Where Is Now? The Paradox Of The Present

[Fist and Faith]

As you say, '''science" did not.' And "science" should not be cast in a bad light because of scientists doing things badly, or doing bad things.

Fine. Science is a school of thought which is value neutral and should not be judged good or bad. My apologies.

Now don't you feel better? Heh. Science is a tool, a set of guidelines, that help us learn how the universe works.

Galilei, Pasteur, and Newton were very strong believers. Mendel was a monk, and Copernicus was a cleric. THEY saw no conflict with faith and trying to learn how the universe worked.

Makes sense to me in part since god created the universe. However, there is the babel story with, for instance, language creating a unity of understanding of the world for humanity that god must then crush, in order to maintain separation between humanity and god. (god actually fears the unity, fears that humanity will equal god in one translation I read)

Moreover, this suggests that merely because they made great discoveries, they were great people and that the division between science and faith that they managed is what allowed them to make their discoveries. This seems highly improbable. Most science teachers would tell you the discoveries were something of an accident, not a moral reward for keeping two aspects of studying the world divided.

Let's use Mendel as an example. He noticed patterns in the plants he was working with; observed carefully through many trials; and worked out the probabilities. This lead him to develop two properties of inheritance. How much of that was accident?

OTOH, IIRC, the results of Rutherford's gold-foil experiment was quite a surprise, and lead to the accidental discovery of the atom's nucleus. In this case, the best principles of science were followed. The incorrect "knowledge" (asumption, really) was discarded, and our understanding improved greatly. Which lead to many more theories, experiments, and further improved understanding.

As for the division between science and faith, Mendel, I assume, thought the principles he discovered were a revelation of God's genius. An attitude Francis Collins shares, as clearly seen in his book called The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief. No separation in that. But neither of these guys used God as an explanation for any aspect their specific fields. Mendel theorized the two pairs of genes, with dominant and recessive traits, rather than figure God did it one way X% of the time, another way Y% of the time, etc. Collins knows all about the rate of mutation in DNA, and doesn't say God mutates each one. Does that show a division between science and faith for them?

Intelligence and facts don't have anything to do with happiness. It sure would be cool if they did, eh?!?

Nah, I don't know how intelligent I am so I don't know that it would be cool.

Heh. I just mean it would be nice if learning some bit of information could make one happy. That whole Depression thread wouldn't exist.

Don't wait for the world to do it. Cauterize them yourself.

Somehow I am reminded of Tartarus, the one guy in it (may be named Tartarus) who is trying to roll a boulder up a hill and, when he nearly reaches the top, he messes up and it rolls to the bottom. Kind of asymptotic, ain't it?

What I meant, using Sisyphus (not Tartarus) as an example, was that you can stop trying to roll that damned boulder.

[[Syl]]

I didn't read his post, so have no idea what the exchange was. But I'll gladly say science is laughing at you if you say science is arrogant ("...the hubris of science...").

Anthropomorphizing science? Can we just cut out the middle men and give him a long beard and sandals?

But better to try to make you understand. Your view of science is flawed in a very basic, yet profound, way. Deeply religious people have used the scientific method to advance our understanding of the world without casting the smallest bit of doubt on faith. Galilei, Pasteur, and Newton were very strong believers. Mendel was a monk, and Copernicus was a cleric. THEY saw no conflict with faith and trying to learn how the universe worked.

This ignores centuries of science overturning faith (and faith fighting back rather vigorously). From the heliocentric model of the solar system, landform creation as a gradual and continuous process (as opposed to cataclysmic), the fossil record, radiometric dating, not to mention a metric butt ton of ethnographic and ethnological studies that show how any one religion errs when it tries to apply its own cultural norms to other societies, I think it's perfectly rational - scientific, even - to think that if religion is consistently proven wrong or inadequate to explain natural phenomenon, it is reasonable to question its validity in the realm of the supernatural. I think a broad understanding of science as it pertains to religion exposes religion for what it is - a cultural component (which may be intrinsic to human nature, but that doesn't mean it's right) designed to harness political and economic power for the enforcement of its own norms.

Religion is no more validated by scientific minds adhering to it than it is invalidated by religious minds abandoning it. Newton also believed in alchemy. To go semi-Godwin, Mengele was a doctor. People often hold contradictory ideas. It may make us human, but it does not legitimize cognitive dissonance.

There is no need to try to keep them mutually exclusive. They are different fields. They do not contradict each other any more than music and cooking do.

