How, if at all, should science relate with Christianity?: an open exploration thread

[shernren]

Ha ha... So you have something in your mind.
Why don't you push me a little so I will go toward the direction you like to see?

I have replied Mallon a little. But here is a view from another angle:

A science text needs to show scientific method. Bible has none in it. Scientific methods are used to gain knowledge. The words (include scientific messages) in the Bible are wisdom.

Well, if scientific accuracy isn't good for teaching science, what is it good for?

 

[juvenissun]

Well, if scientific accuracy isn't good for teaching science, what is it good for?

Excellent question. Really good. I appreciate it very much.
I do have an answer for that. It would be a long story. So I make it very very brief.

Immediate goal: It inspires a person to "translate" the understanding into a scientific teaching. It could be a very hard job.

Ultimate goal: The person would get more rewards in heaven.

------

Are you still going to save your answer a little longer?

 

[shernren]

Excellent question. Really good. I appreciate it very much.
I do have an answer for that. It would be a long story. So I make it very very brief.

Immediate goal: It inspires a person to "translate" the understanding into a scientific teaching. It could be a very hard job.

Ultimate goal: The person would get more rewards in heaven.

------

Are you still going to save your answer a little longer?

Well, scientific accuracy is good for authenticity in modern stories. If I read a story in which, say, a character manages to throw a rock into a low-Earth orbit (which is pretty much impossible for the average human), the scientific inaccuracy jars me, unless sufficient reason is provided (say, the character is Superman or The Flash).

I think that's what you're trying to get at. No, we can't make Moby Dick into a science textbook; however, Moby Dick does contain descriptions of physical phenomena that are consistent with the physical universe we happen to live in.

Now the key question is: is it necessary for the details of the Bible to be scientifically accurate, and if so, how much? To be a bit flippant: do we, say, need to account for relativistic aberration when handling the disciples' account of Jesus' ascension?

 

[juvenissun]

Well, scientific accuracy is good for authenticity in modern stories. If I read a story in which, say, a character manages to throw a rock into a low-Earth orbit (which is pretty much impossible for the average human), the scientific inaccuracy jars me, unless sufficient reason is provided (say, the character is Superman or The Flash).

I think that's what you're trying to get at. No, we can't make Moby Dick into a science textbook; however, Moby Dick does contain descriptions of physical phenomena that are consistent with the physical universe we happen to live in.

Now the key question is: is it necessary for the details of the Bible to be scientifically accurate, and if so, how much? To be a bit flippant: do we, say, need to account for relativistic aberration when handling the disciples' account of Jesus' ascension?

I don't think I want to hear someone comments that somewhere in the Bible is "wrong". In particular, a proven error with scientific evidences or arguments. The good thing is that I really do not have to worry about it. Because it is an impossibility.

Scientific messages in the Bible have to be 100% correct in any detail at anytime. This is a must have quality for them to be revelations and guidances. For example, we do not understand the global flood. That does not mean it is wrong. Instead, it provide a guidance for all scientists in order to figure out how could it be true. On this regard, Christian scientist has an absolute advantage over non-Christian scientist. Because we already see the answer and only have to figure out the process.

 

[Mallon]

For example, we do not understand the global flood. That does not mean it is wrong. Instead, it provide a guidance for all scientists in order to figure out how could it be true. On this regard, Christian scientist has an absolute advantage over non-Christian scientist. Because we already see the answer and only have to figure out the process.

What you've just espoused is the exact opposite of how science works. We do not start with a conclusion and work backwards, cherry picking evidence to support our claim. Instead, we subject our hypotheses to all the evidence and see whether it can account for it all. In this sense, the global flood hypothesis has failed. This should serve as an incentive to go back to the drawing board and reexamine your understanding of the Flood account (and the nature of the Scriptures, even), although it sounds to me like you already have your mind made up.

 

[juvenissun]

What you've just espoused is the exact opposite of how science works. We do not start with a conclusion and work backwards, cherry picking evidence to support our claim. Instead, we subject our hypotheses to all the evidence and see whether it can account for it all. In this sense, the global flood hypothesis has failed. This should serve as an incentive to go back to the drawing board and reexamine your understanding of the Flood account (and the nature of the Scriptures, even), although it sounds to me like you already have your mind made up.

You are either ignorant or are not honest.
Even in secular world, most scientific conclusions are predetermined before the experiement is completed. That is why they are all wrong.

