The Science Delusion. 10 dogmas of modern science

[Rin]

Is there anyone on this forum that:

1. Is Catholic, and,
2. Has a 21st century understanding of science?

Indeed. I just don’t get involved unless I have to, since science debates on religious forums tend to degenerate into a trench war between atheists subscribing to scientism, and religious (usually Protestant, but sadly sometimes Catholic) people who either simply reject modern science as such, or subscribe to pseudo-scientific beliefs while claiming nobody else accepts modern science.

The latter group seems to love flaunting credentials that don’t really give them any credibility as scientists, or worse, ones that do, but within a completely different field (computer scientist who tries to disprove certain theories in biology, for example). All groups (minus the ones that reject science) seem to be stuck in an early-twentieth century logical positivism and verificationism, and lack basic knowledge of epistemology and philosophy of science, which leads them to overestimate their training in the scientific method, which is sadly lacking even in major, respected universities.

And since all groups also seem to be completely unable to reconsider their point of view (as in, they religiously adhere to their ideology), these debates are generally not very interesting.

 

[Catolico65]

Indeed. I just don’t get involved unless I have to, since science debates on religious forums tend to degenerate into a trench war between atheists subscribing to scientism, and religious (usually Protestant, but sadly sometimes Catholic) people who either simply reject modern science as such, or subscribe to pseudo-scientific beliefs while claiming nobody else accepts modern science.

The latter group seems to love flaunting credentials that don’t really give them any credibility as scientists, or worse, ones that do, but within a completely different field (computer scientist who tries to disprove certain theories in biology, for example). All groups (minus the ones that reject science) seem to be stuck in an early-twentieth century logical positivism and verificationism, and lack basic knowledge of epistemology and philosophy of science, which leads them to overestimate their training in the scientific method, which is sadly lacking even in major, respected universities.

And since all groups also seem to be completely unable to reconsider their point of view (as in, they religiously adhere to their ideology), these debates are generally not very interesting.

I think it would be helpful if you would explain your educational and professional background so that we can adequately qualify your comments.

 

[Rin]

I think it would be helpful if you would explain your educational and professional background so that we can adequately qualify your comments.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

That said, since you absolutely want to know, I have a BA in Philosophy and Theology, including more philosophy of science and epistemology than even a PhD in natural science usually has. I will not claim to be an authority on the subject, since I’m simply an undergraduate, but I studied under internationally respected professors with excellent academic records including several postdoctorates.

Since those disciplines aren’t too helpful in actually getting a job, I am now studying Computer Science, with emphasis on nanoelectronics. I am however thankful for my previous education, since science programs are usually sorely lacking in this regard, and engineering programs even more so (I started out with one, but decided to transfer to another university for that exact reason). It helps me maintain a certain kind of humility regarding what science can accomplish (sadly it didn’t make me very humble as a person, though). It also gave me a nasty habit of seeing through the misuse of statistics, misapplication of evidence, and not least the misuse of credentials.

 

[Aloysium]

I am an old geez involved in the applied sciences and am very familiar with the politics and economics of science as well as having a sound basis in the philosophy of science as well as the knowledge in my particular area.

Re:

The 10 assumptions / dogmas:

1. Nature is mechanical, or machine-like.
2. Matter is unconscious.
3. The laws of nature are fixed.
4. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same.
5. Nature is purposeless.
6. Biological heredity is material.
7. Memories are stored in your brain as material traces.
8. Your mind is inside your head.
9. Psychic phenomenon like telepathy are impossible.
10. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.

