Science is Powerful Precisely Because It Adapts and Corrects Itself

[phands]

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/

 

[steve_bank]

Science and religion are two different things.

You can argue religion is just as powerful. Science is a process that in party provides useful things for society. It is amoral. Science is a mechanistic tool, a simplistic analogy is a hammer.

Religion and morality provide a context for applying science. Popular science in a sense has become a popular religion. People blindly follow it as an ideology. To date science does collectively whatever it wants with few limitations on moral implications.

In a few generation we went from muskets to machine guns to globally destruction WMD. Do not put science on a pedestal.

 

[whollygoats]

Yeah, and I notice that much of the time, science takes it's own goddamned time 'adapting and correcting' itself and doesn't seem to give much of a shit as to how it impacts humanity.

And then, there is the Semmelweis Effect, where the entrenched factors of the bad old science intimidate and suppress the advances to protect their perverted self-interests. Witness the international pharmaceutical industry, the petroleum extraction and processing industry, the tobacco industry, the agricultural pesticide industry....well, you name it. Where money rules, science takes it in the ass. Science advances one funeral at a time.

 

[Valjean]

Science and religion are two different things.

You can argue religion is just as powerful. Science is a process that in party provides useful things for society. It is amoral. Science is a mechanistic tool, a simplistic analogy is a hammer.

Religion and morality provide a context for applying science. Popular science in a sense has become a popular religion. People blindly follow it as an ideology. To date science does collectively whatever it wants with few limitations on moral implications.

In a few generation we went from muskets to machine guns to globally destruction WMD. Do not put science on a pedestal.

This strikes me more as a condemnation of the morality of 'Judeo-Christians' than of science. Science is a research modality, it yields truth and insight. How people apply truth is on them, not on the truth itself or the method of discovery.

Yeah, and I notice that much of the time, science takes it's own goddamned time 'adapting and correcting' itself and doesn't seem to give much of a shit as to how it impacts humanity.

And then, there is the Semmelweis Effect, where the entrenched factors of the bad old science intimidate and suppress the advances to protect their perverted self-interests. Witness the international pharmaceutical industry, the petroleum extraction and processing industry, the tobacco industry, the agricultural pesticide industry....well, you name it. Where money rules, science takes it in the ass. Science advances one funeral at a time.

These are industries and industrialists that you're condemning, not science or scientists.

 

[abaddon]

This strikes me more as a condemnation of the morality of 'Judeo-Christians' than of science. Science is a research modality, it yields truth and insight. How people apply truth is on them, not on the truth itself or the method of discovery.

....

These are industries and industrialists that you're condemning, not science or scientists.

The dichotomy is like saying that in R&D, the R has nothing to do with the D.

Science could have been about insight, even about love of nature. But historically the attitude toward nature made it about control. True, that's "on people" and not science in-and-of itself. So the fuller critique would be about how people use science and technology/industry. I'm all for keeping science and losing the exaggerated perceived need of knowing-in-order-to-control, to replace it with knowing-for-insight. But will people do that?

Did religion poison the culture's attitude? I think it'd be more accurate to say it embodied something already there in people. Actually, I'm rather more inclined to think religion's role wasn't just a block to science's progress (it'd be exaggeration to say that's all it ever was). Instead it was a potentially excellent moral guide that went awry.

Ritual magic turned into religion for the sake of making people feel safe as soft animals inside a "wild" nature. But it was also about our relationship to nature. It can have established safety by guiding people to have a quality relation with the rest of nature. And partly it did, even if sometimes by being reticent.

Our tool-making and domestication abilities turned into science, for the same reason: control the environment = safety. But the relation was as owners of resources. We equate hoarding with prosperity and prosperity with comfort and safety and happiness. At some point in the past, we were safe and comfortable enough to lighten up and do research for insight. But the drive to control went mindlessly on and on. Now we're trying to figure out how to control the side-effects of all this control, before it kills us. And that's "on us". Not science and not technology.

