The Science of Why We Don't Believe in Science

[Iucounu]

That would be rather uncommon for a person with scientific backround, so I assumed the contrary. By writing people are fooling themselves on creationism, he implies that creationism is wrong, or going after picture above the article, not 'the truth'. But in the end, nobody can know that. There are some hard facts in form of fossils, basic biology and other stuff, that can be considered as truth, but if you believe in evolution or creationism, is dependent on your interpretation of these facts, and not the facts themselves. If the author fails to take this into account, it's probably because creationism doesn't fit into his worldview, and in that he's a victim of the very phenomen that he's trying to analyse.

Edited July 19, 2013 by Iucounu

[alanschu]

I'm not sure.

 

So you're saying that stuff like the 6000 year old Earth, and man and dinosaur walking the Earth at the same time, are valid and merely dependent on the interpretation of the facts?

 

 

Or is he referring to Creationists that state that the reason why we can see light from millions of light years away, is because when the universe was created the light was created already en route?

 

 

 

 

If the author fails to take this into account, it's probably because creationism doesn't fit into his worldview, and in that he's a victim of the very phenomen that he's trying to analyse.

 

I'll openly admit that I'm a victim to the phenomena he describes too.

 

You saw the word creationism and immediately stopped reading.  Could you be a victim of it as well?

Edited July 19, 2013 by alanschu

[Iucounu]

Creationism in the broader sense, is just saying that humanity was created by some other intelligence. Even if it were possible to prove that mankind and dinosaurs didn't life at the same time, that would not refute creationism in general. Not even creationism in a Christian sense, because you won't find any concrete numbers concerning the age of the earth in the bible. 

But to answer your questions: Yes, even then, it's still a matter of interpretation. You could for instance, assume that the natural laws, how we know them, were always valid, even in the distant past. That would be a naturalistic point of view, which is not objective, but subjective. Or you could assume that god changed natural laws as time progressed, and perhaps  dinosaurs' boness are just there to test our belief? Not objective, but subjective. 

Evolution is no hard natural science theory, but rather an historical theory. It's evidence will never have the same quality as evidence through a scientific experiment, where you see the results at first hand. Heck, even in a hard scientific experiment, you try to induce universal principles only under the assumption that space and time are homogeneous, and that the experiment will lead to the same results anywhere, anytime, which is again, just an assumption that leads to an interpretation. It's the scientific method, but the scientific method is no guarantee for "truth". 

[alanschu]

Creationism in the broader sense, is just saying that humanity was created by some other intelligence. Even if it were possible to prove that mankind and dinosaurs didn't life at the same time, that would not refute creationism in general. Not even creationism in a Christian sense, because you won't find any concrete numbers concerning the age of the earth in the bible.

 

So you read one word, assumed it was about a more generalist aspect of the term creationism, and therefore dismissed the article outright.  So basically, also doing what the article suggests?

 

I agree that the idea that the universe was created by an intelligent being doesn't run contrary to a lot of the "science community" believes.  Although a lot of the ideas, evolution in particular, really comes under fire from a lot of the creationist movement.  What baffles me, however, is why the idea that evolution is an act of this intelligent being is rarely considered.

 

The Big Bang Theory, after all, initially met lots of resistance because it screamed too much divine intervention.  Which is also an example of the learner's biases affecting what is put before them.  Not all scientists are cynical Richard Dawkins types either.  Could be a situation where I overstate the prevalence of more extreme views of creationism, given that they're the ones that tend to get the most print/screen time.

 

 

 

 

You could for instance, assume that the natural laws, how we know them, were always valid, even in the distant past. That would be a naturalistic point of view, which is not objective, but subjective. Or you could assume that god changed natural laws as time progressed, and perhaps  dinosaurs' boness are just there to test our belief? Not objective, but subjective.

 

You're right.  At what point, however, are people just making assumptions because they wish to create a subjective interpretation of the data they have presented in order to avoid cognitive dissonance and to ensure that the reality that they believe to be true is not undermined.

