Am i disgracing my scientific career by taking a course?

[Fervent Freyja]

All of the above are anti-science, so people are right to look at science degrees from fundamentalist institutions with a weary eye.

In the US, what matters the most is that the institution has acquired regional accreditation. If a religious educational institution is accredited to award science degrees then that means the courses required in the programs are equivalent to others in the region that passed. That isn't to say all the courses from a religious educational institution can be transferred, it usually means the courses required for the program have been evaluated and found credible. I imagine that these universities take maintaining accreditation quite seriously, as they are probably more at risk of losing the status than others. However, from what I know, many are not accredited, but the ones that are shouldn't be discounted.

I believe it's incredibly important to keep an open mind regarding the topic of religious educational institutions. I'm not religious myself, but love many people that are, being from the bible belt. Many people are raised in denominations that discourage their young from attending non-religious higher-educational institutions. Oftentimes, that is all they can strive towards. I had two young men from the Jehovah's Witness faith visit my home a while back, I eventually got around to the topic of education with them. One told me about how he was obsessed with History & American politics and that he was anticipating reading The Federalist Papers; well, what would you know, I had an edition that was at least a century old (I rescued it for $1). He left my sidewalk clutching that book. My nephew is also being raised in that faith and I've always had a hard time trying to find material for him that doesn't get thrown away. Ultimately, people are people regardless of their faith, sometimes religious experience does give people good qualities that are very compatible with excelling in academics. We cannot be so judgmental here or children being raised in certain denominations will not have access to higher education. Imagine growing up knowing that you cannot attend college because there aren't any institutions around that are approved by your faith (community)? People shouldn't be ostracized on account of following a religious path that they were born into.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

When 'Fundamentalist' is applied to Christianity that usually implies that said Christian is a Biblical Creationist/Literalist; ie 6 day creation, light before stars, no evolution, animals and humans are of a different order and were put on the Earth with the properties they now have, actual world wide flood, etc. All of the above are anti-science, so people are right to look at science degrees from fundamentalist institutions with a weary eye.

Given the rapidly declining academic rigor in many US universities, I think most knowledgeable people are right to look at science degrees from ALL institutions ranked below about 100 or so with a weary eye. Why worry about the 5-10% or so of disputed "science of origins" so much, when such a poor job is being done by the majority of institutions with the other 90-95%? If a student scores in the 90th percentile on the GRE (or applicable exam) and has a good record of research and peer-reviewed papers, why would a disagreement with the degree granting institution about 5-10% of science be cause to discriminate against the student?

What next, shall we discriminate against students whose advisers are well known deniers of quantum mechanics or relativity? I had a close colleague at the Air Force Academy who did not believe Newtonian Forces existed. Maybe USAFA should have put an asterisk student transcripts from his classes, even though his students outperformed the department average on common exams and the final.

Physics has a long and noble history of not having litmus tests for other physicists who may be skeptics or outright deniers of the prevailing consensus in significant areas of physics. As long as they excel in their chosen subfields and understand the areas they may disagree with well enough to teach the consensus view accurately when required by their departments, there has never been a subfield of physics with which a competent physicist could not disagree and have a long and productive career. What is so different about the consensus theories of origins that they are a litmus test for scientific orthodoxy such that dissenters must be disparaged more so then dissenters in any other subfield?

And what of Euclidean geometry? I must admit, I am a denier. Euclid was wrong. Sure, it's a self-consistent system. Beginning with the postulates, I can prove all the theorems and solve all the problems. My students do very well in Euclidean geometry also. But I have to admit, several times each semester, I tell them Euclidean geometry really isn't true and there is a higher and more true representation based on better axioms. Am I any less qualified as a math or physics teacher? If a student can ace all the tests, does it matter if they do not really believe some details of the subject matter?

 

[micromass]

And what of Euclidean geometry? I must admit, I am a denier. Euclid was wrong. Sure, it's a self-consistent system. Beginning with the postulates, I can prove all the theorems and solve all the problems. My students do very well in Euclidean geometry also. But I have to admit, several times each semester, I tell them Euclidean geometry really isn't true and there is a higher and more true representation based on better axioms. Am I any less qualified as a math or physics teacher? If a student can ace all the tests, does it matter if they do not really believe some details of the subject matter?