I think a better analogy would be psychiatry and psychology, or sociological positivism and rationalism. Music and cooking do not attempt to explain the same thing, but science and religion do - both attempting to explain the universe, one in terms of how and the other in terms of why. Luckily for me, my brand of religion, if I call it that, thinks "why?" is the wrong question.

Don't wait for the world to do it. Cauterize them yourself.

Physician heal thyself? Easy enough for a stitch or a sprained joint (so long as it's not to your dominant hand), maybe a minor prescription, but there are very good reasons why medical ethics tend to frown upon operating on yourself or prescribing yourself narcotics (House be damned). We are usually the least capable of diagnosing our own problems. If religion has any saving virtue, it is that the community can help set the individual aright, prescribing a norm that generally works for that society and restricting one's ability to go outside of those socially acceptable bonds. But unless this becomes the worst form of religion, the individual needs to be relatively free to accept or deny that limitation.

I try to be a good man but all that comes of trying
Is I feel more guilty

[Fist and Faith]

I wasn't trying to validate religion. I was trying to validate science, in light of Holsety's post.

And faith, belief in a higher power, is not invalidated by science. Specific parts of a given religion's beliefs have been, but that doesn't mean there's no omniscient, omnipotent being out there who does not want us to have direct evidence of its existence, and who wants this and that from and for us. I surely don't have reason to believe such a being exists, but I don't have proof that it does not.

[[Syl]]

Ah. Then I'd say, "You can't get there from here."

But many aspects of faith have been invalidated by science. Irrefutably. Now, that may be 'parts of faith' rather than 'faith,' but if I were a betting man (not Pascal, obviously)...

For all I know, there's some kind of universal force preserving my consciousness. Think about the infinite upon infinite permutations required to bring me into existence, the entire play of astronomical, geological, evolutionary, and human history bringing one [Syl] into being (one sperm among millions, one genetic combination upon... well, a lot, presumably, the environment and circumstances that lead to the expression of phenotypes), the multitude of tragedies that could have befallen me every second (and still can) ending my stay here. That could lead a person into thinking he's pretty damn important, and possibly indestructible. It would be pretty dumb to test it, though.

All possibilities being equal, we should ideally only act on the demonstrable, or barring that, the probable. No matter how you slice it, I just don't see how gods fit into that category.

[Fist and Faith]

I agree.

Of course, a whole lot of people are not like us.

Which doesn't matter a lick when it comes to understanding properties of this universe. If you want to understand them, you have to observe, theorize, experiment, revise, etc. If you do, you develop things like nuclear energy, the phonograph, the internet, airplanes, strains of plants that can feed more people than before, medicines, and on and on. Real, irrefutable advances in knowledge. Doesn't mean we currently know all there is to know about the properties of the universe. Doesn't mean we can ever learn all there is. Doesn't mean we aren't wrong about some things. But we have learned much.

[Holsety]

Let's use Mendel as an example. He noticed patterns in the plants he was working with; observed carefully through many trials; and worked out the probabilities. This lead him to develop two properties of inheritance. How much of that was accident?

I don't know. I would argue that we don't know. Since quantum particles arrange themselves differently depending upon how they are observed, how do we know whether it was completely determined, completely random, or somewhere in between? In other words, what are your views regarding free will vs determinism?

OTOH, IIRC, the results of Rutherford's gold-foil experiment was quite a surprise, and lead to the accidental discovery of the atom's nucleus. In this case, the best principles of science were followed. The incorrect "knowledge" (asumption, really) was discarded, and our understanding improved greatly. Which lead to many more theories, experiments, and further improved understanding.

Assumptions do make an ass out of u and mptions. But what did we really come to understand?

As for the division between science and faith, Mendel, I assume, thought the principles he discovered were a revelation of God's genius.

All understanding is a revelation of god's genius?! I could go that far with things!

Does that show a division between science and faith for them?

No, but for their writings and observations it does!

What I meant, using Sisyphus (not Tartarus) as an example, was that you can stop trying to roll that damned boulder.

But it's so hard. That boulder is looking so good right now.

It may make us human, but it does not legitimize cognitive dissonance.

So is cognitive dissonance the great crime in your mind? Or is it cognitive dissonance in the wrong place at the wrong time?

Luckily for me, my brand of religion, if I call it that, thinks "why?" is the wrong question.

I agree that "why" may be the wrong question, but I still ask it from time to time. It's part of the 5 ws and an H, and while I am not a reporter, it's very tough for me to forget the W.

Now, that may be 'parts of faith' rather than 'faith,' but if I were a betting man (not Pascal, obviously)...

