The United States is a funny place, full of self-contradictions. We know that science education is getting slammed, and has been for years. Yet in surveys (admittedly from a few years back) we also know that people love science news, and want to hear more about it. Many people understand that science has a big impact on their lives, but have a limited understanding of how science works, or even what it is.
And, of course, the past few years we’ve seen an unprecedented attack on it, both from government and from self-styled "think tanks" where thinking appears to be the last thing on their minds.
There’s a clear need for us — scientists, educators, hobbyists, and just plain old lovers of reality — to do more to educate people. And more than that: we need to excite them. Science isn’t just another topic to learn from a dusty book or a dry website, it’s an aspect of the Universe itself to be experienced and to revel in.
Enter Understanding Science. It’s a website designed to get people started in, well, understanding science. And as if they were sending a message straight to my heart, this is what they say about science:
Science is, in one sense, our knowledge of … all the stuff that is in the universe: from the tiniest subatomic particles in a single atom of the metal in your computer’s circuits, to the nuclear reactions that formed the immense ball of gas that is our sun, to the complex chemical interactions and electrical fluctuations within your own body that allow you to read and understand these words. But just as importantly, science is also a reliable process by which we learn about all that stuff in the universe. However, science is different from many other ways of learning because of the way it is done. Science relies on testing ideas with evidence gathered from the natural world.
The emphasis above is mine, because this is something I tell kids all the time. They think of science like a dictionary: a bunch of facts to memorize. But science is also the way we know those things. It’s a method.
But it’s far, far more than that. It’s discovery, it’s understanding, it’s trying, it’s thinking, it’s asking, it’s investigating, it’s questioning, it’s being clever, it’s doubting, it’s wondering, it’s solving, it’s uncovering, it’s finding things out.
It’s us, being curious. That’s science.
January 12th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Give em hell Mr. P.
January 12th, 2009 at 10:41 am
Bravo, Phil!
January 12th, 2009 at 10:47 am
I think I saw the same link somewhere on Skepchick. Glad to see it’s getting around.
January 12th, 2009 at 11:09 am
I agree that science is a method.
I think it is important to reminder that just about everything we now know, just about everything we have learned through science, previously had an explanation. That is, we already had the “knowledge”.
When we find science facts fascinating, it is important to remember that we obtained those facts only through incessant questioning and curiosity. It is really cool that the sun crushes hydrogen into helium and creates the energy that provides for all of life on Earth in the process. Then again, people used to think it was a ball of fire being pulled across the sky by a chariot of horses. They probably thought that was really cool. Understanding how the immune system works and how we can help it with vaccines is powerful stuff. But we used to think bleeding people made them healthier and I imagine people thought that was a really clever “discovery”. But science keeps asking, keeps testing, keeps digging and correcting.
Today some people may think it is really cool that we can cure people with magnets, or talk to dead people or that aliens visit us. But if they stick to the process, if they asking, keep testing, they may find reality even cooler.
So I might argue that science is ONLY a process and scientific facts are the by-products. This is a good opportunity for that journey / destination thing but I’ll spare you. But it is interesting to note that answering a scientific question rarely leads to an end of inquiry. Just brings up the next question.
January 12th, 2009 at 11:12 am
The problem is that the American education system is graduating scientifically illiterate young adults. They are buying into the woo and wacky ideas of the loons. Just look at the vaccine debate. I recently awarded the Fully Loaded 10CC Syringe Award based on this. See www.Age-Of-Ignorance.blogspot.com.
January 12th, 2009 at 11:13 am
Most people lack the intellectual fortitude to attempt to understand complex topics and ideas. Many people develop an aversion or disinterest to science from previous conflicts — either seeing the hard-fought war between religious types and die-hard scientists, or from the education system, or from being afraid to *even slightly* resemble the stereotypical bad-smelling nerd-in-a-trek-outfit that prattles on about details to inane topics.
The battle between the religion of science and the religion of the magic man is confusing and very messy, and creates all kinds of casualties through those that do not understand. Both sides of this battle (Yes, Phil, you’re on one of them) suffer from the “neo-con blindness”, where you’re only interested in preaching to the choir instead of spending the time to justify and explain both sides, fairly, to the unknowing people you encounter. There are many people who attend religious ceremonies for the community experience but are not religious, and grouping them with the religious right simply pushes them away.
A great many have also been taught to be disinterested by the schooling systems, where reading and thinking are forced, and thus become punishment. Unless the individual gains more personal enjoyment from the act of learning than he or she suffers in having to think about it, the individual will avoid this. Thus most people are learning-averse and avoid the “wall of text” at all costs. Sadly, there are few people who understand the problem a large body of text (like a complex scientific article or paper) poses to the majority *and* has the intellectual fortitude to actually process the document.
—
What you’re peering at here is the intellectual divide. Unlike most other divides, this one is based on biology (brain processing ability) and life experience, not based on class or wealth or image preferences. As such, this divide is very difficult for many to visualize and see. Those of us on the one side can learn to see it, and can teach those on the other. Maybe they don’t want to read, but they’re still willing to *listen* to information *that relates to them in some way*.
January 12th, 2009 at 11:16 am
Cool site. I bookmarked it and plan to use it next year at the beginning of the year when we first start talking about what science is, and is not. Thanks Phil
January 12th, 2009 at 11:24 am
I think that part of the problem is that science is, for a huge portion of the population, viewed as a type of magic.
What does *the public* see of science? They see technological advances - and technological failures: the results of what is almost always years of hard, scientific work; but they rarely see the actual work that goes into it.
Look at something like an airliner. There’s an absolutely huge amount of science in there: the physics of flight; the physics, chemistry, and engineering of the engines that power it; the geophysics and engineering of the navigation systems; the engineering of the seats; and all the science that makes up the materials from which the thing is built. All that science to create a safe, fast mode of transportation. But what the public sees is “Plane shiny. fly like bird. go fast. cost lots.” (insert Quest For Fire image here).
Vaccines are the same. Why are there so many anti-vaxxers? Because vaccines are treated like magic. The public doesn’t see the huge amount of science that goes into making a vaccine, testing it, and bringing it to the public. They only see the end result. It’s as magic as anything in the holy book of your choice, and without the accountability to a deity.
Cellular phones are pretty much a mainstay of western society now, yet there’s a mountain of digital signal processing, radio theory, ergonomics, solid state physics, computer science etc. that went in to making cellular phones. Nobody cares about that - they just want an overpriced, underperforming iPhone because it looks cool.
There’s a perception of people interested in science that is decidedly negative as well. Right from public school… girls don’t want to date the math team champ, they want the unibrow football jock. Scientists are losers, nerds, anti-social geeks. That not only makes people not want to see the science, it actively discourages people who might otherwise be interested. Because kids are indoctrinated like that at an early age, the damage is done long before they would think to start reading here and seeing how cool science can be
January 12th, 2009 at 11:33 am
“the nuclear reactions that formed the immense ball of gas that is our sun”
I think they mean PLASMA, not gas.
January 12th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Well done Gil!
January 12th, 2009 at 11:48 am
@ EvolvingSquid
Right from public school… girls don’t want to date the math team champ, they want the unibrow football jock.
Well, that and there were fewer girls-interested-in-girls than girls-interested-in-guys, at least in the case of my high school. But, I agree… as a math team champ, I didn’t get asked on many dates in high school. (Dunno how my classmate, who was both a baseball player and also on the math team fared in that matter.)
January 12th, 2009 at 11:50 am
mus: plasma is a gas, an ionized one.
January 12th, 2009 at 11:53 am
“Both sides of this battle (Yes, Phil, you’re on one of them) suffer from the “neo-con blindness”, where you’re only interested in preaching to the choir instead of spending the time to justify and explain both sides, fairly, to the unknowing people you encounter.”
There is no preaching going on here. All of Phil’s post on science involve actual science that we, his readers, are encouraged to review and, if we find something out of place or misleading, to correct him. And then he corrects himself, something no pseudoscientist or preacher will ever do.
“There are many people who attend religious ceremonies for the community experience but are not religious, and grouping them with the religious right simply pushes them away.”
This reminds me of a ‘be kind to Bigots’ joke George Carlin used to make.
The people who are forcing the religious to choose between science and religion aren’t scientist like Phil but the religious themselves. Ever heard the argument ‘no true Christian would ever ect?’ Guess who makes it. Phil may be opposed to religion and the supernatural in general but that’s because he doesn’t set up a double standard where one set of beliefs can’t be reviewed.
“Unless the individual gains more personal enjoyment from the act of learning than he or she suffers in having to think about it, the individual will avoid this.”
I disagree but in a much less disrespectful tone then previously. The issue here isn’t that children aren’t enjoying this stuff. If that were the problem everyone I knew in High School would have flunked out. Most of them, myself included, would do our best to perform well and be insightful even in classes we hated. Why? Because we viewed them as important and that was all that mattered.
