Non-Scientists and Science

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

I have a general observation that non-scientists rarely get a good grasp of science sufficient to hold a sensible conversation with its practitioners, but conversely scientists can usually hold their own in conversation that involves the areas of expertise of non-scientists.

Having recalled Behe being interviewed in The Grauniad recently;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1567977,00.html

one can only be depressed at the lack of critical acumen that the professor of English literature brought to bear when the subject of the interview made a sequence of ridiculous statements that could have been challenged by anyone who could think logically and critically even without a science background.

Do others share this impression? Does critical thinking require a technical training in science? Does the problem lie in the difference between a scientist's use of objective evidence versus a tendency in the humanities to judge the weight of an argument subjectively?

Often when we interact with the lunatic fringe of science, whether in alt. med. or the anti-science of the religious fundamentalist, one gets the impression that they just don't "get" the idea of evidence as opposed to rhetoric.

[Melendwyr]

Many (perhaps most) academic professions have penalties for being willing to analyze arguments and call people out on ridiculous statements. Critical thought outside of the sciences, mathematics, and engineering, is quite rare.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Many (perhaps most) academic professions have penalties for being willing to analyze arguments and call people out on ridiculous statements. Critical thought outside of the sciences, mathematics, and engineering, is quite rare.

What do you mean "penalties"?

p.s. I must go to bed before I fall over, so I may not post back until tomorrow

[Melendwyr]

What do you mean "penalties"? Not kissing the feet of the establishment tends to result in hostility, few job opportunities, and lack of tenure.

I don't have first-hand knowledge of what I speak, so my opinions on the matter aren't particularly weighty, but a lot of formal academic groups are nothing but peer review. You have to have rules of evidence and logic before peer review becomes useful, and too many people give those concepts nothing but lip service.

[CaveDave]

I have noticed that when I debate with some people, such as a creationist, that when they assert that there HAD to be a creator, and I then ask from whence that creator came, they look at me like I just vomited an anvil; they seem absolutely unable to follow my logic or even recognize it AS logic.

The point is that I think some people lack the particular synapses needed to to realize that a conclusion necessarily follows from the given premises; they almost seem to not see the process at all.

Or words to that effect.:boggled:

Dave

[pupdog]

Those who go to University to prepare for a career in science very often take (either as requirements or because they enjoy or recognize the importance of) humanities courses. On the other hand, non-science majors often take only a single science course to fulfill requirements. To make matters worse, introductory science classes are, at some schools, the dullest in the department or designed to be dumbed down something awful.

[rwguinn]

Those who go to University to prepare for a career in science very often take (either as requirements or because they enjoy or recognize the importance of) humanities courses. On the other hand, non-science majors often take only a single science course to fulfill requirements. To make matters worse, introductory science classes are, at some schools, the dullest in the department or designed to be dumbed down something awful.
I recall the Physics department offered, for business and arts majors, a "Philosophy of Physics" class that was well attended by folks who struggled in classes I attended only for tests...
Never did figure out what Philosophy of physics was...

[Schneibster]

The problem with logic is that it quite often will lead you to the conclusion that your emotions are telling you the wrong thing. People don't like to deny their emotions, and so they find logic "unfulfilling" or "useless" and rationalize the traps that their emotions lead them into as being "someone else's fault." An emotion, after all, is "that which makes you feel good when you obey its promptings, and makes you feel bad when you don't." Thus, when you follow logic and deny the promptings of emotion, you feel bad.

This is partially offset by "conscience;" which is a meme propagated by society so that people feel good about denying their "baser emotions" to the extent of not engaging in rape and pillaging. This offsetting meme gives the infected one "emotional satisfaction" for resisting these impulses. However, the extent to which this meme is followed is variable; thus, some people "rape and pillage" economically, as salesmen or industrial tycoons, and such people are notorious for their rationalizations.

Interestingly, the association of an unwillingness to allow logic to interfere with emotionally-based desires and the lesser inhibitions against stealing seem to go together in the current crop of fundie Reprehensibles. It's quite clear to see, and you'll certainly experience it if you are ever involved in an auto accident with one of these individuals; they have absolutely no sense of fair play, and will take advantage of any slightest slip or admission on your part, and will lie shamelessly if they must to try to avoid taking any responsibility at all, and will even become hostile if you attempt to call them on their lies. I speak from personal experience.

The association of these two attitudes (which IMO stem from a common source: weak morals) is plain to see in the environmental damage this administration is doing, and their denial of global warming and assertion of ID.

Watch and learn. I do.

[Wudang]

In "Fashionable Nonsense" they quote (er....Chomsky?) someone at a party full of the arty types who were wittering on about "how illiterate scientists are". Whoever it was asked them "Do you know what a scientist means by mass?" They were offended. He points out that it's the science equivalent of, not "how well-read are you?" but "Can you read?".
BSM - you're in the UK? If so, PM your snailmail address and I'll lend you my copy.

[Bronze Dog]

In "Fashionable Nonsense" they quote (er....Chomsky?) someone at a party full of the arty types who were wittering on about "how illiterate scientists are". Whoever it was asked them "Do you know what a scientist means by mass?" They were offended. He points out that it's the science equivalent of, not "how well-read are you?" but "Can you read?".
BSM - you're in the UK? If so, PM your snailmail address and I'll lend you my copy.
Glad I got my art degree without (knowingly) running into those types.

[geni]

In "Fashionable Nonsense" they quote (er....Chomsky?) someone at a party full of the arty types who were wittering on about "how illiterate scientists are". Whoever it was asked them "Do you know what a scientist means by mass?" They were offended. He points out that it's the science equivalent of, not "how well-read are you?" but "Can you read?".

Yes and no. Generaly I leave issues like that to those who deal with physics (apart from anything else there are three posible answers).

[Zep]

My own impression is that people who are in the position of not having to solve problems on a regular basis tend to be those who do not understand or follow logic at all. Problem solving, to be successful, involves those basic practices of gathering reliable evidence and testing hypotheses, etc - the very basics of formal science! Even at simple levels and in a great variety of scenarios, problem-solvers tend to be the "ideas" people, the questioners, the "scientists". Their job is to actually question the rules, shape the rules, and sometimes even break the rules.

The obverse, of course, are the red-tapers, or, as I have succinctly read them defined, reglets. These people apply the rules, but rarely, if ever, question them. In many cases, no matter how ridiculous or inappropriate the rules may be, they stick to them nonetheless! AND they like to enforce them on others! Do we know these people? I think we do! ;)

[Bronze Dog]

o/~ They say the world looks down on the bureaucrats,
They say we're anal, compulsive, and weird.
But when push comes to shove, you gotta do what you love
Even if it's not a good idea. o/~

-Hermes Conrad

[Belz...]

The problem with logic is that it quite often will lead you to the conclusion that your emotions are telling you the wrong thing. People don't like to deny their emotions, and so they find logic "unfulfilling" or "useless" and rationalize the traps that their emotions lead them into as being "someone else's fault." An emotion, after all, is "that which makes you feel good when you obey its promptings, and makes you feel bad when you don't." Thus, when you follow logic and deny the promptings of emotion, you feel bad.

