This may be true, but what about the scientific method? I thought that was pretty well defined and there was a good consensus about that.
1 Like
āMethodsā might be more accurate. You wonāt find one universal set of statements that has anything like the official status of, say, a dictionary definition. (ā¦and even those can depend on which dictionary you consult).
But it is true that probably every articulation of a scientific method has some key ingredients: making empirical observations (best if quantified), forming a falsifiable hypothesis ā¦ experimentation to test any hypothesis ā¦ modifying or discarding hypotheses according to how they do on those tests. And doing all this so it is repeatable. Some secondary level texts may go on to give an over-simplified gloss that a well-verified hypothesis may āgraduateā into a theory, and that a theory that has withstood the test of time, may eventually be referred to as a law. ā¦and that is far from a full appreciation of what a theory really is, and makes it sound like a neat stair-step process, but which doesnāt even exist as any process at all, much less a neatly defined or official one. And the whole notion of calling something a ālawā (or āprovenā) is itself debatable and maybe gets more traffic among pop-culture science and polemics than among real scientists. Nevertheless, most statements of scientific methods do seem to include most of the ingredients above, especially the earlier listed ones.
1 Like
@johnZ Almost any philosophy of science course will begin with the ādemarcation problemā. It just hasnāt been possible to give a definition of science or the scientific method that includes all of what we intuitively think is science while precluding all that we intuitively think is not science. Thatās why I said JohnZ could win a prize if he had such a definition (at least he could get the lead article in a major philosophy journal). What goes under the rubric āscienceā is more like the family resemblances that Wittgenstein talked about (or its biological equivalent, āring speciesā).
In stark contrast to statements made here what these Evangelicals (who adopt their own version of science) reject is not just āa particular theoryā of science, but an entire area of philosophy called cosmology that interconnects all the major sciences. What is interesting to note is that what they do reject about settled science are the specific facts that speak directly to the critical points which are crucial in forming a conclusive theory of factual reality.
For example, the cyclical universe theory which solves the āPrime Moverā problem and gives meaning to the question of eternity. The psychological mechanisms involved in mental illness that develop into multiple personalities in individuals with dissociative personality disorder which explain scientifically the so-called demonic influence phenomenon. Reincarnation of the soul (the immortality of genetic information for those organisms which successfully reproduce and do not go extinct)āexplains the mystery of the trinity and the return of Christ. These are just three examplesā¦ there are more. If I werenāt so suspicious I wouldnāt think that Evangelical leaders are doing everything in their power to prevent the fulfillment of scripture. Why else would they accept all scientific theory except for the science that brings it all together? Itās very easy to have these suspicionsāit comes naturally to anyone who can think critically.
Therefore, although they do not reject the vast majority of scientific facts, theories, and conclusions, and donāt consider themselvesāanti-science or science denialistsāwhat they do reject of scientific theory is what makes all the difference in their discordant stance.
[Edited for clarification purposes]
1 Like
Thanks for your presentation Jim, I enjoyed it.
You might see where Iām going with this. There are a few scientists (and I mean very few, relatively speaking, as weāll see in a bit) who copy some of the methods of secular scientists and spin the ālyricsā in a way that is more faith-friendly (at least according to them). This has created a parallel universe of science within evangelicalism, that is hugely ingrown and insulated. The result is a version of science that is a pale imitation of what goes on in the vast majority of research institutions in the world. And that version is accepted as a legitimate contender in the marketplace of ideas.
How cruelā¦ I believe it is the same clique of āscientistsā who provide the governing body of the Jehovahās Witnesses with their āscientificā information by which they indoctrinate the masses under their control. I have been debating on a weekly basis for the past few years with a specific Jehovahās Witnesses individual because a friend of mine is studying with them. (As I said on these comments boardsāI studied with them some thirty years ago for a two year period). However, with my present new found knowledge and understanding (17 years now) I thought I could raise some serious arguments and challenge their beliefsābelieve me, I have learned they have no respect whatsoever for philosophy or mainstream science (I have been occasionally discussing the issues with other Jehovahās Witnesses as well). In time, I concluded that I could no longer reason with this person (and they all have this same train of thought since they have all been indoctrinated by the same governing body) because his reasoning is built on a faulty foundation. His arguments are uncritical, irrational, and illogical. I believe the time has come to completely break all association with this person. It becomes very frustrating to discuss things with someone who has no respect for critical thinking. Any thoughts Jim?
