Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 113 (8790 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 09-24-2017 6:32 AM
344 online now:
NoNukes, PaulK (2 members, 342 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Porkncheese
Upcoming Birthdays: Tempe 12ft Chicken
Post Volume:
Total: 819,344 Year: 23,950/21,208 Month: 1,915/2,468 Week: 8/416 Day: 8/24 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
456
7
89Next
Author Topic:   Atheists control science
roxrkool
Member (Idle past 429 days)
Posts: 1493
From: Nevada
Joined: 03-23-2003


(1)
Message 91 of 124 (671687)
08-29-2012 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by Blue Jay
08-29-2012 11:36 AM


Re: Scientists control science
It hasn't been my experience either, but it really depends on where and in what industry those scientists are working. Most of the scientists and geos I know, are fairly liberal.

When I first started working as a geologist in the mining industry, most of my geologist colleagues were very conservative, Rush-listeners -- probably because NPR was the only radio station we could get out in the sticks of Nevada -- and those still are. They were also at least 10, but mostly >15 years older than I was at the time (large age gaps amongst mining geologists is common). I suspect most were probably Atheist, as most geologists generally are, but we did not discuss religion then.

These days, there are a lot of younger mining geos, and they tend to be very liberal, and vocal Atheists. This has resulted in the older geos coming out of the closet with respect to Atheism. Still, though, the industry as a whole remains very conservative, particularly the engineers who tend to also be fairly religious. We get a little Liberal bashing here, but it's not such that it's something I would complain about. It's the nature of the industry and so I adapt.

When it comes to voting, it's not easy for us Liberals in the mining industry. We despise the social conservatism of the Republicans, but the Democrats are often against exploitation of our natural resources. In my case, I vote Democrat and hope that I'm not cutting off my nose to spite my face.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Blue Jay, posted 08-29-2012 11:36 AM Blue Jay has not yet responded

    
Jazzns
Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 2657
From: A Better America
Joined: 07-23-2004


(1)
Message 92 of 124 (671688)
08-29-2012 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Coyote
08-29-2012 12:44 AM


Republican scientists
I happen to work among many scientists. I could probably claim to be one myself although I don't because I only rarely am outputing research.

The people I work with represent many disciplines of science. We are not in academia although we often collaborate with academia. And I would wager that 2/3 to 3/4 of the people are conservative, or conservative leaning.

The point being, I just don't think you can paint with such a broad brush. I think one thing that is common is that scientists don't bullshit. They aren't politicians so often they wear their REAL opinions on their sleeves. Its easy to see conflict where there is no effort to sugar coat differences unlike in politics where it may be hard for an average low information person to notice the fact that Paul Ryan is bizarrely insane.


BUT if objects for gratitude and admiration are our desire, do they not present themselves every hour to our eyes? Do we not see a fair creation prepared to receive us the instant we are born --a world furnished to our hands, that cost us nothing? Is it we that light up the sun; that pour down the rain; and fill the earth with abundance? Whether we sleep or wake, the vast machinery of the universe still goes on. Are these things, and the blessings they indicate in future, nothing to, us? Can our gross feelings be excited by no other subjects than tragedy and suicide? Or is the gloomy pride of man become so intolerable, that nothing can flatter it but a sacrifice of the Creator? --Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Coyote, posted 08-29-2012 12:44 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2956
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 93 of 124 (671697)
08-29-2012 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by marc9000
08-26-2012 6:45 PM


Re: Scientists control science
There is a new type of atheism that has organized only recently, and is quickly gaining acceptance in science. The Wall Street Journal has called it “New Atheism”, its definition can be found all over the net. Here is a common definition;

{quotation lifted out of context from the following URL}

http://atheism.about.com/.../Definition-Militant-Atheist.htm


Just a few of the things wrong with that:

You're talking about "New Atheism" and claim to provide a definition for it, but you didn't actually do that, now did you? Instead, you provided a definition for "militant atheist", something quite different. I believe that's called "bait and switch", where you promise one thing and then provide something different. "Bait and switch" is a thoroughly dishonest trick and, I believe, illegal when a business does it to a customer. Even more evidence that you should consider yourself an atheist by your own latest "definition", because of your demonstrated wickedness. You should have instead referred to a link that actually does talk about "new atheism", such as on Wikipedia.