I think that's a very fair assessment. A lot of people can't tell the difference between what they FEEL is the truth, and the truth itself. They get a "gut feeling", and convince themselves that this corresponds to "logic". Quite unnerving at times.

Belz...

[luchog]

Glad I got my art degree without (knowingly) running into those types.
Those types are one of the reasons I gave up on my Fine Arts degree, and went into Computer Science instead.

[Bronze Dog]

Those types are one of the reasons I gave up on my Fine Arts degree, and went into Computer Science instead.
Funny, one of the small sideline reasons I left CS (primary one being self-contradicting instructors) was a particular brand of woo: Y2K chicken-littles.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

In "Fashionable Nonsense" they quote (er....Chomsky?) someone at a party full of the arty types who were wittering on about "how illiterate scientists are". Whoever it was asked them "Do you know what a scientist means by mass?" They were offended. He points out that it's the science equivalent of, not "how well-read are you?" but "Can you read?".
BSM - you're in the UK? If so, PM your snailmail address and I'll lend you my copy.

Thanks for the tip. I've ordered it from Amazon.

[Wudang]

You might also like Sokal's page on the matterhttp://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/. The article by Sullivan is interesting, accessible and balanced, I thought.

[Cleopatra]

I have a general observation that non-scientists rarely get a good grasp of science sufficient to hold a sensible conversation with its practitioners, but conversely scientists can usually hold their own in conversation that involves the areas of expertise of non-scientists.

Having recalled Behe being interviewed in The Grauniad recently;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1567977,00.html

one can only be depressed at the lack of critical acumen that the professor of English literature brought to bear when the subject of the interview made a sequence of ridiculous statements that could have been challenged by anyone who could think logically and critically even without a science background.

Do others share this impression? Does critical thinking require a technical training in science? Does the problem lie in the difference between a scientist's use of objective evidence versus a tendency in the humanities to judge the weight of an argument subjectively?

Often when we interact with the lunatic fringe of science, whether in alt. med. or the anti-science of the religious fundamentalist, one gets the impression that they just don't "get" the idea of evidence as opposed to rhetoric.


Well. Some times, critical thinking needs something more than common sense.I make a huge effort to apply skepticism in my everyday life and sometimes I feel desperate because I will never have all the scientific knowledge that one needs in order to address even mundane every day life issues.

Example. I am a woman and I wish to apply some critical thinking everytime I visit a beauty shop. I hold a box that contains an anti-wrinkle treatment the formula of which has been created in a sophisticated lab somewhere in USA. Whom am I to check their claims? I have studied Law. I am trying to pose easy questions to myself. " What wrinkles are?" I need a week in googling to grasp the basics in order to pose the second question to myself.

I brought only a tiny example. So,sometimes although one might wish it's not easy to think like a scientist and I don't one why should he/she be expected to act and think as one.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Well. Some times, critical thinking needs something more than common sense.I make a huge effort to apply skepticism in my everyday life and sometimes I feel desperate because I will never have all the scientific knowledge that one needs in order to address even mundane every day life issues.

Example. I am a woman and I wish to apply some critical thinking everytime I visit a beauty shop. I hold a box that contains an anti-wrinkle treatment the formula of which has been created in a sophisticated lab somewhere in USA. Whom am I to check their claims? I have studied Law. I am trying to pose easy questions to myself. " What wrinkles are?" I need a week in googling to grasp the basics in order to pose the second question to myself.

I brought only a tiny example. So,sometimes although one might wish it's not easy to think like a scientist and I don't one why should he/she be expected to act and think as one.

It's a very interesting point. When language is used deliberately to sound scientific but to conceal a lack of science it can be very difficult even to formulate the question required to crack the problem open, and, as with the example you choose, just because the marketing department has chosen to play fast and loose with the language, it doesn't necessarily mean that there is zero truth in the claim.

Unfortunately, spotting the B.S. doesn't immediately give you access to the truth behind it.

[Wudang]

Though Cleo's legal training should be an asset to some critical thinking. E.g. "what claim is actually being made here?". At some point that might evolve into a question that requires some knowledge of bochemistry and the properties of the skin, or the claim, subjected to a critical semantic analysis, may prove to be trivial.

[Cleopatra]

This thread reminded me of this (http://www.ific.org/publications/brochures/guidelinesbroch.cfm) article which is about an everyday life issue;food and nutrition.
"Improving Public Understanding: Guidelines For Communicating Emerging Science on Nutrition, Food Safety, and Health"


I find the discription accurate,

But there's another reality about emerging science, the media, and the public. And that's confusion. Surveys tell us that the high volume of media coverage has not brought clarity to or improved understanding of a topic of such obvious impact. More has not always meant better.

Again, there are several reasons why. First, the public's unfamiliarity with the scientific process can make the evolutionary nature of research appear contradictory and confusing. Second, scientists, themselves, don't always agree on what constitutes scientific evidence sufficient to warrant changing recommendations to the public. And, perhaps most important of all, how emerging science is communicated—by scientists, the journals, the media, and the many interest groups that influence the process—also can have powerful effects on the public's understanding, on its behavior and, ultimately, on its well-being.

[a_unique_person]

I have noticed that when I debate with some people, such as a creationist, that when they assert that there HAD to be a creator, and I then ask from whence that creator came, they look at me like I just vomited an anvil; they seem absolutely unable to follow my logic or even recognize it AS logic.

The point is that I think some people lack the particular synapses needed to to realize that a conclusion necessarily follows from the given premises; they almost seem to not see the process at all.

Or words to that effect.:boggled:

Dave

As an atheist, in their defence, I think that is supposed to be part of the definition of god, that is, the thing that didn't have to even be created,since he is so powerful, allknowing, but, curiously, jealous.

[Wudang]

Nope, try this article instead
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/badscience/story/0,12980,1564369,00.html

[luchog]

Funny, one of the small sideline reasons I left CS (primary one being self-contradicting instructors) was a particular brand of woo: Y2K chicken-littles.
Yeah, I got pretty sick of debating those morons as well. But I found that very very few people I knew who were actually well-educated, either university or self-taught, and had been around computers are while as sysadmins or higher, actually believed that Y2K crap. The vast majority of those with a solid technical background considered it just a load of horsestuff.

The people I found who actually did believe in all the Y2K hype, and who were actually in the IT industry, fell into one of three categories:
1) "Paper" techies; those with certifications -- almost invariably Microsoft MCP/MCSA/MCSE types -- but no real practical experience or education outside of the certification program.
2) Non-technical types; managers, project coordinators, newbies, people who understood only the barest basics of the field, and had really no solid concept of how things really work.
3) Nutjobs who have no critical thinking skills outside of their narrow speciality, people who may be good at the computer tech stuff, but also beleived in crap like psychics, pyramid power, ufos, shadowy government conspiracies to pollute and impurify our precious bodily fluids.

I also encountered more than a few scam artists who didn't necessarily believe the hype, but figured they could make a few bucks off the FUD.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Monkey has managed to string some words together in reponse to the article from this thread's OP.