 

I do think that there is a predisposition to Occam's Razor with a lot of things (i.e. the assumption that natural laws were always valid), though by extension you can chase down the rabbit holes making up explanations for something that isn't measurable.  For instance, I don't spend much time dwelling on whether or not there is an intelligent creator, because it doesn't seem to be something that I will likely ever know in my living life.  It could be true, it could not be true.  It's subjective that I see no *reason* for it to be true, it just means that whatever did create the universe is in the same, not really verifiable and possibly not even something I can truly comprehend space.

 

One advantage the assumption of natural laws remaining constant does have, however, is that so far they appear to have remained that way.  For at least a (exceptionally) tiny point of time, we can state that these various natural laws appear to be constant, so you can hypothesize that they may have always been that way as there's a tiny bit of data that does that doesn't contradict it.  Supposing that the Law's may not be constant, however, relies exclusively on faith to support the assertion since it's not something that we can support - at least at this time.  The burden of proof that the natural laws have changed to support some of the more extreme perspectives lies in the hands of those that make said claims.  If they are not able to, for what reasons should I take their claims as being accurate?

 

It's entirely valid for you to feel that the natural laws have not remained constant.  My question then to you would be: why would you believe that?  (emphasis on believe, rather than merely suggesting that it may be the case)

 

 

 

It's the scientific method, but the scientific method is no guarantee for "truth".

 

The scientific method doesn't test for truth.  It tests to see if things are false.  The idea that something is only true until something comes along to show otherwise has been a mainstay of the scientific method since its inception.  You can never claim that your test has proved something true.  Only that it hasn't proven it false.  Perform enough tests in a variety of ways that don't show that something is false, and you start to get a theory since, thus far, data supports it.  But science never proves anything to be true.

 

This is why the concept of falsifiability is a tenant of the scientific method.

Edited July 19, 2013 by alanschu

[Iucounu]

So you read one word, assumed it was about a more generalist aspect of the term creationism, and therefore dismissed the article outright.  So basically, also doing what the article suggests?

If it was about this more specific form of creationism or not, doesn't really matter.

What am I supposed to think, if it's an article concerning science, in the picture above in big letters is written "truth", "belief", and in the title "how people are fooling themselves on [...] creationism"? Well, I could have been unjustly prejudiced, in case the author was only referring to truth with regards to hard facts. If however, he assumes that creationism with a 6000 years old earth can't be the truth, I was right. 

 

 

One advantage the assumption of natural laws remaining constant does have, however, is that so far they appear to have remained that way.  For at least a (exceptionally) tiny point of time, we can state that these various natural laws appear to be constant, so you can hypothesize that they may have always been that way as there's a tiny bit of data that does that doesn't contradict it.  Supposing that the Law's may not be constant, however, relies exclusively on faith to support the assertion since it's not something that we can support - at least at this time.  The burden of proof that the natural laws have changed to support some of the more extreme perspectives lies in the hands of those that make said claims.  If they are not able to, for what reasons should I take their claims as being accurate?

And claiming natural laws were always constant is accurate? Accurate in the sense of an objective way to examine things? Yes. Accurate in the sense of truth? No.

However, I figure that the method you describe has another quality, as it doesn't require one to make up things, and only goes by that which is already given. Sound approach, and if it would apply to the theory of evolution, I'd have a much easier time believing in it. However, up till now, scientists failed to prove that evolution is possible on a natural scientific level. So I guess the only thing that seperates it from creationism so far is that there is at least a chance the mechanics might be explained, and perhaps also it's 'simplicity' based on Occam's Razor. But of course, it doesn't need to be any more true becuse of that.

 

 

The scientific method doesn't test for truth.  It tests to see if things are false.  The idea that something is only true until something comes along to show otherwise has been a mainstay of the scientific method since its inception.  You can never claim that your test has proved something true.  Only that it hasn't proven it false.  Perform enough tests in a variety of ways that don't show that something is false, and you start to get a theory since, thus far, data supports it.  But science never proves anything to be true.

You mean, really anything, or just theories? I would think science does at least consider some observations and the outcome of a scientific experiment to be true, otherwise scientists would have a hard time to build any theories at all. 

[Walsingham]

Can I interject a point of order?

