"Equal time for all alternatives" is a really bad suggestion for how to run a science class.
I agree. I was just pointing out that it's a dumb argument no matter who makes it.
I'm not going to get into the specifics, but I thought this comment was especially dumb:
If God has any influence on physical reality at all, then science is wrong, and the material world cannot be understood via purely naturalistic means.
If God has any influence on physical reality, then science is not wrong. There is no discovery yet found by science that would be invalidated if it were proven beyond doubt that there was a deity, and I can't think of any such discovery.
What science has done is disproven various specific claims. What religion has done in response, apart from the aforementioned minority that we'll get to in a moment, is stopped making claims that science can disprove. This is not a failure of religion, any more than "flip-flopping" (i.e. changing ones mind) is a failure of a politician. On the contrary, ability to evolve quickly is a strength, and the best chance of not becoming extinct.
I agree, but I think the minority is correct.
If someone takes the Bible ultra-literally, Christians call them "fundies". If someone tries to tell other Christians what to believe, Christians call them "cultists" or "sectarian".
I get no end of amusement out of the fact that some Atheists seem to be bigger Biblical literalists and more willing to tell Christians what they should believe than most Christians. It's been said that the term "fundamentalist Atheist" is a contradiction in terms. When I hear statements like this, I'm not so sure.
There is no difference between thing and phenomenon in this context [...]
If you're restricting yourself to "this context", then I agree with you. So would pretty much all scientists and pretty much all liberal theologians.
Gould's non-overlapping magisteria explanation of how religion and science do not conflict is BS.
It is not, though it is incomplete. The areas of human discovery which are not "science" are more properly referred to as "philosophy", and "religion" in this sense is one particular set of schools of philosophical thought. They're not the only ones, and they're not even necessarily the best.
As I noted in a previous thread, Evolutionary Psychology can, and does, examine the origins of morals and ethics. But regardless, there is no scientific controlled double-blind test that you can pose that will determine whether or not murder is wrong. It's an important question, but it's not a scientific one. It's a question that is within the grasp of human reason. Religion does not have a monopoly on it. But it's the sort of area where religion still operates successfully.
Science and religion will only conflict while there is a vocal minority on both sides (a smaller minority on the "science" side, I might add) who have a vested interest in maintaining a supposed conflict.
That's not to say they can't be studied that way. You can, after all, work out where the universal prohibition on murder came from. The field of "Evolutionary Psychology" is a thriving area these days.
But, regardless of where it came from, there is no scientific test that can determine whether or not murder is wrong. Science can't even begin to express questions that deal with "right" and "wrong", because these notions are not built into the material world. Same with notions of "justice", "the public interest" and so on.
Nonetheless, these are important questions, and that's where philosophy steps in.
So give me a question where the answer is found (and by "found", I don't mean "made up") through religion?
Sure.
There used to be an "argument" for the existence of God, the "Ontological Argument". The argument is obviously flawed, because it leads to absurdities. However, the precise reason why it's flawed is deeply subtle.
It was while investigating this argument that the scientist, philosopher, astronomer, astrologer, theologian and priest Pierre Gassendi (this was at a time in history when it was possible to be all of these at once) came up with the idea that existence is not a predicate.
This idea was one of the key steps in the development of mathematical logic. It was Gottlob Frege who eventually came up with the idea of "quantifiers" to express "existence", and now, the famous "for all" and "there exists" symbols that maths students know and love are commonplace.
Now I'm not saying that this discovery couldn't have been developed by someone else. However, the historical fact is that it was produced by a theologian as part of a theological argument.
Being a former logic programming theorist, this is probably the one example that I'm familiar with. I'm sure there are others, but they're outside my area of expertise.
Because religion has been responsible for discouraging and killing scientific thought and scientists from days gone by until this day. Christianity more than most, but all religions are equally culpable.
An essentially identical argument, from the other side, is that Atheists and "evolutionists" (whatever that means) have been responsible for killing more people worldwide than Christians, thanks to the likes of Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin.
Both arguments are wrong, and for the same reason.
Sounds closer to 'brainwashing' than 'fostering intellectual discussion' to me.
And there are those who argue that talking "evolution" without "equal time" for "alternatives" is also "brainwashing".
If it helps, that science and religion need not be in conflict is an empirical fact. All the evidence that you need is the thousands of scientists who are religious.
Not so empirical is the observation that to the extent that there's conflict between "science" and "religion", it's all due to a minority on both sides. On one side, there are a minority of religious people who have a problem with bits of science (e.g. evolution) without realising that science is fairly coherent, and you can't pick and choose like that. On the other side, and mostly in response, there are an extremely small number of strident Atheists like Richard Dawkins lobbing a smnall number of (admittedly, best-selling) books in the opposite direction.
