Critiques of Science as Currently Praticed

  • Thread starter Sciborg_S_Patel
  • Start date
Steve you can't be serious. Are you honestly claiming to have some fantastic understanding of QM? You just took an extremely complex subject and dismissed it by just saying, "wrong, it's not." Again, where do you come up with this stuff? The very founders of QM had lots of bizarre ideas about how consciousness might factor into reality. I mean, what?

Max Plank, The founder of Quantum mechanics had this to say:

"I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness."
 
David Bailey asked me to add this video which I posted in another thread. For me it shows how and why the game is rigged to favour a materialist ideology. This is a debate between Intelligent Design proponents and conventional, mainstream scientists and philosophers. It contains a clear and unequivocal assertion that science is, and has to be, limited by materialism or - to use their term - methodological naturalism. This precludes any enquiry which may involve the "supernatural" (God, spirituality, the paranormal, the non-physical aspects of mind, etc.). To quote an article from The Secular Web:

I shall use "methodological naturalism" and "philosophical naturalism" to mean what Paul Kurtz defines them to mean in the first and second senses, respectively:

First, naturalism is committed to a methodological principle within the context of scientific inquiry; i.e., all hypotheses and events are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. To introduce a supernatural or transcendental cause within science is to depart from naturalistic explanations. On this ground, to invoke an intelligent designer or creator is inadmissible....

There is a second meaning of naturalism, which is as a generalized description of the universe. According to the naturalists, nature is best accounted for by reference to material principles, i.e., by mass and energy and physical-chemical properties as encountered in diverse contexts of inquiry. This is a non-reductive naturalism, for although nature is physical-chemical at root, we need to deal with natural processes on various levels of observation and complexity: electrons and molecules, cells and organisms, flowers and trees, psychological cognition and perception, social institutions, and culture....

Clearly there is a metaphysical bias which is openly expressed both in this video and elsewhere. For example, here is a quote from Richard Lewontin in the New York Review of Books.

Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.

 
Kamarling,

You said on the other thread:
I should point out that the journal editor you speak of is Richard Sternberg who was subject to intimidation at the Smithsonian. Those who deny that claim are quick to point out that Sternberg was a closet creationist all along as demonstrated by the fact that he now works a a research scientist at the Biologic Institute which is funded by the Discovery Institute.

Now, I am not all that comfortable with the funding of research by the Discovery Institute which has religious and political affiliations that give me cause for concern. However, in the end it comes down the the science as presented to the world and if there are questions about Darwinism that need to be answered, the Darwinists should not be answering by attacking the source of the funding. After all, they don't seem to mind at all that Dawkins and his crowd are supported by fee-paying atheist organisations.

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/08/the-bizarre-and-costly-cult-of-richard-dawkins/#

By the way, Sternberg's case was featured in the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed ...
Thanks for all the extra details. I find that phrase " Sternberg was a closet creationist all along" extremely telling. It illustrates something that I feel is true of a lot of modern science - internally certain subjects are more like politics, with only lip-service being paid to the idea that it is the truth that matters. That wouldn't grate so much, if they didn't try to pretend to be above such things - pure seekers after truth.

I was also struck by the way it was the orthodox scientists that introduced the term "exaptation" - a quite unnecessary piece of jargon - to describe the concept of re-using components for another purpose. Although I guessed its meaning from context, I had to look it up to be sure. I am sure they thought it would add an air of sophistication to their discussion - rather like Catholic Latin mass - the congregation may understand a little less, but be awed a lot more!

The video was amazing in the way the panel of orthodox scientists (plus a couple of others) started off really cool discussing the science, and it wasn't until the ID folk had pulled their presentation apart (with information that they must surely have known already, but didn't want displayed to the audience) that they rather lost their cool!

I really hope that Malf, who, IMHO, tends to believe in orthodox science rather too easily, listens to this entire discussion - it is very revealing.

Obviously I agree with your comments about the funding of the Discovery Institute and its links with religious fundamentalism, but they really do try to keep their science removed from religious issues. Life is richer for the works of Mozart and Bach, even though their funding came from the unreasonably wealthy, and from religious sources!

David
 
Last edited:
I found this interesting since it popped up in a mainstream, American news source (NBC.com).

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/scie...upend-our-understanding-human-history-n751406

Specifically, I found the following snippet from the article of interest and relevance to this thread:

And the archaeology mainstream is very unforgiving of researchers who challenge the accepted dates, said Al Goodyear of the University of South Carolina, who's been working to prove for years that stone tools found in a South Carolina site date to as long as 50,000 years ago.

