OT: Thoughts on Cosmos with Neil deGrasse Tyson
I remember watching the original Cosmos starring Carl Sagan when I was a kid. My family watched the "new" Cosmos last night, with Neil deGrasse Tyson. Although there were a few cheesy moments (e.g., "look at that asteroid... No, not that one... The one on the left"), overall I thought it was very interesting.
I can say this, my 17 and 13 year-old boys, and my 10 year-old daughter were absolutely riveted. There aren't many shows on prime-time TV that we can watch together, and enjoy healthy dialogue.
Knowing the education level on this board is a bit higher than others, I was wondering if any MGoBloggers watched, and if they liked it, or disliked it. Thoughts?
P.S. Please bear in mind the "no religion" tenet of this board... Thoughtful, tasteful dialogue is the goal.
Apologies. I believe we got off on the wrong foot. We do not share the same views, and that is okay. I understand evolution has happened over millions of years. Or Beeeeyons like Sagan says. It is just the doubt in my mind that we have evolved the ability to think, reason, question, and comprehend on a level seen no where else on Earth by chance, is too much for me to accept. That is not to say that I can deny it as a possiblility either.
I did not state once that I just dismiss it all because I have not educated myself on the matter. But I have not educated myself on the matter enough to dismiss my doubts.
My intentions were never to battle you on whether or not evolution is the answer. But to answer your question on what outside of religion (or coupled with religion) could influence someone to dismiss evolution. I feel ingnorance may be one answer. I'm not even religious. So it's not like I was taking a stance on the "science" vs. "religion" war or anything.
I also believe that there is simply a good chance that the equations we use are good approximations at certain scales and not necessarily at others.
just asking: any evidence for/reason to believe this?
But the real reason is because I'm a "Space" coyote.
In all honesty though, I'm not saying there isn't, I'm just highly skeptical. I'm still interested in the physics and science, and I believe pretty much all our equations are nice and clean approximations of the real thing, so in that sense, if dark matter and dark energy act as a "correction" for our approximations, then it does the job until we can understand it better.
That is why it is still a theory. It is "proven" based off our current equations, because light bends more around galaxies than we predict it otherwise would, so we assume there is some mass that is missing that would otherwise make our equations and understanding correct. This missing mass is termed "dark matter", matter that we can't see, or detect, or identify, or really understand, but it must be there otherwise we'd be wrong.
That's why I'm skeptical of dark matter. I have more faith that we, as humans, are wrong in our understanding of how the universe at that scale behaves more than I believe there is something there that we can't otherwise measure or detect.
Dark matter (and dark energy, for that matter) are most evidenced through galaxy motion and how galaxies affect light. This is where the thought that maybe our understanding of physics doesn't necessarily work at that scale. We predict how much mass is in an entire galaxy based off of certain things, but what is actually the probability that we are really correct there. All our methods of measurement are varified by close (in the reference of space) phenomena. Yet we can't even unite things that are on a scale we can actually contain, see, and understand, but we believe we understand a scale that is relatively incomprehensible?
Dark matter and dark energy and other "dark" things are no more than faith. That's not to say it isn't correct, but we don't understand why things on that scale behave the way they do, so there must be matter and energy we cannot account for but is actually there, because that makes us correct. Seems a little magical. So we can get into gravitational lensing, and the rotation curves of galaxies, or the dispersion velocities, or the physics behind a supernovae, but call me skeptical that 95+% of our universe is that we can't detect or measure other than by the fact that our equations and understanding of physics is incorrect without it.
Correlation does not imply causation, yet that is the basis for the wide-held belief in dark matter and dark energy.
Dark matter and dark energy and other "dark" things are no more than faith
As usual, people are mixing terms. It's not faith in terms of the common usage of the term 'faith". It's faith based on the evidence we have measured, calculated and predicted. You mentioned a lot of the evidence for a form of matter that only seems to be observed based on it's gravitational interaction with light and matter.
Same with "proven." Nothing in science is truely proven as most would interpret that term. Dark matter theory, tho it doesn't have the amount or diversity of evidence in support of it when compared to evolution, nonetheless has a lot of data to support it. The observational effects you mention (lensing, Rot curves, etc) all seem to be explained by the universe containing a type of matter that does not interact with light (except thru its gravity causing spacetime to curve). It's kind of shocking that you dismiss a fairly simple explanation for all those independent observations that indeed do span tens of orders of magnitude.
