Science at work

[bilby]

You don't have to create a Big Bang in order to study it.

We already have one right here. The Big Bang isn't over. It's happening all around us. And indeed, we are a part of it.

We don't need to create a new Earth to study geology and make observations about the planet's formation. We can just look at the one we already have.

Same with the Big Bang. Indeed, we can watch the past of the universe happening in real time, by looking far enough away. The Cosmic Microwave Background is the flash of light from the Big Bang, redshifted into the microwave band by billions of years of expansion.

 

[bilby]

When an hypothesis e.g. the Big Bang, is highly explanatory and remains un-falsified, it can be provisionally accepted as an operational “theory” even though it has limited predictive power. There is zero trust or faith involved. The first thing that comes along that is more predictive and explanatory than BB theory, will quickly supplant it.

It predicts that the universe will continue to expand at a particular rate. And we observe that it does.

If we noticed that the universe had started to contract, it would be time for a new theory.

 

[bilby]

Science minded atheists complain about religions getting tax breaks. Being absolutely for total separation of church and state I happen to agree with...

As a reminder, when this was being considered in the late 18th Century, they were looking at protecting some groups of Christians from other groups of Christians. Depends on the time of day when any particular Christian feels with one with the other Christians today.

...but how hypocritical is it of them when the majority of funding for science comes from taxpayers. And what are they doing with your money?

Landing probes on Mars, exploring the Jupiter/moons and Saturn/moons, launching a massive telescope that is peering billions of years into the past with unprecedented quality, developing treatments and cures for disease, the Internet...

Don't forget weapons and warfare.

Any of these things you find particularly objectionable? Or are you looking at cherry picking stuff you don't understand.

Without the spending on defense research, we would all be speaking Russian. Or German. Or Japanese...

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

It is interesting to note that the Big Bang theory was originally conceived by a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaitre, and its name was invented by its main opponent, Professor Fred Hoyle, creator of the Steady State theory, who was a famous astronomer/cosmologist, but is nowadays more famous as a science fiction author, notably for the marvellous 'The Black Cloud', and 'A for Andromeda', the latter co-authored by John Elliot who co-created the TV mini series with Hoyle prior to the writing of the novel and its sequel 'Andromeda Breakthrough'.
There have since been other stories with similar basic concept as the 'Andromeda' series, with the most well-known being the 'Species' movies.

 

[steve_bank]

Science

1. At the top on high are the scientists who use arcane symbols and a language incomprehensible to the masses.

2 Below the top are the deacons of science who interpret science for the masses.

3. The followers of science in the masses are filled with mystical wonderment. They quote icons like AE as theists quote scripture.

4. The followers of science have a faith that what a scientist says is true is indeed true. Even though they do not understand why it my be true.

5. Science for the masses provides an identity and a sense of community.



I have thought for some time all social organizations have the same general form. The content varies.

It is not to say all organizations are the same, religion and science are not the same. The general form is the same.

 

[steve_bank]

It is clearly an attempt to label science as a "religion". Which is ridiculous. Science gave us computers we can fit in our pocket, cures to disease, extra toasty cheez-its... stuff that betters our standard of living. THe use of prayer for medical, technological, and dietary gains has proven ineffective.

Metaphorically one might say 'science is like a religion'. It has religious like qualities.

That dies not change what science does in any material sense..

An old engineering saying, science always works. Meaning it works regardless of how you think about it.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Science

1. At the top on high are the scientists who use arcane symbols and a language incomprehensible to the masses.

2 Below the top are the deacons of science who interpret science for the masses.

3. The followers of science in the masses are filled with mystical wonderment. They quote icons like AE as theists quote scripture.

4. The followers of science have a faith that what a scientist says is true is indeed true. Even though they do not understand why it my be true.

5. Science for the masses provides an identity and a sense of community.



I have thought for some time all social organizations have the same general form. The content varies.

It is not to say all organizations are the same, religion and science are not the same. The general form is the same.

This is an interesting perspective for me. One I am unfamiliar with. Having been first a student then a professional scientist for over thirty years now I approach this subject from a different angle than you present here.

I have never met anyone that fits that mold of “follower of science” such that it is part of their identity.