 

Choose bloody avatars!

 

I hate reading a long thread like this, and forgetting who is who, because you slackers don't have pictures. I get especially annoyed, because your views deserve better representation than a blank box.

[alanschu]

If it was about this more specific form of creationism or not, doesn't really matter.

What am I supposed to think, if it's an article concerning science, in the picture above in big letters is written "truth", "belief", and in the title "how people are fooling themselves on [...] creationism"? Well, I could have been unjustly prejudiced, in case the author was only referring to truth with regards to hard facts. If however, he assumes that creationism with a 6000 years old earth can't be the truth, I was right.

 

Still, all you're doing is exactly what the author also suggested.  You saw one word, came to a conclusion, and judged the author based on it.  Without actually reading the article.  You're getting mired in the (supposed - since you didn't read it) details of his examples, rather than the thesis provided.

 

 

 

 

And claiming natural laws were always constant is accurate? Accurate in the sense of an objective way to examine things? Yes. Accurate in the sense of truth? No.

 

I didn't claim that they were always constant.  I don't know that, and likely never will.  What I can say, however, is that the hypothesis that they were always accurate at least has some level of support.  As such, I will be more inclined to believe someone that claims that they have always been constant, as opposed to someone claiming that they have not always been constant.  If we shift from science to philosophy, however, and philosophize that they may not have always been constant, then that has as much support as any philosophical claim that they have always been constant.

 

Discussing things that cannot be empirically tested belongs in the realm of Philosophy, not Science.  If you wish to believe that the natural laws were different in the past, and as such that is why things are the way they are, that's fine.  I don't expect to convince you otherwise.  Shifting from Science to Philosophy, however, if you do not feel that the natural laws have been historically constant, I am curious as to why you think that that is the case?

 

 

 

 

However, I figure that the method you describe has another quality, as it doesn't require one to make up things, and only goes by that which is already given. Sound approach, and if it would apply to the theory of evolution, I'd have a much easier time believing in it. However, up till now, scientists failed to prove that evolution is possible on a natural scientific level. So I guess the only thing that seperates it from creationism so far is that there is at least a chance the mechanics might be explained, and perhaps also it's 'simplicity' based on Occam's Razor. But of course, it doesn't need to be any more true becuse of that.

 

The problem you're making, is that you're still expecting science to prove something to be true.  Science doesn't work that way.  Science simply hasn't proven evolution to be false (yet).  Although I must admit I need you to elaborate on what you mean by "natural scientific level."  It's a term I am not familiar with.

 

 

 

 

You mean, really anything, or just theories? I would think science does at least consider some observations and the outcome of a scientific experiment to be true, otherwise scientists would have a hard time to build any theories at all.

 

Is your goal to shift the discussion towards semantics?  Having said that, the fact that scientists do in fact calculate things within a range of error is an acknowledgement that their measurements are never perfectly precise.  Also, taking a measurement is also not science.  It's taking a measurement.  Although I suppose it wasn't obstinately clear that my use of the term science was referring to the idea the process of the scientific method.  Although in general I'd still stand by the statement even if using the term science.

 

You don't have science without hypotheses and ultimately theories.  At best you just have observations. 

 

 

 

Science (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"^[1]) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe.^[2][3] In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. A practitioner of science is known as a scientist.

 

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as: "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."^[3]

 

 

Given that my response was to your line which specifically stated "scientific method" I find the shift of focus to semantics to come across as evasive.

 

 

 

It's the scientific method, but the scientific method is no guarantee for "truth".

 

 

To be rather direct, as I'm philosophizing now about your reaction to the article: is your reaction to the article's criticism of creationism fueled by your belief in it?  I'm curious if your reaction was defensive in nature.  And, to be clear, I have zero problems whatsoever if someone wishes to believe that our universe exists through some sort of intelligent design.

Edited July 21, 2013 by alanschu

[BruceVC]

Creationism in the broader sense, is just saying that humanity was created by some other intelligence. Even if it were possible to prove that mankind and dinosaurs didn't life at the same time, that would not refute creationism in general. Not even creationism in a Christian sense, because you won't find any concrete numbers concerning the age of the earth in the bible. 