"Dear Professor Sutherland,

You may be aware that your recent interview with Michael Behe raised a few eyebrows in the scientific and sceptical community. Typical adverse comments may be found at the BadScience.net site of your fellow Guardian contributor Ben Goldacre:

http://www.badscience.net/?p=173

I’m afraid if you put Sutherland + Behe into Google, the results are not flattering. Immediately after the link to the interview itself, you will find;

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/hang_your_head_in_shame_grauniad/

On the other hand, the crackpots of the ID movement are found to be happy simply to link to the interview.

You should perhaps recall that Google works by counting inward links to the sites it lists, so the search results are a rough census of influential online opinion.

I trust that you will regard condemnation from the rational community and acceptance by the lunatic fringe as significant demerits.

It was depressing for people with science training to see such an easy ride being given to someone whose scientific methods are so flawed and to find him not even being challenged on simple issues of logic. Failing to challenge the arrant nonsense that is Behe’s argument from “irreducible complexity” is frustrating to see. His opinions are well-known, and so are the irrefutable counter-arguments.

Notwithstanding Alan Rusbridger’s assurances that science reporting is safe in his hands, your interview with Behe does not bode well for the future.

I write because I find myself fighting an increasingly necessary battle in my profession as part of the larger war against the forces of unreason in medicine and the wider community and I see your piece as yet another sign that the tone of popular debate in science is being set by those who do not understand it or refuse to abide by its rules.

I am genuinely intrigued to know your views on the criticism levied at that interview. Do you now regret that soft approach? Was your plan one of ironically allowing him to parade his lunacy? If so, it could have done with a few more clues that your intent was humorous.

Yours sincerely

BSM MA VetMB PhD MRCVS"

cc. Alan Rusbridger."

[DrMatt]

It's been my considerable experience that very few scientists are able to speak coherently about music, and those who can generally are severely challenged at applying critical thinking to it.

The cause of this seems to be sheer unfamiliarity with the wide variety of musics people have made.

This unfamiliarity leads scientists to propose grand universals from the narrow subset of music with which they are familiar, such as "Major mode = happy", and "Canon = Tesselation of the plane". That's sometimes okay, because it sometimes leads to testable hypotheses, but those hypotheses already HAVE been tested and they don't work--music is a cultural phenomenon with an even smaller fixed neurological component than language has, not an aspect of physics nor neurology. Those of us who actively study music would much rather move on and leave the discovery of the wide world of human musicmaking to beginner ethnomusicology classes rather than spinning our wheels referring professors of physics back to those classes over and over again.

All that having been said, I do find a lot of really weird mysticism in music pedagogy, and it's just useless. Singers especially think their lowest-pitched way of beating their vocal chords has something to do with their chest resononances, and their highest-pitched way of doing it has something to do with their head resonances--wait a minute, some of them are empty-headed enough that there might be something to that.

One of these days I'll put together a lecture on how my students inadvertently deconverted me from being a believer in talent, into a believer that almost anybody can compose decent music or maybe even "great" music if they just put in the hours.

[DrMatt]

Y2K was a real phenomenon--limited to certain Wintel platforms. It shut down a few of our systems for a few hours. My feeling at the time was that Microsoft in 1995 made a strategic decision to build as much non-Y2k-ready stuff as possible, in order to have an instant market 4 years later.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

It's been my considerable experience that very few scientists are able to speak coherently about music, and those who can generally are severely challenged at applying critical thinking to it.

The cause of this seems to be sheer unfamiliarity with the wide variety of musics people have made.

This unfamiliarity leads scientists to propose grand universals from the narrow subset of music with which they are familiar, such as "Major mode = happy",

Funny you should say that...

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=1225511#post1225511

[Iamme]

I have noticed that when I debate with some people, such as a creationist, that when they assert that there HAD to be a creator, and I then ask from whence that creator came, they look at me like I just vomited an anvil; they seem absolutely unable to follow my logic or even recognize it AS logic.

Dave

There IS no logic in concluding that because We can from somewhere that that means the creator had to come from somewheres. Just to point that out.

Let me see you carry back the creation of everything (just pick one item). You will soon find out that you will say, "Well THAT had to come from something." When you finally get down to energy arising form nothing? Then ask yourself where the nothing came from. :) Ha, ha.

Why is it so hard to fathom that perhaps we ARE by design, from a deity that has no beginning or end, and answers to or answerED to nothing previous?

[SpaceFluffer]

The concept of ID is not difficult to understand, but to back it up with evidence and predictions seems to be impossible for the idea's proponents.

Why is THAT so hard to fathom for you?

[CaveDave]

As an atheist, in their defence, I think that is supposed to be part of the definition of god, that is, the thing that didn't have to even be created,since he is so powerful, allknowing, but, curiously, jealous.
So why could not the Universe as-we percieve-it (including the big bang) have come about without any Super Entity having to create it?

If the supposed Creator-of-All-That-Is had no ultimate source, how is it reckoned that the universe needs one?

Dave

[Schneibster]

Yeah, I got pretty sick of debating those morons as well. But I found that very very few people I knew who were actually well-educated, either university or self-taught, and had been around computers are while as sysadmins or higher, actually believed that Y2K crap. The vast majority of those with a solid technical background considered it just a load of horsestuff. I was in server tech support and they made me wear the pager on Y2K New Year's Eve. Needless to say, I got two pages- both of which were due to hardware problems rather than anything to do with Y2K- and both of which featured customers freaking out over this "Y2K problem" they were reporting. The marketing trolls convinced them the sky was falling, and they didn't believe the grunts who were on the ground- not even their own. Typical.
:rolleyes:

The really amusing part is, after Y2K came and went, and the woo all subsided, none of the idiots who had made the fuss in the first place showed any appearance of having learned anything at all and they freaked out just as much over the next one! P. T. Barnum was right; there's one born every minute.

[Art Vandelay]

I have noticed that when I debate with some people, such as a creationist, that when they assert that there HAD to be a creator, and I then ask from whence that creator came, they look at me like I just vomited an anvil; they seem absolutely unable to follow my logic or even recognize it AS logic.Yes, I got that reaction back in high school. We were discussing Aquinas' "proof" of God, and I asked how it is that Aquinas can start with the premise that all things have a cause, and end up "proving" that there is something without a cause. Doesn't that disprove the very claim on which he based his argument? The teacher's reaction was basically "Huh?"

In fact, I've seen people claim that our position is illogical. "God is by definition uncaused, so the question of what caused Him is nonsensical. You clearly haven't thought it through".

Funny, one of the small sideline reasons I left CS (primary one being self-contradicting instructors) was a particular brand of woo: Y2K chicken-littles.That seemed to be more of an issue with people who don't know much about computers.

Whom am I to check their claims? "Whom" is the objective pronoun; the subjective one is "who". If you're not sure which to use, you should use "who". Many native English speakers don't understand this, so you have a good excuse.

