• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Scientists and atheism.

Re: Re: Re: Scientists and atheism.

Q-Source said:


It is statistically significant, just read one of the many studies about it.

About the chi-square test. Remember that correlation does NOT mean in any way causation.

All the results about atheism and science do not imply that science causes people to become atheist. It just means that on average we can find a stronger relationship between atheism and science, than theism and science.
Click to expand...
Correlation does not mean causation, but it implies possible causation. If A and B show a strong correlation, then it is most likely that one of five relationships is present:

A causes B
B causes A
C ("C" could be more than one thing) cause both A & B
C + A cause B
C + B cause A

I think the case of scientist/atheists correlations is clearly a case of C causing A & B, With C being the traits of using critical thinking and discarding magic and superstition. A person, lets say a pathologist, who refuses to beleive magical explanations for disease is also likely to reject magical explantions for the universe.

Admittedly, "cause" is probably the wrong word here, since it is not a 1 to 1 correlation. Perhaps, "creates the environment for" would be better, if more verbose.
 
Tricky,

I may be wrong, but you should not use the word "cause" in your definition. Correlation could imply a cause as one of many possible explanations but it is not always the case.

Even "C" is incorrect to explain what correlation means because we are only considering the relationship between A and B.

This is an accurate definition:

1 : the state or relation of being correlated; specifically : a relation existing between phenomena or things or between mathematical or statistical variables which tend to vary, be associated, or occur together in a way not expected on the basis of chance alone
Click to expand...
www.m-w.com
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Dark Cobra's Reference

Whodini said:
----
Atheists do not have a conception of God.
----


That's interesting then, because you typed "God" instead of "god(s)", for example.

So clearly you do have a conception of what a god would be like if it existed.
Click to expand...
I really doubt that my attempt at subtlety escaped you, but just in case;
my point was, that Atheists by definition, reject the concept of God.
While I'm sure there is some deep subconscious meaning to my
capitalization of God, my conscious reason, is that, it falls
within commonly accepted rules for capitalization in the written
English language.

Now, you'll be a bit ahead of your classmates next semester..:D
 
To have causation, one must establish three conditions. These include:

1. Correlation
2. Time-order (the cause must precede the effect)
3. No other variable(s) that may be influencing the correlation

That third one can be tricky. For example, crime rate and ice cream sales in Chicago are highly correlated. At first glance, it would appear that ice cream consumption causes crime (or visa versa). On further examination, it becomes clear that they both have causal relationships with temperature - and nothing to do with eachother.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dark Cobra's Reference

----
Now, you'll be a bit ahead of your classmates next semester..:D
----


Considering I teach, yeah, probably.
 
Re: Re: Re: Scientists and atheism.

----
About the chi-square test. Remember that correlation does NOT mean in any way causation.
----


Well, of course.

But one can say quite a bit from having statistically significant correlation.

We could also look and see if the odds of being an atheist if you are a scientist, etc., are statistically significant.


----
All the results about atheism and science do not imply that science causes people to become atheist. It just means that on average we can find a stronger relationship between atheism and science, than theism and science.
----


Technically, yes, that is true.

But I never said anything about causation. I was talking about association all along.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dark Cobra's Reference

----
my point was, that Atheists by definition, reject the concept of God.
----


No.

Atheists have no belief in any god(s). They still have conceptions of god(s).

Does a big blank come to your mind when you think "god(s)"?

Riiight.


----
While I'm sure there is some deep subconscious meaning to my
capitalization of God, my conscious reason, is that, it falls
within commonly accepted rules for capitalization in the written
English language.
----


Obviously you are talking about the Judeao-Christian variety, which is the most common in your culture. Most of the articles you religiously read about religion are about Creationism I'd imagine.
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dark Cobra's Reference

Dark Cobra said:


That explains a lot about the education system...
Click to expand...


Considering you don't have any degrees (because you're 16), not even a high-school diploma?

Considering you probably spend most of your time playing online games?

C'mon, you got anything better whipper snapper?
 
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Dark Cobra's Reference

Whodini said:



Considering you don't have any degrees (because you're 16), not even a high-school diploma?

Considering you probably spend most of your time playing online games?

C'mon, you got anything better whipper snapper?
Click to expand...

