Category Archives: Religion

Endorsing the Scientific Method

Posted on by

Boobquake determined to prove cleric wrong

Dressing immodestly on April 26th, in order to disprove the statement by a cleric:

“Many women who do not dress modestly … lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes,” Sedighi said.

Unfortunately, a single test is not enough, since there may well be an earthquake in close temporal proximity to the event. We need lots of statistics.

Update: Jen recognizes this

And yes, I know I need a larger sample size to make this good science. Maybe I’ll include Mardi gras in my calculations.

This Could Get Ugly

Posted on by

Global warming views ‘are philosophical belief’ for UK law

“A belief in man-made climate change, and the alleged resulting moral imperatives, is capable if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations,” ruled Justice Michael Burton (Guardian, Independent). “If a person can establish that he holds a philosophical belief which is based on science as opposed, for example, to religion, then there is no reason to disqualify it from protection”

It is true, I suppose, that a view can be philosophical even if science addresses it — one can accept gravity without ever having taken a physics class, meaning that one believes in gravity in a dogmatic sense. I think this is easier to see if one’s belief were to contradict science: one could sincerely believe that they can defy gravity and fly, though if that were ever put to the test they would have a hard time reconciling their belief with the fact that they did not fly so much as plummet. (Then again, having witnessed a lot of discussions involving cdesign proponentsists, I’ve seen fervent belief allow for some pretty wicked mental contortions). Certainly there are people out there that zealously believe that they can build a perpetual motion device, or that relativity is wrong. And it just boils down to this: if facts will not dissuade you, then your belief is religious.

But we have words to describe those who tenaciously hold to beliefs that have been empirically tested, and found to be wanting: cranks, crackpots, woomeisters, kooks, loons, quackademics, wackjob, etc. You now appear to have the problem of not being able to fire an engineer or a scientist for believing in perpetual motion, simply because they hold that belief religiously. On the other hand, if the boss is a free-energy believer, how do you protect the science-minded employee from being dismissed for mentioning the second law of thermodynamics in front of the boss? Citing facts/truth has to be what’s protected, not fanatically held lies or untruths. Between this and the libel laws in England, it’s kind of a wacky place for the intersection of science and speech (Can I say that?)

Update: some commentary on the situation, which cautions us that by reducing science to belief, we lose something: beliefs are created equal, and it’s far easier to dismiss a belief or an opinion — all you have to do is disagree.

Religions have beliefs. Science is not a belief system but the best process we have for establishing the truth, piece by independently replicated piece. Nicholson should be appalled by the ruling he has won.

I Believe I'll Have Another Drink

Posted on by

if you believe in science, you’re doing it wrong

The post-modernists can complain about the limitations of our senses and our technology but what seems to be lost on them is the cardinal rule of the scientific thought process. If you have no proof for it, you can’t insist that it’s real or objective. Because we don’t know something, we can’t randomly jam anything we want in there and pretend it’s a good idea. And this is exactly what we do when we involve deities for which we don’t have a shred of proof into processes we otherwise understand and want to explore in farther depth. To equate a way to describe the natural world through objective means with simply inserting one’s own opinion in the gaps of our knowledge and chalk both up to belief is an absurd assertion that can only be made by people who don’t understand the nature of science and can’t wrap their minds around the fact that it’s simply a methodology by which people accumulate and connect facts, not a set of answers to questions or ready made opinions.

Hopscotch in the Minefield

Posted on by

Teaching evolution — and, by the sound of it, doing a good job — in Florida. He realizes that if the science sounds dogmatic he’s lost before he even starts.

A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

When Florida’s last set of science standards came out in 1996, soon after Mr. Campbell took the teaching job at Ridgeview, he studied them in disbelief. Though they included the concept that biological “changes over time” occur, the word evolution was not mentioned.

He called his district science supervisor. “Is this really what they want us to teach for the next 10 years?” he demanded.

In 2000, when the independent Thomas B. Fordham Foundation evaluated the evolution education standards of all 50 states, Florida was among 12 to receive a grade of F. (Kansas, which drew international attention in 1999 for deleting all mention of evolution and later embracing supernatural theories, received an F-minus.)