Of course most of us forgot everything immediately after Finals week but I think that only enforces my point. Once something stops being important or relevant it gets discarded. And since you can’t dictate what people will like or dislike the best solution is to make it relevant to their lives.
“Maybe they don’t want to read, but they’re still willing to *listen* to information *that relates to them in some way*”
agreed.
January 12th, 2009 at 12:30 pm
Science may be a reliable process, but is far from being a failure free process.
It’s reliant on the ability to observe, and it’s endangered by scientists willing to contaminate it with their own biases.
“It’s discovery, it’s understanding, it’s trying, it’s thinking, it’s asking, it’s investigating, it’s questioning, it’s being clever, it’s doubting, it’s wondering, it’s solving, it’s uncovering, it’s finding things out.”
That is the path to obtaining religious enlightenment too. Oh, I know, if you can’t repeat my personal observations, it must not exist. What arrogance. A personal relationship with God is not much different than Phils personal relationship with his wife. I’d not say their feelings and relationship are non-existent because I can’t observe them or know them as they do, and neither can anyone else say that about a persons relationship with God.
I observe that many do have a relationship with God. I do observe many positive statistics related to those that claim to have a relationship with God.
But this philosophy of what science is is written to discredit all that. What arrogance.
January 12th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Personally I don’t like the “Natural world” restriction. If it exists then it’s part of the natural world. Something tells me this is a distinction made up to exclude science from something people would rather keep unexplained.
January 12th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
@Mobility,
Religious enlightment has nothing to do with science.
Religion is about how you manage to live your own life.
Science deals with the natural world, explaining how it works, as well as developing various technologies from what we’ve learned.
One needn’t discard one’s relaitonship with whatever god they believe in because of science.
Science doesn’t discredit religion. It was never meant to do that.
Where the two come in conflict is when people try to pass off their relgions AS science, such as when fundamentalists claim that the universe is 6000 years old, that evolution is wrong, and that the Big Bang theory isn’t valid.
Conflict also comes when people abandon medical science, and have their children suffere curable diseses.
As I stated, your relationship with your god is your own business.
It has nothing to do with trying to understand how science works.
January 12th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
EvolvingSquid makes a point when he says that science and technology are usually inaccessible or not understood by most. That equates to magic. Indeed I’m often amazed by my car. I used to know how those things worked…
But still we (the readers of this blog) can all make science more understandable. And that does make it interesting, exciting and non-magical. I sometimes decry the dumbing down of scientific information but if it allows more people to embrace the scientific method it may not be so bad.
I once read that Einstein thought the most amazing thing about the universe was that we could come to understand it. That is absolutely true. I often talk to my kids about the wonders of the universe, the galaxies, the super novas, the Oort cloud and all the things we know and then I remind them that we know all of this mostly by simply looking up at the sky. It’s like understanding all of New York City, the subways, the airports, the office buildings, elevators, schools, police stations and firehouses, just by looking out your window.
So perhaps the next time the scientific relates some cool scientific fact, it should also explain HOW WE KNOW. When my daughter asked why the sky is blue, I asked her how we might find out. (I never give a straight answer, she’s used to it). We know from art class that the sun shines in all the colors. Why would only blue be left in the sky? How could you separate the colors? How does a prism work and why is blue bent more and winds up on the inside of the bend? And so on.
Perhaps the most important part of the science we know is not the facts, it’s how we found out – and continue to find out.
January 12th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Good on you for emphasising that, far too few of the people I talk to about such heady subjects as evolution, relativity, etc. have any idea that science is, at its heart, a method of not only understanding the world but even understanding how to ask questions about the world. It seems that science has a hard time shaking off its image as just a glorified form of stamp collecting, something which, in the UK as well, is down to slightly lazy teaching in secondary school. We were given a basic ’science’ class for two years before splitting into physics, biology and chemistry, but were never once given a good, solid explanation of the scientific method.
It should be an easy fix, just a simple one year course on general science, the scientific method, the principles of rationality, skepticism, basic history and philosophy of science and so on. Such a course should have the added bonus of increasing enthusiasm as well as understanding, something that’s sorely needed over this side of the pond. Any volunteers?
January 12th, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Nobody cares about that - they just want an overpriced, underperforming iPhone because it looks cool.
Have you ever actually used one? Or is this yet another “People who buy things I don’t like must have bad reasons for doing so” type of comment we see on the intertoobs 100 million times day?
January 12th, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Such a course should have the added bonus of increasing enthusiasm as well as understanding,
I’m willing to wager quite a sum of money that it won’t. There’s people out there who simply are not wired up to be interested in anything beyond their own day to day existence.
January 12th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Science is an action verb.
It is something you do, not something you study.
January 12th, 2009 at 2:20 pm
@Mobility
“A personal relationship with God is not much different than Phils personal relationship with his wife. I’d not say their feelings and relationship are non-existent because I can’t observe them or know them as they do, and neither can anyone else say that about a persons relationship with God.”
But we can observe their emotions (at least the brain activity associated with them) and we can see how they interact with each other in the real, material I-can-smell-it-touch-it-and-see-it world. can’t quite say that about God.
“I observe that many do have a relationship with God. I do observe many positive statistics related to those that claim to have a relationship with God.”
You observe a certain set of emotions associated with belief in something. At no time do you ever observe or interact with ‘God.’
@NASAMan
“Science is an action verb.”
omg! That reminds me of an old religious song my mom used to play for me when I was a kid. ‘Jesus, hermanos mio, es verbo no sustantivo’ which roughly translates to ‘Jesus, my brothers, is a verb not a noun.’ She used play it full blast when the Pentecoastals got out to preach.
Good times…
January 12th, 2009 at 3:13 pm
“A personal relationship with God is not much different than Phils personal relationship with his wife.”
That’s a really strange thing to say. I’ll be “arrogant” for you and explain why: Other people can see her, and they don’t have to believe a certain way to do it.
January 12th, 2009 at 3:21 pm
My single, largest criticism of these things (not really a criticism so much as a lament) is that they always seem to be geared at young’uns. Don’t get me wrong, I agree with the cigarette companies, “Hook’em while they’re young!” Sometimes though, I feel you can have a greater impact by convincing the parents that raise them. No mean feat certainly, but I tend to think parents have a greater impact on your belief system than any website.
Still, this is by no means wrong, bad, or not worthwhile. Quite the opposite- I think it’s very necessary.
January 12th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
>>Science deals with the natural world< <
To those religiously inclined, science (as described on the website Phil posted about) deals with only a subset of the natural world. I'd suggest that ones understanding of the natural world is impossibly incomplete without a knowledge of its Creator.
>>the real, material I-can-smell-it-touch-it-and-see-it world< <
>>Other people can see her< <
One does not need not see God to know that he exists. I think people fond of the theory (and beauty as they say) of evolution don't see it either; rather they find 'evidence' of in the fossil record and in the study if evolution. It's in their 'interpretation'.
>>You observe a certain set of emotions associated with belief in something.< <
My relationship with God has little to do with emotion. It's certainly a joyous thing, but its not the basis of the relationship. We're encouraged to use reason, rationality and intelligence in our service to God.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%2012:1;&version=45;
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%201:20;&version=31;
The references here point to one of the true purposes of the ‘natural’ world:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans%201:20;&version=49;
January 12th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
QD, I’m a system design engineer for a mobile phone manufacturer. The poster who called the iPhone overpriced and underperforming is right on target. Just because YOU like it, doesn’t mean that it’s features or price (objective quantities) are anything to scream about. However, it sells well, so far, and that’s nothing to sneeze at. It ain’t about the engineering, though.
“Mobility” is good at the straw-man. Science doesn’t discredit the personal significance of subjective experience. All it does is differentiate the subjective from objective fact. Those who claim that their subjective experience says anything substantial about the external world, such as God created the universe 6000 years ago, not just yours, but mine, too, well, that’s what’s discredited by science.
January 12th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
>>God created the universe 6000 years ago<<
A minority of religious people believe this. Much like the minority of atheists in the US, it’s just that they are very, very vocal.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Posted by Mobility:
Aw man, it’s ON now! It’s on like Donkey Kong!
\Carry on, I’m just going to spectate this little argument.
\\Was just at Fark, feeling the snark.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
Phil said: “There’s a clear need for us — scientists, educators, hobbyists, and just plain old lovers of reality”
Phil, i’m really glad that you count us, “plain old lovers of reality” among scientists in the same sentence, it is really flattering to hear that.
January 12th, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Being raised by an electrical engineer / physicist, I grew up loving science and technology (probably had a significant influence in my being a computer scientist). Now with kids, I make it a point to educate them about science from an early age. I’m proud to say that my 4 year old son knows the concepts of the solar system (earth, moon, sun, planetary orbits and rotations), and even understands that stars are just other “suns” which are far away (thanks to Celestia). Next lessons are geology (plate tectonics, geological events, etc.).
