I have a similar complaint about scientists using religious metaphors in their labeling and explanations, i.e. “the God Particle”, “knowing the mind of God”, etc. I think these are hubristic and also that they only serve to cloud the issue and confuse, not to clarify and explain. The whole point of science is to clarify and explain, so it is counterproductive as well as irritating.

> But you either hear, or are worried that someone else might here, in my rhetoric a justification for accepting “bizarre or paranormal claims as true�.

I wasn’t sure in that first pass, but now I think we’re on the same page.

> We are in the far stronger position of being able to point out they are not science at all because all their conclusions are rigged. Their method is different, and nobody uses it to build a bridge. That is all we need to keep it out of science classes.

In an ideal world, that would be the case. However, classroom curricula are determined in the real world, and politics and popularity can override sense.

Hmm, I think we are in agreement and just aren’t semantically in tune.

>Magical thinking is not the same as accepting there is, and will always be, reality beyond our ability to perceive or conceptualize with any given technology or intellect. The former is an incorrect application of the scientific method, the latter is the recognition of the limitations of same. I think scientists act with too much gall when they suppose that right around the corner is a theory that will actually explain everything that is real, a moment’s thought refutes that idea for anyone who has experienced life. And nonscientists realize this, they sense it in their bones even though they don’t know that much science. It is the same gall that religious people exhibit when they purport that their God is the “real� one. But fortunately, it is not necessary for science to accomplish the complete understanding of all reality. Indeed, we should be cautioned against promising more than we can deliver.

Okay, I accept there may be things we cannot perceive and/or understand. We are limited by who we are. I don’t count that as a limitation on rational thought as much as a limitation on the information we have to evaluate. Perhaps there is “intelligence� we cannot conceptualize because it is as beyond our abilities as calculus is beyond a dog. I don’t count that as a justification to accept bizarre or paranormal claims as true without objective evidence.

I share your distaste with scientists who hyperbolize their ideas. I find the label “Theory of Everything� to be exceedingly hubristic, and it annoys me that scientists have glommed to that label rather than using some sense.

Ken Gayley Said:
> There is a lot of confusion about what science really is and what it is useful for– one can really only use it to find useful quantitative or logical constructions that allow you to fit a large number of seemingly unrelated observations into a small number of conceptual boxes.

Science is “just� a systematic way of observing and describing the behavior of the cosmos. Just in quotes because that’s a very limiting word for considering such a powerful tool. Cosmos being used here to describe everything that exists, in toto or any subset or specific element. Here I think we agree.

>It achieves usefulness in two ways, one is by organizing the observations in such a cogent way that they become easier to remember (they “make sense�), and the other, higher use appears only when the boxes are so well laid out that they yield correct predictions for new observations. The former property allows you to build a bridge, for example, and the latter allows you to dream up a better design for one. But neither have anything whatsoever to do with Truth, in the philosphical or religious sense.

“The Truth� is one of those absolutist concepts that is hard to define. But we know what truth is in juxtaposition with falsity. Providing accurate descriptions that match up with observations about reality and yielding correct predictions for new observations are truths, compared to providing inaccurate descriptions that do not match observations and/or yielding incorrect predictions about new observations. Descriptions and predictions are evaluated by their levels of falsity. The words “accurate� and “correct� are just a variation on “true�.

Yes, Science is a stepwise (iterative) process of only getting better approximations to the way things are – the way things really are being about the only definition of Truth that really means anything. There either is or is not an objective reality out there. If there is, then science is the best tool that humanity has developed for systematically understanding it. If there is not, then none of this matters at all because most of us probably don’t exist anyway, and any that do have no hope of useful communication because there are no reliable points in common. Your “blueâ€? is not even my “redâ€?, it may be my “tastyâ€? or my “fuzzyâ€? or my “coprixapyâ€?. But the funny thing is there seems to be something that functions as an objective reality. Definition of reality – what continues to exist after you stop believing in it. We all laugh at the RoadRunner cartoons when gravity only works when the Coyote is aware that he should be falling. It’s funny, because we all know that is NOT reality. Gravity works even when you’re not aware – unconscious, in a coma, brain dead.

So we can assume there is an objective reality out there, and thus we are back to case 1. That objective reality is “the Truth�, whatever that means.

>So why do religious people want to mix science into their faith-based conception of Truth? And why do scientists, for that matter? Much has been pointed out in these pages about the fallacy of using religion in the scientific method, but little has been said about the converse.

Using the scientific method in religion?

>But science, and its ally rational thought, should never be used as a belief system, for if it is, you encounter the following conundrum. Either reality emerged out of rational thought, or rational thought emerged out of reality. If the former, then IDers are right, and most of us agree this isn’t science. But if the latter, then is it at all plausible that rational thought can be used to conceive all of reality, its mother? It seems by far more likely that if evolution is responsible for the intelligence we use to understand our universe, then Shakespeare must be right, and there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy.

Perhaps, but what is the alternative? Insanity? Magical thinking? Based upon the previously established criteria of comparative degrees of falsehood, magical thinking falls on the more false end of the scale while rational thought falls on the more true end of the scale. Pick whichever approach you wish, but I’ll take reality, please.