Ship of Fools: Denial of Science

Thread: Denial of Science Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023944

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Why is it that deniers of everything scientific can a) get elected to the Federal Government of the USA, and b) when elected, get a seat on the House Science, Space and Technology committee?

I mean, it isn't just Todd Akin, with his strange view of female biology, who is on this committee. It is also Paul Broun of Georgia:

quote:
All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior. You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don’t believe that the Earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says.

and several other Republican representatives.

Is the country going to be reduced to a shivering wreckage of decayed infrastructure and book-burning, or are there enough voters with even a fraction of a clue who could make a difference on this?

I write, not because I am a voter in the US, but because I live in a country that will be severely impacted if the Christian Right takes over down there...

and because our own government has been infected with the "knowledge-is-dangerous" bug by osmosis from the idiot factor south of the border.

Posted by malik3000 (# 11437) on :

This is the real U.S. exceptionalism.

[ 10. October 2012, 23:53: Message edited by: malik3000 ]

Posted by Porridge (# 15405) on :

I posted about the same idjit on the Another Damn Fool Republican thread in Hell a few days back.

My theory is that the current political drip-torture of "Government's no good, government programs are no good, etc." has succeeded in making many people believe that their schools are not only terrible, but that they're also all involved in some Giant Hidden Conspiracy Against Real American Values (TM).

We're all back trying the Scopes Monkey thing all over again. Schools (run by the Big Bad Government) teach this science stuff. Science stuff ain't in the Only Book Worth Reading -- The Bible. Worse, We Don't Unnerstand Science Stuff, so it's prolly some Evil Commie Pinko Trick. (It Wuz Them Roosians Who Sent Up that Spootnik thing, y'know, and Them Guys is Commies. Y'can't trust Commies.)

We orta Read The Bible Instead, 'cos We Do Unnerstand That. It's All Right There in Black & White.

It's hard to overestimate the depth of the anti-intellectual streak in the general American populace. Our national devotion to conformity and a sort of cultural orthodoxy coupled with mistrust of government is strangling our ability to innovate, govern, regulate, or create in intellectual and artistic fields.

But hey: we're brilliant at developing complicated-but-sleazy financial instruments.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Another Republican committee member, Dana Rohrabacher, suggested that a possible solution to climate change would be to cut down the rain forests! Of course, one would have though Rep. Rohrabacher's support of the Taliban would have rendered him electorally vulnerable, but if that's not going to sink him I wouldn't expect scientific illiteracy to do so.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

See if you can discuss this without turning the thread into a DH. The consequences of scientific illiteracy in elected representatives is a reasonable Purg thread, provided you stay clear of biblical inerrancy and evolution.

Barnabas62
Purgatory Host

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

ETA: Ack! Too Dead Horse there.

[ 11. October 2012, 00:59: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]

Posted by Mary EW G (# 17015) on :

What I like was the guy who stated that winds are natures way of cooling the earth. Win turbines slow them down, thus creating global warming.

Posted by Squirrel (# 3040) on :

Those Republican politicos say outrageous, anti-scientific crap for a reason- millions of Americans believe it. It's not just Evolution, but their attitude towards Science in general that annoys me about so many of my fellow Americans. They want simple answers to complex issues, and respond to anyone who thumps a Bible, waives a flag and talks about returning to "true" values. Scientists and other intellectuals tell us that the real world is complex, and that some of the truisms which we held dear no longer work for us. Rather than face that, millions of Americans respond to the anti-intellectual rants of demagogues.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

There is little understanding of science and a real rejection of science in the general public.

Where I live has the lowest vaccination rate in the country, neither do we have fluoridated water. This is not based on a consideration of evidence and competing theories, but on other things. Some have a belief that there should be a 'natural' approach to the scientific things they do not like. This extends to health approaches as well. But it is not even possible to generalise about the reasons, but science takes a back seat.

We have a whole pseudo-pharmaceutical industry that can point to coincidental examples for its proof, rather than a rigorous study. There are vanishingly small scientifically literate politicians. I remember an environment minister who seemed to equate environmental care with love of furry animals.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
There is little understanding of science and a real rejection of science in the general public.

