Sep 27 2005
Prev/Next Posts: « Intelligent Falling || The Devil is in the details »
Ticks of the Trade
Note: This entry was featured in the 18th Skeptics Circle hosted at Wolverine Tom’s.
I remember once, many years ago, taking my dog out to the park. It was wonderful: trees, a lake, paths through the forest. The area was beautiful, the sounds serene, and even the smells delightful and earthy.
My dog and I had a tremendous time. We got home, exhausted, to rest for a while. But I noticed, even though she was wiped out, she was scratching at her ear, trying to dig at it.
I lifted her floppy ear up, and, just inside the canal, was a tick. Fat and repellent, it had obviously clambered on board while we were enjoying the forest. There it was, that disgusting parasite, its head was buried deep into the flesh of my dog’s ear, its fat hindquarters sticking up into the air. It had waited on a leaf or blade of grass somewhere, masquerading in a way as part of the beauty of the park, and pounced when it saw an opening. The parasite was taking advantage of our enjoyment of nature, sucking the blood out of my dog and potentially infecting her with some noisome disease.
I took action. Gathering my tools, I carefully removed it using tweezers. When it was out, I cleaned out the wound and applied a disinfectant.
Some people wonder why I fight antiscience and take on its proponents so often. To be honest, it gets tiring, the rewards unobvious, the goals sometimes distant and hidden. But then I remember that tick, hind legs twitching feebly in the air. Unable to create any nourishment on its own, it had to suck out the life blood of another, damaging it in the process.
Scientific parasites are lurking everywhere, just waiting to attack an unprepared person, ready and very willing to take advantage of our desire to appreciate nature. It’s our job — all of us, every single one — to make sure that those abhorrent ticks never get the chance to bury their heads in our flesh.
I just felt it was worth mentioning that you’re the coolest person on the planet.
Hands down.
Interesting analogy. I myself have already grown tired of hearing antiscientists’ rantings and I’m only 19! Sometimes you just have to wonder what they are doing with their brains.
Outstanding. This is exactly right. Ticks are slippery, tenacious little suckers against which eternal vigilance is the necessary defence.
Phil, you might like to read my latest blog entry — much the same sentiments.
I’m starting to think ID should really stand for “I Despair”.
Zeb, just imagine when you’re twice as old as you are now, and still having people (like your own sister) dismiss topics of conversation, such as interesting developments in modern medicine or new scientific discoveries, with a curt, “I don’t believe that.”
Do I sound depressed and discouraged about this?
Phil, I like you am a parent, sometimes the rewards can be far from unobvious : )
Zeb, I have a name for what your feeling Irreducible Perplexity. Its my theory for the lack of intelligent design. I’m constantly perplexed that seemingly normal fairly bright people can have such an irrational belief in crap like ID and astrology. Therebye proving a lack of intelligence or competance in the designer and/or some of his merchandise.
PS
I agree with Michelle. Or I like to call you “THE RATIONAL PERSONS DR PHIL”
Yes, but, parasites, too, are necessary evolutionary adaptations and have been, at times, evolutioinary stimulators. Some parasites are beneficial symbionts to their hosts. Too many examples to list.
Does not great science sometimes require anti-science just as prey require predators for selective adaptations and evolution? It just becomes problematic when anti-science dominates and eliminates great science–just as when predators no longer have prey.
Don’t insult the ticks.
Chet- check your definition of parasite. I also think that science absolutely does not need anti-science to ‘challenge’ it. All science needs is a question.
The faiths are desperately afraid. They know the only real enemy they have is reason. Expect the tactics to get scarier before it is all over.
cv
I just thought I should mention that the Science Channel is playing Carl Sagan’s Cosmos again on Tuesday nights. I wrote about my connection to Carl in my blog today. Thanks for taking the candle to the Demon-haunted world in Carl’s absence!
http://www.cybercosim.org/GeekGarage/Members/W0PHT/blog_w0pht/28sep2005/view
Interesting analogy, but I wouldn’t say all anti-scientists are so willfully parasitic. Many are just honestly misinformed. For the former, have at ‘em with the Tweezers of Scientific Evidence. For the latter, a little hand holding goes a long way toward the right forest path.
Anti Science? How about helping us defeat light pollution at one of the few Dark Sky Parks in the United States:
Cherry Springs State Park!
Located in Potter County,Pennsylvania near the New York/Pennsylvania border, Cherry Springs offers incredibly dark skys where clouds look “black” because there is almost no light to relfect from them. And when the air is cleanest the Milky Way casts a shadow!
