NationStates Jolt Archive

COMMENTARY: Science seems, at times, to be under almost as much assault as religious fundamentalism. Why? Science has lengthend our lives, put an incredible technology at our fingertips, and may yet provide answers to the problems which have plagued mankind since the beginning of time. Yet there are many who are ignornant of basic scientific findings, and some who are outright hostile to science as a discipline. Why? Where do you stand on this issue? ( Entire article quoted here because of its importance. )


Madness About a Method (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/magazine/11wwln_lead.html)


By JIM HOLT
Published: December 11, 2005
Science is the distinctive achievement and crowning glory of the modern age. So, at least, we are often told. It is also something that, relatively speaking, the United States is pretty good at. By many measures, this nation leads the world in scientific research, even if our dominance has been slipping of late. Oddly, though, Americans on the whole do not seem to care greatly for science.

Traditionalists, especially on the right, fear that science promotes godless materialism. Its insistence on finding purely natural explanations, they maintain, threatens to drain the world of moral purpose and spiritual meaning. On the left, fashionable thinkers of recent years have declared that science is an ideological prop of global capitalism. In the guise of giving us an objective picture of reality, they say, science encodes a hidden justification for the dominance of one class (bourgeois), one race (white) and one sex (male).

As for the great ruck of ordinary Americans, they are merely uninterested in, or perhaps bored by, science. Only one in five has bothered to take a physics course. Three out of four haven't heard that the universe is expanding. Nearly half, according to a recent survey, seem to believe that God created man in his present form within the last 10,000 years. Less than 10 percent of adult Americans, it is estimated, are in possession of basic scientific literacy.

This ignorance of science, flecked with outright hostility, is worth pondering at a moment when three of the nation's most contentious political issues - global warming, stem-cell research and the teaching of intelligent design - are scientific in character. One reason that has been cited for the dislike of science is that it is "irresistible" - that its influence tends to overwhelm and drive out competing values and authorities. But the Bush administration seems all too successful in resisting it. Time after time, critics say, the administration has manipulated and suppressed scientific findings for political reasons.

In rationalizing his opposition to the creation of new embryonic stem-cell lines, for example, the president informed the public that existing lines would be sufficient for medical purposes - a claim that left researchers flabbergasted and proved to be wildly off the mark. On the issue of climate change, American inaction on curbing greenhouse gas emissions is defended on the grounds that there is still some uncertainty about the magnitude and causes of global warming. Administration allies have even maligned the motives of climate researchers, arguing that their "alarmist" predictions are aimed at ensuring a steady flow of scientific grant money - and conveniently overlooking the fact that many global-warming skeptics are themselves financed by the energy industry. (As Richard Posner has observed, the industry with the keenest financial interest in getting climate change right - the insurance industry - is taking global warming very seriously, indeed.)

Are we to conclude that the Bush administration is anti-science? Not necessarily. Its selective aversion to scientific evidence may be more strategic than philosophical. Perhaps the administration accepts the authority of science but has a scheme for reckoning costs and benefits that it is not entirely candid about - a scheme in which, say, the next quarter's corporate profits outweigh rising sea levels or third world drought a half-century hence. When it comes to science, a cynic might remark, there is little point in "speaking truth to power": power already knows the truth.

In fairness, resistance to the authority of science can sometimes be detected even within the scientific community, and in its more progressive precincts, no less. Take the issue of race. One of the most durable sources of evil in the world has been the idea that humans are divided into races and that some races are naturally superior to others. So it was morally exhilarating to discover, with the rise of modern genetics, that racial differences are biologically trifling - merely "skin deep," in the popular phrase. For the last three decades, the scientific consensus has been that "race" is merely a social construct, since genetic variation among individuals of the same race is far greater than the variation between races. Recently, however, a fallacy in that reasoning - a rather subtle one - has been identified by the Cambridge University statistician A.W.F. Edwards. The concept of race may not be biologically meaningless after all; it might even have some practical use in deciding on medical treatments, at least until more complete individual genomic information becomes available. Yet in the interests of humane values, many scientists are reluctant to make even minor adjustments to the old orthodoxy. "One of the more painful spectacles of modern science," the developmental biologist Armand Marie Leroi has observed, "is that of human geneticists piously disavowing the existence of races even as they investigate the genetic relationships between 'ethnic groups."'

For nonscientists, it may be the sheer difficulty of science - its remoteness from any "common sense" view of the world - that makes it seem alien and dangerous. Nothing could be more contrary to intuition than quantum mechanics, in which everyday categories of cause and effect break down completely; or the theory of the Big Bang, according to which the universe somehow leapt into existence from a pointlike singularity.

Science is also a rival to other worldviews that most people find more congenial. In hopes of allaying the sense of rivalry, it is often said that science and religious faith are compatible, since the former deals with "how" questions, the latter with "why" questions. As an empirical matter, however, that does not seem to be true. On the whole, around 9 in 10 Americans say they believe in a personal God. When scientists are surveyed, that figure falls to 4 in 10. Among the scientific elite - members of the National Academy of Sciences - fewer than 1 in 10 say they believe in God, with the biologists in particular professing agnosticism or atheism at a rate of 95 percent.

Vaclav Havel once observed, in a transport of anti-science afflatus, that "Modern science. . .abolishes as mere fiction the innermost foundations of our natural world: it kills God and takes his place on the vacant throne, so henceforth it would be science that would hold the order of being in its hand as its sole legitimate guardian and so be the legitimate arbiter of all relevant truth." So what are the options for someone who is determined to resist this usurping arbiter? One of them is to insist that science can't possibly tell the whole story: by limiting itself to "natural" explanations, it blinds itself to the supernatural order that gives meaning to the universe. The problem is that no one has ever shown how supernatural causes can be accommodated by the scientific method, which relies on testability to produce consensus.

That suggests a second option. You might concede that science is a path to the truth but deny that it is the path. Here, though, you will find it difficult to locate much opposition, even among scientists. No one these days wants to be guilty of "scientism," the belief that science is a uniquely privileged form of knowledge and that everything else is at best poetry, at worst nonsense. Yet if science is merely one among many paths, it is a path that is inherently expansionist, absorbing others whenever it draws near. Is there a believer today who does not feel slightly threatened by current research into how the wiring of our brains might have evolved in a way that encourages faith in deities?

This leaves a still more radical option. You might deny that science is a path to truth at all. That is not quite so crazy as it sounds. Among philosophers of science, there is a perfectly respectable (if minority) view called "instrumentalism." According to this view, scientific theories do not yield a true picture of a mind-independent reality; they are merely useful tools that enable us to predict our experience and have a measure of control over it. History provides some support for instrumentalism. Scientific progress, it has been observed, takes place by funerals. Since past scientific theories have invariably proved false - phlogiston, anyone? - we can expect the same of our present and future theories. That does not take away from their utility as engines for turning out cures and weapons and gadgets, or at their most picturesque, as abstract stories to keep us in awe before the cosmos.

The problem with this line of thought is that it makes the success of science something of a miracle. How, asks the Oxford zoologist Richard Dawkins, do we account for science's "spectacular ability to make matter and energy jump through hoops on command" if not by assuming that the world, deep down, is more or less the way science says it is? Only a philosopher, and perhaps an oversubtle one, would advocate acting on science without believing it is really true. But to believe it and yet refuse to act on it - now, that takes a politician.

Much as I hate to make snap judgments...

It's just ignorance. Show me a science-hater and I'll show you an ignorant individual who's terrified of science fictions invented either by their own mind or by other ignorant anti-science individuals.

Huh. I guess that just made another entry in my "I will never ever understand the USA"-book...

And I have to say, like most of the entries there, it scares me.

Huh. I guess that just made another entry in my "I will never ever understand the USA"-book...

And I have to say, like most of the entries there, it scares me.
I'm convinced that, within this century, we will see an uprising of American religious fundamentalists who believe it is immoral for humans to make use of fire.

Fire is commonly associated with the devil, the enemy of God. Greek mythology tells us that fire was given to man by a HEATHEN god (Prometheus). When Adam and Eve were created in the garden, no mention is made of them using fire, so clearly God did not intend for His creations to indulge in the unnatural practice of fire-using.