As pointed out by Granny Magda in his Message 62, you lifted that quotation out of context, thus misrepresenting it (committing even more wickedness, you filthy little atheist). The complete quotation reads:

quote:
Definition:
Militant atheist is defined as one who is militantly opposed to theism, theists, and religion. Militant atheists have an extreme hostility towards religious theism that entails a desire to see religion suppressed by force. The label militant atheist tends to be used interchangeably with fundamentalist atheist, new atheist, and anti-theist.

This definition of militant atheist is usually meant pejoratively because the label is typically applied to atheists who do not seek the forced suppression of religion or theism. Instead, religious apologists apply the label "militant" to atheists generally — or at least any atheist that isn't quiet, meek, and obsequious.



marc, you repeatedly misuse that and similar terms as your link points out. You need to stop and think about what you're saying before you simply spew it out.

Also, there's nothing new about "new atheism", except for public awareness of it. Sheesh!

{Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, Stenger, Provine, Weinberg, etc.}'s increasing appeal as a license to forget morality, justify big government spending, and charm the young ladies is all working in their favor.

Just what the hell are you talking about now?

What do you mean "to forget morality"? Just where do any of them actually promote forgetting morality? Provide the quotes properly cited (meaning provide the source along with the quote; and no more quote-mining, please).

And "charm{ing} the young ladies". Really now! Where did that piece of nonsense come from? Please provide us with a list of "new atheist" pick-up lines known to be used in the wild and known to actually work! Again, provide actual quotes with proper citations! Or at the very least explain what you're babbling about.

You should know by now that you can't just spout nonsense without being called on it!


From a bumper sticker:

quote:
Militant Agnostic: I don't know ... and neither do you!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by marc9000, posted 08-26-2012 6:45 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 230 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


(1)
Message 94 of 124 (671769)
08-30-2012 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by NoNukes
08-29-2012 12:13 PM


Re: Scientists control science
Hi, NoNukes.

NoNukes writes:

So what role would you assign to atheist and lefties for chasing conservatives out of science so that only 6% of the scientists identify themselves as Republican?

I don't know. Just working from my limited experience and observations, it seems very likely that conservative scientists would be handicapped in their ability to socialize at conferences, in their ability to drum up collaborations with other scientists, and in the likelihood that they will get friendly, favorable reviews on papers they submit for publication (because they would have fewer friends in the community).

All of this could result in conservative scientists having difficulty meeting requirements for tenure, and having difficulty in attaining a high standing within the community. But, I don't know that this is the case: you'd have to ask some actual, conservative scientists, like Coyote, if they had ever experienced this.

Since Coyote claims to have experienced this, I feel like the matter deserves some actual consideration. Of course, we need a sample size of more than one, so do you know of a way to find some more conservative scientists and poll them about their experiences as a political minority in the sciences?

NoNukes writes:

So what could possibly explain the left leaning of the biology department, given the taboo on politics? Surely not the campus environment.

In this case, it's probably driven by peer pressure from within the Mormon community. Even though Mormons claim to value education and science, there is a lot of pressure in the community for people to stay away from academia and anything else liberal (they even had to use the word "Humanities" instead of "Liberal Arts" in order to not scare away potential donors).

The only Mormons that typically go into science are the ones that are more detached socially from the main crowd in the first place. So, individuals with low social tendencies or comparatively "liberal" politics are disproportionately represented.

NoNukes writes:

I'm quite skeptical that any of those excuses contribute significantly to the dearth of conservatives in the sciences. If you have even anecdotal evidence suggesting otherwise, let's hear it.

Again, I don't know that these excuses contribute significantly, and I'm not sure how to test it. Maybe we could poll people who didn't go into science and ask them why they didn't go into science?

I do have a couple of anecdotes, though. First, I'm pretty sure we can attribute the dearth of conservatives on EvC to the way they were treated by atheists and "lefties" while here. Whether or not that's a bad thing, I'll let you decide on your own, but I think we can all agree that they didn't leave because they were convinced that they were wrong.

Second, I know that applicants to my advisor's lab are screened for how well their personality and opinions mesh with the other members of the lab (though, obviously, conservatism isn't the only deciding factor), and that many other labs do the same thing. From this, it seems pretty straightforward to predict that people with unpopular opinions would have a hard time getting a graduate position in my field. I don't have evidence for this, but it seems reasonable.

