h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Unbelievable!!!

I log on to H2G2 after almost a years absence and find the post that I started is still going strong.

I seem to recall that the real reason for me putting up the statement "Science is Crap" was in response to a statement "adam and eve is Crap".

Now, I'm a Christian - so I'm very biased in favour of the teory of creation. But I am not such a lugnut as to really believe that Science is really crap. In fact Science is mostly responsible for technology - which I absolutely love!!

I found the following article very interesting - did you know that many of the scientists who have wond the Nobel Peace prize have intersting things to say on the subject of God!! Here goes:

Scientists around the world have been sleeping
lightly this week, many hoping for a call from
Stockholm. So far, the members of the Nobel Academy
have announced the winners in chemistry, physics, and
physiology or medicine -- in each case they were
group awards. And, the big prize in economics and
the Peace Prize are being awarded as well.

These awards have special significance this year,
because it's the 100th anniversary of the Nobel
Prize. But, what does it mean for Christians? We're
often told that scientists are all atheists. Well,
not so. First off, surveys show that about 40 percent
of scientists believe in God. But, you ask, what
about the top scientists -- the ones who've won the
Nobel Prize?

The German physicist Max Born, who pioneered quantum
mechanics, said, "Those who say that the study of
science makes a man an atheist, must be rather silly
people." He was right, of course, and over the years,
many other Nobel laureates have agreed with him.

American physicist Arno Penzias shared the 1978 Nobel
Prize for discovering microwaves in space -- patterns
that physicists have interpreted as showing that the
universe was created from nothing. Penzias said, "If
I had no other data than the early chapters of
Genesis, some of the Psalms, and other passages of
Scripture, I would have arrived at essentially the
same picture of the origin of the universe, as is
indicated by the scientific data."

German-British researcher Ernst Boris Chain was
awarded a Nobel Prize in Medicine for his work with
penicillin. Chain says, "The principle of [divine]
purpose ... stares the biologist in the face wherever
he looks ... The probability for such an event as the
origin of DNA molecules to have occurred by sheer
chance is just too small to be seriously considered
..."

Chain also said that, "The assumption of directive
forces in the origin and development of vital
processes becomes a necessity in any kind of
interpretation."

American physicist Arthur Compton discovered what we
call the Compton Effect, relating to X-rays. He said,
"For me, faith begins with the realization that a
supreme intelligence brought the universe into being
and created man. It is not difficult for me to have
this faith, for an orderly, intelligent universe
testifies to the greatest statement ever uttered: 'In
the beginning, God ...' "

William D. Phillips won the 1997 Nobel Prize in
chemistry for using lasers to produce temperatures
only a fraction of a degree above absolute zero.
Phillips once quipped that so many of his colleagues
were Christians he couldn't walk across his church's
fellowship hall without "tripping over a dozen
physicists."

It's been the conventional wisdom that scientists are
atheists, but not so, by a long shot. Professor
Richard Bube of Stanford says, "There are
[proportionately] as many atheistic truck drivers as
atheistic scientists." But among Nobel laureates, the
number who recognize the hand of God in the universe
is remarkably high.

As this week's winners appear on the news, watch what
they say. If they're like many of their predecessors,
they may surprise us. Because, increasing numbers of
scientists are discovering in the intelligent design
school and in studies of cell structure that what you
and I believe by faith is also good science.

Well, science doesn´t show you that there is no God. Only that there is no need for one. There are many holes in our knowledge, but none of them are God-shaped. But I do find it amazing there are so many believing scientists. Though it would be good to get a definition of the word scientist, like a psychologist could easily believe in God I think. But I would like to hear where you found the article, so I can check it out.

Hmm, that DNA argument is really crappy. What about the infinite monkeys factor?

I think science is great. I also think religion is great. In both science and religion I believe people must be openminded. This means you must realise that you might be wrong, and you must look at all the evidence without a prior bias.

I try to be open-minded, but with some things you´ve just been disappointed so many times that it can be hard. Besides, don´t be so open-minded that your brain falls out.

I think I mentioned earlier in the thread that there's a "scientific method" proof that God exists... It goes thus:

"Occam's Razor" states that the simplest explaination for a given phenomenon should be assumed to be true until actively disproved.

