Views On Science?

[Benedictus]

I'm curious to know what this small portion of the Catholic population thinks about science, both in general and especially when it comes to explanations of our origins (Big Bang and evolutionary theory). While being religious and into science are not mutually exclusive by any means, it seems the general trend is the more scientifically-minded people are, the less religious they tend to become, or at least the more likely they are to gravitate to deism rather than theism. 

I do know plenty of people of various denominations who are scientists and seem to have no problem keeping their faith, however.  

So...any scientists among you? Any science enthusiasts?  

Science, in the widest sense, is of obvious importance. Most aspects of our lives are influenced through the developments in science and other academic areas. Science is a tool kit of methods that are good at being used to find out how certain aspects of the natural world work and this can be used to our advantage. However, science is neutral in terms of how that information is explored, developed and applied. Science, at least in its hard sense, doesn't really deal with 'why' or the matters of ethics, philosophy, art, culture and morals. The matters that, at least I would say, deal with our personal sense of personhood and humanity (the fun and diverse aspects) are mostly outside the scope of the hard sciences. I see no conflict between scientific findings and the pursuit of a religion. That's not to say there won't be disagreements on how things are conducted, used and applied

There are plenty of people involved with religion that have had, or do have, science careers. The outgoing head of the Episcopal Church comes to mind; she was a marine biologist. It seems to me, at least in the past, theology and science were done by the same people in many instances. As areas have become more advanced and technical this naturally seperated out into many specific and technical specialisms.

The problem between Science and Religion seems largely an issue for fundamentalists and this has been going on, at least in its current clothes, since the reactionary panic after the enlightenment. There are other factors and issues having an impact too. But I think if you try to make scientific consensus bend to certain beliefs (whilst ignoring, denying or distorting those that don't match up) then there's a problem brewing and such a religious movement isn't sustainable in the long term. But I also think some nonreligious people, and a collection of people somewhere inbetween, can be drawn to engage in shadow boxing around false contructs and straw men. There are often skewed and distorted ideas expressed about the views people with mainstream religious beliefs are supposed to hold.

p.s I worked in the realms of Psychology before I entered the Jesuits

 

[Gabriela]

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. 

This is an excellent case illustrating why I don't think there's such a thing as "social science". Or if there is, it covers very, VERY few things. In social matters, you just don't have the law-like regularities that science needs to be really informative.

 

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

Seen this?

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

Well, I don't know that it's hopeless. But it isn't in the method itself, as you say. It's in the people who use it. If we can eliminate sin and selfishness and the ever-growing desire to control everything, maybe we could separate the good from the bad in science...

Maybe?

 

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. 

You should feel totally free to deny that it's science. The more of us do that, the better social studies will be, IMO.

 

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. 

Food and drug science is the worst. I can understand those people are in an especially difficult position, because they're constantly under pressure to make real-world, practical, life-altering decisions based upon very insufficient evidence. But that just indicates a systemic problem. We're so eager for fast solutions and constant "improvement" that we're negligent about the risks.

I could bash the FDA all day. But I'll refrain.

 

p.s I worked in the realms of Psychology before I entered the Jesuits

Wait. You're a Jesuit? Since when?

[NadaTeTurbe]

 

You should feel totally free to deny that it's science. The more of us do that, the better social studies will be, IMO.

Last year, I had to study linguistic (not my choice, I hated it), and we spend at least 4 hours studying why linguistic is a science, and why it is a very serious, very rigorous science, and it felt like self-justification, like "look at us, we're serious, we're a SCIENCE." 

[Benedictus]

Wait. You're a Jesuit? Since when?

I'm just into my second year as a novice now. I'll hopefully take my first vows next September

[Gabriela]

Last year, I had to study linguistic (not my choice, I hated it), and we spend at least 4 hours studying why linguistic is a science, and why it is a very serious, very rigorous science, and it felt like self-justification, like "look at us, we're serious, we're a SCIENCE." 

Exactly. This is how things are in my discipline. If you dare assert that my field is not scientific, people jump all over you. As I see it, the root of this is science's victory in the public "epistemological legitimacy" war. Science-enthusiasts have managed to convince most people that, if it's not scientific knowledge, it's not valid knowledge (or really, knowledge at all). So in response, everyone tries to slap the label "science" on themselves, so they can be perceived as legitimate. But all that does is cheapen the term "science" and, ultimately, empty it of all meaning. "Hard science" and "soft science" are just the middle points along that path.

I think we ought to cut this croutons out and go straight to the root of the problem: Scientific knowledge is not the only legitimate form of knowledge. Period. Done. Now stop calling your field "scientific", cuz it ain't. Even if I weren't a Popperian, I could always tell who's doing real science and who's not just by looking at how defensive and insecure they are when they claim they're doing science. If you have to make an argument that you're doing it, then you're probably not.

Worst of all in this, though, is that funding is heavily dependent upon who's perceived as "scientific" and who's not. That only makes people fight harder for their empty label—and makes me feel so sorry for them that I half excuse them doing it.

But only half.  

:sigh:

[Archaeology cat]

Archaeology is weird because there's the scientificc side, with chemical analysis of the artefacts and radiocarbon dating and such, and the social studies side, which I focused on. If it were a hard science, I'd have a BS & MS, not BA & MA  

[dominicansoul]

my experience with science ended in high school when me and my best friend at the time, Jesse, caused a minor explosion during a simple experiment.  We had to use the eyeball washer and everything!

 

He was an honor student receiving nothing but A's until he made me his lab partner....I think he still hasn't forgotten I ruined his perfect grades...

[xSilverPhinx]

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. 

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)
 

Cool. There was once this teacher I had in prep school who was scared that CERN would create a black hole that would eat up the entire Earth, I knew that was nonsense, though. 

I'm a little disappointed about the small black hole, though neutrinos that travel back in time from the future are equally interesting. . 

Edited November 5, 2015 by xSilverPhinx

[Credo in Deum]

This video best describes my position.  Love Archbishop Fulton Sheen.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Credo in Deum

[xSilverPhinx]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Salem_Hypothesis 

[AveMariaPurissima]

I think science is important -- it's a way of studying and learning about the world around us that God created.  Ultimately it should lead us back to Him!

Re: evolution and related issues, I think this site has a lot of insightful information: http://www.thomisticevolution.org/

St. Albert the Great, pray for us!!

 

[SaintOfVirtue]

I'm a little disappointed about the small black hole, though neutrinos that travel back in time from the future are equally interesting. . 

I wouldn't be too disappointed as there's plenty of real accomplishments that are even more mind blowing. For example: quantum entangled crystals able to transmit data faster than the speed of light, or nasa's mirror project which demonstrated how a large mirror (to large to survive the ride to space) for orbiting telescopes could be ground to dust and reassembled in space using lasers.

[xSilverPhinx]

I wouldn't be too disappointed as there's plenty of real accomplishments that are even more mind blowing. For example: quantum entangled crystals able to transmit data faster than the speed of light, or nasa's mirror project which demonstrated how a large mirror (to large to survive the ride to space) for orbiting telescopes could be ground to dust and reassembled in space using lasers.

I have heard of this "spookiness at a distance", this universe can be so bizarre it truly is mind blowing. As for the mirror, I like seeing such examples of human ingenuity overcoming practical problems. 

[Guest]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Salem_Hypothesis 

He doesn't support creationism. What are you talking about?

[xSilverPhinx]

He doesn't support creationism. What are you talking about?

The Salem Hypothesis is about how engineers are more likely to support creationism or intelligent design. I was reminded of it. 

Just one one of those "funny" coincidences in the world.