 

[Mallon]

You are either ignorant or are not honest.
Even in secular world, most scientific conclusions are predetermined before the experiement is completed. That is why they are all wrong.

Care to back that up with reference to a particular experiment?

 

[juvenissun]

Care to back that up with reference to a particular experiment?

Of course you would find none.
Otherwise, one would either flunk or discredited.
But that is how most researches work. You almost never see an experiment is done (success or fail), but no paper comes out. And 99.99% of the paper says the experiment is well done.

And, I do know there are many experiments, are designed just by idea, which has no data support what so ever. If the experiment succeeded, then the idea could be presented as a theory. So this is another example to illustrate that one has the conclusion first, then try to find a way to prove it. Of course, when you write it up, you narrate what's really happened backward to show that you are really scientific.

 

[Mallon]

Of course you would find none.
Otherwise, one would either flunk or discredited.
But that is how most researches work. You almost never see an experiment is done (success or fail), but no paper comes out. And 99.99% of the paper says the experiment is well done.

And, I do know there are many experiments, are designed just by idea, which has no data support what so ever. If the experiment succeeded, then the idea could be presented as a theory. So this is another example to illustrate that one has the conclusion first, then try to find a way to prove it. Of course, when you write it up, you narrate what's really happened backward to show you are really scientific.

All I'm asking you to do is name just one experiment in which you found this to be the case so we can discuss it. As it stands now, you're just making unsubstantiated blanket statements.
Are you sure you're not mistaking "hypothesis" for "conclusion"? Because it sounds to me like you are.

 

[IndyPirate]

Of course you would find none.
Otherwise, one would either flunk or discredited.
But that is how most researches work. You almost never see an experiment is done (success or fail), but no paper comes out. And 99.99% of the paper says the experiment is well done.

And, I do know there are many experiments, are designed just by idea, which has no data support what so ever. If the experiment succeeded, then the idea could be presented as a theory. So this is another example to illustrate that one has the conclusion first, then try to find a way to prove it. Of course, when you write it up, you narrate what's really happened backward to show that you are really scientific.

Out of curiousity, have you ever done an experiment before? When constructing an experiment scientists start with a hypothesis then think about ways to test this hypothesis. They then use experiments to test wether the hypothesis is correct or not. They don't start with conclusions and work their way backwards like you are suggesting.

 

[juvenissun]

Out of curiousity, have you ever done an experiment before? When constructing an experiment scientists start with a hypothesis then think about ways to test this hypothesis. They then use experiments to test wether the hypothesis is correct or not. They don't start with conclusions and work their way backwards like you are suggesting.

I don't want to get into this debate. So it would be brief:

1. There are different nature of "experiment". Design a electronic device is one. Go out to hunt dinosaur bone is also one.

2. Admitted that many experiments are designed as you described, what I am arguing is that SOME experiments are NOT. And many more scientific conclusions are NOT obtained as you described. What you said are sufficient conditions, but are not necessary ones.

3. What you said applied mostly to students and beginning researchers. At higher level research, when all you said has already become background knowledge/experience, then a research work is more like an art project. I think you probably understand how does art work. What you need is inspiration, not procedures or methods.

That is all I like to say about this issue on this thread.

 

[IndyPirate]

Ah, I see. It's not experimentation you have problems with, it's deductive reasoning. I see where you are coming from.

 

[shernren]

You are either ignorant or are not honest.
Even in secular world, most scientific conclusions are predetermined before the experiement is completed. That is why they are all wrong.

Of course you would find none.
Otherwise, one would either flunk or discredited.
But that is how most researches work. You almost never see an experiment is done (success or fail), but no paper comes out. And 99.99% of the paper says the experiment is well done.

And, I do know there are many experiments, are designed just by idea, which has no data support what so ever. If the experiment succeeded, then the idea could be presented as a theory. So this is another example to illustrate that one has the conclusion first, then try to find a way to prove it. Of course, when you write it up, you narrate what's really happened backward to show that you are really scientific.

That simply is not true. A negative result is as much a result as a positive result. Take, for example, the Michelson-Morley experiment, where an interferometer was set up to measure the effect of aether drag on light speed in different directions. Did the experimenters expect positive results? They had no reason not to. Did they get positive results? Certainly not. In the end, their not-getting-what-they-expected was pivotal to the development of relativity.

Take, on the other extreme, Hwang Woo-Suk. The Korean ex-stem cell researcher was achieving brilliant results, and reporting all of them, and was ultimately found out to be a fraud. His scientific career is pretty much destroyed now. If he had reported his negative results, he would be much better off than he is now.

