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]

So I have never advocated the supernatural as being a scientific explanation. What I do say is that science - as a mode of inquiry - can be used to infer the supernatural (as Faraday did with his conviction that electricity and magnetism were somehow intertwined) that is if one can infer the supernatural by the pursuit of science then we should not make up rules denying this or prohibiting such conclusions (which is exactly what the AAAS inserted clause does).

Infer: deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.

Faraday had a prior belief in the supernatural which informed his conviction. There was no element of the supernatural involved in his scientific method or discovery.

Yes and I agreed in a recent reply about that, it was a poor example, sorry for any confusion.

[Sherlock Holmes]

But in my example we can connect the dots in a multitude of ways, we can see whatever we want to see in the data...

Sure, but some ways of connecting the dots would have better resemblance than others. You can make a car or a house or a boat, we can rank the different ways in accordance to how nice of a car/house/boat to determine "best."

Not at all, take the image, print it and you can connect some of the dots in a multitude of ways outlining all sorts of shapes.

So you are essentially saying that scientific data is pretty much the same as a bunch of random, unrelated dots that you can connect in any way you choose. Sorry, but that is not how it works.

No, I say what I say, if I say X why do you then ask me if I said Y ?

[Sherlock Holmes]

That's one of the most blatant evasions I've seen here so far! very well, don't answer the question.

Oh, it's not an evasion ... it is refusing to beat a dead horse. This issue has come up before in these S&R threads and all you did was run around in circles, hands waving, making philosophical arguments as to why a god being must exist. No need rehashing that again.

Well the question was quite simple - can a thing the used to explain why that thing exists?

Been there, done that.

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=38699&start=110

Please answer "Can a thing be used to explain why that thing exists?" if you want me to spend time reading and replying to your posts.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Do you regard Lemaître as a pseudoscientist?

No, and neither would the AAAS. Because just like Faraday, Newton, Maxwell, Sedgwick, Joule, Lister, and von Braun, Lemaître did not invoke the supernatural in his scientific explanation. He could associate whatever he wanted with with the reason the universe exists, as long as he kept it away from his scientific explanation. He, like the others mentioned, sought natural explanations, just as the AAAS definition demanded.

Right, but did I ever say that I advocate that God should be explicitly referenced in a scientific explanation? I did not; I said - very clearly - that the clause "seeking natural explanations" is what I object to. God was implicit as the primary agency behind the machinations of the universe so far as Faraday, Lemaître and most of the scientists at that time were concerned.

Moreover Lemaître did explicitly reference God, here is something else he wrote:

But the believer has the advantage of knowing that the enigma has a solution, that the underlying logic is ultimately the work of an intelligent being, that, therefore, the problem posed by nature was posed to be solved, and that its difficulty is probably proportionate to our human abilities, be it today or tomorrow. This knowledge might not provide him with new investigation resources, but it will help him maintain the healthy optimism without which a sustained effort cannot long endure.

and

“I think that everyone who believes in a supreme being supporting every being and every acting, believes also that God is essentially hidden and may be glad to see how present physics provides a veil hiding the creation”.

and

We cannot end this rapid review which we have made together of the most magnificent subject that the human mind may be tempted to explore without being proud of these splendid endeavors of Science in the conquest of the Earth, and also without expressing our gratitude to One Who has said: "I am the Truth," One Who gave us the mind to understand him and to recognize a glimpse of his glory in our universe which he has so wonderfully adjusted to the mental power with which he has endowed us.

Be honest, if I had written anything like that in these pages, I think we both know I'd be promptly labelled as a "pseudoscientist" or "God of the gaps" advocate and so on.

Its refreshing at least to see these words from the father of the "Big Bang" theory given the often obsessive manner in which atheists bring the theory up all the time, oh the irony!

[Bust Nak]

Right, but did I ever say that I advocate that God should be explicitly referenced in a scientific explanation? I did not; I said - very clearly - that the clause "seeking natural explanations" is what I object to. God was implicit as the primary agency behind the machinations of the universe so far as Faraday, Lemaître and most of the scientists at that time were concerned.

They can be explicit for all I care, all that's required of them, is to separate the supernatural stuff from their scientific explanation, which they managed just fine. So now I have you on record stating that you have not advocated referring to God in a scientific explanation, and that the supernatural is inapplicable when it comes to scientific explanation. I want to asked you again, why are you making a big deal about it, when a) seemingly you have no intention of ever going against the clause. b) none of the scientists you mentioned would have problem complying with that clause?

Moreover Lemaître did explicitly reference God, here is something else he wrote...[cropped]

Be honest, if I had written anything like that in these pages, I think we both know I'd be promptly labelled as a "pseudoscientist" or "God of the gaps" advocate and so on.