How much religion contributes is in question. I don't like religion, at least not the monotheisms, because they were part of that divide between "we humans" and "it, nature" (though I think less so than how secular society does that). But as Steve was saying, it's science and technology that are amoral. After all, they're just R&D. So if religion can't guide, then the question becomes "What alternative then?" And so far secularists seem pretty keen on the destructive idea that all nonhuman nature is nothing but human "resources". So the moral compass there is pretty damn wonky too.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The difference between science and religion is that although both are sources of knowledge, religious knowledge is pseudo-knowledge. Having religious knowledge is knowing the names of Santa's reindeer, not the kind of knowledge that has any potential to solve problems. Religious people are quick to thank their gods for scientific knowledge that maybe saves lives, like something medical. But the doctor didn't do a magic dance and then sprinkle magic water on the patient such as a religious person would do.

 

[Juma]

Science and religion are two different things.

You can argue religion is just as powerful. Science is a process that in party provides useful things for society. It is amoral. Science is a mechanistic tool, a simplistic analogy is a hammer.

Religion and morality provide a context for applying science. Popular science in a sense has become a popular religion. People blindly follow it as an ideology. To date science does collectively whatever it wants with few limitations on moral implications.

In a few generation we went from muskets to machine guns to globally destruction WMD. Do not put science on a pedestal.

so we should let religion decide? you mad?

 

[steve_bank]

Science and religion are two different things.

You can argue religion is just as powerful. Science is a process that in party provides useful things for society. It is amoral. Science is a mechanistic tool, a simplistic analogy is a hammer.

Religion and morality provide a context for applying science. Popular science in a sense has become a popular religion. People blindly follow it as an ideology. To date science does collectively whatever it wants with few limitations on moral implications.

In a few generation we went from muskets to machine guns to globally destruction WMD. Do not put science on a pedestal.

so we should let religion decide? you mad?

Don't be silly, my meaning should be obvious.

Science is a tool, not an ideology. I've known creationists were great engineers and applied scientists. It does not take an ideology to perform science, secular or religious.

How science gets applies\d is a moral question. Morality historically came from religion and philosophy, good or bad.

Does that connect the dots for you?

 

[steve_bank]

The difference between science and religion is that although both are sources of knowledge, religious knowledge is pseudo-knowledge. Having religious knowledge is knowing the names of Santa's reindeer, not the kind of knowledge that has any potential to solve problems. Religious people are quick to thank their gods for scientific knowledge that maybe saves lives, like something medical. But the doctor didn't do a magic dance and then sprinkle magic water on the patient such as a religious person would do.

Religion provides ways of placing yourself in the universe, other than as a compilation of chemicals. Same with philosophy. Religion does have value. Like any human organization reorganized religion becomes a self serving organism. I am not in general anti religion on a personal basis any more than I am anti Platonism or Hedonism or Existentialist. Whatever works for you.

 

[steve_bank]

Science and religion are two different things.

You can argue religion is just as powerful. Science is a process that in party provides useful things for society. It is amoral. Science is a mechanistic tool, a simplistic analogy is a hammer.

Religion and morality provide a context for applying science. Popular science in a sense has become a popular religion. People blindly follow it as an ideology. To date science does collectively whatever it wants with few limitations on moral implications.

In a few generation we went from muskets to machine guns to globally destruction WMD. Do not put science on a pedestal.

This strikes me more as a condemnation of the morality of 'Judeo-Christians' than of science. Science is a research modality, it yields truth and insight. How people apply truth is on them, not on the truth itself or the method of discovery.

Yeah, and I notice that much of the time, science takes it's own goddamned time 'adapting and correcting' itself and doesn't seem to give much of a shit as to how it impacts humanity.

And then, there is the Semmelweis Effect, where the entrenched factors of the bad old science intimidate and suppress the advances to protect their perverted self-interests. Witness the international pharmaceutical industry, the petroleum extraction and processing industry, the tobacco industry, the agricultural pesticide industry....well, you name it. Where money rules, science takes it in the ass. Science advances one funeral at a time.

These are industries and industrialists that you're condemning, not science or scientists.