"There is a lot of ignorance and arrogance about just how little we know about the Western hemisphere," said Goodyear, who was not involved in the San Diego discovery.

"These things are very controversial." But Goodyear says the San Diego team's evidence is compelling.

"I think they've done their homework," he said, noting that Holen is one of the world's leading experts on what mastodon bones look like when they are broken naturally versus when they are smashed open by humans.

"I think these sites are a wake up call to the profession," Goodyear added.
 
Kamarling,

You said on the other thread:

Thanks for all the extra details. I find that phrase " Sternberg was a closet creationist all along" extremely telling. It illustrates something that I feel is true of a lot of modern science - internally certain subjects are more like politics, with only lip-service being paid to the idea that it is the truth that matters. That wouldn't grate so much, if they didn't try to pretend to be above such things - pure seekers after truth.

I was also struck by the way it was the orthodox scientists that introduced the term "exaptation" - a quite unnecessary piece of jargon - to describe the concept of re-using components for another purpose. Although I guessed its meaning from context, I had to look it up to be sure. I am sure they thought it would add an air of sophistication to their discussion - rather like Catholic Latin mass - the congregation may understand a little less, but be awed a lot more!

The video was amazing in the way the panel of orthodox scientists (plus a couple of others) started off really cool discussing the science, and it wasn't until the ID folk had pulled their presentation apart (with information that they must surely have known already, but didn't want displayed to the audience) that they rather lost their cool!

I really hope that Malf, who, IMHO, tends to believe in orthodox science rather too easily, listens to this entire discussion - it is very revealing.

Obviously I agree with your comments about the funding of the Discovery Institute and its links with religious fundamentalism, but they really do try to keep their science removed from religious issues. Life is richer for the works of Mozart and Bach, even though their funding came from the unreasonably wealthy, and from religious sources!

David
And this definitely belongs in this thread, but then as an example of what is not science.
I watched some of the video, but it got boring even sooner than i expected. This seemed a bit of a set-up by the ID/creationist camp, none of the names of the scientific side were immediately familiar to me, and most of them were not even scientist from disciplines that are directly related to the discussion.
That might be because a lot of well known scientists in relevant fields, make it clear they do not like to debate ID/creationism, they feel it might give it the legitimacy it does not deserve.

Maybe that is why the evolution camp seemed not totally familiar with the old and stale arguments of the Discovery institute, they gave the other side way to much rope in debating irreducible complexity, indeed they used exaptation in that context, but what is wrong with that? They didn't coin it. As appropriate terms do, it says what otherwise needs a few sentences. And as the word is often used in context of the bullshit concept of irreducible complexity, something that is far more contrived than exaptation, i am sure Meyers and co probably know it well.

And about the funding of the Disco Tute, it has no links with religious fundamentalism, it IS religious fundamentalism, and also a political organization.
According to it's founding document the Wedge Strategy, it's goals are:

To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God

It has set up a closed system of it's own "scientific" institute, that publishes it's own "scientific" publication where the institutes "scientists" conveniently can have their "papers" peer reviewed.
This is going through the motions with the only purpose being the ability to claim "peer review" for their "work"

This is not science, this is not even pseudoscience, this is pretend science.

The Discovery Institute definitely belongs in this thread as an example of the worst way to pretend to do science.
 
To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God

What's the difference between them and Straw Materialists?
 
And this definitely belongs in this thread, but then as an example of what is not science.
I watched some of the video, but it got boring even sooner than i expected. This seemed a bit of a set-up by the ID/creationist camp, none of the names of the scientific side were immediately familiar to me, and most of them were not even scientist from disciplines that are directly related to the discussion.
That might be because a lot of well known scientists in relevant fields, make it clear they do not like to debate ID/creationism, they feel it might give it the legitimacy it does not deserve.

Perhaps a little recap is in order. This particular discussion of Meyer and the DI started in another thread which featured another video of a debate involving Krauss (have you heard of him, Bart? I ask because that seems to be your criteria for not assuming the opponents are DI ringers) and Meyer. The Wedge document came up in that and it was Krauss who used it in his presentation. Here's a snippet of commentary from the ID side after the debate pointing out some of the dishonesty employed by Krauss.

