Science is close-minded

[Galapagos]

I think, Galapagos, the point is...

 

We would not tolerate some member of Jehovah's Witness or Scientology attacking people of differing philosophical opinions saying they are "ignorant morons" or the like. Common etiquette tells us this is inappropriate and it's against the rules in any case. The situation is made all the worse when neither position can be proven.

 

I just got done telling someone in another thread (who was claiming of all things that science is close-minded) that science takes no position on unprovable metaphysical things like God. Meanwhile, what has been advocated in this thread is the outright attack of those with such a philosophy. That is neither appropriate for the forum nor is it a method of science.

 

~modest

Ah, I agree that name calling is discourteous and unhelpful. I was pointing out that respecting the beliefs if they are not of merit is not necessary, and a separate issue from treating people with courtesy.

Regarding the teapot, I just think evidence should scale with claims, or they should be dismissed. No one can disprove or prove the existence of Celestial Teapots either, but I think we can be as certain as we can about anything that the teapot isn't there.

[Qfwfq]

In that quote of Russel, one may find the following sentence:

 

But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

 

I agree that it is not "an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it" but this only goes against intolerant bigotry and I disagree with that wiki's contention that the argument refutes the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions. (Is there a verbatim quote according to which Russel himself draws this conclusion?). All the sceptic can say is that faith is not part of scientific method. The sceptic is free to disbelive; the faithful is free to believe. Live and let live, isn't that what we mean by tolerance?

 

I was pointing out that respecting the beliefs if they are not of merit is not necessary, and a separate issue from treating people with courtesy.

You are deep into issues of semantics and opinion here. :lol:

 

Regarding the teapot, I just think evidence should scale with claims, or they should be dismissed. No one can disprove or prove the existence of Celestial Teapots either, but I think we can be as certain as we can about anything that the teapot isn't there.

Here in Hypography Science Forums we do not like intolerant bigotry any more than intolerant atheism.

 

I do agree that religious teaching of children poses an ethical problem for a modern society but I also belive that children will grow up soon enough and only in extreme cases they will be unable to judge for themselves once they are adult; society should avoid such cases of subjection.

 

Getting back to topic (Philosophy of Science rather than Sociology) I still think it's a simple matter of distinguishing between scientific method and other reasons of belief. If a person says "Deep in my heart, I believe X", this has nothing to do with science and nothing more than this can be said, except that it's their own personal matter. I do not agree with Sam Harris, I can only agree with countering intolerant bigotry.

[Moontanman]

In that quote of Russel, one may find the following sentence:

 

But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

 

I agree that it is not "an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it" but this only goes against intolerant bigotry and I disagree with that wiki's contention that the argument refutes the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions. (Is there a verbatim quote according to which Russel himself draws this conclusion?). All the sceptic can say is that faith is not part of scientific method. The sceptic is free to disbelive; the faithful is free to believe. Live and let live, isn't that what we mean by tolerance?

 

You are deep into issues of semantics and opinion here. :lol:

 

Here in Hypography Science Forums we do not like intolerant bigotry any more than intolerant atheism.

 

I do agree that religious teaching of children poses an ethical problem for a modern society but I also belive that children will grow up soon enough and only in extreme cases they will be unable to judge for themselves once they are adult; society should avoid such cases of subjection.

 

Getting back to topic (Philosophy of Science rather than Sociology) I still think it's a simple matter of distinguishing between scientific method and other reasons of belief. If a person says "Deep in my heart, I believe X", this has nothing to do with science and nothing more than this can be said, except that it's their own personal matter. I do not agree with Sam Harris, I can only agree with countering intolerant bigotry.

 

Sadly it is not a live and let live situation, it's much more a live and stomp out the competition situation. Religions attacks on science have become more and more numerous, more organized, and more and more nasty. I have no respect what so ever for anyone who uses his or her belief in religion to attack science. Religion doesn't allow religion to live and let live. Each and every religion, often down to the level of individual churches in the same neighborhood detest each other take every opportunity to discredit each other. Science and rational thought is the biggest threat to religion and if nearly all religions, denominations and sects can agree on on thing it's that science is the threat to be feared, ridiculed, smeared, and attacked directly at every chance. Every time we allow these people to attack science by insinuating that religion is superior to science and we do not respond vigorously we loose. No, all religious sects do not feel this way but the lions share do and the rest do not have any love for science for the most part. It's up the the rational to defend science at every turn, to do less is to allow the light of reason and knowledge to slide into darkness

[Buffy]

Sadly it is not a live and let live situation, it's much more a live and stomp out the competition situation.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that.