Not a condemnation, an observation. Greed applies to both acquisition of money and knowledge. I worked in a small IR sensor group. I was working with a physicist on something that night be publishable. The manager told us if we published his name went at the top. If you think science is free of corruption and is squeaky clean you are woefully mistaken.There is organized abuse of power in science to promote individual desires, like any human organization.

It is incorrect to set up science as having some moral superiority to religion is incorrect.

Science has been both boon and curse. Nuclear weapons. Genetics may lead to the wealthy having genetically aled offspring. Genetics may lead to some ugly realities. Science operates on the principle that there is no restraint, and remember a large part of science is profit driven Drugs and medical science and medical techology.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Not a condemnation, an observation. Greed applies to both acquisition of money and knowledge. I worked in a small IR sensor group. I was working with a physicist on something that night be publishable. The manager told us if we published his name went at the top. If you think science is free of corruption and is squeaky clean you are woefully mistaken.There is organized abuse of power in science to promote individual desires, like any human organization.

Science isn't an organization. Science is a body of knowledge. You're implying that science is something other than knowledge, that it's something scientific people predominantly do. That strikes me as a misconception when it comes to science.

Even a quack that builds his giant magic boat like Hambone still has to use science. He uses science every time he flushes his shitter or picks up a toothbrush, although he's largely ignorant of the scientific world that surrounds him and the degree to which he uses it.

If you quantified the behavior of a religious ignoramus like Hambone you'd find him engaging in science 99.99% of his given day.

 

[steve_bank]

Not a condemnation, an observation. Greed applies to both acquisition of money and knowledge. I worked in a small IR sensor group. I was working with a physicist on something that night be publishable. The manager told us if we published his name went at the top. If you think science is free of corruption and is squeaky clean you are woefully mistaken.There is organized abuse of power in science to promote individual desires, like any human organization.

Science isn't an organization. Science is a body of knowledge. You're implying that science is something other than knowledge, that it's something scientific people predominantly do. That strikes me as a misconception when it comes to science.

Even a quack that builds his giant magic boat like Hambone still has to use science. He uses science every time he flushes his shitter or picks up a toothbrush, although he's largely ignorant of the scientific world that surrounds him and the degree to which he uses it.

If you quantified the behavior of a religious ignoramus like Hambone you'd find him engaging in science 99.99% of his given day.

Scientific knowledge comes from a dynamic social organization of human beings, not computers or uber logical Vulcans. All human organizations have corruption to one degree or another. Academic theoretical science can be fiercely competitive.

Being productive at science does not equate to a rational moral life. The belief that science through rational objectivity can provide answers to all problems is no more rational than a belief god will save us.

That science is rational ignores the almost mystical interpretations of QM like many universes, and Hawkings occasional drifting into the fantastic with his claims. One was a claim he could prove that the universe created itself, causing a minormreaction by theists.

Science succeds and is self correting because there is profit in it in one form or another. Scince is filled with PHDs huyngrey to find something unique to publish. In the business world better scince means profit.

There is nothing inherent to science that makes it self correcting, it is the motivation for science.

The RCC in contrast has no profit in correcting itself.

I am not making a case for religion, the argument science is better than religion or stronger than religion is non sequitur.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Not a condemnation, an observation. Greed applies to both acquisition of money and knowledge. I worked in a small IR sensor group. I was working with a physicist on something that night be publishable. The manager told us if we published his name went at the top. If you think science is free of corruption and is squeaky clean you are woefully mistaken.There is organized abuse of power in science to promote individual desires, like any human organization.

Science isn't an organization. Science is a body of knowledge. You're implying that science is something other than knowledge, that it's something scientific people predominantly do. That strikes me as a misconception when it comes to science.

Even a quack that builds his giant magic boat like Hambone still has to use science. He uses science every time he flushes his shitter or picks up a toothbrush, although he's largely ignorant of the scientific world that surrounds him and the degree to which he uses it.

If you quantified the behavior of a religious ignoramus like Hambone you'd find him engaging in science 99.99% of his given day.

Scientific knowledge comes from a dynamic social organization of human beings, not computers or uber logical Vulcans. All human organizations have corruption to one degree or another. Academic theoretical science can be fiercely competitive.