Where I live has the lowest vaccination rate in the country, neither do we have fluoridated water. This is not based on a consideration of evidence and competing theories, but on other things. Some have a belief that there should be a 'natural' approach to the scientific things they do not like. This extends to health approaches as well. But it is not even possible to generalise about the reasons, but science takes a back seat.

We have a whole pseudo-pharmaceutical industry that can point to coincidental examples for its proof, rather than a rigorous study. There are vanishingly small scientifically literate politicians. I remember an environment minister who seemed to equate environmental care with love of furry animals.

Careful, LK.

Exposing YECs is fine, and there might well be statistical evidence that they are in fact more heavily represented amongst the voters for, and members of, conservative parties such as Republicans in the US, Conservatives in the UK and the Coalition in Oz.

However, when you move on to that territory inhabited by obscurantist radicals such as New Agers, the lunatic fringe of the Green movement, and the DIY health experts who are enthusiastic about natural remedies and paranoid about the medical establishment, you are dealing with people who wouldn’t vote conservative in a fit.

The neat equation of conservative = anti-science then no longer obtains.

This is very threatening to the authoritarian personality, the defining characteristic of which is intolerance of ambiguity.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The neat equation of conservative = anti-science then no longer obtains.

It was never my equation.

Margaret Thatcher is (IMO) a prime example of a disappointing scientifically literate politician.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Leaving politicians aside (perhaps in a locked community)...

I think a lot of it is wanting certainty. Science is constantly changing. But if you have a Foundational Belief System (the Bible is a user's manual from God; tradition, scripture, and reason; the primacy of a particular person/institution, spiritual or not; my culture is the best; history happened This Way; my significant other loves me and will always be in my life; these scientific principles are absolute, etc.), then you have something solid to stand on, to hold onto.

If you're someone who depends on certainty, consciously or not, you're apt to get unnerved and upset if someone tries to fracture or remove that certainty.

People in involuntary freefall tend to be very unhappy about it.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

What do people think of what Neil Tyson says on the subject:

Short clip where Neil Tyson talks about who wants to support science more, Republicans or Democrats.

In short he seems to suggest that because much of Americas wealth depends on scientific research and development and Republicans hate being poor in the end science will always get backed by them.

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

(Oh no... not again!!! [Help]

)

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The neat equation of conservative = anti-science then no longer obtains.
It was never my equation.

Margaret Thatcher is (IMO) a prime example of a disappointing scientifically literate politician.

And a good example that conservatives don't have to be anti-science. She understood the ideas behind both global warming and the "hole in the ozone layer" and was one of the main proponents of the treaties that banned fluorocarbons (something that might have led the British press to get the two problems confused for about a decade). Not everything she did was bad.

Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on :

And, as KC points out, liberals aren't necessary pro-science. While I know a few Christian anti-vaccinationists, the most strident anti-vaxxers I know are the crunchy-granola-hippie-peace-freak-feminist mamas (my natural peers, in other words) who profess no ties to organized religion and would vote the straight left-wing ticket on most issues (here in Canada at least).

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

There is, of course, Bagheot's famous quote

quote:
A constitutional statesman is in general a man of common opinions and uncommon abilities.

Which is quite revealing in this context. Another way of looking at it is that any politician is likely to be keenly aware about the impact of his publicly declared views on his own voting constituency. If denial of particular scientific findings is a vote winner, don't be surprised if politicians go for it.

And underneath that is the more profound question. if politicians these days tend more to be opinion followers, who are the real opinion formers? Who is influencing "common opinions"? Particularly if, in some societies at least, these seem to be science-denying.

Without getting too paranoid about it, there is something to be said for identifying politicians - at least some politicians in some countries - as a secondary source of science denial. Who or what are the first causes of science denial, and who stands to gain thereby?

It's fair to recognise either stupidity or a lack of integrity in politicians re scientific findings, but clearly there are other players involved.

[ 11. October 2012, 10:09: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by Flossymole (# 17339) on :

Interesting and depressing. Are the media the real opinion formers? I find TV programmes about science, though more numerous than they used to be, shallow and irritatingly subject to 'media values' in the way of banal background music, time-consuming and unnecessary artistic camera work and jolly human interest whether relevant or not.
Newspapers aren't much better, even The Grauniad, Independent and Observer which claim to be interested. They are all at they're most underhand when quoting statistics. Is it because media people have studied 'media studies' and mostly gave up science at age 16?(I'm talking about the UK here).
And now for a bit of jolly human interest -
Isn't it amusing that the so-called Big Bang Theory was propounded (on purely mathematical and observational grounds) by Georges Lemaître, astrophysicist and priest and was viewed as 'distasteful' by more conventional colleagues who didn't like the implications of a point of creation?

quote:
All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell.