1. Our personal and shared knowledge about the world comes about through our relationships with it. Walking in quiet meditation through the woods will give you a different understanding of biology than taking any particular organism apart and studying its various components. If one views nature as a machine, that is all one will see; the approach determines the result, which only reinforces that the appoach is the only one.
2. Viewing the world in terms of subjective and objective is of some use but causes more problems IMHO than it helps clarify. As far as I have been able to discern, we relate to the world in such a way that the only access to consciousness outside our own personal awareness, is through empathy, compassion, love. It can demand a great deal of imagination to put oneself in the other’s shoes and can also be crystal clear and irrefutable.
3. The laws of nature, I believe are fixed. This would not exclude the possibility of miracles since these are based on the supernatural (the ultimate Source of these laws themselves).
4. The total amount of energy (including matter, as a form of energy) in a closed system remains the same. It makes sense and the universe has not been shown to be otherwise, so as far as we know, this is true.
5. A natural force may be behind the growing complexity that is observed as occurring with the passage of time. Clearly, to anyone who seriously considers this fact, random mutation does not explain it. To make such an assertion is unsupported dogma.
6. See 1. 2. and 5. The theories and the processes we use to understand heredity involve DNA, RNA, proteins etc. Like the man looking under the lamp post, we are going to find what that light reveals; what is not there will remain hidden in darkness.
7. Memories are stored in the brain. They are also a mental phenomenon and ultimately governed by the spirit, which having access to the totality of its existence, in a way reproduces the remembered experience mentally and neurologically. This is how I understand it.
8. Inside your head is the brain. We are physical beings. We have a soul like other living things. Our soul however is created in the image of God. This spirit contains the mind and the body.
9. Telepathy, I don’t know, but then I don’t understand how communication in general works. Love, as the ultimate form of communication, I see like the speed of light to motion in general: the constant unchanging basis of all relationship.

!0. I don’t think anyone believes this. Such assertions are related to the politics and economics of science as they manifest themselves in the very lucrative health industry.

 

[Catolico65]

Indeed. I just don’t get involved unless I have to, since science debates on religious forums tend to degenerate into a trench war between atheists subscribing to scientism, and religious (usually Protestant, but sadly sometimes Catholic) people who either simply reject modern science as such, or subscribe to pseudo-scientific beliefs while claiming nobody else accepts modern science.

The latter group seems to love flaunting credentials that don’t really give them any credibility as scientists, or worse, ones that do, but within a completely different field (computer scientist who tries to disprove certain theories in biology, for example). All groups (minus the ones that reject science) seem to be stuck in an early-twentieth century logical positivism and verificationism, and lack basic knowledge of epistemology and philosophy of science, which leads them to overestimate their training in the scientific method, which is sadly lacking even in major, respected universities.

And since all groups also seem to be completely unable to reconsider their point of view (as in, they religiously adhere to their ideology), these debates are generally not very interesting.

With all due respect it is ironic that you lament people “subscribe to pseudo scientific” beliefs then do just that in the other thread about the origin of homosexuality. It is apparent from your posts that you are not able to distinguish between opinion, hypothesis and theories that have been vetted.

If you were in a physics class of mine and presented all the ideas you do regarding the origin of homosexuality with little references other than basically “just cause” I would be obligated to remind you that what you are proposing is opinion only, and therefore hardly objective and not the least bit scientific.

 

[Rin]

With all due respect it is ironic that you lament people “subscribe to pseudo scientific” beliefs then do just that in the other thread about the origin of homosexuality. It is apparent from your posts that you are not able to distinguish between opinion, hypothesis and theories that have been vetted.

I have never posted on this forum about the origin of homosexuality. I have however posted on the origin of transgenderism (which is something completely else, both in terms of theology and science), in which thread you have claimed very original scientific views, citing a non-peer reviewed metastudy, claiming it to be the scientific consensus, while the opposite is true.

If you were in a physics class of mine and presented all the ideas you do regarding the origin of homosexuality with little references other than basically “just cause” I would be obligated to remind you that what you are proposing is opinion only, and therefore hardly objective and not the least bit scientific.

Since I haven’t presented any idea regarding the origin of homosexuality, we probably wouldn’t have that situation at all. Actually I don’t care much about the matter, since the moral status of homosexual acts is more or less the same regardless of the origin of the inclination, with a few modifications I did present in another thread, given certain conditions I did not present as scientific fact, but as possibilities that may or may not be proven in the future. You see, when discussing theology, “what-ifs” regarding moral culpability can sometimes be interesting.

