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 Bust Nak in post #210]

I think we've reached a point where little can be gained by us continuing this, suffice to say my disapproval of the AAAS bastardization can best be conveyed thus:

The Conversation:

Yet even among those words there are core meanings that have remained consistent. In English, science came from Old French, meaning knowledge, learning, application, and a corpus of human knowledge.

It originally came from the Latin word scientia which meant knowledge, a knowing, expertness, or experience. By the late 14th century, science meant, in English, collective knowledge.

But it has consistently carried the meaning of being a socially embedded activity: people seeking, systematising and sharing knowledge.

Etymology Online:

Science, since people must do it, is a socially embedded activity. It progresses by hunch, vision, and intuition. Much of its change through time does not record a closer approach to absolute truth, but the alteration of cultural contexts that influence it so strongly. Facts are not pure and unsullied bits of information; culture also influences what we see and how we see it. Theories, moreover, are not inexorable inductions from facts. The most creative theories are often imaginative visions imposed upon facts; the source of imagination is also strongly cultural. [Stephen Jay Gould, introduction to "The Mismeasure of Man," 1981]

Websters:

1. In a general sense, knowledge, or certain knowledge; the comprehension or understanding of truth or facts by the mind. The science of God must be perfect.

I could go on if you want, but it's clear the intrusive "seeking natural explanations" (the term "natural" doesn't even appear in the above entries) was never something scientists or science recognized, science is a pursuit of knowledge just as it was in Galileo's time - period, if these historic facts don't convince you nothing else will.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #211]

And back round to the beginning we go, if you want to appeal to historical terms or facts, before science was called science, it was called natural philosophy, that predate what you have presented here. There is no intrusion because seeking natural explanations has been built into science since the beginning. I told you as much in my first post here. If it was not something that scientists recognized, then how come none of the ones you mentioned has ever use God as an scientific explanation?

[Sherlock Holmes]

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #211]

And back round to the beginning we go, if you want to appeal to historical terms or facts, before science was called science, it was called natural philosophy, that predate what you have presented here. There is no intrusion because seeking natural explanations has been built into science since the beginning. I told you as much in my first post here. If it was not something that scientists recognized, then how come none of the ones you mentioned has ever use God as an scientific explanation?

Yes I know it was and you're not going to like this:

The study of natural philosophy seeks to explore the cosmos by any means necessary to understand the universe.

If God did create the universe and I revealed that fact to you and you accepted it, would you say that your knowledge would have increased?

As I said many times, science is the pursuit of knowledge and quite distinct from the outcome of that pursuit (theories etc).

[The Barbarian]

Please answer "Can a thing be used to explain why that thing exists?"

"I am that I am."

Guess so.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Please answer "Can a thing be used to explain why that thing exists?"

"I am that I am."

Guess so.

Not a very scientific explanation is it Barbarian...

[The Barbarian]

Please answer "Can a thing be used to explain why that thing exists?"

"I am that I am."

Guess so.

Not a very scientific explanation is it Barbarian...

It's O.K. to be unscientific when the issue is not about science. I am frequently unscientific myself. One of the surprising superstitions among many creationists is the delusion that science is a worldview or a philosophy. There is a philosophy of science, but it is not science. Are you familiar at all with epistemology? Might be worth checking out.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Please answer "Can a thing be used to explain why that thing exists?"

"I am that I am."

Guess so.

Not a very scientific explanation is it Barbarian...

It's O.K. to be unscientific when the issue is not about science. I am frequently unscientific myself. One of the surprising superstitions among many creationists is the delusion that science is a worldview or a philosophy. There is a philosophy of science, but it is not science. Are you familiar at all with epistemology? Might be worth checking out.

So, how do you decide if some question has a scientific explanation or not?

Clearly self awareness - in your view - does not have a scientific explanation, I agree actually, perhaps we are getting somewhere with you after all.

[The Barbarian]

So, how do you decide if some question has a scientific explanation or not?

If it can be answered by a naturalistic explanation.

Clearly self awareness - in your view - does not have a scientific explanation,

What do you think "self-awareness" is? The simple fact is that any sufficiently powerful representational system has truths in it that cannot be represented within the system. But there are completely natural systems that are both sufficiently powerful and unable to represent all truths within them, indicating that such a thing is not due to a supernatural component. I suspect that this issue is why we have such difficulty understanding consciousness. As one very wise man noted, a mind is not merely an epiphenomenon of the brain. But that might be one of the things it is. Given what God has done with nature, I am skeptical that He could do no more than make a world in which a human nervous system could evolve, but then be unable to do more than graft a soul or consciousness onto it. Dualism seems wrong to me, as well as deeply unsatisfying in a philosophical way. No philosopher or neuroscientist has so far answered the question of consciousness to my satisfaction.

[Bust Nak]

Yes I know it was and you're not going to like this:

The study of natural philosophy seeks to explore the cosmos by any means necessary to understand the universe.

So natural philosophers used any means necessary, yet none of the ones that you mentioned used supernatural means, instead they all stuck to empirical testing. Therefore supernatural means are not necessary. I don't think you are making the point you thought you were making.

If God did create the universe and I revealed that fact to you and you accepted it, would you say that your knowledge would have increased?

Yes, revealed how? Presumably by supernatural means. This is why the unqualified "pursuit of knowledge" appeal to etymology is overly board and should be discarded.

As I said many times, science is the pursuit of knowledge and quite distinct from the outcome of that pursuit (theories etc).

I asked you this before, so make the distinction clear for me. What's inappropriate with labelling a process of "pursuit of knowledge" that generate only natural explanations, as a process of seeking natural explanations? What's wrong with calling a tool of "pursuit of knowledge" that generate only natural explanations, a tool of seeking natural explanations?

[Sherlock Holmes]

Yes I know it was and you're not going to like this:

The study of natural philosophy seeks to explore the cosmos by any means necessary to understand the universe.

So natural philosophers used any means necessary, yet none of the ones that you mentioned used supernatural means, instead they all stuck to empirical testing. Therefore supernatural means are not necessary. I don't think you are making the point you thought you were making.

How do you know what means they used? did any of them meditate? did any of them pray? did any of them seek inspiration? Of course you do not know what they may have done nor what role such things might have played in their thought processes.

But even if you could show this, the point is the established meaning of the term involves "any means necessary" including means that you might not personally adopt or approve of, basically how one thinks is not the same thing as what one produces from that thinking.

If God did create the universe and I revealed that fact to you and you accepted it, would you say that your knowledge would have increased?

Yes, revealed how? Presumably by supernatural means. This is why the unqualified "pursuit of knowledge" appeal to etymology is overly board and should be discarded.

Revealed to the extent you accept it as true, but you don't want to answer and I understand why.

You are free to take the view that "any means necessary" has no place for how you think, but that's not the issue we've been discussing.

As I said many times, science is the pursuit of knowledge and quite distinct from the outcome of that pursuit (theories etc).

I asked you this before, so make the distinction clear for me. What's inappropriate with labelling a process of "pursuit of knowledge" that generate only natural explanations, as a process of seeking natural explanations? What's wrong with calling a tool of "pursuit of knowledge" that generate only natural explanations, a tool of seeking natural explanations?

It strives to redefine science (which is "the pursuit of knowledge") as actually being the "pursuit of natural explanations". It conflates "knowledge" with "natural explanations" and is to all intents and purposes an attempt define science as nothing other than empiricism, science may leverage empiricism but it does not share its defintion.

Let me now ask the converse - What's inappropriate in describing a process as "the pursuit of knowledge by any means necessary" a definition that almost all scientists through the scientific revolution never had occasion to complain about?