Science is the best way of knowing.
Filed under: Misc | Tagged: Science, Symphony of Science, The Poetry of Reality (An Anthem for Science), Thought of the day, Ways of knowing | Leave a comment »
Darwin and Lyell
Posted on August 9, 2010 by Michael
On Charles Lyell, that most eminent of 19th century scientists…
I never forget that almost everything which I have done in science I owe to the study of his great works. Well, he has had a grand and happy career, and no one ever worked with a truer zeal in a noble cause.
~Charles Darwin
Filed under: Science | Tagged: Biology, charles darwin, Charles Lyell, Geology, Science | Leave a comment »
Thought of the day
Posted on July 23, 2010 by Michael
The phrase “science and religion are compatible” is impressively dishonest. Not only is it blatantly false, but virtually no religious adherent would agree that all religions are correct. If it is recognized that not all religions can be correct, then the utterance of the compatibility phrase is inherently misleading – “religion” is not what the person espousing the view means at all. Instead he means science and his religion are compatible. Otherwise he’s claiming all religions are compatible, undermining the ultimate goal people have by using the phrase: to promote their own particular religion, hiding its obvious conflict with science.
It’s also worth noting that religion isn’t simply in conflict with the results of science; religion is also in conflict with the spirit of science. Whereas science offers methodology and a way to discover what is true, religion only offers faith – science’s biggest antagonist.
Filed under: Misc | Tagged: faith, Science, Thought of the day | 20 Comments »
Thought of the day
Posted on June 12, 2010 by Michael
The force standing in the way of proper science education? The force standing in the way of marriage equality? The force standing in the way of child safety? The force standing in the way of even beginning to find peace in Nigeria and the Middle East?
Religion.
And is there evidence for its creation stories? Can it offer well-reasoned ethical arguments against gay marriage? Can it justify allowing parents to forego needed medical care for their children? Can it operate beyond its sectarian labels? Can it be reconciled with fundamentally different claims?
No.
Filed under: Misc | Tagged: Evidence, Evolution, Faith healing, Nigera, religion, Same-sex marriage, Science, Thought of the day, Violence | 1 Comment »
How science has already tested the assertions of supernatural faith
Posted on May 23, 2010 by Michael
* The earth was suddenly created, complete with all its species, 6,000 to 10,000 years ago. This was falsified by science. The falsification likewise goes for other religions’ creation myths, like those of Hindus and the Inuits.
* God put the earth at the center of the solar system and the universe. Also falsified.
* God is both omnipotent and benevolent. Falsified by the data.
* All humans descend from Adam and Eve, who also lived a few thousand years ago. Falsified by genetic data.
* Praying for sick people makes them better. Falsified by the intercessory prayer study.
* People who lived in the past can be reincarnated as modern people, complete with their earlier memories. Investigation has shown no evidence for this.
* Jonah was swallowed and regurgitated by a giant fish (or whale). Probably impossible; nobody has survived such an occurrence.
* God confounded all the languages at once at the Tower of Babel. False: languages diverged gradually from common ancestors.
* Tribes colonized North America from the Tower of Babel several thousand years ago. (Book of Mormon). No evidence.
* Faith by itself can cure dire diseases and medical conditions, which result not from organic conditions but from imperfect belief. (Christian Science). No evidence for such faith healing.
* U.S. soldiers will return to South Pacific islands bearing wonderful goods for the inhabitants. False: won’t happen.
Don’t forget water-to-wine and virgin births. Of course, we haven’t given David Blaine a crack at these magic tricks yet.
Filed under: Religions, Science | Tagged: David Blaine, Faith claims, falsification, Jerry Coyne, Science | 16 Comments »
Objective morality
Posted on May 20, 2010 by Michael
The idea of objective morality doesn’t even make sense. It’s the biggest sham, the most ludicrous game out there. It’s this meme that just falls apart, landing with a thud. It’s just a crashingly bad notion.
There are two definitions of objective which are important here. First, there’s the ultimate sense sort of objective which transcends all life, thoughts, actions, events, etc. Then there’s the second sort of objective which means without bias, without personal preference. For instance, when I say the Tampa Bay Rays are doing really well this year, that’s an objective statement in that there is no input of my team preferences or any such thing. It’s just that they’re a good baseball team right now. This is the same sort of “objective” people tend to want in their journalism.
It’s unfortunate that the two terms get confused so easily and often, but alas, it happens. But with this distinction now in hand, it is possible to move on to the next point.
To say a moral claim is objective is to say there is some sort of ultimate source which dictates it be so. This is always God and it’s a bunch of malarkey to beat around the bush and pretend it isn’t. But this claim is itself a subjective one. Who is deciding that God is an objective source? Of course, within the useless field of theology, it is God who has made the decision, but in reality, people are making the call. They are making the choice to believe their holy books. They are the ones who are interpreting the ‘data’, the ones who are determining truth from fiction. Whether they’re right or wrong is besides the point. What’s important is that even a claim of objective morality is a subjective position.