Science is also a rival to other worldviews that most people find more congenial. In hopes of allaying the sense of rivalry, it is often said that science and religious faith are compatible, since the former deals with "how" questions, the latter with "why" questions. As an empirical matter, however, that does not seem to be true. On the whole, around 9 in 10 Americans say they believe in a personal God. When scientists are surveyed, that figure falls to 4 in 10. Among the scientific elite - members of the National Academy of Sciences - fewer than 1 in 10 say they believe in God, with the biologists in particular professing agnosticism or atheism at a rate of 95 percent.

I found this to be a very interesting point which could well shed light on the motives of many of the fundamentalists.

That does it! I am moving - I would go to the UK but since that ringtone hit #1 on their music charts, I've lost some respect for them. I'll head to Canada for now.

let people be ignorant, maybe if they cant understand the world, they'll go live somewhere they can pick the fleas out others like them. To me, a person who intentionally embraces ignorance is a gutless moron, scared that knowledge might erase any stupid notions of purpose they may of constructed around themselves

Many Americans, unfortunately, seem to invest mysticism in and over-inflate the profound importance of just about anything, be it science, religion or lame sporting events.

Seriously, some people over there need to take a breather and take a good, hard look at themselves.

A society which sacrifices the scientific institution, sacrifices its stake in future economic development and security.

Technological leadership is the foundation of national strength. It's how Europe conquered the planet and imposed direct rule for centuries. It's why the USSR, at its inception, focused its economy almost exclusively into physical sciences and engineering. It's the "economic miracle" that is transforming China and South East Asia.

If you erode science, the jobs and the money goes elsewhere. A timely example is the British nuclear industry. My father, who suffice it to say is concerned in such matters, asked colleagues whether the British universities were capable of producing, within a decade, a new generation of mathematicians, physicists and engineers, suited to building and running a new generation of nuclear power stations. One after another, they literally laughed. But one said, maybe those guys at [institution] could do it. So he contacted a plasma physicist there who works on fusion, and asked. And the guy started laughing.

The reality is, the guys who build the stuff will be French, because the British experts are retiring and there is no-one to take over. And the French will get the money. Simply because they never bought the anti-nuclear propaganda, and never allowed that branch of science to die of neglect.

It's the same in biotech, Singapore and other places in that part of the world are marketing themselves as a regulation-free zone where research which could be banned on religious grounds in the US, can be pursued without fear of subsequent regulatory restriction.

As you can see, I feel quite strongly on this subject. Science is like business in the sense that it is averse to political risks, and it is easy to give your country a bad name through dumbass legislation, and start a "brain drain". Just as you would not try to run a natural resources company in Russia, you would not run a biotech firm in the US, or a nuclear firm in the UK. Etc, etc. And at the end of the day, all it does is close the doors on opportunities in your country, and opens them for other people elsewhere. That's not how societies survive and prosper.

What pisses me off is people who act as if science and faith are mutually exculsive.

Much as I hate to make snap judgments...

It's just ignorance. Show me a science-hater and I'll show you an ignorant individual who's terrified of science fictions invented either by their own mind or by other ignorant anti-science individuals.
What if it's not "hate," but just a degree of hostility? Some people, as the article points out, feel that science is hostile toward faith. Is that because they feel that their faith is threatened or because they simply don't understand?

where research which could be banned on religious grounds in the US
That very idea is why the US is fucked unless some one starts standing up to the radicals and lunatics.

What pisses me off is people who act as if science and faith are mutually exculsive.
That bothers me as well. I take the approach that "the unexamined faith is actually no faith at all," which makes it relatively easy for me to adapt what I believe to new findings in science. But not everyone has the courage to rexamine their faith; they prefer the "certainty" of belief to the changes they will have to make.

That very idea is why the US is fucked unless some one starts standing up to the radicals and lunatics.
And who is going to do that?

I have wondered why science doesn't place a bit more emphasis on advertising than it does. If that works for products, why not ideas?

And who is going to do that?

I have wondered why science doesn't place a bit more emphasis on advertising than it does. If that works for products, why not ideas?
Because the uneducated are easier controlled by the radicals and lunatics. Advertising isn't going to work, people have to stop pussy footing around and be like "Shut the hell up, that is bullshit" and stop giving any ground to the religious in any place that isn't the church.

What if it's not "hate," but just a degree of hostility? Some people, as the article points out, feel that science is hostile toward faith. Is that because they feel that their faith is threatened or because they simply don't understand?
Same answer. They're just ignorant.

People who feel that science threatens their faith fit into one of two categories:

1) In most cases, science doesn't have buggerall to say about their "faith," because science doesn't deal with supernatural phenomenon. Science doesn't have anything to say about the existence of God, which is the most common complaint of the ignorant. Science doesn't tell you what morals to have. Science doesn't tell you that you have to like fags, respect women, or do any of the other things that terrify the science-haters. They don't know what science IS, let alone understanding the information provided by science, so they are fearing a straw man.

2) There are cases where people's beliefs ARE threatened by science, and this is because those people believe in incorrect things. For instance, people who "have faith" in the idea that the world is flat are most definitely going to find their beliefs "threatened" by science. However, this is because they are both ignorant and wrong, and they need to get some new beliefs. To paraphrase another great thinker, if your God can be dismantled by modern science then you ought to get a better God.

And at the end of the day, all it does is close the doors on opportunities in your country, and opens them for other people elsewhere. That's not how societies survive and prosper.
Gunz don't kill people, science do.

There'll always be science frights. It's part of the human condition. I was against nuclear power untill the day I realized it wasn't a choice anymore. I'm still very much against most types of GMOs.

I'm convinced that, within this century, we will see an uprising of American religious fundamentalists who believe it is immoral for humans to make use of fire.

Fire is commonly associated with the devil, the enemy of God. Greek mythology tells us that fire was given to man by a HEATHEN god (Prometheus). When Adam and Eve were created in the garden, no mention is made of them using fire, so clearly God did not intend for His creations to indulge in the unnatural practice of fire-using.
LOL! Sigh. Unfortunately, there may very well already be those who believe this way. In a free society, the right to believe a lie is absolute.

I have wondered why science doesn't place a bit more emphasis on advertising than it does. If that works for products, why not ideas?
Speaking as a scientist: because I've got better things to do than trying to win over people who fetishize the Dark Ages. I'll teach those who are interested in learning, but if other people want to wallow in their ignorance then they are welcome to do so. It's nice of them to take their children out of the running for slots in university...that will make it even easier for my godson to land a prime spot with lots of nice financial aid.

That does it! I am moving - I would go to the UK but since that ringtone hit #1 on their music charts, I've lost some respect for them. I'll head to Canada for now.

Don't worry, it was only really the young children who bought Crazy Frog, we'll have beaten it out of them by the time you get here.:)

I have wondered why science doesn't place a bit more emphasis on advertising than it does. If that works for products, why not ideas?
Scientific ideas are not readily grasped by people without the mental tools to comprehend them. The vast majority of high school leavers in the UK, and I would imagine the US, are not capable of understanding the principle of falsifiable hypotheses, much less apply the concept to the world around them. And we are talking about the most rudimentary concept in science.

There are cases where people's beliefs ARE threatened by science, and this is because those people believe in incorrect things. For instance, people who "have faith" in the idea that the world is flat are most definitely going to find their beliefs "threatened" by science. However, this is because they are both ignorant and wrong, and they need to get some new beliefs. To paraphrase another great thinker, if your God can be dismantled by modern science then you ought to get a better God.
Not everyone has sufficient courage to do this, though. Many, if not most, people are threatened by change and even moreso at the thought of having to change closely held beliefs. I've actually seen people put their hands over their ears when confonted with cognitive dissonance. :(

Scientific ideas are not readily grasped by people without the mental tools to comprehend them. The vast majority of high school leavers in the UK, and I would imagine the US, are not capable of understanding the principle of falsifiable hypotheses, much less apply the concept to the world around them. And we are talking about the most rudimentary concept in science.
I see this as a failure of educaton. Almost all humans with an average or above IQ are capable of comprehending difficult concepts when they are broken down into easily-digestible components.

Not everyone has sufficient courage to do this, though. Many, if not most, people are threatened by change and even moreso at the thought of having to change closely held beliefs. I've actually seen people put their hands over their ears when confonted with cognitive dissonance. :(
Boo hoo. I've seen rapists insist that it's not rape if they hit the girl until she stopped saying no. I have no sympathy for people who are too cowardly to face reality.

People who "put their hands over their ears when confronted with cognitive dissonance" should be legally regarded as minor children, since that is precisely the level at which they are functioning. They should be remanded to the care of adults until they grow up.