Also being a person equally passionate about religion, I make it a point to, wherever appropriate, stand up for both science and religion when either is receiving unfair treatment. The whole science vs. religion debate seems ridiculous to me because, in my mind, the two should converge as our understanding of reality improves. The debate seems to be fought mostly by minorities who know the least about the position they are attacking, and I try to make it a point to correct either side when I feel I have useful knowledge.
January 12th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
[…] h/t Phil Plait. […]
January 12th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
The problem, as noted tangentially by others in the comments, is that all too often science in school is taught as a result and not a process. “Science” ends up being just another form of dogma, and on that basis of course it has trouble winning out over dogma coming from the pulpit.
I would very, very much prefer that science be taught as a verb and not a noun; as a process and not a body of received knowledge handed down by the bearded prophets… er… scientists of yore. If we can make that distinction, if we can make clear to kids that science isn’t just a bundle of words and numbers to be memorised and puked back on a test paper but is *an incredibly powerful way to learn*, then maybe we’ll be better off.
— Steve
January 12th, 2009 at 8:13 pm
science is the first productivity!
January 12th, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Yes, I have. It’s not as good as my N95 at the core functionality of being a telephone or a 3G device where I require one to operate, having tested them side by side at the same tasks (making calls, and using 3G networking). It offers technology that was available fully 18 months (N80) before the iPhone came out at a price that was, when it came out, higher than other devices at the time of release. The iPhone has almost half as many applications available as are available for the Symbian system. It is, therefore, and underperforming and overpriced device. Nice touch screen though - that’s the only thing my phone doesn’t have (although there are other models that do). I went to my phone company to have them hook up the sweet data deal to my Nokia since the iPhone couldn’t cut it.
I’ll counter your question with “have you actually used anything else or is this yet another Steve Jobs sycophant comment?”
January 12th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Science…
It’s experimentation, it’s re-experimentation, it’s funky results that don’t make sense, it’s initially nice-looking results that don’t pass statistical muster, it’s more experimentation, it’s a different hypothesis, it’s sudden rushes of discovery, it’s wondering about your puny significance in the scheme of things, it’s more experimentation, it’s late nights in the lab reading blogs while waiting for the cells to grow.
January 12th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
that’s the truth… gotta admire good marketing.
I can’t wait until it’s time to change the batteries in those early iPhones. The Li batteries from the first releases must be getting near end-of-life.
Of course, there’s science in batteries too - science that is lagging behind other technologies and is a direct impediment to making effective electric cars. How’s that for a segue back onto topic
January 12th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
I judged a science fair today at a magnet school and those kids did a remarkable job. Their projects took them the better part of a year to complete. They were using cell cultures, very strong chemicals, and constructing vectors for transfecting cells. These are things most people don’t get to until grad school. It was encouraging to see.
January 13th, 2009 at 3:22 am
bringing the iPhone in this debate is just plain stupid. It will only show you don’t understand what this is all about.
(and actually it shows you don’t understand what *design* is: the iPhone performs a lot better, eg when in my mother’s hands, than *any* other phones she is totally unable to use).
More importantly, I’d like to bring into perspective something about science rarely mentionned: the definition we are talking about are essentially valid for “natural” sciences, which rely on an inductive process to progress.
This is not the case for mathematics, which is not a natural science, and progresses with a deductive process.
Yet I don’t think anybody would exclude mathematics from science.
Would it be possible to reach a definition of science that works for mathematics too?
January 13th, 2009 at 3:23 am
I noticed the whole science vs religion debate has raised it ugly head again … and I have an ugly head so I feel like joining in too.
I love science. I love everything about it. It is the only tool we can use to really measure what see see and observe. The very nature of observation means we learn new things all the time, and discover things we didn’t think were there before. In fact I love how it uncovers what we can’t see, what we were previously ignorant of, or how we were previously wrong about certain other scientific processes, like with gravity, or black holes and so many more. I love that fact science has helps so many people live healthier lives, with so many medical advancements. There are so many reasons why I love science. Science helps me with my love of astronomy.
Science is awesome.
I get tired of people that use it as an excuse to stab at people that believe and/or worship God though. Maybe science one day will uncover something people can observe about him, most probably not, and if it did it would be a looooong time away. Who knows? It is a shame so many crackpot religious people misapply or are ignorant of scientif processes, or worse still, the basic scientific method, and then try to use it corruptly to prove their personal religious beliefs. It really gives people that see a distinct difference between what observational science tells us about our universe, and what faith based upon sound reasoning and spirituality tells certain people about their god. I have no problem with either facet. I wish we could just love science as it is and leave the other religious stuff to the realm of belief and faith.
It would make things sooooo much easier.
Yet there are always going to be people from the theist, or atheist camp that just have to force their perfect idea of what the universe is entirely, down peoples throats. These people are extremists. Not all theists are, nor are all atheits either. Just the ones with super-sized egos that MUST be right all the time, even when it’s clear to us today science is a LEARNING process. We haven’t go it all worked out yet. Clearly.
The only thing just as annoying as a religious nut trying to prove 100% that God exists based on science, is an atheist trying to prove 100% he doesn’t exist based on science. Both camps need to just accept they are wasting their time. Both sides are about faith, that you believe something is there or isn’t there, when both sides have inconclusive scientific data to prove it either way100%.
It’s a no brainer.
January 13th, 2009 at 3:34 am
Just to clarify .. at the of my rant
.. when I state the opinion ..
..”Both sides are about faith, that you believe something is there or isn’t there,” …
I am talking about people that take a scientific approach to attempt to prove something that can’t be proven, like the existence or non-existence of God.
I am not undermining the clear and rational process by which scientific observation leads to an unbiased theory or result.
I am talking about extremists from both sides of the issue that make unprovable claims and state that science has proven their claim 100%. Everyone knows that in science you can never be 100% sure about the big stuff.
January 13th, 2009 at 4:35 am
Quasi: The existence of God should be very easy to prove. All He has to do is leave some evidence… show up and give a good OT-style smiting. Proving the non-existence of something is much harder, and science doesn’t tend to spend a lot of time proving that things do not exist - be it someone’s God or the mythical “ether”.
Knowing that science isn’t 100% right is the opposite of having faith.
January 13th, 2009 at 5:21 am
@Evolving Squid: Yeah that is right .. that would be assuming that is God’s choice or desire to do so of course. That sort of reasoning just creates more questions. That is usually the first thing anyone would suggest. What you suggest about proving things do not exist … I totally agree and stated that in my rant. Maybe there is a reason that he doesn’t do that … who knows. If we assume to know how he would think, given we humor the idea of his existence, is that scientific? .. or is that faith? It really is a Philosophical line of reasoning.
All I am really pointing out here is that science is limited in it’s understanding, due to the simple fact we haven’t discovered everything yet, and what we haven’t discovered yet, one could argue … doesn’t exist .. but just because science hasn’t discovered it yet .. doesn’t mean it’s not there.
“Knowing that science isn’t 100% right is the opposite of having faith.” .. I totally agree. I am arguing that atheism, in it’s most dogmatic form, is as much about faith as theism.
Science however is a process of learning. We are always getting new data and adjusting standard models. Any view one has regarding atheism or theism will always be lacking certain data to prove one’s view to 100% accuracy. A theist can use the same scientific data to support his philosophical view on the existence of God as an atheist can. Therefore both are based on faith. Science stands on its own merit.
January 13th, 2009 at 5:35 am
God (if s/he exists), may very well choose to not leave any evidence for its existence. In fact, it makes a lot of sense that way. What merit is there to “believe” in something you have evidence for?
But overall, I agree with quasi: science is not about God, and religion is not about science. Things get ugly when scientists want to claim science proves or disproves God (both cases do exist), or when religion wants to claim it has some bearing on science.
This is more or less the position of the catholic church: religious faith *is* compatible with science.
If at least because “God” may very well have “set up” the world to look the way it is. It really doesn’t matter the least whether the earth is 4.6 bn years old, or whether everything was actally created last night by the spaghetti monster to look as if the earth was 4.6 bn years old. The point is that everything is consistent (including large predictive power), with current scientific knowledge.
Maybe cars are not propelled by gazoline, but by the hand of God. But since God refuses to on push on my car when its tank is empty, what difference does it make? At least the “gas theory” fits experience and has predictive power on car motion.
January 13th, 2009 at 5:35 am
If we went back 500 years and suggested to someone that black holes existed, (and in turn we had not the knowledge to prove so) scientists would laugh at us, because we could not prove it. They would declare then based on scientific reasoning that it did not exist, because there was no data and they could not see them or their effects .. yet today we pretty much know they do exist.. but there is still data to be had. Therefore just because science does not have data or knowledge of a certain subject, that being observable and measurable, does not mean it does not exist. It is just waiting to be discovered and physically observed and measured.
