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

[AvalonXQ]

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

Deviate from it, and the Ecclesiastical Council of Science will be all over you.

 

[H3LL]

....stuff.... bible ... more stuff....

Example: I'm an engineer that wants to know the height of a chimney. I know my distance from the chimney and the angle from my feet to the top of the chimney. I can calculate its height very easily.

Am I doing science or engineering?


I would say both but cannot do the engineering without the science and science that pre-dates your NT by quite a margin and has been shown to be correct.

I could give the measurement to someone else in multiples of The-piece-of-string-I-had-in-my-pocket (or even cubits) but would probably choose a more universally acceptable and well tested unit (how was it tested, I wonder?).

Other than a few towns and cities and the odd, historically displaced, person's name, there is nothing in your bible that has been shown to be correct as far as I recall.

Apart from God mauling forty-odd children with she-bears for shouting "Baldy".

That's true.

 

[m_huber]

Boeing employes high-quality engineers.

Engineering is separate from science. Engineers apply what scientists learn. For example, the engineers at Boeing build what the scientists at Boeing think up. Seriously, Boeing employs a whole lot of scientists. It's how they learn new stuff. Check it out for yourself! (here, or just google "Boeing Scientists." You get a lot of relevant hits.)

 

[AvalonXQ]

Example: I'm an engineer that wants to know the height of a chimney. I know my distance from the chimney and the angle from my feet to the top of the chimney. I can calculate its height very easily.

Am I doing science or engineering?

You're very clearly doing engineering, not science.
An engineer using known scientific principles to calculate a height or density is not "doing science" anymore than I am "doing science" when I wash my hands before joining the church fellowship, or turn on the computer to use PowerPoint with my sermon.
Using principles and knowledge arrived at by the methods of science is no more "doing science" than walking into a building is "doing architecture".

 

[geni]

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?

General relativity. Orginaly it gave an age of the universe of around 100K years. Since we were pretty sure the earth was older than that this presented something of a problem. Still stuck with general relativity and latter better measurements of hubble's constant gave a more reasonable age for the universe. Still as recently as the late 90s there appeared to be stars that were older than general relativity said the universe was.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Engineering is separate from science. Engineers apply what scientists learn.

<snip>

Since scientists apply what other scientists have learnt before them* as well that does not separate engineering from science.

Engineering is not separate from science. Engineering includes science.


*Standing on the shoulders of giants and all that?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Example: I'm an engineer that wants to know the height of a chimney. I know my distance from the chimney and the angle from my feet to the top of the chimney. I can calculate its height very easily.

Am I doing science or engineering?

<snip>

Trick question. Neither. You're doing mathematics.

Engineering includes mathematics as well.

 

[ctamblyn]

Trick question. Neither. You're doing mathematics.

Engineering includes mathematics as well.

Very minor nitpick - it's (Euclidean) geometry. Although this is a branch of mathematics, we only know that Euclidean geometry is valid for calculating the height of a chimney from empirical evidence.

So it's an application of scientific results.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Trick question. Neither. You're doing mathematics.

Engineering includes mathematics as well.

When you apply mathematics to calculate something in the real world, you're using mathematics to do something else -- in this case engineering.
As ctamblyn pointed out, the applicability of mathematics to the real world is an application of scientific knowledge (i.e., engineering).

 

[kuroyume0161]

When you apply mathematics to calculate something in the real world, you're using mathematics to do something else -- in this case engineering.
As ctamblyn pointed out, the applicability of mathematics to the real world is an application of scientific knowledge (i.e., engineering).

But the applicability of the mathematics to the real world goes through scientific rigor first (physics, etc.) before it can be called 'engineering'. When Galileo came up with his gravitational theory, he didn't push around math symbols (did he). He did experiments (science) and then formulated the mathematical model. The maths were then usable for engineering - such as calculating the trajectories of cannon shot (although general principles had already been discovered simply by experience - i.e.: lots of warring).

Euclidean geometry, while useful, is an artifice erected over our world as a means to make statements symbolically about it in a particular way. It doesn't actually represent reality - it is a formalization, a crude one to some degree, which imparts abstract concepts over real things. For instance, there is no such thing as a 'point' as described in mathematics.

 

[AvalonXQ]

But the applicability of the mathematics to the real world goes through scientific rigor first (physics, etc.) before it can be called 'engineering'. When Galileo came up with his gravitational theory, he didn't push around math symbols (did he). He did experiments (science) and then formulated the mathematical model. The maths were then usable for engineering - such as calculating the trajectories of cannon shot (although general principles had already been discovered simply by experience - i.e.: lots of warring).