But to answer your questions: Yes, even then, it's still a matter of interpretation. You could for instance, assume that the natural laws, how we know them, were always valid, even in the distant past. That would be a naturalistic point of view, which is not objective, but subjective. Or you could assume that god changed natural laws as time progressed, and perhaps  dinosaurs' boness are just there to test our belief? Not objective, but subjective. 

Evolution is no hard natural science theory, but rather an historical theory. It's evidence will never have the same quality as evidence through a scientific experiment, where you see the results at first hand. Heck, even in a hard scientific experiment, you try to induce universal principles only under the assumption that space and time are homogeneous, and that the experiment will lead to the same results anywhere, anytime, which is again, just an assumption that leads to an interpretation. It's the scientific method, but the scientific method is no guarantee for "truth". 

 

You really need to read article Iucounu, you are demonstrating exactly what the article says that when people that faced with irrefutable facts they rationalize there belief   and are incapable of reason, its fascinating to watch as you try to explain your view. I understand this is a defense mechanism as to accept another perspective would undermine everything you believe and what you believe is what defines you

 

But I have heard a new one in this argument and I have to say its a good one. So now we can't ever use science and how we know the world operates in debates around creationism vs evolution because how do we know that some  sort of divine power hasn't just recreated science as we know it? Awesome I like it, so in fact how do we know that maybe 2000 years we all lived in some sort of Alice in Wonderland universe where we all had wings and mushrooms could speak? Your rejection of the foundation of  how everything works and can be proven is genius and makes for exciting historical debates.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Can I interject a point of order?

 

Choose bloody avatars!

 

I hate reading a long thread like this, and forgetting who is who, because you slackers don't have pictures. I get especially annoyed, because your views deserve better representation than a blank box.

Wals, I don't know whether to picture you as a monocle equipped gentleman or a cane waving old man.

 

 

Also I don't believe in Science because of the tides, which can not be explained.

Edited July 21, 2013 by KaineParker

[Walsingham]

Why can't I be both?

[Iucounu]

 

 

Still, all you're doing is exactly what the author also suggested.  You saw one word, came to a conclusion, and judged the author based on it.  Without actually reading the article.  You're getting mired in the (supposed - since you didn't read it) details of his examples, rather than the thesis provided.

Two word and a senctence, to be precise. And I was prejudiced because I was lazy. I'm going to read the article soon, and should I be mistaken, I will gladly change my opinion about the author.

 

The problem you're making, is that you're still expecting science to prove something to be true. 

And I have no idea why you think this. You already quoted me yourself:

 

 It's the scientific method, but the scientific method is no guarantee for "truth". 

 

So please explain how  you get the idea that I think science must prove stuff to be "true" to be considered science? On the contrary, it's the very opposite I'm arguing for the whole time..

 

 

 

Although I must admit I need you to elaborate on what you mean by "natural scientific level."  It's a term I am not familiar with.

I was referring to natural science, like physics, biology, chemistry and stuff. 

 

 

 

What I can say, however, is that the hypothesis that they were always accurate at least has some level of support.  As such, I will be more inclined to believe someone that claims that they have always been constant, as opposed to someone claiming that they have not always been constant.  If we shift from science to philosophy, however, and philosophize that they may not have always been constant, then that has as much support as any philosophical claim that they have always been constant.

I've already admitted to you that assuming natural laws were always constant has another quality than assuming they were not. So if you will, call it philosophical.

 

 

Is your goal to shift the discussion towards semantics?  Having said that, the fact that scientists do in fact calculate things within a range of error is an acknowledgement that their measurements are never perfectly precise.  Also, taking a measurement is also not science.  It's taking a measurement.  Although I suppose it wasn't obstinately clear that my use of the term science was referring to the idea the process of the scientific method.  Although in general I'd still stand by the statement even if using the term science.

 

You don't have science without hypotheses and ultimately theories.  At best you just have observations. 

And you don't have natural science without observations. But to answer you question: I didn't mean to argue, I was merely interested in what exactly you meant.

