Tomorrow's Science Heroes?

An anonymous reader writes "As a kid I was (and still am) heavily influenced by Carl Sagan, and a little later by Stephen Hawking. Now as I have started a family with two kids, currently age 5 and 2, I am wondering who out there is popularizing science. Currently, my wife and I can get the kids excited about the world around them, but I'd like to find someone inspiring from outside the family as they get older. Sure, we'll always have 'Cosmos,' but are there any contemporaries who are trying to bring science into the public view in such a fun and intriguing way? Someone the kids can look up to and be inspired by? Where is the next Science Hero?"

Comments

Mythbusters does it

[gurps_npc]

They teach the heart of the Scientific Method and show it as being FUN. Test the hypothesis - then retest it, just like Jaime and Adam do every episode.

Re:Mythbusters does it

[LBArrettAnderson]

Yes. Mythbusters is perfect! Teach them to jump to conclusions based on extremely small data sets and horribly designed/non-existent control objects.

Re:Mythbusters does it

[LBArrettAnderson]

(and don't get me wrong... I love mythbusters... it's just that "scientists" isn't how I'd describe them).

Re:Mythbusters does it

[TinBromide]

At least they GET data rather than just basing their opinions what they're fed. Honestly, when was the last time you did a thorough scientific experiment in your personal life? I think that personal science involves questioning the status quo, not accepting everything at face value, and figuring out how to answer your questions. Simply because your methods wouldn't stand up to rigorous testing doesn't mean that you can't use it to make good decisions. Ultimately I think that is the role of science in peoples lives, to answer questions and aid in decisions.

While I don't always agree with the mythbuster's methods, at least they don't sit around waiting for the talking heads to hand down the truth from on high. The scientific spirit of the program is strong if the flesh is sometimes weak.

P.S. Relying entirely on mythbusters for your science is just as bad as blindly believing the news (New study! Polyester socks triple your risk factor for big left toe cuticle cancer (from .000000003% to .000000009%) so avoid cotton/poly blends like the plague! (they also make you fat and are linked to male pattern baldness!!!)) /sarcasm

Re:Mythbusters does it

[hansamurai]

There's an XKCD for that:

http://xkcd.com/397/

Re:Mythbusters does it

[StoneDog]

I must disagree with this analysis. I have watched every episode, including out-takes and a lot of extra footage. They do indeed do controls and a large number of trials for their experiments. They constantly complain of the limits imposed by the 1-hour time requirements. It is clearly not lab work as it really exists, but as someone who has done real grinding work in the lab, I don't think that there is any better way of killing a love for science in little kids than trying to convince them that repeating an experiment 100 times is fun.

Ages 2 and 5 are a time for wonder and magic. It is not the time to wow them with the scientific method. It works better than any other way of knowing, but it is *not* sexy.

Re:Mythbusters does it

[wisty]

In Australian (specifically the state of Queensland) high schools, they like to teach kids to think "scientifically", and "design their own experiments", then write a 60 page report, plus a log book, and sometimes a poster. The kids just don't have the scientific maturity to design a correct experiment (i.e. statistically significant), but they do a bang-up job on the report. All neat, good grammar, pretty graphs and diagrams.

They don't enjoy it much (a 60 page report is honors thesis territory) and they aren't really learning any more science than if they watched Mythbusters, but at least they are able to generate a lot of paper for their teachers to mark.

A word of warning - never let education academics with no teaching or real world experience take control of the education system.

Re:Mythbusters does it

[mckinnsb]

At least they GET data rather than just basing their opinions what they're fed ... personal science involves questioning the status quo, not accepting everything at face value, and figuring out how to answer your questions. Simply because your methods wouldn't stand up to rigorous testing doesn't mean that you can't use it to make good decisions. Ultimately I think that is the role of science in peoples lives, to answer questions and aid in decisions ... While I don't always agree with the mythbuster's methods, at least they don't sit around waiting for the talking heads to hand down the truth from on high. The scientific spirit of the program is strong if the flesh is sometimes weak.

You have just accurately described the higher, philosophical purpose of science. Well done.

I feel you have also accurately summarized why MythBusters is so popular - it captures the scientific spirit without diluting it in rigor, while catering to an audience that is constantly seeking for its own answers and the associated reasons behind them. In a popular culture that provides fewer clear messages as information becomes more partisan, the individual reacts naturally in their own self interest by becoming more individual in the acquisition of their own information. MythBusters might be the lowest common denominator of this process among the 'technically minded', but how the hell are you going to accurately test 'if a playing card can actually kill a human being?'. Seriously.

Re:Mythbusters does it

[bigstrat2003]

I think you've horribly missed the point. The goal isn't to find a good way to teach kids science... get a textbook for that. The goal is to find a way to get kids interested in science, and Mythbusters can do that very nicely. Once their interest is captured, then teach them how it actually works.

Re:Richard Dawkins

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, there are a lot of people who don't have a problem combining religion and science... so I don't see how that part of your comment has anything to do with anything...

BILL BILL BILL

[sherl0k]

Bill Nye.

Re:Richard Dawkins

[grub]

You know, there are a lot of people who don't have a problem combining religion and science

and there are those who think.

.

Sorry, No.

[gbutler69]

Religion and Science are 100% incompatible. Religion = "I Believe", Science = "I can show/demonstrate/repeat". These two ways of looking at the world are not, and never will be, compatible. Those who "combine" the two really are saying, "I believe this or that, but, I can't completely ignore this incontrovertible evidence over here, but, for anything else, I'll just BELIEVE!" Horse-Puckey!

Re:Sorry, No.

[DNS-and-BIND]

It's really sad how ignorant of theology people are today. Sigh. I bet you can't even name the school of thought that you're advocating.

And unsurprising about the intolerance shown, too. Ignorance and bigotry go together like peanut butter and jelly.

Re:Sorry, No.