Sadly, we are even seeing an increase in Light Pollution at Cherry Springs:(
Bad Astronomy when you light the undersides of Birds, Airplanes and Clouds!
IDA:
http://www.darksky.org/
Cherry Springs:
http://www.upstateastro.org/stars/cssp.html
Funny, really: When it comes to ticks, there’s a lot of - I wouldn’t call it antiscience, but perhaps misunderstanding, about, when it comes to removing them. Some say you have to tickle them, some say use alcohol to sedate the creature, and some say you have to use a special pair of tweezers.
The main point is to remove it quickly, because then the microbes it is carrying gets less time to infect. And to try to remove the jaws properly, because they are a gate for other microbes once the tick in itself is gone.
Btw: I have a dragon in my garage.
CV,
You should know that I keep myself educated in the sciences, too, and am familiar with “parasite”. You will find literature that suggests that the “tape worm”, the leech, and other symbionys/parasites are beneficial–and others are not. You have microscopic parasites eating the oils and gunt at the base of your eye lashes.
I am also a professional meteorologist, too.
Some people wonder why I fight antiscience and take on its proponents so often. To be honest, it gets tiring, the rewards unobvious, the goals sometimes distant and hidden.
BA:
I recall being a younger man, and being rather credulous at that. I stumbled onto a website run by one of those silly skeptics. You can see that website here. From that website, I was directed to one run by a strange old man I had seen on TV debating all those paranormal claims. If those folks believed in UFO’s/ghosts/homeopathy/psychics, they can’t all be wrong, right?
See Phil - I was teetering between critica thinking and woo. Men and women like yourself helped me decide which to follow. I hope that helps anytime you or any other science blogger has that feeling described above. People need that little push!
-Ryan
Very well said, Phil. Nicely done.
*is intrigued by Berkeley’s garage-dragon*
I must confess, while that had the tone and methadology of some pastor’s speech, it was still a lovely analogy.
Scientific parasites are lurking everywhere, just waiting to attack an unprepared person, ready and very willing to take advantage of our desire to appreciate nature. It’s our job — all of us, every single one — to make sure that those abhorrent ticks never get the chance to bury their heads in our flesh.
*** Phil, I am glad that you must be feeling better, but this is really over the top even for you. Do you realize that with this kind of rhetoric, you have just de-humanized a large population of fellow human beings? Have you ever seen a little flick called Hotel Rwanda? Check it out sometime; I have seen it recently. In it, one tribe of people in Rwanda manages to convince itself those other human beings, who look no different, are really parasitic cockroaches. It took time, it did not happen over night, but the end result of this big lie was a lot of dead cockroaches.
Phil, you are looked up to as a leader on this web site and in other areas as well. Even if you were joking, this is not very funny. You called me a tick, Phil. How am I supposed to feel? Ticked off?***
Ed, I think you are drawing a long bow to compare Phil’s one-dimensional analogy with the Rwandan civil war. I know you think you’re being persecuted for your beliefs here, but let’s be reasonable: a *harmless* tick analogy is not the start of a slippery slope that will end with you having the number 666 tattooed on your forehead.
In the essay, I was referring to people who purvey antiscience purposely and with malice aforethought. Examples abound. Many people are duped by these people– I can’t think of very many snake-oil salesmen who go hungry. The people who are duped are not the target of my essay.
Speaking of antiscience, what would you say about the comments by one Ash Tyler on my blog? He still believes that the Moon Landing did *not* happen:
http://perryv.i.ph/blogs/facesmoon/?itemid=164
I wanted to reply, but if I did then my responses would be grounded on science and facts, which in turn are gathered and made known to us by scientists. But it seems that he disdains scientists.
You will not be able to convince “Ash Tyler” of anything. His mind is closed and only sees what he wants it to percieve.
He obvously has little undetstanding of science.
He even thinks that the only way to stop radiation is with lead!
Some forms of radiation can be stopped with a simple sheet of paper.
Folcrom
Thats not to say that the Van Allen belt radiation can be blocked with paper. Hell no.
Use something a little more substantial, say 1/8 inch aluminum plate.
Folcrom.
Today, while waiting for my wife, I decided to wander through the local mall. In there, a woman was giving “psychic readings” for some fee that was not posted. She had a line of people waiting.
