- If you had asked any kid, at least under 12 or so years old, in my childhood neighborhood, you’d have been told that the boogerman was the one to be feared and that he hid under beds, in dark and cluttered closets, and lurked in abandoned houses and often left a slimy residue wherever he had been.
3 Likes
And he always checks under his own bed to make sure Chuck Norris isn’t there.
4 Likes
No creationist could have said it better… Their justification and rhetoric all has the “aim” to offer a “framework of knowledge which serves as the best explanation for scriptural data.”
Indeed the claim reformed theology achieves that aim is rejected by many including myself who sees this more as a framework of distortions than anything else. And at the top of the list of those distortions is a pretense to objectivity, which I frankly see as a major poison in religion which has caused many to throw all of religion in the garbage.
I see no overlap in the Venn diagram at all. Science is objective observation. Religion is all about subjective participation (as is life itself). But perhaps for me, more important is the fact that I see very little overlap between the value I see in Christianity and Reformed theology.
The problem with this is, for many people, it can look a bit like a failure to commit to anything as true (which brings back to the topic of the thread regarding science). So instead I would say it is the pretention to objectivity in things of religion which make them brittle. We will never have the objectivity in religion which we have in science. There are no written procedures which will give the same result no matter what we want or believe. And perhaps we cannot have quite the same kind of honesty which insists on testing hypotheses with such procedures. But we can aim at a different sort of honesty of, at least, acknowledging the subjectivity of our choices in religion. I think we can justify that subjectivity quite well – but that is the best we can do.
3 Likes
Why trust science in a post-truth age?
Science deniers make hay of every flaw and shortcoming in science, real or perceived, that they can, to try and justify rejecting anything and everything about science that they don’t like, and it is important to push back on this. But they do make a valid point that needs to be addressed properly. Science isn’t infallible. Peer review doesn’t catch everything. Peer pressure, political pressure, cancel culture and groupthink are a thing. The scientific consensus on some things does change from time to time. We need to address these concerns effectively, and for that reason there’s a different question we need to be asking.
When is it reasonable to be sceptical about the scientific consensus? At what point is it reasonable to ask if factors such as peer pressure, political pressure, groupthink or cancel culture could be skewing the consensus by suppressing funding or the publication of results?
My answer here is to ask what factors are at play over and above the level of consensus that would mitigate the problem or counteract it entirely. For example, if a scientific theory has commercially important applications that require it to be correct rather than ideologically convenient, then it isn’t reasonable to suggest that the scientific consensus could be compromised in this way. Or if a scientific theory has other theories that depend on it—in other words, if it is foundational science—then if it turned out to be wrong, all those other theories would have to be wrong as well. Another mitigating factor is the level of detail and precision in the consensus. A detailed, mathematically or numerically precise consensus in the physical sciences is going to be much more robust than a more general, statistically broad consensus about something in the social sciences.
This is why it is not reasonable to be sceptical about deep geological time or the basic mechanics of biological evolution. These are theories which have significant commercial and practical applications, and where there are other areas of research that depend on them, requiring them to be correct rather than ideologically convenient in other to work. For man made climate change, there is also another factor to consider: this is an area where the conflict of interest is strongest on the side of the deniers. Climate sceptics sometimes claim that green energy companies have a motivation to talk up man made climate change, but this is a classic example of looking at a speck in their brother’s eye while ignoring the proverbial Travis Perkins sawmill in their own. People taking man made climate change seriously pose a massive threat to a large, established industry with very deep pockets—namely, the oil industry.
On the other hand, there may be some areas of research where some scepticism about the integrity of the scientific consensus as a whole may be warranted. This would particularly be the case for politically charged and controversial subjects, where one side of the debate is dominant in popular culture, academia and spheres of political power, especially if the scientific consensus only gelled after the dominant position had come to prominence in pop culture and the media. However, again one should also consider whether there are any mitigating factors, such as commercial applications or other scientific theories that depend on it.
3 Likes
It would be interesting to see if one could populate a sample ‘continuum’ to illustrate good examples of various points along a continuum all the way from “no reasonable people contest this anymore” all the way to “this is still hotly contested - and appropriately so”.
If I was to begin to attempt such a list - a few of the major stepping stones along the way starting from “no reasonable people argue this anymore…”
Round earth
Deep time (billions of years)
Common ancestry
Climate change (that it’s happening, and anthropogenic)
Mechanisms of evolution & the nature of their interactivity
(these middle ones now being more ‘cutting edge’ and appropriately regarded as still unsettled or only bits and pieces becoming settled.)
Abiogenesis
Climate change (as in … what all should we do about it - and what does the future hold)
Anthropological sciences
Brain science
Social sciences & cultural studies
??? Other cutting edge fields … things far from settled or certain.
