Is Science Insufferably Arrogant?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlemagne_II
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Charlemagne_II said:
So what are they worth?

When Dawkins said that evolution pre-empted God and made atheism respectable, he declared his own worth as a thinker.

Max Born Quantum Physicist
“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”
Click to expand...
To replace God with blind, purposeless events is not only silly; it is the height of absurdity!
 
ricmat said:
Is Science Insufferably Arrogant? It depends.

I’m a retired engineer (applied scientist, as it is sometimes called). Engineers are different than “pure” scientists in that we actually have to make things work. A project might start with a “theory of operation”, but eventually the bridge gets built, or the airplane takes off the runway, or the computer is powered up. That means that there is a built-in check on one’s arrogance. Because as we all know, sometimes things don’t work per the “theory of operation.” You rarely see an engineer saying “I know absolutely, positively, that the design based on my theory of operation will work.” And those with any experience will never say it.

Pure scientists, on the other hand, have no built-in check on their arrogance. They come up with theories left and right - dark matter, dark energy, black holes, evolution via random mutations. Etc. But when it’s “show me” time, the answer is "Well, the nearest black hole (dark matter/energy/evolution) would take us 100,000 years to get to. If we could travel at the speed of light. But the math for black holes looks really really good. At least it does right now. And I insist that you believe that black holes exist because the math looks so good. And the rest of us are ignorant and stupid if we don’t believe them. Because, after all, it’s the best theory available, so it must be True.

All the scientific theories which exist today have replaced many times over previous theories which were arrogantly correct at the time (but later proven to be incorrect), and which only ignorant and stupid people refused to accept. But scientists still tell us that we must believe them, because they are right THIS TIME. (Global cooling is our doom. Oh wait, I meant global warming. Hold on, I really meant climate change. But really, you need to believe me, because I’m Mr. PhD Science - and who the heck are you?.)

Humility and pure science seem to be polar opposites.

Whereas the great works of art, architecture, music, literature, and even science (in the past) were created in the pursuit of God’s glorification (which indirectly demonstrates our own humility), science has removed itself from that overarching objective. It seems that many scientists want Science to replace God. Is that arrogant?
Click to expand...
I think it’s ignorance as well as arrogance. Ironically they’re so deeply entrenched in their abstract study of material reality their horizon is restricted to tangible objects. Persons don’t come into their scheme of things…
 
We obviously have free will, these people prove it. Is it so impossible to over come these behavioral instincts?
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Here’s the latest explanation for all our fault-ridden behaviors thanks to so-called scientific studies.

theweek.com/article/index/210065/infidelity-and-12-other-things-we-blame-on-our-genes

Any comments?
Click to expand...
Speaking as a scientist (57 years a physicist), I believe that there have been many unjustified generalizations in this thread. Some scientists are arrogant; so are some doctors, some lawyers, some priests. So what? We suffer from the human condition.
Many scientists, particularly physicists and astronomers have that feeling inspired by Psalm 19a, “The heavens declare the glory of God…”
Go to the Magis Center of Reason and Faith for a more balanced view than presented in the article and by many of the posters.
magisreasonfaith.org/
Merry Christmas,
anselm
 
lemondiesel said:
We obviously have free will, these people prove it. Is it so impossible to overcome these behavioral instincts?
Click to expand...
If it were impossible it would also be impossible to be reasonable! We wouldn’t be able to choose what to think…
 
OMG, the IRONY of this post is FULL of L O L!!

Thank you. You have satisfied my urge to come onto these forums to find something intellectually stimulating by giving me something hilariously depressing instead.

I think I shall soon retire for another month or so.
 
Hubriss said:
OMG, the IRONY of this post is FULL of L O L!!

Thank you. You have satisfied my urge to come onto these forums to find something intellectually stimulating by giving me something hilariously depressing instead.

I think I shall soon retire for another month or so.
Click to expand...
have a nice vacation…think cool and undisturbing thoughts. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
Anselm
 
Barbkw said:
Then, as always, Discover spent the last 5 minutes of the program boo hooing about how the polar bears will suffer horrible consequences from vanishing ice sheets.
Click to expand...
Why do you hate polar bears?
 
StAnastasia said:
Why do you hate polar bears?
Click to expand...
Are polar bears endangered?
Experts in polar bear science believe they are. They predict that as the Arctic continues to warm due to climate change, two-thirds of the world’s polar bears could disappear by 2030.

Rapid loss of sea ice is their major threat. Others include pollution, poaching, and industrial impact. Hunting will become a threat if not well regulated.

