Views On Science?

[xSilverPhinx]

I voted that science is an important human endeavor. I'm not a scientist, though; I'm an English major!

The discussion about evolution and religion reminds me of an interesting book that I read for a class: Finding Darwin's God, by the biologist Kenneth R. Miller. Miller (who I believe is Catholic) tries to reconcile evolution and theism, and he deals with topics like YEC and intelligent design. Even if you don't agree with his conclusions, it's still a thought-provoking read.

Yes, Ken Miller is a Catholic and is a prominent voice in the anti-YEC and intelligent design debate. I haven't read that book, however, added to my reading list.    

[xSilverPhinx]

Should have said I'm a former archaeologist  My undergrad was Near Eastern & Classical archaeology, and I have my MA in Egyptology. My field work was all in the US, though (Big Sandy period settlement in KY, then CRM work in FL). Bad knees have stopped me doing fieldwork. Now I teach my kids about it. Actually, I was doing the religion lesson with my 5-year-old recently and wasn't specific enough in asking her who the first humans were, and she answered "Homo Erectus." Not bad for 5.  She'd overheard part of her big brother's lesson but not all of it. 

Science, I said science again!

Egyptology! That's amesome. 

One event that left a lasting impression on me was when I entered a burial chamber in the Valley of the Kings. The feeling is difficult to put into words, it's almost like being transported back in time, seeing the paint still on the wall...

I would like to go back again but now with all the issues plaguing the Islamic world I don't think I'll ever be able to.   

Smart 5-year-old! They're like sponges at that age. My 6-year-old niece seems to pick up on and remember everything that's both relevant and non relevant in conversations.  

[Gabriela]

That hasn't been my experience working around scientists, going as far as thinking the method is inerrant. The best we have, yes, but not inerrant. just the other day I attended a seminar held by neuroscientists in which they brought up the subject of the perils of human biases in scientific analyses.

On theories, Ok, I stand corrected. However, they aren't merely hypotheses because they explain a broader set of phenomena, whereas an hypothesis is narrower. A hypothesis is an explanation which can be tested and a theory has predictive power and can be falsifiable.

Of course scientists discuss methodological and other errors in science. But when you ask them (not all of them, of course) about, say, the safety of genetically engineered foods, they get as political and errant as anyone else. The truth is that the research as it stands tells us very little about the (long-term) safety of genetically engineered foods, but since "there's no evidence of harm", most scientists will tell you they're fine.

No evidence does not mean they're safe. It just means there's no evidence.

That kind of fallacy is hands-down the most common one, and it comes from scientists (and others) wanting to say we know when we don't. That's the kind of arrogance I'm referring to. There's nothing shameful in saying "scientists don't know that yet", and very often they're willing to do that, but when they've got some kind of other interest in an issue (genetically engineered foods are a product of science, after all, so they wouldn't want to claim there's a risk of them being harmful), they too often want to claim they do know when, in fact, there's very little known as yet.

Yes, theories explain broad sets of phenomena, and hypotheses are more narrow. But a hypothesis isn't an explanation, but a prediction about a relationship that is then tested. A theory can also be tested. Typically, hypotheses that stand up to testing are rolled into theories (or, at least, into models, which often become theories). Hence my mention that theories are more similar to hypotheses than they are to facts. Facts really play the same role in both hypotheses and theories. Theories are like a bunch of verified hypotheses woven together into a bigger explanation that accords with the facts.

I don't mean to be nitpicky, but you'd be amazed how often these things are misconstrued in my department, so I'm kind of a Nazi about them.  

[dUSt]

 

[Archaeology cat]

Egyptology! That's amesome. 

One event that left a lasting impression on me was when I entered a burial chamber in the Valley of the Kings. The feeling is difficult to put into words, it's almost like being transported back in time, seeing the paint still on the wall...

I would like to go back again but now with all the issues plaguing the Islamic world I don't think I'll ever be able to.   

Smart 5-year-old! They're like sponges at that age. My 6-year-old niece seems to pick up on and remember everything that's both relevant and non relevant in conversations.  

In one of my undergrad classes looking at Near Eastern archaeology (shortly after 9/11), probably half the slides we were shown were of things that had just been destroyed or stolen. That number is higher now. Egypt has its own issues now, too. So I can't see going any time soon since I'm not in the field now. 

[chrysostom]

Science is an important human endeavour indeed.

I'm an archaeologist, so social science (I didn't do the hard science part with radiocarbon dating, etc). I believe God gave us ways of observing our world and universe through science. So yeah, I trust the radiocarbon dating (note - that isn't just C-14 dating; second note - even dendrochronology has the world older than 6,000 years). I'm fine with theistic evolution, as well. The Big Bang was postulated by a Catholic, and genetics was also pioneered by a Catholic. 

When I was younger and starting out studying archaeology, my grandmother cautioned me that I'd lose my religion. I never have, and in fact the wonders of science deepen my faith. From her perspective, though, maybe I did since I'm no longer Baptist. I tended to get in trouble as a Baptist who didn't hold to YEC. 