 

 

 

Given that my response was to your line which specifically stated "scientific method" I find the shift of focus to semantics to come across as evasive.

What reason would I have to be evasive?

 

 

 

You really need to read article Iucounu, you are demonstrating exactly what the article says that when people that faced with irrefutable facts they rationalize there belief   and are incapable of reason, its fascinating to watch as you try to explain your view. I understand this is a defense mechanism as to accept another perspective would undermine everything you believe and what you believe is what defines you

Lol, I'm not even a firm creationism believer myself, so I guess your smartass psycho-analysis sort of fails. I'm just going ignore the rest, as you haven't made a single argument in your post. 

Edited July 21, 2013 by Iucounu

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

Still, all you're doing is exactly what the author also suggested.  You saw one word, came to a conclusion, and judged the author based on it.  Without actually reading the article.  You're getting mired in the (supposed - since you didn't read it) details of his examples, rather than the thesis provided.

 

You really need to read article Iucounu, you are demonstrating exactly what the article says that when people that faced with irrefutable facts they rationalize there belief   and are incapable of reason, its fascinating to watch as you try to explain your view. I understand this is a defense mechanism as to accept another perspective would undermine everything you believe and what you believe is what defines you

Lol, I'm not even a firm creationism believer myself, so I guess your smartass psycho-analysis sort of fails. I'm just going ignore the rest, as you haven't made a single argument in your post. 

 

 

So why are you rejecting the article and arguing against it? Please don't tell me that you aren't one of those people who just likes to debate a point that they don't really have a valid opinion about? Would it be possible for you actually post what you mean instead of wasting peoples time when they respond to your comments?

Edited July 22, 2013 by BruceVC

[Walsingham]

Side point: I tried twice yesterday, and twice this morning, but I simply _cannot_ be bothered to read a long post with multiple quotes in. If you have to respond to multiple points, try to collate them first?

[Iucounu]

 

 

 

 

Still, all you're doing is exactly what the author also suggested.  You saw one word, came to a conclusion, and judged the author based on it.  Without actually reading the article.  You're getting mired in the (supposed - since you didn't read it) details of his examples, rather than the thesis provided.

 

You really need to read article Iucounu, you are demonstrating exactly what the article says that when people that faced with irrefutable facts they rationalize there belief   and are incapable of reason, its fascinating to watch as you try to explain your view. I understand this is a defense mechanism as to accept another perspective would undermine everything you believe and what you believe is what defines you

Lol, I'm not even a firm creationism believer myself, so I guess your smartass psycho-analysis sort of fails. I'm just going ignore the rest, as you haven't made a single argument in your post. 

 

 

So why are you rejecting the article and arguing against it? Please don't tell me that you aren't one of those people who just likes to debate a point that they don't really have a valid opinion about? Would it be possible for you actually post what you mean instead of wasting peoples time when they respond to your comments?

 

No clue what you're talking about. Perhaps you could give me an expample, where I'm not posting what I mean.

[Iucounu]

So, no examples? How surprising.

Kind of ironic that you were criticising my open-mindedness BruceVC. Perhaps you should at least reflect the general idea of the article yourself, and replace the word "science" in the article with "logic". Seriously, you are far more stuck in your worldview than me and the creationists I know. 

Edited July 23, 2013 by Iucounu

[TrashMan]

 

 

So why are you rejecting the article and arguing against it? Please don't tell me that you aren't one of those people who just likes to debate a point that they don't really have a valid opinion about? Would it be possible for you actually post what you mean instead of wasting peoples time when they respond to your comments?

 

 

As one of #those people" I take great offense at that statement.

1st, it implies that "those poeple" are somehow wrong

2nd it implies that they have no valid oppinion about something, simply because they are capable of arguing any oppinion or point.

 

Both of those are naturally wrong.

[Luridis]

I personally am highly skeptical of the existence of so-called "Dark Matter" and catch all kinds of hell for it...

 

Why? Because the physicists whom where explaining it to me did not sound logically convincing, even without me having an intimate knowledge of the subject. What they were saying sounded a lot like this, "Our math didn't work, so we solved for what would make it work and then we came up with this idea of this stuff that's invisible and undetectable, but comprises > 80% of the matter in the universe."