If you're thinking of it as a bet, then you know that keeping your money on the more probable option isn't going to get you much money most of the time, and on the balance it's going to be the same whether you put your money on the rare or the common.

That could lead a person into thinking he's pretty damn important, and possibly indestructible. It would be pretty dumb to test it, though.

We do test it. You are testing it right now. It's called "reality testing." We post our ideas on a forum and see what responses are issued forth from the void to challenge the logic of it. And you are probably succeeding far better than I, who deserves something like an A for effort and an F for results.

[Avatar]

I try to be a good man but all that comes of trying
Is I feel more guilty

--A

[Fist and Faith]

Let's use Mendel as an example. He noticed patterns in the plants he was working with; observed carefully through many trials; and worked out the probabilities. This lead him to develop two properties of inheritance. How much of that was accident?

I don't know. I would argue that we don't know. Since quantum particles arrange themselves differently depending upon how they are observed, how do we know whether it was completely determined, completely random, or somewhere in between? In other words, what are your views regarding free will vs determinism?

That's another subject. I'm just saying that Mendel noticed something, and studied it very intentionally and methodically. That lead to a greater understanding of inheritence. It was not an accidental discovery, as Rutherford's was.

OTOH, IIRC, the results of Rutherford's gold-foil experiment was quite a surprise, and lead to the accidental discovery of the atom's nucleus. In this case, the best principles of science were followed. The incorrect "knowledge" (asumption, really) was discarded, and our understanding improved greatly. Which lead to many more theories, experiments, and further improved understanding.

Assumptions do make an ass out of u and mptions. But what did we really come to understand?

We gained a better understanding of the structure of the atom.

As for the division between science and faith, Mendel, I assume, thought the principles he discovered were a revelation of God's genius.

All understanding is a revelation of god's genius?! I could go that far with things!

Cool. Nothing wrong with that. That attitude doesn't conflict with science. Nothnig wrong with thinking evolution is an extraordinary tool God created to bring about extraordinary diversity. Who loses in that scenario? It doesn't prevent actually learning what the mechanisms of evolution are.

Does that show a division between science and faith for them?

No, but for their writings and observations it does!

I don't know what you mean.

What I meant, using Sisyphus (not Tartarus) as an example, was that you can stop trying to roll that damned boulder.

But it's so hard. That boulder is looking so good right now.

Step away from the boulder, Holsety. Put it down and step away!

[ussusimiel]

I have a couple of problems with Science.

But, before I outline them let me first say how much I love Science in and of and for itself. In itself Science is endlessly fantastic and fascinating. Quantum physics and cosmology alone are enough to make anybody breathe deep and stare open-eyed in wonder. For me (and others as well, I'm sure), at times there is the beauty of poetry in the discoveries and the theories.

My difficulties with Science relate (as they often do for me) to power. Science is a powerful way to gain knowledge, maybe the most powerful way that we know. But, with power comes responsibility and here I think scientists let themselves down.

There are two issues:

- one is that Science is an explanatory model not a truth-seeking discipline. Dawkins and Hawking's statements about religion show a lack of understanding of this and because of the position of power that Science occupies in our culture people believe such statements.

- the second is that one of the inevitable consequences of power is that it defends itself utterly. Science wages a constant war for resources and status against other sources of knowledge. I'll use Homeopathy as an example. Homeopathy, for whatever reason, works in a way that cannot be tested scientifically. None of the tests, none of the studies demonstrate that it works, yet testimony after testimony from people it has worked for are ignored. Because of Science's position of power it is able to effectively block Homeopathy from becoming a more mainstream therapy and maybe being covered by public health insurance. (Funnily, private insurers (basing their conclusions on actuarial tables) will often pay for alternative therapies).

These two issues show, for me, that scientists do not properly understand that the practice of Science is a fully human endeavor and so, is as prone as any other human activity to political and cultural forces. Too many people in society in general (and engaged in Science) perceive Science as being above all that messy fallible human stuff and that somehow Science is a special case.

u.

[Fist and Faith]

I don't know much of anything about homeopathy, so can't comment there. But I agree with everything else you said. I think, though, that you don't see the flip-side. At least you don't acknowledge it at the moment. Science is not the problem. How it is used is the problem. The flip-side is that faith is not a problem. How it is used is the problem.

-Those who hold the power in the world of faith used the faith of the people to commit atrocities. The Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition, for example.
-People have used faith in ignorance, and on the ignorant, to commit atrocities. The Salem Witch Trials, for example.
-Not sure how to classify it, but the Jehovah's Witnesses discrediting evolution in the eyes of their followers by discrediting an insanely inaccurate understanding of it in their pamphlets.