Speaking as a scientist: because I've got better things to do than trying to win over people who fetishize the Dark Ages. I'll teach those who are interested in learning, but if other people want to wallow in their ignorance then they are welcome to do so. It's nice of them to take their children out of the running for slots in university...that will make it even easier for my godson to land a prime spot with lots of nice financial aid.
But doesn't the sort of condescention this post of yours suggests indicate one reason why people distrust science and scientists?

If you don't make an effort to teach science to non-scientists, they may eventually legislate your profession out of existence. :(

Boo hoo. I've seen rapists insist that it's not rape if they hit the girl until she stopped saying no. I have no sympathy for people who are too cowardly to face reality.
Ah! But those same people occupy the same world as you do. If you don't tae them into account, they may eventually overwhelm you.

That does it! I am moving - I would go to the UK but since that ringtone hit #1 on their music charts, I've lost some respect for them. I'll head to Canada for now.
Bailing when the going gets tough ... and interesting? Not a very courageous thing to do, IMHO. :(

But doesn't the sort of condescention this post of yours suggests indicate one reason why people distrust science and scientists?

Nope. Like I said, I'm more than willing to teach ANYBODY who wants to learn. I do not (and will not) make fun of people who are curious and want to expand their understanding, no matter how ignorant they are. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant and admitting it...the only sin is being ignorant and proud of it.


If you don't make an effort to teach science to non-scientists, they may eventually legislate your profession out of existence. :(
I most certainly do make an effort to teach science to non-scientists. I simply make no effort to teach adult human beings who put their hands over their ears to avoid learning anything. I'm not their mommy, and it's not my job to drag them kicking and screaming into the real world.

I see this as a failure of educaton. Almost all humans with an average or above IQ are capable of comprehending difficult concepts when they are broken down into easily-digestible components.
Indeed it is a failure of education. But education begins at home. Some kids are lost by the time they reach high school, or the battle is lost later, as their parents' values are accepted rather than those of the State. Others are failed by the school system. I do not believe however that science should take the blame. The link between the scientific community and the education system was broken by government bureaucracy a generation ago.

Ah! But those same people occupy the same world as you do. If you don't tae them into account, they may eventually overwhelm you.
Dude, they've already overwhelmed us. Where have you been?

But doesn't the sort of condescention this post of yours suggests indicate one reason why people distrust science and scientists?

If you don't make an effort to teach science to non-scientists, they may eventually legislate your profession out of existence. :(

I freely admit that I'm not overly familiar with educational structures in the US, but... isn't that what schools are for?

I freely admit that I'm not overly familiar with educational structures in the US, but... isn't that what schools are for?
And they are usually run by incompetent, old doddlers who can't be fired because they have tenure.

Nope. Like I said, I'm more than willing to teach ANYBODY who wants to learn. I do not (and will not) make fun of people who are curious and want to expand their understanding, no matter how ignorant they are. There's nothing wrong with being ignorant and admitting it...the only sin is being ignorant and proud of it.

I most certainly do make an effort to teach science to non-scientists. I simply make no effort to teach adult human beings who put their hands over their ears to avoid learning anything. I'm not their mommy, and it's not my job to drag them kicking and screaming into the real world.
LOL! True, true, but I submit that, unless we make the effort, science qua science may well be doomed. :(

I have often felt that one of the few "true" sins is being willfully ignorant.

I freely admit that I'm not overly familiar with educational structures in the US, but... isn't that what schools are for?
Unfortunately, we are currently suffering from a legacy of slack standards in the field of education, something which began back in the late 50s.

And they are usually run by incompetent, old doddlers who can't be fired because they have tenure.
True, there is a certain built-in inertia in the tenure system, but there are ways of unloading deadwood.

Indeed it is a failure of education. But education begins at home. Some kids are lost by the time they reach high school, or the battle is lost later, as their parents' values are accepted rather than those of the State. Others are failed by the school system. I do not believe however that science should take the blame. The link between the scientific community and the education system was broken by government bureaucracy a generation ago.
It's not a matter of "blame," more a matter of survival.

Unfortunately, we are currently suffering from a legacy of slack standards in the field of education, something which began back in the late 50s.

Well, then I think you found the point at which to start: Reform the school system and take care to provide education for your children. You won't be able to convince people who are adult today (stubborness has this tendency to increase with age), but at least there you have a forum to provide basic scientific education and to introduce scientific thinking back into the population.

Dude, they've already overwhelmed us. Where have you been?
Heh! I disagree, but perhaps my perspective is different than yours. Most people aren't outright hostile to science, but feel that science has become too detached from what they see as reality. If you feel that science is being "overwhelmed," then perhaps it's time to change tactics.

Well, then I think you found the point at which to start: Reform the school system and take care to provide education for your children. You won't be able to convince people who are adult today (stubborness has this tendency to increase with age), but at least there you have a forum to provide basic scientific education and to introduce scientific thinking back into the population.
I agree. It's a long, long road, but worth the trip.

The article is basically a bunch of hogwash. If you analyze that article you will quickly begin finding many flaws in its reasoning. But you really dont need to dissect the article because the entire thesis falls apart right at the start. The validity of the entire article hinges on this paragraph:

Traditionalists, especially on the right, fear that science promotes godless materialism. Its insistence on finding purely natural explanations, they maintain, threatens to drain the world of moral purpose and spiritual meaning. On the left, fashionable thinkers of recent years have declared that science is an ideological prop of global capitalism. In the guise of giving us an objective picture of reality, they say, science encodes a hidden justification for the dominance of one class (bourgeois), one race (white) and one sex (male).


Yet no supporting evidence is provided for that statement. No statistics, no quotes from any "traditionalist" leaders, no clear statement of who "traditionalists" are in the first place (other than people opposed to science), no indication of how large the numbers of this group are, no supporting evidence whatsoever. So, we read further down, expecting to find the evidence somewhere in the body of the article. But no evidence ever comes. No "traditionalist" is ever interviewed or quoted, no statistics about people's feelings towards science are ever presented, no facts on this group they are basing the whole article on are ever given. We are given no facts to back the thesis that there is a group of traditionalists who fear, dislike, or do not believe in science. The only facts given show that many people are ignorant of science, but being ignorant of something is a far cry from being opposed to or fearing something. We are left to believe the article on faith alone.

The article is basically a bunch of hogwash. If you analyze that article you will quickly begin finding many flaws in its reasoning. But you really dont need to dissect the article because the entire thesis falls apart right at the start. The validity of the entire article hinges on this paragraph:


Yet no supporting evidence is provided for that statement. No statistics, no quotes from any "traditionalist" leaders, no clear statement of who "traditionalists" are in the first place (other than people opposed to science), no indication of how large the numbers of this group are, no supporting evidence whatsoever. So, we read further down, expecting to find the evidence somewhere in the body of the article. But no evidence ever comes. No "traditionalist" is ever interviewed or quoted, no statistics about people's feelings towards science are ever presented, no facts on this group they are basing the whole article on are ever given. We are given no facts to back the thesis that there is a group of traditionalists who fear, dislike, or do not believe in science. The only facts given show that many people are ignorant of science, but being ignorant of something is a far cry from being opposed to or fearing something. We are left to believe the article on faith alone.
Um ... the article doesn't claim to BE science, only to discuss it. :p

Um ... the article doesn't claim to BE science, only to discuss it. :p

I know. But typically, when you are writing an expository article, you want to provide some evidence that what you are saying is true. The article provides no evidence. It is amateurish at best, a load of hogwash at worst, and not to be believed either way.

I know. But typically, when you are writing an expository article, you want to provide some evidence that what you are saying is true. The article provides no evidence. It is amateurish at best, a load of hogwash at worst, and not to be believed either way.
( shrug ) Ok. I use most articles I post as a starting point for discussion. If you think that the article is inaccurate or inadequate, feel free to provide a counter-argument. :)

My counter argument is simple. The article is hogwash and there really isnt any serious hostility towards or fear of science by anything but the smallest fringe groups and unabomber-like loners.

I wouldn't call myself a science-hater. I merely question the validity of science and reason as parts of a supposedly superior worldview. I try to question everything though, and see it as beneficial. Science needs skeptics to act as a motivation to improve itself by questioning old assumptions and theories. All too often, I see many nontheists who have discarded the shackles of dogma only to embrace reason as a sort of new god.