Also, since I learned something about the limitation of specific sciences from my years of philosophical study, I would not bring that up with a physics teacher, who has no competence whatsoever within medicine or neurobiology, which are the sciences that could tell us something about that. If I were an engineer (and thereby lacked credentials as a scientist as such), I would definitely not abuse those credentials to make it look like I were a scientist, and especially not that I was qualified to make original and very bombastic statements within neurobiology, even if I did teach physics, since that is a completely different field.

But since bringing up other threads (and on top of that misrepresenting my participation in that thread, presumably to make me look “bad” to our fellow Catholics) makes this very close to a feud, it’s clear to me that none of us will profit from continuing this. So let’s end this here, okay?

 

[Catolico65]

I have never posted on this forum about the origin of homosexuality. I have however posted on the origin of transgenderism (which is something completely else, both in terms of theology and science), in which thread you have claimed very original scientific views, citing a non-peer reviewed metastudy, claiming it to be the scientific consensus, while the opposite is true.

Since I haven’t presented any idea regarding the origin of homosexuality, we probably wouldn’t have that situation at all. Actually I don’t care much about the matter, since the moral status of homosexual acts is more or less the same regardless of the origin of the inclination, with a few modifications I did present in another thread, given certain conditions I did not present as scientific fact, but as possibilities that may or may not be proven in the future. You see, when discussing theology, “what-ifs” regarding moral culpability can sometimes be interesting.

Also, since I learned something about the limitation of specific sciences from my years of philosophical study, I would not bring that up with a physics teacher, who has no competence whatsoever within medicine or neurobiology, which are the sciences that could tell us something about that. If I were an engineer (and thereby lacked credentials as a scientist as such), I would definitely not abuse those credentials to make it look like I were a scientist, and especially not that I was qualified to make original and very bombastic statements within neurobiology, even if I did teach physics, since that is a completely different subject.

But since bringing up other threads (and on top of that misrepresenting my participation in that thread, presumably to make me look “bad” to our fellow Catholics) makes this very close to a feud, it’s clear to me that none of us will profit from continuing this. So let’s end this here, okay?

With all due respect you seem to confuse trangenderism, which is a psychological condition, with the intersex, which is biological, thus my comment. Promoting that trannsgenderism is any way innate is not scientific either. Furthermore, the majority of transgender individuals are homosexuals who wish they were born a different sex, so it is correct to label them as homosexual. If my understanding of your opinion is incorrect, please explain it to me.

Regarding the comments about being an engineer, I also did research in a masters program and learned statistical analysis of results. This same method is used by all scientists and is certainly relevant to the discussion. For example, it is common for people to read a paper and assume just because it has been published in a journal it is established theory, as opposed to be an initial study that may suggest a link, yet they continue to promote it as something relative to other studies that are much more definitive and peer reviews simply because they don’t have the background to understand the standard procedures of research. Therefore, the fact that I’m not a geneticist nor a PhD in physics is not relevant, I still can read a scientific report and discern the difference between a weak an unproven theory and something much more definitive.

Finally, my purpose is not to pick a fight but only witness to the truth, and I feel obligated to stand up to false science that is used unwittingly by some out of ignorance and also overtly by the gay lobby to confuse people and indoctrinate our children. Peace.

 

[Rin]

With all due respect, you keep misrepresenting my previous posts, and keep bringing up an unrelated thread, while resorting to arguments from authority when you have none. You also keep presenting original science as if it were generally accepted science. You obviously have no interest in an honest debate, so this is it for now.

 

[tonyrey]

I am an old geez involved in the applied sciences and am very familiar with the politics and economics of science as well as having a sound basis in the philosophy of science as well as the knowledge in my particular area.

