Science is Powerful Precisely Because It Adapts and Corrects Itself

[Jobar]

As Ken Ham famously said in his debate against Bill Nye years ago, there’s literally nothing that would get him to change his beliefs about what Genesis says.

I wonder how old Kenny was, when he decided his understanding of Genesis was so complete that he never was going to need to critically examine it again.

Obviously he had grown out of believing in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny by then...

 

[Lion IRC]

I think it's good for scientists to keep an open mind.
Atheists should do the same.

 

[whollygoats]

I think it's good for scientists to keep an open mind.
Atheists should do the same.

Yeah. And by and large, they do.

Theists, on the other hand, tend to lose theirs when they open it.
This is probably why so many of them keep it closed tight.

 

[Jobar]

I think it's good for scientists to keep an open mind.
Atheists should do the same.

That's true for everyone.
Just, not so open their brains fall out.
It's true that skepticism can be overdone, but it's better to be too skeptical than too gullible.

 

[Politesse]

I love this sentiment...religion is so full of shit...

One of the common arguments you hear from religious fundamentalists is that their irrational beliefs are somehow more valid because they never change. Science is flawed because whatever we think we know for sure could go out the window in the future! Therefore, the argument goes, science isn’t trustworthy.

We know that’s a silly argument. Correcting your position based on new information is a feature, not a bug, of science. That applies to the details that are being discovered and debated as well as the larger positions we think are set in stone.
Stephen Woodford explains that concept in terrific depth in his latest video.

As Ken Ham famously said in his debate against Bill Nye years ago, there’s literally nothing that would get him to change his beliefs about what Genesis says. That wasn’t a sign of confidence; it was an act of unwarranted arrogance. (Nye, on the other hand, said his views would change given new evidence. Like any intelligent person would.)It’s ironic that the people who constantly criticize science for “changing its mind” are the people who cling to a belief that is undoubtedly wrong.
(via Rationality Rules)

http://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/...cisely-because-it-adapts-and-corrects-itself/

This sort of thing is the part of atheism I find most attractive, personally. We need more good public defenders of the scientific method, no matter what their background. And I'm not always sure that's the direction we're all headed in.

 

[phands]

I wonder how old Kenny was, when he decided his understanding of Genesis was so complete that he never was going to need to critically examine it again.

I think you just debased the word "understanding".

 

[Learner]

Science is Powerful Precisely Because It Adapts and Corrects Itself ...like the bible correcting (revealing) itself with newer and better understanding...

Whats new?

 

[southernhybrid]

There are many interesting opinions in this thread, so I will add mine. Religion and science are both interested in finding truth, but those who practice very conservative religions don't usually want to accept anything that interferes with what they hold dear. Imo, religion's value is in creating community and attempting to create moral structures. The problem is when religion doesn't change as new evidence is found. For example, those who practice liberal versions of religion are willing to change as human progress moves forward. So, sometimes religion does adapt to be more in compliance with science. This is not true of those who believe ancient scriptures are infallible. This type of thinking can lead to harm and impede progress. Climate change denial is one thing that comes to mind in regards to that.

At it's best, science changes as new evidence destroys once held theories but, my favorite famous scientist, Frans de Waal, claims in one of his many books, that scientists are often very biased so even the claims of science must be taken with a bit of skepticism, at least until the results of research can be proven many times. I find this is especially true in the field of medicine, where the claims made change so frequently that one has to wonder what exactly to believe or accept as truth. While this sometimes has to do with the interests of corporations, it frequently has to do with the personal bias of those performing the research. I doubt that any human is completely free of bias, so that makes sense to me. There is no morality involved in science. Science can lead to the development of weapons of destruction or it can lead to cures for serious diseases. Having said that, the scientific method is the most reliable human invention for obtaining truth.

Religion serves both positive and negative purposes. For some people, religion is the only comforting thing in their lives, the only chance of having a supportive community as well as the change to experience awe. Of course one can experience awe without religion. There are people that seem to need the moral structure that religions provide. When religion becomes excessively tribal, it becomes destructive and immoral. We can see examples of this throughout history. But, we can also see examples of people who were motivated to do very positive things for humanity as a result of their religious beliefs. So, while religious claims regarding gods, and other supernatural elements are false, that doesn't mean that religion can't have value. For example, many if not most of those who moved the civil rights movement forward were religious folks.