What an intensely stupid man this Paul Broun must be.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Not everything she did was bad.

Ken, I think you may have just written the most perfect epitaph for The Lady!

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Not everything she did was bad.
Ken, I think you may have just written the most perfect epitaph for The Lady!

It can go on her tombstone. Alongside "Licenced for Dancing".

Posted by Erroneous Monk (# 10858) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Why is it that deniers of everything scientific can a) get elected to the Federal Government of the USA, and b) when elected, get a seat on the House Science, Space and Technology committee?

Denying science isn't restricted to the US. There are UK MPs who believe that homeopathy is more effective than placebo. And that hacks me off because it leads to the misuse of public money.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

It would be interesting, but probably futile, to say to such people: 'The scientific method you deride was also used to design your car and the bridges you drive over. Given the obvious universal mendacity of the scientific community, why do you trust the former not to explode and the latter not to collapse?'

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
It would be interesting, but probably futile, to say to such people: 'The scientific method you deride was also used to design your car and the bridges you drive over...

It might be interesting, but it would be false. Engineering may rely on knowledge garnered via the scientific method, but the approaches of engineers to problem-solving are very different.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by tclune:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
It would be interesting, but probably futile, to say to such people: 'The scientific method you deride was also used to design your car and the bridges you drive over...
It might be interesting, but it would be false. Engineering may rely on knowledge garnered via the scientific method, but the approaches of engineers to problem-solving are very different.

--Tom Clune

I see your point - poorly worded on my part. What about something like: 'engineers working on your car and the bridge you drove over used knowledge gained by the scientific method to do so' ?

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

Works for me.

--Tom Clune

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

I am no supporter of the "Christian right", and many of their utterances I regard as claptrap, but I would like to point out that there is a significant difference between "denial of science" and "denial of scientism". It's just such a pity that some people just cannot (or, more likely, will not) acknowledge this distinction.

Perhaps if there was a more intellectually honest approach to science, and its role in our lives and thinking, then we might find less of a reaction from at least some on the Religious Right. After all, fundamentalism breeds fundamentalism.

Posted by Freddy (# 365) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Where I live has the lowest vaccination rate in the country, neither do we have fluoridated water. This is not based on a consideration of evidence and competing theories, but on other things. Some have a belief that there should be a 'natural' approach to the scientific things they do not like. This extends to health approaches as well. But it is not even possible to generalise about the reasons, but science takes a back seat.

We have a whole pseudo-pharmaceutical industry that can point to coincidental examples for its proof, rather than a rigorous study.

You must live in my town. Homeopathy?

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
<snip> there is a significant difference between "denial of science" and "denial of scientism". It's just such a pity that some people just cannot (or, more likely, will not) acknowledge this distinction.

EtymologicalEvangelical - what are you defining as scientism here?

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

I can't speak for EE, but I would define scientism as the idea that science provides the only worthwhile answers to the only worthwhile questions. Science alone will tell you everything you will ever need to know about the world. An insupportable and virtually nonsensical view, to my mind, but nevertheless one that many scientists slip into, often apparently without noticing.

But I'm not sure that when YECcies get onto government science committees, what's happening is a denial of scientism. I think it's a denial of science.

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
It would be interesting, but probably futile, to say to such people: 'The scientific method you deride was also used to design your car and the bridges you drive over. Given the obvious universal mendacity of the scientific community, why do you trust the former not to explode and the latter not to collapse?'

I like to suggest praying the car will start instead of turning the car keys in the ignition. Faith in science and engineering is quickly restored. Sometimes you get a bit of nice tap-dancing as well, like "God promised not to intervene anymore" or "We're not supposed to test God like that."

This segment from Rachel Maddow introduces some of the other luminaries on that House Science Committee. (You get a commercial first, sorry.)