In 2005, PBSG classified polar bears as vulnerable on the IUCN World Conservation Union’s Red List of Threatened Species" noting that extinction could occur due to sea ice changes.

In May 2008, U.S. Department of the Interior listed the polar bear as a Threatened Species under the Endangered Species Act. Russia lists the polar bear as “a species of concern.”

At the 2009 meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG), the world’s leading polar bear scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations of polar bears, eight were declining, three were stable, and one was increasing. They lacked sufficient data to say what is happening to the remaining seven.

How many polar bears are there?
Scientists can only provide informed estimates. In 2008, scientists estimated that there might be 20,000 to 25,000 of them.

What is the polar bear’s scientific classification and name?
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
 
StAnastasia said:
Are polar bears endangered?
Click to expand...
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R7-ES-2008-0038; 1111 FY07 MO-B2]
RIN 1018-AV19

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of
Threatened Status for the Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) Throughout Its
Range

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine
threatened status for the polar bear (Ursus maritimus) under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et
seq.). Polar bears evolved to utilize the Arctic sea ice niche and are
distributed throughout most ice-covered seas of the Northern
Hemisphere. We find, based upon the best available scientific and
commercial information, that polar bear habitat–principally sea ice–
is declining throughout the species’ range, that this decline is
expected to continue for the foreseeable future, and that this loss
threatens the species throughout all of its range. Therefore, we find
that the polar bear is likely to become an endangered species within
the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. This final rule
activates the consultation provisions of section 7 of the Act for the
polar bear. The special rule for the polar bear, also published in
today’s edition of the Federal Register, sets out the prohibitions and
exceptions that apply to this threatened species.

DATES: This rule is effective May 15, 2008. The U.S. District Court
order in Center for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne, No. C 08-1339
CW (N.D. Cal., April 28, 2008) ordered that the 30-day notice period
otherwise required by the Administrative Procedure Act be waived,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
 
StAnastasia said:
Are polar bears endangered?
StAnastasia;7364835:
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service

50 CFR Part 17

[FWS-R7-ES-2008-0038; 1111 FY07 MO-B2]
RIN 1018-AV19
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus) Throughout Its Range

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), determine threatened status for the polar bear (Ursus maritimus) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Polar bears evolved to utilize the Arctic sea ice niche and are distributed throughout most ice-covered seas of the Northern Hemisphere. We find, based upon the best available scientific and commercial information, that polar bear habitat–principally sea ice–is declining throughout the species’ range, that this decline is expected to continue for the foreseeable future, and that this loss threatens the species throughout all of its range. Therefore, we find that the polar bear is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. This final rule activates the consultation provisions of section 7 of the Act for the polar bear. The special rule for the polar bear, also published in today’s edition of the Federal Register, sets out the prohibitions and exceptions that apply to this threatened species.

DATES: This rule is effective May 15, 2008. The U.S. District Court order in Center for Biological Diversity v. Kempthorne, No. C 08-1339 CW (N.D. Cal., April 28, 2008) ordered that the 30-day notice period otherwise required by the Administrative Procedure Act be waived, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
In other words…NO.
Polar bears are not endangered.
 
vz71 said:
In other words…NO.
Polar bears are not endangered.
Click to expand...
“Therefore, we find that the polar bear is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. This final rule activates the consultation provisions of section 7 of the Act for the polar bear.”
 
StAnastasia said:
“Therefore, we find that the polar bear is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range. This final rule activates the consultation provisions of section 7 of the Act for the polar bear.”
Click to expand...
Boy, you really can’t stand that can you?
Allow me to repeat, polar bears are NOT endangered.

Why are you trying to muddy the water so much?
The fact is the fact.
 
vz71 said:
Boy, you really can’t stand that can you?
Allow me to repeat, polar bears are NOT endangered.
Click to expand...
“We find, based upon the best available scientific and commercial information, that polar bear habitat–principally sea ice–is declining throughout the species’ range, that this decline is expected to continue for the foreseeable future, and that this loss threatens the species throughout all of its range. Therefore, we find that the polar bear is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all of its range.”

Anthropogenic climate change is a fact. Why do you muddy the waters so?
 
vz71 said:
Allow me to repeat, polar bears are NOT endangered.
Click to expand...
Tigers too:

'Tigers could become extinct in the wild in less than a generation, the World Wildlife Fund warned Wednesday as it launched a campaign to save them.

"The number of tigers in the wild has dwindled to 3,200 – less than the number held in captivity in the United States alone, the campaigners said.

“There is a real threat of losing this magnificent animal forever in our lifetime,” said Sybille Klenzendorf, director of the WWF-US species conservation program. "This would be like losing the stars in the sky.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top