Both science and religion can be used to create havoc, and cause harm, or they can be used to improve life. While I think religious claims regarding the supernatural are false, there are important lessons that can be learned from religious mythology.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Jerry Coyne

Faith Vs Fact - Why Science And Religion Are Incompatible

"I learned about the nature of science the hard way. After an undergraduate education in
biology at a small southern college, I was determined to get a Ph.D. in evolutionary
genetics at the best laboratory in that field. At the time, that was the laboratory of
Richard Lewontin at Harvard’s Museum of Comparative Zoology, for Lewontin was widely
seen as the world’s best evolutionary geneticist. But soon after I arrived and began
working on evolution in fruit flies, I thought I’d made a terrible mistake.
Shy and reserved, I felt as if I’d been hurled into a pit of unrelenting negativity. In
research seminars, the audience seemed determined to dismantle the credibility of the
speaker. Sometimes they wouldn’t even wait until the question period after the talk, but
would rudely shout out critical questions and comments during the talk itself. When I
thought I had a good idea and tentatively described it to my fellow graduate students, it
was picked apart like a flounder on a plate. And when we all discussed science around
the big rectangular table in our commons room, the atmosphere was heated and
contentious. Every piece of work, published or otherwise, was scrutinized for problems
problems that were almost always found. This made me worry that whatever science I
managed to produce could never make the grade. I even thought about leaving graduate
school. Eventually, fearful of being criticized, I simply kept my mouth shut and listened.
That went on for two years.
But in the end, that listening was my education in science, for I learned that the pervasivedoubt and criticality weren’t intended as personal attacks, but were actually the essential
ingredients in science, used as a form of quality control to uncover the researcher’s
misconceptions and mistakes. Like Michelangelo’s sculpturing, which he saw as
eliminating marble to reveal the statue within, the critical scrutiny of scientific ideas and
experiments is designed, by eliminating error, to find the core of truth in an idea. Once
I’d learned this, and developed a skin thick enough to engage in the inevitable to-and-fro,
I began to enjoy science. "

 

[atrib]

I think it's good for scientists to keep an open mind.
Atheists should do the same.

You appear to be implying atheists aren't open minded, which I find ridiculous. Atheists are atheists because they choose to keep an open mind, think for themselves and look at the evidence supporting various religious belief systems. And find that evidence to be lacking. I am an atheist, and have been an atheist since I learned to think critically, and if you were to present me with evidence to support your Christian faith I would be happy to examine it. My definition of what constitutes evidence is based on the scientific method; on facts and observations, repeatability, and a transparent peer review process. While your definition is probably based on dogmatic acceptance of the scriptures as written, facts and reason be damned. Atheists are probably the most open minded people on the planet.

 

[phands]

I think it's good for scientists to keep an open mind.
Atheists should do the same.

Religious people are born into their faith and indoctrinated into their religious beliefs from an early age by their parents and the community they grow up in. Most religious institutions do not encourage free thought and critical examination of the foundations of their faith; people are taught to believe without question. For many people it is very hard to break free from this indoctrination.

You appear to be implying atheists aren't open minded, which I find ridiculous. Atheists are atheists because they choose to keep an open mind, think for themselves and look at the evidence supporting various religious belief systems. And find that evidence to be lacking. I am an atheist, and have been an atheist since I learned to think critically, and if you were to present me with evidence to support your Christian faith I would be happy to examine it. My definition of what constitutes evidence is based on the scientific method; on facts and observations, repeatability, and a transparent peer review process. While your definition is based on dogmatic acceptance of the scriptures as written, facts and reason be damned. Atheists are probably the most open minded people on the planet.

Everything he says is ridicule-worthy. Religion is about closing minds, even in the face of contradictions.

 

[steve_bank]

I have an open mind.

I believe there is a great spirit that lives in a rock on Mt Rainer.

We followers do not know where the rock is but we feel the presences and guidance of the rock spirit in our daily lives.

The rock spirit watches over us and protects us.

Do you have an open mind to the possibility as rock spirit followers we are right? Or is Christinity and its god the only possibi;ity?