Since many of the anti-science beliefs are overtly derived from religious beliefs, there seems to be a real reluctance to challenge them. If one does, the usual response is that freedom of religion means these absurd views are as valid as any others, and secular society is engaged on a war on religion i.e. they're persecuted while being privileged. [Roll Eyes]

As others have noted, thse views are often bundled with e.g. believing Obama was born in Kenya, the September jobs numbers were cooked, the polls are skewed, etc. I don't think this is a "conservative" thing. I think it just happens that it's conservatives who currently feel society is slipping from their control.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
But I'm not sure that when YECcies get onto government science committees, what's happening is a denial of scientism. I think it's a denial of science.

IME creationists don't consider themselves anti-science. They think that if science was done properly, then it would show that the world was created like it says in Genesis and the fossils all came from the Great Flood.

In some ways, ironically, they are buying into the belief that science has the answers - if you followed science properly, it would turn you into a fundamentalist Christian.

Posted by Lothiriel (# 15561) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Flossymole:
Interesting and depressing. Are the media the real opinion formers? I find TV programmes about science, though more numerous than they used to be, shallow and irritatingly subject to 'media values' in the way of banal background music, time-consuming and unnecessary artistic camera work and jolly human interest whether relevant or not.

I can't comment on whether the media leads or follows in public opinion, but they certainly aren't doing much to raise the bar.

I regularly subject my family and anyone else who will listen to a rant about the dumbing down of TV in North America. As Canadians, we of course get all the American broadcast and cable channels, and we even have a few of our own. Over the years, several cable channels, such as The Learning Channel, A&E (Arts and Entertainment), and the History Channel, began with good quality, reasonably intellectual fare -- documentaries, drama, science, good movies, etc. -- but I guess the market just wasn't there for programs that you need to think about, because all these channels are now dominated by inane and utterly vacuous reality shows. Why learn something or have your horizon broadened when you can watch a junk dealer paw through the detritus of someone's ancient garden shed?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
IME creationists don't consider themselves anti-science. They think that if science was done properly, then it would show that the world was created like it says in Genesis and the fossils all came from the Great Flood.

In some ways, ironically, they are buying into the belief that science has the answers - if you followed science properly, it would turn you into a fundamentalist Christian.

That's one of the reasons I've always found "scientism" to be a fairly amorphous term that essentially means "science that gives results I don't like".

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
In some ways, ironically, they are buying into the belief that science has the answers - if you followed science properly, it would turn you into a fundamentalist Christian.

Oh, absolutely. It's one of the darkest, funniest ironies of the whole theology / science debate - theologians trying to behave and talk like scientists. Raymond Smullyan, in The Tao is Silent, wrote that the real reason he has no respect for astrology is that modern astrologers claim it's a science. He knows how sciences works, and so he knows astrology isn't one. If astrologers said they were doing magic, he'd have more respect for them, because he doesn't know how magic is supposed to work.

(I'm not sure he's being entirely serious. But then again he might be.)

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
There is, of course, Bagheot's famous quote

quote:
A constitutional statesman is in general a man of common opinions and uncommon abilities.
Which is quite revealing in this context. Another way of looking at it is that any politician is likely to be keenly aware about the impact of his publicly declared views on his own voting constituency. If denial of particular scientific findings is a vote winner, don't be surprised if politicians go for it.

And underneath that is the more profound question. if politicians these days tend more to be opinion followers, who are the real opinion formers? Who is influencing "common opinions"? Particularly if, in some societies at least, these seem to be science-denying.

Without getting too paranoid about it, there is something to be said for identifying politicians - at least some politicians in some countries - as a secondary source of science denial. Who or what are the first causes of science denial, and who stands to gain thereby?

It's fair to recognise either stupidity or a lack of integrity in politicians re scientific findings, but clearly there are other players involved.

As much as I like Mr. Tyson, I think this trend may well trump his observations.

Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:

quote:
And that hacks me off because it leads to the misuse of public money.

This.

Posted by Not (# 2166) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk
Denying science isn't restricted to the US. There are UK MPs who believe that homeopathy is more effective than placebo. And that hacks me off because it leads to the misuse of public money.

and one of them has just been appointed health secretary...
[brick wall]

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed...
EtymologicalEvangelical - what are you defining as scientism here?