My counter argument is simple. The article is hogwash and there really isnt any serious hostility towards or fear of science by anything but the smallest fringe groups and unabomber-like loners.

Just two thoughts:

You are obviously an idiot, or at a minimum don't live in the same America that I do.
The good news is, these things tend to be self-correcting. Empires throughout history that have lost sight of good sense, have seen their fortunes decline and the species has survived. Already America seems committed to surrender alternative energy and much of biotech...eventually economics will take their toll. We have vast resources and a lot of inertia, but nothing lasts forever.

I wouldn't call myself a science-hater. I merely question the validity of science and reason as parts of a supposedly superior worldview. I try to question everything though, and see it as beneficial. Science needs skeptics to act as a motivation to improve itself by questioning old assumptions and theories. All too often, I see many nontheists who have discarded the shackles of dogma only to embrace reason as a sort of new god.
Excellent point. Truly excellent!

Science, like religion and politics, should indeed be subjected to constant questioning. That's why part of the scientific method involves peer review. But peer review comes from within the scientific community. Calm, reasoned, dispassionate questioning by non-scientists helps keep the scientific community honest, IMHO.

One of my favorite quotes from the Bible goes: "Prove all things, hold fast to that which is true." Would that those who claim to believe would apply what the Bible actually says, as opposed to what they would like it to say or what some pastor or teacher tells them it says.

Just two thoughts:

You are obviously an idiot, or at a minimum don't live in the same America that I do.
The good news is, these things tend to be self-correcting. Empires throughout history that have lost sight of good sense, have seen their fortunes decline and the species has survived. Already America seems committed to surrender alternative energy and much of biotech...eventually economics will take their toll. We have vast resources and a lot of inertia, but nothing lasts forever.

1. Please, please, please ... no flaming.

2. Perhaps some of biotech, but I hear about alternative energy development all the time. :confused:

I wouldn't call myself a science-hater. I merely question the validity of science and reason as parts of a supposedly superior worldview. I try to question everything though, and see it as beneficial. Science needs skeptics to act as a motivation to improve itself by questioning old assumptions and theories. All too often, I see many nontheists who have discarded the shackles of dogma only to embrace reason as a sort of new god.
And what you describe (this skepticism and critique) is an integral part of science. Far from being "anti-science," your actions express the fundamental ethics of the scientific process!

Keep in mind that the "skeptics" who have acted as the greatest motivators to shaking up scientific dogma have always been scientists. Laypeople tend to express a view of scientists as all part of some massive hive mind, all touting the same theories and the same "science," when the reality is that scientists are their own harshest critics. This is not because scientists are "better" than laypeople, but merely because scientists are most often the ones who take the time to really explore and understand a given theory, and thus are in the best position to attack it. And believe me, scientists DO ATTACK EACH OTHER. I was at the Society For Neuroscience meeting last month, and let me tell you...Wild Kingdom has NOTHING on us. :)

And what you describe (this skepticism and critique) is an integral part of science. Far from being "anti-science," your actions express the fundamental ethics of the scientific process!

Keep in mind that the "skeptics" who have acted as the greatest motivators to shaking up scientific dogma have always been scientists. Laypeople tend to express a view of scientists as all part of some massive hive mind, all touting the same theories and the same "science," when the reality is that scientists are their own harshest critics. This is not because scientists are "better" than laypeople, but merely because scientists are most often the ones who take the time to really explore and understand a given theory, and thus are in the best position to attack it. And believe me, scientists DO ATTACK EACH OTHER. I was at the Society For Neuroscience meeting last month, and let me tell you...Wild Kingdom has NOTHING on us. :)

This is true. The peer-review mechanism of scientific study is one of it's best attributes, in my opinion.

But even so, you must admit, there are a lot of people out there who treat generally-accepted scientific theories as unassailable "truth" and disregard any criticism of those theories on the basis of "everybody knows..." without really giving it any thought. While these people often claim they are "scientific thinkers", surely they demonstrate with such off-hand dismissal of different ideas that they are anything but.

This is true. The peer-review mechanism of scientific study is one of it's best attributes, in my opinion.

As somebody who's trying to get a paper published, I HATE PEER REVIEW!! THOSE MEANIES KEEP PICKING ON ME!!!! :P

Seriously, though, I do think it's a good process in general. The only beefs I have are 1) it's very very hard to get your FIRST grant or publication, and 2) sometimes personal feuds interfere in the process (like when your competition is placed in a position of evaluating your paper or grant application).


But even so, you must admit, there are a lot of people out there who treat generally-accepted scientific theories as unassailable "truth" and disregard any criticism of those theories on the basis of "everybody knows..." without really giving it any thought. While these people often claim they are "scientific thinkers", surely they demonstrate with such off-hand dismissal of different ideas that they are anything but.
Yes, there are people who behave that way, and there certainly are researchers who fall in love with their pet theories and act unscientifically regarding those theories. There are bad apples in any crowd, unfortunately, but I'm happy to know that they do not represent the community as a whole.

I have wondered why science doesn't place a bit more emphasis on advertising than it does. If that works for products, why not ideas?
I've been trying to advertise physics and encourage anybody with the slightest interest in physics to go study it... that's part of why I want to teach physics in highschool, hopefully I'll be able to sway a couple of kids who are like "physics, wtf?!" to be like "physics, awesome!" and at least teach enough of them enough about physics to understand something of what comes out of it. Of course, I'm not sure if the curriculum would be flexible enough for me to do that... but I'm sure I could slip some relation to sports and music... :)

But yeah, it is poorly advertised. Did anybody here know that 2005 has been the year of physics? I mean, it's almost over, but how many people were aware of this fact?

Much as I hate to make snap judgments...

It's just ignorance. Show me a science-hater and I'll show you an ignorant individual who's terrified of science fictions invented either by their own mind or by other ignorant anti-science individuals. Ah, but what is a science-hater? Everyone knows what the extreme definition is, but one person's definition is different from anothers.

I'd say fearing science is indeed ignorance - but it's important to distinguish it from legitimate concerns people might have over the use of science - whether it's put to immoral, evil or unethical uses. Science in itself can't be good or bad.

Did anybody here know that 2005 has been the year of physics? I mean, it's almost over, but how many people were aware of this fact?
I didn't, and I love physics, not to study it as a physicist but as a layman.

Ah, but what is a science-hater? Everyone knows what the extreme definition is, but one person's definition is different from anothers.

I'd say fearing science is indeed ignorance - but it's important to distinguish it from legitimate concerns people might have over the use of science - whether it's put to immoral, evil or unethical uses. Science in itself can't be good or bad.
But scientists can be, and what's worse ( IMHO ) is scientists who don't give a damn what non-scientists think. :(

As somebody who's trying to get a paper published, I HATE PEER REVIEW!! THOSE MEANIES KEEP PICKING ON ME!!!! :P

Seriously, though, I do think it's a good process in general. The only beefs I have are 1) it's very very hard to get your FIRST grant or publication, and 2) sometimes personal feuds interfere in the process (like when your competition is placed in a position of evaluating your paper or grant application).


Hah! Yeah, I know how that is. One of my friends is trying to have a paper on the aerodynamics of small-scale helicopters (or something like that) published, and is having a pretty hard time of it. I'm not up on the specifics of it, because try as I might to grasp it, my brain usually goes into meltdown when he starts talking about his engineering.

But there are always going to be flaws whereever there are people involved. Just have to take the good with bad, I suppose.


Yes, there are people who behave that way, and there certainly are researchers who fall in love with their pet theories and act unscientifically regarding those theories. There are bad apples in any crowd, unfortunately, but I'm happy to know that they do not represent the community as a whole.

Sure. By the same token, not everyone of a religious bent is out to destroy science and send us back to the dark ages, like some people seem to think.

I'm convinced that, within this century, we will see an uprising of American religious fundamentalists who believe it is immoral for humans to make use of fire.

Fire is commonly associated with the devil, the enemy of God. Greek mythology tells us that fire was given to man by a HEATHEN god (Prometheus). When Adam and Eve were created in the garden, no mention is made of them using fire, so clearly God did not intend for His creations to indulge in the unnatural practice of fire-using. Happily, they will be unable to spread their ideas, since long-range communication is not mentioned in Genesis either. This is of course assuming that a modicum of logic applies.

I didn't, and I love physics, not to study it as a physicist but as a layman.
Well, enjoy the last month of it.