These things are on par with the Dawkins and Hawking stuff. Now, if we want, we can start to tally it all up, and see which side has done more, and worse, bad things using their favored field of human interest. But it really doesn't matter. Both have been used to harm humanity. Every field of human interest has been used badly, intentionally or ignorantly, by somebody or other. But the blame should be given to those using them to do the harm.

[Avatar]

Homeopathy, for whatever reason, works in a way that cannot be tested scientifically. None of the tests, none of the studies demonstrate that it works, yet testimony after testimony from people it has worked for are ignored.

Because unless you can prove that it works, anecdotal evidence is generally meaningless.

If the underlying premise of it cannot be shown to be true, (and in the case of homeopathy it can't), then there is no justification for its claims.

That isn't to say that the placebo effect isn't a recognised thing. It is. But it's not scientifically repeatable, and that's one of the most important criteria.

--A

[ussusimiel]

I think, though, that you don't see the flip-side. At least you don't acknowledge it at the moment. Science is not the problem. How it is used is the problem. The flip-side is that faith is not a problem. How it is used is the problem.

I do not see Science as a problem. I see it as a major positive in our lives. That knowledge and faith should be separate is possibly the greatest benefit that science has given us. (That faith can (and maybe should) have an influence on issues such as birth, fertility and death is also something for which, I think, a strong argument can be made.)

My point, however, is not about Science in itself. My point is about knowledge. What I have a difficulty with is the idea that Science is the sole arbiter of what can be known. I offer the example of Chinese medicine, a body of knowledge about the human body and health that spans more than 2000 years. I do not object to scientific testing of this body of knowledge, what I object to is the attitude that until it is tested by Science it cannot be trusted or treated as reliable.

And this is my key point: Science is a wonderful way to gain knowledge, but it is not the only way. If it is generally accepted as such then, IMO, other ways of gaining knowledge will be overlooked to our detriment.

u.

[Fist and Faith]

I do not see Science as a problem. I see it as a major positive in our lives. That knowledge and faith should be separate is possibly the greatest benefit that science has given us.

Not to argue, but to clarify, do you mean that how we acquire knowledge and faith should be separate things?

(That faith can (and maybe should) have an influence on issues such as birth, fertility and death is also something for which, I think, a strong argument can be made.)

I'll most definitely argue against the idea that it should. Of course, it can, and, for many people, does.

My point, however, is not about Science in itself. My point is about knowledge. What I have a difficulty with is the idea that Science is the sole arbiter of what can be known. I offer the example of Chinese medicine, a body of knowledge about the human body and health that spans more than 2000 years. I do not object to scientific testing of this body of knowledge, what I object to is the attitude that until it is tested by Science it cannot be trusted or treated as reliable.

This is a tricky thing. I have no doubt that the kinds of thing you're talking about are legitimately able to do this and that. The whole field of medicine came about because of remedies that people had long known to work. It would be impossible to turn around and say those things have no effect. But how much of whichever Chinese medicine we might name will perform the desired function in a person of X lbs? And will it work in the presence of some particular mineral that is eaten by the inhabitants of a given region? What I'm trying to say is, it's not that it cannot be trusted if it's not studied in particular ways; it's just that we don't know how to go about it. The bark of this or that tree might help with a headache, but can you tell me how much of it I need to take? The bottle of aspirin is very helpful with that information, because it's been studied, refined, and tested so much.

And this is my key point: Science is a wonderful way to gain knowledge, but it is not the only way. If it is generally accepted as such then, IMO, other ways of gaining knowledge will be overlooked to our detriment.

Science looks for certain types of knowledge, using certain methods. If we want types of knowledge other than the types that can be gained with those methods, then we most certainly have to acquire it by other means.

What type of knowledge do you have in mind?

[ussusimiel]

I do not see Science as a problem. I see it as a major positive in our lives. That knowledge and faith should be separate is possibly the greatest benefit that science has given us.

Not to argue, but to clarify, do you mean that how we acquire knowledge and faith should be separate things?

(I condensed a bit too much here.) What I meant is that knowledge that is faith-based (e.g. God is in Heaven) and knowledge that is experience based, such as Science provides (e.g. the earth orbits the sun) need to be separated so that clashes between what we know from our experience of life and what faith tells us are minimised.

And this is my key point: Science is a wonderful way to gain knowledge, but it is not the only way. If it is generally accepted as such then, IMO, other ways of gaining knowledge will be overlooked to our detriment.

