To Matt: The difference between Science and Religion.

This explains why science is not a belief system such as with religions.

quote:

---

Skeptics Society Discussion Forum

​

Re: Science and Religion

​

Posted by Fred Askew on Friday, 13 June 1997, at 1:00 p.m., in response to Science and Religion, posted by bertvan on Friday, 13 June 1997, at 9:05 a.m.

​

The big difference between science and religion is the way they access information and what they do with it.

​

Religion gets its information by divine revelation. A god or gods tell someone, usually a male, secrets that cannot be otherwise discovered by humans. The receiver tells others about the Truth. The others either believe it or they don’t, but it’s not the sort of information that can be tested or confirmed. When two receivers and their followers meet, there is usually violence. That’s because when you’re getting messages directly from the gods, you don’t need to listen to crap from someone else’s gods. In fact, you may be endangering your soul or the souls of your children if you allow other beliefs equal time. Better to shut up the false gods before their lies take hold. People may use technology (science) to make weapons, but they make the weapons because their gods and religious leaders tell them to.

​

Science is a tool as opposed to an organized belief system. You collect information, stuff that anyone has access to. You run experiments that other people have to be able to repeat before your results are accepted. Scientists from many different cultures and religions can get together and agree on things because the standards are reasonable and the same for everyone. Often, scientists don’t think that there’s enough proof for someone’s new idea. In that case, the claimers collect more evidence until the majority of scientists in that specialty accept the claim. There is a common body of scientific knowledge that has been collected and tested for many years now. If you want to challenge something in that body, you must present evidence of why it is an error. Sometimes it requires years to get something new added, but that’s because it often requires years to collect enough evidence.

​

Nothing in religion changes. Once the information is revealed, it is perfect and unalterable (unless someone gets another message from the gods). Science changes all the time. New evidence means new ideas. But nothing is accepted without the proper evidence.

​

All religious claims are equal. That is, if guy X gets a secret message and guy Y gets a secret message from a god, no one can determine if one is true and the other false. You either believe or you don’t.

​

(There’s a great line, I think it’s in the movie Ladyhawk. Somebody says something about what God wants Matthew Broderick to do and his reply is along the lines of, I talked to God this morning, and he didn’t mention you at all. I think that’s the proper response anytime someone tells you that God wants you to do something. Your answer should be, I talked to God just a minute ago, and he said that you’re wrong. Since all messages from the gods are equal, your message is as valid as any other.)

​

In science, you can make all the claims you want, but you still have to convince your peers with evidence before your claim will be accepted. No special messages allowed.

​

TV and the news media have created a problem in the way science perceived. Rather than wait until something has been verified or proven, the media jump on it too early and spread the word of a discovery that may turn out to be nothing once more work is done. Some scientists fall into this trap and make premature claims. Some have sold out to corporations and will say whatever their bosses tell them to say. Some scientists get caught up in the superstar role and try to answer questions that science will never be able to answer and shouldn’t even try. Some try to pass themselves off as experts in fields which they have little or no background. Scientists (being mere mortals and not gods) often make mistakes. Science is a tool, no better than the people who use it.

​

Scientists cannot answer all question or solve all problems and shouldn't try to, but, in the right hands, the scientific tool has done more good for humanity in the last 100 years than all the religions in history have ever done. Despite its flaws, it’s the best tool humans have ever made.

​

Fred Askew Austin TX

---

[This message has been edited by nos482, 09-08-2002]

Great message,
I am pleased to see it here. It goes with what I have practiced and live by. Have you heard of NOMA, you have done such a beautiful job ok living up to NOMA.
Thanks for posting it, can I have the address to this site?------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

quote:

---

Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:
Great message,
I am pleased to see it here. It goes with what I have practiced and live by. Have you heard of NOMA, you have done such a beautiful job ok living up to NOMA.
Thanks for posting it, can I have the address to this site?

​

---

I don't know if it still exists, afterall it's been around 5 years, and even when I was there they changed address several times.