The exaltation of the empirical scientific method as the only reliable means of arriving at truth, which, of course, implies an assumption that all data must be interpreted in the light of philosophical naturalism. Also it is the tendency to put one's faith in the utterances of scientists - a form of faith as irrational as many forms of religious faith, given that we know scientific theories are subject to change and revision. Such utterances overreach into areas outside the scope of science, such as morality, for example. And, of course, the tendency to confuse scientific theory and scientific fact, the latter being persistently promoted ad nauseam as the status of speculation that, by its very nature, lies outside the scope of genuine scientific verification.

All very tiresome.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed...
EtymologicalEvangelical - what are you defining as scientism here?
The exaltation of the empirical scientific method as the only reliable means of arriving at truth, which, of course, implies an assumption that all data must be interpreted in the light of philosophical naturalism.

And who does this? And what do you mean by "the empirical scientific method"?

quote:

Also it is the tendency to put one's faith in the utterances of scientists...

Maybe in oiur grandparents time. If we ever suffered from that its long gone.

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed...
EtymologicalEvangelical - what are you defining as scientism here?
The exaltation of the empirical scientific method as the only reliable means of arriving at truth, which, of course, implies an assumption that all data must be interpreted in the light of philosophical naturalism.
And who does this? And what do you mean by "the empirical scientific method"?

quote:

Also it is the tendency to put one's faith in the utterances of scientists...
Maybe in oiur grandparents time. If we ever suffered from that its long gone.

Oh, I definitely have encountered many such. Not within the scientific community, mostly, but among both liberals and conservatives (in different ways).. folks who think that the ONLY valid way to view the world is through (their understanding of ) science. The funny thing is that when you try to explain actual science to many such people, they don't want to listen, because it undermines their view about what science is.

I don't think this is limited to one of the other side of the isle. I think it's a result of piss-poor scientific education in many of our schools, which significantly dumb down science to the point that it fails to convey the actual basic principles. it's taught as a "this is true, memorize this fact, memorize this method and you will know all that is knowable", without much in-depth follow up. We know (from, as it happens, scientific studies) that people naturally tend to belive what they hear first, and any subsequent contradictory information tends to be examined against that initial belief before being accepted or rejected by the brain. sometimes that's instantaneous, particularly when the brain has a lot of information on a subject to compare the new information against, but in some people it's very hard to displace the original info. and many people's first exposure to science is so dumbed down that it is mis-representing information rather than just simplifying it. and this is what sticks with them.

It also doesn't help that many teachers of science in our schools do not have a strong science background themselves. they may have studied a bit of science, but didn't really focus on it (there are places that require a HS teacher of science to have a science degree, but most do not). when you have someone with a somewhat limited understanding of science teaching kids, using textbooks that are FILLED with errors/misrepresentations/overgeneralizations, it's inevitable that their students, if they do not go on to study science at a higher level, have a rather warped idea of what science is. then, depending on their other underlying beliefs about the world, they either reject science altogether, or put their trust entirely in science (which they don't really understand).

clearly this does not apply everywhere to everyone. But I think it's a rather high percentage of folks in the US.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
And, of course, the tendency to confuse scientific theory and scientific fact, the latter being persistently promoted ad nauseam as the status of speculation that, by its very nature, lies outside the scope of genuine scientific verification.

One page in and we've already arrived at "only a theory", a (usually deliberate) attempt to confuse the scientific use of the term with the vernacular use. And what does it mean that "scientific fact . . . lies outside the scope of genuine scientific verification"? You'd think that if a fact lay outside the scope of science (e.g. the Beatles are better than the Stones, or vice versa) it wouldn't rate the descriptor "scientific".

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
And, of course, the tendency to confuse scientific theory and scientific fact, the latter being persistently promoted ad nauseam as the status of speculation that, by its very nature, lies outside the scope of genuine scientific verification.
One page in and we've already arrived at "only a theory", a (usually deliberate) attempt to confuse the scientific use of the term with the vernacular use. And what does it mean that "scientific fact . . . lies outside the scope of genuine scientific verification"? You'd think that if a fact lay outside the scope of science (e.g. the Beatles are better than the Stones, or vice versa) it wouldn't rate the descriptor "scientific".

scientific fact and scientific Theory are not mutually exclusive terms. Fact is something which is observed. Theory is an explanation for what is observed. Law is a precise, usually mathematics description of how a particular phenomenon occurs under very specific conditions.