[fractoid]

Well... yes and no. One way in which religion and science can co-exist is if you believe in the god of the gaps. What can adequately be explained by your empirical model of the world is the domain of science and nature. Everything else, "a wizard did it". To our earliest ancestors, everything was supernatural because their understanding of nature was incredibly limited. To cavemen, fire was understood (to a degree) but thunder and lightning were the province of the gods. Today, most of our world is understood and thus strictly natural, but there are still things (what 'happens to us' after we die, for instance) that are in the hands of the gods. Maybe tomorrow, we will understand the human soul as a measurable, analysable entity, but we will see divinity in quantum uncertainty or something equally esoteric.

I believe what you're talking about with the "I believe this based on faith, therefore I won't accept evidence to the contrary" is doctrine rather than religion as a whole. And there, I agree with you.

Re:Sorry, No.

[tnok85]

Science is no more incompatible with say, Christianity, than Buddhism is with Judaism. Or cars are with submarines.

People are incompatible. There is no scientific proof (that I know of) that proves there is a god or that there is no god. There is no reason that I cannot believe in evolution and still believe in a god, or believe that we have souls.

Yes, it is a belief, it is not the proof/fact of evolution, it is STILL referred to as the Theory of Evolution. Not getting into that debate, even though a theory does have a lot of evidence, unless it's provable it's still a theory and it takes a belief system to have an infallible trust in something that is a theory. (Yes, some aspects of evolution are considered fact by the scientific community, but not the retarded monkey fish frog aspect)

I think the major incompatibilities come when trying to force a belief on somebody. It is no more right to force a theory as fact as it is right to force your god on me.

Frankly, I think it's our right to believe that the earth is flat, gravity is caused by invisible silly putty, and Slashdot is a place to get reliable and up to date unbiased news.

However, it is insulting to people when instead of just saying "I believe this", you say "I believe this so your belief is wrong" - which both sides of the debate do. Just let people be... you'll never change them.

Re:Sorry, No.

[Cyberax]

Your post is a great example of all theology.

I.e. a stupid masturbating around ideas which lost credibility hundred years ago mixed with ignorance and spiced with ad-hominems.

Pray tell me, what is a an error of a grandparent? Science and religion ARE incompatible. Science investigates the real world, while religion 'investigates' mostly itself - religion is not linked with reality.

Oh, of course a scientist can be religious. But this only shows that humans are perfectly capable to glance over contradictions.

Re:Sorry, No.

[riprjak]

BZZT. False. Science rests on the belief that order and rationality exist in the universe.

You got the order wrong... Science has nothing to do with faith. It is about choosing the absence of faith. It matters not how strong your faith in an ordered universe is if there exists data that it is not so; as soon as out hypothesis is falsified, we must analyse it with a view to discarding it, no matter how much we want it to be true. If you have faith in science then it has become as dangerous as every other crackpot dogma. Simply, a superior approach to explaining observations rationally to our existing scientific method has yet to be discovered, our current hypothesis remains sound.

Science is about being willing to be wrong (well, it used to be... these days it is about getting published in A journals, sadly). It is about suggesting other than absolutes, about being willing to discard opinions and hypothesis as soon as there exists evidence which falsifies them. The instant your hovering apple is observed, repeated and verified; then we must consider changing or completely discarding the currently accepted hypothesis; if we had faith in this hypothesis, we could not.

To be clear, I have no problem with people having belief's in areas where it is not feasible to prove or disprove or where a falsifiable hypothesis cannot be constructed; I *believe* that is their right and freedom. Belief is not science and vice versa, although they can overlap. Faith is different, it is mutually exclusive, it allows us to justify ignoring data to retain flawed judgements. Faith is where idiots with explosives strapped to them and creationists come from.

**start rant
It is one thing to personally believe in the existence of a god, it is another thing to have faith that an anthropocentric supreme being shat out the universe in a 6 day marathon and turned people into salt and gave immaculate birth to a magical resurrection fairy so strongly that no evidence of the human tendancy to make up stories and write them down and speak falsehoods to maintain power will dissuade you from it.

Faith is the most dangerous thing a human can have, because it involves blinding ourselves to other views and evidence.
**end rant

I don't have faith in an ordered universe, for all I know there may be a deranged supreme being fiddling with everything we do for their own jollies; but I cannot offer data which supports such a hypothesis nor form an exclusive null hypothesis. However, the hypothesis that the universe is amenable to observation and measurement is supported by reams of data showing repeatable results from controlled methodologies.

Of course, this doesn't consider retrocausality! :)

Just my $0.02.
err!
jak.

Re:Sorry, No.

[clarkkent09]

Can you elaborate why the GP is wrong, rather than engage in name calling? What he is essentially saying is that religion is all about blind faith in certain propositions (God exists, he created the universe, he created humans in his image etc etc) even in the face of complete absence of evidence, actually even in the face of very strong evidence contradicting those propositions (such as the evidence for evolution). On the other hand, science is about finding out about the world through scientific method (somewhat inaccurately summarized as show/demonstrate/repeat, but I get the point). Why is that a "dumb-ass comment" and why does it prevent any "dialog from happening"? It's a simple and obviously truthful statement and I am really curious why you, as well as couple of other posters, appear to be offended by it?

Re:Sorry, No.

[Darkness404]

Faith is simply believing something that can't be proven. Theres a -ton- of scientific fact that requires faith, especially for the beginning scientist. For example, the basis of uniformitarianism which is essential for the study of geology, can not be 100% proven. You can assume it is true based on the lack of evidence for catastrophicism. We rely on the fact that some things are stable and don't change for a ton of scientific measurements. If certain elements speed up or slow down their half life some of which may be thousands of years, entire systems of measurements may be destroyed. There is no way that you can be absolutely sure that every atom always decays at the same rate. You need faith for a good chunk of science in 2009, perhaps there will be a day where everything can be proven, but until that day comes (even though I highly doubt it will) you need some faith to believe science.

Re:Sorry, No.

[twostix]

I spent 18 years attending an evangelical church before figuring out all by myself that at best it's a complete corruption of the movement that the figure known as Jesus began, at worst just a slowly dying culture. I certainly was not alone though and thousands of people do it every day.