Certainly while I was in school and in my work having science be part of my identity and having a community of like-minded students/professionals was there because it was my (our) passion and career, probably not dissimilar to how, say, physicians in med school and beyond identify with medicine and medical practice.

I’ve know lots of people interested in science and hearing how i could explain it to them but never anyone who identified that way.

Perhaps there are people out there “worshipping science” with some kind of faith-like veneration of scientists but I have not encountered that personally.

The thing about science is that even those who don’t study it could in principle come to know “why it may be true”. There is no formal barrier to anyone learning it and making their own discoveries. That’s basically how it is taught, despite many anti-science folks believing it is simply indoctrinated into students, which may be true at the elementary school level but starting at late middle and high school students are given the tools to discover for themselves how math and science work.

 

[Elixir]

I have never met anyone that fits that mold of “follower of science” such that it is part of their identity.

{{{raises hand}}}
I believe in scientific methodology 100%.
The method is not a set of “facts” or conclusions. But it IS the best tool ever developed for developing working explanations and accurate predictions about the behavior of matter and energy. Hands down, no contest, science wins and god loses in that arena.
I am a willing servant of the need to give testament to the efficacy of science. It’s part of my identity because so many billions of people seem to think they’d be alive without it … yeah, thank god for science if you must. But give it its due.

 

[Elixir]

Any of these things you find particularly objectionable?

I’ll object. 8 billion people kept alive by science is too many, and people won’t find that out the easy way.
Oh well .., science might kill most of us anyway, and cancel out its own effect.

 

[Elixir]

It predicts that the universe will continue to expand at a particular rate.

- semantic nitpick for clarity -“it” isn’t the scientific method, “it” is scientists trying to apply that method to specific repeatable observations. Scientists predicted the CMBR, the speed of a feather falling in a vacuum, what it takes to land a rover on Mars, which vaccine will work … ALL OF IT.
The scientific method is believing in reality.

 

[bilby]

It predicts that the universe will continue to expand at a particular rate.

- semantic nitpick for clarity -“it” isn’t the scientific method, “it” is scientists trying to apply that method to specific repeatable observations. Scientists predicted the CMBR, the speed of a feather falling in a vacuum, what it takes to land a rover on Mars, which vaccine will work … ALL OF IT.
The scientific method is believing in reality.

As I have said elsewhere on these boards, there are two meanings of the word "science", and these are often conflated despite being quite different.

Science (A) is a methodology for testing whether statements about reality are false.

Science (B) is a body of statements that have not been found to be false by science (A).

People who don't deal much with those who do science (A) as a career, often don't know, or don't stop to think, that science (A) is much of a thing. They don't need to; They learned some science (B) at school, and can look up any science (B) they need, so as far as they are concerned science (B) is all there is.

And from that perspective, science (B) looks exactly like any set of claims about reality.

Engineers seem very prone to this (as we see in this thread, and from the astonishing number of creationist engineers out there). They live in a world in which the fundamentals are found in reference books, and only the application of those fundamentals are important, not their origins.

It's easy to see how someone who is used to relying on what it says in the manual, the book, or the regulations, would see a close similarity between science (B) and religion, and would barely consider science (A) when asserting that science (B, though they don't know or care, so they assume, incorrectly, also A) is of the same general form as religion.

Schools don't help; They teach everything the way that religion is taught (schools began as religious institutions) - The teacher is an authority and not to be challenged; The right answer is the one in the book; And as long as you remember the rules, you need not understand them.

Science (A) is nothing at all like any religion. And science (B) is only superficially like religion, and that's because religion defined the way that it is taught, and because both religion and science (B) give people comforting structure and rules to follow, that require far less effort than science (A).

Engineers often do trust science (B), whereas scientists have not trusting anything - including science (B) - as a fundamental element of science (A).

 

[Elixir]

They learned some science (B) at school, and can look up any science (B) they need, so as far as they are concerned science (B) is all there is.

And from that perspective, science (B) looks exactly like any set of claims about reality.

Engineers seem very prone to this

IKR? Creos treasure the engineers among them, and revere their “scientific opinion” that god must exist.