2 Likes
Early Universe cosmology that is about things post-CMB should probably be just below mechanisms of evolution, and cosmology about things pre-CMB pretty close to abiogenesis.
Perhaps another way to state the parallel between science and theology in method is the need in both cases to be committed to learning and correcting one’s ideas from the evidence, rather than insisting that the science or theology needs to conform to my preferences. Both those loudly claiming to be biblical and those highly critical of relying on the Bible often have little interest in self-examination. Of course, what counts as evidence has to be established. The ASA Winter Symposium main speaker, Elaine Ecklund, discussed, in light of her sociological research, several shared values of science and faith that might be of interest to this discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoWdUImXbNY&list=PLFYFWTTOfSZHnURq9ube2jJdHp53rkYzG
1 Like
There is a surprising amount of Roman Catholic theology that has as its primary argument that “it is fitting” – just like it is fitting that Jesus had golden eyes.
I’ve encountered kids who say “boogerman”.
2 Likes
This got me wondering if one reason I focus on the text so strongly is because linguistics is more objective than theology.
I once read a sci-fi novel that had the idea that peer review itself, not just “peer pressure [or] groupthink”, channeled human science into paths that closed off other options; the plot involved seriously searching for aliens who would have a wildly different perspective on things that might break the logjams human science was stuck in.
1 Like
One of the divides I see is the concept of where truth lies. Does truth lie within us, or outside of us. Post-modernism seems to support the idea that the truth is within us, so that what we see outside of ourselves needs to conform to our inner truth. I view it in the opposite direction. I’m a fallible human being moving towards the truth I find in the world, knowing that I will never reach the goal of knowing the full truth.
4 Likes
Would make for a good Youtube tier list video. 
2 Likes
What is the name of this novel…
I would like to hear more… channeled in what way? I think the main point of peer review is to make sure contributions hold to those ideals of honesty and objectivity without which it would not be science at all – as well as ensuring logical coherence and accuracy, without which it wouldn’t even be meaningful, or lack of evidence for claims where evidence would be expected to be seen already. So is the novel suggesting peer review adds something other than the adherence to these ideals and basic criterion? I mean if I were to guess… I would suspect a claim that peer review enforces an adherence to some kind of scientific dogmatism. But I doubt that is a universal flaw, certainly relevant and likely, but not one every peer reviewed journal would fail at. Too many would simply be thrilled at new ideas outside the box for that to be the case.
A more likely flaw is that we simply haven’t asked (or focused on ) the same questions. But I don’t see peer review contributing to this. When this has happed before, it isn’t the peer reviewed journal that is the obstacle but simply the lack of interest by others in the scientific community. Just because you publish doesn’t mean many scientists will read or take it seriously. People will always follow there own interests. Grad students are limited to the interests of the professors they work under. Now that is an important flaw in the way things are done in science.
2 Likes
have highlighted a few items in your list that could be contested. or are not universally held.
Anything to do with Evolution is subjective and relies on a “view”.
Abiogenesis is still too much in its infancy to state as having any meaning.
Climate change as such is obvious but the deep reasons for it may not be. There is plenty of evidence that the climate has varied tremendously before humanity had the power to affect it. For instance the distance from the sun is not a constant and would impact on the climate. “Green” propaganda is often sensationalist. and designed to frighten. If you factor in natural disasters like bush or forest fires or volcanic eruptions the damage they do outweighs the leaving on of an electrical device. IOW there is an inbuilt futility in much of the hype.
Deep time?
there can be no precision other than maybe more than 6000 years. To claim accuracy is to go one step further than just data.
I have recently been trying to “dumb down” scientific arrogance. It would seem that humility is not valued.
To clarify, it is not so much trust as indoctrination. Science does what 1984 was trying to combat. The underlying data is not available to the common person sot there is vulnerability in just accepting everything we are told.(And I guess that could be termed as insulting the integrity of scientists)
No matter how honest or genuine the intent science and scientists have a bias towards viewpoints and conclusions that cannot be measured or even argued against without (perceived) insult.
Richard
It is important to give a message of hope about the future climate and living conditions. Humans can adapt to various conditions. Some of the worst consequences, like the melting of the Antarctic ice with a major rise in water levels, may take hundreds of years, which helps in adaptation. In the best case, Jesus returns before the worst happens.
Despite this, it is also important to be realistic about the future scenarios. So far, changes caused by the climate change have followed a trajectory that has been more extreme than conservative models have predicted. Unfortunately, the reality may turn out to be worse than some of the ‘frightening’ predictions have painted. There are real reasons to question prevailing practices and act to slow down the climate change. Slowing down the climate change may be expensive but delaying the actions is even more expensive.
