Quote - Faith-based science is an oxymoron.

  • Thread starter Phobos
  • Start date
  • #1
Phobos
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,939
6
interesting article (note it starts off with sarcasm)

http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/196/science/Faith_based_science_is_not_really_science+.shtml [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
amos behavin
Interesting article. I agree that such faith-based science is not objective science. But, is Marxist-based science also not science?
Are scientists who are active or associated with "Science for the People", guys like Lewontin and Rose and the late S. J. Gould, really conducting objective scientific inquiry? Is stuff like this really based on science, or more so on ideology? I haven't been around this forum much and I've not seen this discussed. Perhaps it has been discussed but I missed it.

http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
http://www.radicalmiddle.com/x_aaas.htm
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/...3-7049780-8054222?vi=glance&tag=pfamazon01-20
 
  • #3
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
However, although I agree with much of what is said, this does ignore the arrogance of science. Science is not taught within a context. Mostly, science is taught as fact. What's more, many people including some teachers try to use science to dispel the "myth" of God. This is obviously irrational since God is not a subject of science. Perhaps the problem lies in the interpretation of rational thought?

Head to head, I would agree with the scientist over the religious person nearly every time. However, a person is entitled to believe as he or she wishes. It is not the job of science, or schools, or government, or society as a whole to tell anyone that their beliefs are silliness; but this is exactly what happens. Should we be surprised to find apathy and contempt, towards a discipline that has always shown the same attitude, towards those who are not members of the Congregation of the Logical and Objective?

Is the universe expanding at an increasing rate?...a decreasing rate?...oh yes, we are now told that it is increasing...I will write that down in pencil .:wink:
 
Last edited:
  • #4
Phobos
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,939
6
Originally posted by amos behavin
Are scientists who are active or associated with "Science for the People", guys like Lewontin and Rose and the late S. J. Gould, really conducting objective scientific inquiry?
Hopefully, but certainly scientists are "only human" too and have the potential to bring their own biases to their work. But that's partly what peer review is for.
 
  • #5
Phobos
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,939
6
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
Mostly, science is taught as fact.
Probably true in many cases for education up through high school and maybe entry-level college classes. Hopefully the upper level college classes teach an understanding of the scientific process and the meaning of a theory. Certainly the upper level college courses introduce the complexity involved in each subject matter.

What's more, many people including some teachers try to use science to dispel the "myth" of God. This is obviously irrational since God is not a subject of science.
Agree. That would be a personal agenda and not a conclusion of science. Science cannot prove or disprove God. It would be just as wrong for a science teacher to teach (in a public school science class) that there is no God as it would be to require that science teacher to teach a faith-based explanation.

Is the universe expanding at an increasing rate?...a decreasing rate?...oh yes, we are now told that it is increasing...I will write that down in pencil .:wink:
Ah, so you acknowledge that science is not taught as fact but rather as a series of explanations that are refined as new data are obtained? :wink: Actually, I think much of the confusion comes from snippets of complex subjects presented in the public media by non-scientists.
 
  • #6
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
Originally posted by Phobos
Ah, so you acknowledge that science is not taught as fact but rather as a series of explanations that are refined as new data are obtained? :wink: Actually, I think much of the confusion comes from snippets of complex subjects presented in the public media by non-scientists.
Yes I think the media has a lot of fault in this. If I happen to know about a story being reported, they [the media] usually get it wrong. Also, I am as big of fan of science as anyone. But you need to understand that many times I was told that it is a FACT that the universe was slowing in its expansion. There was no room for interpretation. This is a perfect example of something that if told he is wrong, the typical scientist would just smirk and give that all knowing chuckle as if this was divine knowledge. I understand the conviction. But many people seem to forget that everything is subject to question.
 
  • #7
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,786
7
In my day elhi education was always about 20 or more years behind the times in anything, be it history, science or whatever. In math they were 500 years behind the times because they didn't go beyond plane trigonometry, a subject that was closed in the sixteenth century.
 

Related Threads on Quote - Faith-based science is an oxymoron.

Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
7K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
9K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
974
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
3K
Top