Re:

1. Our personal and shared knowledge about the world comes about through our relationships with it. Walking in quiet meditation through the woods will give you a different understanding of biology than taking any particular organism apart and studying its various components. If one views nature as a machine, that is all one will see; the approach determines the result, which only reinforces that the appoach is the only one.
2. Viewing the world in terms of subjective and objective is of some use but causes more problems IMHO than it helps clarify. As far as I have been able to discern, we relate to the world in such a way that the only access to consciousness outside our own personal awareness, is through empathy, compassion, love. It can demand a great deal of imagination to put oneself in the other’s shoes and can also be crystal clear and irrefutable.
3. The laws of nature, I believe are fixed. This would not exclude the possibility of miracles since these are based on the supernatural (the ultimate Source of these laws themselves).
4. The total amount of energy (including matter, as a form of energy) in a closed system remains the same. It makes sense and the universe has not been shown to be otherwise, so as far as we know, this is true.
5. A natural force may be behind the growing complexity that is observed as occurring with the passage of time. Clearly, to anyone who seriously considers this fact, random mutation does not explain it. To make such an assertion is unsupported dogma.
6. See 1. 2. and 5. The theories and the processes we use to understand heredity involve DNA, RNA, proteins etc. Like the man looking under the lamp post, we are going to find what that light reveals; what is not there will remain hidden in darkness.
7. Memories are stored in the brain. They are also a mental phenomenon and ultimately governed by the spirit, which having access to the totality of its existence, in a way reproduces the remembered experience mentally and neurologically. This is how I understand it.
8. Inside your head is the brain. We are physical beings. We have a soul like other living things. Our soul however is created in the image of God. This spirit contains the mind and the body.
9. Telepathy, I don’t know, but then I don’t understand how communication in general works. Love, as the ultimate form of communication, I see like the speed of light to motion in general: the constant unchanging basis of all relationship.

!0. I don’t think anyone believes this. Such assertions are related to the politics and economics of science as they manifest themselves in the very lucrative health industry.

A superb post!

 

[wanstronian]

I came across a very interesting lecture by the english scientist Dr. Rupert Sheldrake based on a book of his that is called “The Science Delusion” in Europe and “Science Set Free” in America.
SCIENCE SET FREE - Rupert Sheldrake (Youtube - 1h20m talk)

In this book Dr. Sheldrake puts forward what he sees as 10 dogmas of modern science and puts them up to rigorous scientific testing and investigation, showing that all of them can be questioned and that none of them hold up.

Firstly, Sheldrake is a woomeister; he may have credentials, but he is not well-respected in scientific circles.

I’m not sure if your list is verbatim, but if it is it shows that he doesn’t really know what he’s talking about. To take the points in order:

The 10 assumptions / dogmas:

Firstly, an assumption is not the same as a dogma. Science uses assumptions to underpin its experiments and theories. This is necessary, as is documenting those assumptions.

A dogma is a set of doctrines held to be incontrovertibly true, no matter what. Science does not work like that, despite what theists may have you believe.

1. Nature is mechanical, or machine-like.

This would be an assumption, however, I don’t believe it’s one that is commonly held by scientists. A more accurate one would be that nature is materialistic and deterministic (on a macro level). This is a necessary assumption because otherwise it is impossible to do science properly. Furthermore, it has never been demonstrated that this assumption is false. It has proved a remarkably successful assumption, in terms of the advances that science has produced based upon its provisional truth.

1. Matter is unconscious.

Depends on your definition. Many compositions of matter (bricks, trees, cars and guitars, to name but a few) have never demonstrated any signs of consciousness. Others (animals, including humans of course) consistently do.

1. The laws of nature are fixed.

This may be just a semantic point, but there are no “laws” of nature. There are behaviours, which, again at a macro level, appear to be fixed. Again, science is based on the assumption that they are, and it has been incredibly successful.

1. The total amount of matter and energy is always the same.

Within a closed system this is true. I haven’t watched the video, but I doubt that Sheldrake demonstrates that matter/energy can be lost or gained within a closed system.

1. Nature is purposeless.

See answer to (2) - the same thing applies here. No evidence that “nature,” in its most general sense, has some purpose. But science isn’t concerned with purpose - the mechanism by which something works is a separate issue to whether it does so for a purpose.

1. Biological heredity is material.

Well, as far as anybody can tell, people are made of material and nothing else, so this seems a pretty reasonable working assumption.