 

But on the other hand, do you really want to lower yourself to that level?

 

That's the sort of "they do dastardly immoral things, so we must also," that the neo-cons use that has gotten the US into such trouble internationally. I'd say that anyone who responds to intolerance with intolerance is as incurious or as illogical as our current administration.

 

If you want to really win, the only way is to be able to take--and more importantly, hold--the moral high-ground.

 

Otherwise you're wide open to--justified or not--accusations of being the pot to someone else's kettle.

 

Social engaged intellectuals must accept reality as they found it and shape it toward positive social goals, not stand aside in self-righteous isolation, :phones:

Buffy

[Qfwfq]

Moontanman you don't seem to have got what I said about intolerant bigotry and I disagree about your generalization. No time to discuss right now.

[CraigD]

Sadly it is not a live and let live situation, it's much more a live and stomp out the competition situation.

There’s a General Semantics-esque fallacy floating about in this and other recent posts, I think.

 

We can easily point to large, load, scary groups of people, such as fundamentalist Christians bent on banning books and birth control and Sharia Islam extremists bent on banning female literacy, and say “this is how religious people act”. In doing so, we ignore the existence of many strong proponents of science who self-identify as religious.

 

Even an atheist such as myself can accept reasoned arguments and evidence that mental health can be enhanced by a well-managed degree of self-delusion, be it secular (such as the unspoken belief that one is actually the prettiest/smartest/bravest/bad-assedest etc. person who has ever lived), or religious (such as the belief that one will awaken after death to find oneself in heaven). Many people appear to harbor such beliefs, and even proclaim them via organized religion, but have no difficult separating them from objective and scientific reason. The idea that people who believe in anything irrational are incapable of being rational in any subject is, I think, an example of a result of a kind of wrong, black-or-white reasoning similar to that behind the idea that people who don’t accept religious dogma are incapable of moral thought or action, or that people in formal disciplines such as math are incapable of emotionally-motivated decisions. The idea that human beings are complicated, contradictory being capable of having incompatible beliefs while still functioning well in any discipline is described eloquently, I think, in writing by Stephen Jay Gould’s about what he calls “nonoverlapping magisteria”.

 

Unfortunately, the impulse to promote ones beliefs by compelling others to share them seems a robust trait of human behavior. As with, as best I can tell, all drives to compel others, this one seems to me to be very damaging, whether practices by religionists or non-religionists, and in fundamental conflict with the good and important social concept of liberty. Acceptance of the rightness and necessity of liberty requires, without any exception I can see, adoption of a live-and-let-live attitude toward others.

[freeztar]

This thread has taken an interesting turn.

I've much enjoyed the last several posts and rather than comment on them, I'm going to sit back (mentally) and reflect upon them.

 

Well, I can't help myself...

I think tolerance is important from a scientific perspective. Scientists know that unexpected results occur and the better of them can adapt. It's not 1:1 analogous to tolerance, but the scientists would say, I appreciate outlying data. :hihi:

 

And all of this just emphasizes the point that....science is Not close-minded!

[Moontanman]

I honestly wish we could continue to win or even exist by taking the high road, but I have been around the block a few times, I'm not a child who looks at the world through rose colored glasses. I honestly not only see a continued coordinated attack on Science I also see this attack on religions that are tolerant of each other and anyone who is orientated toward rational thought and science. The fundamentalist religious movement in the USA and around the world is growing, it's fringes are getting further and further out there while the mainstream is getting more and more extreme. To say we should take the moral high ground while it is being excavated out from under us by people who don't care what it takes to win is self defeating and will not allow us to even exist much less win.

[freeztar]

I honestly not only see a continued coordinated attack on Science I also see this attack on religions that are tolerant of each other and anyone who is orientated toward rational thought and science.

 

There's two options as far as I see it:

 

• disregard BS
  
• Succumb to it
  

 

But, let's not forget that this is not the brunt of it. When's the last time a Catholic priest told you that science is bogus? The "attacks on science" are a small segment of religious expression (though perhaps it is more pronounced in your parts).