 

[Lion IRC]

Great Spirit you say?
Tell me more. Sounds like you might be into something Big - really Big.

Elephant...blind men...trunk/tusk/tail...etc etc.

 

[whollygoats]

Great Spirit thinks Christianity is particularly worthy of ridicule.

 

[abaddon]

Great Spirit you say?
Tell me more. Sounds like you might be into something Big - really Big.

Yeah, the human imagination is big... relative to other animals. Puny relative to nature.

Elephant...blind men...trunk/tusk/tail...etc etc.

This ground's been covered. You're repeating an error that's been corrected before.

The key word is blind. You're leaving out that the blind men are entirely wrong. None ever figures out it's a trunk or a tusk or tail. Because their belief-making habit stops them. They form quick easy opinions rather than staying open-minded. They never put their heads together and work out a methodology that overcomes their problem of believing.

You're suggesting different religions point, each within their limits, to a God. What if the evidence were put together and tested to find what the hose and rope and tree and wall really are? Maybe they all resolve into "something Big"?

That's been done! The evidence is in, so there's no mystery to what the "elephant" is behind "the masks of God" that the blind cultures were feeling. They all tried to explain nature with the same anthropomorphic impulse, wanting some great being that directs how things go in nature. The elephant, the "really Big" being behind the masks, is that shared impulse among humans. It's not a mystery.

 

[atrib]

Great Spirit you say?
Tell me more. Sounds like you might be into something Big - really Big.

Yeah, the human imagination is big... relative to other animals. Puny relative to nature.

Elephant...blind men...trunk/tusk/tail...etc etc.

This ground's been covered. You're repeating an error that's been corrected before.

The key word is blind. You're leaving out that the blind men are entirely wrong and never discover an elephant because their belief-making habit stops them from being able to. They form quick easy opinions rather than staying open-minded. They never put their heads together and work out a methodology that overcomes their problem of believing.

You're suggesting different religions point, each within their limits, to a God. What if the evidence were put together and tested to find what the hose and rope and tree and wall really are? Maybe they all resolve into "something Big"?

That's been done! The evidence is in, so there's no mystery to what the "elephant" is that the blind cultures were feeling. They all tried to explain nature with the same anthropomorphic impulse, wanting some great being that directs how things go in nature. The elephant is that shared impulse among humans. It's not a mystery.

Bingo!

 

[steve_bank]

Great Spirit thinks Christianity is particularly worthy of ridicule.

Do not blaspheme the spirit of the rock. If angered it may cause Mt Rainier to erupt to punish unbelievers.

 

[steve_bank]

I do not believe that a big tree can grow from a tiny seed. It is the spirit of the rock that breathes life into the tree.

 

[bilby]

Great Spirit you say?
Tell me more. Sounds like you might be into something Big - really Big.

Yeah, the human imagination is big... relative to other animals. Puny relative to nature.

Elephant...blind men...trunk/tusk/tail...etc etc.

This ground's been covered. You're repeating an error that's been corrected before.

The key word is blind. You're leaving out that the blind men are entirely wrong. None ever figures out it's a trunk or a tusk or tail. Because their belief-making habit stops them. They form quick easy opinions rather than staying open-minded. They never put their heads together and work out a methodology that overcomes their problem of believing.

You're suggesting different religions point, each within their limits, to a God. What if the evidence were put together and tested to find what the hose and rope and tree and wall really are? Maybe they all resolve into "something Big"?

That's been done! The evidence is in, so there's no mystery to what the "elephant" is behind "the masks of God" that the blind cultures were feeling. They all tried to explain nature with the same anthropomorphic impulse, wanting some great being that directs how things go in nature. The elephant, the "really Big" being behind the masks, is that shared impulse among humans. It's not a mystery.

And if it were a mystery, Lion's implication that he is in possession of the answer would necessarily be an outright lie.

 

[atrib]

Elephant...blind men...trunk/tusk/tail...etc etc.

A better analogy would be a bunch of blind men groping around in a gigantic pile of shit and fighting with each other over how their handful of shit was so much better than anyone elses, and how much they adored this magic pile of shit. All while pretending the shit didn't stink.

Because somebody had written a story about some magical shit 2,000 years ago.