How do you deal with the 'science is a religion' crap?

[Ocelot]

What if science were a religion.

The researchers trying to eradicate disease would get tax breaks just like those ministers behind the campaign to legislate away the rights of homosexual couples. Those who lobbied against the findings of evolutionary biologists, vaccinators or climate scientists would be reviled as blasphemers and censured for disrespecting the deeply held and treasured beliefs of scientists.

It is true that we do have two articles of faith: That (1) the universe operates according to fixed rules and (2) that those rules may be discovered through a process of observation and experimentation. Though (1) has been tested billions of times and not been found wanting it is only inductive reasoning that suggests this will continue to be the case. It is conceivable that Science was simply not looking on the occasions that some entity arbitrarily suspended or alter the laws of nature. Yet the argument is not falsifiable. Even if the rules as we know them are shown to have exceptions (as has been the case on numerous occasions) we simply presume that those exceptions also operate according to fixed rules. You could even conceive of an entity which would be indentified as God who whilst practically omnipotent in his influence over his creation, was subject to the laws of whatever nature governed his own realm.

There are those who disagrees with our articles of faith. If they do so alone we call them insane but if they share that belief with others, we call them superstitious or if there's enough of them, religious.

Science doesn't have to be religious. It's perfectly capable of acknowledging it's own flaws and limitations, but if it did get dogmatic over certain fundamentals, became especially sensitive to those who questioned these and demanded special privileges and exemptions from tax and regulation then perhaps that would be a good thing.

This message brought to you by the Church of Reality

 

[H3LL]

pnerd, you may or may not find this helpful:





.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Note: Conclusions are always provisional and scientists should never be afraid to reject their own theory.

Scientists do not operate in a vacuum, isolated from the rest of society.

It can be perfectly rational for scientists to be afraid to reject their own theories for a number of reasons, some of which are related to the values they and others consider important.

For example, people who fund scientists and scientists themselves prefer to come up with positive results. If shown to be wrong, some theories would mean many people have been harmed rather than helped. Scientists proving their superiors wrong is often a poor career move, especially if they don't or can't suggest an alternative course of action.

 

[Elvis666]

For example, hope drives people to turn to science in order to make things better for people, such as say finding the cure for cancer, or the hopes of finding the secrets to how life started. These are also things not seen until science develops or discovers it.

So science does indeed seem to have at least one thing in common with religion.

The hope that is referred to in the quoted Scripture is that of something that is not only not currently seen, but will never be seen in this life. If evidence of faith is ever found, it ceases to be faith and becomes knowledge, and is thus science.

Science creates hope for a better life, religion for a better afterlife.

 

[Wowbagger]

Science has changed how we see the world, including how the religious see the world. Religion has not changed how scientists see the world.

Without science, we would probably still assume that the Earth is the center of the Universe, and that we humans have a divine right to dominate over other life forms.

Without religion, it would not have taken us sooo long to make the important discoveries that demonstrated otherwise.

 

[Robert Oz]

Scientists do not operate in a vacuum, isolated from the rest of society.

It can be perfectly rational for scientists to be afraid to reject their own theories for a number of reasons, some of which are related to the values they and others consider important.

You are confusing the scientific method with scientists. Of course there are individual scientists (perhaps many of them) who struggle with the ideal that the scientific method represents. Just as even though religion forbids the rejection of beliefs, there are individual religious people who do reject them and now identify themselves as atheists.

I think a previous poster made the point: the scientific method is not religious, but some scientists can be religious about science.

 

[AvalonXQ]

You are confusing the scientific method with scientists. Of course there are individual scientists (perhaps many of them) who struggle with the ideal that the scientific method represents. Just as even though religion forbids the rejection of beliefs, there are individual religious people who do reject them and now identify themselves as atheists.

I agree with your point, but I think the better analogy would be between imperfect scientists whose behavior doesn't always follow the scientific method although they still agree with it, and religious people who sometimes go against the tenets of their religion (e.g., sinning).

 

[geni]

I sit corrected.

It must be a relief that engineering doesn't use any science. A quick pray and they just know that the required lift, trust and aerodynamics are correct.

Engineers (mostly) kept building working planes regardless of how badly scientists got aerodynamics wrong (although the perfect teardrop fashion caused a fair bit of damage).

 

[geni]

The Scientific Method

1. Observe phenomena.
2. Hypothesise explanation for phenomena.
3. Test hypothesis (3a. Attempt to disprove hypothesis).
4. If disproven, reject hypothesis and return to step 2.
5. If not disproven, develop theory for phenomena.
6. Publish results for peer-review.
7. Debate.
8. Repeat tests.
9. Repeat scientific method.
Note: Conclusions are always provisional and scientists should never be afraid to reject their own theory.

You realise that if we actualy followed that method we would have rejected Einstein's theories when they kept concludeing the universe was younger than some of the things in it?

 

[Robert Oz]

I agree with your point, but I think the better analogy would be between imperfect scientists whose behavior doesn't always follow the scientific method although they still agree with it, and religious people who sometimes go against the tenets of their religion (e.g., sinning).

Agreed.