The stereotype that many "atheists" describe for quite a few religious people is correct. The sad thing is though in *them* (people such as the grandparent) I see exactly the same type of mindless, blathering, "*I* know the one truth and if you don't see it your crazy", HIGHLY ignorant, paint the opposition as evil whackos ranting and mindset that I used to see in the more fevered members of the church.

Different side of the same bent coin.

If they were born into the church they'd probably be the very people that they rant and rave about - the fanatics.

The rest of us, the moderate religious, agnostic and atheists just get on with it and don't particularly care for holy wars from anyone no matter what they believe or don't believe.

Re:Sorry, No.

[SQL Error]

Because at the root, science is based on faith.

Wrong.

Science has not provided a robust explanation for the origin of the universe.

But it doesn't claim that it has, and no faith is needed, because the Universe exists.

It cannot explain the four forces.

Explain? It certainly describes the four fources, very accurately. And no faith is needed, because the four forces exist.

It cannot explain time.

Again, what do you mean by "explain"? It certainly describes time, and its interrelation with space, in ways that religion never even guessed at. And no faith is needed, because time exists.

All of those are taken as given without explanation or identifiable cause.

What, are you asserting that the Universe, the four forces, and time don't exist?

For all that some people act smug about being enlightened and scientific, the fact of the matter is, their beliefs are as faith based as the beliefs of the unsophisticated religious types they are mocking.

Nope, sorry, wrong, wrong, completely and irredeemably wrong.

There is no faith involved at any point. There is a method. The scientific method, sometimes described as methodological naturalism. You don't have to believe in metaphsyical naturalism. You don't need to believe in science at all. You just need to follow the method, and you get results.

This is precisely the opposite of religion.

Re:Sorry, No.

[TerranFury]

You're atheist OR religious.

...or something else. :-)

Seriously, this gnostic-atheist vs. theist shitstorm is getting out of hand. Me, I'm more of a Theological noncognitivist or ignostic myself -- though even these labels are restrictive, since sometimes I play with panpsychist/pantheist/hylozoist ideas (albeit not seriously, since they make no testable predictions). Whatever, this post isn't supposed to be about me; the point is just that we're not stuck with a binary choice here.

Re:Sorry, No.

[AthanasiusKircher]

Indeed. And what about almost every major European "scientist" of the 16th and 17th centuries? Copernicus was a priest. Many of the major names you'll recognize from your high school science textbooks were either priests or affiliated with religious orders. Isaac Newton wrote pamphlets on the interpretation of the Bible and forecast that the world might end in the 20th century. My favorite example -- Johannes Kepler. His third law of planetary motion was accidentally discovered while he was searching for proof that the motions of the planets were in proportions that are the same as used in musical harmony. Yes -- Kepler was looking for musical intervals in the skies, and even after he found his law, he believed it was only an approximation. The "true order" was the musical intervals.

The point is that these scientists still made progress by collecting data, analyzing it, and doing experiments. It wasn't at all like modern science (despite our nostalgic idea of the "Scientific Revolution"), but their quest for truth in the physical world wasn't stopped by their religious (and often mystical or occult) beliefs.

Re:Sorry, No.

[Khashishi]

Einstein used "God" to make a expression, nothing more. According to your train of thinking, anyone who says "oh my god" is suffering from religion.

Re:Sorry, No.

[Khashishi]

It's people like you who put apologetics in a bad light. Einstein didn't believe in a personal god, and the case has been so clearly settled that there are only a few excuses for you to make this sort of error:

1. You are repeating what other apologetics have said without doing any due diligence to confirm that the statements were in any way accurate. This is a big problem, because religious folks pretty much listen to these authorities who don't really have any grounds for their veracity.
2. You are trying to deceive people.
3. You don't think critically. You somehow can completely dismiss any evidence against your case and cherry pick evidence for your case, no matter how large the imbalance of evidence. (e.g. evolution)

Re:Sorry, No.

[psnyder]

Religion and Science are 100% incompatible. Religion = "I Believe", Science = "I can show/demonstrate/repeat".

This is actually why religion and science ARE compatible.

The people that proclaim "Earth is 6000 yrs old" are the minority, but they are very loud, noticeable, and annoying while we generally don't here from the rest. To those people they're incompatible since they are intolerantly caught up in details of stories.

But believe it or not, most religious people (like the last 2 popes of the very conservative Catholic church for example) understand and accept things like evolution. For them religion answers 2 basic questions, "How did creation begin?" and "Is there a purpose for us being here?".

Either some form of existence has always been present, or existence started. In both cases, there is no cause. There is only the effect of existence. Either there is no cause for God, or there is no cause for the beginning of the Universe. You go back far enough and you always run into this 'uncaused cause' of existence.

To say that creation began because of God, or without a God is a BELIEF. The only way to think about creation without BELIEF, is to be agnostic, and simply say, 'I don't know'.

Mark Twain wrote: "Respect those who seek the truth, be wary of those who claim to have found it."

The root of atheism is a belief, like any religion. Like any religion atheism claims to know the answer to "How did creation begin?" and "Is there a purpose for us being here?".

Science is more of a controlled observation. We will never be able to observe evidence of a time when there was nothing, because there was nothing, no evidence. If we find the universe is eternally cyclical, we won't be able to answer how something always existed without a beginning.

Science asks about things we can observe. Religion asks about things we cannot possibly observe.

Science and this common thread of religion never overlap and do not need to coexist. They ask completely different questions.

Re:Sorry, No.

[skorch]

Why don't you disagree with what I wrote instead of your moronic interpretation of what I wrote?

You say that science "doesn't claim that it has" explained the origin of the universe. That is my exact point. Science and Religion are not "100% incompatible" as the source post of this sub-thread claims.

So your point is that science doesn't explain what it doesn't claim to explain, but that somehow this means that religion automatically does explain it? Citation needed.

The very bedrock of science is nothing but pure faith.

Wrong. The very bedrock of science is that in order for claims to be verifiable, they must be observable and repeatable under controlled conditions so as to eliminate any need for faith.

Science does not preclude this statement:

"In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."