NoNukes writes:

I tend to think dwise1's tongue in cheek comment is at least partly on the mark and partially explains the lack of diversity among science. While a scientist might well identify and hold conservative values and even vote for Republican candidates, large parts of the Republican platform are anti-science, and I just cannot see how very many scientists would identify with such a platform. For example, the number of science who reject man-made climate change must surely be a tiny number.

Is there evidence for this position? I would be very interested in seeing it.

Edited by Blue Jay, : "having difficult"


-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)

Darwin loves you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by NoNukes, posted 08-29-2012 12:13 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by NoNukes, posted 08-30-2012 2:36 PM Blue Jay has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 15917
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 95 of 124 (671771)
08-30-2012 10:50 AM


Back to the Topic
Marc's approach, inventing definitions to yield his preferred conclusions, is so obviously invalid that it doesn't merit further rebuttal.

Concerning the actual topic, most of us here understand that atheists no more control science than the Pope controls Christianity, but Marc believes science is unfriendly to creationism and/or ID because of its atheistic elements and not because the practitioners of creationism and ID aren't doing science. That could actually be a very interesting discussion if Marc would just stop distracting attention with his stilted definitions.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Minor clarification.


Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 11:03 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 97 by Taq, posted 08-30-2012 12:08 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 107 by NoNukes, posted 08-30-2012 3:27 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29364
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


(3)
Message 96 of 124 (671773)
08-30-2012 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Percy
08-30-2012 10:50 AM


Re: Back to the Topic
The Dalai Lama was once asked "What if you found out that there was no God, no rebirth, no afterlife?" His reply was "Then we would have to say that we were wrong."

If Creationists presented the "Creator" or if ID Proponents presented the "Designer", then science would say "We were wrong."

And that is the big difference.

Science is built on learning "We were wrong" and embraces that.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Percy, posted 08-30-2012 10:50 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by hooah212002, posted 08-30-2012 1:45 PM jar has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7141
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.9


(5)
Message 97 of 124 (671782)
08-30-2012 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by Percy
08-30-2012 10:50 AM


Re: Back to the Topic
Concerning the actual topic, most of us here understand that atheists no more control science than the Pope controls Christianity, but Marc believes science is unfriendly to creationism and/or ID because of its atheistic elements and not because the practitioners of creationism and ID aren't doing science. That could actually be a very interesting discussion if Marc would just stop distracting attention with his stilted definitions.

It would be an interesting topic. I have often said that ID supporters want to play the role of Rosa Parks without actually getting on the bus. It would be one thing if they had good research to publish, and then have the atheistic cabal use underhanded politics to keep that research out of peer review journals. But is that really happening?

Or perhaps the problem is not enough money for research. Perhaps ID scientists have great ideas for experiments that will directly test ID hypotheses, but they need $5 million or so to get a lab up and running in order to test these ideas. When they send in these research grants are they being covered up by this atheistic cabal? Is that really happening?

I don't think either is happening. There is nothing to discriminate against. No ID scientist is sending in research grants that will directly test ID. No ID scientist is doing original research that directly tests ID hypotheses. No ID scientist is even trying to describe experiments or testable hypotheses as they relate to ID.

I also think that ID supporters know this. This is why discussions dealing with ID almost automatically switch to attacks on evolution. ID is not a scientific pursuit. It is a religiously based rejection of evolution. This is why ID is not a part of science, and why ID "scientists" are looked down on. It isn't because of an ideological war between theists and atheists. It is because ID isn't science. Period.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Percy, posted 08-30-2012 10:50 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 437 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


(2)
Message 98 of 124 (671799)
08-30-2012 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by jar
08-30-2012 11:03 AM


Re: Back to the Topic
If Creationists presented the "Creator" or if ID Proponents presented the "Designer", then science would say "We were wrong."

Wrong about what? Where does science say anything about there being a creator/designer? What actual scientific endeavor/study would have to say "we were wrong"?


"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 11:03 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 1:50 PM hooah212002 has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29364
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 99 of 124 (671800)
08-30-2012 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by hooah212002
08-30-2012 1:45 PM


Re: Back to the Topic
Biology, Chemistry and Physics would have to say they were wrong as a start.

If hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water simply because some God or Designer decided that's how it would be until She changed her mind it eliminates all we know about chemistry.