One interesting factor that doesnāt seem to be the case in other technologically developed nations is the political influence Evangelicals have in certain places that allow these misconceptions to be publicized from the government, not just the pulpit.
The current chair of the US House Committee on Science Space and Technology (Lamar Smith) doesnāt trust scientists and the committee is packed with people who think science is a fraud. Former committee member YEC Paul Broun told supporters in 2012 that, āAll that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell.ā One article I read said that in 2014, 20 out of the committeeās 22 Republicans were either climate change skeptics or deniers.
Iām in Texas right now. (It is a total culture shock for me, having grown up in Chicago, where I was considered pretty conservative. I am the most liberal person many of my Texan acquaintances have ever met.) We are having a run-off election to decide whether front-runner Mary Lou Bruner will get a seat on the Texas Board of Ed. According to Bruner, āThe school shootings started after the schools started teaching evolution is an absolute fact and the classes cannot talk about weaknesses in the Theory of Evolution,ā and āYou are very naive if you believe a tiny river carved out the Grand Canyon.ā
In 2009, former State Board chair Don McLeroy got requirements in place that all Texas science textbooks must address the strengths and weakness of evolution. He has been quoted as saying, "Our science standards are light years ahead of any other state when it comes to challenging evolutionā¦Evolution is hooey.ā There is an influential group that rates textbooks and presenting climate change as settled science gets you low marks from the Truth in Texas Textbooks Coalition.
All that to say, in more conservative parts of the country, this parallel universe may very well exist in the public schools, not just the youth group.
2 Likes
But the blue bonnets are pretty this time of the year!
3 Likes
And thereās barbecueā¦
1 Like
The ONLY thing Iāve ever seen that makes a mark on the typical Jeh.Wit. (and it is a tiny mark) is that the spirituality they pursue is the Way of the Phariseesā¦ with fences around fences around fencesā¦
But the most this sortie can ever accomplish is to help Jehovah Witnesses relax a little about the rules they construct out of just a few versesā¦
1 Like
Hi John,
Iāve certainly heard this claim being made before, but Iāve never actually heard of any evolutionists being caught confusing evolution with science as though they were exactly the same thing. Most of them seem to think that it is just a topic in biology, albeit an interesting and important topic that helps to unify and make sense of this field. I think that in order for this to be a position worth attacking, someone has to actually be holding the position in the first place. In other words, this looks and sounds a bit like you were being carried away by rhetoric and not much like a meaningful critique of a real position held by actual people. Maybe you could provide links that show examples of evolutionists practicing a form a propaganda where science is a synonym for evolution? Or maybe what you meant is that evolution is not scientific? If this is what you really meant, then it would have been clearer, although still fairly meaningless if unsupported by any arguments, to just say āevolution is just not scientificā.
1 Like
Hmmm. Iāve heard it often. They may understand that evolution is only one aspect of science, but they speak as if they are the same thing. In other words, many claim that if one argues against evolution, that he is a science denialist. It has happened often enough on biologos, although perhaps mostly by visitors and not the bloggers. In fact, it is exactly what I was responding to on this thread. I donāt make this stuff up. Check the thread for yourself.
Philosophically, science is nothing more than knowledge. However, methodologically, science applies the principles of repeatability, falsifiability, experimentation, statistical analysis, observation, measurement, to test various hypotheses in any field of knowledge. The general principle and field of knowledge is much larger than any one aspect of it, and therefore it is invalid to say or imply that merely because an individual disagrees with any one aspect of the method or the body of knowledge, that he is therefore categorically a science denialist.
Hmmm. Perhaps you should point us to a few examples instead of repeating your assertion?
