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.

[Bust Nak]

How do you know what means they used?

By the documents they left describing their methodology, on how you can replicate their results.

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.

Maybe they did, but would you call meditating, praying or seeking inspiration from religion, examples of "doing science" or not?

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.

Ah huh, and as I keep pointing out, think how you like, if you are not producing natural explanations, then you are not doing science.

Revealed to the extent you accept it as true...

Still doesn't tell me if it was via naturalistic means or supernatural means.

but you don't want to answer and I understand why.

The record will show that I did answer. Repeated here for your convenience, my answer was "yes."

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.

Right, we were talking about the nature of science.

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.

It's not a redefinition if it is accurate. A pursuit of knowledge that generate only natural explanations, is an endeavour that seeks natural explanations. There is no conflating knowledge with natural explanations, just specifying a particular kind of knowledge.

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?

I told you why it is inappropriate, it's overly broad. It fails to convey the importance of empirical observation and experimentation. Watching TV would increase my knowledge, would you call that science?

[Sherlock Holmes]

How do you know what means they used?

By the documents they left describing their methodology, on how you can replicate their results.

Which of course is not an exhaustive hour by hour record of their lives.

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.

Maybe they did, but would you call meditating, praying or seeking inspiration from religion, examples of "doing science" or not?

Yes, I'd call that pursuing knowledge.

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.

Ah huh, and as I keep pointing out, think how you like, if you are not producing natural explanations, then you are not doing science.

I'm not sure I can agree, after all a long established definition of science is "the pursuit of knowledge by any means necessary".

Revealed to the extent you accept it as true...

Still doesn't tell me if it was via naturalistic means or supernatural means.

Well unless you're an empiricist it shouldn't matter, are you?

but you don't want to answer and I understand why.

The record will show that I did answer. Repeated here for your convenience, my answer was "yes."

Yes, you're correct you did answer, my apologies, but are you saying the "Yes" is conditional?

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.

Right, we were talking about the nature of science.

Wrong, we were talking about the established definition of "science" and how the AAAS feel it is necessary to change that definition as a pretext to accusing some of engaging in "pseudoscience" which in turn serves to instantly discredit someone questioning the efficacy of conjectured evolutionary processes. That is the motivation for making up a new definition is very obviously to protect the evolution doctrine from being challenged; this is clear from the letter that Jose shared, the context is crystal clear.

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 definition.

It's not a redefinition if it is accurate. A pursuit of knowledge that generate only natural explanations, is an endeavor that seeks natural explanations. There is no conflating knowledge with natural explanations, just specifying a particular kind of knowledge.

Yet the belief that "the natural world is governed by laws that we can discover and represent with mathematics" is something that motivates the physicist's pursuit of knowledge yet does not itself have a natural explanation.

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?

I told you why it is inappropriate, it's overly broad. It fails to convey the importance of empirical observation and experimentation. Watching TV would increase my knowledge, would you call that science?

Of course I would; if you were watching lots of news and tabulating the frequency of reports about - say - Ukraine vs US and EU sources of that news, then yes that would be a perfect fit for the social sciences. TV, radio, newspapers all play an important role in the social sciences.

[Jose Fly]

So SH believes praying and meditating constitute "doing science". I have to wonder just how serious he is about that, and if he really does believe it, how he thinks that would work in the real world.

For example, part of my job is to lead teams of biologists and other scientists as we work to address key unknowns and try and answer important questions. That process involves coordinating data collection and analyses, as well as soliciting, reviewing, and eventually providing funding for research.

I wonder what SH thinks would happen if I went to our next meeting and told everyone "Today we're going to pray"? What would happen if I told our team that I've decided to fund a prayer group? What do you think the reactions from my colleagues would be?

[Sherlock Holmes]

So SH believes praying and meditating constitute "doing science". I have to wonder just how serious he is about that, and if he really does believe it, how he thinks that would work in the real world.

To "do science" as you put it, one must think, so anything that's conducive to thinking can be helpful in the pursuit of knowledge. Meditation is self reflection, inducing calmness and clarity of thought so of course it is something many people do as part of their thinking be it science or anything else. If you don't (or think you don't) do things like this when you solve problems or frame questions then that's fine but you cannot seriously expect everyone to think as you do.

For example, part of my job is to lead teams of biologists and other scientists as we work to address key unknowns and try and answer important questions. That process involves coordinating data collection and analyses, as well as soliciting, reviewing, and eventually providing funding for research.