I felt like going to all of them, having them each give me $5 and “reading” that “you are all $5 poorer than you were an hour ago”. 100% accuracy, no BS… what more could anyone ask from a psychic? Of course, then I’d have an irate fat lady chasing me with a deck of tarot cards, shouting curses at me or something.
Tonight, someone here in town will be sleeping on the street with an empty belly because he doesn’t have the coin to buy a sandwich, but a dozen people will go home, having spent some ludicrous sum on a “psychic reading” so some lady can deal some tarot cards and spout off bad word deleted.
If I ever saw an anti-scientific parasite, that lady would certainly qualify.
Evolving Squid, while I appreciat ethe sentiment, please don’t use bad words here. Thanks.
Easy there Ed. Your head might explode! Very well put, Dr. Phil.
Berkeley Says:
Btw: I have a dragon in my garage.
A dragon, eh? You must be SCA!
Squid >> Yes, because most of the things we spend money on are so bloody meaningful.
Seriously, compare the destructive global impact of tarot readers and (for example) SUVs and I am sure that you will find that being angry at random psychics is irrational.
Yes, it is sad that people believe in pyschics or whatever, but it will be of no consequence to our offspring. Can you say the same for SUVs?
Seriously. Put things in perspective.
Rather should be “bury their heads in our brain” or “mind” instead of “flesh”…
I don’t know what SCA is. Student Conservation Association (for the conservation of students?)? or perhaps the Society for Creative Anachronisms? While the latter may be a good guess, it was a reference to Carl Sagan’s dragon. He was mentioned above.
Berkeley, you guessed right about the Society for Creative Anachronism. Sorry, I missed the Carl Sagan reference–my own fault for not reading the posts thoroughly enough, I think.
Is it possible for me to be a conservative and beleive in science? I support Bush. Does that mean I cannot apresiate science?
Adam, who are you asking? Of course you can be conservative and appreciate science. Bush seems to prefer sciencem bent to support his political agenda, but that’s another matter. There are liberals who are just as messed up as some conservatives. No political group owns the market on sense.
I find creationism being labled as anti science somewhat contradictory to what I’ve experienced. I learned vast amounts about history and science because I studied the Bible and the creation sciences. I am used to critical thinking, as it takes some thought to find the problems in some evolutionary problems (and there are problems, some of them big problems; you just have to think). I have quite the advantage in history and science. Furthermore, it helps me in music (singing in Church all my life), and language arts (the Bible is most certainly a good book to read, even if you don’t believe in it). How would I gain such an advantage if I was raised being taught evolution?
Duke
Do you believe that the universe is only a few thousand years old ?
Its not an either-or situation where if you believe in evolution you can’t sing in the choir, or read the bible.
I suppose it depends if the bible should always be taken literally or not ( the old testament is always a good example of excessive violence that I hope people don’t follow).
Can you “believe in science” and be conservative? Is creationism in and of itself anti-science?
I think both those questions are missing the point of the article, and what science means. You don’t “believe in science”. You think scientifically. Can you still think scientifically if you believe in creationism? SURE, but most don’t, especially if their whole purpose for preaching creationism is to refute common mainstream scientific conclusions. Like wise you don’t have to be atheist to be a scientist, let alone and evolutionary scientist.
As far as conservatives vs liberals, how do you define conservative? There is just as much if not more anti-science coming from the left as there is the right, and the defense of science is not made from either the left or the right. Science by definition is apolitical. I have plenty of hippy aquaintences teling me i’d feel better if I had a Feng shei ?sp? expert in my house, or singing the praises of wheat grass (not for me thanks I only have one stomach).
Sure there are plenty of the folks who post here and the message boards who are probably left of center, and many who are atheist. But that is who they would choose to be had they never persued “science”.
Besides Re-read the original article. It is in referecne to Anti-science in general. Maybe some of the posts have been slanted to whoever you are that is offended. But the first time I was exposed to this site was for the movie reviews a few years ago. Defending anti-science is more than defending evolution and much much more that bashing creationism or further young earth creationism. Its trying to get eyes open to scientific method, and empirical thought.
OOps, sorry BA. I’m used to being able to go back and edit, so when I couldn’t I figured I’d best duck and hope nobody noticed
Wellington said:
>Yes, it is sad that people believe in pyschics or whatever, but it
>will be of no consequence to our offspring. Can you say the same
>for SUVs?
I can say that for sure, because I have no offspring, nor do I want any
That wasn’t what you were getting at though.