The same could be said for a myriad of other yet undiscovered things in the universe, including God. This is all from a scientific view naturally.. which is why faith is so heavily leaned upon by theists .. and why atheism in its true sense is faith based also. Unless you want to box atheism into a set of rules stating it can only be based on scientific fact… which I guess you could do .. as long as you leave room for correction with new evidence. Many atheists do this. Some however are dogmatic and don’t. Not all theists think the same say (EG: creationists vs theistic evolutionist’s) .. and nor do all atheists think the same way.
January 13th, 2009 at 5:48 am
There I don’t agree: putting God in the same category as natural phenomenon yet to be discovered means that God is a natural being.
This is in conflict with the definition of God as a supernatural being. My definition at least (and many others’).
As a supernatural being, God is unreachable through scientific means.
That’s why science is not about God, and cannot have anything to say about God.
January 13th, 2009 at 5:50 am
(let me add that science can have things to say about religions though, such as religious claims about science!)
January 13th, 2009 at 7:03 am
quasidog has kicked over an anthill, whacked a hornets nest and opened a can of worms.
Atheism is to be without belief in god or gods. That’s it, nothing more. There’s no doctrine or dogma. There is no faith either. In fact it is the very opposite of holding a faith based position. We know that gods are not testable or knowable or reachable or anything. For all intents and purposes they may as well not exist. There is no evidence of interaction with gods now or in the past. There is no working hypothesis. The whole concept of gods may as well be and quite possibly is made up by man.
The average working definition of gods puts them beyond the realm of science or knowing and for that reason a majority of atheists put the whole gods question into the “meh” basket. We should we give any more credence to the gods concept just because we can’t know? There’s lots of things we can’t know about. For us it is a like believing in magic or pink unicorns or fairies. We don’t care and we’re really not interested whether these beings exist or not. What we do care about is when the believers choose not to leave well enough alone and try and interfere with science, education and society by enforcing their “god given” right to impose their beliefs on everyone else.
January 13th, 2009 at 7:19 am
@Mobile
“I’d suggest that ones understanding of the natural world is impossibly incomplete without a knowledge of its Creator.”
why?
“I think people fond of the theory (and beauty as they say) of evolution don’t see it either; rather they find ‘evidence’ of in the fossil record and in the study if evolution. It’s in their ‘interpretation’.”
But I can observe evolution. I can observe genetic drift, mutations, how environmental pressures push certain traits to the top of a population. I can observe the mechanisms for this change. And, like you admit, I can examine fossils and use existing data to narrow the range of possibilities.
God on the other hand cannot be observed in any way despite repeated claims that he is constantly acting on our universe.
“My relationship with God has little to do with emotion. It’s certainly a joyous thing, but its not the basis of the relationship.”
you misunderstand me. I was referring to what happens to individuals at church gatherings and the like when they break into tears or joyous chants.
@quasidog
“The same could be said for a myriad of other yet undiscovered things in the universe, including God. This is all from a scientific view naturally.. which is why faith is so heavily leaned upon by theists .. and why atheism in its true sense is faith based also.”
All the properties attributed to god in religious books, myths legends, ect all describe an agent(s) acting on our world leaving behind feets we would have definitely observed at some point. But we don’t and not just that we don’t see him doing what he used, we don’t find evidence of all the miracles he’s said to have performed. That’ true of all gods.
What you’re envisioning is some vague entity without defined characteristics, powers, likes/dislikes or anything that could be in any way evaluated. A pointless being you give the name ‘God’ because its ambiguous nature makes it impossible to disprove or prove. The place you and vaccine-autism linkers love to hide.
“Just the ones with super-sized egos that MUST be right all the time, even when it’s clear to us today science is a LEARNING process.”
Like you.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:08 am
It is a promising site. Among other things, it has the best diagram over the process of science I’ve seen.
Then there are the usual mistakes that I abhor. For example, after noting that science is an open-ended process, they define rigid and overextended limits for it for fear of conflict.
In each case, it is easy to see that empirical observation and even science methods informs us about the subject by observing its interactions in the natural world; aspects of morality that are consequences of evolution, what populations find aesthetically pleasing and why, how (im)probable religious proposed events such as miracles and creations are, et cetera.
It would be better to just state what individuals or societies do with the results of empirical observations is outside of the science process, and leave it at that.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:28 am
For a long time I couldn’t understand why people insisted on describing science as inductive. Because as much as it is fine as long as it is a method among others to make hypotheses it doesn’t adequately describe testing, which is of course a (the, IMO) central part of science.
After a while it dawned on me that it is systematically promoted by religious apologetics, possibly after adoption from older generations of philosophers of science. Perhaps because they can’t stomach that science in fact can tell wrong theories and fact from the likely correct one’s by deduction on test results. Or possibly their Morton’s demon doesn’t let them. Or probably it is an effort to make science out as less powerful than it actually is.
In this respect it is very much like the likewise inappropriate description of “methodological naturalism” which seems instead to have originated with apologetics and later been adopted by some philosophers. (Inappropriate because a working method doesn’t, actually can’t, causally result in a priori assumptions, only a posteriori descriptions of its axiomatics.)
As I’ve started to list what bugs me about what apologetics promote but is wrong, I can as well round of with the rarely mentioned idea that modeled truth, or religious claims of Truth, are to be seen as absolute and universal, when it is obvious that logics define various systems applicable as defined by their axiom systems.
For example, set logic is fine whenever it is applicable in a model, but in some cases we don’t yet have mathematical definitions of the applied method (example: quantization), in other cases we have a dynamic set of facts and theories (i.e. “don’t know” is a permissible answer; facts and theories are first tentative, then likely; et cetera), and we also have the fact that both facts and theories are associated with properties of (un)certainty and likelihood.
Maybe I should start to call it ap-ugh-logetics, for the way it makes its descriptions of science stumble and fall.
January 13th, 2009 at 9:54 am
No, it doesn’t matter. A God that chooses not to leave evidence of his existence or who has chosen to deliberately remove the evidence has chosen a path that is in all ways equivalent to not existing and can be fairly treated as such.
Atheism is not having an unsubstantiated, irrational belief in a deity. What is the “dogma” ? What is the “faith”? Atheism = faith (= religion) is one of the most common arguments by theists… it is also one of the most easily refuted.
Scientific fact isn’t part of atheism either. The closest thing to “scientific fact” would be the discovery of evidence. If irrefutable evidence of the existence of some deity appeared, the overwhelming majority of atheists would joining the god-squad right quick.
No, a theist cannot do so as there is no evidence of the existence of god that has ever been produced. An atheist relies on evidence, not faith. Therefore one is faith and one is not.
An atheist’s opinion is changed when confronted with evidence. A believer’s opinion is not… if it was, organized religion would have spiralled into its own anus centuries ago.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:30 am
In French there is a difference between an atheist, someone who believes there is no god, and an agnostic, someone who doesn’t believe any religion, but essentially doesn’t choose whether God exists or not.
I’m not sure whether that distinction exists in the English language.
But at least conceptually it’s not quite the same
January 13th, 2009 at 10:36 am
“For a long time I couldn’t understand why people insisted on describing science as inductive. Because as much as it is fine as long as it is a method among others to make hypotheses it doesn’t adequately describe testing, which is of course a (the, IMO) central part of science.”
As far as I know, the inductive process *does* include testing, and doesn’t preclude deduction (for example when predicting consequences of the indected theory, which is then going to be tested).
The distinction really is relevant when discussing mathematics, which proceeds by deduction from a set of axioms, but doesn’t preclude induction, when you observe some property of the object under study and emit an hypothese, usually called a conjecture.
The difference is that as long as the conjecture is not proved, you cannot use it.
January 13th, 2009 at 10:38 am
@Jean-Denis
There are different schools of thought on the distinction. Some say, as you do, that atheists assert there is no God, while agnostics just “don’t know” and do not bother to go one way or the other.
Then there are those who look at the linguistic roots of the two terms. For them, an atheist is someone who simply lacks a belief in a deity, while an agnostic is someone that believes that a deity, should one exist, is not capable of being known in any real sense. From this view, you could therefore have agnostic Christians and non-agnostic atheists as easily as non-agnostic Christians and agnostic atheists.
January 13th, 2009 at 1:56 pm
Squid: at the core functionality of being a telephone or a 3G device
OK, with this added qualifier it makes a little more sense.
Squid: I’ll counter your question with “have you actually used anything else or is this yet another Steve Jobs sycophant comment?”
I don’t own an iPhone. The question was asked from an impartial POV. I only carry a cell phone to have one in case of emergencies or when I really need to call someone away from home or work.
I have an old, rugged Motorola i530 built to the military specifications for cell phones. It has bounced down a total of three flights of stairs, has been dropped a dozen times and was once run over by a Mini Cooper. It’s still going and has only a tiny scuff.
Behold the immortal cell phone:
http://www.phonedog.com/r/c/6213-1046-167-175-250×275.jpg
DaveS: It ain’t about the engineering, though.