The next point theists (especially on FTSOS’ Facebook Page) like to make is that this also means science is subjective. Yes, but it only means it in this ultimate sense. Science is still objective in that it is without bias, without personal influence (at least ideally). The sole reason for pointing out the necessary subjectivity of science is to bring about a false equivalence, a favorite tactic of creationists and their theists in arms. Science still remains the most powerful tool for gaining knowledge in the world, and it does so because it objectively analyzes the Universe. To get a little more specific, a double-blind study is objective because no bias can possibly be introduced to the raw data. (Incidentally, that’s why homeopaths never subject their bullshit to such rigors of science.) This doesn’t mean the results of the study are ultimately true – one can always go back to philosophy 101 and ask how anyone even knows any of this is real – but they are true in the operation of the real world. But, I lament, the theist will distinctly and intently drive on by this point.
The interesting point here is when the theist is asked to defend why something is right or wrong. If he’s simply, he’ll just say “because God said so”, relying on his subjective interpretations. But if he thinks he’s clever, he’ll answer with some common basis which goes beyond religion, usually reflecting some ethical theory of some sort. Take the teabaggers. They’re all religious nutbags, but they’ll loosely reflect libertarian ideals (until they become inconvenient, but I digress). Those libertarian ideals say that personal liberty and autonomy is good. Of course, this runs counter to much of what Christianity teaches them, but they’ll still stand behind their reasoning. The reason is that while libertarianism is not a very good ethical theory, it is a defensible one. And more importantly, people think it’s objective morality when they can apply particular situations to the principles of certain theories. For instance, using libertarian principles as a basis, it is possible to say that most taxes are objectively bad. In this instance, “objective” references a particular standard. In other words, when applying X event (taxes) to Y principle (liberty is good), it is possible to reason out a correct answer. Of course, X event may be a great thing according to the principles of another theory. That’s where the subjectivity comes in. It’s still possible to apply X event objectively within a certain construct, but that presumes there’s agreement with said construct.
Filed under: Atheism/Humanism | Tagged: Christianity, Ethical Theories, Libertarian, Objective morality, Science, Teabaggers | 13 Comments »
Because it’s worth repeating
Posted on May 15, 2010 by Michael
A creationist in one of the comment sections recently repeated this old canard.
the dictionary says (among other things) that a theory is:
1. contemplation or speculation.
2. guess or conjecture.there i go? again?
you just seem pretty intent on disparaging arguments but not refuting them.
This is yet another point where atheists and other non-deluded people are willing to be honest, all the while watching creationists do just the opposite. It’s like it’s just so damn inconvenient to come to a straight-forward, truthful understanding of basic concepts for the religious that lying has become okay for them; the ends justify the means.
So it is worthwhile to repeat, for the nth time, just what a theory is and is not.
Insofar as my theory that ice cream is great can be considered a theory, yes, creationism is a theory. But it is not in any way a scientific theory. The requirements to reach this high level are rigorous. For starters, what predictions does creationism make? What experiments can be carried out to falsify the hypothesis? Can others repeat these experiments? Are there other plausible explanations? Are there better explanations?
The word “theory”, as any educated, honest person knows, carries far more weight in science than it does for the lay public. In truth, the word gets mixed up in casual talk within science, even sometimes becoming conflated with “hypothesis”, but no one really blinks because the context allows for the use of shorthand. Think to Richard Dawkins’ style of writing. He uses personification all the time, especially when discussing natural selection. He will start out with qualifiers and scare quotes – “Natural selection ‘wants’ to weed out the bad genes” – but as he goes on, the reader comes to an understanding of the fact that the good doctor is bringing evolutionary biology to life via a particular way of writing. It becomes obvious that it is inappropriate to apply anthropomorphic qualities to what Dawkins is describing – and it is context that allows for this.
But in public forums or political circles, there can be no assumed knowledge of science and what its terms mean; it is a danger to allow for the use of loose language without qualification. That is why it is so important to distinguish between the lay definition of “theory” versus its scientific definition. In science it references something which has evidence, has been tested, has journal papers all about it, and usually there is a high degree of consensus. The Big Bang, evolution, global warming, plate tectonics – these are all theories. Creationists have no theories. They have no evidence, no reason, no logic, no testing, no raw data, no way to interpret any sort of observation in a way that holds any scientific significance.
Filed under: Science | Tagged: Big Bang, Creationism, Evolution, Global Warming, Plate Tectonics, Science, theory | 2 Comments »
Where are these boundaries anyway?