By the way, these include neither the higgs boson verification last summer, nor the theoretical calculations of large scale structure formation in the early universe whose timescale and size scales & structure cannot be explained without a dark matter component in the universe - and the results of which seem to match observations.
The same could be said for dark energy, tho that is a relatively new (last 15-20 years at most) set of ideas, that again are constructed to understand what is observed. It's not inventing something to "make ourselves right." It's inventing something that explains a varied set of observations and indeed makes accurate predictions of what we should observe in the future. It's inventing something that makes the universe make sense and become predictible. Sure, maybe what we're inventing could turn out to be the wrong model. But the fact is, we don't have a better one right now. And to be honest, I have seen papers that posit amended gravity theories (perturbation gravity theory). They have been published in peer reviewed journals. The thing is, they may explain this ONE thing- rotations curves for milky way-sized galaxies. But these theories don't get a lot of traction b/c they don't explain other size scales or the other myriad observations that DM theory doeas explain.
Still, the more disturbing issue to me is the following: in spite of all the evidence for DM (and lack of evidence to the contrary at this time), you still choose to believe (blindly by definition-if there is no counter evidence, which there isn't) in an alternative that just doesn't have much, if any, evidence behind it. It's very similar to the following thought experiment:
What if penicillin might cause autism (there's no evidence to think that right now, but it's possible)? Now, if your son catches a bacterial infection that threatens his life will you withhold a penicilin regimen treatment? Today, there is no evidence to suggest that he'd be better off WITHOUT that treatment, and a shit-ton to suggest that he's better off WITH it. It is therefore irrational (and criminal, IMO) to refuse the treatment EVEN IF 20 YEARS FROM NOW WE FIND OUT THAT PENICILIN CAUSES AUTISM.
So yeah, maybe we don't have sufficient gaurentees that DM (or any theory) is the correct model for the universe. But damn if it doesn't, 1) explain a shit ton of what we observe and 2) there isn't even close to an equal amount of evidence for a counter theory as of yet. So even if DM turns out to be dead wrong, you're still wrong to not "believe" it- b/c you're just ignoring the evidence for it. See, no one BLAMES ancient people for believeing that the Earth was flat or that the sun travelled around the Earth- b/c based on all the available evidence, that's the best theroy that explained observations up that point! You know what we DO blame ancient people for? NOT CHANGING THEIR MINDS IN THE FACE OF OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE CONTRARY TO THEIR OPINION. IOW, not "believing" the mountain of new evidence that has developed and the theory that explains it all and makes predictions that can be observed and verified. That's what scientists now do- b/c we've learned from the lessons of the past. Always question, always be open to other possibilities. Until the last 150-200 years or so, humanity was turrible at that and progress was slow. Now, it's different. In short, don't believe a theory just b/c it's there, believe the evidence in support of it: the theories' explanations and predictions for what we observe. Belief in spite of evidence is faith. Belief b/c of evidence is science. I encourage more people to engage in the latter rather than the former.
And I'm not simply stuck in a past about whatever came before the theories of dark matter and dark energy. I simply don't think we have a true understanding of the universe on a grand scale. I stated above that I still like the physics and believe that dark matter and dark energy, if only used as a correction factor, is very applicable because it gives us our closest approximations.
And your thought experiment doesn't really apply, because dark matter has no life or death consequences. Certainly, if I had to make a prediction about the way things in the universe behave, I would use dark matter theory because it is the closest we have. It doesn't mean it's correct or the ultimate solution. I tend to believe that we don't have it all figured out. That some how, some way, everything from our numbering system to our method of math and science, out of all miricles, solve the mysteries of the universe. They may be the best we have or even the best we'll have, and that's fine, but it doesn't mean it's correct. Instead, I think there is something that unifies all physics, but it's likely extremely complicated rather than at the scale of simplisity our math equations make it.
In my opinion, there is not enough evidence to dismiss other possibilities other than dark matter and dark energy. I don't think we understand well the things on extremely small scales (Higgs Boson comes to mind). There are a vast amount of options. Civilization could exist on a "particle" that sees an electron its entire observable universe. Things outside of our observable universe, outside of our universe entirely, other things in the vast distances between us that we could observe if only we knew where and how to look. Maybe that's dark matter, or maybe there is something more to the equations that is currently outside our understanding.
