Is Science Always Empirical?

[Chris†opher Paul]

I think a lot of people accept the Word of Science over the Word of God, simply because other scientists accept it.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DyeHard/dyehard.html

Andrew D. Miall, a geologist at the University of Toronto, and his collaborator and wife, Charlene E. Miall, a sociologist at McMaster University in Ontario, have developed convincing evidence that scientists can be guilty of the same faulty reasoning the rest of us employ regularly. All too often, a new idea is accepted because the person who espouses it is thought to be brilliant, or is associated with a prestigious organization, not because there is sufficient evidence to support the idea.

1 Corinthians 1:21
For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.

Proverbs 14:6
A scoffer seeks wisdom and finds none, But knowledge is easy to one who has understanding.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Gird up your loins now, like a man; I will question you, and you tell me the answers!
Where were you when I founded the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding.
Who determined its size; do you know? Who stretched out the measuring line for it?
Into what were its pedestals sunk, and who laid the cornerstone,
While the morning stars sang in chorus and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
And who shut within doors the sea, when it burst forth from the womb;
When I made the clouds its garment and thick darkness its swaddling bands?
When I set limits for it and fastened the bar of its door,
And said: Thus far shall you come but no farther, and here shall your proud waves be stilled!
Have you ever in your lifetime commanded the morning and shown the dawn its place
For taking hold of the ends of the earth, till the wicked are shaken from its surface?
The earth is changed as is clay by the seal, and dyed as though it were a garment;
But from the wicked the light is withheld, and the arm of pride is shattered.
Have you entered into the sources of the sea, or walked about in the depths of the abyss?
Have the gates of death been shown to you, or have you seen the gates of darkness?
Have you comprehended the breadth of the earth? Tell me, if you know all:
Which is the way to the dwelling place of light, and where is the abode of darkness,
That you may take them to their boundaries and set them on their homeward paths?

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by s0uljah
I think a lot of people accept the Word of Science over the Word of God, simply because other scientists accept it.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scitech/DyeHard/dyehard.html

Andrew D. Miall, a geologist at the University of Toronto, and his collaborator and wife, Charlene E. Miall, ... have developed convincing evidence that scientists can be guilty of the same faulty reasoning the rest of us employ regularly. All too often, a new idea is accepted because the person who espouses it is thought to be brilliant, or is associated with a prestigious organization, not because there is sufficient evidence to support the idea. 

You should have put that in quotes, since it came from the article, not you.  But did you read all the article?  I submit you took from it just what you wanted to, but not the whole message.  Let's look at the article more closely.  First, the article covers only one theory, not all of science.

"

The Mialls have spent years studying a theory advanced in the 1970s by a noted Exxon scientist, and quickly became accepted around the world despite the fact that the data supporting the theory was not released. They call it the "Exxon factor.""

Now, note that very important fact:

The Mialls have spent years studying a theory advanced in the 1970s by a noted Exxon scientist, and quickly became accepted around the world despite the fact that the data supporting the theory was not released. They call it the "Exxon factor." " 

Now, note the very important fact: "the data ... was not released."

So, they are not studying all of science, but only those parts where the data isn't available. 

The article continues "The scientists generally agree that the theory gained rapid acceptance around the world simply because it came from Exxon, noted for its well-funded research programs, despite the fact that data supporting the theory was withheld."

Now, doesn't this sound like religion to you?  God supplies data to just a few people and the rest trust them?

Notice what the article says next:

"What interests sociologists is the extent to which the principles on which science is built didn't seem to apply here," says Charlene Miall. "In the end it was the social factors around Exxon, the perception of it as a fantastic place to do research, and all this secret data. It was obviously important, because all of the data was secret."

See? In this case science stopped being science and started behaving like the "Word of God".

"Sociologists, of course, have a name for it. It's called "reputational capital." "

Thanks for pointing us to an article that has the name for the basic principle of religion: reputational capital.  Notice that it is this capital that Jimmy Swaggert, the Bakers, and the Catholic priesthood sacrificed.

"The verdict isn't in yet on the Exxon theory, which is still hotly debated in geological circles. Andrew Miall is convinced it is flawed. Others think it is a valuable tool."

Notice that the theory is hotly debated.  Now, common descent and natural selection haven't been "hotly debated" for decades. Why? Because the evidence is overwhelming in their support.  Are there debates within evolutionary theory? Absolutely.  The causes for stasis in the fossil record is one of them. So is group selection. So, when the data is incomplete, scientists fight with an intensity that makes this board look like a love fest.  BUT, when the data is in, debate stops because there is no basis for it anymore.