Science looks for certain types of knowledge, using certain methods. If we want types of knowledge other than the types that can be gained with those methods, then we most certainly have to acquire it by other means.

What type of knowledge do you have in mind?

I am thinking of what I call experiential knowledge, by which I generally mean knowledge that we experience and know in our body. If you go to a doctor with a sore knee they will give you a painkiller and maybe send you for an X-Ray or to a physio. If you go to an osteopath with the same complaint you may end up finding out that your dodgy knee is symptom of your relationship with your father. One paradigm treats the symptom and the other treats the whole system.

If you have never heard of osteopathy before you visit one, aside from the insight into your knee problem, the whole experience may be one extended garnering of knowledge in a way you had never imagined before, similarly: Homeopathy, Shamanism, Energy healing, Tarot, Aura-Soma and so on.

But, this is not really the point I am trying to make. I recognise that Science looks at certain areas using certain methods, my concern is how those areas and methods dominate the way society sees experiential knowledge in general. I understand that certain types of knowledge may be valued more than others, but again I think that just because one paradigm is dominant doesn't mean that such dominance is healthy for the individual or society.

I recognise that for many people Science provides more than enough of specific types of knowledge for them. However, I personally prefer the breadth of the older root of the word 'science', 'scire', which was 'to know'.

u.

[Fist and Faith]

I do not see Science as a problem. I see it as a major positive in our lives. That knowledge and faith should be separate is possibly the greatest benefit that science has given us.

Not to argue, but to clarify, do you mean that how we acquire knowledge and faith should be separate things?

(I condensed a bit too much here.) What I meant is that knowledge that is faith-based (e.g. God is in Heaven) and knowledge that is experience based, such as Science provides (e.g. the earth orbits the sun) need to be separated so that clashes between what we know from our experience of life and what faith tells us are minimised.

Gotcha. That's what I figured you meant, but wanted to make sure.

And this is my key point: Science is a wonderful way to gain knowledge, but it is not the only way. If it is generally accepted as such then, IMO, other ways of gaining knowledge will be overlooked to our detriment.

Science looks for certain types of knowledge, using certain methods. If we want types of knowledge other than the types that can be gained with those methods, then we most certainly have to acquire it by other means.

What type of knowledge do you have in mind?

I am thinking of what I call experiential knowledge, by which I generally mean knowledge that we experience and know in our body. If you go to a doctor with a sore knee they will give you a painkiller and maybe send you for an X-Ray or to a physio. If you go to an osteopath with the same complaint you may end up finding out that your dodgy knee is symptom of your relationship with your father. One paradigm treats the symptom and the other treats the whole system.

If you have never heard of osteopathy before you visit one, aside from the insight into your knee problem, the whole experience may be one extended garnering of knowledge in a way you had never imagined before, similarly: Homeopathy, Shamanism, Energy healing, Tarot, Aura-Soma and so on.

But, this is not really the point I am trying to make. I recognise that Science looks at certain areas using certain methods, my concern is how those areas and methods dominate the way society sees experiential knowledge in general. I understand that certain types of knowledge may be valued more than others, but again I think that just because one paradigm is dominant doesn't mean that such dominance is healthy for the individual or society.

I recognise that for many people Science provides more than enough of specific types of knowledge for them. However, I personally prefer the breadth of the older root of the word 'science', 'scire', which was 'to know'.

I'm not so sure it's the way you see it. I think more people act on what they feel more often than they act on the "scientifically verifiable" facts they know, or on what they know is the better course of action. Clinton was the world's best example of the latter. Is anybody in the world busier than the POTUS? Is anybody in the world under closer scrutiny, and more closely observed than the POTUS? So here's a married guy who couldn't possibly expect to get away with an affair; who most certainly had more important things to do than have an affair; on top of the fact that marriage vows generally have you promising not to do such things... And what did he do?

As for the former, plenty of people believe what they choose to believe, even if it opposes known facts. Some people falsify facts in order to convince others that what they feel to be true is fact.

I don't think society sees experiential knowledge as a lesser thing, or that it values the scientific type more. It's just that, as I said before about the Chinese medicine, the experiential knowledge can't be treated the same way. We can't teach it in classes, because it's different for each person. That's the nature of experiential knowledge, eh? We teach things like the speed of sound, the rate of radioactive decay, and how chemicals interact because these things are the same for everyone. Not so with what you're talking about, so we can't teach it. And the irony is that, if we study experiential knowledge, and find commonalities among it, and classify them, and come to understand how and why they happen . . . it has become science.