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.

And yes, on the Shakespeare point: or put more modernly, fact is stranger than fiction. Indeed.

Practicly all creationists are Christians.

Uh, no. Practically all creationists are religious: either Christian, or Muslim, or Native American, or Hindu, or of any of the many other religions with creation myths (not meaning that phrase in a derogatory way).

It’s more than a stretch to call creationism a science. Science looks at the evidence before making a conclusion; it’s testable and falsifiable; etc. Creationism begins with a conclusion and looks for evidence to support it; it’s not falsifiable; etc. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong–it just means it’s not science. I think you may have meant more that creationism is a rigorous study of a discipline, as opposed to Christanity which is more specifically about worship.

And I agree, it is very important to draw a distinction between Christianity and creationism; though they do bear a relationship to one another, they’re not at all the same thing.

And creationism has absolutely none of the characteristics of science, and all the characteristics of anti-science, while evolution is the opposite. The following link has a list of characteristics commonly found in pseudoscience. “The presence of even one of these should arouse great suspicion.” Creationism has every single characteristic on this list, while evolution has none.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html

david tiley, I find the words “conservative” and “liberal” to be very contextual and have many different meanings depending upon context and the person using them.

For instance, conservative means “limited” and liberal means “widespread” or “open”. So is that in relation to social needs, religion, role of government, cultural heritage? I would suggest the two main political parties (Republicans vs Democrats) each contain a mix of ideas, though each gets labeled by only one term as if it is all-inclusive.

The Republicans are “conservative”, which means limited government, fewer restrictions. Except when it comes to things like who can sleep with or marry whom, or military spending and size, etc. Similarly, the Democrats are “liberals” and want big government to take care of everything, except of course when it comes to imposing on social issues like who can sleep with or marry whom, or military spending and size.

The words have become labels that don’t necessarily correspond with their meaning.

True conservatism is about respecting heritage, and our heritage is fundamentally scientificf on a gazillion different levels.

I don’t mean to imply that other civilisations don’t think clearly and apply processes of proof, but at its best, ours does.

Nor am I saying that non-conservatives are unscientific either – I am not a conservative myself, but I truly wish our conservative friends would stand on our side in the debate against anti-scientism.

I suggest you read ecclesiasties. It’s a book by Solomon on the meaning of life. For background information, Solomon was king of Isreal during its golden age. He was rich, no limits. He was also incredibly wise. So, he goes on an adventure on what can bring satisfaction. A really cool book.

OTOH, M Duke, I don’t think your larger point is very established (for lack of a better word). As Irishman said (a little more brusquely), the things you describe are Christian activities to be sure, but not specifically creationist ones. I’m also not sure you wouldn’t have received much the same advantages through similar devotions at mosque or synagogue had you had a different accident of birth. The Bible is an important book to read, clearly (though there are also other important books). The learning of discipline and focus through rigorous Bible study is beneficial, but…I’m not sure that it leads to critical thinking. Which parts encourage critical thinking?

I’m not sure why you think singing is relevant. Singing isn’t science, and science isn’t singing. If your religious environment helped develop your singing ability and you enjoy that, great for you. If that is something you would not have had to draw upon if you didn’t attend church, then perhaps you would have missed out on that, or perhaps you would have found alternative ways to develop your singing. Either way, that has no bearing on evolution or science.

>Parts of the Bible invoke critical thinking.

Really? I don’t recall those. But parts of the Bible invoke the killing of witches. Parts of the Bible invoke unquestioning allegiance. Parts of the Bible invoke the keeping of slaves. Parts of the Bible invoke genocide (in God’s name for his chosen people, of course).

All of which is also irrelevant to evolution and science.

If you don’t know what that means, please read (multiple times) Carl Sagan’s wonderful book A Demon-Haunted World; Science as a Candle in the Dark. I’m sure it will, as it did for me, make crystal clear why we humans are so pathetically credulous.

It is, without a doubt, the most fascinating and absorbing account of history and science I’ve ever read. You too will have dragon in your garage. I promise. Dr. Sagan’s clear thinking and endearing humor are sorely missed. And check out Cosmos, which someone pointed out is re-running on the Science Channel.

Keep working on your Baloney Detectors!

Wellington said:
>Yes, it is sad that people believe in pyschics or whatever, but it
>will be of no consequence to our offspring. Can you say the same
>for SUVs?

I can say that for sure, because I have no offspring, nor do I want any That wasn’t what you were getting at though.

I’d have to say that I think SUVs won’t be around forever, but stupidity is immortal and has a really unpleasant habit of hurting people. The combined damage that all the psychics that have ever lived have done to the world through the perpetuation of myth, fear, and non-critical thinking is, in my opinion, of greater impact than all the SUVs that have been or ever will be made.

I think both those questions are missing the point of the article, and what science means. You don’t “believe in science”. You think scientifically. Can you still think scientifically if you believe in creationism? SURE, but most don’t, especially if their whole purpose for preaching creationism is to refute common mainstream scientific conclusions. Like wise you don’t have to be atheist to be a scientist, let alone and evolutionary scientist.

As far as conservatives vs liberals, how do you define conservative? There is just as much if not more anti-science coming from the left as there is the right, and the defense of science is not made from either the left or the right. Science by definition is apolitical. I have plenty of hippy aquaintences teling me i’d feel better if I had a Feng shei ?sp? expert in my house, or singing the praises of wheat grass (not for me thanks I only have one stomach).

Sure there are plenty of the folks who post here and the message boards who are probably left of center, and many who are atheist. But that is who they would choose to be had they never persued “science”.

Besides Re-read the original article. It is in referecne to Anti-science in general. Maybe some of the posts have been slanted to whoever you are that is offended. But the first time I was exposed to this site was for the movie reviews a few years ago. Defending anti-science is more than defending evolution and much much more that bashing creationism or further young earth creationism. Its trying to get eyes open to scientific method, and empirical thought.

Do you believe that the universe is only a few thousand years old ?

Its not an either-or situation where if you believe in evolution you can’t sing in the choir, or read the bible.

I suppose it depends if the bible should always be taken literally or not ( the old testament is always a good example of excessive violence that I hope people don’t follow).