And is any of that relevant? I fail to see how. :rolleyes:
 
It is relevant because you are talking about the "education system", but you are still a brat in high-school, so you don't really have any education yet, certainly not enough to critique me and imply that my teaching explains the poor state of affairs in the education system.
 
Whodini said:
It is relevant because you are talking about the "education system", but you are still a brat in high-school, so you don't really have any education yet, certainly not enough to critique me and imply that my teaching explains the poor state of affairs in the education system.
Click to expand...

Maybe Dark Cobra is talking about HIS own experience.

He probably has a poor quality education.
 
Q-Source said:

Maybe Dark Cobra is talking about HIS own experience.
He probably has a poor quality education.
Click to expand...


Q-Source, have you been paying attention?

I said:

----
Considering I teach, yeah, probably.
----


Then he said

----
That explains a lot about the education system...
----


,which is a jab at me.


I'm not going to take that from someone who probably thinks mastering a "rocket-jump" is a valuable real-world skill.
 
Whodini said:

I'm not going to take that from someone who probably thinks mastering a "rocket-jump" is a valuable real-world skill.
Click to expand...
Resorting to strawman arguments will do nothing to put you in a superior position, either morally or intellectually.
 
I said:

----
I'm not going to take that from someone who probably thinks mastering a "rocket-jump" is a valuable real-world skill.
----


arcticpenguin said:

----
Resorting to strawman arguments will do nothing to put you in a superior position, either morally or intellectually.
----


Two things:


1. Get off Dark Cobra's leg and let him answer for himself.

2. Is it a strawman if I was already correct on high-school and that he plays computer games, and that fact that I said "probably"?

Answer: No.

Seems to be plausible inference. I bet he plays Quake or the equivalent shoot-em-up.
 
Normative Arguments

As a trained physicist and mathematician, as a current student in a political science program attempting to hold on to the 'science' aspect in my new field of choice (not always an easy problem), I find most of the problems with this series of posts deals with attempting to use empirical logic in a field that, quite often, uses normative logic.

Science is empirical. You formulate hypotheses, run experiments, make observations, create theories, etc... All is based upon observation and measurement. Science is unable to deal with things that cannot be measured. In all honesty, I find that to be one of the greatest strengths of science. If facts do not conform to theory, you change theory.

Religion (and philosophy, etc.) are normative. They don't examine what is, they examine what ought to be. Observation and measurement are (from what I can tell) are absent. The scientific method holds no sway in this realm. If facts do not fit theory, don't toss the theory.

Science makes life easier and healthier and brighter etc... Normative disciplines make it more valuable. An artist may not be able to explain how his/her pigments are different colors, but he/she can definitely paint something that makes spirits soar. Science describes what is happening in life. Religion and philosophy and art make life more valuable.

As for those discussions on whether scientist can 'know' anything... come on. David Hume (philosopher) already made these arguments. True, we can never know with 100% accuracy that the sun will rise in the morning, yet we plan our lives that the sun will rise. Scientists are the same. Evolution is not a fact. It is a theory -- a scientific theory in all that that title entails. Evidence could come up tomorrow that contradicts Evolution. Yet all (reasonable) scientists treat it as fact, basing their research and resources on it. That is as it should be. For centuries, Newton's Laws reigned supreme in physics. There were treated as fact, and much physics was built upon them. Yet, when Einstein's reativity theories showed them to be lacking, science moved on.

BTW: If we're taking a poll, count this Mathematical Physicist a devout Roman Catholic.
 
Hello Thumper -

Just for my own curiousity, do you believe that mathematics fits your characterization of science?

And moving from physics to PoliSci - pshew - interesting progression. I won't ask why.
 
Whitefork, I don't quite understand what you mean by:
"...do you believe that mathematics fits your characterization of science?"
 
A request for clarification of this:
Science is empirical. You formulate hypotheses, run experiments, make observations, create theories, etc... All is based upon observation and measurement. Science is unable to deal with things that cannot be measured. In all honesty, I find that to be one of the greatest strengths of science. If facts do not conform to theory, you change theory.
Click to expand...
This seems to exclude mathematics from the git-go. So, I was hoping you'd expand a bit for my benefit here.

And if you wouldn't mind I have a thread in Science that I'm looking for opinions on, and you might be in a position to offer some: http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13624
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom