Gee, and here I thought you might think, "Hmm, maybe this guy knows something about how his profession works."
Why would you expect me to think that? Neither the nature of your profession nor how it works was ever the issue. I would assume you know something about how your profession works—whatever it happens to be. The issue was the limited scope of your experience, confessed by your statement about what you haven’t heard or seen.
Do you think I never peer above my lab bench? That I don't know about what happens in other parts of my field or in other fields?
I have given no thought to what might be limiting the scope of your experience.
Deities and supernatural causation are not part of science. Period.
Which is what I said. So, thanks for the affirmation?
Gods and religion are not invoked in the practice of science, but they are invoked in scientific discussions (which include public engagement). Again, scientific discussions and the practice of science are not the same thing.
I thought I was fairly clear in what I had written.
I thought so too! Until you suddenly indicated a much narrower context. Although you said “scientific discussions” (which can be broad), it turns out what you meant was “the practice of science” (which is considerably narrower). But, as I’ve already shown, my response answered that narrower context anyway. So, it’s all good.
[My comment about scientific discussions] followed from a comment where you'd said, "Persons do those things, and persons are never religiously neutral" regarding the practice of science.
It was not regarding the practice of science. What I said was, “[Science] does not interpret evidence, make judgments, draw conclusions, or adjudicate ideas. It is a method, not an epistemic or volitional agent. Persons do those things, and persons are never religiously neutral.”
Your list of things [that] science does included "interpret evidence, make judgments, draw conclusions, or adjudicate ideas."
It is evident that you don’t read carefully enough. I specifically said science does not do those things; persons do.
I had no reason to think that it was anything but interactions between scientists, …
On the contrary, you did have reason to think it was more than interactions between scientists. Although scientists interpret evidence, make judgments, draw conclusions, or adjudicate ideas, it is not just scientists who do so. What I said did not limit it to scientists; your bias did that.
Scientists making presentations to the public often invoke their own religious ideas, …
Thank you. Deities and religion can (and do) come in to scientific discussions and presentations.
… but none of that has anything to do with religion or deities being part of the practice of science.
Who said deities or religion are part of the practice of science? You appear to have invented an adversary so you would have somewhere to aim that criticism.
Let's see: Never mentioned, completely ignored, doesn't add anything to understanding of nature. Sure looks like it doesn't matter.
“Never mentioned” and “completely ignored” only establish methodological omission; they do not establish metaphysical irrelevance. Laboratory reports also don’t mention the reliability of induction, for example, but one would be an idiot to conclude that it therefore doesn’t matter.
The fact that science doesn’t mention God proves only that God is not a scientific variable. It doesn’t prove that God is not needed or doesn’t matter. That is a metaphysical conclusion that wishes it had the prestige of real physics.
Why should I think that reality (and let's not call it "the world" like we're still living on a flat Earth) requires a "metaphysical ground"? The Universe exists along with what ever bit of "Cosmos" is beyond the Universe, does it add anything to insert a being that "just is" as the cause for the Universe rather than just reality just being? There is no reason [accept] belief in that deity. It has no explanatory power for the existence of non-nothing.
My goodness, where do I start?
I said “the world” as a shortened form of “the natural world” used earlier in the same sentence, and “the natural world” is a perfectly normal expression for the object of scientific investigation, the observable universe with its matter and energy, forces and causes, etc. I can’t even imagine why a self-professed scientist would associate that with a flat Earth. That is very weird.
Why should you think that reality needs a metaphysical ground? Great question—and a separate one. It would be a red herring in this discussion, and I don’t take that bait. Start a separate thread on it and I will engage it there.
For the record, I agree that there is no reason accept belief in a deity who “just is” and caused the universe. Indeed, such a deity has no explanatory power. But here, too, you have invented an adversary you know how to refute, because I never posited God as merely the cause of the universe. In my argument, God has enormous explanatory power, for he does much more than cause the universe.
Metaphysics wishes it had the prestige of real physics.
That is, ironically, a self-incriminating comment from someone issuing metaphysical claims, such as “God is not needed.”
You made bald assertion not worthy of a serious response.
What you find worthy of a serious response is autobiographical information; it says something about you.
It indicates nothing about what I said.
I am totally okay with that.
I’ll stop there. I grew tired of chasing the inanity in this response. If there is a specific argument buried in it that you want addressed, make it clear. Otherwise, I am done.