Yes, many of us have professional work and duties that have similar goals.

I wonder what SH thinks would happen if I went to our next meeting and told everyone "Today we're going to pray"? What would happen if I told our team that I've decided to fund a prayer group? What do you think the reactions from my colleagues would be?

Well I for one don't regard praying as a collective team activity, if that's your personal perception of it then it suggest you have a narrow, simplistic understanding of the term.

The human mind is essential for "doing science" yet it is not a machine that follows rules, thinking cannot be reduced to rules, algorithms, it is itself a deep, profound mystery and you have no basis for trivializing this important aspect of science.

[Jose Fly]

So SH believes praying and meditating constitute "doing science". I have to wonder just how serious he is about that, and if he really does believe it, how he thinks that would work in the real world.

To "do science" as you put it, one must think, so anything that's conducive to thinking can be helpful in the pursuit of knowledge. Meditation is self reflection, inducing calmness and clarity of thought so of course it is something many people do as part of their thinking be it science or anything else. If you don't (or think you don't) do things like this when you solve problems or frame questions then that's fine but you cannot seriously expect everyone to think as you do.

For example, part of my job is to lead teams of biologists and other scientists as we work to address key unknowns and try and answer important questions. That process involves coordinating data collection and analyses, as well as soliciting, reviewing, and eventually providing funding for research.

Yes, many of us have professional work and duties that have similar goals.

I wonder what SH thinks would happen if I went to our next meeting and told everyone "Today we're going to pray"? What would happen if I told our team that I've decided to fund a prayer group? What do you think the reactions from my colleagues would be?

Well I for one don't regard praying as a collective team activity, if that's your personal perception of it then it suggest you have a narrow, simplistic understanding of the term.

The human mind is essential for "doing science" yet it is not a machine that follows rules, thinking cannot be reduced to rules, algorithms, it is itself a deep, profound mystery and you have no basis for trivializing this important aspect of science.

That's all one big dodge. Again, if I started off our next meeting with "We're going to pray today", or if I announced that I have decided to fund a prayer group, what do you think the reactions from my colleagues would be? Do you think my supervisor would support my actions?

[Sherlock Holmes]

So SH believes praying and meditating constitute "doing science". I have to wonder just how serious he is about that, and if he really does believe it, how he thinks that would work in the real world.

To "do science" as you put it, one must think, so anything that's conducive to thinking can be helpful in the pursuit of knowledge. Meditation is self reflection, inducing calmness and clarity of thought so of course it is something many people do as part of their thinking be it science or anything else. If you don't (or think you don't) do things like this when you solve problems or frame questions then that's fine but you cannot seriously expect everyone to think as you do.

For example, part of my job is to lead teams of biologists and other scientists as we work to address key unknowns and try and answer important questions. That process involves coordinating data collection and analyses, as well as soliciting, reviewing, and eventually providing funding for research.

Yes, many of us have professional work and duties that have similar goals.

I wonder what SH thinks would happen if I went to our next meeting and told everyone "Today we're going to pray"? What would happen if I told our team that I've decided to fund a prayer group? What do you think the reactions from my colleagues would be?

Well I for one don't regard praying as a collective team activity, if that's your personal perception of it then it suggest you have a narrow, simplistic understanding of the term.

The human mind is essential for "doing science" yet it is not a machine that follows rules, thinking cannot be reduced to rules, algorithms, it is itself a deep, profound mystery and you have no basis for trivializing this important aspect of science.

That's all one big dodge. Again, if I started off our next meeting with "We're going to pray today", or if I announced that I have decided to fund a prayer group, what do you think the reactions from my colleagues would be? Do you think my supervisor would support my actions?

Why not show them this thread instead Jose? Let them see how their erudite leader is the real dodger here, I wonder what reactions they'd have to your personal attacks against me.

[Jose Fly]

So SH believes praying and meditating constitute "doing science". I have to wonder just how serious he is about that, and if he really does believe it, how he thinks that would work in the real world.

To "do science" as you put it, one must think, so anything that's conducive to thinking can be helpful in the pursuit of knowledge. Meditation is self reflection, inducing calmness and clarity of thought so of course it is something many people do as part of their thinking be it science or anything else. If you don't (or think you don't) do things like this when you solve problems or frame questions then that's fine but you cannot seriously expect everyone to think as you do.

For example, part of my job is to lead teams of biologists and other scientists as we work to address key unknowns and try and answer important questions. That process involves coordinating data collection and analyses, as well as soliciting, reviewing, and eventually providing funding for research.