In a scientific experiment, any results which cannot be explained by the theory being tested must either mean that the theory is flawed, or that the experimental protocol is flawed such that the data is being influenced by a factor external to the parameters of the experiment.

Treating the search for the origins of the Universe as a scientific experiment, there's still enough data which does not fit current theories or is just plain unknown that the simplest explaination (barring better theories) is that an influence outside the frame of reference of the "experiment" is at work.

Some people name that influence "God".

Did you hear about the scarecrow who won the Nobel Prize?

He was outstanding in his field.

I can't see that there's any difference between religious faith and scientific truth. And I don't have to accept that either of them has a monopoly on truth either, and let's face it, they act as so that was the case most of the time.

There was a program on the other night called "Einstein's greatest Blunder?". In a nutshell, there are physicists who's new theories overturn a lot of what has been 'scientific truth' (AKA the reality of the masses) for a long time. They say that Einstein's introduction of the Lambda constant into his theories was the only way to skew the maths so that those theories would make a stable universe possible. They are now postulating that the speed of light can (and does) vary locally, meaning that energy can in fact be created and destroyed, and also a number of long standing relativistic anomalies are resolved in the variably speeded light of this new theory.

I'm no physicist, so please don't start on me now for spelling mistakes, points of grammar or other itty-bitty points of detail, I'm a computer scientist not a quantum physicist. I'm arguing that religion and science are conceptually the same - both camps imagine themselves to be privileged to some sort of truth which non-scientists or non-religious people are denied. Bollocks to that.

Can you imagine trying to tell any scientist from 10, 20 30 years ago, about some of the things that scientists have themselves discovered since their time? Einstein wrong? Travel at speeds over over 15mph DON'T kill? It's actually HARMFUL to put your feet in a n X-ray machine (like the ones that used to be in every shoe shop)> "Of course radiation is not harful" was the scientific 'truth' until scientists started dying (MArie Curies notebooks are still dangerously radioactive). When scientists are challenged they often switch on the intellectual superiority, poo-poohing with trademark pomposity any notions generated by common (non-scientist) people that what they are touting as scientific truth, is actually false. So, Einstein was wrong about certain laws on which our universe is built, did you notice any disruption? Was your life irrevocably altered each and every time scintists find out they've been wrong about something for years? No. So much for scientific truth; it's as much vapourware as religious dogma. It's becomes 'truth' when a high enough percentage of the affected accept it as such.

Well, seeing as how I've got a right one on me now, I'll add a bit about another aspect of science which has bugged me for a while.

There is no room for ethics or morality in science. The impact of science on human and social systems is not a feature of the things scientists worry about. If you get yourself off to the Keirsey web site (www.keirsey.com) and read about the NT (Intuitive Thinking) temperament, you'll see that this inability to factor in the human effect of coldly logical processes and systems, is a trademark characteristic of the scientist mindset (though not 100% inevitable).

Consider this. A person can train in Lap-sang-soo-shong death karate for 10 years. At the end of those 10 years, they have the capability to paralyse and kill with just the flexing of a little finger. But, along the way - during the process of learning those deadly skills - the person learning changed. They evolved. They underwent a process of evolution which means that they will not deply their fantastic new powers for al the wrong reasons at all the wrong times.

Now consider science. Some emotionally wounded, psychotic or just totally malleable person can become a scientist, do 10 years study, and at the end of it, they have no more ethics or morals than they started with. Plus they can also stand on the back of the work done by their pre-desessors, and 'inherit' all that work, with no attendant increase in wisdom. Fred Smith invented an atomic bomb which distributed a lethal virus over a 200 mile radius? Well, get this, Fred Smith's lad is a chip off the old block - although younger and more impetuous, he has extended his dad's work and the cobalt salted device now spreads 3 genetically engineerd viruses over 500 square miles - now, that's what I call scientific progress!! Any whinig from the rank and file can be ignored - what the hell do they know? This is science.

Ah well, looks like the adrenalin has dissipated, guess I'll wrap this up.