I doubt you'll find any mathematician nowadays who would disagree with you. It's pretty obvious Euclid was wrong, on multiple counts even.

 

[symbolipoint]

I doubt you'll find any mathematician nowadays who would disagree with you. It's pretty obvious Euclid was wrong, on multiple counts even.

Amazing. Some of us have not reached a level of sophisticated knowledge to find fault with Euclidean Geometry, if this is what is taught as the remedial course in college or the "college preparatory" course in high school. I have reviewed the material four times and spent some time teaching it. This course seems excellent, supplying wonderful knowledge about geometric figures, triangles, angles, lengths of identifiable segments, several proofs and theorem. We just do not know what we're missing at this lesser level.

 

[micromass]

Amazing. Some of us have not reached a level of sophisticated knowledge to find fault with Euclidean Geometry, if this is what is taught as the remedial course in college or the "college preparatory" course in high school. I have reviewed the material four times and spent some time teaching it. This course seems excellent, supplying wonderful knowledge about geometric figures, triangles, angles, lengths of identifiable segments, several proofs and theorem. We just do not know what we're missing at this lesser level.

And you think that it describes the universe accurately?

 

[tionis]

And what of Euclidean geometry? I must admit, I am a denier. Euclid was wrong. Sure, it's a self-consistent system. Beginning with the postulates, I can prove all the theorems and solve all the problems. My students do very well in Euclidean geometry also. But I have to admit, several times each semester, I tell them Euclidean geometry really isn't true and there is a higher and more true representation based on better axioms. Am I any less qualified as a math or physics teacher? If a student can ace all the tests, does it matter if they do not really believe some details of the subject matter?

How about writing a detailed article about this topic, Dr. Courtney? Much like what happened on the ''What is a photon?'' thread when vanhees schooled us on what a photon really is, my jaw just when I just read your post above lol. Please consider it.

 

[micromass]

As for the many mathematical mistakes in Euclid's Elements, there is a truly excellent book by Hartshorne: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1441931457/?tag=pfamazon01-20 Of course these are flaws in Euclid, and they can be fixed.
But the main philosophical reason that Euclid was wrong is because he thought he was describing reality. In fact, this was thought all the way until the 18th century. This made the development of new math very problematic at some point too. But eventually, it was discovered that Euclid does not describe reality at all, see the theory of relativity.

So now Euclidean geometry is seen as one of the many different possibilities. As such, it's not wrong in the sense that a mathematical theory is never wrong if it is consistent. But you need to look at the original goals of Euclid: he didn't just want to find some neat consistent set of axioms. He cared about describing reality. Euclidean geometry definitely fails there (although it remains a good local approximation).

 

[symbolipoint]

And you think that it describes the universe accurately?

Yes, most definitely, from the viewpoint of a person who learned "Euclidean Geometry". You will need to give the adjustments necessary or say what they are for someone like me to know what I/we are missing. I've been away from school for many years.

Maybe you tried that in post #37. You mentioned there, "relativity". Best I remember, some fairly simple Geometry was used in a textbook treatment of how to understand Special Relativity.

 

[micromass]

Yes, most definitely, from the viewpoint of a person who learned "Euclidean Geometry". You will need to give the adjustments necessary or say what they are for someone like me to know what I/we are missing. I've been away from school for many years.

Maybe you tried that in post #37. You mentioned there, "relativity". Best I remember, some fairly simple Geometry was used in a textbook treatment of how to understand Special Relativity.

Here you go: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclidean_geometry#20th_century_and_general_relativity

 

[ShayanJ]

He cared about describing reality. Euclidean geometry definitely fails there (although it remains a good local approximation).

We never say Newton failed because he didn't find SR or QM. So why should we say Euclid failed because he didn't find pseudoRiemannian geometry?
(Of course, some may object to Newton's assumption of absolute time, but he wanted to explain his day to day observations and he did!)

 

[micromass]

We never say Newton failed because he didn't find SR or QM. So why should we say Euclid failed because he didn't find pseudoRiemannian geometry?
(Of course, some may object to Newton's assumption of absolute time, but he wanted to explain his day to day observations and he did!)

In describing reality accurately, Newton definitely failed. That doesn't mean that classical mechanics is useless. Same with Euclid.