I’d have to say that I think SUVs won’t be around forever, but stupidity is immortal and has a really unpleasant habit of hurting people. The combined damage that all the psychics that have ever lived have done to the world through the perpetuation of myth, fear, and non-critical thinking is, in my opinion, of greater impact than all the SUVs that have been or ever will be made.
I notice a similar thread in some of these posts. A lot of folks seem to be confused and amazed that so many people in our modern world can be so easily duped into the pitfalls of antiscience. I too have a dragon in my garage.
If you don’t know what that means, please read (multiple times) Carl Sagan’s wonderful book A Demon-Haunted World; Science as a Candle in the Dark. I’m sure it will, as it did for me, make crystal clear why we humans are so pathetically credulous.
It is, without a doubt, the most fascinating and absorbing account of history and science I’ve ever read. You too will have dragon in your garage. I promise. Dr. Sagan’s clear thinking and endearing humor are sorely missed. And check out Cosmos, which someone pointed out is re-running on the Science Channel.
Keep working on your Baloney Detectors!
Hmm. You kind of missed my point. Sure, I would probably sing in choir both ways, but growing up singing a cappella music is an absolutely incredible advantage. Also, if I was raised in a standered evolutionary way (that is, let the schools teach it) then I would most probably not be rigorously studying the Bible in middle school. Parts of the Bible invoke critical thinking. Do you see my point? Being raised as a thinking christian can have some definite advantages. And, quite a variety of advantages. Being raised as a thinking evolutionist would help to, but you don’t gain an advantage in music, and I doubt you would really read some of the more thought provoking books of the Bible (such as ecclesiastes, a great book of advice) early in life. Creationism inspires more thought early in life. Am I clear?
M Duke, you continue to confuse “creationism” with being religious. The two are not identical. Plenty of religious people believe in and study evolution.
I’m not sure why you think singing is relevant. Singing isn’t science, and science isn’t singing. If your religious environment helped develop your singing ability and you enjoy that, great for you. If that is something you would not have had to draw upon if you didn’t attend church, then perhaps you would have missed out on that, or perhaps you would have found alternative ways to develop your singing. Either way, that has no bearing on evolution or science.
>Parts of the Bible invoke critical thinking.
Really? I don’t recall those. But parts of the Bible invoke the killing of witches. Parts of the Bible invoke unquestioning allegiance. Parts of the Bible invoke the keeping of slaves. Parts of the Bible invoke genocide (in God’s name for his chosen people, of course).
All of which is also irrelevant to evolution and science.
Irishman, I think M Duke was referring to advantages in things other than science as well as in science. I can certainly see that a long time spent singing in choir would help with musical ability and appreciation later in life. It might even help in side experiences such as ability to concentrate etc.
OTOH, M Duke, I don’t think your larger point is very established (for lack of a better word). As Irishman said (a little more brusquely), the things you describe are Christian activities to be sure, but not specifically creationist ones. I’m also not sure you wouldn’t have received much the same advantages through similar devotions at mosque or synagogue had you had a different accident of birth. The Bible is an important book to read, clearly (though there are also other important books). The learning of discipline and focus through rigorous Bible study is beneficial, but…I’m not sure that it leads to critical thinking. Which parts encourage critical thinking?
Ecclesiasties. Also, the ideas taught are somewhat unusual, in that they teach complete denial of self. Critical thought can come from the Bible attacking what you do. You can have great amounts of critical thought by thinking over what you are reading. And, further more, studying.
I suggest you read ecclesiasties. It’s a book by Solomon on the meaning of life. For background information, Solomon was king of Isreal during its golden age. He was rich, no limits. He was also incredibly wise. So, he goes on an adventure on what can bring satisfaction. A really cool book.
True conservatives do believe in science. It represents the grand mass of western civilisation, painfully accumulating the understanding that allows us to have medicine and lights and cars and all that, and it is the bulwark against crazy change for the sake of superstition.
True conservatism is about respecting heritage, and our heritage is fundamentally scientificf on a gazillion different levels.
I don’t mean to imply that other civilisations don’t think clearly and apply processes of proof, but at its best, ours does.
Nor am I saying that non-conservatives are unscientific either - I am not a conservative myself, but I truly wish our conservative friends would stand on our side in the debate against anti-scientism.