Being productive at science does not equate to a rational moral life. The belief that science through rational objectivity can provide answers to all problems is no more rational than a belief god will save us.

That science is rational ignores the almost mystical interpretations of QM like many universes, and Hawkings occasional drifting into the fantastic with his claims. One was a claim he could prove that the universe created itself, causing a minormreaction by theists.

Science succeds and is self correting because there is profit in it in one form or another. Scince is filled with PHDs huyngrey to find something unique to publish. In the business world better scince means profit.

There is nothing inherent to science that makes it self correcting, it is the motivation for science.

The RCC in contrast has no profit in correcting itself.

I am not making a case for religion, the argument science is better than religion or stronger than religion is non sequitur.

I still get the vibe that you're saying science is for scientists.

 

[steve_bank]

Scientific knowledge comes from a dynamic social organization of human beings, not computers or uber logical Vulcans. All human organizations have corruption to one degree or another. Academic theoretical science can be fiercely competitive.

Being productive at science does not equate to a rational moral life. The belief that science through rational objectivity can provide answers to all problems is no more rational than a belief god will save us.

That science is rational ignores the almost mystical interpretations of QM like many universes, and Hawkings occasional drifting into the fantastic with his claims. One was a claim he could prove that the universe created itself, causing a minormreaction by theists.

Science succeds and is self correting because there is profit in it in one form or another. Scince is filled with PHDs huyngrey to find something unique to publish. In the business world better scince means profit.

There is nothing inherent to science that makes it self correcting, it is the motivation for science.

The RCC in contrast has no profit in correcting itself.

I am not making a case for religion, the argument science is better than religion or stronger than religion is non sequitur.

I still get the vibe that you're saying science is for scientists.

From observation and experience I view all social organizations as having the same processes. I beeves the proper term is human dynamics. Power factions develop, corruption in various forms develop. It is inescapable.

It is a false dichotomy to compare scince and religion in terms of of an il defined power.

Other than the RCC neither religion nor science are monolithic centralized functions with a specific purpose.

Depends on what you mean by 'for sconce'. What else are scenarists for in general? And now we descend into debate on meaning. Science is practiced by individuals with different views and motivations. I worked with a physicist who worked at MIT Lincoln Labs. As he put it for most it was a job. Show up do some work, go home. On the other hand there was Einstein who was engaged fully 24/7 by all accounts. Popular science for the masses is a business.

Some scientist may see it as a working for the befit of humanity, some may not be so motivated. It is not monliyjic, science as a generalization is an illusion.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Scientific knowledge comes from a dynamic social organization of human beings, not computers or uber logical Vulcans. All human organizations have corruption to one degree or another. Academic theoretical science can be fiercely competitive.

Being productive at science does not equate to a rational moral life. The belief that science through rational objectivity can provide answers to all problems is no more rational than a belief god will save us.

That science is rational ignores the almost mystical interpretations of QM like many universes, and Hawkings occasional drifting into the fantastic with his claims. One was a claim he could prove that the universe created itself, causing a minormreaction by theists.

Science succeds and is self correting because there is profit in it in one form or another. Scince is filled with PHDs huyngrey to find something unique to publish. In the business world better scince means profit.

There is nothing inherent to science that makes it self correcting, it is the motivation for science.

The RCC in contrast has no profit in correcting itself.

I am not making a case for religion, the argument science is better than religion or stronger than religion is non sequitur.

I still get the vibe that you're saying science is for scientists.

From observation and experience I view all social organizations as having the same processes. I beeves the proper term is human dynamics. Power factions develop, corruption in various forms develop. It is inescapable.

It is a false dichotomy to compare scince and religion in terms of of an il defined power.

Other than the RCC neither religion nor science are monolithic centralized functions with a specific purpose.

Depends on what you mean by 'for sconce'. What else are scenarists for in general? And now we descend into debate on meaning. Science is practiced by individuals with different views and motivations. I worked with a physicist who worked at MIT Lincoln Labs. As he put it for most it was a job. Show up do some work, go home. On the other hand there was Einstein who was engaged fully 24/7 by all accounts. Popular science for the masses is a business.