Science makes no claims on this statement other than that beyond very poorly defined terms (define which god you mean here for a start, and what properties it embodies), that it does not have any testable properties that would allow us to verify or falsify the claim. Beyond that, you have the choice of either believing the statement based on faith alone, choosing not to believe the statement (as in, you neither believe the statement is true or false) due to lack of evidence, or choose to actively disbelieve the statement (as in, you believe the statement is false) presumably based on lack of evidence again. The scientific method in similar circumstances would generally take the second position unless new evidence arises that can be tested.

Additionally, the scientific method is also pure faith. The faith is that things are repeatable.

This is not faith. If one requires that a phenomenon be repeatable so that it can be observed under controlled conditions before accepting that it could exist or occur, is basically the opposite of faith. This is based on observations thus far that any occurrence in the natural world can be replicated under the right conditions. So of course, you can say that there are phenomenon that, by their very nature, only occur once in the entire universe, and then never repeat. Of course, this is nice speculation, and the claim by definition cannot be tested by science, but then again, if these phenomenon can only occur once without repetition, then they no longer have any bearing on our universe and thus exist outside of any practical application of intellectual persuit. Science is only interested in finding out about things that will have some application to our existence, and events that will never occur again and cannot be proven to ever have occurred before (this condition excludes the big bang) fall outside this category. It helps that so far we have not encountered anything (to the best of our knowledge) that would fall into this category, but I'm sure you'd dispute that point.

Anything that you just have to accept because you cannot apply the scientific method, is an exercise in faith.

Again, this is not faith. The application of the scientific method as a means to determining the fundamental nature of any known aspect of our natural universe has thus far, through countless observations, been demonstrated to be the single best method. This is after science got to questions that for centuries, philosophers, preachers, and mystics had claimed to have the answers to, but have long since been shown to be just flat out wrong about. So this belief is based on countless piles and piles of evidence, built on piles and piles of more evidence. The very fact that you are typing your post at all, and that I am able to see it are yet more testaments to the effectiveness of the scientific method.

When you wrote:

"And no faith is needed, because the four forces exist."

You may as

Re:Sorry, No.

[TiberSeptm]

He meant this in that his idea of God was so far from anything that cared about or interacted with humanity that it was less a god than it was the living Universe. When he says that it is not personal he means that it does not relate to people, nor interact with people directly and with intent, nor hold them in any more esteem than you hold the bacteria that line your intestine nor the individual cells of your skin.

In his mind, it is just as right to call a man who acknowledges this impersonal and distant creator an atheist as it would be to call a skin cell that acknowledged but did not worship the body atheist as well.

Re:Sorry, No.

[TiberSeptm]

? Science and religion ARE incompatible. Science investigates the real world, while religion 'investigates' mostly itself - religion is not linked with reality.

Perhaps you are confusing some of the definitions of compatibility with synergy because you have just pointed out one of the only ways religion and science can be compatible and claimed it as evidence of the opposite. The fact that they, at their core, are concerned with entirely different things is exactly why they can coexist harmoniously. It's just when religion tries to muscle in on the physical world that incompatibility comes about.

Re:Sorry, No.

[Anonymous Coward]

The irony of statements like this is that much of science starts as a hunch - a belief that something is true, which then gets tested.

The difference with religion is that it pretty much can't be tested. True scientific thought, though, does not consider that which cannot be proven as false. It is simply unknown, a question mark in the answer book. Science only acknowledges what it can prove is either true or false.

The silly part about these arguments is that it is based on the very un-scientific belief that religion is the cause of many of our problems. Sorry, but Darwin will tell you that life without religion is not all peace and harmony. Conflict over resources, leading to violence and death, are a simple fact of life even for creatures that don't regularly attend church. In this respect, religion just acts as an easy way for aggressors to get the populace to do things which are morally wrong in order to expand a group or country's resources. However, when you stop looking at just the ways in which religion causes harm, and explore more deeply the impact of religion, you will realize that a great many people in today's world were taught some degree of their morality from the church. There are a lot of hypocrites out there, to be sure, but the truly religious take to heart lessons like the good samaritan, or "he who hast not sinned, cast the first stone", or any of a number of other valuable lessons in how to be a good person.

I think any fair-minded person can see that religion and science both have a light and a dark side to them. One has been a justification for wars and oppression but also taught morals to innumerable children (some of whom actually apply them!) and been the inspiration for people like Mother Teresa. The other has enabled us to cross great distances and eradicate diseases, but also to eradicate entire cities in one blast. And how 'scientific' were the men of science who crafted the Titanic when they said it was unsinkable?

A true scientist would realize the complexity of the world we live in, and strive to understand it in all its complexity, not rush to judge others and point the finger at religion for all the world's ills. After all, everyone knows that all the world's ills come from greed! :P

Re:Sorry, No.

[bronney]

dude did you even read your parent? Whatever you called "faith" in science is, it's NOT! It's hypothesis and the difference is, if somebody found a hovering apple and it's repeatable, or falsifiable, your "faith" in gravity and or relativity CAN be discarded. Hence, science isn't based on faith.
.
Religion is real faith, because Adam ate the apple. It's not hypothesis, it's absolute faith. Nobody saw him eat it and it's not repeatable or falsifiable. Jesus resurrected. Same deal. Absolute, unchangeable, and we won't lose our Easter holidays! Get it?

Re:Sorry, No.

[MikShapi]

You're spot-on.

The scientific method has a track record of weeding out wrong statements based on ever-accumulating evidence.

When did you ever see religion go back on its core beliefs and admit that it was wrong all along?
Something big, say, "Oops, we were wrong. There is no god".

Science and religion are two approaches, one claiming everything is up for criticism, the other not. They therefore cannot be bridged by anything short of thick hypocricy.

But hey, if it makes you feel better and you don't hurt anyone doing it, power be to you.

We all need something to believe in, and much like people get the services of a hooker if they can't get laid yet really want sex (and we consider that to be socially acceptable), there's dang little wrong with subscribing to institutionalized belief - which is what religion boils down to - (where they tell you what to believe in and what actions to do in order to be considered "believing") if you're too incompetent to figure out a personal belief system and a code to live by.