Leon, I’m aware that M Duke was speaking of advantages outside science. However, I think those are irrelevant to a discussion of Evolution. Also, he continues to equate christianity with creationism. The two are not identical, and his continued equating the two is deliberate on his part. Thust the point of my previous post.
david tiley, I find the words “conservative” and “liberal” to be very contextual and have many different meanings depending upon context and the person using them.
For instance, conservative means “limited” and liberal means “widespread” or “open”. So is that in relation to social needs, religion, role of government, cultural heritage? I would suggest the two main political parties (Republicans vs Democrats) each contain a mix of ideas, though each gets labeled by only one term as if it is all-inclusive.
The Republicans are “conservative”, which means limited government, fewer restrictions. Except when it comes to things like who can sleep with or marry whom, or military spending and size, etc. Similarly, the Democrats are “liberals” and want big government to take care of everything, except of course when it comes to imposing on social issues like who can sleep with or marry whom, or military spending and size.
The words have become labels that don’t necessarily correspond with their meaning.
Practicly all creationists are Christians. All Christians, however, are not creationists. Somewhat like the square-rectangle relationship. All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares. However, creationism is more of a science, and Christianity is a philosophy, so they are to be put apart somewhat.
Actually, practically all creationists are either US Christian fundamentalists or Muslim fundamentalists.
And creationism has absolutely none of the characteristics of science, and all the characteristics of anti-science, while evolution is the opposite. The following link has a list of characteristics commonly found in pseudoscience. “The presence of even one of these should arouse great suspicion.” Creationism has every single characteristic on this list, while evolution has none.
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pseudo.html
M Duke Says:
Practicly all creationists are Christians.
Uh, no. Practically all creationists are religious: either Christian, or Muslim, or Native American, or Hindu, or of any of the many other religions with creation myths (not meaning that phrase in a derogatory way).
It’s more than a stretch to call creationism a science. Science looks at the evidence before making a conclusion; it’s testable and falsifiable; etc. Creationism begins with a conclusion and looks for evidence to support it; it’s not falsifiable; etc. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong–it just means it’s not science. I think you may have meant more that creationism is a rigorous study of a discipline, as opposed to Christanity which is more specifically about worship.
And I agree, it is very important to draw a distinction between Christianity and creationism; though they do bear a relationship to one another, they’re not at all the same thing.
The fundamental reason why science and religion do not mix is that the goal of science would never satisfy someone seeking a religious truth. This is because science has nothing to do with Truth, which by the way is not even a scientifically definable concept. The Truth could be that the entire universe was created yesterday, as is, as a kind of cosmic joke with scientists as the straight men (or women). Or we could all be hooked up to the Matrix. If either of these are True, perhaps science will one day discover them, as it is hoped by IDers that science can be used to discover God. But that’s the very problem– science is a process that never ends, and you’ll never know when you finally have it right because you’ll never reach the end of all possible observations of the universe. There is a lot of confusion about what science really is and what it is useful for– one can really only use it to find useful quantitative or logical constructions that allow you to fit a large number of seemingly unrelated observations into a small number of conceptual boxes. It achieves usefulness in two ways, one is by organizing the observations in such a cogent way that they become easier to remember (they “make sense”), and the other, higher use appears only when the boxes are so well laid out that they yield correct predictions for new observations. The former property allows you to build a bridge, for example, and the latter allows you to dream up a better design for one. But neither have anything whatsoever to do with Truth, in the philosphical or religious sense. So why do religious people want to mix science into their faith-based conception of Truth? And why do scientists, for that matter? Much has been pointed out in these pages about the fallacy of using religion in the scientific method, but little has been said about the converse. But science, and its ally rational thought, should never be used as a belief system, for if it is, you encounter the following conundrum. Either reality emerged out of rational thought, or rational thought emerged out of reality. If the former, then IDers are right, and most of us agree this isn’t science. But if the latter, then is it at all plausible that rational thought can be used to conceive all of reality, its mother? It seems by far more likely that if evolution is responsible for the intelligence we use to understand our universe, then Shakespeare must be right, and there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy.
Well said, Ken.
And yes, on the Shakespeare point: or put more modernly, fact is stranger than fiction. Indeed.
Thanks Leon. This is not a bad place to hone one’s rhetoric, yes? We are wholly indebted to people like M Duke, and I’m being serious.
Hi, Ken. I have to disagree with at least some of what you said.
Ken Gayley Said:
> There is a lot of confusion about what science really is and what it is useful for– one can really only use it to find useful quantitative or logical constructions that allow you to fit a large number of seemingly unrelated observations into a small number of conceptual boxes.
