that framework is and give an example of how it would work.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Jose - stick to the current theme which is the definition of science as established through precedent over centuries and thousands of universities and books across the globe has not been that espoused by the AAAS in the letter you shared, it has not, IT HAS NOT this is not even a controversial claim.

It has never included the intellectual specious clause "seek natural explanations" never ever have I seen that in all my years!

I know enough about science and history and astronomy, particularly western European (which pretty much embodies the scientific revolution) to know what the definition of science is.

If you want to argue via dictionary, I'm not really interested. Science has operated according to methodological naturalism since there's been science, and no dictionary can change that. If you want science to change and operate under some other framework, then state what that framework is and give an example of how it would work.

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.

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.

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.

[brunumb]

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.

You've got a subtle equivocation going on here. Christianity is in conflict with science, but that doesn't keep Christians from being able to to do science. The conclusions drawn using the methods of Christianity aren't based on experimental evidence, so those conclusions are incompatible with science. If Christian methods routinely got the same answers as scientific ones, then that might even itself pose an interesting scientific question, but they don't.

On the other hand, Christians aren't required to use Christian methods of investigation for everything and when they can use scientific methods instead, they can be scientists. Just because someone is wrong about one thing or even many things, they don't have to be wrong about everything.

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").

This is a false dichotomy. Just because one denies some science, one doesn't necessarily deny all science. There's certainly the angle that if a person can't or won't properly evaluate evidence in one area, it renders suspect the idea that they can or will in others, but the literally dozens of Christian scientists demonstrate that it's at least possible to cognitively divide the world into at least two arenas, one that relies on experimental evidence and one that doesn't.

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.

And it's still possible for you to use the scientific method to answer other questions about reality. I agree.

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.

Except for science-deniers like creationists and antivaxers always getting the wrong answers, but insisting that they're right, anyway. That's one reason right there.

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

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

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.

Your accusation of a personal insult appears to be unfounded as far as I am concerned. All I see is someone playing the victim card in the place of actually presenting any refutation. By the way, even disguised profanity is not accepted here.

[Miles]

Is science starting to misrepresent itself?

No, although there are those such as creationists who, unable to make a convincing case for their claim, are forced to denigrate science; as if this would lend credence to creationism. The False Dilemma fallacy, and a tactic as sad as creationism itself.


.

[DrNoGods]

[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. 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. 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.

[Jose Fly]

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.

[Jose Fly]