1. Memories are stored in your brain as material traces.

Where else would they be stored? Again, this is a reasonable working assumption. I’m not aware that memories are stored as “immaterial traces” (how would this be demonstrated?" or that memories are stored outside the brain.

1. Your mind is inside your head.

All the evidence point towards “the mind is what the brain does.” Yet again, a good working assumption that is producing consistent results and seems to be supported by experiment.

1. Psychic phenomenon like telepathy are impossible.

Given the amount of money that has gone into scientific research in this area, with no discernible result, I think this is a reasonable assumption. There has been no well-crafted experiment that shows results better than that achieved by random chance, and no evidence of any mechanism by which psychic phenomena may work. The safest thing to do is assume it doesn’t. Incidentally, this is also the most scientific approach - science is not about trying to prove a hypothesis, but about trying to disprove it. Otherwise one good result and we’d all shout “QED.” That’s what religion does, which is why religion hasn’t provided any new insights about the universe in thousands of years.

1. Mechanistic medicine is the only kind that really works.

Aside from the placebo effect, which has been shown to work to a limited extent, this is a good assumption. Lots of studies have been done regarding homeopathy, acupuncture, phrenology, prayer etc. None of them have demonstrated any notable evidence that the “medicine” under test has any benefit.

So it seems that Sheldrake has listed a combination of straw men, and solid working assumptions that have never been proved to be false. Showing that they may not necessarily be true is not a good reason to abandon them when they provide such consistent and beneficial results.

Remember - qualifications aren’t everything. Deepak Chopra has lots of qualifications for example, but every word he utters is complete horse dung.

 

[polytropos]

I would say all contemporary Catholic philosophers are critical of materialism (a couple good books on the subject are Real Essentialism by David Oderberg and Thought and World by James Ross). I’d say that materialism’s inability to account for the mind is a good reason to consider other theories, but isn’t a direct vindication of Christianity.

However, I don’t think that quantum mechanics is the place to locate consciousness. To say that quantum mechanics shows that matter is “conscious” is a bit of a confusion, IMO. Certain interpretations of quantum mechanics depend on a conscious observer, but it doesn’t follow that matter itself is “conscious.” (Similar issues are faced by those who try to locate free will in a “quantum brain,” as though replacing determinism with random events makes acts “free.”)

 

[KyrieEleison17]

Is there anyone on this forum that:

1. Is Catholic, and,
2. Has a 21st century understanding of science?

1. Yes.
2. No. Rather, I relegate myself to an Egyptian -21st century understanding.

BTW, do you have a scientific understanding of the impact that a common and universal dating system had on human psychology and, as a necessary consequence, latter human history itself (especially the 21st cent.)?

Do you know how revolutionary that was?

 

[Aloysium]

. . . That’s what religion does, which is why religion hasn’t provided any new insights about the universe in thousands of years. . .

Insight with regards to the spiritual occurs within the human soul.
Half a century ago, I would have been briefly in agreement with Camus that “There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest — whether or not the world has three dimensions, whether the mind has nine or twelve categories — comes afterward.”
I have far greater insight into and understanding of what constitutes the nature of our existence, today. Much of this has come as a result my involvement with the Church, through prayer, contemplation of its teachings, and participation in the sacraments.
I also have accumulated a great deal of scientific knowledge along the way.
Guess, if I were forced to lose one, which I would choose.
BTW: there have been a number of Councils, encyclicals, writings by Saints, etc which have furthered our philosophical and theological understanding.
I am also left to consider that you are unaware that your statement has been disproved, which obviously sets limits to science, as you practice it.
But you are probably trolling here.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . However, I don’t think that quantum mechanics is the place to locate consciousness. To say that quantum mechanics shows that matter is “conscious” is a bit of a confusion, IMO. Certain interpretations of quantum mechanics depend on a conscious observer, but it doesn’t follow that matter itself is “conscious.” (Similar issues are faced by those who try to locate free will in a “quantum brain,” as though replacing determinism with random events makes acts “free.”)