Posted on March 28, 2010 by Michael
Believers are often railing that atheism, and especially Richard Dawkins, goes beyond the bounds of science in its claims. What is never actually articulated is how. How does atheism go beyond these bounds?
But that other comment about going “beyond the boundaries of science” is a curious one. Where? I think that when you invoke an invisible, undetectable ghost in the sky who diddles quanta or turns into a man who raises the dead, then you are going beyond the boundaries of science. When someone points out that there is no evidence of such activities, that the claims of supernaturalists are contradictory and unreasonable, or explains that the material claims of priests are fair game for critical examination, they are actually operating entirely within the domain of science.
Atheism is not science, but as I’ve said in the past, it reflects the essence of science.
Acceptance without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western religion. Rejection without proof is the fundamental characteristic of Western science. ~Gary Zukav
While Zukav is otherwise uninteresting, his quote is concise and spot on. The onus is on the positive claimant to show his evidence. This is why the common comparison of God and gods to gnomes and unicorns is so apt; atheism is a rejection of certain claims which have no proof.
Of course, an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But an absence of what should be present is evidence of absence. This is just common sense we use all the time; if a prosecutor claims John shot his friend but there is no bullet hole in the friend and there hasn’t been time for anything to heal, then that is evidence that John never did shoot his friend. Faith, the basis for all religious belief, is not good enough here. It’s laughable.
To put it another way,
If Susie tells us she stopped a train in its tracks a la Superman, we would rightfully demand some real evidence of this (assuming we didn’t outright reject her claim as obviously false). We would even call Susie’s claim impossible. But that isn’t to actually say it is impossible. In theory, at least, it could have happened. All the atoms which made up the train could have spontaneously disassembled in a manner consistent with how they would have been altered had Superman actually been standing in front of the train. Of course, there is a huge difference between something being possible and something being plausible. This scenario fits the former while falling far short of the latter.
Atheism is much the same.
Atheism does not violate any boundaries of science (though it is not required to fall within a scientific purview to be true); instead it is a reflection of science. It is not built upon superstition or faith or unevidenced claims. Atheism is a rational view of reality which does not overstep anything. In fact, it embraces particular bounds – the bounds of human knowledge. “There probably is no God” perfectly reflects current human knowledge because, to date, there is no evidence for any gods. None. Let that sink in. It isn’t that the evidence is disparate, poorly argued or presented, poorly collected or organized…no. No, it’s that there is no evidence for any supernatural being. It cannot, with any respect for reason, be asserted that atheism is the boundary-stomping culprit here. Atheism is a standing demand for evidence as a result of a standing lack of reason, rationality, knowledge, and, well, evidence.
Filed under: Atheism/Humanism | Tagged: atheism, Gary Zukav, Gnomes, pz myers, religion, Richard Dawkins, Science | 6 Comments »
Thought of the day
Posted on February 25, 2010 by Michael
A characteristic of the Republican party is a hostility towards science.
Filed under: Misc | Tagged: Republicans, Science, Thought of the day | 2 Comments »
The first time I was frustrated by an anti-science stance
Posted on November 10, 2009 by Michael
It was either in preschool or kindergarten that I first learned that the earth was spinning while constantly revolving around the sun. I remember being absolutely fascinated by this. The earth was spinning? It seemed so counter-intuitive. But I had been presented with the facts so convincingly that I never once doubted it to be true. The fact that is also made sense with how night and day, and then seasons, occur iced it for me.
I gleefully took this information home with me. I had a friend living next door and I really couldn’t wait to convey this new information. I had long had a children’s Bible, complete with fun animations, that showed lions and deer and elephants and dogs on an Ark, but that had never excited me. This was different. This was true. I was too young to sift many facts from fiction at that age, but someone had least made a case for a spinning earth; they showed how what they were saying was consistent with real world observations. No one ever bothered to do this for the Ark. Pretty pictures can only go so far.
I finally got home and started telling my friend David all about how earth was spinning and how it rotated around the sun, not the other way around. He was a year younger than I was, so he had apparently yet to come to this lesson. He found my story too incredible to be true. He disputed my account, astutely asking, “If the earth is spinning, why are all the trees standing still? Why aren’t they spinning too?”
I really had no response to this. I had basically been told some facts which were consistent with observation. I didn’t have a full grasp (nay, nary a tenuous grasp) on gravity or anything that would have helped me explain to David why he was wrong. I was only able to repeat what I was convinced was true. This was the first time I had been frustrated by someone taking an anti-science stance. I didn’t know his position was in opposition to science since I was about 5 or 6, but that’s what it was. Fortunately, his position can be excused since he was about the same age. But this raises an interesting question.
What is everyone else’s excuse?
Filed under: Science | Tagged: Science | 4 Comments »
For the Sake of Science 