I was thinking of the 40% number, although I do also remember that the number in the NAS was significantly lower. Still 7% is 7%, and 3.3% is 3.3%. They do exist, even in the highest echelons. Again, that's all I'm saying.
For instance, those who deal with biology and evolution and such tend to be far less religious, than, say, those who do metalurgy or whatnot.
Someone else responded with the exact opposite observation. I.e., the "hard" sciences tend to be less religious than biology. Not exactly relevant to the current discussion, but IIRC, he/she is right. (Never heard any numbers for metalurgy, however.)
Also, keep in mind that a lot of them don't like to rock the boat of their personal lives. Saying you don't believe in god is a good way to distance yourself from your family and or spouse -- so many either lie, or, more likely, just avoid thinking down that path a lot because it has no positive benefit.
No doubt true in some cases. Maybe many or even most. Speculation, of course. However, there are those who have thought hard about it and genuinely believe in God in some form or another. You can be a "real" scientist and religious.
Now that you mention it, that does ring a bell. I looked it up on Wikipedia and found that it was a Roman Catholic Priest Georges Lemaître. I do not believe he was a Creationist, however. Unless you're using that term very loosely.
Speakers should try to use their speech carefully to get across the point they're trying to get across. If what they say can be taken the wrong way, then they should change what they're saying in order to convey their message correctly. That's not censorship or "political correctness", it's just good speaking and/or good manners.
Listeners should try to give speakers the benefit of the doubt and not try to force their prejudices onto the speaker. Try to find the nugget of value in what is being said. That's what I would call good listening skills.
Although you can belong to "organized" religion and be religious, I feel it is the exception rather than the rule. When I say "religious", I'm referring primarily to your type of religion.
The only even remotely rational way that an intelligent person can believe in any kind of "god" is to understand science, and see some of the freaky stuff that we can't understand (ie: "if all matter is made up of sub-atomic particles, and those particles appear to move randomly, then is there such a thing as free will?"). I could see how a particle physicist or astrophysicist with a good understanding of science could say, "Shit, I guess maybe there could be something else out there pushing around these particles or making these black holes, etc.").
That was one of my early experiences in physics. I later diverged from that viewpoint, but I don't think it was a stupid viewpoint to hold.
And, when I say scientist, I meant Scientist. When I say Scientist, I don't necessarily mean everybody who works in a lab. I'm referring to the kind of person that things rationally, and scientifically about all kinds of things, whether they happen to actually study science or not.
Which doesn't disagree with my original statement. I'm referring to the kinds of thoughts you mention in the first paragraph. I've struggled with my faith a lot. I did not arrive at my current agnosticism lightly. (To stifle further argument on a semantic issue: when I say "agnosticism" it means not believing in God. Call it atheism if you like. I really don't care. Much.)
But, you do have to make some axioms before you can make any theorems. At some level, we all have things we believe in. Whether or not those faiths are "blind" is a matter of argument. Feel free to disagree, but I most likely won't respond as I've got a shockingly large number of replies to respond to for what I thought was a fairly benign statement. Additionally, I've had this argument enough to have a pretty good idea where it's going...;)
I thought the numbers I saw were higher, but that might be the difference between US and world scientists. Anyways, assuming your number is right, 20-25% is still a significant percentage. That's all I'm saying. You can be a "real" scientist and religious.
I can't remember the exact numbers, and it is less than the general population, but a rather significant percentage of scientists believe in God. I just thought I'd throw that out there.
To be fair, this cuts both ways (liberal and conservative). I frequently see comments that people assume are antagonistic and feel that the antagonism is in the ears of the, um, belistener.
As someone with a fairly good training in physics, I read this statement to be a commentary on Hawking's annoyance with the question of what came before "time" began. Many religious people have attempted to reconcile the Big Bang with Judeo-Christian beliefs by having God be responsible for the Big Bang. I think that such an allusion should not be taken as necessarily antagonistic.
I see no reduction in computer science work here at my university. The possibilities are increasing, not decreasing. One can bemoan the out-sourcing of American jobs, but that has nothing to do with the fact that computer science is not dead. Such a statement is as ridiculous as saying physics is dead.
Computer science is still a very vibrant research field.
Also, and perhaps most importantly, prior to use, it can be tested in an environment very similar to the one in which it will operate. For space probes - not so much. That's one reason why they are so very, very conservative.
There is a lot of CS work out there. But it's science work, not programming or product development. That's not CS, that's engineering or just programming.
Leaving aside the issue of whether there is plenty of programming or product development work still out there (I think there is), you're absolutely right. We might as well argue that physics is dead because there are so few jobs for physicists. The supply/demand ratio for physicists is quite high. However, that doesn't mean that there isn't plenty of good science left to do. (No talking about string theory here - too volatile a topic.)