2005 was chosen because it's the centennial of Einstein's "miracle year"

Here's the official website. http://www.physics2005.org/

Happily, they will be unable to spread their ideas, since long-range communication is not mentioned in Genesis either. This is of course assuming that a modicum of logic applies.
When have religious fundamentalists ever been logical or consistent? Obviously only fire will be outlawed in their view, electricity and the telephone and the internet will be fair game.

But scientists can be, and what's worse ( IMHO ) is scientists who don't give a damn what non-scientists think. :( Exactly. Myself, I don't fear science - why should I fear the world? - I'm suspicious of what people do with it.

What's amusing is when scientists come out with proof for something that people have known for ages. For instance, my favourite one is the recent finding where scientists found out that Jesus looked like an Arab. :D

It's true though, the media usage of "scientists" as a cover-all term does add to the perception of there being a great big block of all-seeing scientists somewhere.

What's amusing is when scientists come out with proof for something that people have known for ages. For instance, my favourite one is the recent finding where scientists found out that Jesus looked like an Arab.
You can't prove or disprove bullshit know one even knows exists.

As I've said before, the reason why I like science is that there is simply no greater deed in the halls of science than disproving the lifework of a genius that came before you.

What I eventually foresee from science is a world of robotic warfare, galactic conquest and a self-cleaning deep fryer. I like it.

Well, enjoy the last month of it.

2005 was chosen because it's the centennial of Einstein's "miracle year"

Here's the official website. http://www.physics2005.org/
Thanks. I appreciate it.

This is one of the things about which I am concerned. If I, who love to study science as a layman, didn't know about this, chances are virtually NONE of those who are skeptical of science in general knew about it either. :(

You can't prove or disprove bullshit know one even knows exists. It is normal to take for granted that someone born in Nazareth would look like an Arab, yes? What I eventually foresee from science is a world of robotic warfare, galactic conquest and a self-cleaning deep fryer. I like it. *plays Ogame*

But scientists can be, and what's worse ( IMHO ) is scientists who don't give a damn what non-scientists think. :(

Scientists don't give a damn about what non-scientists think about science.

It's true though, the media usage of "scientists" as a cover-all term does add to the perception of there being a great big block of all-seeing scientists somewhere.
I have long suspected that it is a wise parent who inculcates his offspring with a healthy skepticism where the mass media is concerned. :)

Sure. By the same token, not everyone of a religious bent is out to destroy science and send us back to the dark ages, like some people seem to think.
Of course not! Hell, my own lab is home to a Christian and Muslim.

Scientists don't give a damn about what non-scientists think about science.
Which is a rather serious mistake, in my humble opinion. There are more non-scientists than scientists and, at least in a democracy, they are all eligible to vote! :eek:

Exactly. Myself, I don't fear science - why should I fear the world? - I'm suspicious of what people do with it.

What's amusing is when scientists come out with proof for something that people have known for ages. For instance, my favourite one is the recent finding where scientists found out that Jesus looked like an Arab. :D

It's true though, the media usage of "scientists" as a cover-all term does add to the perception of there being a great big block of all-seeing scientists somewhere.

What? Of course the scienstist are watching us! The Scientist Hive-Brain can read your mind! Only my custom-made tinfoil hats can protect you from their mind rays.

I think coming out with evidence that Jesus probably looked similar to everyone else of his people was stating the obvious a bit, but then, there is this popular image of him as he is portrayed by various churches. I've always thought of him as a scruffy, dirty, rather angry-looking Arab rather than the graceful, angelic white guy of the church images. I saw a history documentary where they re-enacted the moneychangers in the temple confrontation and showed him like that, and it was a much cooler portrayal of Jesus than most I've seen.

I have long suspected that it is a wise parent who inculcates his offspring with a healthy skepticism where the mass media is concerned. :) And it is a wise offspring who listens to the parent.

*looks around in vain hope*

It is normal to take for granted that someone born in Nazareth would look like an Arab, yes?
Which is why scientists don't give a shit what you think - you know nothing about science.

Thanks. I appreciate it.

This is one of the things about which I am concerned. If I, who love to study science as a layman, didn't know about this, chances are virtually NONE of those who are skeptical of science in general knew about it either. :(
If it makes you feel any worse about the advertisement of this thing, I didn't even know until September and I'm studying physics.

What? Of course the scienstist are watching us! The Scientist Hive-Brain can read your mind! Only my custom-made tinfoil hats can protect you from their mind rays.

I think coming out with evidence that Jesus probably looked similar to everyone else of his people was stating the obvious a bit, but then, there is this popular image of him as he is portrayed by various churches. I've always thought of him as a scruffy, dirty, rather angry-looking Arab rather than the graceful, angelic white guy of the church images. I saw a history documentary where they re-enacted the moneychangers in the temple confrontation and showed him like that, and it was a much cooler portrayal of Jesus than most I've seen. I always thought of him as looking like a younger Christopher Lee with darker skin.

What's amusing is when scientists come out with proof for something that people have known for ages. For instance, my favourite one is the recent finding where scientists found out that Jesus looked like an Arab. :D

Well, testing "conventional wisdom" is a very important role for science, because sometimes science provides concrete proof for that common wisdom but sometimes it shows us that we were mistaken all along. It's not enough to simply say, "eveybody knows this is the case!" because "everybody" is often wrong.

And it is a wise offspring who listens to the parent.

*looks around in vain hope*
I didn't give mine the option of NOT listening! :D

Which is a rather serious mistake, in my humble opinion. There are more non-scientists than scientists and, at least in a democracy, they are all eligible to vote! :eek:
Yeah, this is why I propose some sort of competency testing for voting.

I didn't give mine the option of NOT listening! :D
Which circles back to my first post in this thread I believe.

Which is why scientists don't give a shit what you think - you know nothing about science. Genetics dictate that new races do not spring from old races without many generations of environmental conditioning. It would have shown up in the (very few) historical records if his race was at odds with his time, as well.

It is necessary to prove things without assuming them… but why all this time figuring out whether an Arab looked like an Arab?

Which is a rather serious mistake, in my humble opinion. There are more non-scientists than scientists and, at least in a democracy, they are all eligible to vote! :eek:
I think what he was saying was that the opinions of laypeople are irrelevant to scientific realities. Scientific fact is not to be determined by popular vote. Science often tells us things we don't like to hear, and science facts do not bow before the will of the majority.

Laypeople may have very strong opinions about scientific matters, but those opinions don't have any bearing on the actual state of the data...for instance, there are people who really really want to believe that black people are genetically inferior, but their feelings on the subject will not have any impact on the data proving that black people are not genetically inferior.

Genetics dictate that new races do not spring from old races without many generations of environmental conditioning. It would have shown up in the (very few) historical records if his race was at odds with his time, as well.
You miss the point entirely and still know nothing about science. Stop arguing.

Flies being created from rotting meat was "obvious," that was the only place people saw them coming from, why prove they do or don't?
If everyone accepted every "obvious" assumption as fact, everyone would be an idiot.

You miss the point entirely and still know nothing about science. Stop arguing.

Flies being created from rotting meat was "obvious," that was the only place people saw them coming from, why prove they do or don't?
If everyone accepted every "obvious" assumption as fact, everyone would be an idiot. You've missed my point entirely. I was wondering why scientists were devoting their energy to something arguably as trivial as this, and exactly how they did it.

And I know a tad more about science (depends what science) than most people, although I'm not studying it now.

Yeah, this is why I propose some sort of competency testing for voting.
Essentially an anti-democratic option. Regardless of any percieved "competency," people are still subject to the laws, the government, and the political process. To forbid someone the right to vote for those who lead them based on some esoteric "competency" is the equivalent of denying minorities or women the right to vote, and we've been through all that.

I think what he was saying was that the opinions of laypeople are irrelevant to scientific realities. Scientific fact is not to be determined by popular vote. Science often tells us things we don't like to hear, and science facts do not bow before the will of the majority.

Laypeople may have very strong opinions about scientific matters, but those opinions don't have any bearing on the actual state of the data...for instance, there are people who really really want to believe that black people are genetically inferior, but their feelings on the subject will not have any impact on the data proving that black people are not genetically inferior.
History is rife with examples where politics has overruled science, regardless of any "facts." Talk to a "creationist" for further insight.

