Comments on: What if the Science-Religion Conflict is Hurting the Economy?

By: Ray Ingles

Ray Ingles — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 15:36:15 +0000

Boo –

The process of figuring out the principles for building the first simple brick walls was science.

Not all learning from experience, or even all experimentation, is ‘science’, unless the word’s defined so loosely it’s not useful.

By: Bret Lythgoe

Bret Lythgoe — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 00:11:46 +0000

Boo, you’re certainly right that science does conflict with a literal reading of Genesis, but very few educated religious thinkers read Genesis literally. And this paucity of Biblical literalism is not purely the domain of modern post-critical Biblical analysis; Augustine, that great Neoplatonic Christian philosopher, argued for a non-literal interpretation of Genesis.

Not only is the literal reading of the Bible (and especially Genesis) not at all warranted rationally, but it creates great mischief in terms of reconciling Christianity with modern science.

By: Boo

Boo — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 22:15:00 +0000

Ray Ingles- science is a method. The process of figuring out the principles for building the first simple brick walls was science. We wouldn’t have any engineering at all if people hadn’t applied the scientific method to figure out all engineering principles.

By: Ray Ingles

Ray Ingles — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:35:59 +0000

Boo -

engineering can’t exist without science.

"Engineering does not require science. Science helps a lot but people built perfectly good brick walls long before they knew why cement works." - Alan Cox, Linux kernel developer Not that I don't sympathize with your position. I'd reformulate it as, "modern engineering can't progress very much without science". Unlike Troth, I see lots of university research being incorporated into new products. Especially the fundamental, revolutionary, 'breakthrough' stuff.

By: Ray Ingles

Ray Ingles — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:26:37 +0000

Crowhill –

just for the record, I am not defending creationists. Rather, I’m staying that scientists should stick to science,

Do scientists have any legitimate interest in science education?

By: Boo

Boo — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 16:41:06 +0000

Crowhill- in what way to you believe scientists are not sticking to science? And what insistence on philosophical nautralism are you talking about? It’s true that some scientists are also atheists, and some are even outspoken in their atheism, but are they not allowed to have opinions the same as everyone else? And are you saying that scientists should refrain from speaking up when people inject bad science into public policy debates?

And Troth- engineering can’t exist without science.

By: Troth

Troth — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:35:39 +0000

I’ve worked in both University research and private engineering, and it seems to me that almost all practical advancements in technology occur in industrial R&D rather than university research environments. There is no shortage of funding for truly promising research that has practical, commercial applications. In general, engineers and scientists working in private enterprise are motivated by results rather than paper-publishing. Also, in my experience (in electronics), many of the best developers/researches were very bright MS or BS engineers, rather than PhDs.

The point here, is that modern “science” is largely a province of politicized universities and government agencies and tends to reward time-servers. It deserves is low-status. “Engineering” on the other hand seems to have a much higher status due to the fact that it actually produces things of commercial value. But engineering, already enjoys both independence from government bureaucracy, and “high status”. I am far more inclined to agree with Cowen’s thesis, but I don’t see how improving the “status” of scientists is going to help.

By: Jim Clark

Jim Clark — Tue, 22 Jan 2013 13:34:24 +0000

Another contrived effort to (a) blame scientists for the apathy conservatives feel toward science, as well documented in surveys across time, and (b) reconcile the irreconcilable. Why irreconcilable? (a) As one learns how to test the validity of one’s beliefs about the world, there is a natural tendency to apply these tools to other domains which do not fare well OR people who have a predisposition to seek out ways to test their beliefs about the world have a natural tendency to apply this predisposition to all domains. and (b) As one learns naturalistic (i.e., non-superstitious) explanations for more and more phenomena, there is simply less and less motivation to believe in now unnecessary superstitions. Templeton funding is doing what it can to hamper these processes (i.e., muddy the waters), along with collaborators in academia.

By: Fred

Fred — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 22:46:44 +0000

Joe, I don’t think anyone (or at least anyone serious) would suggest severing science from _methodological_ naturalism, i.e., we don’t need to bring the supernatural into our investigations of the natural, but that it can and should be separated from _metaphysical_ naturalism, i.e., the idea that _only_ what science reveals about nature exists, that there is no supernatural or transcendence, and only science can reveal truth. That is a position that is not in the least entailed by the scientific method.

By: Crowhill

Crowhill — Mon, 21 Jan 2013 21:09:27 +0000

Boo — just for the record, I am not defending creationists. Rather, I’m staying that scientists should stick to science, and that it is the politicization of science, and the insistence on philosophical naturalism, that has caused a lot of the backlash.