In "Fashionable Nonsense" they quote (er....Chomsky?) someone at a party full of the arty types who were wittering on about "how illiterate scientists are". Whoever it was asked them "Do you know what a scientist means by mass?" They were offended. He points out that it's the science equivalent of, not "how well-read are you?" but "Can you read?". Maybe I'm biased, but I think it's ridiculous how much people learn about the humanities without learning the basics of science and mathematics. For instance, there was one episode of Jeopardy! in which we discovered that Ken Jennings doesn't know what a radian is. With all the obscure, pointless crap that he knows, he never found time to learn about high school trignometry? In fact, thinking about the questions on Jeopardy!, there's a definite difference between science and the humanities. For the sciences, there are clues like "This unit is equal to 1000 meters" or "This is the term for a number with exactly two factors". For humanities, it's stuff like "This French Impressionist painter was born on Tuesday, June 15" or "This is the thirty-first word in I, Claudius". Apparently, for the general public, these are equally hard.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Could one of the people who are bemoaning the Chicken Little attitude that many showed under the perceived threat of Y2K explain something?

Isn't it true that many systems were non-compliant with the new date format and needed to be updated? I can't see that changing systems around that time was optional because if nothing had been done they would have been confused by the dates. I can't see how that would have been wrong. It was a simple fact that old systems couldn't handle the date.

So, are you saying they was no real problem at all and no systems really needed to be changed or are you saying that given that people had taken some action the fears over any residual legacy systems was out of proportion to the real risk?

[epepke]

Could one of the people who are bemoaning the Chicken Little attitude that many showed under the perceived threat of Y2K explain something?

Isn't it true that many systems were non-compliant with the new date format and needed to be updated? I can't see that changing systems around that time was optional because if nothing had been done they would have been confused by the dates. I can't see how that would have been wrong. It was a simple fact that old systems couldn't handle the date.

So, are you saying they was no real problem at all and no systems really needed to be changed or are you saying that given that people had taken some action the fears over any residual legacy systems was out of proportion to the real risk?

Due to the Y2K "scare," a lot of systems got fixed.

Then, when Y2K came, and not many of them broke, people said, "Whoa! There wasn't anything to worry about in the first place. We could have saved a lot of money."

This is how managers think. Managers run everything. It explains a lot.

[Leif Roar]

I have a general observation that non-scientists rarely get a good grasp of science sufficient to hold a sensible conversation with its practitioners, but conversely scientists can usually hold their own in conversation that involves the areas of expertise of non-scientists.

Couldn't that be due to observational bias? Would you recognise a scientist talking nonsense about a non-scientific area as often as you recognise non-scientists talking nonsense about scientific areas?

[Leif Roar]

Yeah, I got pretty sick of debating those morons as well. But I found that very very few people I knew who were actually well-educated, either university or self-taught, and had been around computers are while as sysadmins or higher, actually believed that Y2K crap. The vast majority of those with a solid technical background considered it just a load of horsestuff.

Although the Y2K problems were certainly overplayed in the media, they were certainly not "horsestuff."

The trouble with the Y2K problems was that nobody really knew how widespread they were. Any software or embedded system that directly or indirectly kept track of time was potentially affected and there was no way to know how they would behave if they were.

Of course, the media reports were mostly based on the "exciting," and entirely unrealistic, worst case scenarios that not only postulated that Y2K problems affected nearly all software and in every case caused the worst possible effect, but also assumed that no work would be done to solve the problems.

However, just because the popularised description of the problem was massively oversold, oversimplified and exaggerated does not mean that the actual problem didn't exist or wasn't serious. Yes, it was quite the anti-climax when 1st January 2000 rolled over and few serious problems occured, but that was partly because a lot of work had been done to make it an anti-climax.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Couldn't that be due to observational bias? Would you recognise a scientist talking nonsense about a non-scientific area as often as you recognise non-scientists talking nonsense about scientific areas?

It's a good point. I would still contend that you find a lot of non-scientists failing to grasp school-level science, but I would hope most scientists would not make howlers with school-level non-science.

This leads to wondering whether the sciences contain intrinsically more difficult concepts. Many leave school unable to do calculus. Few leave school incapable of meaningfully discussing causes of World War 2, but, more importantly, even if they hadn't been taught those ideas at school, few would find them difficult to grasp if meeting them later in life. The tools required for science seem to me intrinsically harder to acquire and the tools for the humanities easier.

[Mojo]

Maybe I'm biased, but I think it's ridiculous how much people learn about the humanities without learning the basics of science and mathematics. For instance, there was one episode of Jeopardy! in which we discovered that Ken Jennings doesn't know what a radian is. With all the obscure, pointless crap that he knows, he never found time to learn about high school trignometry? In fact, thinking about the questions on Jeopardy!, there's a definite difference between science and the humanities. For the sciences, there are clues like "This unit is equal to 1000 meters" or "This is the term for a number with exactly two factors". For humanities, it's stuff like "This French Impressionist painter was born on Tuesday, June 15" or "This is the thirty-first word in I, Claudius". Apparently, for the general public, these are equally hard.I agree. I occasionally set the quiz in my local pub. If I ask questions about science, they need to be around the level of "what is the chemical formula of table salt" if I'm going to get more than a couple of correct answers. Even for that, only about a third of the teams got it right. Questions about literature, for example, can be rather more obscure.

But the real problem is not just ignorance per se. It's the fact that people (and in some cases articulate and influential people, such as those who write newspaper columns) actually seem to be proud to be ignorant of science, thus perpetuating the idea that science is not worth learning about.

[egslim]

Couldn't that be due to observational bias? Would you recognise a scientist talking nonsense about a non-scientific area as often as you recognise non-scientists talking nonsense about scientific areas?
You could try an experiment: Have a scientist judge a non-scientific paper and a non-scientist a scientific one.
I'm a physics student and a couple of days ago I was with a economics studying friend who was working on a report. We talked about it and I made some suggestions for improvements and discussion, which he wrote down for further examination. I don't think he would have been able to do the same vice versa.

[Correa Neto]

Among the issues touched by other posters, I would like to add one- Language barrier.

Sciences use very specific terminologies, usually not known to the general public. For the non-academic public, it may be very difficult to differentiate between say, Star Trek technobabble and cosmological jargon. So, how can one, without knowing the meaning of the technical terms, truly understand what´s being exposed? :words:

Actually you can stay within the academic community and still see how this can be a problem. Immagine a biologist reading a paper on quantum physics and vice-versa, for example.

Ita true that some technical terms are nowdays know to a broader public, thanks to documentaries, for example. However, in many cases their meanings are completely distorted -check any woo page claiming QM & psi links, links between Atlantis and the Ice Age or asteroid impacts, UFO propulsion, etc.). And this creates another problem, the false impression that one really knows what that term is about.

Of course, if people were educated on the scientific method and critical thinking, the problem would be smaller. Scientific methodology and critical thinking IMHO should be present in high schools.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

This language barrier exacerbates the well-known tendency to think as follows:

science ... complex language ... woo-woo claim ... complex language ... woo-woo claim must be scientific

~~ Paul

[Bronze Dog]

That seemed to be more of an issue with people who don't know much about computers.
My roommate was getting better scores in CS, and seemed to know more than I did. And yet, he was talking about my N64 being affected.

