We are? News to me. Seems to me that we actually discuss philosophy of science a lot of the time in seminars, lab meetings, classes and so on, but I could be wrong.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I further contend that as philosophy is in utter ruin in our time, scientists are therefore highly unphilosophical (even the ones with PhDs), and they interpret their findings through bad philosophical assumptions, and so, reach false consensus.
We are? News to me. Seems to me that we actually discuss philosophy of science a lot of the time in seminars, lab meetings, classes and so on, but I could be wrong.
Sure, he used the words "completely ignore", but if you continued reading through the last sentence in the paragraph, "The fact of evolution does not...", the meaning of the overall message was pretty clearly much closer to "disagree". Remember, a paragraph is a collection of related sentences dealing with a single topic... The end of the paragraph properly related to the beginning. If it was a structural error, then gzt had and has every freedom to make a correction, although it really isn't necessary, as long as we can leave behind the statements of "foolish", the straw men of "completely ignore...", etc.This seems to me to be an example of the scourge of misunderstanding that plagues us all.
GZT said it would be foolish to completely ignore scientific consensus, NOT to disagree with it.
Superb!I further contend that as philosophy is in utter ruin in our time, scientists are therefore highly unphilosophical (even the ones with PhDs), and they interpret their findings through bad philosophical assumptions, and so, reach false consensus.
Isaac Newton was FAR more philosophical than Stephen Hawking - which is not so hard to be.
I actually think Knee-V is right in part. My strongest empirical argument against scientific thought is its reliance on a constant rate of decay in carbon dating. It's obvious to me that if that rate should change at any point (and its data cannot be independently confirmed AFAIK beyond historical record (which is why we speak of "pre-history" in the first place) then all calculations beyond that point are off. The earth may not be 7,000 years old, but I don't believe it is billions of years because I do bet dollars to doughnuts that the rate does change. If it does, the dinosaurs could be only a few thousand years prior to recorded history and we might be looking at a planet that is less than twenty thousand years old. But the main thing to bash is the certainty of the modern theories - and when I interpret "modern" as "fashionable" (as any Chestertonian will point out), then that certainty becomes even more dubious. It's ironic, really. The moderns, beginning with Huxley, wanted to use Darwin's ideas to cast doubt on the certainty of faith in God. Now we must use the lost arts of philosophy and logic to cast doubt on the certainty of faith in scientists.
Finally, the idea of human evolution, as has been pointed out, DOES make nonsense of theology, which explains a lot of non-physical phenomena that our modern priests, aka scientists, are helpless to explain, such as sin and love. Certainly some things have "evolved". I do not draw from that that EVERYTHING has evolved, in fact, I find it highly improbable. The idea of evolution is chaos and anarchy, where the strongest survive - which is in direct conflict with the guidance of a loving Creator. Such "evolution" as IS actually observed - as opposed to assumed - MUST be a post-Fall product.
I would ask why we have to choose between creation and evolution? Why could there not be theistic evolution? In essence, God created all things, and guided evolution.
I understand where you are coming from, but let me turn the question around... Is "scientific truth" outside of Christ? Above Christ? Is any truth outside of Christ?Why should we expect scientists to be philosophical at all? Aren't scientists supposed to observe phenomena, create hypotheses, gather evidence, draw conclusions based on observed data and then form theories, etc.? Isn't science supposed to be observed, analyzed, collected, theorized, and just be dry without theology and psychology and personal passions entering into it? Isn't that what makes it science? When a scientist breaks apart nucleotides and analyzes messenger RNA or messes with atoms, is he supposed to be drawing conclusions about God or metaphysics? Is science supposed to be a Christ-driven industry? I would say that few people would say yes to that? Science works on that which is observable, not upon what Church Fathers said about science 1,700 years ago, etc. We cannot realistically expect these guys in labs and in archaeological analyses to be working within the boundaries of the various religious claims to the ascent of man, can we?
I don't say these things with a skepticism or anti-religious fervor, but out of a realistic awareness that modern science doesn't utilize metaphysics or theology in its processes?
If by that one means methodology; but, at least, most of the scientists that I've heard try to venture into metaphysics or epistomology generally make basic, bad arguments (even the theists). As a theology student, my colleagues and I discuss sociology and psychology all the time - but we aren't saying much that a true student of one of those disciplines wouldn't be able to shred apart if they wanted to.