 

The best we can do is fight it away with the cold hard facts! ;)

[Galapagos]

In that quote of Russel, one may find the following sentence:

 

But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the

 

part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.

 

I agree that it is not "an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it" but this only goes against intolerant bigotry and I disagree with that wiki's contention that the argument refutes the idea that the burden of proof lies upon the sceptic to disprove unfalsifiable claims of religions. (Is there a verbatim quote according to which Russel himself draws this conclusion?). All the sceptic can say is that faith is not part of scientific method.The sceptic is free to disbelive; the faithful is free to believe. Live and let live, isn't that what we mean by tolerance?

The Campaign for Philosophical Freedom

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather

 

than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars

 

there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit[...]

Russell's paper "Is There A God?" is a fun and short paper to read, I reccommend it if you have not already.

You are deep into issues of semantics and opinion here. ;)

I don't respect the claims made by holocaust denialists, and I don't think I am rightfully under any burden to unless they have the appropriate evidence. What I'm saying is I do not think there should be a double standard for religion.

 

Here in Hypography Science Forums we do not like intolerant bigotry any more than intolerant atheism.

When reading the actual definition of Conversational Intolerance I find little that I or the actions of most admins/mods here would disagree with. I only wish that this view would be taken more seriously in politics(Muslims trying to silence free speech in the UN, religious influence in our government's Bioethics,Sharia in Britain).

I agree, that Intolerant Atheism, such as that of Stalin or any of the other failed states that attempted to force atheism on people is wrong. I think it is important to recognize the difference between this, and what we do to people who think Elvis is still alive. Countries like Denmark and Sweden have it right, America is wrong and religionist politicians like G W Bush and S Palin are an embarrassment.

 

I do agree that religious teaching of children poses an ethical problem for a modern society but I also belive that children will grow up soon enough and only in extreme cases they will be unable to judge for themselves once they are adult; society should avoid such cases of subjection.

Big can of worms here. I think children have a right to information, including the information we have about world religions. I think educating children on religion objectively about the religious practices of the world is the right thing to do.

Getting back to topic (Philosophy of Science rather than Sociology) I still think it's a simple matter of distinguishing between scientific method and other reasons of belief. If a person says "Deep in my heart, I believe X", this has nothing to do with science and nothing more than this can be said, except that it's their own personal matter. I do not agree with Sam Harris, I can only agree with countering intolerant bigotry.

 

But if X happens to be a proposition that entails strong claims about the natural universe, then this is starting to become an issue of science. For example, if someone says "I strongly believe Jesus was born of a virgin" , this is a claim about religion, but it is also a strong claim about biology, and a false one. They are free to believe it, but it isn't just a religious claim.

I also think we can ask interesting scientific questions about that persons belief. Why do people believe impossible things? How does this help to bind groups? What is the worst that could happen? Religion is a natural phenomenon, just like global warming. I think we should study it with the same attitude that we have toward global warming: it may destroy us if we are not careful, and there may be absolutely nothing we can do about it. Either way, it makes for interesting science.

[REASON]

There's two options as far as I see it:

 

• disregard BS
  
• Succumb to it
  

 

I believe there is a third option:

 

• Refute BS
  

 

The direction this thread has turned relates specifically, I think, to discussing what are the acceptable methods, not only here at Hypography but generally in public, of refuting people's unsupportable beliefs, and whether it is even necessary to do so.

 

First off, I would agree that it is important to maintain a personal level of integrity and respect when confronting ideas of which you don't agree, and I know from personal experience, this isn't always very easy to do. We are human. But allowing yourself to continually succumb to the tactics of personal ridicule is not only dishonorable, it will immediately cause your argument to be lost on those you are attempting to persuade because the focus will shift from the point of your argument to the resentment felt from your derision. So invariably, it's an ineffective approach.

 

I also believe it is important to learn to distinguish when it is even necessary to refute someone's beliefs. This site has been a great educator for me in this regard because it has helped me to differentiate between those who are expressing a belief, and those who are making a claim. I know it is often a gray area, but I think people should be allowed to believe as they so choose, even if it can be shown to be utter nonsense. But to make a claim, particularly in a public setting, is an invitation to be challenged and the challenges should commense. But the focus of the challenge should remain on the legitimacy of the claim, and not on the legitimacy of the person if respectful discourse and effective communication that seeks to achieve some form of understanding is to be maintained.