Something can be all of the above: an observed fact, consistant enough to be a Law, with a Theory about WHY it works that way. Gravity is a good example: there is an obsrved fact.. things fall down. there is a law that describes how strong gravity is under given conditions (how fast the apple falls, for example). and there are several theories describing why the heck the apple falls at a certain rate.

All three are valid. gravity is a fact, and there is both a Law and several theories about it.

Unfortunately, way back in elementary school, when we were first introduced to science in a very over-simplified way, our teachers usually told us that first you have a hypothesis (educated guess) then when there is some proof about it, it becomes a theory, and once it's proven enough, it becomes a law. law is then seen as = proven fact.

A theory never becomes a law when it's "got enough proof". They are two different things.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Flossymole:
And now for a bit of jolly human interest -
Isn't it amusing that the so-called Big Bang Theory was propounded (on purely mathematical and observational grounds) by Georges Lemaître, astrophysicist and priest and was viewed as 'distasteful' by more conventional colleagues who didn't like the implications of a point of creation?

If you want to follow that human interest element then there are a couple of other nice points. One is that Lemaître publically criticised the Pope (which for a Catholic of his generation was a considerable act) when the Pope said that the Big Bang theory implied a point of Creation and hence provided scientific evidence for a Creator. Lemaître stated that the move from the "primordial atom" (his term for the super-dense start of the universe) to a point of creation (let alone a Creator) was to go beyond what science could state.

The alternative theory at the time (until the discovery of the cosmic microwave background made it untenable) was a steady state theory in which the universe is continually 'topped up' by new material produced at an undetectably slow rate. This was very popular with Christian theologians because it fitted their ideas of a God who continuously holds all Creation in being, rather than the Deist Creator who lights the blue touch paper and retires.

As a bonus human interest point. Fred Hoyle, who was a leading proponent of Steady State cosmology coined the term "Big Bang" as a derogatory reference to the theory of Lemaître, it happened to stick. He was also a strident atheist, the Richard Dawkins of his day, and admitted that his dogged adherence to steady state theory (even before the CMB it was in difficulty because the very successful theory of stellar nucleo-synthesis that Hoyle had developed couldn't account for the abundance of helium) was partly because the Big Bang had a start to the universe that implied a Creator (the same mistake the Pope made). The bonus point is that Hoyle and Lemaître were the best of friends.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
scientific fact and scientific Theory are not mutually exclusive terms. Fact is something which is observed. Theory is an explanation for what is observed. Law is a precise, usually mathematics description of how a particular phenomenon occurs under very specific conditions.

Or, as I've always explained it, a scientific law is a summary (usually in mathematical terms - although a statement like "without the application of work, energy flows from a hot body to a cold body" is a law that isn't mathematically expressed) of observations in stated conditions. The associated theory is that under the same conditions you can expect any new observations to fit the law.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
I don't think this is limited to one of the other side of the isle. I think it's a result of piss-poor scientific education in many of our schools, which significantly dumb down science to the point that it fails to convey the actual basic principles. it's taught as a "this is true, memorize this fact, memorize this method and you will know all that is knowable", without much in-depth follow up.

clearly this does not apply everywhere to everyone. But I think it's a rather high percentage of folks in the US.

I think it applies in Oz.

I talked to a few science teachers some years ago on this, and they offered that hardly any secondary school science teachers would know anything of philosophy of science or scientific methods.
For my own A level in 1965-6, an extra-curricular session explained it as a form of naive inductivism.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

In fairness, the latest GCSE science specifications do now include something on the methodology, purpose and limitations of science.

Posted by Flossymole (# 17339) on :

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell

quote:
As a bonus human interest point. Fred Hoyle, who was a leading proponent of Steady State cosmology coined the term "Big Bang" as a derogatory reference to the theory of Lemaître, it happened to stick. He was also a strident atheist, the Richard Dawkins of his day, and admitted that his dogged adherence to steady state theory (even before the CMB it was in difficulty because the very successful theory of stellar nucleo-synthesis that Hoyle had developed couldn't account for the abundance of helium) was partly because the Big Bang had a start to the universe that implied a Creator (the same mistake the Pope made). The bonus point is that Hoyle and Lemaître were the best of friends.