Here's another recent failed experiment, reported here: trials of a potential HIV vaccine actually backfired and increased rates of infection in patients with a particular immune predisposition. Have the researchers been discredited? Will a university look at them and say "you tried to make a HIV vaccine and failed, we won't want you working with us, go away"? Certainly not.

I don't think I want to hear someone comments that somewhere in the Bible is "wrong". In particular, a proven error with scientific evidences or arguments. The good thing is that I really do not have to worry about it. Because it is an impossibility.

Scientific messages in the Bible have to be 100% correct in any detail at anytime. This is a must have quality for them to be revelations and guidances. For example, we do not understand the global flood. That does not mean it is wrong. Instead, it provide a guidance for all scientists in order to figure out how could it be true. On this regard, Christian scientist has an absolute advantage over non-Christian scientist. Because we already see the answer and only have to figure out the process.

Well, then you cannot affirm or agree that the Bible is scientifically accurate now, in any meaningful sense.

Why do I say that? Here's a theoretical example. There is a quantity called kinetic energy that is associated with moving objects - roughly, the kinetic energy of a moving object is how much energy you would have to expend to get it to stop. In classical physics, this quantity is 1/2*m*v^2 - that is, half times the mass times the speed squared of the object. Before classical physics, of course, the very idea of energy was not well defined. However, in relativity, the kinetic energy of an object has to be multiplied by a factor called gamma, which increases with the speed of an object - it is now 1/2*m*gamma*v^2. The reason this is not obvious in everyday life is because everyday objects don't move anywhere near the speed of light, and so it's not a significant difference - but if, say, a spaceship pilot uses the old formula, he will be in for a nasty surprise when he tries to stop his ship and finds himself using more fuel than he thought he needed! Furthermore, in quantum physics, a particle's energy fluctuates according to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, and is not strictly constant in time.

Suppose I told Aristotle, Lagrange (a classical physicist), Einstein, and Heisenberg that the kinetic energy of an object is 1/2*m*v^2. Aristotle would have little idea what I was talking about, Lagrange would agree with me, and Einstein and Heisenberg would say that I was almost correct - but nonetheless wrong.

I hope you see what I am saying?

An example closer to home is the flat earth. It's one of my favorite examples because I love Asimov's treatment of it here: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm . (I will assume that you have read it before continuing.) Now, suppose the Bible told me that "the Earth is round". Someone who believed in a flat Earth would not understand, someone who believed in a round Earth would agree, but someone who knew that the Earth wasn't round would say "almost, but not quite, correct". Now, plenty of people have quoted passages of the Bible implying that the Earth is flat, and some have interpreted passages to imply that the Earth is round; but to my knowledge nobody has ever attempted to say that the Bible declares that the Earth is an oblate spheroid, let alone a non-symmetrical one.

Again, I hope you are getting what I am saying. A scientific message cannot, by its very scientific nature, be considered 100% correct in any detail at any time. Those living before it is confirmed will not understand it; those living after it has been superseded or shown to be a special case of a more general scientific theory (as all physical theories are) will consider it inadequate. So suppose that to us, the Bible contains or supports completely accurate scientific theories that can be independently verified to be scientifically accurate. Then we will be the only generation or few generations in the history of the faith, nearly two thousand years long now and around for God alone knows how much longer, to be able to say that.

If the Bible seems scientifically accurate to us, then the ancients cannot have made scientific sense of it. (And we have plenty of historical record that before us, plenty of predecessors have considered the Bible scientifically accurate in the sense you speak of; perforce they must have been wrong, since science has advanced since that time. Now some say that when we discern science from the Bible, this entails spiritual enlightenment. Does that then mean that those before us who wrongly discerned science from the Bible were wrong in their spirituality?) Again, if the Bible seems scientifically accurate to us, then it will seem inadequate to those who come after us and develop better physical theories than us.

And if the Bible's scientific useability is so limited in its scope, being only applicable to our generation, then how much can be made of its scientific applicability? If past generations could not access its current scientific validity, and future generations will not have necessity or its scientific validity, why should we and we alone consider its scientific validity so vital to our own faith here and now?

 

[juvenissun]

the Michelson-Morley experiment, where an interferometer was set up to measure the effect of aether drag on light speed in different directions. Did the experimenters expect positive results? They had no reason not to. Did they get positive results? Certainly not. In the end, their not-getting-what-they-expected was pivotal to the development of relativity.

