Is science starting to misrepresent itself?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Over the past thirty, perhaps even forty years, it's become increasingly clear to me how what is sometimes presented as "god vs science" or "creationism vs science" and so on, is actually the root of many of the perceived problems with these two areas of human thought. Because these are presented as contrasting, as alternative ways of interpreting the world, many people just assume that there is an underlying incompatibility.

But there is no incompatibility at all, there never was and the false implication that there is arose quite recently in fact. The vast majority of those who contributed to what we today call the scientific revolution and later the enlightenment, were not atheists - this might surprise some but it is true and should be carefully noted.

The growth of militant atheism (recently spearheaded by the likes of Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens) has seen increasing effort placed on attacking "religion" and discrediting those who might regard "god" and "creation" as intellectually legitimate ideas, by implying that the layman must choose one or the other, you're either an atheist (for science) or a theist (a science "denier").

It is my position that there is no conflict whatsoever, for example God (an intelligent agency not subject to laws) gave rise to the universe (a sophisticated amalgam of material and laws) and we - also intelligent agencies - are gifted by being able to explore, unravel and utilize that creation.

There is nothing that can disprove this view, there is no reason to imply that those who adopt it are deluded, incompetent, poorly educated or any of that, that attitude is a lie and its reinforced at every opportunity in this and many other forums.

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #67]

I just don't ever see this "religion vs science" stuff come up ever with subjects like mathematics, physics, chemistry, electricity, cosmology, astronomy, optics, computing, mechanical engineering and so on, it is always and only when we discuss evolution ...

And the reason for this should be obvious. Evolution directly contradicts the idea that humans are special creatures created by a god being and instead shows that we did indeed evolve from a great ape ancestor.

Actually it doesn't. Many Christians regard (the purported) evolution as itself being part of God's creation.

It suggests that consciousness can develop incrementally from a simple awareness to the complex, abstract thought capabilities of humans, rather than being some magical thing that is not simply an emergent property of a working brain.

Ahh that wonderful scientific word "suggest", never far away when evolution's being discussed.

There is no - repeat no - falsifiable theory of consciousness, none, nor is there a definition, no testable claims or predictions or anything, evolution has zero to say about the subject other than pure speculation.

This is why evolution is so contested by the religious in particular, while mechanical engineering and the others are not. It presents a view of humans in particular that directly contradicts many of their fundamental beliefs and so they have to contest it, and it is the job of scientists to defend it which remains a constant battle. If creationists and the like would stop trying to overthrow evolution on flimsy arguments that have never held up to scrutiny, there would be no need for scientists to keep swatting them down and continuing "religion vs. science" debates.

So you agree "anti evolution" is not "anti science"? If I dispute the claims made in one narrow branch of science but I'm totally in agreement with every other branch, that's not "anti science" is it?

[Jose Fly]

The AAAS have significant influence, no scientist wants to be publicly humiliated because (according to the AAAS) they are engaged in pseudoscience, that can hurt a career, one had better not break that rule. It is analogous to making something illegal for political motives, so "thought police" is an analogy.

Do you have an actual example of the AAAS doing that?

Remember, the ID creationist organization The Discovery Institute had what they claimed was a "research arm". As far as I could tell, no one did anything to try and stop them from doing whatever they wanted. They had funding, equipment, and a staff, yet they ended up shutting down. Why? Was it because the "thought police" somehow stopped them from doing work?

I've never looked into the matter, I have no idea.

You see the point though, right? The DI started a research arm, with equipment, staff, and funding specifically to (as they claimed) conduct research into intelligent design creationism. Similarly, the Institute for Creation Research (a young-earth creationist organization) and other creationist organizations also claim to do research.

Has the AAAS or any other science organization done anything to try and stop them?

It's not what we see Jose, perhaps its more what we don't see.

That seems to be a tacit admission that you've not actually seen any of the things you're complaining about. If not, please clarify.