So don't get it twisted that I'm archaic in my thinking, or that I'm some how dismissing what this theory has provided for our current understanding of the universe. Even if it turns out to be completely wrong, it has gone a long ways to our understanding of the universe. But just because I don't necessarily believe it's right, and instead decide to challenge the idea (not because of religious beliefs or out of nothingness, instead, out of belief there is a greater science that we are still working to understand, even here on earth), does not mean that I am incorrect. I believe in a unified theory and think some day we will become closer to that theory. But I don't think it's an ignorant idea that we are possibly working on such vastly different scales that don't necessarily correlate how we want them to, so we are correcting them so they do.
Fair enough
March 11th, 2014 at 10:24 AM ^
"I simply don't think we have a true understanding of the universe on a grand scale. I stated above that I still like the physics and believe that dark matter and dark energy, if only used as a correction factor, is very applicable because it gives us our closest approximations."
So why is it any different than gravity or quantum mechanics?
ALL science is just the best, falsifiable, predicitve MODEL for the current evidence. That is all it ever can or will be.
Dark matter and dark energy and other "dark" things are no more than faith. That's not to say it isn't correct, but we don't understand why things on that scale behave the way they doMuch like relativity, I suspect that that physicists equations break down when vast scales of space are used relative to our very small scale of experimentation. Factors that are completely insignificant on our relatively "micro scale" might have vast consequences on the galactic scale. I suspect that dark matter/dark energy do not exist and that they are being invoked due to our lack of understanding of space/time and energy on a vast scale (perhaps in conjunction with the impact of virtual particles).
March 11th, 2014 at 10:20 AM ^
"It's not a proven phenomena"
Correct.
Just like gravity, and evolution, and relativity, and thermodynamics, and...
"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."
-Karl Popper
March 11th, 2014 at 10:49 AM ^
Between the amount of evidence and support for the things you listed, and dark matter, seems obtuse. I understand those things are theories as well. I can also take a pen and drop it, take evidence tangible evidence from our history to support evolution, play pool the support relativity, put a pot on a stove and watch it heat up, etc, etc.
Viewing something thousands of lightyears away, on an extremely grander scale then anything that is tangible, using techniques and measurements that are not nearly as well supported (because, frankly, they can't be), is a bit different.
have you ever watched CSI? It is possible to solve a crime without having to literally witness it in real time. That's precisely what scientists do in Astrophysics.
Why not doubt our estimates for the mass of the sun? We can't run out to the sun with a bathroom scale and weigh it. You tell me why you're so confident about the mass of the sun, but not the larger scale masses of galaxies or super clusters. And don't play scale here either, boss: the masses of stars are ~ 30 orders of magnitude greater than what we can "tangibly measure."
How about the temperature of the Sun? we have very accurate values for surface and internal temperatures of the sun which are 3-6 orders of magnitude greater than temps "tangibly measured" on Earth.
How about ages of the stars? You have to doubt that too, since we can't sit around and wait for a sun-like star to first be born, migrate to the main sequence, migrate off the main sequence, go nova and eventually EVOLVE into a white dwarf.
Even better: intrinsic brightness (luminosity) of stars? those are 40-50 (!!!!) orders of magnitude greater than what we can "tangibly measure" on Earth.
I guess it's more plausible to 'expect' that the laws of the universe just work differently at +x orders of magnitude. Heck, why not? the conventional laws don't work at 10-30 orders of magnitude smaller (quantum scales). Oh wait, I do know why not. There isn't evidence to support that hypothesis. Look you're a good dude, and seem knowledgeble, but you're essentially calling into doubt 90+% of astronomy and astrophysics, with no data, observations or any reason to do so other than a 'gut feeling' or some such, I guess. But hey, you could be right.
However, yes, I do question those things, still, for some of the same reasons. Now, for things like the Sun, the mass that we claim it to be, the temperature we claim it to be, etc, it fits within the physics as we know them, without the use of dark matter and dark energy and other such things. There isn't this thing that we can't see or detect that drastically changes the outcome.
But yes, things like intrinsic brightness of the stars is something I question. However, to justify to scale (the same scale is used for all luminosity), scientists aren't justifying the values of luminosity by saying "well, it would be correct if we were only measuring 5% of the energy, and the other 95% of the value we are getting is because of something we can't detect, measure, or understand outside of the fact that our measurement is 95% off from our perception of how the universe works".
