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

Now you've wandered into the philosophy of ethics. Try Immanuel Kant's theory for the 15 "good" percent--"Treat [humanity] as a end, and never as a means only."

And some would say, Marxists maybe, that being a capitalist businessman or woman is an inherently bad thing, so you could not be a 'good' businessman. You would inevitably encounter conflicts between the pursuit of profit and power and the good of the community's welfare. Does that mean the 15percent 'good' has got to be smaller, because it excludes so many people?

There is nothing more intellectually stimulating (and sometimes frustrating) than talking to a Christian about science and evolution; especially one who is totally geared up to refute everything you throw at them. Things like, "Don't you trust radiocarbon and argon dating techniques?" She answers a flat-out "No." Then I bring up the scientific method, and she's studying medicine, and she says that "most people" who study medicine approach it from a scientific viewpoint, then when they find out more about the human body, they can't deny that it's a work of God. So I'm sitting there wondering exactly who she's talking about when she says "most people."

Life goes on.

--- Avatar

You obviously have strong views on this. So do I. The most annoying thing is though is, a theory is a fact untill a better one comes along, what kind of fact is that!? Although to say all scientists r annoying would be wrong because you get scientists in all walks of life, I personally know a scientist who is actually a christian. He has loads of stuff that contradict what scientists say. By the way do you know how they test how old fossils are? They measure them against the stone they found them in. They also use fossils found in rocks to tell how old the rock is! And they carbon dated a live snail to about 6 million years old!

I suspect most scientists just call a theory "current" until a better one comes along... Only sloppy-thinking non-scientists might confuse this with "fact"

There's nothing wrong with that. We use stars of known luminosity to determine the distance to particular galaxies, and then use that distance to determine the luminosity of other stars in those galaxies. This is a perfectly legitimate method.

And are you absolutely certain this story about the snail is true? Where did you or your friend hear this?

So... scientists use *estimates* as a basis for research and call the results of said research 'facts'.

And they still insist that science is 'exact', irrefutable, and the only true knowledge we have.

Hmmm... I think I am begining to see a small flaw in the scientific eye.

Perhaps you didn't fully understand my previous posting:

Observations used to base theories upon = Facts

Most recent theory based on the facts = Current Theory

Scientists don't call research rsults "facts" unless that research is purely empirical, i.e. involves simple measurements which can be recorded. The record of these measurements is referred to as "Facts". Speculation on the mechanisms leading to such measurements is never referred to as "Facts"!

Well said Peet!
Another thing to consider is that only people who have little or no understanding of science believe that we churn out facts. The whole point of science is that nothing is certain. Otherwise what would be the fun in doing it??

The original message attempted something that has been attempted millions of times before. To make science irrelevant, no-one has and I believe will ever accomplish this as from a christians point of view science, although mainly thought of as a hinderance has also produced some statements that back up the Bible. Scientists said that the star above the shed in which Jesus was born was a supernova, surely this adds considerable weight to the story for even non Christians. Science may help explain supernatrual occurences that are in the bible. Not all miracles are supernatrual, science has explained this to us, so to try defunct science by Christians would be wrong and not help at all. And the snail story is true.

i'd like to ask, in a loud attention-grabbing voice across an over-populated auditorium, why anyone whould still assume that scientists are out to prove religion wrong and are not just following curiosity

I think it's a common human failing - many people seem incapable of being satisfied with what they have unless they can convince themselves someone is trying to take it away from them, whether it's science, Satanic influence in the movies, subliminal sounds on records played backwards, the New World Order, the white slave trade, or gypsies trying to steal away their children.

A great many people with religious beliefs are sensible enough not to feel threatened by science. If someone feels their faith is being undermined by new scientific discoveries, I'd suggest that it's because they built their faith on the wrong foundations.

If religions do make categorical pronouncements on matters outside their competence, it's entirely their own fault when later knowledge contradicts them.

I couldn't agree more, Potholer!
However, it's not just religion that makes pronouncements outside their competence. Scientists do it all the time. Unfortunately, many scientists can be just as blind (if not more so) than exponents of religion, and this is not good for the subject, or the image as a whole. Arrogance of any sort, whether religious or scientific, is always counterproductive. Both science and religion require faith of one sort or another. Neither can explain the world without it!

Perhaps the exmple of Charles Darwin might be useful here.

Given the long self-imposed delay between his formulation of his theories and their subsequent publication, which may well not have happened in his lifetime but for the impetus provided by Wallace, it would take some amount of ignorance or worse to suggest that Darwin was on any kind of personal mision to overturn the established Christian doctrines. He was a true scientist, and interested in the truth.

And a bloody good job we have/had people like him around. As far as I know, Darwin was disturbed by his own discoveries and their implications. It takes guts to criticise your own work that thouroughly.

In reply to Patriarch, sorry - I didn't notice you'd posted when I wrote my previous post, and I seem to have confused the layout a little.

A very good point, some scientists *can* be blinkered and resistant to new information, some scientists can make statements with unjustified confidence, but those are human, rather than inherently scientific failings. At least in science there's the chance to prove people wrong, and that's of crucial importance.

If we consider the immense body of generally accepted physical, biological, chemical and engineering knowledge that we have aquired through practicing science, it seems clear we couldn't have got this far if most scientists refused to accept anything except what they'd been taught as a child.

Personally, I am on occasion skeptical about new findings until they've been verified independently. I am sure the public at large can be misled at times, though I think hype and oversimplification in the media must share some of the blame for that, as well as the continual cycle of justifying short term scientific funding.

Importantly, some 'scientific' fields aren't *entirely* scientific.
For example :
Medicine can sometimes be extremely reluctant to accept new information, (though I do understand the need for some amount of conservatism in a profession where mistakes can be fatal)
Psychology and psichiatry would seem to be some of the more subjective parts of medicine.

Anthropology and paleontology do necessarily involve an amount of subjectivity and speculation, as does any field based on such partial information. I myself am sometimes annoyed by the excessive confidence with which some speculations about human ancestors or dinosaurs are made on popular TV programs as if they were solid facts.

However, that doesn't mean there's any serious scientific doubt that dinosaurs did exist a long time ago, and that humans did arise from more apelike ancestors, the speculation is over fine details.

(As for the 'Social Sciences', I wouldn't know where to begin.)
I could go on, but maybe a specific thread on partial sciences would be a better place.

Maybe science does need faith, but it's of a different kind - it's faith (though hopefully not blind faith) in the critical abilities of other human beings, and at least we can be confident those abilities exist in some people.
It's not in anything like the same league as coachloads of paying visitors beleiving in a miracle because a small child tells them that they saw a vision. *That* is pure faith.

Well said. Although according to David Hume (and I find myself compelled to agree with him, disconcerting though it is), our belief in the efficacy of inductive reasoning, and therefore our belief in science as well, is in fact completely unfounded--it too is a matter of faith.

Brave New World, A. Huxley.

Lupa,

I do appreciate the real philosophical value of Hume's doubting, but from a human standpoint, with none of us being either immortal or omniscient, his reasoning doesn't seem entirely practical, except for those occasions when we feel like worrying about the likelihood of the next day's sunrise for mental exercise.

With retrospect, I was wrong in saying I had faith in science. I fell into the common error of considering that 'belief' and 'faith' mean essentially the same thing.
A better definition of faith might help here.

'Faith in something is belief in that thing despite the lack of evidence, of in the face of evidence to the contrary.'

Given the ample evidence of both the existence, and the efficacy, of science, I should revise what I said, and say instead 'I believe in science, and have no need for faith'