Now, notice the areas where the authors think the "Exxon factor" can apply:

"Although the Mialls' research concerns a decades-old debate, it is very relevant today and they see possible parallels in several areas. They cite the planned anti-missile defense system as one example. Data that could help independent scientists determine whether it is feasible is classified, and much of the data used by policy-makers comes from corporations or organizations that stand to profit from building the system. So acceptance of its feasibility depends largely on the credibility of whoever is making the claims, not the raw data."

Anywhere where the data is secret and can't be examined by anyone. Evolution isn't one of these areas and isn't mentioned.

Sorry, Soul, but the article doesn't back your point.  In fact, it shows that the "Word of God" is accepted for the very reasons you think it shouldn't be. 

I admire your honesty in posting a link that undermines your whole religion, but I think you should have looked at it more carefully before you incorrectly implied that "reputational captial" was completely flawed.

 

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Wow, are you really so threatened by a simple study?

Anywhere where the data is secret and can't be examined by anyone. Evolution isn't one of these areas and isn't mentioned.

When did I mention evolution?

I admire your honesty in posting a link that undermines your whole religion

The article was about scientists accepting ideas without data. Doesnt have anything to do with my religion.

Now, doesn't this sound like religion to you? God supplies data to just a few people and the rest trust them?

Not sure whose religion you are imagining here, mine doesnt have anything to do with trusting other people blindly, just trusting God blindly.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by s0uljah
Gird up your loins now, like a man; I will question you, and you tell me the answers!
Where were you when I founded the earth? ...  Who determined its size; do you know? Who stretched out the measuring line for it? ... And who shut within doors the sea, when it burst forth from the womb;
When I made the clouds its garment and thick darkness its swaddling bands?
When I set limits for it and fastened the bar of its door, ...
Tell me, if you know all:
Which is the way to the dwelling place of light, and where is the abode of darkness,
That you may take them to their boundaries and set them on their homeward paths?

This quote affirms creation.  NOT, NOT, NOT creationism!  This Biblical quote tells you about the who of creation.  It says quite emphatically that God created.  What it emphatically does not tell you is how God created.

Creationism is a scientific theory devised by men based on their, human, interpretation of parts of the Bible.

Evolution is also a how of creation.  Based on the evidence God left in His creation. 

Now, who would you trust more?  Men or God?  Ite appears that you trust men, not God.  As long ago as 400 years Francis Bacon realized the stupidity of creationism:
"This vanity some of the moderns have with extreme levity indulged so far as to attempt to found a system of natural philosophy [science] on the first chapters of Genesis, on the book of Job, and other parts of the sacred writings ... because from this unwholesome mixture of things human and divine there arises not only a fantastic philosophy [science] but also an heretical religion." Francis Bacon, Novum Organum, 1xiv

 

"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works."  James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.

 

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Notice that it is this capital that Jimmy Swaggert, the Bakers, and the Catholic priesthood sacrificed.

Oh, thats nice. Bring up a tiny percentage of child abusing priests in response to an article about science.

This shows how threatened you feel. Sorry for intruding on your perfect world of "empirial" science and "facts".

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by lucaspa
This quote affirms creation.  NOT, NOT, NOT creationism!  This Biblical quote tells you about the who of creation.  It says quite emphatically that God created.  What it emphatically does not tell you is how God created.

Creationism is a scientific theory devised by men based on their, human, interpretation of parts of the Bible.

Evolution is also a how of creation.  Based on the evidence God left in His creation. 

No, really, I didnt know that.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/31468.html

Again, you assume I am attacking evolution and defending YEC. Just another critical thinking example by a scientist.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by s0uljah Wow, are you really so threatened by a simple study?

Not at all. Within its limits, the study is quite valuable. And supports personal experience that I have.  The problem is not the study, but the incorrect interpretation you applied to it.  But then, you have a lot of experience with incorrect interpretations from your incorrect interpretation of the Bible.

When did I mention evolution?

What other science do you think is opposed to the "Word of God"?  You think the shifting shoreline theory of the article is a problem for the "Word of God"?  If so, then you should state so plainly. 

The article was about scientists accepting ideas without data. Doesnt have anything to do with my religion.

The article is about scientists accepting the word of other scientists about data that they don't get to examine for themselves.  That has everything to do with your religion.  Did you see the Parting of the Red Sea?  That's the data.  But you can't examine it.  You have to take the word of the account in Exodus.  Did you see the crucifixion of Yeshu or the Resurrection?  Did you see the empty tomb?  You have to take the word of the data of the authors of the gospels.  It's secret data.  Just like in the study.