Why should we expect scientists to be philosophical at all? Aren't scientists supposed to observe phenomena, create hypotheses, gather evidence, draw conclusions based on observed data and then form theories, etc.? Isn't science supposed to be observed, analyzed, collected, theorized, and just be dry without theology and psychology
Psychology is a science.
Finally, the idea of human evolution, as has been pointed out, DOES make nonsense of theology, which explains a lot of non-physical phenomena that our modern priests, aka scientists, are helpless to explain, such as sin and love. Certainly some things have "evolved". I do not draw from that that EVERYTHING has evolved, in fact, I find it highly improbable. The idea of evolution is chaos and anarchy, where the strongest survive - which is in direct conflict with the guidance of a loving Creator. Such "evolution" as IS actually observed - as opposed to assumed - MUST be a post-Fall product.
Why should we expect scientists to be philosophical at all? Aren't scientists supposed to observe phenomena, create hypotheses, gather evidence, draw conclusions based on observed data and then form theories, etc.? Isn't science supposed to be observed, analyzed, collected, theorized, and just be dry without theology and psychology and personal passions entering into it? Isn't that what makes it science? When a scientist breaks apart nucleotides and analyzes messenger RNA or messes with atoms, is he supposed to be drawing conclusions about God or metaphysics? Is science supposed to be a Christ-driven industry? I would say that few people would say yes to that? Science works on that which is observable, not upon what Church Fathers said about science 1,700 years ago, etc. We cannot realistically expect these guys in labs and in archaeological analyses to be working within the boundaries of the various religious claims to the ascent of man, can we?
I don't say these things with a skepticism or anti-religious fervor, but out of a realistic awareness that modern science doesn't utilize metaphysics or theology in its processes?
rusmeister;61102580 I actually think Knee-V is right in part. My strongest empirical argument against scientific thought is its reliance on a constant rate of decay in carbon dating. It's obvious to me that if that rate should change at any point (and its data cannot be independently confirmed AFAIK beyond historical record (which is why we speak of "pre-history" in the first place) [/quote said:I don't think this is actually the case. Carbon dating is of limited use and there are quite a few other ways of dating, and some are based on other things entirely than chemical analysis. It's not a subject I know much about but I am pretty sure it is quite a bit more complex than that.
These are actual questions that I can answer. They do not start from assumption of the answer, and so allow for a straight-forward answer (though you may have intended them to be rhetorical).Why should we expect scientists to be philosophical at all? Aren't scientists supposed to observe phenomena, create hypotheses, gather evidence, draw conclusions based on observed data and then form theories, etc.? Isn't science supposed to be observed, analyzed, collected, theorized, and just be dry without theology and psychology and personal passions entering into it? Isn't that what makes it science?
When a scientist breaks apart nucleotides and analyzes messenger RNA or messes with atoms, is he supposed to be drawing conclusions about God or metaphysics?
Is science supposed to be a Christ-driven industry? I would say that few people would say yes to that? Science works on that which is observable, not upon what Church Fathers said about science 1,700 years ago, etc. We cannot realistically expect these guys in labs and in archaeological analyses to be working within the boundaries of the various religious claims to the ascent of man, can we?
I don't say these things with a skepticism or anti-religious fervor, but out of a realistic awareness that modern science doesn't utilize metaphysics or theology in its processes?
These are actual questions that I can answer. They do not start from assumption of the answer, and so allow for a straight-forward answer (though you may have intended them to be rhetorical).
Yes they are and yes it is. HOWEVER, the person doing the science cannot actually do this; more accurately, they are not robots, they have actual minds and souls - in a word, they are human. They cannot cease being human or step outside of their own skin. They may not set aside their worldview and prior experience and the dogmas, right or wrong, that they have already acquired. They bring a hermeneutic and worldview to their work. The good scientist realizes this and accounts for it; the bad scientist does not. And I am afraid that, because ofbthe very reasoning that you and most people express, an unconsciousness that one's worldview impacts how one interprets EVERYTHING, that that makes most scientists bad ones, however skilled or clever.
Supposed to be? Perhaps not. But he very often does. Darwin certainly did, and his followers more dogmatically than he. They do it all the time.
These questions failed to apprehend my answer. They assumed it would be other than it actually is. We should all try to be as careful as we can when assuming. As such, they are irrelevant to my answer.