Examples of very interesting areas in computer science, besides software development, compilers, networking, programming languages, graphics, and architecture include: quantum computing, neural networks, genetic algorithms, and genetic algorithms with neural networks. (Perhaps I'm wee bit biased here.) I guess to be fair I should also mention the tremendous growth in bioinformatics.
I'll accept that there are several legitimate scientists (and even climatologists) who dispute the degree of an effect humans are having on global warming. You've proven what I asked you to prove. I say this because I want you to realize that I know I've moved the goal-post here. It still seems to me, however, that (a) most scientists in climatology (or related fields) think that humans are the primary cause behind global warming, and (b) all scientists in climatology acknowledge that we are contributing at least somewhat to global warming.
I've seen so many fraudsters that I'm too quick to put others in that group that don't belong. You are correct that people who aren't technically climatologists can do excellent work in that field. Of course, many others take work by these people and try to make them say things they aren't saying. For example, one of those cited published work that questioned the validity of the "hockey stick" shape but basically agreed with the underlying premise that global warming was anthropogenic.
I really need to avoid these topics as, for whatever reason, I've too emotionally charged up by those who don't understand the basic science. I'm no ways near as bothered by those who don't understand the basic science behind evolution, by comparison.
You want a hundred million to set up the CDC, okay, but don't sit there and tell me with a straight face that we have to reinvent society because something as flimsy as the theory of evolution predicts the emergence of a superbug.
What, you mean like a bird flu virus that might possibly mutate into a version that could infect humans. Nah, no one would ever claim that.;) Of course, here we're being given specifics and not just generalities. There are still a lot of generalities behind the bird flu scare, however.
While "you probably aren't as smart as you think you are" is certainly but no means a "new" argument it's usually quite relevant.
I agree.;)
I attribute most willingness to believe in "Global Warming" as simply human hubris.
I disagree. I believe most willingness to not believe in it is simply not wanting to believe what is inconvenient to believe. Whether or not you believe in global warming, you have to admit that we've increased CO2 levels rather significantly (to 387 ppmv over historical trends between 180 (ice age) and 280 ppmv (last century)). No scientist that I'm aware of (climatologist or otherwise) disputes this. Anyways, I am guilty of over-estimating my intelligence from time to time, and I'm definitely overly emotionally involved in the issue, so I'm bowing out of the discussion.
Pat Michaels, for instance, has said (in a C'ville article) that humans are responsible, but that he thinks technology will automatically fix the problem. It seems to me that Lindzen says things that can be taken either way. I.e., he's deliberately vague. Maybe it's just me, though. You've taken the time and given me a lot, and I appreciate it. However, I've decided that I'm going to try to bow out of this debate. For whatever reason, I am too emotionally involved in it.
Now the question is how do we get out of the swamp?
Nuke it until it glows, and then use that light to guide us? Just a thought.
Seriously, the fact that I feel my blood pressure going up during these discussions is evidence that I'm not being entirely rational - whether or not I'm right. I try to avoid these discussions for just that reason, but then I have to wait on some simulation results and I think, oh, why not? (Of course, I could actually be writing up the results I already have...)
There is also little disagreement that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have risen from about 280 parts per million by volume in the 19th century to about 387 ppmv today. Finally, there has been no question whatever that carbon dioxide is an infrared absorber (i.e., a greenhouse gas--albeit a minor one), and its increase should theoretically contribute to warming.
Sure, he then proceeds to cloud this statement, too. However, he never disputes it outright. He always provides just enough doubt to allow you to think that he doesn't believe it - without actually saying so. For more on this technique, read the transcript of him on Larry King.
He does not say "primarily". Neither will he ever refute it. I recently watched him on Larry King and noticed this technique in action. If what he believes is true will upset the fossil-fuel companies, he deflects the question to something he is willing to say. Read the transcript. It's educational.
Slashdot Mirror
I was thinking of the 40% number, although I do also remember that the number in the NAS was significantly lower. Still 7% is 7%, and 3.3% is 3.3%. They do exist, even in the highest echelons. Again, that's all I'm saying.
Someone else responded with the exact opposite observation. I.e., the "hard" sciences tend to be less religious than biology. Not exactly relevant to the current discussion, but IIRC, he/she is right. (Never heard any numbers for metalurgy, however.)
No doubt true in some cases. Maybe many or even most. Speculation, of course. However, there are those who have thought hard about it and genuinely believe in God in some form or another. You can be a "real" scientist and religious.
Now that you mention it, that does ring a bell. I looked it up on Wikipedia and found that it was a Roman Catholic Priest Georges Lemaître. I do not believe he was a Creationist, however. Unless you're using that term very loosely.
Speakers should try to use their speech carefully to get across the point they're trying to get across. If what they say can be taken the wrong way, then they should change what they're saying in order to convey their message correctly. That's not censorship or "political correctness", it's just good speaking and/or good manners.
Listeners should try to give speakers the benefit of the doubt and not try to force their prejudices onto the speaker. Try to find the nugget of value in what is being said. That's what I would call good listening skills.