Usability and human interface *ARE* engineering issues. Too many people forget that, and we get devices that require a phonebook sized manual to do anything. It’s why I get the best factory sound systems when I buy a car as the aftermarket stereos are abominations of tiny buttons, animated nonsense and command trees constructed by monkeys. The last aftermarket unit I ever had (an Aiwa, I think) took more switch presses to program a radio preset that is does to land a commercial airliner. And then it took multiple button presses to select a preset, which defeats the whole purpose of a preset. It was actually *easier* to tunr the radio than select a preset.
That’s what you get when the engineers forget that interfaces are important. And this is coming from an engineer.
And I still think a lot of negative opinion on the iPhone is backlash to the irrational exuberance many of the owners express. It is, objectively, an elegantly engineered device. Whether or not that is worth anything is where you enter the subjective.
The only reason I don’t own one is the ridiculous AT&T plans. If they had the $20 unlimited data they do now plus pay as you go for the voice, I’d consider it.
January 13th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
“There’s a clear need for us — scientists, educators, hobbyists, and just plain old lovers of reality — to do more to educate people.”
Like teaching by example that scientists and reasonable people engage in discourse over controversial topics by calling their opponents “nutjobs”, “crackpots” and “woo-woos” ? You have an intriguing idea of raising kids to be respectable, level-headed members of society. Way to go.
January 13th, 2009 at 5:19 pm
“As a supernatural being, God is unreachable through scientific means.”
Begs the question. Fail.
Leprechauns are supernatural, too - and just like God™, imaginary.
Meanwhile, all sorts of things which really exist are here for you to learn about and enjoy.
January 13th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
[…] Phil Plait Fecha Original: 12 de enero de 2009 Enlace Original Articulos […]
January 13th, 2009 at 7:17 pm
@Leander,
Who in this post called anyone any of those things?
January 13th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
science is also a reliable process by which we learn about all that stuff in the universe
This is nothing but nitpicking, but my Philosophy of Science background compels me to add a “mostly” in front of the “reliable” (and if I wanted to get really nitpicky, I could even add an “apparently”…).
Fortunately, “relatively” would also do, in comparison to every other method we’ve tried for the job. A lot of the time, science is kinda like democracy: very much imperfect, but so much better than the alternatives…
January 14th, 2009 at 12:02 am
“As a supernatural being, God is unreachable through scientific means.”
Radwaste, I’m not sure what your point is with your comment to this quote. If you want to say that it’s a logical fallacy to claim that God exists, you are perfectly right. This is precisely the point. There is *no* *logical* way to prove or disprove God.
The existence of God is not a question of logic. If all you care about is logic, then of course, there is no reason to believe in God.
… except, perhaps, the Pascal wager …
(and BTW, I’m an agnostic scientist, my statements in this discussion do not further my personal position).
January 14th, 2009 at 12:11 am
Let me try to clarify my point a bit further:
Using logic to try to disprove God is to use science on something supernatural: it’s doomed to fail.
Further, using logic to convince people that God doesn’t exist is also doomed to fail, since those who believe in God do not believe out of logic.
January 14th, 2009 at 1:53 am
@Shane … you said “quasidog has kicked over an anthill, whacked a hornets nest and opened a can of worms.Atheism is to be without belief in god or gods. That’s it, nothing more. There’s no doctrine or dogma. There is no faith either. In fact it is the very opposite of holding a faith based position.”
I understand what atheism is. If you read my points carefully you would notice that I differentiate between atheists that believe just what you have stated, and atheists that take on a dogmatic “there can not possibly be any god because science says so” approach. I know how atheism works. I am aware it is without belief in god or gods and I made it pretty clear that I know that.
Even the most staunch atheists, like Richard Dawkin’s for example however have stated that science can not allow anyone to be 100% sure if God does not exist. 99% maybe. 100% no. I understand what he is saying about atheism. Sadly, there are non-thinking atheists out there too that will not acknowledge that fact and sit with 100%. Moving into that territory requires ‘faith’ because that 1% is a basic tenant of scientific theory. Otherwise we would know it all already and we don’t. (99, 100 and 1% are all being used figuratively and are not to be taken as literal measurement, they are descriptive only.)
I know that is not what atheism is about but I am pointing out that those that try to state (any they are few) that there is NO POSSIBLE chance God exists because of our current understanding of science are stretching things into the arena of faith. These latter dogmatic ‘believers’ are who I am particularly stating are incorrect in there assumptions.
Again anyone that wants to make a comment regarding my statement needs to acknowledge that I do understand what atheism is and that I am differentiating between the non-belief and belief variety.
Not all atheists have the same viewpoint. That is a fact. To assume otherwise would be ignorant.
( paraphrase parts of my rant and argue them induvidually if they wish, as anything can be argues to truth if you leave out enough facts :), but the sum of it, I still stand by as a valid point of view, differentiating between scientific atheism not supporting a belief structure, and a more dogmatic faith based version, of which the latter is a minority. There are possibly other ways to look at them also.)
January 14th, 2009 at 3:15 am
@ Jean-Denis: “There is *no* *logical* way to prove or disprove God.”
I don’t have to, and I don’t try. What I do is show how the bald assertions of people who claim that their version of a deity are unsupported, or contradicted by physical evidence; sometimes I show that special pleading such as different definitions are used. Fallacies run rampant among fans of the supernatural. Gee, try to get that defined sometime.
An appeal to the supernatural is simply a plea that the imagination be given credit for detecting things that cannot be found by sensors literally billions of times more sensitive than the human nervous system. Asking for credit merely for having made a statement is arrogance, not saying that science can find no support for an idea.
January 14th, 2009 at 7:48 am
[…] traducido y posteado en Ciencia Kanija, el original se publicó en Bad Astronomy y su autor es Phil […]
January 14th, 2009 at 10:27 am
@GregInAustin
You guys and Phil have often enough done so elsewhere, no need to repeat it here. What’s your point ? BTW, there’s still replies waiting for you in the “Two stories, no thinking” thread.
January 14th, 2009 at 6:40 pm
“Like teaching by example that scientists and reasonable people engage in discourse over controversial topics by calling their opponents “nutjobs”, “crackpots” and “woo-woos” ?”
Such controversial topics as AIDS denialism, Young Earth, Moon Hoax, vaccine autism linkers ect.
Why don’t you piss off to a 9/11 conspiracy board?
January 14th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
@Leander,
My point is that neither I nor Phil have ever called your nor anyone else any of those names in this subject. Good job on teaching kids its OK to cry foul if someone doesn’t agree with your point of view.
Just like in the other posts, if perhaps you had real proof of your claims, maybe you wouldn’t get so upset when people simply ask for your evidence.
I thought the others’ posts covered the “Two stories, no thinking” thread adequately, but if not, don’t worry. I’ll be happy to post there when I get more than 5 minutes to respond.
January 15th, 2009 at 3:36 am
Gil said:
Why have you started out with a straw-man argument?
Science does not venerate anything, except rigorous critical analysis.
Actually, I think you are quite demonstrably wrong here.
Phil has been involved in science outreach for quite some time. If you go back to the original bad astronomy website, you will see that Phil uses examples of bad astronomy to expound and explain good astronomy. He does not vilify anyone or anything. Except Richard Hoagland and the movie Armageddon.
But by their silence, they are approving of all the neo-con religious mumbo-jumbo that is trying to replace rational thought in our societies. The religious moderates, by failing to object to the religious fanatics, are supporting the fanatical behaviour.
I recall a comment made by Richard Dawkins in a recent TV programme. When a science teacher said that it was not his place to question or challenge a pupil’s religious convictions, Dawkins simply said “why not?”.
Why do we respect people’s beliefs in things that cannot be seen, proven, demonstrated, analysed or measured just because people have believed such things for such a long time? After all, we can challenge the belief without having to challenge someone’s right to believe whatever they choose.
In a similar vein, the religious moderates should be challenging the fanatics who want (in most cases) to replace science with mumbno-jumbo and who want (in some cases) to replace democracy with theocracy.
No, I don’t think you mean “disinterested”. No-one can be disinterested in their own education, because they have a stake in the outcome. I think you meant “uninterested”.
Only if you have an uninspiring teacher, or a teacher who obviously does not care about the material that they teach. I think you do all of the good teachers a profound disservice.
I think you are over-simplifying the problem here. People don’t seem to be as “learning-averse” about music, art, literature, sociology, psychology or “media studies” as they are about sciences, maths, history and geography. It could be related to the way in which these subjects are taught, but I think it is more likely to be related to the way these topics are perceived, particularly as these perceptions are shaped by the mass media.
I have never heard of any high-school-level student being challenged to read an actual scientific paper from the science literature. Again, I think you are over-simplifying.
