Criticism of Modern Science

[inocente]

Good example. Science cannot tell us if a poem is good or not. Can you imagine how aesthetically blind (or simply inhuman) you’d have to be to want to “scientifically test” various poems to determine if they’re “good for us” or not?

Get a large group of people to independently judge the poems and see if there’s a quorum. It’s closer to social science than physics, but do-able all the same.

… and yet, the same science cannot explain why the letters “Cat” should mean a mammal. If we relied on science and materialism, we would not even be able to communicate at a kindergarden level.

My limited Latin says gattus is corrupted to cat (English), chat (French) and gato (Spanish), although cats are probably still mammals independent of what name we use. Are you saying linguistics isn’t a science?

 

[Anselm33]

Get a large group of people to independently judge the poems and see if there’s a quorum. It’s closer to social science than physics, but do-able all the same.D

Here’s why (IMHO) your example doesn’t constitute science ( although it may be that oxymoron “social science”). It is subjective. True science is objective, not subjective.
Let me give another example from the Olympic Games: the winner, second place, etc in a high jump, or in a dash can be incontrovertibly established–just measure the highest jump, the shortest time; the winner in figure skating depends on a point score from subjective judges, and even though it comes out as a number, it’s still subjective (how many scores in figure skating or gymnastics do you think may have been influenced by subjective nationalistic feelings?) And in your example, though you may get a number out (the vote score), you won’t KNOW in any sense what feelings one poem inspires in the mind of a judge. He/she may tell you that, but it will only be an imperfect, non-scientific piece of evidence.

The reason I get on a soap-box about this is that we live in dangerous times, when the pseudo-intellectuals and pseudo-scientists (e.g. Sam Davis, Richard Dawkins) attempt to set a moral code based on their own prejudices, by borrowing the prestige of science and calling their bias scientific. Consider that if one lived in Germany during the 1930’s; the racial theories of Haeckel were accepted by the majority so that the ethical and moral standards then (for those in the majority) condoned the murder of Jews, Catholic priests, gypsies and the mentally unfit. Suppose you lived now in New York city, or any large metropolitan area, what the moral standards set by the majority would be.

I maintain, despite what those say who know nothing of what science is about (including the etymologists who prescribe dictionary definitions–and dictionary definitions are not immutable), that science is a network of theories and quantitative, objective measurement, measurement confirming theory (see the work of Lakatos).

 

[Rocinante]

Since science is done by human beings, there is every reason to believe it will be bent for other, not originally intended uses.

the same is of course true of religion. right?

 

[Rocinante]

Good example. Science cannot tell us if a poem is good or not. Can you imagine how aesthetically blind (or simply inhuman) you’d have to be to want to “scientifically test” various poems to determine if they’re “good for us” or not?

But that’s what we have with materialism. The beauty of poetry is reduced to certain molecular processes that were determined by physical laws.

… and yet, the same science cannot explain why the letters “Cat” should mean a mammal. If we relied on science and materialism, we would not even be able to communicate at a kindergarden level.

this is a red herring. in talking about science we are talking about knowledge. reading poetry is not an issue of accumulating knowledge but rather of being moved to awe. the same may be said of religion at its best (when it is not misrepresented as science).

 

[Rocinante]

Rocinante

there are certainly bad technologies like all those torture devices used on suspected heretics and blasphemers in the inquisition, but i’m sure glad i’ll have food, clothes, and a warm house to live in this winter. i also really like my iphone though i am sure it could be used for evil in the wrong hands

Those Inquisition tools of torture were child’s play compared to the suffering produced by American nuclear weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Think also of that excellent Nazi technology used to kill Jews, Catholics, and Protestants in the death camps of Germany and Poland.

Think also of how insignificant you iphone will be if the world is reduced to nuclear ash … thanks to Einstein and modern technology.

you appear to defending torture devices of the middle ages because they are not as bad as some more modern devices. creating a torture device is a technological problem of trying to induce the greatest possible suffering. if the technology had been available to make heretics and blasphemers experience even more suffering, say be using chemical stimulants to increase their consciousness of the torture, you can bet the inquisitors would have used them.

but you seem to be missing the point. technology is not in essence a good or bad thing. it is simply tool-making. tools can be used for good or evil.

rocinante

 

[inocente]

Here’s why (IMHO) your example doesn’t constitute science ( although it may be that oxymoron “social science”). It is subjective. True science is objective, not subjective.

I know many physicists have a downer on the social sciences , but think this is a question of methodology.