One thing we certainly see is people who dispute evolution referred to as practitioners of "pseudoscience"

Specific examples please.

it is primarily evolution and allied subjects, questioning evolution is misleadingly referred to by the rather highbrow "questioning science" but it no such thing, questioning the claims of one narrow branch of the sciences while not questioning any of the others is not well served by the dramatic phrase "questioning science".

Are you of the belief that evolutionary biology is not legitimate science?

When you say scientific, do you mean AAAS scientific?

You're dodging again. As I showed, that definition of science is shared by multiple science organizations and universities.

So again, is there a specific scientific study, conclusion, etc. that you object to because the scientists didn't consider non-natural causes? If so, what non-natural cause do you want them to consider?

Speaking of the AAAS to wouldn't it be better if some of their time was spent on something with true scientific merit? Like for example encouraging use of the metric system and discouraging the use of imperial? It's 2022 and I see inches, ounces, pints (there are several "pints"), fluid ounces and so on with all of the time wasting that generates. That would be a worthy thing to write their next open letter about perhaps.

Perhaps you should lobby them to do that.

[Sherlock Holmes]

The AAAS have significant influence, no scientist wants to be publicly humiliated because (according to the AAAS) they are engaged in pseudoscience, that can hurt a career, one had better not break that rule. It is analogous to making something illegal for political motives, so "thought police" is an analogy.

Do you have an actual example of the AAAS doing that?

Where did I say that AAAS were doing anything? You seem to have habit of reading things that aren't actually written. By virtue of the AAAS definition anyone can say "Look! he said this might not be possible to explain by natural laws, according to the AAAS that's not legit science, look's he's spouting pseudoscience!" so (as I wrote!) it is not the AAAS making this accusation but others who could do so, on the grounds that the AAAS definition carries weight or as I at first put it have significant influence.

Remember, the ID creationist organization The Discovery Institute had what they claimed was a "research arm". As far as I could tell, no one did anything to try and stop them from doing whatever they wanted. They had funding, equipment, and a staff, yet they ended up shutting down. Why? Was it because the "thought police" somehow stopped them from doing work?

I've never looked into the matter, I have no idea.

You see the point though, right? The DI started a research arm, with equipment, staff, and funding specifically to (as they claimed) conduct research into intelligent design creationism. Similarly, the Institute for Creation Research (a young-earth creationist organization) and other creationist organizations also claim to do research.

Has the AAAS or any other science organization done anything to try and stop them?

I don't think so and I again (you're seeing things that aren't actually written) never said the AAAS did or would, only that their standing and influence would enable others to make accusations of "pseudoscience" because the AAAS (bastardized) definition of science makes that easier.

It's not what we see Jose, perhaps its more what we don't see.

That seems to be a tacit admission that you've not actually seen any of the things you're complaining about. If not, please clarify.

Sure, I thought it was pretty obvious what I meant though. You see, you said "all we see are scientists going about their work pretty much as they always have" yet there may be activities not taking place, investigations not taking place because of those attempting them fear accusations of "pseudoscience".

One thing we certainly see is people who dispute evolution referred to as practitioners of "pseudoscience"

Specific examples please.

Michael J. Behe (/ˈbiːhiː/ BEE-hee; born January 18, 1952) is an American biochemist, author, and advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design (ID).

it is primarily evolution and allied subjects, questioning evolution is misleadingly referred to by the rather highbrow "questioning science" but it no such thing, questioning the claims of one narrow branch of the sciences while not questioning any of the others is not well served by the dramatic phrase "questioning science".

Are you of the belief that evolutionary biology is not legitimate science?

No I am not, another case of seeing what is not written I think, there might even be a name for this "wishful reading" I'll have to look into this later. What I did say (but in a different way) is questioning the claims of the few does not equate to questioning the claims of the many. If I argue with a Police Officer it is wrong to say I am against law and order, you like to portray it this way and this attitude of exaggerated self importance runs all through these kinds of evolution discussion.