The media have a deep and rich track-record of dumbing-down science, or of portraying it in a comical light (viz the archetypal image of the “mad professor”). Newspaper editors might claim that they are serving what their readers want, and that their readership don’t want to have to come to grips with lots of complicated details or subtle concepts. But how often have you seen newspapers dumb down the finance pages, or the arts and literature supplements? A more credible explanation is that, for whatever reason, the media either can’t be bothered to present science the way it actually is or that they choose to portray a straw man of science.
January 15th, 2009 at 5:10 am
Evolving squid said:
I recently learned a shocking fact. When the media hoax over MMR first broke in the UK (in 2000, I think it was), none of the newspapers that splashed the story luridly across their front pages permitted their science correspondents to write the articles. Instead, this technical, complex and emotionally challenging story was given to generalists.
And to what influences are those high-school kids subject? TV, peer groups, radio, newspapers and magazines, to varying extents. Until the media stops lying to the public (even if this is mostly lies by omission) about what science is or isn’t, and about what scientists are or are not, this will go on.
Neither individual scientists nor scientific insitutions can hope to obtain anything approaching the cultural saturation possessed by the mass media.
January 15th, 2009 at 5:37 am
Mobility said:
Your argument is circular. Science is self-correcting, because it relies on the process of publication, replication and critical assessment. If one scientist publishes something that is wrong, sooner or later it gets corrected by other scientists. Scientists are aware of their ability to contaminate results with bias, which is why experiments must be designed to eliminate bias, and why methodology must be published in full for others to scrutinise.
What? No, I don’t think “investigating” leads to religious enlightenment, and neither does “questioning”. Unquestioning acceptance of authority leads to religious enlightenment. In the case of Christianity, the authority of the Bible is accepted unquestioningly. God exists because the Bible says so. Jesus walked on water and healed the sick because the Bible says so. There is neither any corroborating evidence nor any confirmation from contemporary records.
Not so. If I can’t repeat your personal observation, then you can’t use that observation as evidence to support your claim. In science, the failure of an attempt to reproduce another group’s observations is usually the first step in determining that they were wrong about something.
In religion, it seems to be sacrosanct. I am not permitted to question your personal observation because that would challenge your belief system.
You said it, but of the wrong object. If I cannot scrutinise the basis of your beliefs, why should I accept those beliefs?
Except that Phil can see, touch, hear, smell and (I daresay) taste his wife. Other people can determine that Mrs BA is real, by observing her in person, or by seeing pictures or hearing her voice, or whatever. So, while I can accept that you may have a personal relationship with something in your mind that you call God, you cannot ever convince anyone that this God is a real entity by recourse to evidence.
But you can observe Mrs BA, and you can observe Phil’s behaviour towards her, and you can deduce his feelings from this evidence, supported by your own ability to empathise with other humans (assuming you are someone who can and not a sociopath), and supported by Phil’s ability (if he so chooses) to communicate this relationship to you.
You can talk about your relationship with God until you are blue in the face, but it doesn’t constitute evidence that God is real.
Not so. What you have observed is that many have claimed to have a relationship with God, but this still does not constitute evidence that God exists. Notice here that I am not questioning the existence of the person’s feelings, just pointing out that those feelings do not constitute evidence for the existence of the object of those feelings.
Well, credulity for one. Is that a positive trait?
Certainly on internet fora where science is discussed, I see far more vituperative hate coming from people who claim to be Christians than from anyone else.
No. The arrogance is to assume that everyone must accept that your God exists when you cannot produce one shred of evidence.
January 15th, 2009 at 5:42 am
Steve G said:
Hear, hear!
I don’t know if you have ever read Bill Bryson’s A Short History of Nearly Everything, but he wrote it, he says, because he wanted to find out how we know all the stuff that we do.
January 15th, 2009 at 5:45 am
Canonball Jones said:
You know, that sounds like a good idea. If I could earn as much in teaching as I do in biotechnology, I’d be straight there.
Plus, even though I have a PhD, and even if the salary were there for me in teaching, I would need to take additional training to become a secondary school teacher.
January 15th, 2009 at 5:46 am
“My point is that neither I nor Phil have ever called your nor anyone else any of those names in this subject.”
And I’ve said why that point is totally irrelevant, since my statement didn’t initially refer to a specific place, and I made clear in the second comment it didn’t refer to this post. So, uhm, what’s your point ?
“Good job on teaching kids its OK to cry foul if someone doesn’t agree with your point of view.”
Agreed. Personally though I’d prefer to teach kids the civilized way to cry foul. And to teach them that scientists and “reality-loving” people have a position strong enough to make their points without resorting to kindergarden behaviour of insulting people.
“Just like in the other posts, if perhaps you had real proof of your claims, maybe you wouldn’t get so upset when people simply ask for your evidence.”
And what again did I claim that needed evidence ? Just like kuhnigget you keep using that tired line without ever quoting a part of my comments where I claim something that can’t be backed up. Maybe you should finally get around to back up your claims yourself. Five minutes should suffice to find a quote and show how I didn’t back it up, don’t you think ?
January 15th, 2009 at 5:52 am
Mobility said:
That’s just sophistry, though.
You are redefining the word “natural” to include the supernatural. To all normal people, the natural world is that which can be seen, touched, heard, recorded, measured and so on. (Of course, there is more than one meaning of the word “natural” anyway, but in your context it is the opposite of “supernatural”, not the opposite of “artificial”).
Religion demands belief in that which cannot be seen, heard, touched etc. That’s not natural, by any sense of the word.
January 15th, 2009 at 7:47 am
“My point is that neither I nor Phil have ever called your nor anyone else any of those names in this subject.”
And I’ve said why that point is totally irrelevant, since my statement didn’t initially refer to a specific place, and I made clear in the second comment it didn’t refer to this post. So, uhm, what’s your point ?
“Good job on teaching kids its OK to cry foul if someone doesn’t agree with your point of view.”
Agreed. Personally though I’d prefer to teach kids the civilized way to cry foul. And to teach them that scientists and “reality-loving” people have a position strong enough to make their points without resorting to insulting people.
The real doozer here though…you think it’s a foul when someone disagrees with your view ?
“Just like in the other posts, if perhaps you had real proof of your claims, maybe you wouldn’t get so upset when people simply ask for your evidence.”
And what again did I claim that needed evidence ? Just like kuhnigget you keep using that tired line without ever quoting a part of my comments where I claim something that can’t be backed up. Maybe you should finally get around to back up your claims yourself. Five minutes should suffice to find a quote and show how I didn’t back it up, don’t you think ?
January 15th, 2009 at 7:50 am
If you indeed think someone disagreeing with your view is a foul, Greg, then scratch my “agreed” in the above post.
January 15th, 2009 at 8:14 am
“Such controversial topics as AIDS denialism, Young Earth, Moon Hoax, vaccine autism linkers ect. Why don’t you piss off to a 9/11 conspiracy board?”
So you suggest scientists should teach by example that civilized behaviour should be proportional to how outlandish your opponents’ claims are ? The more outlandish, the less civilized you engage them ? Hm, I wonder if Phil would see it that way. Interestingly, he doesn’t seem to think it’s necessary to moderate behaviour like yours. I wonder what that means.
January 15th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Mobility said:
[and then provided links to some Biblical references]
OK, then, I’ll accept that you are encouraged to use rationality and intelligence in your service to God. On this basis, I’d like to ask you a few questions:
(1) What is the rational basis for worshipping something that cannot be seen, touched, heard, smelled or, indeed, sensed in any meaningful way at all?
(2) Since prayer has been proved not to achieve any effect in the world, what is the rational basis for praying?
(3) How do we distinguish between a universe that contains no God and a universe that contains a God that cannot be detected in any meaningful way?
(4) Is it not more reasonable to accept that belief in God is irrational, but also to accept that it provides many people a great deal of comfort and solace?
January 15th, 2009 at 8:27 am
Mobility said:
Here’s a crucial question, then, in several parts:
Do you consider the belief that the Earth is a mere 6000 years old to be irrational? If not, why not?
If you consider YECs to be irrational, how much fuss do you make when they diss the discoveries of modern science? If you do not call them out for being irrational, why not? And, by the same token, if you do not call out YECs for irrationally dismissing science, why do you call out atheists for rationally criticising religion?
You cannot both have your cake and eat it.
January 15th, 2009 at 8:35 am
Leander said: Just like kuhnigget …
Awwww, how sweet. I’ve become a standard!
January 15th, 2009 at 8:41 am
I hereby propose the following scale of reference:
Rationality shall now be measured in kuhniggets. Zero kuhniggets means you have a tendency to spew your woo with impunity. 10 kuhniggets means your posts could be published in Nature, if only you’d get up off your lazy butt and submit them.
Now lets see, people who make claims about beings that are all powerful, infinitely wise, ageless and pan-dimensional, compassionate yet fond of torturing humans for all eternity, invisible, fond of the ladies, wee bit tempermental…but have no evidence for same…hmmmmm….
I’d say about -15 kuhniggets.