I also used to be Baptist and was taught YEC growing up.  I loved reading about astronomy as a kid, too.  Eventually I couldn't get over the fact that according to YEC, anything we see in the sky over a given amount of light years away is essentially "fake".

[SaintOfVirtue]

I have no problem with science as a method, but it's often treated like an idol. Scientists can be extremely arrogant, and not just with regard to religion, but with regard to science itself. They think that since the method "meets the highest epistemological standard" known today, the method is inerrant. Maybe the method is (I doubt it), but the people who use the method are not. I would like to see much more humility in the interpretation of scientific data than we presently do.

 

Agreed, science requires its own measure of 'faith'.  Faith that the data was collected correctly, interpreted correctly, deductions based on the interpretations were made correctly, etc. 

That's pretty cool! 

Is it true that you can create a mini black hole that soon disintegrates itself in a particle accelerator? 

No.  I think what you are referring to is actually an anti-neutrino which, mathematically speaking, when created by nuclear interactions travels back in time from the future to combine with a neutrino.  There's actually no real proof that this happens or that anti-neutrinos even exist (for all we know an anti-neutrino might actually be a backwards neutrino or other lepton particle), it's just the way we are able to interpret the data based on current methods, tools, and models.  So in other words it takes 'faith' to believe in anti-neutrinos.

A 'small black-hole' would be impossible to detect in a particle accelerator because we would literally be smashing two atoms into a density that would be invisible to even the most sensitive instrument we possess.  If we were to take the earth and moon and all they contain and compress them to form a black-hole we'd be left with an object about half the size of a marble.  There's no way we'd be able to tell whether we compressed two atoms to the density of a black-hole... Unless we need funding.  In that case we definitely can make small black-holes destroy themselves.


(DISCLAIMER: for the physicists out there I'm very much aware that this explanation probably made you throw up in your mouth a little but I'm writing a SIMPLE explanation not a PhD dissertation)
 

[chrysostom]

No.  I think what you are referring to is actually an anti-neutrino which, mathematically speaking, when created by nuclear interactions travels back in time from the future to combine with a neutrino.  There's actually no real proof that this happens or that anti-neutrinos even exist (for all we know an anti-neutrino might actually be a backwards neutrino or other lepton particle), it's just the way we are able to interpret the data based on current methods, tools, and models.  So in other words it takes 'faith' to believe in anti-neutrinos.  

I know next to nothing about physics, but what you said made me think of Feynman diagrams.  Am I totally off base here?

There's no way we'd be able to tell whether we compressed two atoms to the density of a black-hole... Unless we need funding.  In that case we definitely can make small black-holes destroy themselves.

HAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Luigi]

I view science as one way of analyzing the world around us, in an effort to understand that world, but it's certainly not the only way. 

I agree with Gabriela that some scientists overdo it. In the 70's scientists proclaimed that we were on the verge of a new Ice Age. Now they're proclaiming that we're on the verge of a meltdown. Except that NASA says we're not really melting (Antarctica is making ice faster than ice is melting). Except that sea levels are rising, but they don't know why. Put it all together, and what they're really saying is, "We don't know what on Earth is going on." 

Basically, what I'm talking about is that some scientists generalize too broadly from too little evidence, or from too narrow a set of factors. It's easier to do that in the soft sciences, but it goes on in all sciences. In terms of the soft sciences, a couple of weeks ago I sat through six hours of analysis of different generations - characteristics of the Traditionals, the Baby Boomers, The Millennials, Gen X, and so forth - with suggestions of how they think, what they expect, and how they can all get along in the workplace. The (very well-informed) presenter never mentioned gender, birth order (birth order studies are almost always limited to one, two, or three children anyway - personally, I'm from a family of 11 so those studies are pretty worthless IMO), alcoholism in the family, religion, region of origin, personality types, level of education, socio-economic status, learning styles, or any of the myriad of other factors that constitute a human being. I mean, it was fun stuff, but I don't think it was very accurate. 

And then there's the problem of the media's reporting of science - another subject altogether.

 

Personally, sometimes I'd rather just watch in wonder as a star falls rather than analyze its composition and trajectory. 

 

[SaintOfVirtue]

Sure could use feynman diagrams, in fact here's one:

Edited November 4, 2015 by SaintOfVirtue

[Guest]

[little2add]

Science can be just as useful as it is harmful.  Take the atomic bomb for example or other weapons of mass destruction.  However the advancements in medical field are truly miraculous and have benefited mankind greatly.

Science is a Pandora’s box, if you will and  separating the good from the bad is almost hopeless.

[Archaeology cat]

Science is an important human endeavour indeed.

I also used to be Baptist and was taught YEC growing up.  I loved reading about astronomy as a kid, too.  Eventually I couldn't get over the fact that according to YEC, anything we see in the sky over a given amount of light years away is essentially "fake".

Yep

[NadaTeTurbe]

I always struggled with the idea that social science are... well, science. I'm studying history and archaelogy, and I've never feel like I'm a future scientist or that I'm taught scientific methodology. Rigorous ? Yes. Scientific ? Not really. 

[CatherineM]

No evidence Yet. My husband takes medicine for his schizophrenia that's fairly toxic. He's been told that if they'd known the side effects, it would never have been approved for use.