You've missed my point entirely. I was wondering why scientists were devoting their energy to something arguably as trivial as this, and exactly how they did it.
Because there are alot of 'scientists.' And if you want to know how they did it, email an anthropologist.

Essentially an anti-democratic option. Regardless of any percieved "competency," people are still subject to the laws, the government, and the political process. To forbid someone the right to vote for those who lead them based on some esoteric "competency" is the equivalent of denying minorities or women the right to vote, and we've been through all that.
Just to be a devil's advocate:

We deny voting rights to children, even though they are held to the laws of the land. We even try children as adults and subject them to adult punishments. If an adult human chooses to function at the level of a child, why shouldn't that adult be treated as a child in the eyes of the law?

History is rife with examples where politics has overruled science, regardless of any "facts." Talk to a "creationist" for further insight.
Yes, but in none of those cases did the political rule do anything to change the actual facts. They can LIE, of course, and can even make their lies into laws within the political system, but they won't have done a single thing to alter the scientific reality.

We deny voting rights to children, even though they are held to the laws of the land. We even try children as adults and subject them to adult punishments. If an adult human chooses to function at the level of a child, why shouldn't that adult be treated as a child in the eyes of the law?
And Bottle beats me to it in a much better way than I could ever say it.

Because there are alot of 'scientists.' And if you want to know how they did it, email an anthropologist. Except I thought the accepted status quo amongst historians was that no reliable records were found of Jesus' ancestry.

I'm not questioning the findings since they seem pretty damn accurate to me and I'm not one of the "Jesus is white" brigade.

And Bottle beats me to it in a much better way than I could ever say it.
I just see it as taking them at their word: they go to a great deal of trouble to keep their minds from maturing to an adult level, so our laws should recognize their efforts.

Just to be a devil's advocate:

We deny voting rights to children, even though they are held to the laws of the land. We even try children as adults and subject them to adult punishments. If an adult human chooses to function at the level of a child, why shouldn't that adult be treated as a child in the eyes of the law?

And while I wish that the right to vote had to be "earned" in some way, giving the government the power to dictate who does and does not vote, in the case of law-abiding adults, is way too great a power to expect it not to be abused.

(see Jim Crowe Laws.)

I just see it as taking them at their word: they go to a great deal of trouble to keep their minds from maturing to an adult level, so our laws should recognize their efforts.

One might ask why your definition of "an adult level" should be accepted over any other, however.

I just see it as taking them at their word: they go to a great deal of trouble to keep their minds from maturing to an adult level, so our laws should recognize their efforts.
Indeed.

And if you're too completely unaware of how the world is, then why should you get any say so in how it's run?

And while I wish that the right to vote had to be "earned" in some way, giving the government the power to dictate who does and does not vote, in the case of law-abiding adults, is way too great a power to expect it not to be abused.
And THERE is my objection to the whole thing :).

In theory, I have no problem with imposing standards for who may and may not vote. However, I don't believe there is currently any "safe" way of imposing such measures, because of the very high probability that they will be utterly hijacked.

Yet no supporting evidence is provided for that statement. No statistics, no quotes from any "traditionalist" leaders, no clear statement of who "traditionalists" are in the first place (other than people opposed to science), no indication of how large the numbers of this group are, no supporting evidence whatsoever. So, we read further down, expecting to find the evidence somewhere in the body of the article. But no evidence ever comes.
Yes it does

Only one in five has bothered to take a physics course. Three out of four haven't heard that the universe is expanding. Nearly half, according to a recent survey, seem to believe that God created man in his present form within the last 10,000 years. Less than 10 percent of adult Americans, it is estimated, are in possession of basic scientific literacy.

When have religious fundamentalists ever been logical or consistent? Obviously only fire will be outlawed in their view, electricity and the telephone and the internet will be fair game.
Good point Dakini. Look at the Muslim fundamentalists. They reject modernity and fetishise the Caliphate, yet they use modern weapons!

Which circles back to my first post in this thread I believe.
I re-read your first post, but couldn't figure out how it relates to this. Sorry.

Hmmm, I think all this talk of anti-science is exaggerated. For all the fact that some people have axes to grind with some of the details of science (global warming, evolution, ect) they seem to like getting into their new car and listening to their I-pod as they use their GPS to guide them to the shops to buy a new X-box360.

One might ask why your definition of "an adult level" should be accepted over any other, however.
Quite true. We can't even settle on a solid definition of "human consciousness," let alone coming up with a reliable standard for "adult thinking" versus "child thinking."

I really was just being devil's advocate. Much as I will sometimes rant against the anti-science nincompoops, I honestly don't want to take away their civil rights.

And THERE is my objection to the whole thing :).

In theory, I have no problem with imposing standards for who may and may not vote. However, I don't believe there is currently any "safe" way of imposing such measures, because of the very high probability that they will be utterly hijacked.
Yeah, which sucks because it seems so good in theory.

But then science does occasionally benefit from the ignorance. Look at how much money got put into Regan's "star wars" plan.

I'm a religious person (in my opinion) but I'm also very scientific. You can be both people.

Which is why scientists don't give a shit what you think - you know nothing about science.
WHY must you be so frakking atangonistic? RELAX! :p

Yes, but in none of those cases did the political rule do anything to change the actual facts. They can LIE, of course, and can even make their lies into laws within the political system, but they won't have done a single thing to alter the scientific reality.
I'm not arguing that point, only that politics can overrule science.

Hmmm, I think all this talk of anti-science is exaggerated. For all the fact that some people have axes to grind with some of the details of science (global warming, evolution, ect) they seem to like getting into their new car and listening to their I-pod as they use their GPS to guide them to the shops to buy a new X-box360.

Most of the same people who cry about scientific "materialism," have no problem buying shoes made by starving children and sold at Wal-Mart.

Hmmm, I think all this talk of anti-science is exaggerated. For all the fact that some people have axes to grind with some of the detail of science (Global warming, Evolution, ect) they seem to like getting into their new car and listening to their I-pod as they use their GPS to guide them to the shops to buy a new X-box360.
Well, that's a major part of the problem.

For example, I cannot STAND Creationists who got the flu vaccine. That vaccine WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED without evolutionary theory, and yet these freaking hypocrites are perfectly comfortable reaping the benefits of a theory they deride. Hell, Creationists shouldn't even be driving modern cars, because those cars run on the decomposed bodies of species the Creationists claim never existed.

That's what really ticks me off. I want people to put their money where their mouth is.

And Bottle beats me to it in a much better way than I could ever say it.
Perhaps, but the question of who decides whether a voter is "competent" or not is an issue, as is the means of doing so. No one has responded to these issues.

Hmmm, I think all this talk of anti-science is exaggerated. For all the fact that some people have axes to grind with some of the details of science (global warming, evolution, ect) they seem to like getting into their new car and listening to their I-pod as they use their GPS to guide them to the shops to buy a new X-box360.

That's not science, it's capitalism.

Perhaps, but the question of who decides whether a voter is "competent" or not is an issue, as is the means of doing so. No one has responded to these issues.
Hey, yes I did!

I just see it as taking them at their word: they go to a great deal of trouble to keep their minds from maturing to an adult level, so our laws should recognize their efforts.
Define "adult level."

And while I wish that the right to vote had to be "earned" in some way, giving the government the power to dictate who does and does not vote, in the case of law-abiding adults, is way too great a power to expect it not to be abused.

(see Jim Crowe Laws.)
Exactly.

I'm not arguing that point, only that politics can overrule science.

By order of Congress, gravity is abolished!

Indeed.

And if you're too completely unaware of how the world is, then why should you get any say so in how it's run?
Define both "aware" and "how the world is," and state who decides.

RELIGIOUS PEOPLE SUX0RZ!!111oeneone



That's what we're all basicly saying, right? I mean, it's pretty black and white on the issue; either you believe in 'magic and God and ideas that have been around forever and what someone tells you to believe' or 'Theories and new ideas and what someone tells you to believe'.

That's not science, it's capitalism.

Are you saying that capitalism is less materialistic than science?

Or to put it another way: Who would Jesus gouge?

Hmmm, I think all this talk of anti-science is exaggerated. For all the fact that some people have axes to grind with some of the details of science (global warming, evolution, ect) they seem to like getting into their new car and listening to their I-pod as they use their GPS to guide them to the shops to buy a new X-box360.
Ah! But do they connect the dots sufficiently to understand that science is at the root of these civlized niceties?