January 15th, 2009 at 8:47 am
Caleb Jones said:
While I largely agree with you, I feel that there is something else that must be pointed out…
The conflict between religion and science exists only where the religious refuse to accept the discoveries of science. In the USA, for instance, there are many people who refuse to accept evolution, mostly for religious reasons (if the biosphere can generate its own diversity, God is not needed). Very nearly all scientists would be quite happy to let everyone believe whatever they want provided they don’t try to dismiss what the process of science has discovered.
After all, any scientific finding that is widely accepted by the science community as a whole has already been scrutinised and critiqued and reproduced. Otherwise, it would not be widely accepted. I’m sure you can see why some scientists get quite upset when people dismiss a whole branch of scientific discovery without even taking the trouble to understand how such discoveries have been made.
This issue is exacerbated by the way in which the mass media presents science (see my other comments above).
January 15th, 2009 at 9:41 am
@kuhnigget
“Awwww, how sweet. I’ve become a standard!”
Well, you’ve exposed that kind of behaviour often enough, I guess that deserves some recognition.
January 15th, 2009 at 9:45 am
@Julian
It seems according to Phil’s logic, the comments on a blog say something about the blog itself (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/11/06/reviews-of-death/). You’re not really doing him a favor then with your behaviour, I’d say.
But maybe I missed some subtle irony in your post and you were not even serious ? After all it’s quite ironic to counter someone’s suggestion to raise kids to take the high road with behaviour like yours…
January 15th, 2009 at 10:09 am
5 kuhniggets, Leander. I’d give you more, but you need citations.
January 15th, 2009 at 10:11 am
@Leander
From what I’ve observed, the attitude that you are taking issue with (i.e., calling people “woo-woo”, “nutjobs”, etc.) tends to be used in reference to those who keep going on a subject which either has been proven to have absolutely no basis in reality or for those who continuously cite discredited “research”. The unfortunate side of this is that when someone new comes along, talking about the same old stuff, the impulse is to automatically lump them in with all those others who have already been shown to be, if not wrong, at least mistaken, despite the fact that they may be coming along with a more open, rational mind or may, in some rare occurrence, be presenting newer research that actually has some proper controls to it.
To sum, if someone is simply mistaken, that’s one thing and can be dealt with pretty rationally, and Phil certainly makes efforts toward that end. But if their arguments are shown to lack substance and that they are, in fact, wrong, yet persist in their obstuseness and continue spouting the same thing over and over, then perhaps they are deserving of some appellation like “woo-woo”. The key is that persistence and unwillingness to accept valid, sound criticism, logic and research.
January 15th, 2009 at 10:28 am
@ Todd W.
“The key is that persistence and unwillingness to accept valid, sound criticism, logic and research.”
A criteria Leander fits perfectly, which you’d know if you’ve been following his posts.
@Leander
“So you suggest scientists should teach by example that civilized behaviour should be proportional to how outlandish your opponents’ claims are ? The more outlandish, the less civilized you engage them ?”
That someone continues to hold onto to something that has been disproven, despite the facts being presented to them, is a clear indicator nothing you say will change them. You could go with appeals to emotion but that’s hardly honest, is it? After all, the point is to encourage critical thinking, science and reason.
January 15th, 2009 at 10:45 am
@Julian
The conversations have been rather long and I lost track. Just thought I’d summarise for him, in case no one had before.
January 15th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
Leander said,
My first question to you was “who called anyone these names?” You made a claim that Phil and others here call those with differing views “nutjobs,” but you did not back up your claim with any evidence. If you were to look at the history of Phil’s posts, you would see that he clearly goes out of his way to be nice to everyone, even if they have a different viewpoint.
I try to do the same thing. The only thing I have asked, and would expect from anyone, is that if you are going to make an argument, you’d better darn well have data to support it. Name calling, in most cases is simply an emotional attack. However, there are a few cases where a person or group of people are so far in the deep end of the gene pool, that words like nutjob, crank, woowooist, or loon is a fair and valid description.
So again, my point was you made a claim that Phil and others call their opponents names you seem to find offensive in some way, but the evidence suggests otherwise. If you can find an example of where I personally called you or anyone else a nutcase, please post it. Otherwise, your argument has no support.
January 15th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
@kuhnigget
Thanks dude. But citations for what ?
January 15th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
@ToddW
The thing is, it doesn’t matter who you address. I don’t dispute that there’s people out there who behave highly irrational. And I can see why someone would be tempted sometimes to call them names. We’re all just human after all. But in written form, in public forums, that shouldn’t happen. No matter how irrational the addressed might be.
When scientists and “reality-loving” people do that, it gives people, especially kids, the idea that it’s okay or even helpful to use insults to get your point across. It isn’t. It does the opposite, it widens the gap between you and who you’re trying to reach. And in cases like the whole vaccination situation, that’s even dangerous. You want to bridge that gap to make these people understand your point, not drive them away through insults. By that you’re in the way of establishing discourse that could ultimately save lives. Insults are human, but they aren’t of any help, and people like Phil especially should refrain from them in public.
And besides - if you have decided that someone is not available for a dialogue anyway because they can’t really leave their irrational point of view…what’s the point of insulting them ? To me that just looks like a frustrated kid on a playground, pissed off at something that’s not going they way he wants it to. Take Julian for example. He says himself you can’t reach certain people, and is making a fool out of himself by insulting them instead of just leaving them to the destiny he pities so much.
January 15th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Sighhhh….
January 15th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
@Leander
So, is a person “insane” or “reality challenged”? It’s like the news story I heard of someone that wanted to ban the use of the word “school” because of the negative feelings associated with it for the parents. Instead, they wanted to use “places of learning”. (Heard that story on NPR’s Wait, Wait, Don’t Tell Me.)
There are certain terms that would probably be best to avoid, like “nutjob” (which I don’t think I’ve read in any of Phil’s posts), and others that are less insult and more descriptive, such as “woo-woo” (as in believing in leprechauns, fairies, ghosts, psychics, Indigo chilrden, etc.) and “dangerous” (a la Jenny McCarthy).
January 15th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
@kuhnigget
Now do you see how I feel with you ? I still see no point though in asking for citations without specifying for what. That’s even worse than asking for citations/evidence for claims I didn’t even make.
January 15th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
@ToddW
I made a couple of points here, namely…
That phrases like that are basically useless.
That whether you personally define them like that or not, they are offensive to the addressed.
That offending people isn’t really a clever way of establishing dialogue or educating them on what science is.
That offending people who you have decided are closed to dialogue is just bad and childish behaviour.
That teaching kids to use these phrases is not good education.
So if you don’t agree with any of these points, why don’t you specifically address them ? And if you agree - why evade just admitting it, and instead try to steer the topic toward a discussion of what constitutes an insult and what doesn’t ? Or the difference between sporadic negative connotations of the word “school”, and the obvious suggestion of belittlement in an informal term like “kook” ?
January 15th, 2009 at 3:33 pm
@Julian
“That someone continues to hold onto to something that has been disproven, despite the facts being presented to them, is a clear indicator nothing you say will change them.”
So you insult them ? What’s that gonna accomplish ?
January 15th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
@GregInAustin
First of all, these three phrases (crackpot, nutjob, woowoo) were meant as examples for the general insults around here. Maybe I should have clarified that by adding the little word “like” in front of them - for anybody not picking that up. That out of the way…who would I be to refuse your rightful demand for backing up my claims ? Here you go…
Phil titled this post about an Oscar-winning actress “Oscar-winning woo”. And then he goes to make fun of her with a riot of a picture. Such a nice man, that Phil guy !
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/03/02/oscar-winning-woo/
“Kooks”…
“Cranks”, right in the first line…
As for you…“crackpot”…
For anybody interested in more, in general…Google yields a real treasure trove.
If in these search strings you replace “nutjob” with the terms “woo”, “crackpot”, “kook”, “whacko”, “whackjob”, “loon”, “crank” or “flake”, you’re gonna get many, many more examples of civilized, reasonable adult behaviour at its finest. I’m sure you understand I don’t have the time to browse through all these hits for more specific examples.
And just out of curiosity - do you really think someone disagreeing with your views constitutes a foul ?
January 15th, 2009 at 4:26 pm
How to Squawk Like a Loon
Lesson 12
Remove any and all sense of humour from your brain, place it on the ground, and stomp it flat.
Lesson 13
Pretend others have no sense of humour and take offense when presented with contrary evidence. Anecdotal evidence need not apply.
January 15th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
And FYI, Leander, the citation comment was a joke. You know, because you mentioned (without citation) all those times my behaviour wasn’t up to snuff.
Sheesh.
January 15th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
@ Leander:
Sorry, couldn’t help but respond to your comments to Todd.
That offending people isn’t really a clever way of establishing dialogue or educating them on what science is.
Yes, it’s much better to try and broaden the definitions of science to include non-scientific concepts such as the paranormal and supernatural. While we’re at it, let’s teach Bulgarian grammar in shop class.