And, as someone pointed out earlier: I knew Y2K shouldn't have been taken lightly, but when someone who should know better seems to think that every transistor on Earth features a calendar, it's hard to give them credit for anything.

[stamenflicker]

There IS no logic in concluding that because We can from somewhere that that means the creator had to come from somewheres. Just to point that out.

Actually, this is exactly the case. The logical argument is:

"Everything that begins to exist, has a cause."

That is much different than stating, "Everything that exists has a cause," which is a different starting assumption that is equally as valid.

Simply put, if it exists but did not begin to exist, there is no logical breakdown in taking this tack. The universe clearly began to exist, there is evidence to support that. That god did not begin to exist is an assumption, and all debate begins with assumptions.

Flick

[stamenflicker]

This language barrier exacerbates the well-known tendency to think as follows:

science ... complex language ... woo-woo claim ... complex language ... woo-woo claim must be scientific

~~ Paul

To which the philosophical linguist will instantly want to talk about Nominalism, which is a real philosophical conundrum. The language barrier carries a degree of reality extending beyond merely one's familiarity with terms.

Flick

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Actually, this is exactly the case. The logical argument is:

"Everything that begins to exist, has a cause."

That is much different than stating, "Everything that exists has a cause," which is a different starting assumption that is equally as valid.

Simply put, if it exists but did not begin to exist, there is no logical breakdown in taking this tack. The universe clearly began to exist, there is evidence to support that. That god did not begin to exist is an assumption, and all debate begins with assumptions.

Flick

You need to take a walk with a physicist down the paths of imaginary time to find that the universe may not have begun to exist.

[Bronze Dog]

To no one in particular... and not the poster by that name, either:

Scenarios that don't need a "first cause":

1) Infinite chain of causes. Possibly compacting as you get closer to T=0... if T ever equals zero.
2) Cycling causes: A causes B cause C causes A.
3) Acausality: The first event (if that term has any meaning) could have occurred for no reason at all. This is probably one of the more annoying scenarios, as it's a negative claim that could very well be true. And no, that first event doesn't have to be "god". It could be just the first, unintelligent, purposeless link in the causality chain.

[stamenflicker]

1) Infinite chain of causes. Possibly compacting as you get closer to T=0... if T ever equals zero.
2) Cycling causes: A causes B cause C causes A.
3) Acausality: The first event (if that term has any meaning) could have occurred for no reason at all. This is probably one of the more annoying scenarios, as it's a negative claim that could very well be true. And no, that first event doesn't have to be "god". It could be just the first, unintelligent, purposeless link in the causality chain.

BD,

Just genuinely curious about your post. Do we have literal "things" that exist as a result of these, outside of the theoretical?

Flick

[stamenflicker]

You need to take a walk with a physicist down the paths of imaginary time to find that the universe may not have begun to exist.

Can you suggest one who is on this walk? I'd be happy to read up sometime soon. Most of the ones I encounter are walking on "Evidence" street. ;) Seriously, I do like reading that kind of stuff so if you have a starting point...

Flick

[Bronze Dog]

Don't know. They're just scenarios that come to mind. I have, however, heard that virtual particles, where a particle and its antiparticle spontaneously appear in a vacuum (and usually annihilate each other very quickly) thus far appear to be acausal

[Melendwyr]

Roulette wheels and coin flips appear to be acausal - until you gain sufficiently powerful computational and imaging resources, that make it possible to predict how they'll turn out quite effectively.

[Bronze Dog]

Roulette wheels and coin flips appear to be acausal - until you gain sufficiently powerful computational and imaging resources, that make it possible to predict how they'll turn out quite effectively.
True. Virtual particles may very well have a cause we're currently unaware of. It'd certainly be more convenient if they did, since that would be a positive claim, rather than a negative. If they are acausal, we'll never know for certain.

[Art Vandelay]

Actually, this is exactly the case. The logical argument is:

"Everything that begins to exist, has a cause."That is one assumption, but there are those that start with the other assumption.

The universe clearly began to exist, there is evidence to support that.That is hardly clear, and the evidence is not conclusive. In fact, current scientific consensus, as I understand it, is that the universe did not begin to exist.

[Mojo]

The universe clearly began to exist, there is evidence to support that. That god did not begin to exist is an assumption, and all debate begins with assumptions. That god exists at all is an assumption for which there doesn't seem to be any evidence.

[stamenflicker]

That god exists at all is an assumption for which there doesn't seem to be any evidence.

Dang-it!

Flick

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Can you suggest one who is on this walk? I'd be happy to read up sometime soon. Most of the ones I encounter are walking on "Evidence" street. ;) Seriously, I do like reading that kind of stuff so if you have a starting point...

Flick

I was alluding to Hawking's book "A Brief Hirtory of Time". Enjoy, if you've not already read it.

[luchog]

3) Acausality: The first event (if that term has any meaning) could have occurred for no reason at all. This is probably one of the more annoying scenarios, as it's a negative claim that could very well be true. And no, that first event doesn't have to be "god". It could be just the first, unintelligent, purposeless link in the causality chain.
Unfortunately, acausality is also the foundation for a whole lot of woo-woo crap. Causeless effects would effectively change what we understand of physics, and the barrier between science and metaphysics.

[Bronze Dog]

Unfortunately, acausality is also the foundation for a whole lot of woo-woo crap. Causeless effects would effectively change what we understand of physics, and the barrier between science and metaphysics.
Also true. Acausality may be falsifiable, but it's a negative, and can't be verified, so we might end up spinning our intellectual wheels in the mud if we run into a genuine acausal event. Hopefully, we won't bump into anything like that.

[epepke]

True. Virtual particles may very well have a cause we're currently unaware of. It'd certainly be more convenient if they did, since that would be a positive claim, rather than a negative. If they are acausal, we'll never know for certain.

The reason for thinking that they're acausal, at least with the ordinary view of causality as something going forward in time, is that if they weren't, then it should be possible to send a signal faster than light, which according to Special Relativity is impossible.

Note that one way of looking at virtual particles is to imagine a particle moving forward in time and then going back in time a little bit and then going forward. Then the particle-antipartical creation could be called "causal," but it would be caused by something from the future. Many people do this, and it makes them happy. Of course, it goes against how people think of causality, as something going forward in time.

I think it's kind of pointless to focus on a specific idea, such as "causality," in the hopes that if you could get all of them, you'd somehow eventually prove that the universe is nice and simple in a classical sense. Quantum behavior is such that you always have to give up some desirable intuitive idea, and there is just no way to avoid this. You have some flexibility in picking which intuitive ideas you pick, but you can't keep all of them, and the only way to pretend that you can is to be selectively ignorant.

[Bronze Dog]

The reason for thinking that they're acausal, at least with the ordinary view of causality as something going forward in time, is that if they weren't, then it should be possible to send a signal faster than light, which according to Special Relativity is impossible.

Note that one way of looking at virtual particles is to imagine a particle moving forward in time and then going back in time a little bit and then going forward. Then the particle-antipartical creation could be called "causal," but it would be caused by something from the future. Many people do this, and it makes them happy. Of course, it goes against how people think of causality, as something going forward in time.

