Is the Religification of Science Damaging Its Progress?

[arunma]

Best way to learn on PF: make a ridiculous claim so that people will vehemently prove their point to you (and thus, teach you).

Best way to not get limited (or no) responses: ask a question

Well, in my last post I suggested that physics is all a bunch of lies. Have at it!

 

[moe darklight]

well I haven't read the ENTIRE thread, since it's growing like a fungus. but my opinion on the original post is pretty simple (this goes in general):

1) if the professor in question teaches a subject where his teachings would be infected by ID (like biology), then it would be ridiculous to hire him obviously.

2) if the professor is to teach an unrelated subject (chemistry, computer engineering), then I don't see a problem. He might be very knowledgeable on his specific area, regardless of his ignorance in another. It's the same as hiring an English professor who knows nothing of quantum mechanics, it shouldn't make a difference as long as he knows whatever he's teaching.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Actually I have heard that definition before. My main problem is that I've also heard several other definitions of ID. To some people it is six-day young Earth creationism, to others it is a more relaxed form of creationism, and then there's the Raelian version of ID.

If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a cow have?

Yes I agree. But then, I'm not judging ID.

Sorry, that finger pointing stuff was not at you.

I find physics to be one of the more dubious of the sciences. Sciences like biology and chemistry have theories that are built on observation (i.e. you can see evolution through the fossil record, you can observe DNA, etc.). In physics, however, it's necessary to make educated guesses, until you stumble on one that predicts accurate results. Much like you, all I see is a bunch of error bars.

You go too far for my taste. I think physics is the best game in town. It is nature, not physics that has those error bars. In physics, they are shrunk smaller than they are in any other science. As for physics not being built on observation, I'm afraid I don't even know what you mean. Although the story of how Galileo dropped the balls off of the tower of Pisa is well known, I think the story of how he figured out the inverse square law is a better one to show how observation works in physics and more generally in science.

 

[Chi Meson]

Well, in my last post I suggested that physics is all a bunch of lies. Have at it!

Did you? I'm not sure if you understood your post at all! :sarcasm smiley: joking!

Seriously, being incorrect is not the same as lying. Being aware that models and theories could be incorrect is part of a responsible scientific attitude.

In light of recent posts, my opinion on the scientist in question has modified. While one may be able to follow established rules (set by the scientific community) in order to publish research papers in responsible, peer-reviewed journals, this does not itself prove that the scientist "understands the scientific process." But if that scientist can repeatedly publish papers that are cited and supported by a significant percentage of the scientific community, then the probability that this scientist "understands" the scientific process grows proportionally.

The problem I see with ID "as a science," is the response to the question "if a larger being created the universe, what created the creator?" The responses are of two kinds: "it is something that we cannot understand/something that is beyond us" and/or "the creator has always been there."

But these two responses can be applied to our scientific models BEFORE the insertion of "a creator." If ID folks truly thought that ID is science, then they should see that the scientific attitude should preclude such an insertion.

 

[Evo]

This seems to be a good place to end this thread.