- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
A provocative statement?
“Science is always wrong,” George Bernard Shaw famously proclaimed in a toast to Albert Einstein. “It never solves a problem without creating 10 more.”
Discomfort with the above quote may separate “fans” of science who wish to defeat religion with it, from those who study and practice science; the latter being the comfortable ones.
The quote is from:
http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/04/02/stuart-firestein-ignorance-science/
This link is a review of the book "Ignorance: How It Drives Science," by Stuart Firestein (Ph.D. Professor, Biological Sciences, Columbia).
Another quote, this from the book: “Being a scientist requires having faith in uncertainty, finding pleasure in mystery, and learning to cultivate doubt. There is no surer way to screw up an experiment than to be certain of its outcome.”
A podcast discussion with Firestein on this book is available at:
http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201204121000
I do not believe science should be put to work against religion. It diminishes science. And PS, I have all the coursework for a chemistry PhD behind me, with a 3.8 GPA. And a BS in Science Education.
Of course I think religion should stay out of science, too; it diminishes religion. So both of my wishes are pipe dreams.
Originally posted by JS357I see a problem with people and not with science and Christianity, excluding all
A provocative statement?
“Science is always wrong,” George Bernard Shaw famously proclaimed in a toast to Albert Einstein. “It never solves a problem without creating 10 more.”
Discomfort with the above quote may separate “fans” of science who wish to defeat religion with it, from those who study and practice science; the latter being the comfortable one ...[text shortened]... should stay out of science, too; it diminishes religion. So both of my wishes are pipe dreams.
other religions except for, maybe, Judaism.
Originally posted by JS357I agree with both of these statements.
I do not believe science should be put to work against religion. It diminishes science. And PS, I have all the coursework for a chemistry PhD behind me, with a 3.8 GPA. And a BS in Science Education.
Of course I think religion should stay out of science, too; it diminishes religion. So both of my wishes are pipe dreams.
Yet, for something which appears so obvious, good luck convincing people.
There is no necessary connection between the material you present and the conclusion you draw.
One factor in the Romantic movement at the start of the Nineteenth Century was the fear that science was destroying our capacity for poetry and art. They felt that emotion is far more important to our humanity than reasoning. Of course that is just a false and empty dichotomy.
Religion and Science come into conflict when they make statements which disagree with each other about the same topics. Sometimes, both cannot be right and sometimes it is blindingly obvious that one is wrong.
Religions do of course often come into conflict with one another and this can be about matters for which there is a rational way to make a decision.
It is not unreasonable to make the claims of religion the subject of proper, rational investigation. Here is an easy example. The Catholic Church claims that a miracle is an event which defies the laws of science. So it seems reasonable to use science to test their claims of miracles since they use science as the basis for claiming a miracle.
One of the most reasonable applications of Reason to Religion is the study of the history of the Bible and the history of Religion. It is reasonable not least because Christians make frequent historical claims, such as reference to the way the early Christians behaved. [I don't know if you want to include history as a science of course, but I think it is part of the same investigative, rational spirit, in which theories are proven false by new evidence or superseded by better theories that embrace more evidence.]
- Joined
- 29 Dec 08
- Moves
- 6788
Originally posted by finneganAt this point I appreciate the views of anyone who bothers to reads my posts on relevant books and interviews. Regarding history, Firestein makes the same point you do. It's (when done right) a rigorous discipline that values the unknown, and respects admissions of ignorance.
There is no necessary connection between the material you present and the conclusion you draw.
One factor in the Romantic movement at the start of the Nineteenth Century was the fear that science was destroying our capacity for poetry and art. They felt that emotion is far more important to our humanity than reasoning. Of course that is just a false and ...[text shortened]... are proven false by new evidence or superseded by better theories that embrace more evidence.]
Admissions of ignorance are a path to career failure in many parts of society.
I'll draw one more conclusion that might arguably be unsupported by the material, but is triggered by it. Western science, especially in the U.S., is being pushed into making statements with certainty, that are really, probabilistic. A prime example is global warming. Part of the reason for this push, is political. The reason it works, is because a large segment of the population demands "Biblical" certainty, because they are used to hearing it from the pulpit. The pulpit extends into the airwaves and the "style" of pulpit rhetoric is mimicked by the semi-secular and secular commentators.
Originally posted by JS357being wrong is one of the driving fundamentals of science, the other being disbelief. without these two things, science wouldn't work and wouldn't be needed.
A provocative statement?
“Science is always wrong,” George Bernard Shaw famously proclaimed in a toast to Albert Einstein. “It never solves a problem without creating 10 more.”
Discomfort with the above quote may separate “fans” of science who wish to defeat religion with it, from those who study and practice science; the latter being the comfortable one ...[text shortened]... should stay out of science, too; it diminishes religion. So both of my wishes are pipe dreams.
Originally posted by JS357Shaw and Science are an ugly pair;
A provocative statement?
“Science is always wrong,” George Bernard Shaw famously proclaimed in a toast to Albert Einstein. “It never solves a problem without creating 10 more.”