BTW, I just put the first 6 of my drawings up on my site at www.jellyclock.com - please drop by. I promise not to mention science

Cheers

9-0-Jellyclock

Kinda got a bit narked reading this. I honestly don't thiknk there are many physicists who believe they have an absolutely 'true' representation of the universe. Point is that the model of the universe just keeps on evolving. The developments you refer to which contradict some of Einsteins _theories_ are no different to the modifications of Newton's _theory_ of gravity. Point is that developments are made in an attempt to describe how the universe behaves, no more than that.

As regards morality in science, I know where you're coming from, but the problem is that living in the capitalist world that we live in at the moment, if your research doesnt pay, then it doesn't get done. Quite simply, the military complex have a lotta bucks to invest in research. Problem is that any science carried out for knowledges sake will be commandeered by anyone who can either a) make money out of it or b) blow someone up with it. Einstein didn't do research to invent a nuclear bomb, this happened to be a by-product of his research. Given the developments that have been made as a result of his work, should he have foregone it?

I agree it's unfair of me to sweepingly encompass all scientists in my assertion that scientists believe they have a monopoly on truth. Although surely all scientists must have some faith in the basics on which all their work is built, or by which they seek to extend their knowledge.

I'm a contract computer scientist and in my last 4 contracts I've worked at the same research facility. I'm surrounded by the NT mindset! I get on well with the majority, being of the NF temperament myself, but there is, and always has been, a hard core of scientists in any discipline who are arrogant in their confidence that science describes the world accurately, aggressive in their defence of the ethical and moral codes which must often be broken in order for 'progress' to be made, and dismissive of any alternative system to the scientific (psychology, para-psychology etc). The sad thing is that these seem to be the types who are more than happy to take the military's money. They are blinded by the pursuit of knowledge for it's own sake. It's always a case of "Can we?" instead of "Do we need to". Science needs to get it's act together and make a concerted effort to introduce ethics and morality into it's process.

As you correctly point out, one has only to follow the money. Research costs dearly, and research costs have to be recouped. Hence the military do indeed get the lions share of any budget. What about the morality of the scientists working on these projects though?
I have to assume they have no ethics or morals if they turn up everyday at the lab in the hope of going home later that day having designed (or otherwise contributed to) a device which is more efficient at taking human life, or of keeping a person in agony with a 'better' torture device.

Then there is the perceived role of science. I was being general about all scientists of all disciplines. Most people don't take the time to further classify the different branches of science.
What I do know though, is that when there is some almighty screw up which could endanger human life, who is trotted out to feed us 'the truth'? Scientists.

"Of course BSE can't cross the species barrier, there is no scientific evidence etc etc etc" ? Truth or Lie?
"Of course Genetically Modified foodstuffs are safe, there is no scientific evidence to suggest that the chemical switches which 'turn on' the implanted DNA won't 'turn on' long dormant human-threatening viruses". Truth or lie?

How many other things can you think of that there is (currently) "no scientific evidence" for?

It does annoy me the fact that, as you say, any old scientist can get wheeled out to give a point of view. Dodgy ethics, no doubt. Look at the number of scientists who backup up the Tobacco companies. Unfortunately by it's nature there are differences of opinion between scientists (no absolute truths ), they can only make judgments and draw conclusions based on the evidence they are presented with or that they find from experimentations. IMHO various politicians have, or have had, vested interests in either suppressing info on the possibilities of BSE or on promoting the use of Genetic Modification. And if you're a politician, and you're looking for a scientist who fancies a bit of airtime then there's no problem finding one.

I know a couple of people who do post-doc research in science. One, a phycisist, was working on a project which had a vast multitude of practical applications. Some of these applications could be of military use. He was interested in that field, was studying at a University who's department was at the cutting edge. Does he turn down the opportunity to do that kind of research just because there may be some military apps. Tricky.

Nah, I just got narked 'cos I have (which I freely admit) certain quasi-prejudices about religious individuals. Before I get shouted down I stress that this is not through any ignorance on the subject, and I do not hold such people in any form of contempt. I simply don;t understand them. It's kinda annoying when somebody compares you to a group you don't like but then It's My High Horse and I'll Lie In It.

You need have no fear of me getting religious.

I really have to curb my words when faced with religious fanaticism. I always thought I'd get a team of atheists together, we could go round in two's, knocking on the doors of the converted, trying to bring them the word of no-god. They'd freak! better stop now. That vein in my head is throbbing dangerously again.