That's better than nice. [Cool]

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Perhaps if there was a more intellectually honest approach to science,

This ranks as one of the most stupid things I've read today. (ETA: if you mean that science isn't being honest; if not, just ignore this.)

If there was anywhere near as much honesty demonstrated by the anti-science fools and liars (see OP link) as among proponents of actual science, there could be a proper discussion.

As it is, public understanding of science and consequently public policy debate are reduced to the level where people telling the truth are all one one side and can't compete because the other side can just say anything they like to convince their idiotic audiences. See OP's link to some mouth-breather US politician.

[ 13. October 2012, 14:07: Message edited by: Clint Boggis ]

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

Clint Boggis -

I think the content of your post rather confirms the suspicion I expressed in what I wrote. Heavy on special pleading, extremely light on evidence and coherent argument.

Good try, though.

It really is not a lot to ask for people to make a distinction between "evidence" and "interpretation of evidence", and to analyse and validate the presuppositions that influence their interpretation. That is something called "intellectual honesty" - something sorely lacking in certain academic quarters.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta
Theory is an explanation for what is observed.

True.

But this is not the definition of theory:

The only possible explanation for what is observed.

Sadly that is the way the term is often used in practice.

There can be a number of different competing explanations for the same phenomena, and therefore it is absurd to assume that only one explanation is valid (and therefore promoted to the status of 'fact'), in the absence of the falsification of its rival(s).

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
There can be a number of different competing explanations for the same phenomena, and therefore it is absurd to assume that only one explanation is valid (and therefore promoted to the status of 'fact'), in the absence of the falsification of its rival(s).

First off, if the explanations are mutually contradictory it would be absurd to assume that more than one is valid.

To take an historical example that's not a Dead Horse, EE's proposed methodology would be incapable of deciding whether Newtonian gravitation or Cartesian vortices or invisible crystal spheres are responsible for the motion of the planets. They all explain the same phenomena, and none of them are falsified, but Newtonian mechanics explain the system better than the other two rivals mentioned and either alternative would be incompatible with a Newtonian system.

To add my own definition of theory to the contention, I'd say it's "the best available explanation that covers all known data", with the caveat that "all known data" is a sizable enough sample to support generalizations.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

There can be a number of different competing explanations for the same phenomena...

Of course. Just like they teach you if you study science. Well, biology anyway.

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta
Theory is an explanation for what is observed.
True.

But this is not the definition of theory:

The only possible explanation for what is observed.

Sadly that is the way the term is often used in practice.

Not in scientific circles nor in any well taught science class.

quote:
There can be a number of different competing explanations for the same phenomena, and therefore it is absurd to assume that only one explanation is valid (and therefore promoted to the status of 'fact'), in the absence of the falsification of its rival(s).

True, but there are also many possible explanations which are not scientific, meaning subject to testing. And saying that one of these is every bit as valid is clearly false. Similarly, there are hypothesis which have significant evidence disproving them, and these are also not scientific theories. In science, a theory is not simply a possible explanation, but rather an explanation with a sizeable set of data which supports it, and none which disproves it. A theory, in science, will never become a "fact", but it CAN be as close to fact as it is possible to be.

Furthermore, there are certain scientific theories which have no comparably supported "rival" theories, as any that may have previously existed have been disproven. In this case it is reasonable to treat that one theory as fact, although it is still possible for new data to disprove it, or else to allow for an alternative theory to be formulated which can equally, with scientific rigor, explain all the existing data.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
There can be a number of different competing explanations for the same phenomena, and therefore it is absurd to assume that only one explanation is valid (and therefore promoted to the status of 'fact'), in the absence of the falsification of its rival(s).

None of the theories may be true.

Falsification of a theory is problematic in that it assumes you can validate the theory of that theory's invalidity.

I think that science progresses in its knowledge, and that the theory you are prepared to work with is the one you treat as true until it becomes hard to hold in the light of the current state of the set of accepted theories.

I like the anecdote that a professor of medicine, in his retiring lecture to his students said
"As I retire I have two confessions to make.
The first is that half of what I have taught you is wrong.
The second is that I don't know which half it is."