Yes, many of us have professional work and duties that have similar goals.

I wonder what SH thinks would happen if I went to our next meeting and told everyone "Today we're going to pray"? What would happen if I told our team that I've decided to fund a prayer group? What do you think the reactions from my colleagues would be?

Well I for one don't regard praying as a collective team activity, if that's your personal perception of it then it suggest you have a narrow, simplistic understanding of the term.

The human mind is essential for "doing science" yet it is not a machine that follows rules, thinking cannot be reduced to rules, algorithms, it is itself a deep, profound mystery and you have no basis for trivializing this important aspect of science.

That's all one big dodge. Again, if I started off our next meeting with "We're going to pray today", or if I announced that I have decided to fund a prayer group, what do you think the reactions from my colleagues would be? Do you think my supervisor would support my actions?

Why not show them this thread instead Jose? Let them see how their erudite leader is the real dodger here, I wonder what reactions they'd have to your personal attacks against me.

More stereotypical creationist dodging. Normally a simple question like "What do you think..." wouldn't be such a land mine, but I guess there's a reason you're soooooo intent on avoiding answering.

Makes me wonder....do you think you're doing well here? Do you think you're really representing creationism positively with this sort of constant dodging?

EDIT: Tell you what, I will show this thread to some of my colleagues and I'll let you know what they say.

[Sherlock Holmes]

So SH believes praying and meditating constitute "doing science". I have to wonder just how serious he is about that, and if he really does believe it, how he thinks that would work in the real world.

To "do science" as you put it, one must think, so anything that's conducive to thinking can be helpful in the pursuit of knowledge. Meditation is self reflection, inducing calmness and clarity of thought so of course it is something many people do as part of their thinking be it science or anything else. If you don't (or think you don't) do things like this when you solve problems or frame questions then that's fine but you cannot seriously expect everyone to think as you do.

For example, part of my job is to lead teams of biologists and other scientists as we work to address key unknowns and try and answer important questions. That process involves coordinating data collection and analyses, as well as soliciting, reviewing, and eventually providing funding for research.

Yes, many of us have professional work and duties that have similar goals.

I wonder what SH thinks would happen if I went to our next meeting and told everyone "Today we're going to pray"? What would happen if I told our team that I've decided to fund a prayer group? What do you think the reactions from my colleagues would be?

Well I for one don't regard praying as a collective team activity, if that's your personal perception of it then it suggest you have a narrow, simplistic understanding of the term.

The human mind is essential for "doing science" yet it is not a machine that follows rules, thinking cannot be reduced to rules, algorithms, it is itself a deep, profound mystery and you have no basis for trivializing this important aspect of science.

That's all one big dodge. Again, if I started off our next meeting with "We're going to pray today", or if I announced that I have decided to fund a prayer group, what do you think the reactions from my colleagues would be? Do you think my supervisor would support my actions?

Why not show them this thread instead Jose? Let them see how their erudite leader is the real dodger here, I wonder what reactions they'd have to your personal attacks against me.

More stereotypical creationist dodging. Normally a simple question like "What do you think..." wouldn't be such a land mine, but I guess there's a reason you're soooooo intent on avoiding answering.

Makes me wonder....do you think you're doing well here? Do you think you're really representing creationism positively with this sort of constant dodging?

EDIT: Tell you what, I will show this thread to some of my colleagues and I'll let you know what they say.

Jose I told you why terms like "prayer" and "mediation" might be relevant to some people, how the vary nature of thought is integral to "doing science" and you respond by dismissing that as a "dodge"? who are you to dismiss prayer or meditation or music or gardening or marijuana if they help some people prepare for a demanding intellectual challenge?

[brunumb]

who are you to dismiss prayer or meditation or music or gardening or marijuana if they help some people prepare for a demanding intellectual challenge?

Prepare. As in prepare to undertake the actual activity of scientific investigation. Having a shower, getting dressed, eating breakfast are also about preparing for a demanding intellectual challenge. No reason to dismiss any of them, but hardly "doing science".

[benchwarmer]

I wonder what SH thinks would happen if I went to our next meeting and told everyone "Today we're going to pray"? What would happen if I told our team that I've decided to fund a prayer group? What do you think the reactions from my colleagues would be?

I pray none of your colleagues are drinking a fizzy soda at the moment you reveal your plan Though that might present a neat scientific question for research: Why does it burn so bad when it comes out of one's nose?