When you say scientific, do you mean AAAS scientific?

You're dodging again. As I showed, that definition of science is shared by multiple science organizations and universities.

The question was admittedly partly rhetorical. I do not want "scientists to start considering and investigating non-natural causes for things" unless there's a rational reason to do so. I also don't want to see a contrived definition of "science" that asserts - to all intents and purpose - that there can never be a rational reason to to do.

So again, is there a specific scientific study, conclusion, etc. that you object to because the scientists didn't consider non-natural causes? If so, what non-natural cause do you want them to consider?

Yes there are some but it is not a matter of "didn't consider non-natural causes" Jose, it is a matter of "it is pseudoscience to consider non-natural causes" that I am objecting to here. That is the automatic attribution of "pseudoscientist" to anyone who rationally finds a justification for considering a non-natural component.

Speaking of the AAAS to wouldn't it be better if some of their time was spent on something with true scientific merit? Like for example encouraging use of the metric system and discouraging the use of imperial? It's 2022 and I see inches, ounces, pints (there are several "pints"), fluid ounces and so on with all of the time wasting that generates. That would be a worthy thing to write their next open letter about perhaps.

Perhaps you should lobby them to do that.

Sure that's an idea, a bit like the Eugenics movement did successfully in the 1920s you mean?

By the 1920s, three major efforts pushed the eugenic agenda in the United States and subsequently throughout Europe: The Eugenics Research Association with Laughlin and Davenport as leaders and in affiliation with the American Association of the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

It is clear that AAAS, Science, and many in the scientific community supported the biggest proponents of eugenics in the early 20th century, when the ideology started gaining wider traction.

Three weeks after publishing Osborn’s piece, Science gave front-page treatment to Charles Davenport’s “Research in Eugenics,” in which he assured that eugenics was backed by “rigid proof” and should therefore “not arouse contrary opinion.”

Davenport and Osborn were widely recognized as members of the highest echelons of scientific society. Both were fellows of the US National Academy of Sciences and AAAS. Osborn was president of the board of trustees of the American Museum of Natural History from 1908 to 1933. Davenport founded the lab that would become Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory and spurred the creation of the Eugenics Record Office.

See: Eugenics and the history of Science and AAAS.


There is of course much more I could say about this but I think this suffices, funny thing is eugenics is also known as pseudoscience if I'm not mistaken, it's a funny old world, the AAAS actually supporting pseudoscience, who'd a thought...

[Jose Fly]

Where did I say that AAAS were doing anything? You seem to have habit of reading things that aren't actually written. By virtue of the AAAS definition anyone can say "Look! he said this might not be possible to explain by natural laws, according to the AAAS that's not legit science, look's he's spouting pseudoscience!" so (as I wrote!) it is not the AAAS making this accusation but other on the grounds that the AAAS definition carries weight or as I at first put it have significant influence.

Okay, good....as far as anyone in this discussion is concerned, the AAAS hasn't done a single thing to stop anyone from doing whatever research they wish.

That seems to be a tacit admission that you've not actually seen any of the things you're complaining about. If not, please clarify.

Sure, I thought it was pretty obvious what I meant though. You see, you said "all we see are scientists going about their work pretty much as they always have" yet there may be activities not taking place, investigations not taking place because of those attempting them fear accusations of "pseudoscience".

Again, glad we've established that the AAAS has not done anything to stop people from doing whatever research they wish.

Specific examples please.

Michael J. Behe (/ˈbiːhiː/ BEE-hee; born January 18, 1952) is an American biochemist, author, and advocate of the pseudoscientific principle of intelligent design (ID).

Ah, but ID creationism is pseudoscience. It was a political ploy to sneak creationist arguments into science classrooms, in response to a series of court rulings that banned creationism in science classes. There's a wealth of evidence showing that to be the case.