I feel it is reasonable to be skeptical of dark energy and dark matter when the combine to make up over 95% of the mass-energy equivalance of the universe, otherwise we would be correct. That's beyong the "if your aunt had balls she'd be your uncle." That's into the realm of "if your aunt had balls and was also a four legged creature that barked, chased tennis balls, and had blood that matched that of a Beagle, then it'd be a male dog." I mean, 95% is an extremely significant number, like the vast majority. So being skeptical seems logical, because most things aren't resolved by "well, we're way, way off, so let's assume we can only account, measure, and detect 5% of something and simply extrapolate up as if the rest is there we just can't show it." No, that is more along the lines of "we may be a little off on this one." Maybe the extrapolation, the correct if you will, makes for a decent approximation, that seems reasonable. Maybe dark energy and dark matter do exist, it's not outside the realm of possibility. But I think there is more than enough justification for being skeptical then minimalizing it by calling it a guy feeling.
Beyond that, even within our own solar system we make theories that are deemed highly reliable. Then we send explorers and observation space craft and rovers to these objects and our theories get blown out of the water. Until recently, we were significantlyoff in our perception of the gravitational field of the moon. The moon, which in the grand scheme of things is sitting about as close to us as clothes compared to someone in Tokyo is to New York. We make corrections of our earth based telescopes based off of daily differences in our atmosphere, but cannot even come close to doing that on the scale we are examining other universes, yet we justify it, but don't even come close to understanding the "atmosphere" of the vast scale of the universe.
So you claim that it does scale up. Yes, it does scale up that many orders of magnitude is you can justify and convince yourself into believing that only 5% of the mass-energy equivalance of the universe is actual matter, and the rest is something that must be there for us to be correct and for our equations to "scale up".
Also, I find it odd to relate the scale of our solar system - which we still continue to prove our theories wrong within, from the make up, gravitational field, temperature, composition, etc of the planets and moons, to the theorized Oort cloud and the heliosphere which we have just now sent probes past - to galaxies, let alone groups of galaxies. Galaxies make up make up between 10,000,000 and 100,000,000,000 stars, not to even begin discussing the possibility of a black hole at its center. The scales are extremely different. Now take into account all the different interactions within it, the vast distance between us and other galaxies, the other interactions potential happening between that galaxy and our observation abilities, let alone the things beyond that galaxy, around that galaxy, etc. To justify it with "well, we just can physically see and measure (not just the affects, but the actual dark energy and dark matter) only 5% of it, but I'll believe 95% is there, that seems much, much logical and enough to dismiss someone that may be skeptical of that".
So yes, I'm skeptical that this theory is correct, because history has proved that more often than not our theories turn out to be wrong, we are the ones that turn out to be wrong, rather than something just being there that we can't measure, see, or detect.
March 11th, 2014 at 10:05 PM ^
well again, DM can be measured thru it's gravitational influence only.
Similar for DE, tho it has been a few years since I've read about the details.
I don't know if it's reasonable to doubt theories b/c past theories are often wrong. much of the time the theories are amended based on new evidence. Certainly, electron theory, QM, evolution, gravity shouldn't be doubted b/c humans have been wrong in the past. Hell, we can't directly observe electrons (recent advances in technology the last few months to a year may have changed this, but IDK), yet our theory of electrons and atomic & molecular interactions works pretty damn well. So, just b/c we can't physically see it or measure it doesn't mean the theory should be doubted.
I suppose the order of magnitude needs to be greater than 50 for your hypothesis to work. the problem is, there isn't any evidence to support it and there's no way to test the hypothesis that I could think of (in less than 5mins anyway).
I also think you've got a misconception about the DM/DE theory. no one's "trying to make sure our equations remain correct." In every other application of the laws of physics, they do work. So we have 2 possibilities: 1) all the equations work in every observed experiment we've ever done, except at the galactic scale. 2) there is some form of matter that we heretofor could not detect b/c it apparently doesn't interact with photons in any way.
now, given the fact that a) there's no evidence and thus no legitimate reason to believe that the laws/equations of physics and chem wouldn't work at large scales and b) the DM theory seems to explain, at the very least, 1) Galactic rotations curves, 2) gravitational lensing, 3) the timescale for and structure of formation of galaxies and superclusters of galaxies on the largest scales, CMB power spectra, and standard candle supernovae confirmation of the Lambda-CDM model of the universe, I'd say DM theory has a pretty decent leg to stand on.