I think it's kind of pointless to focus on a specific idea, such as "causality," in the hopes that if you could get all of them, you'd somehow eventually prove that the universe is nice and simple in a classical sense. Quantum behavior is such that you always have to give up some desirable intuitive idea, and there is just no way to avoid this. You have some flexibility in picking which intuitive ideas you pick, but you can't keep all of them, and the only way to pretend that you can is to be selectively ignorant.
Ow. (http://www.bobandgeorge.com/Archive/Jun04.php?date=19)

[Mojo]

Having recalled Behe being interviewed in The Grauniad recently;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1567977,00.html

one can only be depressed at the lack of critical acumen that the professor of English literature brought to bear when the subject of the interview made a sequence of ridiculous statements that could have been challenged by anyone who could think logically and critically even without a science background.It looks as if Behe isn't getting such an easy ride this week: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

It looks as if Behe isn't getting such an easy ride this week: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178

"What a maroon" (http://www.barbneal.com/wav/ltunes/Bugs/Bugs34.wav)

[Mojo]

From the NS story: “You've got to admire the guy. It’s Daniel in the lion’s den,” says Robert Slade, a local retiree who has been attending the trial because he is interested in science. "But I can’t believe he teaches a college biology class."

[Belz...]

But the real problem is not just ignorance per se. It's the fact that people (and in some cases articulate and influential people, such as those who write newspaper columns) actually seem to be proud to be ignorant of science, thus perpetuating the idea that science is not worth learning about.

"Ignorance is bliss", I think is the corresponding motto. Personnally, I think ignorance is a curse.

[casebro]

I have noticed that when I debate with some people, such as a creationist, that when they assert that there HAD to be a creator, and I then ask from whence that creator came,
Dave

In light of modern science, it's obvious that the creator must have evolved. We just haven't found the fossil trail yet. We'll have to consult with some Astro-Archeologist on where to dig....

[Bronze Dog]

In light of modern science, it's obvious that the creator must have evolved. We just haven't found the fossil trail yet. We'll have to consult with some Astro-Archeologist on where to dig....
There's no fossil record because the creator didn't evolve! He's far too complex for that! He was designed by an Astute Designer Designer! Yes, ADD is the only explanation!

[Pastor Bentonit]

It looks as if Behe isn't getting such an easy ride this week: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178
Riiiight. If hypothesis = theory, then what? Whatever-I-just-pulled-out-of-my-@$$ = hypothesis?!

To paraphrase the article, you almost got to admire the guy. I, for one scientist with some 14 years of experience, have learned (the hard way, mind you) to be wary of ideas that seem "brilliant" at 3 a.m. after some nice Ruby Port... At least, you know, check the literature extensively (the peer-reviewed original research literature in particular), devise experiments to test hypotheses, predict experimental outcome or necessary observations according to said hypotheses, be sure to consider alternative interpretations etc. Sad thing is, in order to become a professor (and publish in scientific journals), Dr. Behe has surely done all of this many times before and yet, religion has obviously gotten the best of him in the end.

[Bronze Dog]

Sad thing is, in order to become a professor (and publish in scientific journals), Dr. Behe has surely done all of this many times before and yet, religion has obviously gotten the best of him in the end.
Sometimes I wonder if he got to be a professor in the same way a lot of untalented women became lead actresses.

[Just thinking]

But the real problem is not just ignorance per se. It's the fact that people (and in some cases articulate and influential people, such as those who write newspaper columns) actually seem to be proud to be ignorant of science, thus perpetuating the idea that science is not worth learning about.

And why not? Just look at all the people that can make very good livings without doing much in the way of thinking at all. I know one personally -- doesn't know squat about science (beyond very basic stuff), but his particular profession (broker) makes him $$$$$. And even in his field, he's no great performer -- just the nature of his work. Look at all the actors, performers, politicians, non-science teachers, township workers, bankers, police, store managers, secretaries, business owners -- get the drift? For every 50 of them you might find 1 or 2 others that actually use science in their field.

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Sad thing is, in order to become a professor (and publish in scientific journals), Dr. Behe has surely done all of this many times before and yet, religion has obviously gotten the best of him in the end.

Does his CV include real science or is it all of the made-up variety?

[Melendwyr]

I wonder if this debate actually will reach the Supreme Court, and whether they'll bother to hear it.

[Art Vandelay]

The reason for thinking that they're acausal, at least with the ordinary view of causality as something going forward in time, is that if they weren't, then it should be possible to send a signal faster than light, which according to Special Relativity is impossible.No, that's not true.

[Beth]

That god exists at all is an assumption for which there doesn't seem to be any evidence.

I don't think the existance of god is an assumption. It's an axiom. The flip side is science, which takes as an axiom that god does not exist.

[rwguinn]

I don't think the existance of god is an assumption. It's an axiom. The flip side is science, which takes as an axiom that god does not exist.
References, please?
Science is totqally neutral on the existence of god. It can't be proven that he does, and can't proven that he doesn't

[Beth]

References, please?
Science is totqally neutral on the existence of god. It can't be proven that he does, and can't proven that he doesn't

I wouldn't say science is totally neutral on the existance of god, but I agree that the existance of god(s) cannot be proven. That's what I mean by saying it's an axiom, not an assumption. Axioms are starting precepts, taken as true without proof. Everything in a logical system is built on the foundation of it's starting axioms.

Science has, as a starting axiom, that god either does not exist or does not interfere in our world in any way. Science then endeavors to explain all observations based on this assumption - that everything we observe is due to a series of natural processes, not divine intervention.

:) At least, that's how I see it. Others, I'm sure, will disagree.

[Melendwyr]

Science has, as a starting axiom, that god either does not exist or does not interfere in our world in any way. Science then endeavors to explain all observations based on this assumption - that everything we observe is due to a series of natural processes, not divine intervention. No, it does not. Science accepts as a working axiom that the universe operates according to principles that can be determined through reason and experimentation.

[Beth]

No, it does not. Science accepts as a working axiom that the universe operates according to principles that can be determined through reason and experimentation.

Okay, how is that different from my statement of the axiom "that god either does not exist or does not interfere in our world in any way"? To me, they are the same. Obviously, they are not to you. Could you expound upon what you perceive as the difference?

[Melendwyr]

Asserting that the universe can be understood does not rule out the existence of gods.

If you don't understand why, it would be pointless for me to try to explain.

[AmateurScientist]

42

[Beth]

Asserting that the universe can be understood does not rule out the existence of gods.

Agreed. Also, asserting the existance of gods does not rule out the idea that the universe can be understood. Nevertheless, science begins with the assumption that our world can be understand without invoking any supernatural explanations. To me that means that science starts with the axiom that either gods do not exist or that they have no direct influence on our observations.

If you don't understand why, it would be pointless for me to try to explain.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

[KingMerv00]

Sometimes I wonder if he got to be a professor in the same way a lot of untalented women became lead actresses.

Way to plant that image in my head. I hate you forever.