Suppose the poem is intended for public consumption and the poet writes down her intent, which is then closely guarded. People are then asked to read the poem, without knowing the author or her intent, and without any conversation, and asked a series of questions designed to discover how well the intent is communicated. They feel the intent subjectively of course, but I’d suggest their combined answers do provide an objective measure of how well the intent is communicated. The questions need to be well designed (how many got the opposite intent for example), there needs to be a large enough sample, no prior influence, double blind, etc.

There is then a single measure (the poet’s hoped-for answer), and no experts, theories or politics involved to muddy the water. This differs from your examples, where there is no set answer against which measurements can be made, and where all reliance is put on authorities or influence, which is why the idea that science alone can set moral codes is lunacy, and why theories should never be put to a vote.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Rocinante

*you appear to defending torture devices of the middle ages because they are not as bad as some more modern devices. *

I did not defend torture devices! Show me the sentence where I defended them. I only compared them with the torture devices of modern science.

but you seem to be missing the point. technology is not in essence a good or bad thing. it is simply tool-making. tools can be used for good or evil.

You are contradicting yourself.

What good could come from the instruments of torture in the Middle Ages?

And exactly what good can come from nuclear weapons? What good can come from a nuclear war?

No, only evil can come from nuclear weapons, as Einstein himself admitted when he realized the destruction he had helped to produce at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

What good could come from the efficient methods of execution devised by Nazi scientists to exterminate six million Jews?

Don’t kid yourself that science exists in a morality free zone.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Anselm

True science is objective, not subjective.

Likewise, true morality is also objective. That is why some sinners prefer moral relativism, a warm and cuddly blanket to cover their sins.

 

[Rocinante]

And now we see the promotion of atheistic communism. Thank you, John Lennon.

when in doubt, accuse someone of being an atheist or a commi. that’ll put em on the defensive!

Talking about the “afterlife” together with science is an oxymoron. Science has no business commenting on what some have personally decided is already false. Here, again, a perfect example of atheism derived from a non-scientific argument. There are zero peer reviewed studies with afterlife in the title.

that isn’t because science can in principle say nothing about the afterlife. it just means that there is no evidence that there is such a thing.

And there are no scientific papers about “ascending into heaven.”

the point about ascension is that we have found out that heaven can’t be literally “up there” and hell can’t be “down there.” up and down are relative terms. heaven and hell can’t be as they once we thought to be. god can’t be “up there” looking down on us now that we understand that the earth is a sphere rotating and flying through space. astrology left god homeless. newton and darwin left him unemployed. new conceptions of the divine became necessary in light of modern science.

rocinante

 

[edwest2]

Modern science has no business commenting on the divine.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Rocinante]

Modern science has no business commenting on the divine.

so you keep saying. but do you think it is enough for you to say so? do you think scientists should obey you for some reason?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Rocinante

newton and darwin left him unemployed. new conceptions of the divine became necessary in light of modern science.

Newton was a theist and wrote more on the Bible than on physics. Darwin never declared himself an atheist. It is typical of atheists that they claim as fellow thinkers people who were not. I have heard many atheists claim Voltaire was an atheist, until I pointed out to them Voltaire’s essay on atheism! Which says in part:

“The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability….That was how things went with the Roman Senate which was almost entirely composed of atheists in theory and in practice, that is to say, who believed in neither a Providence nor a future life; this senate was an assembly of philosophers, of sensualists and ambitious men, all very dangerous men, who ruined the republic."

 

[Rocinante]

Rocinante

newton and darwin left him unemployed. new conceptions of the divine became necessary in light of modern science.

Newton was a theist and wrote more on the Bible than on physics. Darwin never declared himself an atheist. It is typical of atheists that they claim as fellow thinkers people who were not. I have heard many atheists claim Voltaire was an atheist, until I pointed out to them Voltaire’s essay on atheism! Which says in part:

“The atheists are for the most part impudent and misguided scholars who reason badly, and who not being able to understand the creation, the origin of evil, and other difficulties, have recourse to the hypothesis of the eternity of things and of inevitability….That was how things went with the Roman Senate which was almost entirely composed of atheists in theory and in practice, that is to say, who believed in neither a Providence nor a future life; this senate was an assembly of philosophers, of sensualists and ambitious men, all very dangerous men, who ruined the republic."

i really have no interest in arguing with you about who was and who was not an atheist. i see no reason why i should care. what does any of this have to do with my claim that “new conceptions of the divine became necessary in light of modern science”?