If the one thing necessary for being labeled a āscience denialistā was that the individual rejected absolutely everything having to do with science, then, of course, there would be no science denialists at all. This is a nonsensical requirement that turns it into a term with no object in the real world. I think we all agree that cows 
are ruminants and that the water cycle exists 
, and I think this would disqualify all of us from your version of āscience denialistā even if we thought the world was shaped like a banana and was orbited by giant pomegranates 
[Moderatorās note: emoticons required to make this point]. Obviously in our shared language, a science denialist is usually taken to be someone who rejects a strong scientific consensus on some important theory in a scientific field - usually for non-scientific reasons (religious, cultural, or political).
Basically, I think you entirely misunderstood the term āscience denialistā to mean someone who rejects all science. Now that you can see that this is an absurd and senseless definition that is not generally shared here for obvious reasons, do have any other examples of people confusing science with evolution or was that pretty much the sum of it?
4 Likes
Science denialist is a misleading term. They are not denying fossils, sedimentary layers, genomes, inheritance. They are not even denying speciation, or mutations, or extinctions. They are basically saying that evolution theory is not good science. That means they do not deny science, but question its application. Thus the term should not be used.
It is irritating to evolutionary creationists when people say they are denying scripture, or are denying Godās power. In the same way, āscience denialistā should not be used. I did not misunderstand the term; rather those who use it either deliberately use it as a propoganda tool, or are themselves misunderstanding the implications of the meaning of it.
JohnZ, did you mean to say here that evolution itself is self-evidently false, or that your statement about āno scientists could ever be about evolutionā is self-evidently false? I started typing out a response to you and then realized I wasnāt sure what you were trying to say.
For a scientist to be against science? How is this possible? Like a Christian being against christianity, or a communist being against communism, or a mathematician being against math? Or a doctor being against medicine? A piano player being against music? There are numerous scientists who are against evolution, but are not against science generally or specifically. Thus, being anti-evolution is not equal to being anti-science.
Understood. So I have a question for you: What would you say to someone who said the following,
āI donāt believe in the Trinity, but Iām not against Christianity generallyā
Every time you hear a complaint about science trumping theology, you know youāre listening to someone who has a problem with science. Those of us who hold to the historic Christian Two Books model, know that neither actually ātrumpsā the other.
3 Likes
There seems to be some confusion with your terms here. You seem to be viewing observations and experimental evidence as real science, while the theories that make up the unifying matrix of scientific progress are somehow just āapplicationsā. This is a bit odd, because obviously evidence and hypothesis/theory are coordinated and inseparable in the practice of science, so to acknowledge one as scientific while rejecting the other as a mere application is to confuse science with stamp collecting. Amassing units of evidence without using them to test theories or hypotheses is similar to classifying rare stamps in photo albums, as I am not the first to point out.
The muddle continues with the term āappliedā. Applied science has a very different meaning by most accounts, but for you, the very marrow of science is just an āapplicationā. Or is it just because you donāt agree with this particular theory that it is shunted to the realm of scientific applications? I am saying this to point out that your definition of science is highly idiosyncratic and by most accounts, wholly incorrect. It seems that this may be the source of what you see as the problem.
From this, I get the impression that your irritation is based on confusion of terms which leads to a perception of unfairness. Is the term ādenialistā used as a propaganda tool? It may be, but ultimately, it seems to be correctly applied in this case whether or not it is further used as a tool for propaganda. I understand why creationists, vaccination naysayers and climate change denialists alike are bothered by the use of this term, but ultimately, the term itself is fairly neutral, and it seems to be more the feeling of exclusion from the scientific endeavor, a combined human effort which is otherwise positively seen, that bothers them. This being why creationist websites are constantly trumpeting ābut we LOVE science!ā in the final paragraph to any article that entirely bypasses the scientific method by stating in advance that their conclusions cannot be changed but that the evidence must be interpreted in order to make sure that it fits properly.
It is still the case that you have not justified the āscience = evolutionā criticism that you brought forward by any references or arguments. Do you have anything? Iām trying to move us away from what is indistinguishable from rhetoric and toward something more concrete.
3 Likes