Not sure whose religion you are imagining here, mine doesnt have anything to do with trusting other people blindly, just trusting God blindly.

Even if it's trusting God blindly, then you are still relying on "reputational capital", aren't you?  But of course it wasn't God who actually put pen to papyrus and wrote the Bible, was it? Nope. It was humans.  So you are trusting them to have gotten it correctly.

So, did they get Ezekiel 20:25 correct? Are they right that God lied?

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Not at all. Within its limits, the study is quite valuable. And supports personal experience that I have. The problem is not the study, but the incorrect interpretation you applied to it. But then, you have a lot of experience with incorrect interpretations from your incorrect interpretation of the Bible.

What would that interpretation be exactly? I thought I was clear in the title, "Is Science Always Empirical."

It didnt say, "All Science is False" or "Evolution is False Because Scientists Are Phony" or whatever it is you imagine I wrote.

What other science do you think is opposed to the "Word of God"? You think the shifting shoreline theory of the article is a problem for the "Word of God"? If so, then you should state so plainly.

Um, the entire reason I posted that was to show that we shouldnt rely on our own wisdom. That doesnt mean I am talking about one particular scientific theory. That is what the Job reference was meant to show. I happen to think there is some truth to evolution.

And you accuse me of misinterpreting things?

Even if it's trusting God blindly, then you are still relying on "reputational capital", aren't you? But of course it wasn't God who actually put pen to papyrus and wrote the Bible, was it? Nope. It was humans. So you are trusting them to have gotten it correctly.

Again, you assume I trust men about these things. I trust God that the Gospels are correct for reasons outside anything you know about, or assume.

See, this is an example of a scientist assuming and not looking at facts. Point proven.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

I think it is hilarious that the point of this thread was "Reputation" skewing scientific analysis, and the first thing that happens is a scientist sees that I am a Christian, and then by REPUTATION, thinks I am attacking evolution.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by s0uljah
Oh, thats nice. Bring up a tiny percentage of child abusing priests in response to an article about science.

This shows how threatened you feel. Sorry for intruding on your perfect world of "empirial" science and "facts".

Tsk, tsk.  You are misrepresenting again.  The point was that religion relies on reputational capital. When that capital is misused (and the priests were one of three examples), it affects the whole denomination.  As a secular example, look at the Enron scandal.  A very few companies blew the reputational capital of good business practice, but all the businesses on the stock exchanges are suffering.

Religion relies on reputational capital. You said so yourself when you stated you "believe God blindly".  If reputational capital is no good, then religion is doomed.  After all, you can't "believe God blindly" if God can't be trusted.

Sorry, Souljah, but the world of scientists was never perfect.  I never said it was.  Scientists have human flaws.  However, the article doesn't make the point you said it did.  Not all of science nor all of scientists accept theories solely on the word of other scientists. The paper makes the point that reputational capital becomes important only when the data is witheld.  But witholding data goes against the principles of science. The article pointed that out as well (altho you are doing your best to ignore that part).

When data is witheld, the article has the quite legitimate point that theories are accepted based not on the data, but on the reputational capital.  The article pointed out one area -- missile defense -- where this applies.  I have another: the Bush administration claims that they have evidence that Hussein and Iraq have weapons of mass destruction.  However, they won't share that data with us.  Instead, we are supposed to trust them and back a war with Iraq.   Over the months they have cleverly duped American citizens so that most have forgotten that we have never seen the data. Instead, they have repeated that they have the (secret) data so often that most people believe they do.

Now, the issue you raised by implication was that most of science is based on reputation.  You said at the beginning of the thread "I think a lot of people accept the Word of Science over the Word of God, simply because other scientists accept it."

Then you used the article to try to say that scientists don't work on data.  However, the article doesn't support that position but actually contradicts it. 

I'm sorry you are threatened when I refute your position and actually use the article you cited to do so, but you'll have to deal with that.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

LOL, I never said nor implied that all of science is bad, you assume that! And even after being corrected, your pride is keeping you arguing over something irrelevant.

However, the article doesn't make the point you said it did.

And what would that point be, professor?

Not all of science nor all of scientists accept theories solely on the word of other scientists.

I never said that. I thought you guys relied on evidence and observations. Are you reading anything I actually write?

You are embarassing yourself, I suggest you either address the actual topic or stop making yourself out to be a fool, because I don't think that you are a fool.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by s0uljah What would that interpretation be exactly? I thought I was clear in the title, "Is Science Always Empirical."