Although you can belong to "organized" religion and be religious, I feel it is the exception rather than the rule. When I say "religious", I'm referring primarily to your type of religion.
That was one of my early experiences in physics. I later diverged from that viewpoint, but I don't think it was a stupid viewpoint to hold.
Which doesn't disagree with my original statement. I'm referring to the kinds of thoughts you mention in the first paragraph. I've struggled with my faith a lot. I did not arrive at my current agnosticism lightly. (To stifle further argument on a semantic issue: when I say "agnosticism" it means not believing in God. Call it atheism if you like. I really don't care. Much.)
But, you do have to make some axioms before you can make any theorems. At some level, we all have things we believe in. Whether or not those faiths are "blind" is a matter of argument. Feel free to disagree, but I most likely won't respond as I've got a shockingly large number of replies to respond to for what I thought was a fairly benign statement. Additionally, I've had this argument enough to have a pretty good idea where it's going... ;)
I thought the numbers I saw were higher, but that might be the difference between US and world scientists. Anyways, assuming your number is right, 20-25% is still a significant percentage. That's all I'm saying. You can be a "real" scientist and religious.
Bravo!
I can't remember the exact numbers, and it is less than the general population, but a rather significant percentage of scientists believe in God. I just thought I'd throw that out there.
To be fair, this cuts both ways (liberal and conservative). I frequently see comments that people assume are antagonistic and feel that the antagonism is in the ears of the, um, belistener.
As someone with a fairly good training in physics, I read this statement to be a commentary on Hawking's annoyance with the question of what came before "time" began. Many religious people have attempted to reconcile the Big Bang with Judeo-Christian beliefs by having God be responsible for the Big Bang. I think that such an allusion should not be taken as necessarily antagonistic.
I see no reduction in computer science work here at my university. The possibilities are increasing, not decreasing. One can bemoan the out-sourcing of American jobs, but that has nothing to do with the fact that computer science is not dead. Such a statement is as ridiculous as saying physics is dead.
Computer science is still a very vibrant research field.
Also, and perhaps most importantly, prior to use, it can be tested in an environment very similar to the one in which it will operate. For space probes - not so much. That's one reason why they are so very, very conservative.
Leaving aside the issue of whether there is plenty of programming or product development work still out there (I think there is), you're absolutely right. We might as well argue that physics is dead because there are so few jobs for physicists. The supply/demand ratio for physicists is quite high. However, that doesn't mean that there isn't plenty of good science left to do. (No talking about string theory here - too volatile a topic.)
Examples of very interesting areas in computer science, besides software development, compilers, networking, programming languages, graphics, and architecture include: quantum computing, neural networks, genetic algorithms, and genetic algorithms with neural networks. (Perhaps I'm wee bit biased here.) I guess to be fair I should also mention the tremendous growth in bioinformatics.
I'll accept that there are several legitimate scientists (and even climatologists) who dispute the degree of an effect humans are having on global warming. You've proven what I asked you to prove. I say this because I want you to realize that I know I've moved the goal-post here. It still seems to me, however, that (a) most scientists in climatology (or related fields) think that humans are the primary cause behind global warming, and (b) all scientists in climatology acknowledge that we are contributing at least somewhat to global warming.
Again, I'm conceding the original point.
I've seen so many fraudsters that I'm too quick to put others in that group that don't belong. You are correct that people who aren't technically climatologists can do excellent work in that field. Of course, many others take work by these people and try to make them say things they aren't saying. For example, one of those cited published work that questioned the validity of the "hockey stick" shape but basically agreed with the underlying premise that global warming was anthropogenic.
I really need to avoid these topics as, for whatever reason, I've too emotionally charged up by those who don't understand the basic science. I'm no ways near as bothered by those who don't understand the basic science behind evolution, by comparison.
Pat Michaels, for instance, has said (in a C'ville article) that humans are responsible, but that he thinks technology will automatically fix the problem. It seems to me that Lindzen says things that can be taken either way. I.e., he's deliberately vague. Maybe it's just me, though. You've taken the time and given me a lot, and I appreciate it. However, I've decided that I'm going to try to bow out of this debate. For whatever reason, I am too emotionally involved in it.
Nuke it until it glows, and then use that light to guide us? Just a thought.
Seriously, the fact that I feel my blood pressure going up during these discussions is evidence that I'm not being entirely rational - whether or not I'm right. I try to avoid these discussions for just that reason, but then I have to wait on some simulation results and I think, oh, why not? (Of course, I could actually be writing up the results I already have...)
That's it. I'm outta here. Take over for me?
He always chooses his words carefully. Still, find an example where he disputes the claim that humans are primarily responsible.
He does not say "primarily". Neither will he ever refute it. I recently watched him on Larry King and noticed this technique in action. If what he believes is true will upset the fossil-fuel companies, he deflects the question to something he is willing to say. Read the transcript. It's educational.