 

 

But, let's not forget that this is not the brunt of it. When's the last time a Catholic priest told you that science is bogus? The "attacks on science" are a small segment of religious expression (though perhaps it is more pronounced in your parts).

 

I think generally speaking, you are correct here, but I do agree with Moon that science must stay vigilant against the concerted efforts that are being made to inject religiosity into the public sphere. I don't believe that it is the business of science to rid society of religion, but it is the business of science to make research and findings available to the public and to have a voice that challenges false claims and misrepresentations of scientific information as well as the overall purpose and methods of science.

 

 

The best we can do is fight it away with the cold hard facts! :shrug:

 

Yes, I agree with this. And this is the best way for science to raise it's voice and inform the public. Here in the United States, though, it may be necessary for science to be a bit louder or prevalent with what it has to say. But science will always be considered closed-minded by those who feel it is not supportive of the ideas that they have chosen to commit themselves, and it is no surprise that those ideas often emanate from religious teaching.

 

But have you ever noticed how much they rally around a scientific study relating to the positive effects of prayer?

 

Science is great, until it undermines your chosen and committed beliefs, and then it may appear threatening.

[Qfwfq]

Galapagos I read the whole article by Russel and I agree with the brunt and essence of his opinions, but I don't see there currently being a problem of. I did not find support of the attribution to his words regarding burden of proof. He talks about refuting various ontological arguments but says nothing about anti-ontological ones. :eek2: I quote his general conclusions:

 

"My conclusion is that there is no reason to believe any of the dogmas of traditional theology and, further, that there is no reason to wish that they were true. Man, in so far as he is not subject to natural forces, is free to work out his own destiny. The responsibility is his, and so is the opportunity."

 

Countries like Denmark and Sweden have it right, America is wrong and religionist politicians like G W Bush and S Palin are an embarrassment.

Errr... in medio stat virtus.

 

Big can of worms here. I think children have a right to information, including the information we have about world religions. I think educating children on religion objectively about the religious practices of the world is the right thing to do.

I agree with the importance of not denying children a full perspective, I said that it poses an ethical problem for a society because it raises the issue of freedom vs. compulsory education. Your location is Florida, i. e. in the USA, how much do you support the freedom of American parents to choose their children's schooling? Is homeschooling OK? Is it a freedom the parents have the right to? Many American parents harp about their constitution-guaranteed freedom of choice but should the children in the Bible Belt receive compulsory hermeneutics classes?

 

But if X happens to be a proposition that entails strong claims about the natural universe, then this is starting to become an issue of science.

Note that my considerations were about metaphysics and I was talking about things which are not falsifiable, even far less than the teapot.

 

For example, if someone says "I strongly believe Jesus was born of a virgin" , this is a claim about religion, but it is also a strong claim about biology, and a false one. They are free to believe it, but it isn't just a religious claim.

For some beliefs I can say it's a lack of hermeneutics, but one is also free to believe that divinity is not bound by what we arrogantly call physical "law". It's kinda like Popper's black swan argument. You can say it's just as unplausible as the teapot, but what empirical disproof do you have that the conception occured by means other than meiosis followed by fertilization? Like, the DNA in a cell just re-arranged and the cell just re-differentiated into a zygote. You'll never get it to happen in vitro, no matter how hard you try, but what does that disprove? We can only say it isn't the way the biomolecular process happens, it doesn't occur according to the chemical properties of the molecules involved. If someone wants to believe that God Almighty made it happen in that single case, that's their business.

 

Either way, it makes for interesting science.

It made for a lot of great culture. It concurred in shaping a lot of things, from tony's daily life to major historic events, it caused many wars... it's part of our heritage.

[Biochemist]

For some beliefs I can say it's a lack of hermeneutics, but one is also free to believe that divinity is not bound by what we arrogantly call physical "law". It's kinda like Popper's black swan argument. You can say it's just as unplausible as the teapot, but what empirical disproof do you have that the conception occured by means other than meiosis followed by fertilization? Like, the DNA in a cell just re-arranged and the cell just re-differentiated into a zygote. You'll never get it to happen in vitro, no matter how hard you try, but what does that disprove? We can only say it isn't the way the biomolecular process happens, it doesn't occur according to the chemical properties of the molecules involved. If someone wants to believe that God Almighty made it happen in that single case, that's their business.