Science is “just� a systematic way of observing and describing the behavior of the cosmos. Just in quotes because that’s a very limiting word for considering such a powerful tool. Cosmos being used here to describe everything that exists, in toto or any subset or specific element. Here I think we agree.
>It achieves usefulness in two ways, one is by organizing the observations in such a cogent way that they become easier to remember (they “make sense�), and the other, higher use appears only when the boxes are so well laid out that they yield correct predictions for new observations. The former property allows you to build a bridge, for example, and the latter allows you to dream up a better design for one. But neither have anything whatsoever to do with Truth, in the philosphical or religious sense.
“The Truth� is one of those absolutist concepts that is hard to define. But we know what truth is in juxtaposition with falsity. Providing accurate descriptions that match up with observations about reality and yielding correct predictions for new observations are truths, compared to providing inaccurate descriptions that do not match observations and/or yielding incorrect predictions about new observations. Descriptions and predictions are evaluated by their levels of falsity. The words “accurate� and “correct� are just a variation on “true�.
Yes, Science is a stepwise (iterative) process of only getting better approximations to the way things are - the way things really are being about the only definition of Truth that really means anything. There either is or is not an objective reality out there. If there is, then science is the best tool that humanity has developed for systematically understanding it. If there is not, then none of this matters at all because most of us probably don’t exist anyway, and any that do have no hope of useful communication because there are no reliable points in common. Your “blue� is not even my “red�, it may be my “tasty� or my “fuzzy� or my “coprixapy�. But the funny thing is there seems to be something that functions as an objective reality. Definition of reality – what continues to exist after you stop believing in it. We all laugh at the RoadRunner cartoons when gravity only works when the Coyote is aware that he should be falling. It’s funny, because we all know that is NOT reality. Gravity works even when you’re not aware – unconscious, in a coma, brain dead.
So we can assume there is an objective reality out there, and thus we are back to case 1. That objective reality is “the Truth�, whatever that means.
>So why do religious people want to mix science into their faith-based conception of Truth? And why do scientists, for that matter? Much has been pointed out in these pages about the fallacy of using religion in the scientific method, but little has been said about the converse.
Using the scientific method in religion?
>But science, and its ally rational thought, should never be used as a belief system, for if it is, you encounter the following conundrum. Either reality emerged out of rational thought, or rational thought emerged out of reality. If the former, then IDers are right, and most of us agree this isn’t science. But if the latter, then is it at all plausible that rational thought can be used to conceive all of reality, its mother? It seems by far more likely that if evolution is responsible for the intelligence we use to understand our universe, then Shakespeare must be right, and there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in our philosophy.
Perhaps, but what is the alternative? Insanity? Magical thinking? Based upon the previously established criteria of comparative degrees of falsehood, magical thinking falls on the more false end of the scale while rational thought falls on the more true end of the scale. Pick whichever approach you wish, but I’ll take reality, please.
Your views are very close to my own, Irishman. (My ancestry is partly Irish, if that has anything to do with it…) I think our main disagreement is around whether or not concepts like Truth and objective reality transcend science, or if they are just another part of the axiomatic structure of science. I would argue the latter, for to argue the former is to take science outside its realm of applicability. Science is not intended to transcend itself, it is intended to stay right within itself, where it belongs. Truth in science is self-consistency, in regard to observations, logic, and mathematics. No more and no less. If we argue beyond that (I share your beliefs personally, but that’s not the issue), we weaken rather than strengthen our position. Keep in mind, or priveleged position in society derives not from being right (how many people know science well enough to even judge its correctness?), its from its practicality. If you want to make the leap of faith that the reason it is practical is because it is the Truth, that is your prerogative in a free society. But religious people should also be free to believe otherwise, as long as they accept the value of the scientific method as a practical human endeavor.
Magical thinking is not the same as accepting there is, and will always be, reality beyond our ability to perceive or conceptualize with any given technology or intellect. The former is an incorrect application of the scientific method, the latter is the recognition of the limitations of same. I think scientists act with too much gall when they suppose that right around the corner is a theory that will actually explain everything that is real, a moment’s thought refutes that idea for anyone who has experienced life. And nonscientists realize this, they sense it in their bones even though they don’t know that much science. It is the same gall that religious people exhibit when they purport that their God is the “real” one. But fortunately, it is not necessary for science to accomplish the complete understanding of all reality. Indeed, we should be cautioned against promising more than we can deliver.