Douglas Adams wasn't far off. We're too lazy to believe, so we hire an electronic monk? Not far-removed from the truth. In real world terms, we're too lazy to figure out what we believe in, so we hire a not-so-electronic religious men to point us in the right way.

And just to be clear, belief is not limited to god. It can be in values, in relative objectivity, in pragmatism, in "human spirit", in unstoppable can-do-attitude, in nothing meaning anything, in chaos, in chance and in a hell of other things. God has no monopoly on the word "belief".

Further, religions are not the only institutionalized beliefs around. Some anti-religious movements, as well as many movements who busy themselves with things other than religion altogether institutionalize belief equally well. These could range from Coca-cola advertisements to socially acceptable behavior, ethnic stereotypes or natinalistic brainwashing spiel.

Re:Sorry, No.

[Cyberax]

"A great deal of science and many scientists engage in unfounded theorising and even many "heros" (wtf) of science hold ridiculous unfounded theories on the mechanics and purpose of life and the universe that are so far removed from the "real world" one could only call them immature religious ideas."

So? Humans are not infallible, they can hold several conflicting ideas perfectly fine.

Science method itself, however, works just fine even though humans can be corrupted. That's because science has an anchor in the real world, which can't be made to 'lie'.

Religion is a thing in itself:
"The Earth was created in six days". - God

There's no way to check if this is true, no way to know how it was done, no way to make sure that this passage was not inserted as a joke by a scribe writing his master's words. No nothing, you just have to accept it.

You might try to rationalize it by saying that 'day' is a metaphor, that it is a 'Galactic Day', etc. But that's exactly the intellectual masturbating I wrote about - it gives us no new answers at all.

And don't get me started on 'morality' in religion and 'the other questions'.

Re:Sorry, No.

[Aceticon]

There is no way that you can be absolutely sure that every atom always decays at the same rate. You need faith for a good chunk of science in 2009.

And yet, if somebody showed that the speed of decay changed over time and that observation could be repeated, then the whole building of knowledge done on top of it would shift and change to adjust to the discovery that a basic law of physics is actually not what we thought.

That's the core difference between Science and Religion - in Religion, faith is supposed to absolute and unshakable, no proof required, no falsifying possible. In Science there is no faith - at best you have a "I'll go with this until it's proven wrong" posture - a mental artifact of which, in some people's minds, could be confused with "faith". (If you're approaching any Scientific theory, no matter how basic in a faith-like way, you're doing it wrong)

As with everything, in Science to do any work you have to assume (until proven otherwise) that some basic laws are as we think they are. If you start challenging everything all the time then you end up in the domain of Philosophy (the father of Science) where you ultimately challenge that reality is as we perceive, down to challenging one's own existence.
[Reality as we perceive is something we believe are aware of through our senses. However, it's perfectly possible that "true" reality is something like the Matrix (we all live in an illusion) or even further, that nothing is as we perceive it and we ourselves are but a dream of an unfathomable alien conscience. Consider that there hasn't been much "work done" in solving that specific question since "Cogito ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am", Descartes, 17th century)]

Re:Sorry, No.

[FreshnFurter]

That Einstein did not believe in quantum mechanics is far fetched. This is the guy who invented the photo electric effect. He was well aware of the quantum nature of the electron orbits. What he doubted was the Kopenhagen interpretation. This (in a few very crude words) says that there is no way to observe the underlying truth and that we should stick to observables only. The Einstein Podolsky Rosen paper takes this logic to an extreme and comes out at the "spooky" interaction at distance. Note that everything stays within the boundaries dictated by the relativity theory in that not all information can be exchanged over the distance instantaneous but that part of the information already needs to have traveled the distance (the other half of the entangled pair),

The beauty is that he did not need to let his belief system dictate the logic of the argument. It might be that at the time his conclusions were wrong as the result he obtained was contrary to the experience he had up till now.

Re:Meteorologists

[100_Monkeys_Typing]

Sorta makes me sad that Carl Sagan isn't around anymore and apparently no one noticed. Some pop star kicks the bucket and the world comes to a grinding halt. :(

Re:Tyson

[Anonymous Coward]

Michio Kaku, physics professor, public speaker, writer and very entertaining to watch. I picked up his book, Hyperspace, while I was still in high school and later saw him a few times on Tech TV's Big Thinkers before G4 killed the network.

Re:Tyson

[WillyWanker]

I'd go with Neil too. While not as nerdy as previous generations' "science guys", he really does have a passion for science and seems genuinely interested in spreading the love.

And Nova Science Now is a great show for the kids.

5 and 2 years old?

[Clover_Kicker]

How about Elmo and Curious George?

You've got years before they give a rat's ass about Cosmos or David Attenborough wildlife documentaries. It's OK, they're little kids.

Re:5 and 2 years old?

[Kozz]

Hey, if you're going to take the PBS Kids approach, then you ought to be suggesting Sid the Science Kid.

Re:Sorry, Yes

[nicholdraper]

Maybe the religions you have been introduced to are incompatible with science. But, there is a lot of science that cannot be shown/demonstraited/repeated. Do you not know of the heisenberg uncertainty principle. Do you not know that many scientific discoveries were postulates before they could be proven? What about all the postulates that are proven wrong? What about the particle theory of light and the wave theory of light, should you not study them, because one theory seems to contradict another? Many people believe in religion as what it is claimed, faith is not something you can prove, but I believe that being kind to fellow human beings will bring me a reward, am I deluded? Possibly, but isn't it worth testing the theory out during my short life-time. If it is a theory that proves to be false, I still believe that for the space of my human life that I will be better off. Do you refuse to use the equations for Newtonian Physics because they are only valid for objects around the mass of things we use everyday and not for very small or very large objects? So, you still maintain that there is not reason to follow religious beliefs because God hasn't knocked on your door? The golden rule do unto others as you would have done to you is bogus because your limited knowledge of religion cannot be met? Yes you are better off without religion and without science, because, you don't believe in science, you only believe in known science. You're not much better than the people who wouldn't believe the world was a sphere because you couldn't see the whole of it in your day. I am very religious, I see no conflict between religion and the theory of evolution, Darwin was a Monk and prayed every day, how do you think he was able to get past the limited scientific views of his day and propose a theory that has since had so many proof? If I didn't believe in God, I wouldn't feel so strongly that we can successfully clone humans, full or parts to solve some of the defects in our physical bodies. Does that shock you that religious people not only believe in science, but that religion encourages that belief? I went to a religious university, the professors there said God wants us to learn these things, that is why we are here.