Discomfort with the above quote may separate “fans” of science who wish to defeat religion with it, from those who study and practice science; the latter being the comfortable one ...[text shortened]... should stay out of science, too; it diminishes religion. So both of my wishes are pipe dreams.
Each chessman, and both armies per se, are unalterable and subsistent, however their configuration is changing and unstable; meditation over objects (the configuration of the chessmen in specific poitions, partly and in whole) triggers states of dependently arisen affairs; in a state of affairs, the White and the Black fit into one another ending up in certain positions; these positions are determinately related to their dynamism according to our cognizant apparatus; this determinate way in which the chessmen are connected in a position, begs for variations as regards the handling of the dynamism of the position; by means of activating a specific form out of the probabilistic pool and in accordance with our evaluation, the variations change both the position and the shape of the structure of each army, whilst the struggle to come up with forced variations is constant; the given shape of the structure of each army consists of the karmic state of the dynamism of the position, and of the mutual collapsing of the wavefunction by White’s and Black’s cognizant apparatus; the totality of the arising positions and their evaluation is the Royal Game itself; the existing positions determine which positions envelop dynamism that can be transformed into concrete advantages, and which positions do not, hence they determine strategy; the existence and non-existence of concrete advantages and the ability to have these advantages exploited by means of specific tactics, is the object of the chessplayer’s point of attention; states of dynamism in different positions are neither independent of one another, nor not independent, nor both nor neither; the Royal Game is empty😵
Originally posted by JS357I would say rather that science is never complete. Just because a science usually gives us an approximation of the real world, does not make it wrong. Newtonian mechanics for example is not wrong - it is an approximation. Relativity is more accurate.
“Science is always wrong,” George Bernard Shaw famously proclaimed in a toast to Albert Einstein. “It never solves a problem without creating 10 more.”
Originally posted by JS357I disagree. Science should be the standard way of learning about the universe and whenever people have unconfirmed beliefs, science should be used to help determine the validity of those beliefs. This applies as much to religion as it does to every day 'myths'. Of course not every belief can be investigated scientifically due to a lack of evidence. But when it can, I see no reason why we shouldn't.
I do not believe science should be put to work against religion. It diminishes science.
Originally posted by finneganExcept that any such claim shows a lack of understanding of what science is. A law of science can never ever ever ever be defied - by definition. A scientific law is defined as a rule that is never broken.
It is not unreasonable to make the claims of religion the subject of proper, rational investigation. Here is an easy example. The Catholic Church claims that a miracle is an event which defies the laws of science. So it seems reasonable to use science to test their claims of miracles since they use science as the basis for claiming a miracle.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe laws of science occur in states of affairs, they do not come into existence automatically and on their own and in separation of specific causes and conditions, therefore they do not exist inherently. To say that a law of science can never be broken, does not hold😵
Except that any such claim shows a lack of understanding of what science is. A law of science can never ever ever ever be defied - by definition. A scientific law is defined as a rule that is never broken.
Originally posted by black beetleIt appears to me dear beetle that in essence, ( please correct me if I am wrong), is
Shaw and Science are an ugly pair;
Each chessman, and both armies per se, are unalterable and subsistent, however their configuration is changing and unstable; meditation over objects (the configuration of the chessmen in specific poitions, partly and in whole) triggers states of dependently arisen affairs; in a state of affairs, the White and the Bl ...[text shortened]... independent of one another, nor not independent, nor both nor neither; the Royal Game is empty😵
that despite the fact that the chessmen are unalterable, and the variations which
ensue are volatile and constantly changing, a constant reappraisal and 'status
report', if you like, must be sought at every stage through interpretation based on
the salient features of the position, thus, scientific data, which is itself in a state of
flux like the chessmen is in need of constant reappraisal. Going further, it appears
to me that if such is the case then it is possible to draw two different conclusions
from exactly the same piece of data, for in chess we find this scenario often, as in
the Sicilian, will whites lead in development be better than blacks central pawn
majority and long term prospects for an advantageous ending. The killer in chess
as in science then is not the validity of the data, for it is constantly changing, nor the
ability to recognise the salient points, for both players are able to determine them,
but in being dogmatic in our thinking and evaluations.
Originally posted by black beetleman, how I love a good chess analogy 🙂
Shaw and Science are an ugly pair;
Each chessman, and both armies per se, are unalterable and subsistent, however their configuration is changing and unstable; meditation over objects (the configuration of the chessmen in specific poitions, partly and in whole) triggers states of dependently arisen affairs; in a state of affairs, the White and the Bl ...[text shortened]... independent of one another, nor not independent, nor both nor neither; the Royal Game is empty😵
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYes😵
It appears to me dear beetle that in essence, ( please correct me if I am wrong), is
that despite the fact that the chessmen are unalterable, and the variations which
ensue are volatile and constantly changing, a constant reappraisal and 'status
report', if you like, must be sought at every stage through interpretation based on
the salient fe ...[text shortened]... h players are able to determine them,
but in being dogmatic in our thinking and evaluations.