That offending people who you have decided are closed to dialogue is just bad and childish behaviour.
Nah, only when they’re nutters.
That teaching kids to use these phrases is not good education.
Good educating, perhaps?
.
By the way, you still haven’t looked back on all those UFO nutter posts, have you? Fit to a tee. Although we really could use some more plugs for woo-woo websites such as the Society for Scientific Exploration. I have to tell you, I was seriously disappointed to read their International Remote Viewing Conference had been cancelled this year. I guess too many people were planning to view it remotely so they lost the hotel reservation.
Have a nice day.
January 15th, 2009 at 6:39 pm
@Leander,
Thank you! Now you’re learnin’! You made an argument, and you backed it up with real data. I can’t disagree with your claim that Phil has used words like those before, but I stand by my comment that nobody used those words in this post until you did.
I also cannot argue that I never used any of those words, because you provided the evidence. See how this works? Again, I can say I never used those words against you or at anyone else in this post.
Now, as to the usage of words like “crank,” “kook,” “crackpot,” or “nutter,” these are descriptive terms used to describe those who are so blinded by their beliefs that they completely ignore cold hard facts. They are technically equivalent to the term, “insane,” but are way more fun to use. If those words do not apply to you (and I don’t think they do) then you can safely ignore them. If you are offended by such words, then perhaps you shouldn’t be reading blogs on the internet.
Lastly, not everyone can be as quick on the draw as kuhnigget, and not everyone agrees with his in-your-face attitude. However, he’s never afraid to call a duck a duck (or a crank a crank) when he sees one. He’s very good at pushing people’s buttons, and that’s not necessarily a bad thing. It keeps us on our toes.
If you don’t agree with Phil’s choice of words, you don’t have to read them. You can choose to ignore them, or you can choose to surf someplace else. You can also choose to complain about them here, as you did, as long as you back up your arguments with facts.
Finally, I do not think someone who disagrees with my views constitutes a foul. I thought you did. I do not expect to agree with everyone, nor have everyone agree with me. But if I’m going to take a stand, one side or the other, I’d better have facts.
January 16th, 2009 at 3:36 am
Evolving Squid said:
Well, I’ll give you 7/10 for the segue, but only 4/10 for the battery-science comment.
Compare where we are today with battery technology a mere 15 or so years ago. Back in the early ’90s, if you wanted rechargeable batteries, your options were NiCd (limited capacity, severe memory effect if you weren’t careful, toxic waste for disposal afterwards, no option to trickle-charge) or Pb-acid (very poor capacity-to-weight ratio). The advent of NiMH batteries (driven by the mobile phone industry) opened up a new vista of portable power. Li-ion cells have taken this a step further.
That’s not to say that Li-ion cells are the be-all and end-all of rechargeable batteries, but you seem to have forgotten how much progress has happend in the last couple of decades compared with the preceding 3 or 4 decades.
January 16th, 2009 at 3:45 am
Quasidog said:
Well, it seems that all attempts to prove God exists have been founded on poor theology and even poorer science. However, I have not read of any atheist attempting to prove that God doesn’t exist. Instead I have heard and read of enthusiastic atheists questioning the sanctity (for want of a better word) of religious “knowledge”, and highlighting the illogical nature of religion (i.e. there is no evidence for God, the natural world has no necessity for God, so belief in God is superfluous and therefore not parsimonious).
For me, if a religious person is prepared to accept that their beliefs are illogical that’s fine - they can believe whatever they want and I’ll live and let live if they do the same. If they insist that there is a logical basis for belief in God, I have a hard time accepting that. If they also insist that there is proof for God’s existence, I will object. If they then try to teach someone else’s kids that there is proof of God’s existence, I will get upset.
January 16th, 2009 at 5:09 am
@Nigel .. again .. paraphrasing part of what I said does not indicate the entirety of my point. Again I point out (in your paraphrasing) I am indicating dogmatic extremism that SOME atheists have. SOME .. a minority … not all. They exist. I have had the displeasure of talking to a few in my time. These same people tend to have a little knowledge of the scientific process and like to ride on the back of other more rationally minded atheists viewpoint …. all time stressing their point with gobs of hate in the mix too. These ones can be just as annoying as listening to a creationist try to convince you the world is 6000 years old. Same ballpark, diametrically opposite viewpoint.
By paraphrasing just that sentence it looks like I am indicating ALL atheists, which digresses from the context of my entire opinion.
I am aware what most rational and scientific based atheist’s view are on this matter.
January 16th, 2009 at 7:59 am
Who said it had to accomplish something? if someone really is committed to the evidence it won’t matter.They’ll walk away with their tail between their legs, like I did when I was a Big Pharma conspiracy nut.
January 16th, 2009 at 8:46 am
Quasidog said:
OK, QD, I take your point. You referred only to a (perhaps tiny) minority of atheists.
My point, however inadequately expressed, was that I have not read any atheist writing that exhibits the behaviour you describe, whereas I have frequently read essays / book excerpts / blog comments from those who claim to be religious that do display the poor argumentation that you mention.
Based solely on my own reading experience, there exists a dramatic contrast in the quality of arguments expressed by, on the one hand, the religious fundies who decry science and, on the other, those atheists who criticise religious viewpoints in general.
January 16th, 2009 at 8:51 am
Quasidog said:
Erm, yes, kinda.
Science has more to it than this, of course. There are some areas in which we have a very high level of confidence, and other areas where known uncertainty exists. It is possible to argue that even some of science’s best theories may be wrong in some fashion, but we also know enough to be able to state that certain theories, even if they are wrong, are at the very least a pretty good approximation of how the universe works.
Examples of such theories include quantum mechanics, special and general relativity, thermodynamics, Newtonian mechanics, and, of course, evolution.
January 16th, 2009 at 9:29 am
“Who said it had to accomplish something? ”
Well, apologies then for assuming you like the things you do to make sense.
January 16th, 2009 at 9:31 am
@Kuhnigget
Well, you are funny, I gotta give you that. I’m just not sure whether the things that make me laugh are the ones you intedend to do so.
January 16th, 2009 at 9:40 am
@GregInAustin
“See how this works?”
I appreciate you trying to teach me a lesson, but honestly, I know how this works. I’ve nowhere made a claim I didn’t back up - except the one we’re just talking about. But in this case the reason simply was that I thought it’d be redundant, and I didn’t wanna be too anal about it. See, I didn’t really expect anybody to ask for evidence for that kind of behaviour around here, it being as common as it is.
As you see, I choose to complain here, and I back up these complaints. It’s not that I’m so easily offended, or that I take issue with using words like that in general every once in a while - like I said, we’re all just human. My issue was that, if you go around proclaiming you need to educate the public, and especially kids, about science and reality, you should also teach them by example that having a scientific and realistic standpoint is a position strong enough to not need insults to defend it.
Phil’s behaviour seemed a little strange to me, so I pointed it out.
January 16th, 2009 at 10:02 am
@ Leander:
My issue was that, if you go around proclaiming you need to educate the public, and especially kids, about science and reality, you should also teach them by example that having a scientific and realistic standpoint is a position strong enough to not need insults to defend it.
Had you left it at that, instead of all the ghostly silliness, I would have agreed you 80%.
The other 20% of the time, however - such as when large media companies pollute the public airwaves with junk passed off as science - is a perfect occasion for direct, open and unapologetic ridicule.
January 16th, 2009 at 8:09 pm
@ Nigel Depledge .. agreed mate. I see how that works. When I made that statement I was referring to yet undiscovered things, which is why I mentioned the thought experiment of going back 500 years and trying to convince scientists that black holes exist.
I do agree with what you say about science giving us the best description of how things work that we have knowledge of today. I see validity in evolutionary theory as a science and I see how it fits nicely with the given evidence. I am more-so indicating that there is still much more to be discovered regarding this issue and the results may differ from what we currently understand today. It is a ‘WAY out there’ concept, but alien seeding is still on the table as an idea, although a really far fetched one (one that I am not too convinced is a reality) and I still like to leave my mind open to other concepts. Science is a learning process, and one I respect highly. I do however see the evolutionary theory as we currently understand it is the most valid scientific theory regarding how life arose. Again .. I will still leave my mind open to other theories .. and philosophical arguments.
January 19th, 2009 at 5:12 am
Quasidog said:
This is more to do with abiogenesis than with evolution, ubnless you are implying that the aliens have visited us frequently in order to guide the course of life on Earth. It does not change that evolution has occurred on Earth, and if it shifts abiogenesis (i.e. life’s beginning) away from Earth to some distant planet, it simply means that we cannot investigate abiogenesis.
Bear in mind also that if any aspect of evolutionary theory were wrong in any major or significant way, we would already know about it. Modern evolutionary theory is the result of so much experimentation, observation and thought that we can be confident that even if it is wrong, it is still a very good approximation.