Yes, exactly.
So, engineering can occur without scientific knowledge, or engineering can use scientific knowledge. In neither case is the engineering suddenly science itself, but scientific knowledge can be important/necessary for certain engineering goals to be properly accomplished. Scientific knowledge allows mathematics to be applied to engineering problems, for example.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Yes, exactly.
So, engineering can occur without scientific knowledge, or engineering can use scientific knowledge. In neither case is the engineering suddenly science itself, but scientific knowledge can be important/necessary for certain engineering goals to be properly accomplished. Scientific knowledge allows mathematics to be applied to engineering problems, for example.

Engineering can generate scientific knowledge.

For example, when I finished my M.Eng, I could have joined a research group at my university to do a PhD, such as this one.

The Photonics Research Group, with more than 50 active researchers, is the largest research group in the School of Engineering and Applied Science, and one of the largest in photonics research in the UK. It has a world-recognised record of achievement in nonlinear photonics, high-speed optical transmission and processing, in fibre optic components and in fibre optic sensors.

It is an acknowledged centre of excellence for experimental and theoretical research in optical soliton, high speed optical systems, fibre grating technology, fibre sensors, microwave photonics, bio-photonics, and all-optical networks. The group pursues a diverse range of device-and-system-level topics at the leading edge of technology. It has recently successfully expanded its activities in a number of key areas including femtosecond pulsed laser techniques, medical sensing devices, and planar integrated optical circuits.

...

 

[Perpetual Student]

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?

Your premise is wrong. Einstein assumed an eternal universe when he formulated GR. He introduced his Λ to avoid an unstable collapsing universe.
It was after Hubble's discovery of cosmic expansion that the universe appeared to be younger than some astronomical objects. The problem was resolved as better measures of astronomical distances and the expansion rate were developed.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You have a fundamental (no pun) problem with dealing with this. The people who claim "science is a religion" are really saying, "you MUST have a religion, even if it's science". Rational answers won't work with them, they have a block to protect them from logical thinking.

Having said the above, my all time favorite response to "Science is a religion" was "Prove it."

 

[m_huber]

Since scientists apply what other scientists have learnt before them* as well that does not separate engineering from science.

Engineering is not separate from science. Engineering includes science.


*Standing on the shoulders of giants and all that?

Eh, fair enough. My main point was that using Boeing as a company that just builds airplanes is ridiculous. Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, etc. all employ huge scientific divisions. Engineering and science aren't directly related, but a lot of the modern marvels we have in the world are generated from a combination of the two.

 

[Herzblut]

Science tells you what is, not what should be. Or what you should do.

 

[Roboramma]

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.

There may not be science going on there, but so what? The question of whether or not faith is involved in believing what is in that particular book can't be answered simply based on whether someone accepts the book as likely to be accurate.
Instead, it goes back to how they make the determination of that accuracy.

I expect the things in a textbook to be correct for solid reasons for which I have good evidence.

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.

Neverthess engineering is certainly much more effective because of science. Having a good theory of orbital mechanics, for instance, has made getting spacecraft to mars much easier than it otherwise would be, which is one piece of evidence that the scientific method works.
And that success, amoung many others, is why I expect it to continue to be successful.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Hold on there! After several months of following many discussions about the above subjects, you do stand out as one who come across as a religious zealot. The positions you so fanatically espouse seem to be more religion than science. Look in the mirror.

When I look in the mirror I can honestly state that electricity empirically exists in nature, it regularly heats plasma to millions of degrees in nature, it emits gamma and x-rays galore and does exactly what I expect it to do in the lab.

Compare and contrast that with the fact that inflation doesn't even presumably exist anymore. The mystical dark energy label turns out to be nothing more than a bizarre euphemism for "acceleration", and the term "dark matter" turns out to be "mass our useless galaxy mass estimates cannot account for with our limited technologies". I suggest the mainstream look in the mirror again and ask yourselves when was the last time you saw a useful product that ran on "dark energy" or mythical inflation genies?

Please, you don't have a leg to stand on IMO.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I didn't say I thought the answers religions provide to ethical questions are very good, only that religion can answer questions about what we ought to do because religions typically consist of both a way of knowing *and* a set of values, whereas science is only a way of knowing and can therefore only provide information relevant to ethical decisions (as Rasmus has said).

The problem I am having with this argument is the underlying assumption that religion actually has the right answer as to what we ought to do.

Does it really matter that religion has an answer? I can just as easily toss a coin or consult my ouija board.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

.

Nominated for answering this issue waaay better than I could ever hope to.