"God of the gaps" advocate, absolutely. "Pseudoscientist," no because presumably, you wouldn't be doing science at all. You said you are not an advocate of mixing the supernatural into science explanation, I will take your word for it.

Its refreshing at least to see these words from the father of the "Big Bang" theory given the often obsessive manner in which atheists bring the theory up all the time, oh the irony!

I am not seeing the irony, substantiate scientific theory is science, regardless of who contributed to/came up with it.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #203]

Please answer "Can a thing be used to explain why that thing exists?" if you want me to spend time reading and replying to your posts.

It has been answered. Visit the link I provided to another thread if you want to remind yourself of the dialog. You basically went through an argument similar to the ontological argument for the existence of a god, and myself and others opposed that. No point reproducing that again here if you're too lazy to revisit the link and read the original comments.

And there's no need to spend time responding to my posts if you don 't want to. Just ignore them. Other people read these exchanges you know, and anyone is free to comment (or not) on a post.

[Difflugia]

Its refreshing at least to see these words from the father of the "Big Bang" theory given the often obsessive manner in which atheists bring the theory up all the time, oh the irony!

The irony that a creationist would quote-mine a source? Color me surprised!

That's sarcastic irony, by the way.

I'll give you the same advice I recently offered Realworldjack. If you're going to rely on an apologetic quote mine, you should at least find the source and make sure that it actually supports your argument. The quoted lecture is available in its entirety in a paper available for free online (pp. 154-179). The purpose of the paper itself is to discuss Lemaître's views, so it's particularly apropos.

“I think that everyone who believes in a supreme being supporting every being and every acting, believes also that God is essentially hidden and may be glad to see how present physics provides a veil hiding the creation”.

What's funny about this quote is that it was originally part of his letter to Nature, but he removed it. The authors of the paper speculate:

He probably deleted this paragraph to avoid introducing any religious reference that might mislead readers. However, in spite of that, many thought then and still do now, that he had a religious agenda for his cosmological proposal. In this way, the idea of the ‘hidden God’ remained hidden from Lemaître’s published writings for a few more years until it resurfaced in 1936, halfway through the twenty-sixth paragraph of the lecture at Malines.

The omnipresent divine action is everywhere essentially hidden. It is forever out of question to reduce the supreme Being to the level of a scientific hypothesis. (ML1936, p. 69)

This is exactly the key to a Christian's ability to be a scientist. One can investigate the natural if the machinations of the supernatural are "hidden" from the researchers. This is contrary to creationist apologetics, even when watered down as intelligent design, which asserts that God is not only apparent in the data, but that the data themselves are opposed to a natural explanation. Lemaître is explicitly repudiating the injection of the supernatural into science that creationists are proposing. For Lemaître, performing science is a devotional exercise that shows him the majesty of God's influence in the world, yet he recognizes that the methods themselves must remain secular:

In a way, the researcher leaves his faith aside in his research, not because it could hamper him, but because it has no immediate bearing on his scientific activity. Thus would a Christian walk, run or swim no differently from an unbeliever.

Think he meant something different? Read it yourself!

[Sherlock Holmes]

emphasis mine.

Right, but did I ever say that I advocate that God should be explicitly referenced in a scientific explanation? I did not; I said - very clearly - that the clause "seeking natural explanations" is what I object to. God was implicit as the primary agency behind the machinations of the universe so far as Faraday, Lemaître and most of the scientists at that time were concerned.

They can be explicit for all I care, all that's required of them, is to separate the supernatural stuff from their scientific explanation, which they managed just fine. So now I have you on record stating that you have not advocated referring to God in a scientific explanation, and that the supernatural is inapplicable when it comes to scientific explanation. I want to asked you again, why are you making a big deal about it, when a) seemingly you have no intention of ever going against the clause. b) none of the scientists you mentioned would have problem complying with that clause?

But that's not what the AAAS definition says at all, it imposes a restriction on what the scientist can seek, what kinds of knowledge they can seek it says they must "seek natural explanations", they do not have any right to tell any scientist what they can and cannot seek.

The AAAS simply have no authority to manufacture a definition of science that states "what's required of them" insofar as what they seek, only what they might eventually present, no definition of science I have ever seen has ever told a person how to think, how to search, where to look, one can and should be able to follow any evidence in any direction that they feel it takes them.

Human thought is not bound by rules, regulations, restrictions; the systematic structuring and inferences and presentation of the end result is but the thought processes that lead to those results and conclusions is not!

The restriction of free thought is exactly what Galileo struggled against.

Regarding the red text above, I've expressed that opinion many times, so yes it is an established matter of record. You are confusing the process developing an explanation with the explanation, you are confusing the tools used to make a product with the product.

If I am told that furniture I make should never expose sharp metal edges that does not mean I cannot use sharp metal edges to construct the table.