Not to further confuse anyone, but this isn’t rocket science. When a person posits that “science says” xyz, what they mean is usually “the preponderance of scientists have concluded xyz”. THAT is not science IMO, and I lament the colloquial use of the word.
I reject the notion that (B) exists outside of misuse of the word “science”.
But English is complicated. Maybe other languages make it more difficult to foist off bullshit as “science”.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Science

1. At the top on high are the scientists who use arcane symbols and a language incomprehensible to the masses.

That isn't fair as there are people that are good explaining things and not so, and that can be more of a natural skill. We've all had teachers that could teach better than others.

2 Below the top are the deacons of science who interpret science for the masses.

3. The followers of science in the masses are filled with mystical wonderment. They quote icons like AE as theists quote scripture.

4. The followers of science have a faith that what a scientist says is true is indeed true. Even though they do not understand why it my be true.

5. Science for the masses provides an identity and a sense of community.

This is just silly. "Followers of science" is ridiculous.

The closest science comes to religion are scientists that hold too tightly to a theory that is becoming unraveled. Think Cecilia Payne who had managed to recognize that stars were made of different matter than the Earth, ie helium and hydrogen. She used emerging quantum physics and the behavior of elements to figure this out, but it took more than a decade to get it recognized by the masses.

Science suffers from a similar inertia that religion is founded on. Generally, science manages to get out of it, but it takes time and it isn't unheard of for scientists to be recognized after they have died.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is clearly an attempt to label science as a "religion". Which is ridiculous. Science gave us computers we can fit in our pocket, cures to disease, extra toasty cheez-its... stuff that betters our standard of living. THe use of prayer for medical, technological, and dietary gains has proven ineffective.

Metaphorically one might say 'science is like a religion'. It has religious like qualities.

No. Religion is based on status quo... from 3000 years ago. Science is based on understanding and being able to predict events via cause and effect.

The issue isn't that science shares something with religion... the issue is human beings and how they adapt to change (read poorly). In the world science, humans manage it the best, but certainly in an imperfect manner.

 

[Elixir]

This is just silly. "Followers of science" is ridiculous.

I agree. “Followers of science” is probably meant to refer to people who ooh and aah when a SpaceX booster lands on a pad.

“Science” didn’t “do that”, PEOPLE did that by applying scientific methodology.

 

[unapologetic]

An old engineering saying, science always works. Meaning it works regardless of how you think about it.

If your superstitious notions always worked, they would be science. (they don't, so they ain't)

as long as you remember the rules, you need not understand them.

Ah-ha. That explains a lot to this old hippy.
I have always had a very poor memory. Led me to seek understanding.
I need to understand the reasoning of rules before I will stoop to following the rules.

 

[Shadowy Man]

The closest science comes to religion are scientists that hold too tightly to a theory that is becoming unraveled. Think Cecilia Payne who had managed to recognize that stars were made of different matter than the Earth, ie helium and hydrogen. She used emerging quantum physics and the behavior of elements to figure this out, but it took more than a decade to get it recognized by the masses.

Thats partially because she was persuaded by a famous male astronomer (Henry Norris Russell) to downplay her own conclusion in her dissertation. Then four years later when that same male astronomer came to the same conclusion he published the results.

But your point that it was strongly believed that the elemental abundances were earth-like that the conclusion they weren’t, even when presented with logic and equations, was initially disbelieved by the “authorities” of science.

That the facts could eventually no longer be denied is what demonstrates the difference between science and religion.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

This person should be denied all medical treatment if they get a severe illness or injuries. Would not be a waste of resources.

 

[aupmanyav]

Religious faith is not subject to material repeatable validation, ..

Religious faith is superstition, ignorance.

I have never met anyone that fits that mold of “follower of science” such that it is part of their identity.

I am a 'follower of science', because science will correct itself when it goes wrong.

I agree. “Followers of science” is probably meant to refer to people who ooh and aah when a SpaceX booster lands on a pad.

Why should not we do that, appreciate their achievement. For example, India is currently trying space-docking.

 

[aupmanyav]

I need to understand the reasoning of rules before I will stoop to following the rules.

You are welcome to do that, but understand or not, rules have to be followed.