Respect; best wishes

Jellyclock

Hi guys! I just love the way this conversation is going! My interest: I happen to be exceedingly religious, but utterly nondogmatic. I also have a fair education in science (physics, chemistry and mathematics at university level) and also philosophy. If you guys don't mind, I would like to go into some discussions about the nature of science and the nature of religion and so on. But later, not now.

What I want to do now is talk about ETHICAL science. The science you have been complaining about is mainstream, authoritarian science. That kind of science is actually BAD science, it is not what science is supposed to be! Science is supposed to be investigation of nature with a sense of curiosity and wonder; you have a strict method, but your conclusions are never final, at any stage you can learn something new. In fact, the goal of science is to ALWAYS look for something new to learn! So those guys who think they know everything have no right even to call themselves scientists!

And then there is the question of ethics. Currently there are "fringe" areas in science that aim to re-introduce feeling, emotion and intuition into science, and with that, of course ethics and responsibility. These new areas have the potential to revolutionise science as we know it!

But I also want you to know, science as it has progressed so far hasn't been total crap. A lot of extremely important and interesting and TRUE stuff has been discovered. For instance, Newton's laws: even though Einstein changed them a bit, they still apply to just about anything, and they are used to send rockets and satellites up into space. And quantum mechanics: that is an incredibly detailed and fascinating theory, and it has applications like lasers, superconductors and new kinds of computer chips. Or electricity - without it, we wouldn't even have computers or the internet! Or the life sciences - we have discovered the way nature works, ecology and the interdependence of living things, we know many of the millions of living creatures and how they work. Don't be so hard on evolution - for me it is a beautiful theory, because it says that all the living creatures on earth are related by common descent, by "blood", we're just one huge happy family; also, it says that there is an enormous creative potential inherent in living creatures that manifests itself gradually, over incredibly long periods of time. And that is true for us humans, as well! If you object to the idea of being the descendant of a monkey, why not turn it around and think of yourself as the potential ancestor of the amazingly intelligent beings we might evolve into over the next few million years! Come on guys, don't be so hard on science!

But you don't HAVE to believe anything that "science" says. All scientific knowledge is temporary, to be replaced by something better as soon as we discover what that "something better" might be. But so long as the theories we have are the best ones we can make out, we might as well take them seriously and see what we can make of them.

I'll go look up some really interesting "fringe science" web pages and post links to them here for those interested. Fringe science is, in fact "real" science - it is the very frontier of our current knowledge, the area where all the most important future discoveries will be made! Down with rigid, narrowminded, authoritarian, repressive mainstream science, up with fringe, frontier, innovative, explorative, adventurous science!

And by the way, it is on this frontier where we will discover the potential of reconciling science with religion! Stay tuned!

Best Blessings,
Case

Hmm, you have a bad approach to science Jelly. But you´ve made some errors in it all, so I´ll like to point them out.

I admit that science and religion actually at the base have some similarities. Science firstly assumes that what we observe with out senses are real, which Descartes and the Matrix showed we can´t be certain of. And it also makes the assumption that Nature is controlled by rules that cannot be bend or broken. But considering how many things we have thanks to science, I think it has shown that it is right in those assumptions. While religion haven´t really had the same success. So many believers, yet God hasn´t showed himself yet.

You also need to remember that scientists are merely humans, they can make errors like the rest of us. Or be arrogant and stubborn like the rest of us. Present company excluded When you say that scientists are not ethical enough, I would like to hear how you are going to change that. Untill we start to test ppl to see how ethical they to know if they can get into uni, then ther isn´t much we can do. If you´re a psychopath you can get into uni, you just need your grades to be good enough. Scientists can be bought like other ppl too, that is why some support the tobacco industry. Again, are you going to start checking ppl´s morals before going into uni?

And about having the truth, you need to understand the scientific concept of truth. It basically is "This is how Nature is, untill somebody comes along and shows us it isn´t." If you went back and said to a scientist that X-rays are dangerous he wouldn´t believe you of course. You would need to be able to show it. Thre are of course also people who are just bad scientists, like the dude who said things heavier than air can´t fly. He could just have taken one look at the birds, and he would have found out he was wrong.