Are you of the belief that evolutionary biology is not legitimate science?

No I am not, another case of seeing what is not written I think, there might even be a name for this "wishful reading"

First of all, please note that I asked you if that was your belief. That's not the same as saying you believe that. I'm assuming you understand the difference between a question and a statement.

Second, it stands to reason that if evolutionary biology is a field of science, then someone questioning evolutionary biology is "questioning science". Now, if someone has actually equated questioning evolutionary biology with questioning all of science, I'd be very interested in seeing that. Do you have a specific example?

I do not want "scientists to start considering and investigating non-natural causes for things" unless there's a rational reason to do so.

What do you think would be a rational reason to invoke non-natural causes?

So again, is there a specific scientific study, conclusion, etc. that you object to because the scientists didn't consider non-natural causes? If so, what non-natural cause do you want them to consider?

Yes there are some

Such as?

but it is not a matter of "didn't consider non-natural causes" Jose, it is a matter of "it is pseudoscience to consider non-natural causes" that I am objecting to here. That is the automatic attribution of "pseudoscientist" to anyone who rationally finds a justification for considering a non-natural component.

I understand that you want science to consider non-natural causes (I think everyone here has gotten that message). The question now is, what specifically are you referring to, i.e., what non-natural causes and for what phenomena?

Sure that's an idea, a bit like the Eugenics movement did successfully in the 1920s you mean?

Um.....no.

[brunumb]

When we consider religion, on the other hand, there is very much an implied certainty involved. It passes off beliefs as truth.

So you now want to stop discussing science and start giving us your opinions in "religion"? why? this thread is not about religion, go and read the OP!

Faith dispenses with the need for supporting evidence for religious claims.

That's not true and again this is a discussion about science and how it is (IMHO) often misrepresented.

Are young minds being lied to when they are told about Adam and Eve, the fall and sin being the reason they will someday die, that Jesus loves them and died so that they could live for eternity? These are passed off as truths to minds that are in their formative stages and unable to critically evaluate them. Is this all not the greater pretense?

This looks like a strawman argument in the making, I want to discuss science and have been and you want to attack "religion" all of a sudden.

This is a fine example of what I said in my OP:

The growth of militant atheism (recently spearheaded by the likes of Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens) has seen increasing effort placed on attacking "religion"

That's what I wrote and this is exactly what you are now doing - case closed! I try to discuss science, some of what I say rattles some cages and the reaction is to attack religion, so so so predictable.

This thread is not as much a discussion of science as it is a veiled attempt to undermine and discredit science. The motivation is quite clear as your are an admitted creationist and creationism is at odds with what science has revealed about our origins. Your attacks and accusations are no less militant than those that you accuse some atheists of engaging in to support their side of the argument. The creationist case has no foundation of its own apart from ancient anonymously written stories. What to do? The answer can be found in the threads you have initiated.

[Sherlock Holmes]

When we consider religion, on the other hand, there is very much an implied certainty involved. It passes off beliefs as truth.

So you now want to stop discussing science and start giving us your opinions in "religion"? why? this thread is not about religion, go and read the OP!

Faith dispenses with the need for supporting evidence for religious claims.

That's not true and again this is a discussion about science and how it is (IMHO) often misrepresented.

Are young minds being lied to when they are told about Adam and Eve, the fall and sin being the reason they will someday die, that Jesus loves them and died so that they could live for eternity? These are passed off as truths to minds that are in their formative stages and unable to critically evaluate them. Is this all not the greater pretense?

This looks like a strawman argument in the making, I want to discuss science and have been and you want to attack "religion" all of a sudden.

This is a fine example of what I said in my OP:

The growth of militant atheism (recently spearheaded by the likes of Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens) has seen increasing effort placed on attacking "religion"

That's what I wrote and this is exactly what you are now doing - case closed! I try to discuss science, some of what I say rattles some cages and the reaction is to attack religion, so so so predictable.