6:12 Back to the debate: Krauss is now getting totally mixed up in his historical account. He goes on to say: “Then there was the Wedge strategy, which they began instituting in 1998,” as if the Wedge Strategy was a separate document from the one that Krauss has been quoting from. But it’s the same document! How bizarre. Ohio was the first state to implement this strategy, says Krauss. He goes on to quote from the section titled, “Goals”: “To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.” Krauss adds an ironic comment: “Because science, of course, is evil.” This is willful distortion on Krauss’s part. The document says that scientific materialism is evil, not science. Krauss continues quoting from the Wedge document’s goals: “To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God.” He adds that the Five-year Goals included: “To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory…” This part of the quote is genuine. Krauss continues: “…and to begin attacking science teaching in the public schools” – adding that this was what happened in Ohio. This part of the quote is phony. Nowhere does the Wedge document say anything about “attacking science teaching in the public schools.”Have a look for yourself. (Here’s the original.) What’s more, I can find no Website containing those words, so Krauss cannot claim that he was quoting from a corrupted online copy of the document. I am forced to conclude that Krauss inserted the fake quote himself.


Why is it that scientific materialism should have such a privileged and protected status? Why is it that so many materialists insist on conflating materialism (metaphysics) with science (a method). Could it be that the DI are not the only ones with an ideological agenda? (And yes, I do agree that the DI has an agenda - that's what I've already said I'm not at all comfortable with). I just wish that funding could come from sources other than those with any kind of agenda.
 
How is this anything else than an example of science at work?
How are you going to spin this as a critique of science?
Spin? Why the aggressive posture?

Reread the quotes from the scientists regarding the biases that had been at work prior to this discovery. I see a corollary in how the scientific community seems to disregard new ideas that do not adhere to current consensus. For me that is a critique of the scientific community more than the scientific process itself (which is naïve). If I misplaced the article and my associated point, I apologize.
 
Spin? Why the aggressive posture?

Reread the quotes from the scientists regarding the biases that had been at work prior to this discovery. I see a corollary in how the scientific community seems to disregard new ideas that do not adhere to current consensus. For me that is a critique of the scientific community more than the scientific process itself (which is naïve). If I misplaced the article and my associated point, I apologize.

You talking to a person who is 53 years old. You're not going to have good dialogue he's stuck in his confirmation bias and that's it. I can't wait till his generation and the rest of the closed minded useful idiots are gone (majority of them)
 
You talking to a person who is 53 years old. You're not going to have good dialogue he's stuck in his confirmation bias and that's it. I can't wait till his generation and the rest of the closed minded useful idiots are gone (majority of them)
If only it was that simple.
 
You talking to a person who is 53 years old. You're not going to have good dialogue he's stuck in his confirmation bias and that's it. I can't wait till his generation and the rest of the closed minded useful idiots are gone (majority of them)
Hrm. Wondering how to take that one considering I'm of similar age. ;)
 
Perhaps you think that is the way scientific debate should be conducted?

David
That is the whole problem with ID/creationism, it is not a scientific endeavor, it is a religious one, how can you have a scientific discussion with ID'ers?

The DI has amassed a large repository of arguments for it's main point. They are all debunked, shown to be irrelevant, or are simply unknowable.
But that does not matter for the DI, they are not there to impress the scientific world, they are only there to dazzle their own flock. They do not care whether what they say is true or not, if it is sounding "sciency" that is all they want. They never let the truth stand in the way of a good argument.

Then that is the dilemma of one who is asked to debate ID/creationists, saying no will lead to the conclusion "they are afraid to debate us"
Saying yes will mean you are up against a bunch of bullshit, you know are mostly lies, but you can not refute within the time and format of a stage debate (though in court, no problem) .

Heads you lose, tails, the ID/creationist wins.

I think that is why most scientists, when invited, decline.

I believe that is also why religious groups are the ones most inclined to organize these kinds of debates, they always have most to gain from them.

Of course that is not even taken into account that a stage debate is never going to be a real scientific debate.
It has it's value as a means to get people interested in the subject, it is a form of entertainment.

The real scientific debate should take place in the appropriate scientific journals.
 
That is the whole problem with ID/creationism, it is not a scientific endeavor, it is a religious one, how can you have a scientific discussion with ID'ers?

I don't see people like Stephen Meyer or others producing religious arguments at all, in fact I'd be amazed if any of those ID proponents that appear in debates believe in creationism. They don't appear to me to be arguing anything other than science.

Can you produce one video clip or anything else, showing where Meyer gives any hint of arguing anything but science?

Can't a person be both scientific and religious?

I believe in a god, I'm not sure what form this God takes, I don't think I'm dogmatic in the way a number of religious people appear to be. If people want to be atheists, religious or whatever, that's ok with me as long as they don't try to shove their views down other people throat.

Trying to persuade others by discussion is fine, I haven't seen Meyer or his colleagues try to do anything else.
 
Back
Top