 

[AvalonXQ]

It must be a relief that engineering doesn't use any science. A quick pray and they just know that the required lift, trust and aerodynamics are correct.

Engineering isn't science. And most of the time, engineering doesn't involve doing science, either -- it involves trusting the conclusions that others (especially scientists and engineers) have arrived at before.
But engineering preceded the scientific method and very often occurs without it. Let's not make the unfortunate mistake of conflating the two.

 

[Robert Oz]

You realise that if we actualy followed that method we would have rejected Einstein's theories when they kept concludeing the universe was younger than some of the things in it?

Sorry, I'm unfamiliar with what you're referring to. Which of Einstein's theories were retained as provisionally true after they were disproven? And why?

 

[H3LL]

Engineers (mostly) kept building working planes regardless of how badly scientists got aerodynamics wrong (although the perfect teardrop fashion caused a fair bit of damage).

Quite so.

It's a little known fact that Boeing's workforce is almost entirely made from Kalahari Bushmen. A spear-throw and many thumb-widths was found to be the perfect length for a 747 wing.

Their skills with hand-made and decorative nuts and bolts lent a previously absent sense of adventure to the constructions.



Let me know which planet you are currently inhabiting (it doesn't seem to be Earth) and I'll join you there to continue the discussion.

I'll be flying in by biscuit, so I'll be easy to spot.

.

 

[AvalonXQ]

It's a little known fact that Boeing's workforce is almost entirely made from Kalahari Bushmen. A spear-throw and many thumb-widths was found to be the perfect length for a 747 wing.

Boeing employes high-quality engineers. Their ability to apply known facts to physical situations is excellent. They are trained mechanical, electrical, fluidic, etc. experts.
And it is likely that very few of them would know enough about the basic physics underlying their field to properly conduct any sort of real scientific experiment.
Engineers are not scientists, and engineering is not science. The mentality is different, and the necessary skills are different.
Hence why I had to tutor an entire crop of engineering students through basic physics in college. These guys were as eager to put numbers to every problem they were given as I was not to apply actual numbers to the equations at all.
You're doing no one a favor by continuing to conflate the two.

 

[H3LL]

Boeing employes high-quality engineers. Their ability to apply known facts to physical situations is excellent. .....


You're doing no one a favor by continuing to conflate the two.

As you state in you post the engineers are applying science at every turn of the screwdriver, wrench or whatever. Science also supplies the standard for their measurements.

Geni's proposition was that it was engineering that made planes fly and not science.

The Bushmen, in my example are excellent engineers, much in the way you mentioned for the engineers you know.

Sophisticated engineering is applied science.

Nowhere did I suggest that engineers should do scientific experiments nor that they are scientists. Doing experiments is not the totality of science.

Every so often the experiments are finished for now and the results recorded and used - Probably by engineers, even - Shock! Horror!

I'll assume you mis-read some posts or my sarcasm. Otherwise I will join you later on Geni's planet when I can get my biscuit to start.

Where's my keys.....

.

 

[H3LL]

Missed this bit.

But engineering preceded the scientific method and very often occurs without it.

So you are saying that each engineering adventure is random actions hoping that they may get lucky not from learned or experienced testing. Dancing the tango might turn this screw, perhaps?

No stop --- Major derail.

You assume I think you are talking bollocks (you would be right) and I'll assume you and Geni think I'm an idiot and we'll leave it at that and all be happy.

Now back to the OP...........


*Starts biscuit*

Crrrrrruuuuuumb!

.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

H3LL, you've said it so much better than I could.

All I will add is that engineering often involves a lot of scientific experimentation (i.e. following the scientific method) to determine the effects of changing the parameters of a part or process.

Oh, and scientists beg for their money, while engineers earn it.

 

[Dancing David]

I'm not a philosopher (I'm sure it shows ), and I'm certainly not arguing that the practice of science is on a par with religion. However, although being able to replicate experiments gives us a great deal of confidence in the scientific method, it doesn't logically prove its correctness. You can demonstrate that a model has been successful so far, but not that it will be successful tomorrow.

(I appreciate that it is a pretty useless point of view to take, from a practical point of view. Part of me wishes that I hadn't brought it up.)

Fair enough, I would never say that it is correct, just useful.

 

[AvalonXQ]

So you are saying that each engineering adventure is random actions hoping that they may get lucky not from learned or experienced testing. Dancing the tango might turn this screw, perhaps?

No. I'm saying that if you look up a fact in a book, believe it because it's in the book, and apply it how it shows to in the book, there's no science going on there.
Maybe there was science in the past, in putting the book together. If you're a modern, reputable engineer, I'd certainly hope there was.
You appear to want to call any use of scientific knowledge, "science". Which, since we use scientific knowledge in our Bible classes at church, would imply that what we're doing on Sunday mornings is science, too.
This is, of course, bullocks.
Again, engineering is not science. Engineering has managed to create devices before the physical principles underlying those devices were determined by scientists, and vice versa.

 

[Dancing David]

You realise that if we actualy followed that method we would have rejected Einstein's theories when they kept concludeing the universe was younger than some of the things in it?

I didn't realise it was such a rigid dogma, my mistake.