This thread is not as much a discussion of science as it is a veiled attempt to undermine and discredit science. The motivation is quite clear as your are an admitted creationist and creationism is at odds with what science has revealed about our origins. Your attacks and accusations are no less militant than those that you accuse some atheists of engaging in to support their side of the argument. The creationist case has no foundation of its own apart from ancient anonymously written stories. What to do? The answer can be found in the threads you have initiated.

This thread was about science until you and others started to digress onto religion something you continue to do with this latest post.

[brunumb]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #71]

Science is many things but truth is not one of them. Models are not truth, theories are not truth.

What are you proposing as an alternative that will more reliably lead to the truth?

Do you consider biblical genealogies as a reliable means of determining the age of the earth?

[Sherlock Holmes]

but it is not a matter of "didn't consider non-natural causes" Jose, it is a matter of "it is pseudoscience to consider non-natural causes" that I am objecting to here. That is the automatic attribution of "pseudoscientist" to anyone who rationally finds a justification for considering a non-natural component.

I understand that you want science to consider non-natural causes (I think everyone here has gotten that message). The question now is, what specifically are you referring to, i.e., what non-natural causes and for what phenomena?

No the question is why do the AAAS and you yourself, defend the insertion of "seeking natural explanations" into the definition of science? If science progressed wonderfully for many centuries (driven primarily by creationists too) without any mention or concern over this, why bother adding it?

There must be a motive, it cannot be to further the progress of science because we've done fine for hundreds of years without any such clause and no other branch of the sciences even cares about this issue.

The motive can be reasonably inferred as to appease the fretting evolutionists, the entire context in which the clause appears is that of evolution, not physics, chemistry, cosmology etc etc etc - just and always evolution.

The motive is to silence discussion in which the cherished ideology of fundamentalist evolution might be threatened. It is an age old trick, discredit those who might oppose you and the opposition will fade away.

Finally doubting evolution is not doubting science despite your attempt at linguistic distortion. If it was science that was being doubted we'd see people from all the other branches of the sciences complaining and fretting but it's only ever evolutionists. Do we see legal challenges to what is taught in physics? no, in chemistry? no, in mathematics? no, in cosmology? no, in geography? no, in meteorology? no, in computer science? no - none of these subjects are disputed, so no Jose you are wrong, if people really were "questioning science" we'd see a lot more legal cases a lot more complaints from the other sciences.

Nobody is questioning science, only some of the dogmatic claims made by some people in one small area of science that matters little.

[Jose Fly]

No the question is why do the AAAS and you yourself, defend the insertion of "seeking natural explanations" into the definition of science? If science progressed wonderfully for many centuries (driven primarily by creationists too) without any mention or concern over this, why bother adding it?

There must be a motive, it cannot be to further the progress of science because we've done fine for hundreds of years without any such clause and no other branch of the sciences even cares about this issue.

The motive can be reasonably inferred as to appease the fretting evolutionists, the entire context in which the clause appears is that of evolution.

The motive is to silence discussion in which the cherished ideology of fundamentalist evolution might be threatened. It is an age old trick, discredit those who might oppose you and the opposition will fade away.

I've already addressed this several times.

1) Science has always operated via methodological naturalism;

2) There's not a single example in the entire history of science of non-natural causes explaining anything;

3) No one has proposed any specific non-natural explanations; and,

4) No one has proposed a means by which non-natural things can be investigated and tested.

If your position is "I want science to consider X", you have to......get this......actually say what X is! I find it hard to believe that's a revelation for you.

Finally, once again you have completely dodged attempts to get you to provide specific examples of what you're talking about. Rather than make another attempt to get you to do that, I'll just say that this repeated pattern is quite detrimental to your credibility.

[brunumb]

Maybe the actual problem is that Christians are starting(?) to misrepresent science in order to maintain their diminishing foothold.

(Clip below begins after a preamble about Christian ads flooding an atheist channel)