Essential facts are known, what is lacking is the will to act. Business-as-usual is tempting, especially as those who pay the price of the consequences are different persons than those that benefit from the current business-as-usual practices. Those that benefit from the current lack of actions have managed to blur the facts about the climate change. The claims that climate change is mainly caused by natural factors are not credible anymore but may be used for the benefit of the actors that profit from the business-as-usual practices or are not willing to change their life style.
2 Likes
You have to ignore a huge amount of data to be able to stand behind that claim.
Tree ring dating has produced time series that are longer than 12’000 years.
Sediment and ice cores have produced much longer time series of the past, from up to hundreds of thousands to millions of years.
Measurements of radioactive decay can reach even longer to the past.
Etc. Etc.
1 Like
Forgive me, but that is cynical.
You appear to be condoning scaremongering or at least exageration.
And that is a blanket all or nothing statement
I did not say that humanity had not affected the climate, only that the perceived effect ignores the Natural balance and healing powers of the planet as a whole. One interesting aspect of the film “The day after tomorrow” was that the net result of global warming was an ice age, in part at least. Part of the projection was based on the atmospheric water content caused by melting the Ice cap…
The “truth” of the matter is that we are still guessing.
Richard
Yes … and what does that have to do with the present controversy? It’s like a defendant responding to a murder charge by saying … “Well, murders were happening even before I was around!” To which any judge should respond …“That all has zero relevance to your case.”
3 Likes
Sorry but your idea of ‘Natural balance’ is outdated. There is no balance of nature. That has been known for a long time, at least among those who study nature.
That hypothesis was still told as one possibility during my teaching (Basic and Environmental ecology) more than a decade ago. After that, I dropped it from teaching because models and data showed that the global warming acted too strongly to allow an ice age.
To start a new ice age, the snow falling during winter should last through the following summer. The summers in Siberia are currently too hot for that and the data from other parts of the globe tell the same message: even if the amount of snowfall would increase, the snow melts during the next summer, preventing the long-term accumulation of snow. In addition, during the last years North Greenland has experienced some warm periods during winter, leading to melting and loss of ice even during the ‘always cold’ winter period.
Despite the global warming, climate change may have local cooling effects. The temperatures at a fairly large area of NE Atlantic have been below average during the last years. The reason for this is the huge amount of melting water that flows from the melting glaciers of Greenland. That is predicted to weaken the flow of warm water towards NE Atlantic and northern Europe. If the Gulf Stream halts, temperatures in the northern Europe may drop up to ten degrees (Celsius). At the same time, the Atlantic areas closer to subtropics would experience a rapid rise in temperatures. While people at southern latitudes expect hotter climates, we here in Fennoscandia wonder if our temperatures will drop drastically. So far, warming has prevailed, with temperatures +3-4 degrees above previous averages in northern Finland.
2 Likes
Sorry but that is a false analogy.
The variations due to nature will continue whether humans muck it about or not. They are a factor.
If the gulf stream stops the Uk will become like northern Scandinavia in climate. As it is the UK is predominantly temperate. We haven’t had a big nationwide freeze since the 1980’s.
The notion of a global freeze is probably fantasy, but a shift in weather formations will affect different areas differently (Obviously)
The point here is not to debate specific science, be it climate or Evolution. The underlying topic here was mentioned earlier on.by yourself. it is the all or nothing stance. Science has its place and I am not denying it, but it can be too big for its boots.
We like to be right. We like to think that we have a hold on reality and life, but we cannot be isolated within our own paradigm.
It’s ironic, but (some)scientists seem to think they can overrule or dictate to religion but get all shirty when some religious people reciprocate. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Conversely over specialised knowledge can blinker you as well.
To fall back on my religion. Ecclesiastes has one main teaching. Too much of one thing is meaningless, be it freedom, knowledge, piety or debauchery… Scientists (at least some) need to learn that lesson.
Richard
- I propose that Chat GPT correctly identifies the novel that you describe as:
The novel you’re referring to is likely “A Deepness in the Sky” by Vernor Vinge. In this science fiction work, human civilizations encounter an alien species known as the Spiders, whose unique perspectives and approaches to science challenge human understanding. The narrative delves into themes of how societal structures, including peer review and collective thinking, can influence and sometimes constrain scientific progress.
Vinge’s portrayal of the Spiders highlights how different cultural and intellectual frameworks can lead to alternative scientific paradigms, potentially offering solutions to problems that human societies find intractable. This exploration underscores the idea that exposure to fundamentally different viewpoints can break through intellectual stagnation and drive innovation.
“A Deepness in the Sky” is celebrated for its intricate storytelling and deep examination of the dynamics between human and alien civilizations, particularly in the context of scientific and technological development. The novel won the Hugo Award for Best Novel in 2000, reflecting its significant impact on the science fiction genre.
1 Like