Science TV Show - AGuest and bohm please jump in (page 3)

botchtowersociety

People have the same problems. They are part of human nature.

BTS . . . it's an over-generalisation. I had a mate who was a brilliant freestyle skier . . . I would refer to him as a fine athlete. The problem he had was he couldn't swim . . . . so was he really a fine athlete?

Peoples shortcomings are a blanket observation . . . but we look at the platform on which they stand . . . it's impersonal, contributed to by promotors and detractors alike, as well as the passage of time, and it's totally impersonal . . . it's called evidence. And I think on that score science might have it's nose in front . . . regardless of who's doing the talking.

Don't let either party simply "have their say" . . . ask for the evidence . . . if it doesn't stack up, reject it, and the human element along with it.

tec

Well if that's a multi-choice question I'll pick B.

It was a clarification of my previous sentence. I don't think science cares one whit about religion... unless there is something scientific attached to it. The people, followers, disciples are the ones making comments about the other. I know not all of them (that would be generalization) but there are followers of both camps who do it.

Question - is Richard Dawkin not a scientist? He seems to devote a lot of time to debunking God and/or religion.

tec

Don't let either party simply "have their say" . . . ask for the evidence . . . if it doesn't stack up, reject it, and the human element along with it.

I agree 100%.

Not everyone does this though, in either camp. And in either camp, some are jumped on for questioning and/or presenting a different theory - right or wrong.

Peace,

Tammy

sizemik

Question - is Richard Dawkin not a scientist? He seems to devote a lot of time to debunking God and/or religion.

Yes Richard Dawkins is a scientist with specific interests in the area of Biological Evolution and Ethology. I would not choose him for expert analyses of a Geological or Cosmological nature however. As a man with a religious upbringing, he has chosen to publish personal works debunking the existence of God I believe, as well as creationism. That is his choice, as much as those who choose to publish personal works reinforcing belief in the existence of God . . . of which there are also plenty.

But I don't take Richard Dawkins personal opinions as Gospel . . . although I take some interest in the science he presents to support certain arguments. I think it's absolutely great that there are Richard Dawkins critics . . . they may well find flaws in his argumentation. This is precisely how evidence get's tested and either reinforced or discarded.

You are right . . . some have a tendency to jump on others . . . but don't ever criticise them for questioning an argument or hypothesis (religious or scientific), for this is the very mechanism by which scientific theory is scrutinised and survives to become established fact. It is a good thing . . . but religion seems to grimace under the glare of scrutiny and the testing nature of criticism far more than science. Science tends to accept it . . . religion tends to resent it.

PSacramento

It's not every day I am called smart AND stupid in the same thread, LOL !

Dawkins is a perfect example of a sceintist using science to justify his opinion that science proves there is no God.

In His view the evidence for evolution proves there is no God.

Now the science of evolution MAKES no statement like that, or any other statement for that matter, but one CAN draw various views from the science of evolution, such as living organisims well change to suit their enviroment.

IF one believes that the evidence present in evolution makes the case that there is no god then that is strickly based on an opinion formullated by their understanding of God and evolution.

IF a person's understanding of God states that God created everything AS IS and with NOT ability to adapt to change, then they are correct in believing and stating that evolution proves there is no God since it proves that life was NOT always as it is and life CAN adapt and change.

Of course that statement is based on TWO things:

A person's understanding/interpretation of God

A person's understanding / interprtation of evolution.

Neither has anything to do with science making any statement at all.

tec

Of course that statement is based on TWO things:

A person's understanding/interpretation of God

A person's understanding / interprtation of evolution.

Neither has anything to do with science making any statement at all.

EntirelyPossible

Glad to see my thread didn't die! I posted and then went to watch the PGA championship and kinda forgot about it. Great comments, all.

I did want to comment on something tec (welcome back from vacation, BTW!) wrote:

But you can be ridiculed, ostracised, looked down upon if you do not believe in the mainstream scientific findings... and if you are in school, then you can fail a subject.

Well, yes, you can. That really happens when you go outside of the mainstream with a wacky theory that doesn't fit the evidence and doesn't have any predicitive powers like a good hypothesis does. Science works by having new ideas, but those ideas have to 1)fit the evidence 2)be falsifiable and 3)be able to predict what will happen.

There is NOTHING wrong with saying you think something different that what's currently accepted, that's how science progresses. It's a building process where you build on what you know, sometimes tearing down what you know to build new in it's place, sometimes building upon what's already there. It's when there are none of the elements that make an idea "science" that people get ridiculed for pushing it.

As far as school goes, well, that's anything where you get tested for knowledge. It's no science so much but the nature of test taking.

Band on the Run

My roommate was in the grad dept. for biological science at Yale. Her profs were true luminaries. Manette was a convert Jew which caused some friction in our religion. She told me, just talking in general, no agenda) that many of the Yale scientists were sophisticated fundamentals. The awe of creation drew them in. Being a fundamentalist at Yale does not help your career.

The other bizarre thing I heard and another former scientist joined in is the casualness with which nuclear science treat radiation. They knowingly broke just about every protocol. Everyone else was terrified of radiation and behaved themselves. These superstars made substantial progress in their field. They died of multiple cancers in their thirties.

I have no idea what started this whole thread. Many scientists are believers. Their belief has no business in their work. If someone disagrees with something on TV, listen to music instead. Watch a comedy. I do it, frequently. The last thing I need at night is one of those gothic demon vampire shows that are so popular right now. For someone who does not believe in demons, I certainly can move quickly enough to change the channel to something Disneyesque.

tec

Thanks for the welcome back :)

I was just answering what Bohm asked. You ARE supposed to believe what mainstream science determines to be true... or you face those things that I listed above.

Question though - aren't all ideas that go against mainstream scientific findings/acceptance considered wacky? Otherwise they would be IN mainstream science, wouldn't they? Pretty sure 'earth is round' was a wacky idea when it was first presented. Evolution as well. Until the evidence lined up behind the idea.

Though I agree that religious bias shared responsibility for calling these other things wacky or heresy.

Peace,

Tammy

Science TV Show - AGuest and bohm please jump in

Share this