Say NO to celebrity science

[Kohath]

Science should be practical. It's good when it helps people. Any individual scientist who has done science to help people is worth looking up to. That also goes for anyone else of any profession.

You're asking for celebrities. Celebrities are not famous for helping people, they're famous for appearing on TV. Do you really think it's wise to teach your kids to look up to whoever the TV producers want to put on TV? Are TV producers wise?

Why not teach them to value practical virtue rather than vanity?

Re:Say NO to celebrity science

[arb phd slp]

Ah, the American Protestant/Puritan practical virtue ethic!

"Famous" isn't the same as "celebrity". People can be famous for good reasons, not just frivolous ones.

And I agree that any individual scientist who does good work is worth looking up to, but if we never hear about them, how do we do that?

You know what kids do hear about? Athletes. And Paris Hilton. If we don't exalt scientists as being valued, those values don't get transmitted to the next generation. We were in the process of reimporting that value from India before the flow of visas dried up after 9-11.

Re:LOL Carl Sagan....scientist? not

[joocemann]

... the creator of what? If you demand Carl use science, you do the same. Let me guess, I'll have to place faith in repeated memes instead...

I'll bank on evidence and hold to theories backed by substantial evidence.

Re:LOL Carl Sagan....scientist? not

[TinBromide]

I don't think the submitter was asking for a Sunday school answers to a request for science instruction. While it is perfectly acceptable to use God to fill the holes in knowledge for the time being (if a society must because it has a sever phobia of areas of uncertainty and doubt), it is not acceptable for a society to refuse to acknowledge scientific findings, or refuse the future possibility of what science may find simply because it has already answered that particular question with the stock "The Creator did it."

Its a matter of preference...

[damn_registrars]

Each science has its own heroes in the current day. If you really want to establish a science hero for your kids, choose which science you want to teach them about first. Much as Einstein isn't a great hero to evolutionary biologists, Darwin isn't a great hero to modern physicists. You could, of course, try to cover a wide variety of scientific disciplines (and their respective heroes) in a short amount of time, but you would probably do better to start with more approachable subjects and bring up the heroes of those.

Re:Richard Dawkins

[clarkkent09]

Not very many scientists are religious: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm Those that are do have a problem, they just choose to ignore it.

Re:Smirking Pluto Killer - Not My Favorite

[spire3661]

Ignorance is bliss? He was dead on about Pluto, people got all emotional about a LARGE HUNK OF ICE. Would you rather scientists just ignore stuff like that and play up to popular opinion? He was smirking because he knows how stupid the 'debate' is. I liked it even better when he kind of put what Branson does into perspective and how the two of them really arent relational in anyway. LEO is a joke compared to what Tyson thinks about in terms of space travel. Im not disparaging Sir Richard Branson or the work he does in ANY WAY, but it was a good perspective.

Sagan != science hero

[myowntrueself]

Sagan used to be my science hero, when I was a kid and I watched a regular show of his on TV.

Then one show I was watching there was some topic about visits from extraterrestrials, interstellar travel etc.

Carl came out and said "There is no possibility of visits from other worlds. The distances involved are so great that it would take thousands of years for them to get to our solar system."

My jaw dropped at that statement. Up to that point I had thought he was an imaginative and intelligent guy.

Evidently he could not conceive of alien beings for whom thousands of years was a very short time and who could even make such a journey 'just for the hell of it'.

For him this was completely impossible, inconceivable.

Thats pretty sad for a guy with his reputation.

Re:Sagan != science hero

[Relic of the Future]

...and they came all this way and didn't even say hello?

Because that's the part he refused to believe; that UFOs are full of little green men who enjoy slicing up cows and sticking thermometers up lonely farmers rears, but won't so much as say hello to anyone who's credible. He's sure they're out THERE. But if they'd bothered to come HERE, surely they'd let us know. But they haven't done so, so they haven't been here. They didn't build the pyramids, they didn't crash in Roswell, and they didn't put any faces on Mars.

Re:Sagan != science hero

[bersl2]

I'm listening to the portion I think you're talking about. If I am, then you as a child did not pick up the nuances of what he was saying.

What he said was this:

• On the one hand, we have reason to believe that there are other "technical civilizations" living in this galaxy right this very second, and probably a very large number of them.
• On the other hand, we have no credible evidence that they have visited (or even contacted) our civilization on Earth.
• Nevertheless, it's feasible that they could have visited the Earth during the time of Humanity. How can we explain this apparent contradiction?
  • Maybe we are the first technical civilization.
  • Or, perhaps all such civilizations are practically doomed to self-destruction.
  • Maybe something we have not yet experienced renders interstellar travel impossible.
  • Or maybe they are already here but are unnoticed by humans.
  • "But there's another explanation that is consistent with everything else we know, and that's that it's a big cosmos." The only things that would indicate our presence to them are our radio, TV, and other broadcasts; but these have not yet even reached a distance where it is likely that another civilization has hear them! "From their point of view, all nearby planetary systems might seem equally attractive for exploration." It's simply a matter of infinitesimal probability.

So you see, he did not say that it is impossible; that was a product of your own mind.

Carl Sagan was not a mere science hero; he was a science super-hero.

Re:Sorry, Yes

[Chris Kamel]

The main difference between science and religion is not that one is true and the other is false. It's that one is falsifiable and the other is not.

think younger

[v1]

I got the privilege of appearing on stage with Mr Wizard way back in gradeschool. Now there's someone that will be missed. He got us hooked on science in like 4th grade. That's what we need, not more people to fascinate us in college, we need to build interest in science in our youth much much earlier.