I am aware that it doesn't utilize them. I am saying that the people conducting the business are largely if not universally unconscious that they do in fact apply them, the over-zealous Creationist scientist as well as the atheist evolutionary type. This is their philosophical failure. EVERY educated human ought to have a minimal basis in philosophy, at leadt on the level of awareness of the impact of their own worldview on their thoughts and deeds.
I think that you are right that it is unreasonable to expect all or most professional scientists to be high-level philosophers.
But I would think that we would expect them to have a good solid level of understtanding of the philosophy of science. Something about the epistomology of science, the history of science in the sense of how we have changed in our understanding of it, why the scientific method works and what its limits are, what kind of relation science has to other kinds of knowledge, and so on.
I don't see, without some kind of awareness of these things, a scientist can really hope to understand the information that his inquiries give him, or really even integrate that in a very basic way with the rest of the human pursuit of understanding.
Here in my province we learn the "scientific method" in jr high school. My class was unusual - the teacher actually talked about a lot of those things, and for the most part we didn't totally appreciate them - we weren't at that level of abstraction yet. We don't cover it again in high school. I looked at it in my university studies and I always kind of assumed that science students would look at it more seriously. I was very surprised when my husband told us they never touched on it at all - they talked about issues of producing a good study in a lot of depth, but none of the wider of more basic issues. He was a bit better off as he minored in philosophy.
I don't think this is unusual based on the scientists I know, including the religious ones. And people like Hawking and others don't seem to have much grasp of them either - not because they disagree with my beliefs but they don't even seem to be aware of the questions. There are scientists who do grasp them, but it doesn't seem to be part of their studies as scientists.
The idea of evolution is chaos and anarchy, where the strongest survive - which is in direct conflict with the guidance of a loving Creator. Such "evolution" as IS actually observed - as opposed to assumed - MUST be a post-Fall product.
???The worldview you expect of the scientific community isn't realistic. It's not the middle ages. Every single piece of data, every experiment, every observation or empirical analysis is not guided by religion. You claim that unconsciously there is more to it, and I'm sure there are scientists with atheist agendas and nefarious purposes, but we can't expect science to be religious. There should be an ethical side to scientific discoveries and I wish there were more of an ethical emphasis on some investigations halting them altogether--human cloning, genome projects, etc. but it's not going to happen. We live in a secular culture that is full of different religions and we cannot expect each scientist to hold to his own religious ethic in research or the scientific method. There are some radical Protestant groups that hate science altogether and would criticize you, Rus, for getting any scientifically-based injection, surgery, etc. rather than just praying and trusting in God. Some holy-rollers think all science is diabolical and pure faith in the power of prayer is enough to save and heal....where do we draw the line?
Thanks also for including me with "most people," :o
If you wouldn't mind explaining the bold red below, I'd appreciate it? I don't believe that one's worldview impacts how they view EVERYTHING as you put in caps? Rather, I felt that you seemed more the cynic who doesn't trust scientists and this more aptly expressed your view than mine?
it is unreasonable to expect all or most professional scientists to be high-level philosophers.
But I would think that we would expect them to have a good solid level of understtanding of the philosophy of science. Something about the epistomology of science, the history of science in the sense of how we have changed in our understanding of it, why the scientific method works and what its limits are, what kind of relation science has to other kinds of knowledge, and so on.
I don't see, without some kind of awareness of these things, a scientist can really hope to understand the information that his inquiries give him, or really even integrate that in a very basic way with the rest of the human pursuit of understanding.
Here in my province we learn the "scientific method" in jr high school. My class was unusual - the teacher actually talked about a lot of those things, and for the most part we didn't totally appreciate them - we weren't at that level of abstraction yet. We don't cover it again in high school. I looked at it in my university studies and I always kind of assumed that science students would look at it more seriously. I was very surprised when my husband told us they never touched on it at all - they talked about issues of producing a good study in a lot of depth, but none of the wider of more basic issues. He was a bit better off as he minored in philosophy.
I don't think this is unusual based on the scientists I know, including the religious ones. And people like Hawking and others don't seem to have much grasp of them either - not because they disagree with my beliefs but they don't even seem to be aware of the questions. There are scientists who do grasp them, but it doesn't seem to be part of their studies as scientists.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?