 

[ShayanJ]

In describing reality accurately, Newton definitely failed. That doesn't mean that classical mechanics is useless. Same with Euclid.

I don't call that failure. Newton could only describe his observations. How could he account for the things he never observed?!
I strongly object to the statement that Newton and Euclid failed. They were successful at accomplishing their golas. They just didn't know what was the right goal which again is not their failure because they couldn't know it!

 

[micromass]

I don't call that failure. Newton could only describe his observations. How could he account for the things he never observed?!
I strongly object to the statement that Newton and Euclid failed. They were successful at accomplishing their golas. They just didn't know what was the right goal which again is not their failure because they couldn't know it!

If their goal was to find the ultimate laws of nature, then they failed because they didn't find them.

 

[ShayanJ]

If their goal was to find the ultimate laws of nature, then they failed because they didn't find them.

No single person can find the ultimate laws of nature and no one has this goal! The goal is always to explain some data or solve some theoretical problem. In this sense, both Newton and Euclid were successful.

 

[micromass]

No single person can find the ultimate laws of nature and no one has this goal!

You can be sure that Euclid and the ancient Greeks had exactly this goal in mind when they created Euclidean geometry. I can give you historical references for this. You should be aware that the physics of the Greeks was very different from the physics nowadays. The Greeks didn't care about explaining data. They thought they can explain nature solely by the rational mind. The Greeks most certainly believed that Euclidean geometry represented reality exactly. In that sense, they failed.

Whether Newton believed he described reality correctly, I don't know. I think that he knew that it wasn't true, as he was aware of many problems with his theory. So in that sense Newton didn't fail because he didn't attempt to describe the ultimate laws of reality.

 

[micromass]

Here i an excerpt of Kline's book on mathematical thought. I highly suggest you read Chapter 7, but this should be enough:

From this survey we may sec that all the philosophers who forged and molded the Greek intellectual world stressed the study of nature for comprehension and appreciation of its underlying reality. From the timeof the Pythagoreans, practically all asserted that nature was designedmathematically. During the classical period, the doctrine of the mathematical design of nature was cstablished and the search for the mathematical lawsinstituted. Though this doctrine did not motivate all of the mathematics subsequently created, once established it was acccpted and consciously pursued by most of the great mathematicians. During the time that this
doctrine held sway, which was until the latter part of the nineteenth century, the search for the mathematical design was identified with the searchfor truth. Though a few Greeks-for example, Ptolemy-realized that mathematical theories were merely human attempts to provide a coherent account, the belief that mathematical laws were the truth about natureattracted some of the deepest and noblest thinkers to mathematics.

We should also note, in order to appreciate more readily what happened in the seventeenth century, thc Greek emphasis on the power of the mind. Because the Greek philosophers believed that the mind was the most powerful agent in comprehending nature, they adopted first principles that appealed to the mind. Thus the belief that circular motion was the basic type, defendedby Aristotle on the ground that the circle is complete whereas a rectilinearfigure, because it is bounded by many curves (line segments), is incomplete and therefore secondary in importance, appealed to the mind on aestheticgrounds. That the heavenly bodies should move with only constant or uniform velocity, was a conception which appealed to the mind perhaps because it was simplcer than nonuniform motion. The combination of uniform and circular motion seemed to befit heavenly bodies. That the sublunar bodies should be different from the planets, sun, and stars seemed reasonable also, because the heavenly bodies preserved a constant appearance whereas change on Earth was evident. Evn Aristotle, who stressed abstractions onlyinsofar as they helped to understand the observable world, said that we muststart from principles that are known and manifest to the mind and then proceed to analyze things found in nature. We proceed, he said, fromuniversals to particulars, from man to men, just as children call all men father and then learn to distinguish. Thus even the abstractions made from concrete objects presuppose some general principles emanating from themind. This doctrine, the power of the mind to yield first principles, was overthrown in the seventeenth century.

So don't make the mistake to think that our current scientific method applied to the Greeks too. It didn't.

 

[StatGuy2000]

I'm not sure I would give short shrift to fundamentalist schools like Bob Jones, Liberty, or Grove City. These schools offer a variety of ABET accredited engineering degrees and ACS approved Chemistry degrees. There is no reason why a combination of good GPA, good GRE scores, and documented research experiences at one of these schools won't provide graduates with comparable opportunities with students from secular schools in the same tier (such as comparable national rankings in a discipline.) Grove City College has a highly regarded engineering program, and I know several graduates who had no problem securing excellent offers. Likewise, their graduates in Biology have no problem securing admission to med school with good MCAT scores.