RIP Don Herbert

Re:think younger

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

The Mythbusters may not always be rigorous about operating in a controlled environment, with a well-designed experiment ... but they certainly can get children interested in science and mathematics.

Actually, xkcd sums it up pretty well.

Are All The Moderators Blind?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow - amazing. GGP states a view "Science and religion are incompatible." Perhaps you agree, perhaps you disagree, but it is at least something we can all discuss - it gets moderated flamebait. GP calls it ignorant, attacks the poster as an intolerant bigot, and offers no substantial rebuttal to the argument - THAT gets moderated "Insightful". Parent calls attention to GP's lack of a real argument by using equally sweeping generalizations (for effect, I thought), then provides more substantial points (religion investigates mostly itself, scientists can be religious) that could be debated, and THAT gets moderated "Flamebait." The only post in the chain that provides no actual argument is the only one moderated as "Insightful" . Hey, if you don't agree, put down the moderator hat and post a rational argument.

We can all agree or disagree with the statement that science and religion are incompatible - personally, I agree, because at least for the religious people I know, to be religious is to decide not to shine the same spotlight on one part of your life that you would shine on all of the rest - the light of falsifiability. Most religious people are unwilling to consider anything as capable of falsifying their beliefs. This is an inconsistency - why are these ideas separate and unsuitable for such scrutiny? I suppose this will be modded down as flamebait, too, but if the GP is "insightful", I'd rather be flamebait.

Re:Sorry, Yes

[Animaether]

"God wants us to learn these things, that is why we are here"
If only more people believed in that same God.. or at least that said same God wants these same things, there'd be a whole lot less problems.

However, I take issue even with that statement, due to the second half. It seems like it is meant to be an answer to the question "Why are we here?"

To illustrate why I take issue with that.. I saw a cute little German book about gemstones earlier today. I opened it up somewhere in the middle, only to find references to where the gemstone is mentioned in the bible and whatnot (something about 12 breastplate stones? my memory of The Bible is entirely too vague to recall the details). So I flipped to the first page of text and it had this question and answer (from iffy memory from a translation from German):

Q. Why do gemstones exist?
A. God put them on the Earth for mankind to admire them.

That answer seemed silly to me (I'm agnostic-ish) at first... it doesn't answer the question of why they exist, it answers the question 'why did God put them on Earth', which wasn't asked. But then I realized that I wouldn't ever ask the original question anyway. I would ask what gemstones are made of, how they are formed, chemical composition, color ranges, any special characteristics (asterism? chatoyance?) etc. and simply admire the photos in the book taking them for what they are.. pretty sparklies. I wouldn't ask -why- a gemstone exists any more than I would ask why a grain of sand exists.

Similarly, no scientist would ask -why- we are here any more than -why- a gemstone exists; that's material best left to philosophers and, indeed, theologians.

When you say that "there is a lot of science that cannot be shown/demonstrated/repeated", you're not really talking about science - although there are certainly elements that we can't just 'show' (such as stating that a certain star contains much iron though we're not able to just scoop some up and show you), we can certainly scientifically infer them with high probability (spectral lines etc.) and more plausibility ("'cos God made it so").
Now if you move into the realm of where scientists say "we don't know (yet)", that's where you can certainly have room for "God did it"-type arguments. I'm not a big fan of those, but quite likely there's no way that we'll ever determine what caused the Big Bang event and saying "God did it" makes perfectly good sense to me - though it certainly doesn't mean I think we shouldn't try and figure it out anyway... which is where I'm glad your University taught you "God wants us to learn these things", even if I disagree with the second half.

Alton Brown

[grasshoppa]

Seriously. His show good eats does a wonderful job of investigating the science behind the food. He does so in such a way that makes you want to know more, which renders his detractor's accuracy claims moot. His show has helped me inspire my 5 year old daughter to question how things work the way they do. What better hero could you ask for?

Bad moderation? You're soaking in it!

[Anonymous Coward]

This is exactly the kind of a dumb-ass comment that prevents a dialog from happening. I suggest that you start by re-reading all Dawkins just to make sure that he never says anything even remotely resembling your... I can only describe it as a cognitive equivalent of a premature ejaculation.

This is moderated Interesting? This isn't any better than the parent it derides! In fact, I might try to argue against the original post by providing examples of where science appears to be little more than faith, or perhaps where religion can demonstrate something. I can't do anything with the ad-hominem attack of "dumb-ass comment" and "cognitive equivalent of a premature ejaculation." That's more like "Troll" or "Flamebait" than it is "Interesting". If you really wanted to have a dialog, you sure didn't take the opportunity.

Re:Tyson

[FMZ]

Funny you should mention Alton Brown, as much as I love him, at first I thought this would be the last article I'd expect to hear about him in. But then I thought about it, and you're quite right. He has done for "food science" what Sagan did for astronomy, and what Bill Nye did for basic science with kids. He shows that it's not all just magic... there is science behind it. And not just any science, but fun, TASTY science.

Yes, I think you're quite right. Alton Brown is definitely one of my science heros.

Re:Good luck with that

[Zarlan]

Today's kids are being taught that feelings are more important than logic, that 'social justice' is more important than the actual kind, that there's no difference between winning and losing, and that causality is just a conceit of the rich. They'll grow up and become government housing administrators, or city employees, or socialized/unionized construction workers. They'll grow up with a hatred of science, of objectivity, and of individuality, it will all be replaced by compassion, empathy and team spirit.

Sorry for your loss.

That is the complaint of every generation to the succeeding. I am growing up now, one of today's kids as you call us. Of my friends from high school, most of them are studying hard sciences. I go to a small liberal arts college and we have a larger grant for our sciences and more people interested in those subjects than any other department in the school. I don't see my peers growing up to be any of the things you mentioned. Just sayin'.