Some scientist may see it as a working for the befit of humanity, some may not be so motivated. It is not monliyjic, science as a generalization is an illusion.

Interestingly I have a son who is employed at one of our national labs. Bright kid, doctorate, Berkeley, Cornell, still doing science, but just a regular guy. There's something to said about our national institutions and what the average person expects from those institutions. Maybe it was different centuries ago when religious dogma was a big influence on a person's life and the direction that life would take. But that has all changed and some folks are still living in the past.

Science has answers. Religion does not have answers except for when it uses science. It's really just that simple.

 

[Juma]

The difference between science and religion is that although both are sources of knowledge, religious knowledge is pseudo-knowledge. Having religious knowledge is knowing the names of Santa's reindeer, not the kind of knowledge that has any potential to solve problems. Religious people are quick to thank their gods for scientific knowledge that maybe saves lives, like something medical. But the doctor didn't do a magic dance and then sprinkle magic water on the patient such as a religious person would do.

Religion provides ways of placing yourself in the universe, other than as a compilation of chemicals. Same with philosophy. Religion does have value. Like any human organization reorganized religion becomes a self serving organism. I am not in general anti religion on a personal basis any more than I am anti Platonism or Hedonism or Existentialist. Whatever works for you.

If it has a value it is a very low value: Its a big pile of stinkin’ magical thinking.
There is a lot to say about how to be a human and your place in the universe without any stinkin religious/spiritual crap.

 

[steve_bank]

The difference between science and religion is that although both are sources of knowledge, religious knowledge is pseudo-knowledge. Having religious knowledge is knowing the names of Santa's reindeer, not the kind of knowledge that has any potential to solve problems. Religious people are quick to thank their gods for scientific knowledge that maybe saves lives, like something medical. But the doctor didn't do a magic dance and then sprinkle magic water on the patient such as a religious person would do.

Religion provides ways of placing yourself in the universe, other than as a compilation of chemicals. Same with philosophy. Religion does have value. Like any human organization reorganized religion becomes a self serving organism. I am not in general anti religion on a personal basis any more than I am anti Platonism or Hedonism or Existentialist. Whatever works for you.

If it has a value it is a very low value: Its a big pile of stinkin’ magical thinking.
There is a lot to say about how to be a human and your place in the universe without any stinkin religious/spiritual crap.

That is an ignorant unscientific biased view of how human societies work and maintain cohesion. Societies require myhologis in various form. Rambo became a modern cultural myth as did John Wayne's cowboy images did earlier. There is a lot more to culture than math and science.

Perhaps you would like scientism a Christian coined word. We have weekly meetings where web worship quantum mechanics?

I believe in the holy unfired field theory? Elevate Einstein to saint status?...hee heee

 

[steve_bank]

Religion does not provide scientific answers. Region on a personal basis proves means to cope with reality.

In past years there was steady stream of theists here. What I saw was those debating theists do not realize how good relgion feels to the practioner. It is not a matter of the best argument and the best data, which many do not seem to understand.

A common theme on ST was Spock's inability to understand humanity outside of linear logic.

To the OP religion is far more powerful socially than rational logical science. There is no scientific logical solution to the mid east problems.

 

[phands]

There is no scientific logical solution to the mid east problems.

That's an extremely dissembling retort. There is no religious settlement to the middle east for sure. There may well be a diplomatic solution, but that will likely be supported by science and technology. Religion only ever makes thing worse.

 

[whollygoats]

And then, there is the Semmelweis Effect, where the entrenched factors of the bad old science intimidate and suppress the advances to protect their perverted self-interests. Witness the international pharmaceutical industry, the petroleum extraction and processing industry, the tobacco industry, the agricultural pesticide industry....well, you name it. Where money rules, science takes it in the ass. Science advances one funeral at a time.

These are industries and industrialists that you're condemning, not science or scientists.

Each an every one of those industries was and are staffed with professional scientists. I guess they were "chust followink orders"?

You extend the entirely ineffectual Nuremberg Defense to scientists who were, in most cases, painfully aware of the lies they perpetrated upon the unwitting public. Smooth move....