I think the fear mongering regarding the value of course credit or degrees from fundamentalist Christian schools is unwarranted. Sure, biases exist in any field, and there is always the possibility of unlawful discrimination. But this is relatively rare, and I would expect graduates to receive equal treatment based on the national rankings of the school in the discipline, a student's track record for undergraduate research, and independent assessments such as standardized test (GRE, Engineering exams, ACS exam, MCAT, PCAT, etc.)

The question I would have about US colleges/universities with links to evangelical Protestant sects, such as Bob Jones University, is whether or not the quality of their science programs will be up to par with what other schools who do not have such links. According to your claim, at least for some of their programs, the answer may well be yes (you've quoted Grove City College above).

After all, one of the tenets of fundamentalist Protestant Christian sects is their belief in the literal truth of the book of Genesis, and their corresponding rejection of both the theory (i.e. fact) of evolution by natural selection and much of modern geology. If I was an admissions official or a senior faculty member and I realized that a potential student who is intending to apply to, say, a PhD program in biology, is a graduate of a college/university with such a background, I may very well have concerns about whether such a student may have a grasp on or understanding of, say, evolution (which is the cornerstone of the understanding of biology).

All that being said, I do agree that all graduates should receive equal treatment based on national rankings and the student's track record for scholarship and undergraduate research, as well as other measures.

Some of us fundamentalist Christians have even managed to have pretty good careers as physicists.

Dr. Courtney, I know this is a personal question, but are you in fact a fundamentalist Christian? If so, do you accept evolution by natural selection as a fact? Feel free to PM me if you don't wish to respond in the thread here.

 

[AgentCachat]

To the OP: You are worries about a religion course are pointless. No one else will care that you took such a course. Focus instead on getting help for your OCD.

 

[StatGuy2000]

To the OP:

You are worried that taking an elective course on religion somehow will affect your future career in the sciences? That is just ridiculous -- a dear friend is a staunch atheist (as am I), and she took an elective course on religion when she was an undergraduate student (she recently finished her PhD in linguistics). In fact, I think it is a good thing for students to take a broad range of courses while in college/university.

Focus on getting help for your OCD, as well as working hard on your main studies.

 

[Dr. Courtney]

Dr. Courtney, I know this is a personal question, but are you in fact a fundamentalist Christian? If so, do you accept evolution by natural selection as a fact? Feel free to PM me if you don't wish to respond in the thread here.

I self-identify as "Messianic" with regards to issues of faith. But many folks would classify me as "fundamentalist Christian" because I hold strictly to the inspiration and authority of the Bible including a deep and abiding faith in the resurrection of the Messiah, a six day creation, the creation of Adam from clay and Eve from Adam's rib, the absence of death before the fall, and other doctrines commonly associated with "fundamentalists."

I accept evolution by natural selection (and other consensus theories of origins) as the best available scientific conclusion if one strictly applies methodological naturalism. Just as Euclid's postulates lead to Euclidean geometry, the axiom of naturalism in the scientific method leads to the consensus theories of origins.

But most faiths at some point deny the universality of naturalism and posit at some point an epistemology that accounts for the supernatural. Any faith that includes accounts of historical miracles does this either implicitly or explicitly. It is beyond the scope of science to speak to which of these faiths or epistemologies may be more reasonable than the others. Stephen Jay Gould described this as "non-overlapping magisteria." Sure, these epistemologies can be discussed by scientists, but one quickly enters more of a philosophical or theological realm and are outside the scope of pure science.

Some years ago, my wife and I published a paper on the epistemology of science in a physics journal in which we describe our view of the proper boundaries between science and matters of faith. That paper may be read here:

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0812/0812.4932.pdf

We have also written a longer article that includes more discussion on the faith side. It may violate Physics Forums policy to link it directly, since it makes faith claims, but interested readers may find it easily enough by searching in google

Messianic Michael Debunking the Myth that Science Disproves the Bible

 

[DrClaude]

This thread has veered off course and we do not discuss religion on PF.

Thread closed.