And yes, I do think that those who have a problem with bits of science are in the minority. Your perspective can be skewed if you live in the US "Bible belt".
For the humour-impared, identifying a group as being "more likely to be cranks than not" is hardly the same as identifying "the problem". This, of course, does not invalidate any other reason why I might be a crank.
Science is based on the idea that all phenomena are explainable and endeavours to find explanations through observation, experimentation and the progressive incremental refinement of theories. Religion is based on the idea that some things are beyond explanation, and must be accepted as Mysteries by believers.
Even if you accept, for the sake of argument, that incorrect definition of religion, there's still no problem. You just have to remember that not all "things" are "phenomena". If it's a phenomenon, it's in the magisterium of science. If it's not, then it's in the magisterium of philosophy (of which religion is but one flavour).
The point is this: there has never -- never ever ever -- been a single thing that has been taken out of the science basket and put back in the god basket. Not one. Ever.
An equally important point is that there are some very important things that we know will never get put in the "science" basket. Science, for example, can tell us lots about what we can do, but it can never tell us what we should do, because "should"-type questions are simply not scientific questions.
How do you know that murder is wrong? Science can't even formulate that sort of "right and wrong" question. This is not to say that you need to go to the supernatural to answer it (this question is entirely within the grasp of human reason). My point is that not everything that's important is Science. To think otherwise is idolatry.
The very best non-theoretical computer science includes code. Indeed, as my postgrad supervisor used to tell me, if there's no code, it's not science because it's not reproducible.
As an aside, the open source project that continually impresses me the most is Haskell. Really, it's a meta-project for a lot of different projects, but a lot of which represents some of the latest and most impressive theoretical computer science actually made useful. Where else are you going to find category theory, some of the most abstract mathematics in existence, turned into working code?
One important thing not mentioned is that the openness of open source mirrors the openness of science and, to some extent, feed off each other. I've worked on many open source projects which are highly willing to quickly try out the results of a well-written computer science research paper. In that sense, while open source isn't the best of computer science, it lives in a symbiotic relationship with it.
Apache is, and has always been, an attempt to write the most robust, compliant implementation of the relevant RFCs. Speed is not an issue, and neither is fanciness.
Sure, just like airplanes were butchers shops when knives were allowed on planes prior to 9/11.
Have larger knives (e.g. hunting knives) ever been allowed on planes?
I'm glad that you've never met an unruly passenger, but I suspect you don't interact with most passengers on typical flights, like a flight attendant does. (Yes, the "one on every flight" remark was hyperbole.) Most difficult passengers just have bad attitudes, but there are plenty who get verbally abusive.
What people don't seem to get is that the presence of firearms escalates a tricky situation into a deadly one. I'd rather that not happen in a metal tube at 32,000 feet where I have no opportunity to escape.
I knew someone would reply to the last sentence and completely ignore the rest of it. In retrospect, I should have just left that last flippant comment out.
And it isn't just planes. Think about your local shopping mall. I'd just as soon not have to deal with 20 wannabe enforcers who can't shoot straight when they're under pressure.
Just so long as you don't arm cop-wannabe mall security guards. Really. You know what I mean.
Same applies to mass shootings by the way, if say one out of ten persons would carry a handgun at all times I don't see how a mass shooting could go very far.
Even if that were true, crime would just morph. Instead of mass shootings, there will be more school shootings, shootings in Amish communities, buildings blown up (a la Timothy McVeigh) and DC sniper clones. And more people would see it as a great way to commit suicide without having to bother to turn your own gun on yourself.
Besides, do you really think that the next schitzophrenic off their medication will pause and say "gee, gun ownership is at an all time high... I guess I won't go apeshit today"?
I know this subthread is in jest, but I feel like I should point this out anyway.
Anyone who has been on enough long-haul flights knows that emotions can run quite hot sometimes. My cousin used to be a flight attendant, and she told me that there's pretty much one on every flight. Usually, though, it doesn't boil over unless something goes wrong (e.g. flight is delayed).
If the ESR proposal on giving guns to passengers was ever actually tried, it wouldn't last more than a week. Yes, probably nobody would be killed, but someone would be seriously injured.
Actually, a lot of classical music snobs like progressive rock, including Radiohead.
But, as the follow-up said, pop isn't the problem per se. It's fair to say that I don't like Beyonce's music much, but I recognise that she's an extremely talented singer, and respect anyone who likes her stuff. Same goes for Christina. (We're on first name terms, you understand.)
But I digress, this isn't what we're really talking about. There is a certain kind of over-produced, dynamic-range-flattened pop, sometimes from people who really have no business stepping behind a microphone, that major labels seem to release a lot of these days. And that is probably the most recognised symptom of the underlying problem.
Don't get me wrong. Pop music, especially the stuff that lasts, is popular for a reason. But on the other hand, we all know that Britney would never have been let behind a microphone if talent was what labels looked for.