So, we have a set of equations and a set of tools and instruments to measure certain values. What we are measuring is a person, yet all we have are tools and instruments used for measuring the mass and energy of electrons. Lets pretend here we know the results of what our mass and energy should be based on something else. We are unfamiliar with tools and instruments used for measuring larger scale objects. That's fine. But when we measure this person, it turns out the measured results used as inputs into the equation do not match the known results. To match, we can believe there are three possibilities:
1. Our measuring tools and instruments do not scale up and therefore do not accurately measure what they are used to measure. Regardless of the equations used, garbage in, garbage out.
2. The equations are wrong. Using the equations from the quantum scale doesn't produce the results that should output. But there is another potential set of equations that better fits with the anticipated results that we could use.
3. There is some dark spirit that provides a mass and an energy that we can't really detect, but if we make use of it, it makes our measuring methods and equations correct. Note, this dark spirit isn't uniform and can't necessarily be scaled from person to person, it is instead relatively arbitrary from person to person in order to match the results. But, we can determine that only about 5% of the observable mass goes into the equation, the other 95% is broken up into this dark spirit's mass and energy.
Now, it could be combination of all three. I certainly would not dismiss the third option entirely. There have been many instances of us discovering things we previously didn't know about or couldn't directly measure. We must be careful developing new equations, as again, the inputs may be garbage. Most likely, in this scenario, the issue is all three. Perhaps all the physics is unified, but we are utilizing limits at certain scales that we don't really comprehend. Perhaps the measuring devices are close approximations at some scales but not others. Perhaps there is something unknown to us. I'd venture to say all three play a role, and I would be very skeptical to dismiss option one and two outright in favor of option three.
March 12th, 2014 at 10:44 AM ^
Actually, the evidence for the existence of dark matter exceeds the evidence for the mechanics of gravitation by quite a bit.
While we can observe the effects of what we call gravity, we have almost no understanding of HOW it works.
As for the scales you're talking about - thos also apply to gravitation and relativity... and the opposite effect applies to quantum mechanics... and quantum mechanics is MUCH less "common sense" and "intuitive" than dark matter/energy and just as difficult to gather evidence for.
Actually most science today is paid for by tax dollars. Let's get real please.
But the majority of hospitals and medical research worldwide still has a religious affiliation. Much of science throughout history until recently was funded through religious affliations (and a decent amount still is, particularly through religious affiliated research labs and universities worldwide). So, while yes, most modern day science and technology is driven by government funding (particularly for military purposes), that is not necessarily historically the case, meaning that much of the science, technology, and knowledge we have today is based on things learned from religiously funded/affiliated research.
I also said "much" of science and technology is funded indirectly or directly by religion, so I'm not sure what we're "getting real" about.
You are just broadly (and yet confidently) wrong on this, esp. your use of the word "much". That is what I meant by "get real"! :)
Claiming that most of the medical research done worldwide is religiously based is just plainly untrue. Modern science is funded by government; it's that simple. in the U.S. (the world's clear research leader), look at the NIH budget as one example, or NSF. DARPA funds some of this as well (but less pure research than they used to alas), but military is government too.
The EU is catching up here and investing heavily too. That is also government, not religion.
Long story short: I have no idea what you are talking about when you talk about "worldwide medical research" being funded by religion.
Now claiming that historically more was funded by government, well, that is interesting. I still don't think it's true: Who funded Newton, for example? Or Einstein? Usually Universities who were willing to hire them. Not religious institutions so much.
I think you're misunderstanding his point. You said:
"who funded Newton, for example? Or Einstein? Usually Universities who were willing to hire them. Not religious institutions so much."
Back in the time of Newton, universities usually were religious institutions. Still not sure you can put a number on it like 51% was from religious affilitation, but his point does have some merrit.
March 10th, 2014 at 10:00 PM ^
it is pretty easy to understand his "point". It's just wrong in almost every facet.
Even looking at the history of a prestigious university such as Cambridge, you'll see (if you read about its history) that sure, it was religiously-oriented at first, but as the enlightenment kicked into high gear, became less and less so. Private funding of professorships was common and study by lay people (not just those intended for the clergy) also on the rise. So I think even going back to these times, science was surprisingly not too religiously affiliated.
Really all of this is a minor point anyhow: much of the older world was dominated by religion. The amazing part is how universities and science pulled away from all that, at first with great risk, and then less so.