 

[edwest2]

so you keep saying. but do you think it is enough for you to say so? do you think scientists should obey you for some reason?

What do scientists do every day? Do they consult the Bible to perform their experiments? Do they wait for confirmation from the Vatican? There are no peer reviewed papers about God or Genesis - two subjects at the core of discussions here.

I am watching attempts to create some type of nonsensical replacement for religion. This is old news. And I’ll just add the oft repeated comment here: ‘If you have an electrical problem do you call a plumber? Let scientists do science and leave God (and your superstitions) out of it.’ Science, as presented here, is the superior form of knowledge and the only valid means to obtain truthful answers. Being Catholic, by definition, I and my fellow Catholics reject the idea of ‘science is all there is.’ Of course, those on the other side of the aisle are either made anxious by this or firmly reject supernaturalism, beliefs of any sort and what they call superstition. That will forever define the divide.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Rocinante

*what does any of this have to do with my claim that “new conceptions of the divine became necessary in light of modern science”? *

They certainly did not become necessary. Why do you say necessary? What peer reviewed articles in the scientific community decided that “new conceptions of the divine became necessary in light of modern science”? Are you talking about Dawkins?

If anything, you might say the Big Bang and Evolution are consistent with, more or less, the basic account of creation in Genesis.

 

[edwest2]

Confirmed what? Since when do Catholics need science to confirm something? Jesus raised the dead, gave sight to the blind and turned water to wine. If a scientists was standing right next to Him, what would he tell us? Could he tell us how it was done? No, of course not.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Rocinante]

What do scientists do every day?

try to determine what we have good reason to believe is true and false.

Do they consult the Bible to perform their experiments? Do they wait for confirmation from the Vatican?

i can’t see how that would help, but there would be nothing that prevents scientists from doing so if the bible ever proved to be a good way to learn things. is there any evidence that there are things to learn from the bible? if so. scientists should certainly study it.

There are no peer reviewed papers about God or Genesis - two subjects at the core of discussions here.

there are lots of peer reviewed papers that refute the claims made in genesis.

if there are true and false claims to be made about god, there ought to be evidence that scientists can study. if there is no evidence then how could anyone’s claim to knowledge be compared to contradictory claims? what could it even mean to say that a claim is true if it has no measurable impact on the world?

I am watching attempts to create some type of nonsensical replacement for religion. This is old news. And I’ll just add the oft repeated comment here: 'If you have an electrical problem do you call a plumber?

I would call an electrician.

Let scientists do science and leave God (and your superstitions) out of it.’ Science, as presented here, is the superior form of knowledge and the only valid means to obtain truthful answers. Being Catholic, by definition, I and my fellow Catholics reject the idea of ‘science is all there is.’ Of course, those on the other side of the aisle are either made anxious by this or firmly reject supernaturalism, beliefs of any sort and what they call superstition. That will forever define the divide.

but if god is part of human experience, then it is an empirical phenomenon that science can study. if it is not a part of human experience, then there is nothing to know about it.

 

[davidv]

try to determine what we have good reason to believe is true and false.

i can’t see how that would help, but there would be nothing that prevents scientists from doing so if the bible ever proved to be a good way to learn things. is there any evidence that there are things to learn from the bible? if so. scientists should certainly study it.

there are lots of peer reviewed papers that refute the claims made in genesis.

if there are true and false claims to be made about god, there ought to be evidence that scientists can study. if there is no evidence then how could anyone’s claim to knowledge be compared to contradictory claims? what could it even mean to say that a claim is true if it has no measurable impact on the world?

I would call an electrician.

but if** god is part of human experience, then it is an empirical phenomenon** that science can study. if it is not a part of human experience, then there is nothing to know about it.

This is a pretty bold assumption. On what basis do you claim the bolded selection above?

 

[Charlemagne_II]

edwest

Confirmed what? Since when do Catholics need science to confirm something?

They don’t. The consistency is accidental, rather than necessary.

The Big Bang indicates a creation event. Science knew nothing about that event until the Big Bang theory.

Darwin’s theory of evolution argues that life began in the sea, that it moved later to the air and the land, with man the latest product of evolution. This is also the Genesis account. No other religion gives this account of creation that comes so close to the idea of evolution.

Genesis, 1000 B.C. : “Let there be light.”

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

 

[Rocinante]

This is a pretty bold assumption. On what basis do you claim the bolded selection above?

rather i think it’s a banal claim. how could their be human experiences that simply can’t be inquired about?