Faith and Ignorance

Posted on by

Interesting link over at physics and physicists (rather than the title being a misquote from “Bull Durham.”) Is Faith The Enemy Of Science?

Richard MacKenzie of the University of Montreal has written a rather thought-provoking and lengthy article as a rebuttal to a talk given by Lawrence Krauss. In it, he is disputing Krauss’s assertion that:

Faith is not the enemy.
Ignorance is the enemy.

The linked article is pretty good.

The bottom line is that direct observation shows that faith does not obstruct scientists from
doing science. That said, there are many who portray themselves as scientists who, due to
their faith, are doing a brand of science which is an indignity to the word. I have in mind
particularly those whose principal goal in science is to advance a faith-based agenda. One
must wonder whether these individuals, who probably have a reasonable amount of scientific
talent, might not be doing respectable science if their scientificity had not been stronger, or
their religiosity weaker.

Does faith obstruct non-scientists from learning science? I would argue that it does, for
several reasons.

On that point I quite agree. Anyone who uses their ideology to dictate what answers are acceptable isn’t doing science. Ignorance isn’t the enemy, in the sense that it is an opposing entity; the goal of teaching science (and education in general) is the eradication of ignorance. Ignorance can be fixed as long as there is no active plan to preserve it. Faith, the unsubstantiated belief in something, does indeed preserve ignorance if it prevents you from considering evidence and scientific explanations.

Well worth a read.

What Mr. Slack Got Wrong

Posted on by

What neo-creationists get right

[I]n the debate over evolution, I also think creationists’ doggedness has to do with the fact that they make a few worthy points. And as long as evolutionists like me reflexively react with ridicule and self-righteous rage, we may paradoxically be adding years to creationism’s lifespan.

I think that the creationists’ doggedness has far more to do with the fact that their ideology comes first, and they mangle science to conform to that worldview. When “facts” are presented that can be falsified by just looking around, sometimes ridicule is the only option left. But there was much more in the article that bothered me, and to a greater degree.

Mr. Slack goes on to make four points. On the first two, I say this —
Yes, science is incomplete — I don’t think any competent scientist is claiming that there isn’t more to be found. This is true of all fields of science, and the “designer of the gaps” is a false dilemma. The complexity of the cell being unknown to Darwin also falls short and points out the misdirected nature of many arguments against “Darwinism,” (much like arguments against Einstein and relativity) because the theory has advanced quite far since the original proposal. I’ll get to the misuse of “faith” a little later on.

On to the third point
Continue reading →

Popespotting

Posted on by

The Pope did his tour through town today, right past work (which he had to, since he’s staying across the street) so I joined the other poperazzi to get a look and a picture or two. Right as the motorcade swings into view, crazylady in front of me unfurls a big flag and starts waving it, intermittently blocking my view (That’s her arm on the left; I’ve cropped the flag out) so I didn’t see him at perigee.

pope.jpg

That’s freshly-paved road, there (local road improvements correlate strongly with important visits and presidential funerals). Traffic is partially blocked on Mass Ave, affecting things, and prospects are even better for tomorrow, since the three presidential candidates are supposed to meet with the British Prime Minister at the British embassy, which is also our neighbor. (our version of “Who are the people in your neighborhood” is longer on ambassadors and attachés than bakers and teachers)

Nanofear

Posted on by

Nanotechnology isn’t morally acceptable to a lot of people.

My immediate reaction, after playing “what the?” is that this is a reaction from ignorance. I mentioned before that many people get visions of nanobots taking over the world dancing in their heads when you mention the word “nanotechnology” so I suspect this is just a simple reaction. It’s unknown, so I am suspicious and am predisposed to rejecting the idea. Calling it immoral is just an easy way to reject it, requiring little thought.

Of course it’s ignorant, because most of the respondents probably have a computer, which has nanoscale components in it. And use other nanotech products, perhaps even on a daily basis.

I’m not sure how the pollster draws the religious conclusions, because the poll questions aren’t given and we only have his word that the people were well-informed adults. I don’t trust polls, especially ones that are opaque.