Now, most importantly: Where's the good indie pop music? Really, I want to know. I'm sure it must exist, but I haven't found it. (Unsurprising, since I haven't been looking for it!)
Slashdot Mirror
I agree. I was just pointing out that it's a dumb argument no matter who makes it.
I'm not going to get into the specifics, but I thought this comment was especially dumb:
If God has any influence on physical reality, then science is not wrong. There is no discovery yet found by science that would be invalidated if it were proven beyond doubt that there was a deity, and I can't think of any such discovery.
What science has done is disproven various specific claims. What religion has done in response, apart from the aforementioned minority that we'll get to in a moment, is stopped making claims that science can disprove. This is not a failure of religion, any more than "flip-flopping" (i.e. changing ones mind) is a failure of a politician. On the contrary, ability to evolve quickly is a strength, and the best chance of not becoming extinct.
If someone takes the Bible ultra-literally, Christians call them "fundies". If someone tries to tell other Christians what to believe, Christians call them "cultists" or "sectarian".
I get no end of amusement out of the fact that some Atheists seem to be bigger Biblical literalists and more willing to tell Christians what they should believe than most Christians. It's been said that the term "fundamentalist Atheist" is a contradiction in terms. When I hear statements like this, I'm not so sure.
If you're restricting yourself to "this context", then I agree with you. So would pretty much all scientists and pretty much all liberal theologians.
It is not, though it is incomplete. The areas of human discovery which are not "science" are more properly referred to as "philosophy", and "religion" in this sense is one particular set of schools of philosophical thought. They're not the only ones, and they're not even necessarily the best.
As I noted in a previous thread, Evolutionary Psychology can, and does, examine the origins of morals and ethics. But regardless, there is no scientific controlled double-blind test that you can pose that will determine whether or not murder is wrong. It's an important question, but it's not a scientific one. It's a question that is within the grasp of human reason. Religion does not have a monopoly on it. But it's the sort of area where religion still operates successfully.
Science and religion will only conflict while there is a vocal minority on both sides (a smaller minority on the "science" side, I might add) who have a vested interest in maintaining a supposed conflict.
I have in another thread, but since you asked...
"Morals" and "ethics" are not phenomena.
That's not to say they can't be studied that way. You can, after all, work out where the universal prohibition on murder came from. The field of "Evolutionary Psychology" is a thriving area these days.
But, regardless of where it came from, there is no scientific test that can determine whether or not murder is wrong. Science can't even begin to express questions that deal with "right" and "wrong", because these notions are not built into the material world. Same with notions of "justice", "the public interest" and so on.
Nonetheless, these are important questions, and that's where philosophy steps in.
Sure.
There used to be an "argument" for the existence of God, the "Ontological Argument". The argument is obviously flawed, because it leads to absurdities. However, the precise reason why it's flawed is deeply subtle.
It was while investigating this argument that the scientist, philosopher, astronomer, astrologer, theologian and priest Pierre Gassendi (this was at a time in history when it was possible to be all of these at once) came up with the idea that existence is not a predicate.
This idea was one of the key steps in the development of mathematical logic. It was Gottlob Frege who eventually came up with the idea of "quantifiers" to express "existence", and now, the famous "for all" and "there exists" symbols that maths students know and love are commonplace.
Now I'm not saying that this discovery couldn't have been developed by someone else. However, the historical fact is that it was produced by a theologian as part of a theological argument.
Being a former logic programming theorist, this is probably the one example that I'm familiar with. I'm sure there are others, but they're outside my area of expertise.
An essentially identical argument, from the other side, is that Atheists and "evolutionists" (whatever that means) have been responsible for killing more people worldwide than Christians, thanks to the likes of Hitler, Pol Pot and Stalin.
Both arguments are wrong, and for the same reason.
And there are those who argue that talking "evolution" without "equal time" for "alternatives" is also "brainwashing".
If it helps, that science and religion need not be in conflict is an empirical fact. All the evidence that you need is the thousands of scientists who are religious.
Not so empirical is the observation that to the extent that there's conflict between "science" and "religion", it's all due to a minority on both sides. On one side, there are a minority of religious people who have a problem with bits of science (e.g. evolution) without realising that science is fairly coherent, and you can't pick and choose like that. On the other side, and mostly in response, there are an extremely small number of strident Atheists like Richard Dawkins lobbing a smnall number of (admittedly, best-selling) books in the opposite direction.
And yes, I do think that those who have a problem with bits of science are in the minority. Your perspective can be skewed if you live in the US "Bible belt".
Most amusing, Sire.
For the humour-impared, identifying a group as being "more likely to be cranks than not" is hardly the same as identifying "the problem". This, of course, does not invalidate any other reason why I might be a crank.