It’s scientism’s equivalent of “god of the gaps”.
There’s a materialistic explanation that will be forthcoming.
It’s there, it’s a matter of time before it is gotten to.
orly?

 

[vz71]

Is there anyone on this forum that:

1. Is Catholic, and,
2. Has a 21st century understanding of science?

14 years into a century seems a little premature to make a claim of what 21st century science is.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I think it is time to face the fact that most of the skeptics who appear on this forum ( including some who are Christian) are empiricist ideologues. This is evident by the tone of their responses but mostly their attitude toward Thomistic Philosophy and Divine Revelation.

To begin my theses one has to go back to the ancient Greeks, Muslims, Jews, and Thomas Aquinas. The assumption of the empiricists is that these men ( though in modern times women have become interested in Philosophy and Theology as well ), were unintelligent or backward. And by extension, anyone today who reveres them are equally backward. This attitude displays a gross prejudice and ignorance which is simply unwarranted. Anyone who has read them knows that these men and women represent some of the greatest intellects the world has known.

But the crescendo of the current debate began in the 17th century. It has been fueled by the fact that God has been outlawed from education at every level, the media, and the lecture circuits. Only those who represent the current secular world views are given any kind of a hearing. Religion, Theology, and Philosophy have been ostrecized from the public square, from civil discourse.

But there is a backlash against the long standing empicist attitude. First of all, many scientists, from the very beginning of the scientific revolution, have been, and are today, men and women of strong Religious conviction and philosophical persuasion. And more and more voices are being raised against the empiricist attitude. I can point to many authors giving voice to this new revolt. Here are several.

Bankrupting Physics by Alexandar Unzicker and Sheilla Jones, Cosmos and Transcendence by Wolfgang Smith, God and the Cosmologist
s by Stanley L. Jaki, the work of Dr. Anthony Rizzi, and Fr. Robert J. Spitzer of the Magis Center for Faith and Reason. All these people are scientists and the first two are non-believers ( which shows that even secular minded people are getting tired of the claims of empiricists).

And as for proof of Divine Revelation I refer the reader to the U-Tube video The Star of Bethelehem by Rick Larson, youtube.com/watch?v=zPHKg0M3mEo

Linus2nd

 

[Oreoracle]

Linus, what is your definition of “empiricism”, if you’d be so kind?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linus, what is your definition of “empiricism”, if you’d be so kind?

I refer to those types who inhabit the lecture circuits bludgening people of faith with their supposed " superior " world view, and those college and university professors who intimidate their students by rediculing faith and reasons for faith, the same types idolized by the media. I’m surprised you even had to ask the question. Read the men and women I referenced. Have you watched that movie yet, what are you afraid of?

Linus2nd. .

 

[Oreoracle]

I refer to those types who inhabit the lecture circuits bludgening people of faith with their supposed " superior " world view, and those college and university professors who intimidate their students by rediculing faith and reasons for faith, the same types idolized by the media. I’m surprised you even had to ask the question. Read the men and women I referenced. Have you watched that movie yet, what are you afraid of?

I’ve never heard a definition of “empiricist” quite like that before. You’ve basically defined it to be any (imaginary) individual that you don’t like. I say “imaginary” because I’ve been in college for a while now and I haven’t heard a professor ridicule religion even once. In fact, most of my professors have been religious.

But go on and keep fighting the good fight against invisible foes if you wish.

Also, I’m not going to spend 1 to 2 hours watching astrology. Why don’t you go watch Religulous?

 

[Catolico65]

I’ve never heard a definition of “empiricism” quite like that before. You’ve basically defined it to be any (imaginary) individual that you don’t like. I say “imaginary” because I’ve been in college for a while now and I haven’t heard a professor ridicule religion even once. In fact, most of my professors have been religious.

But go on and keep fighting the good fight against invisible foes if you wish.

Would the “invisible foe” be those that promote pseudo science, push to abolish all traces of Christianity in the US, and justify child sacrifice and homosexual indoctrination of children?