 

Not once did they say any of these: Our math could be incorrect or incomplete. Our methods of observation could be imperfect. Our understanding of the Universe and its mechanics could be limited in some way.

 

Since then, I've read an article where they've used instrumentation to analyze the gravitational force exerted by the local group (stellar neighborhood). What they found was that, what they expected was 100% accounted for in the matter they could see and there was no additional gravity from "unseen matter."

 

I'm seeing what I consider a disturbing trend in the scientific community today. The pursuit of science appears to be taking on religious overtones in some circles. The sheer arrogance and complacency that is evident in some of the statements I've read is astonishing. I think that some of these same people would have done well to pay more attention to history.

 

In the early 20th century a lot of scientists had convinced themselves and others that we (humans) were just a few equations away from solving physics. Then Einstein came along with what amounted to heresy at the time. Some thought he was nuts, others shunned or dismissed him. When physical evidence finally showed up, the rest could no longer deny his theories and all of his faith finally paid off.

 

Science requires just as much faith as any other system of belief. Two quote a wise statement from fiction, "Faith and reason are like shoes on your feet. You can travel further with both than you can with just one." Faith keeps us going when reason fails to provide satisfactory answers.

 

Note: I'm not singling out any specific kind of faith, just that it is important to us. Your faith could be of the religious kind, or the philosophical kind, or the kind viewed as "a necessary psychological component humans utilize to stabilize feelings of uncertainty." However you view it, it's part of the human condition.

Edited July 27, 2013 by Luridis

[Walsingham]

Reading Luridis' comment has made me realise that my raletionship to science is roughly analogous to the relationship between that curious student and the Illuminated Order of Dagon in the Cthulhu books.

[Luridis]

I get into just as many arguments with religious people...

 

Random hater says, "Damn homosexuals are an abomination!"

 

Me, "1. The word wasn't translated correctly and a more correct interpretation is taboo, as opposed to abomination. 2. Aren't you a Christian?"

 

Hater, "Yes I'm a Christian, that's why I don't like homos."

 

Me, "Well, that doesn't make sense to me. You're quoting the Old Testament, which Jesus said he came to fulfill. Hence, you should turn the other cheek instead of seeking an eye for an eye."

 

Hater, "But it's God's law..."

 

Me, "Render onto God what is God's. Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord. So then, are you purporting to be the instrument of God's justice? That's pretty arrogant and self-righteous to assume that you know God's intentions. As a matter of fact, when an angry mob was about to stone an adulteress to death Jesus stopped them and said, 'Let you who is without sin cast the first stone.' So, are you then perfect as well? That you may cast judgement upon another?"

 

Hater, "Umm... But the pastor said..."

 

Me, "Oh, so you're carrying on based upon someone else's interpretation of what you have failed to read and interpret yourself? You run around casting hatred and disdain upon others when Jesus said to love your fellow man as if he was your own brother. Maybe you should go back and read that book yourself and let God handle its own business and attend to your own. It is people like you that caused Ghandi to say, 'I like your Christ, but not your Christians.'"

 

I have read a number of "holy books" and it never ceases to astonish me that so many people can purport to put so much stock into a book that they quite obviously have not read.

[Orogun01]

The hubris of men ultimately corrupts every form of though, religion isn't exempt.

[Luridis]

The hubris of men ultimately corrupts every form of though, religion isn't exempt.

 

http://youtu.be/KlaxHTPnaGI

[TrashMan]

 

Hater, "Yes I'm a Christian, that's why I don't like homos."

 

Luckily for me, I base my hate on science.

[Orogun01]

 

 

 

Hater, "Yes I'm a Christian, that's why I don't like homos."

 

Luckily for me, I base my hate on science.

 

So you're a scientist and that's why you don't like homos?

[Walsingham]

Maybe the hate is sciency, and it just happens to be directed at homosexuals?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Reading Luridis' comment has made me realise that my raletionship to science is roughly analogous to the relationship between that curious student and the Illuminated Order of Dagon in the Cthulhu books.