Even if you accept, for the sake of argument, that incorrect definition of religion, there's still no problem. You just have to remember that not all "things" are "phenomena". If it's a phenomenon, it's in the magisterium of science. If it's not, then it's in the magisterium of philosophy (of which religion is but one flavour).
Helps? Perhaps. But science knows its limits. If it's not repeatable and testable, it's not something that science can answer.
Morality, for example, isn't science. If you don't believe me, come up with a controlled double-blind test to prove that murder is wrong.
Not that you need the supernatural to answer that particular question, but science won't cut it.
People who claim they know what "the problem" is are more likely to be cranks than not. I'm just sayin'.
Why only two baskets, and why those labels?
An equally important point is that there are some very important things that we know will never get put in the "science" basket. Science, for example, can tell us lots about what we can do, but it can never tell us what we should do, because "should"-type questions are simply not scientific questions.
How do you know that murder is wrong? Science can't even formulate that sort of "right and wrong" question. This is not to say that you need to go to the supernatural to answer it (this question is entirely within the grasp of human reason). My point is that not everything that's important is Science. To think otherwise is idolatry.
Precisely. Searching bags is a condition of entry, not a condition of exit.
That's also a good point: DVD didn't require you to upgrade your TV set. The high def formats effectively do.
The very best non-theoretical computer science includes code. Indeed, as my postgrad supervisor used to tell me, if there's no code, it's not science because it's not reproducible.
As an aside, the open source project that continually impresses me the most is Haskell. Really, it's a meta-project for a lot of different projects, but a lot of which represents some of the latest and most impressive theoretical computer science actually made useful. Where else are you going to find category theory, some of the most abstract mathematics in existence, turned into working code?
One important thing not mentioned is that the openness of open source mirrors the openness of science and, to some extent, feed off each other. I've worked on many open source projects which are highly willing to quickly try out the results of a well-written computer science research paper. In that sense, while open source isn't the best of computer science, it lives in a symbiotic relationship with it.
Apache is, and has always been, an attempt to write the most robust, compliant implementation of the relevant RFCs. Speed is not an issue, and neither is fanciness.
Bingo. This is (quite literally) an arms race, and nobody wins those.
Have larger knives (e.g. hunting knives) ever been allowed on planes?
I'm glad that you've never met an unruly passenger, but I suspect you don't interact with most passengers on typical flights, like a flight attendant does. (Yes, the "one on every flight" remark was hyperbole.) Most difficult passengers just have bad attitudes, but there are plenty who get verbally abusive.
What people don't seem to get is that the presence of firearms escalates a tricky situation into a deadly one. I'd rather that not happen in a metal tube at 32,000 feet where I have no opportunity to escape.
I knew someone would reply to the last sentence and completely ignore the rest of it. In retrospect, I should have just left that last flippant comment out.
No fair! You changed the outcome by observing it!
Just so long as you don't arm cop-wannabe mall security guards. Really. You know what I mean.
Even if that were true, crime would just morph. Instead of mass shootings, there will be more school shootings, shootings in Amish communities, buildings blown up (a la Timothy McVeigh) and DC sniper clones. And more people would see it as a great way to commit suicide without having to bother to turn your own gun on yourself.
Besides, do you really think that the next schitzophrenic off their medication will pause and say "gee, gun ownership is at an all time high... I guess I won't go apeshit today"?
I know this subthread is in jest, but I feel like I should point this out anyway.
Anyone who has been on enough long-haul flights knows that emotions can run quite hot sometimes. My cousin used to be a flight attendant, and she told me that there's pretty much one on every flight. Usually, though, it doesn't boil over unless something goes wrong (e.g. flight is delayed).
If the ESR proposal on giving guns to passengers was ever actually tried, it wouldn't last more than a week. Yes, probably nobody would be killed, but someone would be seriously injured.
Actually, a lot of classical music snobs like progressive rock, including Radiohead.
But, as the follow-up said, pop isn't the problem per se. It's fair to say that I don't like Beyonce's music much, but I recognise that she's an extremely talented singer, and respect anyone who likes her stuff. Same goes for Christina. (We're on first name terms, you understand.)
But I digress, this isn't what we're really talking about. There is a certain kind of over-produced, dynamic-range-flattened pop, sometimes from people who really have no business stepping behind a microphone, that major labels seem to release a lot of these days. And that is probably the most recognised symptom of the underlying problem.
Don't get me wrong. Pop music, especially the stuff that lasts, is popular for a reason. But on the other hand, we all know that Britney would never have been let behind a microphone if talent was what labels looked for.
Now, most importantly: Where's the good indie pop music? Really, I want to know. I'm sure it must exist, but I haven't found it. (Unsurprising, since I haven't been looking for it!)
Until he posts a dupe, he's not qualified.