Interesting post, Q. Incidentally, the process described here is called parthenogenesis. It is common in many "lower species" (e.g., salamanders) but it usually assumes an all-female population. It has never been demonstrated in humans, although I heard there was a search for potential parthenogenetic offspring in the UK a coupke of decades ago. Assuming we are describing the Biblical account and attempting to characterize a plausible (but rare) occurrence, we would probably have to assume that the mother (Mary, in this case) was XXY at least partially (this would be, clinically, Turners mosaic) and this status allowed a Y chromosome to express in the embryo.

 

That is the kind of thing that would not happen often. To say the least. But it is certainly possible.

[Moontanman]

Interesting post, Q. Incidentally, the process described here is called parthenogenesis. It is common in many "lower species" (e.g., salamanders) but it usually assumes an all-female population. It has never been demonstrated in humans, although I heard there was a search for potential parthenogenetic offspring in the UK a coupke of decades ago. Assuming we are describing the Biblical account and attempting to characterize a plausible (but rare) occurrence, we would probably have to assume that the mother (Mary, in this case) was XXY at least partially (this would be, clinically, Turners mosaic) and this status allowed a Y chromosome to express in the embryo.

 

That is the kind of thing that would not happen often. To say the least. But it is certainly possible.

 

I don't mean to post out of turn here but i saw the other day that Komodo Dragons use parthenognesis and the result is all male! I was amazed, I thought they had to be female!

[HydrogenBond]

Assuming we are describing the Biblical account and attempting to characterize a plausible (but rare) occurrence, we would probably have to assume that the mother (Mary, in this case) was XXY at least partially (this would be, clinically, Turners mosaic) and this status allowed a Y chromosome to express in the embryo.

 

That is the kind of thing that would not happen often. To say the least. But it is certainly possible.

 

The virgin birth of Jesus may indeed have a biological explanation, as was described above. There is a different way to spin this. Say we assume the virgin birth happened by Turner's mosaic, since it is plausible. For centuries, Christianity has insisted on an event that science said was impossible for hundreds of years, until science finally evolved enough.

[Moontanman]

The virgin birth of Jesus may indeed have a biological explanation, as was described above. There is a different way to spin this. Say we assume the virgin birth happened by Turner's mosaic, since it is plausible. For centuries, Christianity has insisted on an event that science said was impossible for hundreds of years, until science finally evolved enough.

 

Is this really a possibility or are we just spinning our wheels? Science just follows the evidence, if it changes then it changes, no loss of face unless you refuse to see the truth.

[CraigD]

Interesting post, Q. Incidentally, the process described here is called parthenogenesis. It is common in many "lower species" (e.g., salamanders) but it usually assumes an all-female population. It has never been demonstrated in humans, although I heard there was a search for potential parthenogenetic offspring in the UK a coupke of decades ago. Assuming we are describing the Biblical account and attempting to characterize a plausible (but rare) occurrence, we would probably have to assume that the mother (Mary, in this case) was XXY at least partially (this would be, clinically, Turners mosaic) and this status allowed a Y chromosome to express in the embryo.

 

That is the kind of thing that would not happen often. To say the least. But it is certainly possible.

To refocus on the thread’s topic, scientific investigation of the possibility of parthenogenesis in humans, regardless of its outcome and distinct form any religious connotations, is, I think, a strong example that science is not close-minded, but the opposite.

 

This is in contrast to the pre/non-scientific assumptions of the storytellers and authors of the various world religions in which “miraculous births” feature prominently, in which it is assumed that such an occurrence can only result from supernatural causes, such as impregnation by a god (eg: the story of Zeus and Danaë)

 

For the past century of so, especially in the US, there has been a tendency, I believe, to perceive scientific and religious thinking as innately incompatible, despite compelling evidence that for at least the preceding three centuries, many or most all professional scientists were also some form or professional clergy, and apparently sincerely religious. This perception is due, I think, to confusing close-mindedness with theism and religiousness.

 

A characteristic of open-minded theists and deists, which include many pre-twentieth Century scientists and present day professional clergy/scientists, is both scientific and theological open-mindedness. Acknowledging the possibility of parthenogenesis in humans is an example of scientific open-mindedness. An example of theological open-mindedness is the attitude that the character of God may be very different than that described in religious scripture, and is revealed by science. In contrast, the belief that scientific results that contradict religious scripture must be incorrect and be rejected is an example of theological close-mindedness.