And about working for the military, most ppl believe the military are good guys so why shouldn´t the majority of scientists too? I personally believe that military is bad, but that´s my opinion.

And what you should most consider, is that science is simply a tool. It can be used for good or for bad, it´s up to you.

Just to make my own position clear. I love science, it's fascinating, it gives a description and a semi-logic to things we perceive. As far as the moral aspects of science. I don't know if this necessarily enters into it. The worst thing any scientist can do is start investigating a field with either a) a predecided opinion on the results that they wish to obtain (have a look at whats-his-name Mengels, you know, the guy that kinda found out about genes. Yeah, him with the sweetpeas or whatever. He basically adjusted his results to show what he wanted, by coincidence he happened to be largely correct), where am I, oh yes, and b) to feel that they are limited in their direction by the moral implication so their results (I'm not talking about vivisection or any of that, that is most definaey a different argument.) The point is that the key to good accurate science is objectivity. The problem comes when people of power decide to exploit scientific investigation for bad/dubious uses.

And hey, I'm totally up for groovy religious types, I just don't think that any realm of science is completely out of bounds, where angels fear to tread. I have a tendency to shout at the telly when the phrase 'playing god' comes up. But then you're on to temptation and the Garden of Eden type thing. Shaky ground.

K

I think perhaps (my) problems with science in general arise from the apparently standard assertion made by science that "this is the way things are until someone proves they aren't". Assumption is bad. It's judging in advance of full knowledge - pre-judice, in effect. That it is the standard and established way doesn't make it right, and neither does the fact that it seems to work a lot of the time. I would indeed be very interested in any info relating to attempts to formally introduce the concepts of ethics and morality into mainstream science.

I'm a software engineer, a computer scientist, and I know that in this field there are not too many design methodologies which seek to include ethics and morals. Checkland's 'Soft Systems' paradigm was a start but while it enables assumptions and possible ethical outcomes to be identified, it provides no tools to address or redress them. System design under the 'Soft' paradigm is still 'controlled' by the principal stakeholders, not by the people who will be affected by the implementation of the decisions those stakeholders make. Critical System Heuristics is about the only design methodology I've had any use of in real-time, in which representatives of those to be affected by the proposed system have any voice at all.

The key to good, accurate science may be objectivity, but to deny any influence on science from either collective or personal subjectivity is tantamount to claiming that scientific method is a coin with only one face. Oppenheimer freaked when he saw that A-bomb go off. I guess what worries the industrial/military entities about the whole question of scientists with ethics is that if Oppenheimer had thought through what was being created before they succeeded, he might just not have wanted anything to do with it before it was finished. And, as has been said, there will always be scientists (in other countries) who don't have these productivity-lowering blinkers ... or who can be bought.

What about intuition? Gut feeling? The knowledge that is arrived at by non-linear, non-scientific means? Since the means can't be proved, mainstream science HAS to ignore any resultant pronouncements. And they do.

Here's an example. Mobile phones. "There is no scientific evidence that the RF radiation from mobile phones is injurious to health".

Sound familiar? (BSE,GM,Global warming etc etc). My intuition, my gut feeling, tells me that there is danger. I don't know by what means I've come to this knowledge (perhaps a synthesis of scientific knowledge compounded by common sense or an inbuilt human-survival optimisation routine), but I KNOW with certainty that in time to come, scientists currently saying there is no risk (and trotting out megabytes of 'proof' to back it up) will be forced to retract their word. In the meantine, MILLIONS of people are blithely trusting the science of the day ... and when (if) it is retracted, will there be any humble pie, will there be a modification of the scientific approach? I doubt it. Scientists can't be expected to act on gut feelings and intuitions, no matter how manty times they prove correct. Jeez, there'd be all sorts of terrible kick-back, worst case scenario would see empowerment of the "un-educated" masses quicker than you can say 'intellectually superior".

I can't know that I would have picked up this same un-ease from within had I been faced with one of those foot X-ray machines which were allowed to cripple and kill hundreds of innocents before the scientists' assumption that it was safe was proved wrong. Every time scientists have the arrogance to force their assumptions onto innocent people, purely because they have nominated themselves as being right (assumed right until wrong) ... people die. Science kills.