[KingMerv00]

Agreed. Also, asserting the existance of gods does not rule out the idea that the universe can be understood. Nevertheless, science begins with the assumption that our world can be understand without invoking any supernatural explanations. To me that means that science starts with the axiom that either gods do not exist or that they have no direct influence on our observations.

Science starts out with enough humility to admit that it has no way of experimenting on supernatural causes. They are not predictable in the same way natural laws are.

No assumptions.... just self-imposed limitations.

[Beth]

Science starts out with enough humility to admit that it has no way of experimenting on supernatural causes. They are not predictable in the same way natural laws are.

No assumptions.... just self-imposed limitations.


Isn't saying it's a self-imposed limitation the same as saying it is a postulate or axiom of science? If not, how do you perceive your statement as being different from mine?

[KingMerv00]

Isn't saying it's a self-imposed limitation the same as saying it is a postulate or axiom of science? If not, how do you perceive your statement as being different from mine?

A self-imposed limitation is not the same as an axiom. It is a matter of pragmatism not a matter of assuming truth.

Science has not (and in principle cannot) rule out supernatural causes, including God(s). Where exactly are you getting the idea that science is not even open to the possibility of the divine? Granted, they have no choice but to keep looking for natural causes in all situations, but that is only because the scientific method forces them to.

Science is willing to to say "I don't know". Religion never seems to get the hang of that.

[Mojo]

Science is willing to to say "I don't know". Religion never seems to get the hang of that.That's the trouble with omniscience.

[Beth]

A self-imposed limitation is not the same as an axiom. It is a matter of pragmatism not a matter of assuming truth.

I guess, we'll have to disagree here. To me, assuming that there are no supernatural causes is an axiom of the scientific method and the reason for doing so (i.e. pragmatism in your view) is irrelevant to whether or not it is an axiom and assumed true.

Science has not (and in principle cannot) rule out supernatural causes, including God(s). Where exactly are you getting the idea that science is not even open to the possibility of the divine? Granted, they have no choice but to keep looking for natural causes in all situations, but that is only because the scientific method forces them to.


Where do I get the idea that science is not open to the possibility? From the fact science is never allowed to postulate a supernatural cause. Instead, as you point out, they have no choice but to keep looking for natural causes in all situations. That seems to me to be stating that science is not open to the possibility of the divine. How is it that you reconcile this concept of science with the idea that science is open to the possibility of the divine?

[KingMerv00]

I guess, we'll have to disagree here. To me, assuming that there are no supernatural causes is an axiom of the scientific method and the reason for doing so (i.e. pragmatism in your view) is irrelevant to whether or not it is an axiom and assumed true.

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Science does not rule out supernatural causes. It cannot. It cannot confirm them either. As such, scientists to not go looking for the supernatural because it would be unable to come a useful conclusion anyway.

Where do I get the idea that science is not open to the possibility? From the fact science is never allowed to postulate a supernatural cause. Instead, as you point out, they have no choice but to keep looking for natural causes in all situations. That seems to me to be stating that science is not open to the possibility of the divine. How is it that you reconcile this concept of science with the idea that science is open to the possibility of the divine?

The reason science keeps looking for natural causes while excluding the supernatural is twofold:

1) As stated above, science cannot test the supernatural.

2) When should you stop looking for a natural cause? Even if current attempts prove fruitless, there is no reason to think QM couldn't be explained through pure mechanistic beauty in 10 million years. Should we just call it a day at 9 million and attribute the Casimir effect to the Mad Hatter's magic tea powers?

[Beth]

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Science does not rule out supernatural causes. It cannot. It cannot confirm them either. As such, scientists to not go looking for the supernatural because it would be unable to come a useful conclusion anyway.

Agreed. Science does not rule out supernatural causes. Neither does it confirm them. No failure to communicate on that issue. :)

But my interpretation is that the reason such causes, if they exist, lie outside the bounds of science due to the fact that science is built upon the axiom that god, if he/she/it exists, does not intervene in any perceptable way with our universe.


The reason science keeps looking for natural causes while excluding the supernatural is twofold:

1) As stated above, science cannot test the supernatural.


Science cannot test whether the cause of something is supernatural. I understand this. Again, we agree.


2) When should you stop looking for a natural cause? Even if current attempts prove fruitless, there is no reason to think QM couldn't be explained through pure mechanistic beauty in 10 million years. Should we just call it a day at 9 million and attribute the Casimir effect to the Mad Hatter's magic tea powers?

I don't understand your point here. When should we stop looking for a non-supernatural cause? Whenever we are comfortable accepting the cause on faith - whether that faith rests on the premise that the unexplained has a natural causes that someday science can explain or a supernatural cause beyond the bounds of science matters not. What has this to do with the idea that science assumes axiomically that there are no supernatural causes?

[KingMerv00]

Agreed. Science does not rule out supernatural causes. Neither does it confirm them. No failure to communicate on that issue. :)

Sweet.

But my interpretation is that the reason such causes, if they exist, lie outside the bounds of science due to the fact that science is built upon the axiom that god, if he/she/it exists, does not intervene in any perceptable way with our universe.

Wrong. If God really did intervene and everyone knew it, science would/could/should make no comment. Something along the lines of "Holy crap! Did you see that?!?!" might be appropriate however.

The reason supernatural causes are left out of the scientific method because there is no way to test for them.

Science cannot test whether the cause of something is supernatural. I understand this. Again, we agree.

Again...sweet.

I don't understand your point here. When should we stop looking for a non-supernatural cause? Whenever we are comfortable accepting the cause on faith - whether that faith rests on the premise that the unexplained has a natural causes that someday science can explain or a supernatural cause beyond the bounds of science matters not. What has this to do with the idea that science assumes axiomically that there are no supernatural causes?

How exactly do you START looking for a supernatural cause anyway? How would you go about selecting which supernatural cause is to blame? Magic? God? FSM?

Faith is alien to me. How people get through life using faith is beyond my comprehension. Belief should be a conclusion not some whispy a priori. How do you choose the correct a priori?

I can't think of any other way to explain the scientific method and its attitude toward the supernatural...perhaps someone else would like to try.

[69dodge]

Where do I get the idea that science is not open to the possibility? From the fact science is never allowed to postulate a supernatural cause. Instead, as you point out, they have no choice but to keep looking for natural causes in all situations.I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "supernatural". What's the difference between a supernatural cause and a natural one?

Science just wants to understand stuff. Is postulating a supernatural cause for some phenomenon really any different from simply saying, "I don't currently understand this phenomenon, and furthermore I never will"? If that's pretty much what "supernatural" means, then of course science doesn't want to say that.

It's possible there are some phenomena that we won't ever be able to understand. But we're guaranteed not to understand them if we don't even try.

[Beth]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "supernatural". What's the difference between a supernatural cause and a natural one?

Actually, this is a really good question and why I have pondered quite a bit. I have not, however, come to a conclusion. What are your thoughts on what separates a supernatural cause from a natural one?

Science just wants to understand stuff. Is postulating a supernatural cause for some phenomenon really any different from simply saying, "I don't currently understand this phenomenon, and furthermore I never will"? If that's pretty much what "supernatural" means, then of course science doesn't want to say that.