From your post "I think a lot of people accept the Word of Science over the Word of God, simply because other scientists accept it." Also note the last sentence of the only part of the article you posted "All too often, a new idea is accepted because the person who espouses it is thought to be brilliant, or is associated with a prestigious organization, not because there is sufficient evidence to support the idea."

It didnt say, "All Science is False" or "Evolution is False Because Scientists Are Phony" or whatever it is you imagine I wrote.

See above for that "all too often".  Since that is the only part of the article you quoted, are you saying that you didn't think that most theories were accepted for reasons other than "sufficient evidence to support the idea"?

Um, the entire reason I posted that was to show that we shouldnt rely on our own wisdom. That doesnt mean I am talking about one particular scientific theory.

You didn't answer the questions.  You didn't say which theories you think oppose the "Word of God".  This is a nice duck, but I'm not letting you off the hook.  

Tell me, where but evolution do Christians think the "Word of Science" is opposed to the "Word of God"?  You came out with what you thought was an internal attack on science that you could use to discredit science.  Unfortunately, the entire article didn't do what you thought it did. Maybe next time you will be more careful to read what you cite and actually think about the implications before you post. 

That is what the Job reference was meant to show.

Then it didn't show it.  The Job reference showed a theological affirmation, not any message about trusting our own knowledge.

And you accuse me of misinterpreting things?

Let's get back to the question: "What other science do you think is opposed to the "Word of God"? You think the shifting shoreline theory of the article is a problem for the "Word of God"? If so, then you should state so plainly." 

Your original statement was: "I think a lot of people accept the Word of Science over the Word of God, simply because other scientists accept it."

Now, if the two "Words" are not opposed, there is no reason to take one "over" the other, is there?  So where again did I misinterpret?  Let me rephrase the question:  What portion of the "Word of Science" should not be taken over the "Word of God"?  Is it the shifting shoreline theory of the article? If not, then what are you referring to?  Speak plainly.

Again, you assume I trust men about these things. I trust God that the Gospels are correct for reasons outside anything you know about, or assume.

There's that word "trust" again.  See? No matter how you try to phrase it, we are back to reputational capital.  Somewhere you are relying on trust. And that's what religion does.

Now, a separate question is: is that trust misplaced? Or is what you are trusting really trustworthy and giving you accurate information? 

See, this is an example of a scientist assuming and not looking at facts. Point proven.

Don't see it. You have affirmed that you trust that the gospels are correct and that they were written by humans.  Which is what I said.  Thank you for affirming my facts.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by s0uljah LOL, I never said nor implied that all of science is bad, you assume that! 

"I think a lot of people accept the Word of Science over the Word of God, simply because other scientists accept it."  Notice that you didn't say "part of science" or any limitation here. But "Word of Science" as a blanket statement.

And what would that point be, professor?

Your point? Already stated several times in the thread, including my first reply. 

I thought you guys relied on evidence and observations. Are you reading anything I actually write?

"All too often, a new idea is accepted because the person who espouses it is thought to be brilliant, or is associated with a prestigious organization, not because there is sufficient evidence to support the idea."

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by s0uljah
No, really, I didnt know that. 

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/31468.html

Again, you assume I am attacking evolution and defending YEC. 

I didn't say you were defending YEC, only attacking science. You still haven't answered what portion of the "Word of Science" you think is opposed to the "Word of God".  Yet that was the premise of the whole thread and why you posted the link.   

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

You didn't say which theories you think oppose the "Word of God". This is a nice duck, but I'm not letting you off the hook.

Thats right I didnt name any, because I didnt have any in mind. It was a general statement based on an interesting study.

Don't see it. You have affirmed that you trust that the gospels are correct and that they were written by humans. Which is what I said. Thank you for affirming my facts

I affirmed that I know the Gospels are true. I didnt say I know they are true because they were written by humans.

Once again, lets try reading, not assuming based on reputation.

Thanks for proving the point, again.

 

[JesusServant]

Originally posted by s0uljah
I think it is hilarious that the point of this thread was "Reputation" skewing scientific analysis, and the first thing that happens is a scientist sees that I am a Christian, and then by REPUTATION, thinks I am attacking evolution.

Yeah I found it ironic as well

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Thats it? One measly attempt to answer this thread? Do I hear crickets chirping?

 

[sulphur]

sOuljah go preach in the wilderness so you so you can hear and think about what you say.

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

LOL, nobody has any useful comments about this study. Figures.