March 10th, 2014 at 10:10 PM ^
You can argue how religious Newton was or wasn't, but the universities that supported him were most definitely religious at that time. Many of his theories started while on scholarship at Trinity College. A lot of what SC said was wrong, but to ignore the fact that religious institutions funded and supported some of the most important scientific progress is short sighted.
March 10th, 2014 at 10:20 PM ^
And that there is one questionable comment as far as worldwide medical research and religious affiliation. Still, the main claim that was being debated was if religious affiliated groups provided "much" in terms of our knowledge and understanding throughout history. I'm not a very religious man and don't even have an affiliation with a major religion, but I'm not going to sit here and discount everything they've done and act like all they've been is evil and depriving of scientific truth. It's just not so, not by any means.
Much means a good deal, a large number, a great amount. Look at how many universities have religious affiliations around the world. Look how many countries and governments around the world have religious affiliations. How can you actually claim that much of research does not have religious affiliation?
Throughout history, monks were extremely significant sources of science and knowledge. Monks with religious affiliations. It's not that these things are simply being funded by religion. In the end, regardless of how much religion earns, it's not enough alone to fund the majority of scientific research, especially in this day and age. Much of the research is commercialized and made for profit and there are other sources of income. But yet, much of research, knowledge, and scientific thought stems from religious organizations and religious affiliation. So you're confusing two things: the word "much", and "funded by religion" and "funded by religious affiliation." Jesus and Buddah aren't making it rain dolla, dolla bills ya'll to fund research out of no where.
Now, I may back track off the most of medical research today has religious affiliation, though I believe this was actually something brought up in a discussion on NPR last week. However, I cannot cite this or find confirmation for this, so I cannot verify and am not in a position to claim otherwise.
I think your claim is just bizarre: what does it even mean to claim that "much" of research has religious affiliation? This is a meaningless claim. Virtually all research done today, esp. in the leading research institutions of the world, has nothing to do with religion. What is your point? Can you cite a specific example? It just makes no sense, and you are just waving your hands (repeatedly).
It's fair to say that there were some monks who used to do science. Those days are long gone. While I appreciate the contributions of those few folks (e.g., Mendel), it is hard to argue that somehow religion is the foundation upon which modern science is built. So much of what we know came after this time, a staggering amount to tell the truth.
March 10th, 2014 at 10:13 PM ^
http://collegestats.org/colleges/christian
That's a list of christian colleges through the United States. Now look at colleges with other religious affiliations, and look outside the US. I think it's pretty fair to say that much research is being done by these schools.
And in the past, as Mitch Cumstein pointed out, most universities had religious affiliations. They were at least partially supported by some religious group. And to completely discount the work of monks as a foundation for much of what we learned seems a bit odd. While we've grown vastly on that, throughout the scope of human history, it seems odd to disclaim everything that they brought forward, particularly in a thread discussing astronomy.
Again, you're confusing some things. Religion itself is by no means the foundation upon which modern science is built. Religious affiliated groups, however, have funded much of science and knowledge that we have continued to build on. The argument being that we don't need to act like religion is against science and the advancement of knowledge. Certainly, it can be used as a wedge between the two, and it has in the past, but they have also been used in together, often in hopes of building off of each other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science
you said:
"FWIW, much of science, knowledge, and technology we have today is at worst indirectly paid for by religion, and often times paid directly [for] by religion."
I took issue with that statement. It is not true, and, despite all of your arguments, is still not true.
I agree there is a long list of christian colleges (which is obvious). If you think this fact implies what you said above, well, you are wrong. The research going on at those colleges, and elsewhere, is by and large paid for by NIH, NSF, and other government-funded institutions.
All of that said, if your goal is to try to reconcile religion and science, and make religion seem more friendly to science, well, that is probably a good goal. You should start with the people who are trying to push creationism into education: they are one of a few groups giving religion a bad, and very anti-scientific, name.
*Most Academic Science
To assert that the public sector is as productive scientifically as the private sector is a huge assumption. Not all scientific development can be measured in publications and impact factor.
Not saying there isn't a war right now, just saying:
1) there doesn't have to be one
2) the history of science and religion is much more complicated than often portrayed.
As a scientist, I know plenty of evolutionary biologists who are also practicing Catholics.
This war is one-sided. One side is wrong. That side should stop being wrong. That side refuses to stop being wrong and seeks to convince others to be wrong, so of course there's retaliation.
If by "more complicated," you mean that the church's track record of oppressing science for its own benefit is much longer and more heinous than the public is led to believe, then I agree.