It's possible there are some phenomena that we won't ever be able to understand. But we're guaranteed not to understand them if we don't even try.

I agree.

[Beth]

How exactly do you START looking for a supernatural cause anyway? How would you go about selecting which supernatural cause is to blame? Magic? God? FSM?

Faith is alien to me. How people get through life using faith is beyond my comprehension. Belief should be a conclusion not some whispy a priori. How do you choose the correct a priori?


I don't know how to choose the correct assumption a priori. How can anyone? That is why I am an agnostic. But how can you claim that faith is alien to you when you appear to possess a strong faith in science. Unless I have misunderstood you, you believe that even those things we cannot currently explain could someday be explainable through science if humans wished to expend adequate effort to do so. That is faith.

Believing everything happens for a reason is faith whether you believe that the reason is rational and can be understood through scientific methods or whether you believe that the reason is god's will and not understandable by mere humans.

I can't think of any other way to explain the scientific method and its attitude toward the supernatural...perhaps someone else would like to try.

I'm sorry if I have frustrated you. I feel I understand science reasonably well. It just seems to me that science proceeds from the apriori assumption that no god exists, or at least, never intervenes in earthly affairs.

[Rolfe]

I'd take a stab at "natural" being fully explicable within the workings of the universe we inhabit, and "supernatural" being a situation where another universe or mode of being is postulated to have interacted with this one.

Now feel free to shoot me down.

Rolfe.

[rwguinn]

Sweet.



Snip..


How exactly do you START looking for a supernatural cause anyway? How would you go about selecting which supernatural cause is to blame? Magic? God? FSM?

Faith is alien to me. How people get through life using faith is beyond my comprehension. Belief should be a conclusion not some whispy a priori. How do you choose the correct a priori?

I can't think of any other way to explain the scientific method and its attitude toward the supernatural...perhaps someone else would like to try.

Well, if we were to find, embedded in granite somewhere, a fossill T-rex with a human encased inside, which was holding a crucifix which cured death, we would probably begin to wonder...

And yes, I specified granite because it is far for sedimentary...

[Mojo]

Where do I get the idea that science is not open to the possibility? From the fact science is never allowed to postulate a supernatural cause. Instead, as you point out, they have no choice but to keep looking for natural causes in all situations. Well, yes, you're right here. Science never postulates a supernatural cause. That's because science, by definition, always tries to find a natural explanation. That's the way it is.

If Newton hadn't looked for natural explanations, we might still have no idea of how bodies behave when forces are applied to them.

If scientists hadn't looked for natural explanations, we wouldn't be using computers to communicate with each other.

[Beth]

I'd take a stab at "natural" being fully explicable within the workings of the universe we inhabit, and "supernatural" being a situation where another universe or mode of being is postulated to have interacted with this one.

Now feel free to shoot me down.

Rolfe.

Not necessarily shooting you down, but if the other universe or mode of being interacts with this one in predictable ways, obeying the laws of physics as we understand them, how is that different from having a "natural" explanation?

Beth

[Mojo]

Not necessarily shooting you down, but if the other universe or mode of being interacts with this one in predictable ways, obeying the laws of physics as we understand them, how is that different from having a "natural" explanation? What "other universe?" The universe is all that there is. Anything not within our universe is not observable. It can't interact with our universe.

[Mojo]

I'm sorry, but that's the way it is.

[Beth]

What "other universe?" The universe is all that there is. Anything not within our universe is not observable. It can't interact with our universe.

I'm sorry, but that's the way it is.

No need to apologize. You have your beliefs about how the universe works and that's fine. Perhaps you are right. I'm just not as certain as you are about such things.

[Melendwyr]

Science starts out with enough humility to admit that it has no way of experimenting on supernatural causes. No: 'supernatural' things do not and cannot exist, given the way science uses the word 'natural'.

That doesn't mean that ghosts, Bigfoot, and vampiric lawnchairs are impossible. But if they are possible, they're not supernatural. Natural is just a whole lot weirder than we were previously aware, that's all.

[Melendwyr]

No need to apologize. You have your beliefs about how the universe works and that's fine. Perhaps you are right. I'm just not as certain as you are about such things. Things like, say, the definitions of English words?

[Mojo]

Things like, say, the definitions of English words?You beat me to it there. I'm uncertain about many things, but for the definition of "universe," well, I just have to look in the dictionary I keep within arm's length of the computer.

[Melendwyr]

I have, on occasion, seen 'universe' used in the same way that the word 'plane' is used in D&D. But most of the time, 'universe' means 'cosmos', the totality of ordered systems that interact with the observer.

Nothing outside our universe exists relative to us, and we do not exist relative to anything outside our universe. That's just what the word means.

[Rolfe]

Not necessarily shooting you down, but if the other universe or mode of being interacts with this one in predictable ways, obeying the laws of physics as we understand them, how is that different from having a "natural" explanation?

BethI think I'll wait until something in this category is actually demonstrated before considering that one.

Rolfe.

[Beth]

I think I'll wait until something in this category is actually demonstrated before considering that one.

Rolfe.

Okay. Your perrogative. :) But the original question was "What's the difference between a supernatural cause and a natural one?" It's something I consider when contemplating the question.

[hammegk]

... the original question was "What's the difference between a supernatural cause and a natural one?"
By definition, 'supernatural' or 'paranormal' cannot exist in any way,shape, or form that could ever be determined scientifically. If it were determined scientifically, by definition it would be 'normal'. Some say, within this universe, but M-theory seems undecided on that question with its' multiverse
-- p-brane -- conjectures.

Therefore, for 'supernatural' to exist, and effect/affect this universe, you must be a dualist, and goddidit (outside of laws of physics as we will ever know them). In my mind that position is logically indefensible, albeit unprovable one way or the other. Your rational alternative is to choose your monism -- its' all 'material & physical', or its' all 'not-physical', which some would call 'mind'.


It's something I consider when contemplating the question.
Good. It's too bad our scientists' haven't bothered to when they make inane statements like "Science is not inimical to Religion.".

[Beth]

By definition, 'supernatural' or 'paranormal' cannot exist in any way,shape, or form that could ever be determined scientifically. If it were determined scientifically, by definition it would be 'normal'. Some say, within this universe, but M-theory seems undecided on that question with its' multiverse
-- p-brane -- conjectures.

Therefore, for 'supernatural' to exist, and effect/affect this universe, you must be a dualist, and goddidit (outside of laws of physics as we will ever know them). In my mind that position is logically indefensible, albeit unprovable one way or the other. Your rational alternative is to choose your monism -- its' all 'material & physical', or its' all 'not-physical', which some would call 'mind'.



Good. It's too bad our scientists' haven't bothered to when they make inane statements like "Science is not inimical to Religion.".

Thanks for your thoughts. I think I understand what you're saying. The idea that if science can explain something it can no longer be consider supernatural is one of the difficulties/differences I have regarding what is paranormal and what is not. My personal definition allows some overlap, but I use a somewhat laxer definition that you've given. Still, I ponder what it all means. I find it useful to listen to other people's opinions, such as yours and the other contributors to this thread.

Thanks to all of you for the food for thought.