I have the same feeling about genetic engineering. Every argument against it relies on the refuting of those basic, inbuilt, intuitive concerns, because "no scientific basis for them" can be proved.

And if I was right?

Tough. I still get irradiated while the long dormant DNA strands come to life as a result of the chemical triggers I ingest from food or drifting GM rape seed pollen.

Rant over!

Well, perhaps the theory of evolution isn't really the truth but at least, it's much more logical than what the bible says. Faith is one thing but it becomes kind of queer to believe in something which you can destroy within ten minutes with a bit of logic. And please don't say I'm rejecting the bible: that's not true, it's just what it is meant to be: a splendid poem done by men who wanted to maintain faith in God in their people's soul. Perhaps it's not true but it could be kind of the idea if you didn't reduct God to men's standards and think there can be only one interpretation of the text.
What's more, you can't say science is crap. You live in a world of science. And, well, if you really think so, you can say the evolution theory is crap: that's OK.

Can I just say that while I consider myself spiritual I'm not in any way religious?

Can I say also that on those personality models which measure the preference for judgement and closure (as opposed to a preference for open-ended, spontanaeity) I consistently score J=0% preference, P=100% preference. Which is to say, I don't naturally pre-judge anything.

What is needed is for science to rediscover humility. I am not against any scientific discovery in any absolute way. I am not against x-rays, I am not against nuclear energy, I am not against GM either. What I am against is that those things are BLITHELY used without any concern or consideration of the harm that it might be causing to people or the environment in which people and other creatures have to live. There might be areas where those things can be used safely. In space, for instance, nuclear energy would not be a problem, because space is full of nuclear radiation already - stars are nothing but huge nuclear generators. And GM might be used to revive extinct species, or to help cure humans with severe genetic diseases. But using GM to make disease and pesticide resistant crop plants, or to tailor-make viruses and bacteria to particular specifications - that is a script for a global nightmare. That's like using an atom bomb to rid your house of cockroaches.

9-O-Jellyclock, I'd like you to have a look at this:

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/jahn1/1.html

This is an article entitled "Science of the Subjective" and it has perspectives, pertinent to your posting 255, of which you might approve.

Take a look. As for me, I'm now gonna take a look at those drawings of yours.

Take care,
Case

The problem is the use of science, not the science itself. GM food is supported by politicans who argue that it will solve the food crises in the the Third World. Mr Pillowcase, do you think this is a valid argument for its development, given that it could solve some of Africa's problems? One question is, why are we eating GM food in the UK, we don't need to. Simple, GM has been commandeered by big companies (Monsanto) and the politicians pander to big companies. And the UK panders to America. But this is not the science, it's the abuse of the science (see my name ) The possibilities created by any research are wide and varied, and not all of them are negative. It's difficult, nay impossible, to foresee how developments and new theories will be applied. As I said before, Einstein did not develop the Theory of Relativity in order to make bombs.

As regards gut-feeling in science, it's an interesting point. I had a conversation with a psychologist recently (not, I hasten to add, in a professional capacity, we were sharing a car) but I questioned how psychology can carry out statistical analysis when there is no fundamental unit of measurement. But then again, I'm a scientist (or more accurately a part-time engineer) and it's part of my training to think that way. Yes, I concede there is plenty of room in science for techniques which go beyond the purely measurable, numerical and analytical.

And yes, the main problem is that human beings have far too little respect for their environment. Just to mix it a little, I reckon Western reigions depend on human beings being special and unique in some metaphysical way. The sooner the genral populace realise that there is nothing special about humans, we just happen to be at the top of the tree, then the sooner more respect for nature and the planet (or galaxy, globular cluster etc etc) will develop.


See ya soon

DUOTWR

I will look at the url this very moment, or one pretty shortly after that. Thanks for providing it.

The drawings on jellyclock at the mo are 'doodles', none took longer than 4 hours to do.
I'm having some problems getting the good stuff scanned. They're A2 size, and each took months to complete.
I don't own a scanner myself, but friends are proving to be supportive and helpful - we'll get there eventually.

I agree with many of your sentiments. I sometimes wonder why, with so many reasonable people around, the
world has to be run by morons.