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

There can be a number of different competing explanations for the same phenomena...

I think the issue is more to do with failure to recognise different but non-competing explanations.

A religious explanation "the rain was an answer to the farmers' prayer" and a scientific explanation "the rain was caused by a low-pressure system moving in from the North Atlantic" can in principle both be true.

Or are the only things you thank God for those which plainly run contrary to the laws of physics ?

Best wishes,

Russ

Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :

When I did my physics degree we were taught that for any given set of experimental data there is always an INFINITE number of possible explanations. This is very easy to demonstrate mathematically - it's possible to fit an infinite number of polynomial equations to any given set of data points.

I think that scientists themselves have to take a lot of the blame for the denial of science. We haven't been good at acknowledging the limitations of what we do. We haven't been entirely honest in making claims for our science when we've been seeking funding. And in academia we've been unacceptably arrogant about the "value" of science compared to other disciplines.

Now our yards are full of cackling chickens coming home to roost. Should we be surprised?

Posted by Anyuta (# 14692) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:

I think that scientists themselves have to take a lot of the blame for the denial of science. We haven't been good at acknowledging the limitations of what we do. We haven't been entirely honest in making claims for our science when we've been seeking funding. And in academia we've been unacceptably arrogant about the "value" of science compared to other disciplines.

Now our yards are full of cackling chickens coming home to roost. Should we be surprised?

What we really are (as a group) is very bad at explaining our work to non scientists. As a group, with many notable individual exceptions, we seem unable to clearly and simply describe scientific studies. We either do so in the same way we would present the work in a science journal, or else assume that non scientists are morons, and dumb down to the point where all qualifications an limitations are removed.

The media doesn't help. A study which shows that under a certain set of conditions, a certain thing has been shown to behave differently than expected is reported as "study proves x!" No wonder people are skeptical.

Posted by Carex (# 9643) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
When I did my physics degree we were taught that for any given set of experimental data there is always an INFINITE number of possible explanations. This is very easy to demonstrate mathematically - it's possible to fit an infinite number of polynomial equations to any given set of data points.

This is true, though as you increase the number of data points significantly the possible solutions, even though still infinite in number, begin to look a lot alike over the range of data points. With enough data, any of the possible solutions probably is a good predictor of behavior over that range, even if they differ in what happens far outside that range.

The classic example is Newtonian Mechanics vs. Einstein's General Relativity: Newton's equations are used by most Engineers to build cars, buildings, and most other things we use every day, even though we know General Relativity is more precise: over the range of velocities we normally work with, the results are identical to within practical accuracies.

When you have two such competing theories, both of which match the known data points (which may number in the millions), the standard scientific approach is to examine them to find a point where they would predict different results and then design an experiment to create that condition and see what happens.

Conflicting theories are actually quite common in Science, because building theories and testing them to see which ones are consistent with the data is an important part of how science works.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Clint Boggis -

I think the content of your post rather confirms the suspicion I expressed in what I wrote. Heavy on special pleading, extremely light on evidence and coherent argument.

Good try, though.

It really is not a lot to ask for people to make a distinction between "evidence" and "interpretation of evidence", and to analyse and validate the presuppositions that influence their interpretation. That is something called "intellectual honesty" - something sorely lacking in certain academic quarters.

This is rich. Substitute biblical inerrancy for "certain academic quarters" and you have a more accurate statement.

Special pleading? Isn't asking the trust in any religious tome special pleading?

Intellectual honesty? Science takes what you can observe with your eyes (Fact), develops the why it happens/ happened (Theory) and presents experiments (Proofs) to corroborate the Theory. If enough proofs agree, the Theory is accepted. In some cases, the Theories do conflict, yes. It is part of the process, some things are not yet sufficiently understood. Science does not deny this. Unfortunately, this is what science deniers glom onto.
Science attempts to describe the physical nature of our universe. Faith attempts to describe the spiritual nature of our universe. The problem occurs when people use one to describe the other.

ETA: partially x-posted with Carex

[ 14. October 2012, 15:55: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Science attempts to describe the physical nature of our universe. Faith attempts to describe the spiritual nature of our universe. The problem occurs when people use one to describe the other.

Well said.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0