Take, on the other extreme, Hwang Woo-Suk. The Korean ex-stem cell researcher was achieving brilliant results, and reporting all of them, and was ultimately found out to be a fraud. His scientific career is pretty much destroyed now. If he had reported his negative results, he would be much better off than he is now.

Here's another recent failed experiment, reported here: trials of a potential HIV vaccine actually backfired and increased rates of infection in patients with a particular immune predisposition. Have the researchers been discredited? Will a university look at them and say "you tried to make a HIV vaccine and failed, we won't want you working with us, go away"? Certainly not.

Good argument. However, I would say these types of examples are toooo few in comparison with those on the opposite, which is most common and can be read in ANY scientific journals. It is commonly seen that even a failed attempt was decorated and stretched in such a way that it seems at least some of originally intended result was obtained. Look it this way: Every funded research project need to produce a few publications. However, it is not reasonable to think all funded project would ended in success. For those that are not successful, what are they going to say in the pub? Admit that they failed? Hey, be practical, even it is in the realm of science. You say you confirmed (some of) what you proposed.

 

[shernren]

Good argument. However, I would say these types of examples are toooo few in comparison with those on the opposite, which is most common and can be read in ANY scientific journals. It is commonly seen that even a failed attempt was decorated and stretched in such a way that it seems at least some of originally intended result was obtained. Look it this way: Every funded research project need to produce a few publications. However, it is not reasonable to think all funded project would ended in success. For those that are not successful, what are they going to say in the pub? Admit that they failed? Hey, be practical, even it is in the realm of science. You say you confirmed (some of) what you proposed.

I'm assuming you have documentary evidence of this. I don't go to the pub, but as a to-be-scientist, I certainly have my fair share of equivalent casual conversations, and I never find it hard to talk about things going wrong in my own experiments that I'm running at the time.

To get back to your claim that: Even in secular world, most scientific conclusions are predetermined before the experiement is completed. That is why they are all wrong. Please show some evidence?

 

[juvenissun]

I'm assuming you have documentary evidence of this. I don't go to the pub, but as a to-be-scientist, I certainly have my fair share of equivalent casual conversations, and I never find it hard to talk about things going wrong in my own experiments that I'm running at the time.

To get back to your claim that: Even in secular world, most scientific conclusions are predetermined before the experiement is completed. That is why they are all wrong. Please show some evidence?

What type evidence do you want? Do you like to have FBI (what is that called in Australia?) tortured a scientist so he would confess that his research conclusion was predetermined?

If you read articles in any science journals published 30 years ago, it is probably agreeable that at least 70% of the conclusions are already outdated. This is the best recorded evidence I can give you.

 

[theFijian]

What type evidence do you want? Do you like to have FBI (what is that called in Australia?) tortured a scientist so he would confess that his research conclusion was predetermined?

Well you made the claim, what evidence convinced you?

 

[shernren]

What type evidence do you want? Do you like to have FBI (what is that called in Australia?) tortured a scientist so he would confess that his research conclusion was predetermined?

If you read articles in any science journals published 30 years ago, it is probably agreeable that at least 70% of the conclusions are already outdated. This is the best recorded evidence I can give you.

This ability to conjure statistics out of thin air without confidence intervals or data sources is incredibly useful. Where can I learn how to do that as well as you do it?

As it is, I'm not even sure what point you're trying to prove any more. Anything from the 1970's is outdated almost by definition, especially the parents. Also - I made a far more substantial point about the scientific relevance of the Bible, in the same post, that I would much rather see a reply to.

 

[juvenissun]

This ability to conjure statistics out of thin air without confidence intervals or data sources is incredibly useful. Where can I learn how to do that as well as you do it?

As it is, I'm not even sure what point you're trying to prove any more. Anything from the 1970's is outdated almost by definition, especially the parents. Also - I made a far more substantial point about the scientific relevance of the Bible, in the same post, that I would much rather see a reply to.

The second point you made is much better and it takes me a while to think about how to reply. It is coming.

On the use of statistics in description, I think you will try to use it after you see that more and more things happened in patterns, and there is no written statistics available for quoting. Then either you say something based on estimation, or you simply shut up. Occasionally, I chose the former. I think it is better than verbal description. Don't be so sensitive to numbers. Many times numbers are used to describe thing in quality, rather then in quantity, depends on the occasion.

 

[Mallon]

Many times numbers are used to describe thing in quality, rather then in quantity, depends on the occasion.