Quite true. We can't even settle on a solid definition of "human consciousness," let alone coming up with a reliable standard for "adult thinking" versus "child thinking."

I really was just being devil's advocate. Much as I will sometimes rant against the anti-science nincompoops, I honestly don't want to take away their civil rights.

I know, that's why you haven't grown sea-urchin like spiney appendages and remain quite huggable. :)

Incidentally, and completely off-topically, video footage of sea-urchins walking along the abyssal plane is awesome.

I'm a religious person (in my opinion) but I'm also very scientific. You can be both people.
I would prefer the term "spiritual," but I agree in essence. :)

Define "adult level."
Hon, I've already responded to this. I was playing devil's advocate. In theory, making sure that only competant and informed persons vote is a good idea. In practice, this would be nearly impossible, and that's why I don't actually support trying to do it. I mean, in theory a literacy test for voting is a good idea, but in practice it is a disaster.

Still, you've got to admit that our current system is kind of stupid. I mean, 18 years after one's birth one magically becomes capable of voting. This has been the set age for generations, despite the fact that developmental test confirm that today's 16 year olds show roughly the same level of mental development as 25 year olds during the 19th century. It's scary to contemplate, but an 16 year old today is at about the level her parents were when they were 18 (in terms of "mental maturity"). And the rate of change is INCREASING, such that somebody who is 18 today will probably have kids who, at 14, will have already passed today's "18-year-old maturity level."

Ah! But do they connect the dots sufficiently to understand that science is at the root of these civlized niceties?

Not to mention how one particular branch of science is connected to the other IE global warming and electronic entertainment

I want people to put their money where their mouth is.
Good luck wid dat! :D

That's not science, it's capitalism.
It's science driving capitalism driving science. :p

Hey, yes I did!
Um ... sorta. :p

Hon, I've already responded to this. I was playing devil's advocate. In theory, making sure that only competant and informed persons vote is a good idea. In practice, this would be nearly impossible, and that's why I don't actually support trying to do it. I mean, in theory a literacy test for voting is a good idea, but in practice it is a disaster.

Still, you've got to admit that our current system is kind of stupid. I mean, 18 years after one's birth one magically becomes capable of voting. This has been the set age for generations, despite the fact that developmental test confirm that today's 16 year olds show roughly the same level of mental development as 25 year olds during the 19th century. It's scary to contemplate, but an 16 year old today is at about the level her parents were when they were 18 (in terms of "mental maturity"). And the rate of change is INCREASING, such that somebody who is 18 today will probably have kids who, at 14, will have already passed today's "18-year-old maturity level."

Try living with 50+ 18 year olds for a few months, then see if you sing the same tune.

By order of Congress, gravity is abolished!
By order of the Administration, Global Warming is a myth! :p

That's what we're all basicly saying, right? I mean, it's pretty black and white on the issue; either you believe in 'magic and God and ideas that have been around forever and what someone tells you to believe' or 'Theories and new ideas and what someone tells you to believe'.
No, that's not what we're saying. What most on here seem to be saying is:

1. Science is vitally important to our survival as a species

2. Understanding of science by non-scientists is rather dismal

3. Something must be done ( which has included proposals for better public relations by scientists and "competency tests" for voters )

4. People have a right to believe what they chose to believe, even if it's a lie

5. There doesn't have to be any essential conflict between science and belief, as long as people have sufficient courage to alter their beliefs when the preponderance of the evidence indicates they must be altered in light of reality

Happy now? :)

Hell, Creationists shouldn't even be driving modern cars, because those cars run on the decomposed bodies of species the Creationists claim never existed.

That's what really ticks me off. I want people to put their money where their mouth is.
But what if the creationist says, "How do you know that oil comes from the decomposed bodies of species I claim never existed? Perhaps oil came into being faster than scientists think." or more likely "God created oil as we find it."

Try living with 50+ 18 year olds for a few months, then see if you sing the same tune.
ROFLMAO!!! Touche! :D

Are you saying that capitalism is less materialistic than science?

Or to put it another way: Who would Jesus gouge?
I rather suspect that Jesus would begin with today's "scribes and pharasees" as he did the first time he paid us a vist. :p

But what if the creationist says, "How do you know that oil comes from the decomposed bodies of species I claim never existed? Perhaps oil came into being faster than scientists think." or more likely "God created oil as we find it."
I've had conversations with fundamentalists who swear that God "planted" fossils to lead men who didn't believe in him astray! :headbang:

By order of the Administration, Global Warming is a myth! :p

But that doesn't mean Global Climate Change will stop.

Define both "aware" and "how the world is," and state who decides.
I already said this wouldn't work in practice...

I've had conversations with fundamentalists who swear that God "planted" fossils to lead men who didn't believe in him astray! :headbang:

Yeah, so have I. It's both amusing and dismaying at the same time. Sometimes I like to tell them that God planted the Bible to lead astray the overly gullible and unquestioning. It usually results in the frowning of a lifetime.

No, that's not what we're saying. What most on here seem to be saying is:

1. Science is vitally important to our survival as a species

2. Understanding of science by non-scientists is rather dismal

3. Something must be done ( which has included proposals for better public relations by scientists and "competency tests" for voters )

4. People have a right to believe what they chose to believe, even if it's a lie

5. There doesn't have to be any essential conflict between science and belief, as long as people have sufficient courage to alter their beliefs when the preponderance of the evidence indicates they must be altered in light of reality

Happy now? :)

1. Indeed, but so is faith in something bigger than ourselves (at least for a majority of people)
2. False. I know plenty of 'non-scientists' who are very knowlegable in the field.
3. 'Something must be done'? Done about what? Forcing people to believe in something they don't want to believe in? Of course, the same is vice versa, but that doesn't give the right for anyone to force someone to believe something.
Oh, and we used to have tests for votes. If you need any help with them, just ask States like Mississippi, Alabama, and other anti-black states. Maybe the 'Jim Crow' laws could help out too?
4. Saying that religion is a lie is probably why the religous people don't really want to 'get along' in the first place. Everyone should (but never will) respect each other's convictions, even if you absolutely hate it. You shouldn't discriminate against someone for their beliefs.
5. Of course, only the religous people have to change their ways, not the science people. After all, the science people are way more smarter.


I'm very happy now.

But that doesn't mean Global Climate Change will stop.
Reeeely? WOW! :rolleyes:

Yeah, so have I. It's both amusing and dismaying at the same time. Sometimes I like to tell them that God planted the Bible to lead astray the overly gullible and unquestioning. It usually results in the frowning of a lifetime.
ROFLMAO! You're delightfully ... wicked! Shame on you! :D

1. Indeed, but so is faith in something bigger than ourselves (at least for a majority of people)
2. False. I know plenty of 'non-scientists' who are very knowlegable in the field.
3. 'Something must be done'? Done about what? Forcing people to believe in something they don't want to believe in? Of course, the same is vice versa, but that doesn't give the right for anyone to force someone to believe something.
Oh, and we used to have tests for votes. If you need any help with them, just ask States like Mississippi, Alabama, and other anti-black states. Maybe the 'Jim Crow' laws could help out too?
4. Saying that religion is a lie is probably why the religous people don't really want to 'get along' in the first place. Everyone should (but never will) respect each other's convictions, even if you absolutely hate it. You shouldn't discriminate against someone for their beliefs.
5. Of course, only the religous people have to change their ways, not the science people. After all, the science people are way more smarter.


I'm very happy now.
Why is that? Because you took what I said as a statement of personal belief rather than what I stated it was ... a summation of several pages of postings by a number of different people? Congratulations. :rolleyes:

As they say, "Ignorance is bliss." :)

1. Indeed, but so is faith in something bigger than ourselves (at least for a majority of people)
2. False. I know plenty of 'non-scientists' who are very knowlegable in the field.
3. 'Something must be done'? Done about what? Forcing people to believe in something they don't want to believe in? Of course, the same is vice versa, but that doesn't give the right for anyone to force someone to believe something.
Oh, and we used to have tests for votes. If you need any help with them, just ask States like Mississippi, Alabama, and other anti-black states. Maybe the 'Jim Crow' laws could help out too?
4. Saying that religion is a lie is probably why the religous people don't really want to 'get along' in the first place. Everyone should (but never will) respect each other's convictions, even if you absolutely hate it. You shouldn't discriminate against someone for their beliefs.
5. Of course, only the religous people have to change their ways, not the science people. After all, the science people are way more smarter.
1. No, humanity would be perfectly fine without religious faith.
2. The fact that you refered to all of science as one field is kinda silly here. Furthermore, the point is that many more non-scientists are scientifically ignorant than those who are knowledgable.
3. This isn't a matter of beliefs, it's a matter of facts.
4. If your religion states that the world is flat, that doesn't make it so. Likewise, if your religion states that the earth was created 6000 years ago and that man lived alongside dinosaurs (or Jesus horses, whichever you like to call them) then that doesn't prevent it from being completely wrong and you from being a jackass.
5. Yes, on average, the "science people" are smarter. And better educated. What's your point?