Re:I assure you God is real, Jesus is Lord! I know

[Cassius Corodes]

I don't understand the thinking behind several parts of your last paragraph - but I am deeply interested in why you think they are so:

- If god is omnipotent / all powerful etc - why do you need to tell others about him? Can he not do this himself if he felt it was the thing to do?
- If god is generous rewarding etc. - why is there evil in the world>=? Why does he allow situations to occur that turn good people into bad people? (trauma, post-traumatic stress etc.)
- Why heaven - why not just make the real world nice.
- Why do you believe you know the mind of god? (sorry if I read that wrong - but from your post you seem convinced you do). You may believe that god cannot be mistaken - but do you believe that you cannot be mistaken for thinking you know his mind?

I am deeply interested in hearing what you have to say on this.

Re:Good luck with that

[Eli Gottlieb]

Lemme guess, There Is No Alternative to right-wing objectivism? Because everyone should be Rugged Individualists Working for Science for Profit so that the Free Market might Solve All Problems. Actually attempting to care about others makes us Dirty Pinko Commies.

Re:Sorry, Yes

[dfenstrate]

If you are looking for a science model for your children, find someone who as managed to integrate their belief in God with science.

Here's my ultra-short version:

1)The Bible uses parables to instill useful values. It is largely NOT literal. Children and simple adults believe it literally because they lack the capacity to grasp the deeper lessons present. This is okay, because the alternative methods of instilling the same useful values to a wide variety of people have no solid track record.

2) God created everything. Science helps us discover the method He used to do so. If God created all of existence, He created the physical laws governing existence, and we discover those laws with science

Re:Richard Dawkins

[Bearhouse]

Perhaps (I hope) the parent meant reconciling rather than 'combining'. Combining or mixing science with religion has often produced - for centuries - very scary results. But many eminent scientists have managed to reconcile their faith with their job. Einstein, for example. I sure you'd agree that he was capable of 'thought'...

Re:Richard Dawkins

[williamhb]

and there are those who think.

Only on Slashdot would a cheap sarcastic insult be modded "+5 insightful" just because it happens to insult people Slashdot doesn't like. Slashdot has turned into a Skinner box, with a bunch of posters mindlessly pecking the "insult religion" button because they get a nice juicy "+5 insightful" seed for their efforts so much more easily that way than through expressing any genuine thought of their own. Group-think from a group who, to top it all off, think they are "freethinkers" for toeing the party line. (And yes, I have karma to burn.)

Re:Richard Dawkins

[testadicazzo]

How long has science been the major influencing power?

What does that matter? For the dominant part of human history we've been short-sighted, slave-trading, murdering intolerant bastards. I'm of the opinion that science has mitigated that behavior and religion exacerbated it. It's not coincidence that even religions which teach peace and tolerance get abused to goad people into commiting genocide and murder. As the most salient contemporary example, Jesus was a total hippy pacifist, but the christians have been some intolerant murdering mofos, even to minority Christian sects.

The reason this is no coincidence is because religion has essentially the opposite paradigm from science. The fundamental principle of science is to ignore your preconceptions and make conclusions based on the evidence. The fundamental principle of religion is faith: ignore the evidence and believe what the book or the scary old bearded dude or whatever tell you is the truth. Faith teaches people not to think for themselves. Practicing faith is the same as practicing ignoring evidence. It's anti-scientific. Religion tells you not to worry about open questions, that's God's domain. Science teaches you that the open questions are the interesting and productive bits. Religion also teaches in-group out-group mentality. It allows for the thought that "God is on our side", or "We are god's chosen people", or that those dark skinned guys are the sons of Ham, and therefore meant (by GOD!) to be slaves.

Your comment that religion has a been a major influence for a long time is totally unimportant. A far more important question is has it been a positive influence? If so, does it continue to be a positive influence? If science and religion are antithetic, which is more beneficial? For example, if you are seriously ill, would you rather be treated by a doctor trained in modern medicine and the scientific method, or a priest? or a mullah? or a rabbi? or a witch doctor?.

Getting back to the original topic, I think Dawkins is an excellent popular scientist. His anti-religion stance stems fundamentally from a love of science, a deep love and respect for the beauty and power of the scientific method, and love of truth and the glory and beauty of nature. It really shines out in his discussions. We can have tremendous love and respect for the universe and the world around us without imposing a silly and incomplete mythos on it.

bertoelcon's stupid and poorly thought out comments aside, it is possible to be intelligent and religious. Donald Knuth is probably my favorite example, but note that he's a mathematician, not a scientist. I think it's an important distinction. There have, and surely are now people who benefit from having an external faith mechanism. But I think they would benefit more from a more truth based approach to life. A personal faith or philosophy that allows them to seek truth, while being content whatever is, is.

We have evolved genetically, sociologically, politically and in terms of religion. We went from believing in lots of gods to believing in a few gods, to believing in one god (well one god with a trinity, and/or prophet, and/or saints which are kinda demigods, or one god who is many gods if you're a hindu...). I think a very reasonable next step is to advance to believing in no gods.

Continuing in the vein of non-physicist scientists who are inspirational, I propose Jane Goodall. Check out her TED talk, it's fantastic.

Re:Sorry, Yes

[jollyreaper]

The main difference between science and religion is not that one is true and the other is false. It's that one is falsifiable and the other is not.

To put it more bluntly, when the scientist tells you water is hydrogen and oxygen and you say "prove it," there's an experiment to do just that. And for as many claims that science makes that you ask for proof of, it will be provided, until you're absolutely sick of it. There's a great book called a Short History of Nearly Everything that takes the great claims of science you learn in school and walks you back to how they were discovered and who did the work.

The priest shows you bread and wine and tells you it's the body and blood of christ and you ask him to prove it, you get your ears boxed and sent to the nuns.

Re:Kaku's a barking moron

[Anonymous Coward]

According to wikipedia he developed some kind of paranoia against anything nuclear in his student days, during the vietnam era, as a result of hearing various college radio programs. Also he is ethnically Japanese which could account for a neurosis towards nuclear weaponry. Scientists are human, like everyone else, and usually have at least as many irrational anxieties as the average man. Newton was into alchemy. Everyone is a little crazy. Give the guy a break.