The AAAS language is crystal clear it is an imposition upon how one seeks knowledge not an imposition on what one presents as a result of having sought knowledge.

There is no right or wrong way to think all that matters is the outcome of that process not the manner in which the process itself is performed.

[Jose Fly]

But that's not what the AAAS definition says at all, it imposes a restriction on what the scientist can seek, what kinds of knowledge they can seek it says they must "seek natural explanations", they do not have any right to tell any scientist what they can and cannot seek.

The AAAS simply have no authority to manufacture a definition of science that states "what's required of them" insofar as what they seek, only what they might eventually present, no definition of science I have ever seen has ever told a person how to think, how to search, where to look, one can and should be able to follow any evidence in any direction that they feel it takes them.

Human thought is not bound by rules, regulations, restrictions; the systematic structuring and inferences and presentation of the end result is but the thought processes that lead to those results and conclusions is not!

The restriction of free thought is exactly what Galileo struggled against.

Regarding the red text above, I've expressed that opinion many times, so yes it is an established matter of record. You are confusing the process developing an explanation with the explanation, you are confusing the tools used to make a product with the product.

If I am told that furniture I make should never expose sharp metal edges that does not mean I cannot use sharp metal edges to construct the table.

The AAAS language is crystal clear it is an imposition upon how one seeks knowledge not an imposition on what one presents as a result of having sought knowledge.

There is no right or wrong way to think all that matters is the outcome of that process not the manner in which the process itself is performed.

This is just weird. Again, the AAAS is not the only science organization that's defined science that way. I showed that earlier in this thread, you ignored it, and continue to act as if AAAS acted unilaterally.

Also, you apparently think the AAAS constitutes some type of science police, where they not only are the sole arbiters of what is and isn't science, but if anyone dares do anything the AAAS doesn't approve of, they will storm in and put a stop to it all. Or perhaps you think every lab and research facility has a sign near the entrance that has the AAAS definition and a warning that if anyone deviates from it, there will be consequences.

Also, as I noted before, the Discovery Institute had a "research arm" they claimed would conduct scientific research into intelligent design creationism. Did the AAAS try and shut them down? Nope. The DI ended up shutting down their "research arm" all on their own and not because of anything the AAAS or any other science organization did.

So again I have to wonder how you think science actually works in the real world, because it's quite apparent that you are pretty clueless about it. If you or any other person wants to do research under a framework other than methodological naturalism, go right ahead. No one will stop you, no one will storm your lab and smash your equipment, no one will hack into your network and delete your data. Heck, you'll be lucky if anyone even notices or cares what you do.

This is perhaps one of the most fascinating aspects of this topic, i.e., how people who have no idea how scientists go about their work think themselves experts on that subject. Dunning-Kruger indeed.

[Bust Nak]

But that's not what the AAAS definition says at all, it imposes a restriction on what the scientist can seek, what kinds of knowledge they can seek it says they must "seek natural explanations", they do not have any right to tell any scientist what they can and cannot seek.

Rights and authority is not an issue, because scientists never needed to be told in the first place, they have just always sought natural explanation. AAAS isn't telling scientists what to do, AAAS is describing what scientists do - they seek natural explanation.

no definition of science I have ever seen has ever told a person how to think, how to search, where to look, one can and should be able to follow any evidence in any direction that they feel it takes them.

A definition that says an scientific explanation is a reductive model, assuming laws and material quantities, sounds like its about how to think and search, where to look and where to go (look for laws by testing material quantities) to me. What's so different about what you said and what AAAS says?

Human thought is not bound by rules, regulations, restrictions; the systematic structuring and inferences and presentation of the end result is but the thought processes that lead to those results and conclusions is not!

The restriction of free thought is exactly what Galileo struggled against.

That's all well and good, but the point was, you are no longer doing science if you stray beyond the rules.

You are confusing the process developing an explanation with the explanation, you are confusing the tools used to make a product with the product.

Maybe I am, so tell me, how is process for developing nothing but natural explanations, not automatically a process that seek natural explanation? How is a tool that produces only natural explanations, not automatically a tool that seek natural explanations?

If I am told that furniture I make should never expose sharp metal edges that does not mean I cannot use sharp metal edges to construct the table.

It would mean that, if refraining from using sharp metal edges was the only way to produce furniture without sharp edges. And I think repeatedly testing falsifiable hypothesis, verifying the results is the only process/tool to generate reductive explanations based on the assumption of laws and material quantities.

The AAAS language is crystal clear it is an imposition upon how one seeks knowledge not an imposition on what one presents as a result of having sought knowledge.

There is no right or wrong way to think all that matters is the outcome of that process not the manner in which the process itself is performed.

But there is a scientific and non-scientific way.