Let's just all agree that science people are better and religious people suck and should be locked away. That is the summarization of these several pages, correct? Silly people with their own thoughts...

Let's just all agree that science people are better and religious people suck and should be locked away. That is the summarization of these several pages, correct? Silly people with their own thoughts...

snip

Attacking science using religion is just as silly as attacking religion using science.

They.

Do.

Not.

Address.

Each.

Other.

If you have a problem with science because of your religion, you are an idiot who is unable to compatmentalize disparate topics. Period. One might as well use geometry to prove that a particular pop song sucks.

Thank you for your time.

Let's just all agree that science people are better and religious people suck and should be locked away.
I shall agree to no such thing.

Let's just all agree that science people are better and religious people suck and should be locked away. That is the summarization of these several pages, correct? Silly people with their own thoughts...

Read them again, this time without being a jackass. In fact, I think that the very best people (such as Einstein and post-Presidency Jimmy Carter, who was a nuclear physicist,) are deeply and honestly religious AND scientific, and are smart enough to keep them seperate and/or realize that finding truth in the universe is finding God.

As for me, I'm too cynical to be very religious. :D

One might as well use geometry to prove that a particular pop song sucks.
Hell! I'd pay to see that! :D

ROFLMAO! You're delightfully ... wicked! Shame on you! :D

Well, I figure it's more likely that God would do that than contrive an entire fossil record for the purposes of what essentially amounts to a practical joke on a global scale. Especially with humans perpetuating the joke themselves with the endless devotion and preaching of the book, I would personally find it far more satisfying if I were God. I think watching all the snazzy creatures that were around before humans would be a lot more fun for a deity than just slapping together some strange rocks and chucking them in the ground, too. But what does an evil pagan know, right? :p

I'm too cynical to be very religious. :D
Oh, I TOTALLY agree! :D

Let's just all agree that science people are better and religious people suck and should be locked away. That is the summarization of these several pages, correct? Silly people with their own thoughts...
Yes, that's exactly what everyone said. :rolleyes:

One might as well use geometry to prove that a particular pop song sucks.

easy. just use the transitive property.

Well, I figure it's more likely that God would do that than contrive an entire fossil record for the purposes of what essentially amounts to a practical joke on a global scale. Especially with humans perpetuating the joke themselves with the endless devotion and preaching of the book, I would personally find it far more satisfying if I were God. I think watching all the snazzy creatures that were around before humans would be a lot more fun for a deity than just slapping together some strange rocks and chucking them in the ground, too. But what does an evil pagan know, right? :p
Exactly! [ sentences Revasser to thirty lashes with a water-logged copy of The Golden Bough! ] :D

easy. just use the transitive property.
:eek:

. One might as well use geometry to prove that a particular pop song sucks.



"Your shitty taste in music makes the hypotenuse cry."

1. No, humanity would be perfectly fine without religious faith
I am an atheist yet I still gape at how you arrived at this belief. I've seen your hostility to religion in general in your other posts, but surely you must understand that without religion much of the collectivism that defined human history would not have been achieved.

"Your shitty taste in music makes the hypotenuse cry."

I find that comment to be obtuse! :D

I find that comment to be obtuse! :D
It's an angle of less than 180 degrees? WTF, over? :D

Actually, I find YOU to be rather "abstruse!" :D

And the US is supposed to be the world's economic and military superpower?

May God help us all!

It's an angle of less than 180 degrees? WTF, over? :D

Actually, I find YOU to be rather "abstruse!" :D

people a tella me I'm acute alla da time.

[/Chico]

I am an atheist yet I still gape at how you arrived at this belief. I've seen your hostility to religion in general in your other posts, but surely you must understand that without religion much of the collectivism that defined human history would not have been achieved.
I'm an agnostic. People would do just fine without religion.
I'm not hostile towards religion, it has its good points, but it's not something that's necessary, no matter how many people think it is. Too many people use it blindly as a crutch rather than actually going through and examining their faith.

Furthermore, without a god, all we have is each other. I think that would bring us together even more.

I'm an agnostic. People would do just fine without religion.
I'm not hostile towards religion, it has its good points, but it's not something that's necessary, no matter how many people think it is.

I've seen too many people on thier last legs who accepted Jesus/Allah/Buuda/FSM and recoved to call it unnecessary. It's perfectly necessary for some people, and not for others.

tag
(thread tools no worky)

I've seen too many people on thier last legs who accepted Jesus/Allah/Buuda/FSM and recoved to call it unnecessary. It's perfectly necessary for some people, and not for others.
They don't recover because they've accepted Jesus/Buddha/Allah/whatever I'm sure if those same people had someone in their life to make them feel better they'd recover just as quickly.

people a tella me I'm acute alla da time.

[/Chico]
Oh, GROAN! [ buries head in hands and sobs softly ] :D

I've seen too many people on thier last legs who accepted Jesus/Allah/Buuda/FSM and recoved to call it unnecessary. It's perfectly necessary for some people, and not for others.

Though the same effect, in some cases, can be had with sugar pills.

Though the same effect, in some cases, can be had with sugar pills.

Indeed. Each to his own.

LOL! True, true, but I submit that, unless we make the effort, science qua science may well be doomed. :(

I have often felt that one of the few "true" sins is being willfully ignorant.

Very true, the bible says that ignoring knowledge is a sin.

Very true, the bible says that ignoring knowledge is a sin. That's the Qu'ran, isn't it? Commanding to "Read!" and all that.

I'm an agnostic. People would do just fine without religion.
I'm not hostile towards religion, it has its good points, but it's not something that's necessary, no matter how many people think it is. Too many people use it blindly as a crutch rather than actually going through and examining their faith.

Furthermore, without a god, all we have is each other. I think that would bring us together even more.
Let me guess, your main experience with religion is Protestantism? History clearly shows that religion brings people together. I'll give a few examples. Firstly, the only communist societies that have survived without turning into dictatorship are the religious-based ones, such as the Israeli Kibbutzim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz) and the English Diggers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diggers_(True_Levellers)).

Another example is from my own personal experience. In Ireland where I live, communities were more closely bound together while the Catholic church held a great sway over Irish society, united by their collective faith. Now that religion has become more sidelined, communities have broken down and people have become less caring and more individualistic.

Your theory is contradicted by all empirical evidence. Human history would have been greatly different if there were no religions.

That's the Qu'ran, isn't it? Commanding to "Read!" and all that.


Maybe, but it was in the Bible first.

Proverbs 1:5 let the wise listen and add to their learning,
and let the discerning get guidance-

Proverbs 2
Moral Benefits of Wisdom
1 My son, if you accept my words
and store up my commands within you,
2 turning your ear to wisdom
and applying your heart to understanding,

3 and if you call out for insight
and cry aloud for understanding,

4 and if you look for it as for silver
and search for it as for hidden treasure,

5 then you will understand the fear of the LORD
and find the knowledge of God.

6 For the LORD gives wisdom,
and from his mouth come knowledge and understanding.

7 He holds victory in store for the upright,
he is a shield to those whose walk is blameless,

8 for he guards the course of the just
and protects the way of his faithful ones.

9 Then you will understand what is right and just
and fair—every good path.

10 For wisdom will enter your heart,
and knowledge will be pleasant to your soul.

11 Discretion will protect you,
and understanding will guard you.

12 Wisdom will save you from the ways of wicked men,
from men whose words are perverse,

One more as well:

Proverbs 12
1 Whoever loves discipline loves knowledge,
but he who hates correction is stupid.

He gave us science, those who would reject moral science would reject Him. He gave us a little bit of His power (mind) which no other creature in the world possess, and you shouldn't waste what you have gotten. If you are a true Christian, you should always look to expand your knowledge in order to glorify Him.

Whenever you think of someone with hair…think of me!