Ken Miller is one of my favorite evolutionary biologists. I thoroughly enjoy his lectures. But that's a different topic...we're talking about influence of institutions, not cognitive dissonance.
What "cognitive dissonance" re: Ken Miller? "Theistic Evolutionism" is the official belief of the Roman Catholic church, to which Miller belongs. Other than professing a belief in a soul created by god, there's not a lot about that position that would require cognitive dissonance on Miller's part.
We're riding the line as it is. Explaining this would cross it with abandon.
A better phrasing might be this:
Many religious people perceive that science is anti-religion. It of course is not, at least not as it is meant to be practiced. Science is not supposed to be pro- or anti- anything, just a method for finding the most supportable and likely explanations for how things work. Many (most?) of the greatest scientists in history have expressed a faith of one form or another.
This perceived war on religion by science leads to reactionary behavior and an actual war on science (or perhaps co-opting of quasi-scientific language to serve religion, e.g. the creation museum).
It seems to me that the better tactic of science would be to de-escalate rather than cast religion as a villain, thus immediately putting the religious on the defensive and vulnerable to the "see, these are godless heathens trying to end religion!" tactic.
Should we excise all the transgressions against the furthering of human knowledge by religious institutions from history merely to "de-escalate" this conflict?
Kowtowing to the ignorant doesn't go anywhere. Furthermore, the religious institutions that head up the "war" and the people who run them know very well that science isn't anti-religion.
They just don't care.
Well, if your actual goal is to educate (or at least marginalize) the "ignorant" rather than demonstrate your personal superiority, then yes, it is better to de-escalate. Arrogance does not well suit science, which is (or should be) inherently self-questioning and skeptical.
As far as "excising transgressions" where did I even suggest that? I'm merely saying that being explicitly anti-religious feeds into the hands of the religious institutions who wish to see themselves as persecuted, and further entrenches their beliefs. If this is indeed a war, you are fighting it poorly.
Hell, I don't even disagree with you, really, and here I am defending religion because I find your attitude off-putting. What effect do you suppose the "You're just wrong, stop being wrong!" approach has on somebody inclined to disagree with you?
Certainly there are some who will always be unreachable, as there are on every issue, but no sense pushing someone on the fence over to the other side because you feel the need to insult them for retaining any religiousness.
I'm concerned in this thread with being direct and factual, not attempting to convince anyone. Were that my goal, my approach would be totally different.
Education doesn't have to involve kid gloves. And an excessively soft approach will only reinforce irrational beliefs. I could be wrong, but your first comment made it seem like the scientific community should kiss ass and sing kum-ba-yah. I feel that would make science a doormat.
Science should of course not be expressly anti-religious. But it SHOULD be anti-woo, which involves staunchly opposing things like young-earth creationism. There's only so much you can do to make people understand the difference, and there are perhaps millions who refuse to see it.
You need to take a lap around the religious hallway and critically look at how other major religions treat science and progress.
You said:
"The only people attacking are Christians"
You also used the word "are", which definitely doesn't imply pre-modern age. I'm not saying the Christian Church's past or present is steller, but they are not the only group (religous or otherwise) that is inhibiting free thought. For you to not recognize that, especially as an educator, is doing a disservice to the cause you claim to serve.
March 10th, 2014 at 10:04 PM ^
Seriously I have no problem with religious folks as long as they stay out of my curriculum. I was raised an episcopalian. However, the past few years have caused me to leave the church. I have need for evidence in order to subscribe to a particular paradigm. I never felt comfortable in my Christian education compared to my studies in science and math.
In my classroom we study scientific theory and the evidence that supports those theories. If you want to discuss theology, don't do it on my classroom.
March 10th, 2014 at 10:10 PM ^
Like I said before, you can subscribe to Jediism for your spiritual needs. I couldn't care less. Just don't expect me to to integrate theology into my science curriculum.
March 10th, 2014 at 10:17 PM ^
Is that there are multiple world religions that stiffle progress, freedom and general human rights. You clearly have a political problem with Christians b/c of the influence they have in the US (IMO from where you are sitting it is not unwarranted). My point is that in the broader context, there are people in the world (many times women b/c of the way things are) that could be contributing scientifically that cannot, b/c of the religious laws that bind them. It's unfortunatey that you don't have a problem with these people as well.
March 10th, 2014 at 10:49 PM ^
Good grief.
March 11th, 2014 at 11:08 PM ^