Ken Gayley Said:
>I think our main disagreement is around whether or not concepts like Truth and objective reality transcend science, or if they are just another part of the axiomatic structure of science. I would argue the latter, for to argue the former is to take science outside its realm of applicability. Science is not intended to transcend itself, it is intended to stay right within itself, where it belongs. Truth in science is self-consistency, in regard to observations, logic, and mathematics. No more and no less. If we argue beyond that (I share your beliefs personally, but that’s not the issue), we weaken rather than strengthen our position. Keep in mind, or priveleged position in society derives not from being right (how many people know science well enough to even judge its correctness?), its from its practicality. If you want to make the leap of faith that the reason it is practical is because it is the Truth, that is your prerogative in a free society. But religious people should also be free to believe otherwise, as long as they accept the value of the scientific method as a practical human endeavor.
Hmm, I think we are in agreement and just aren’t semantically in tune.
>Magical thinking is not the same as accepting there is, and will always be, reality beyond our ability to perceive or conceptualize with any given technology or intellect. The former is an incorrect application of the scientific method, the latter is the recognition of the limitations of same. I think scientists act with too much gall when they suppose that right around the corner is a theory that will actually explain everything that is real, a moment’s thought refutes that idea for anyone who has experienced life. And nonscientists realize this, they sense it in their bones even though they don’t know that much science. It is the same gall that religious people exhibit when they purport that their God is the “real� one. But fortunately, it is not necessary for science to accomplish the complete understanding of all reality. Indeed, we should be cautioned against promising more than we can deliver.
Okay, I accept there may be things we cannot perceive and/or understand. We are limited by who we are. I don’t count that as a limitation on rational thought as much as a limitation on the information we have to evaluate. Perhaps there is “intelligence� we cannot conceptualize because it is as beyond our abilities as calculus is beyond a dog. I don’t count that as a justification to accept bizarre or paranormal claims as true without objective evidence.
I share your distaste with scientists who hyperbolize their ideas. I find the label “Theory of Everything� to be exceedingly hubristic, and it annoys me that scientists have glommed to that label rather than using some sense.
Yes, I have that same reaction to the TOE. If we get it, will we cure the common cold? No? Some TOE. The danger is that the public loses trust. Scientific terms get farther and farther from common sense, and make more and more claims on the character of reality. It causes a backlash, it’s as clear as 1+1 = 2. The irony is, we can avoid the backlash by simply being true to our own axiomatic structure– science is an *internally consistent* discipline, it has its own rules. I think we agree there. But you either hear, or are worried that someone else might here, in my rhetoric a justification for accepting “bizarre or paranormal claims as true”. But there are many justifications for accepting something as true, including, “because I want to”. All we can constrain are the justifications for establishing something as scientifically true, thereby bringing that “truth” into contact with all the other scientific “truths”, with all the practical advantages of so doing. The strength of our position is not that we are right, it is that we make contact with an entire body of knowledge that has had demonstrable success. We are our track record, not our rhetoric. This is the fundamental difference between science and philosophy/religion.
The beauty of this axiomatic approach is that it means we do not need to argue that Creationism/ID are wrong. We don’t even need to argue they are bad science. We are in the far stronger position of being able to point out they are not science at all because all their conclusions are rigged. Their method is different, and nobody uses it to build a bridge. That is all we need to keep it out of science classes.
Ken G Said:
>Yes, I have that same reaction to the TOE. If we get it, will we cure the common cold? No? Some TOE.
I have a similar complaint about scientists using religious metaphors in their labeling and explanations, i.e. “the God Particle”, “knowing the mind of God”, etc. I think these are hubristic and also that they only serve to cloud the issue and confuse, not to clarify and explain. The whole point of science is to clarify and explain, so it is counterproductive as well as irritating.
> But you either hear, or are worried that someone else might here, in my rhetoric a justification for accepting “bizarre or paranormal claims as true�.
I wasn’t sure in that first pass, but now I think we’re on the same page.
> We are in the far stronger position of being able to point out they are not science at all because all their conclusions are rigged. Their method is different, and nobody uses it to build a bridge. That is all we need to keep it out of science classes.
In an ideal world, that would be the case. However, classroom curricula are determined in the real world, and politics and popularity can override sense.
Sadly yes, but I think if we’re consistent and careful to take the high ground, we can keep training potential scientists to think like scientists, and not muddle up their minds with confusion between faith and inquiry.