If lightning is really just the result of God getting pissed then we need to rethink all we know about physics.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by hooah212002, posted 08-30-2012 1:45 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by hooah212002, posted 08-30-2012 2:07 PM jar has responded
 Message 103 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-30-2012 2:30 PM jar has acknowledged this reply
 Message 106 by dwise1, posted 08-30-2012 3:08 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 437 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 100 of 124 (671802)
08-30-2012 2:07 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by jar
08-30-2012 1:50 PM


Re: Back to the Topic
I disagree unless this creator/designer changed the actual laws. However, we still wouldn't have to admit we were wrong because we wouldn't have been up until that point. At no point does ANY science state unequivocally that any natural process cannot be the result of some sky fairy. Science doesn't even address it. If we were to find evidence for this creator, we would go on about our business of studying how this thing does what it does.

Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.


"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 1:50 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 2:16 PM hooah212002 has responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29364
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 101 of 124 (671803)
08-30-2012 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by hooah212002
08-30-2012 2:07 PM


Re: Back to the Topic
You are free to disagree.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by hooah212002, posted 08-30-2012 2:07 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by hooah212002, posted 08-30-2012 2:29 PM jar has responded

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 437 days)
Posts: 3180
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 102 of 124 (671804)
08-30-2012 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by jar
08-30-2012 2:16 PM


Re: Back to the Topic
And you are free to provide evidence that natural science has ANYTHING to say about gods since you are the one that made the claim.

It really is that simple.


"Science is interesting, and if you don't agree you can fuck off." -Dawkins

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 2:16 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 3:44 PM hooah212002 has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11707
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 103 of 124 (671805)
08-30-2012 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by jar
08-30-2012 1:50 PM


Re: Back to the Topic
Biology, Chemistry and Physics would have to say they were wrong as a start.
If hydrogen and oxygen combine to form water simply because some God or Designer decided that's how it would be until She changed her mind it eliminates all we know about chemistry.

If lightning is really just the result of God getting pissed then we need to rethink all we know about physics.

Well, if they were simply those things or just that, then I suppose you're right. But the existence of a creator doesn't necessitate those things.

Chemistry describes the interaction between hydrogen and oxygen whether some deistic-type god set the universe in motion or not. Its only when they'd be directly controlling those interactions themselves, and they change something about it, that it would become a problem for chemistry.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by jar, posted 08-30-2012 1:50 PM jar has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by NoNukes, posted 08-30-2012 2:44 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9926
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 104 of 124 (671807)
08-30-2012 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Blue Jay
08-30-2012 10:33 AM


Re: Scientists control science
The only Mormons that typically go into science are the ones that are more detached socially from the main crowd in the first place.

And you think that, rather than the subject matter of biology, which essentially requires accepting evolution, is responsible for directing Mormons away from biology?

Since Coyote claims to have experienced this,

I didn't note Coyote making such a claim. He discusses some rudeness at conferences, but not much else.

I do have a couple of anecdotes, though. First, I'm pretty sure we can attribute the dearth of conservatives on EvC to the way they were treated by atheists and "lefties" while here.

I'll note that ridicule of creationists is done by even the few right leaning scientific people here. Even Buzsaw has been known to ridicule YECs. Do you really want to equate creationism with conservatism?

Whether or not that's a bad thing, I'll let you decide on your own, but I think we can all agree that they didn't leave because they were convinced that they were wrong.

No. Many of them left because the participants as a whole believed they were wrong and because their arguments had no traction here.

Is there evidence for this position? I would be very interested in seeing it.

Evidence for what exactly? Is there a question about the percentage of scientists who accept human-driven climate change, or are you looking for something else?

Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

“Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own.” George Bernard Shaw


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Blue Jay, posted 08-30-2012 10:33 AM Blue Jay has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Blue Jay, posted 09-04-2012 10:45 AM NoNukes has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9926
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 105 of 124 (671808)
08-30-2012 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by New Cat's Eye
08-30-2012 2:30 PM


Re: Back to the Topic
Well, if they were simply those things or just that, then I suppose you're right. But the existence of a creator doesn't necessitate those things.

I agree. To use another poster's example, proof that Jesus supernaturally changed water into wine via a miracle, does not mean that science details about fermentation are suddenly wrong.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.

“Choose silence of all virtues, for by it you hear other men's imperfections, and conceal your own.” George Bernard Shaw


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by New Cat's Eye, posted 08-30-2012 2:30 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

    
Prev1
...
456
7
89Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017