Thanks anyway.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

But with a confusion of chemistry of adaptions and adaptions of chemistry (per Wolfram's NEW KIND OF SCIENCE (A))and the current insistituion of ostensibly "higher" education I can not come in for a landing here as I begin to reveal the LIE of evolutionary thinking to the promotion of medicine:Mental Illness is a myth in so far as it violates this synthesis for all analysis is but a commercial moving violation filed::Starling *thought* in 1912 in defense of *any* Pharmacropaeia that antibodies only mark the location of re-entrance curves (Maxwell) assesing medicine to 0 value *because* he noticed a difference in words biochemisty to be and physiological chemistry that was or more properly had in fact two notions of "organism" rather than Maxwell's two ways of viewing electro-magnetic phenomena. The concept of venom in the math of bio-change vindicates this rather as offensive and no defense under Wallace's "co-evolution" but this ?could? be false.But since Starling thinks that chemicals and not Maxwell vorticies appropriately techonologically brought up to date are responsible for the the phenomenon of disease ( in the context of poisons) though while he is such justified I F chemical substances are SHOWN to be normal physiological products then some co-ordination chemically may be ordered (chemical overlong time, behavior over short) but invoking ffaith and formal categorization disbars the inaccessible ordinal in health as well as death.Medical practice clearly went beyond the clear nature of this hypothetical position situating chemical reactions OR adaptations no matter the student walked in by assuming to start with without Wolfram (no matter the piror R&D tests) the synthetic drugs and psychiatric prescriptions were already NORMAL hypocritically (Doc to Gilliagan- They Alph-How do you know which one is the correct one? DOCTOR- I dont, you just try them and see if they work) Medical Science might as well be seen as merely passing on the bad and lethal practice of sniffying drugs to find their properties - Granted they have better prior screens but to tell the patient that is the same as watching TV not to worry about the rxn (especially patients who have been in jail and know this is not even remotely true) precluded the naturalist from explaining the nature of adaptations (EXCEPT IN THE HARVARD SACTION AND FALSE PERMISSION of genotype/phenotype meta data + gene frequeince for any and all small continuous effets modelable) seen LOWER vertebrates (but not in match to kinds on SIlver Screen) for the notion of homology (true or false)(regardlless is of use still in sorting comparisons no mater how the data is statistically sorted and is not less objective than the Havard MCZ version of the theother relation) is not necessarily due to chemical cooridnation no matter ~!@#$%^&*()_+| but couild be due to nanotechnology fusion with Wolfram with population genetics per nanoecology (not accelerated drug discovery $!!!!!!!) that does not exist but maybe in a similar ontological confidence that Wolfram and I have for thinking of "self gravitating" systems- him in physico-chemistyr and me in biology(My notion of computation is tied to calucations of torque on cell coponents over small bacteria size when thinking about embryoogy WITHOUT the g-force of EArth and then only ARTIFICALLY "self" gravitiating by space station motionetc-- pitch from space etc etc.) but only exists philosophically but is repugnant to Marxists such as Boyd who once again first stepped out of the direction of my path of walking and then NODDED back at me. He could have been the mafia or an undercover agent for all appearences sake and yet still talks chemistry I over heard to students a decade later or two score the same WHEN HE IS TRYING TO AVOID talking (apparently even about reality) but managed to use silence over the the student activity to have his recommendation corrected and the student penealized to save what had since gone out of ideological fashion. Christianinty is preferable to this as Communism for it can always change in real time and is not needing to read the word "economy" from a saw handle in an elders retainer etc.Apparently the struggle for psychological existence worked against the entering a new phase of materialism in biology by overmedicating the population and creating an investment community that only looked for sped up drug discovery rather than the integrated cardinal it was thought to have been.It was not!!Ref- The Croonian Lectures on the Chemical Correlation of the Functions of the Body by Ernst Henery Starling- The Chemical Control of the Functions of the Body-- The Journal of Physiology (London) 44, 425-460 (1912).I think anti-bodies may have positive value not in any "game theory" sense Starling's work seems to engender but (I) will need to work out the evaluation denied by artists in my continuous self-gravitating biology (e.g. no panspermia) but it looks rather obvious that radioactivity is not responsible for chance dispesal IF vicarance is not go. It is possible ecosystem engineerred source/sinks will give other orbits that nonetheless do NOT show the appearence of current statistical physics but this says more than I know just as science claims more taught than it had acutally attained but in the frame. Furthermore Wolfram's new kind of science may open medicine to advances that have been hindered from coming to market due to the ethical treatement of animals for it may open up first plants to computational equivalence (making gravity =mole motion per histogeny etc) which for evolutionary reasons of thinking the nervous systems of biologists did not attain for some primative chemistry that was weded to accounting ledger style accounts while simple programs can operate without the 0 or null concept no matter how the EAst took it or takes ... but the west only managed to committ the student to drugs for any quick adapation to reality that paste and click could capture but not manual typerwriters of even contrast black and red ink for the inliking of bio-change that is not the flip side on the 33 wheat back nor the bufflo nickel mickel ffalls agains. whether in time or across space.I do believe it does not help to make straw men or hand waving on this for even virus hunters such as SUMAC on true seekers were not able to dictated something like this from me etc. There is real problem when "control" gets out of hand as some educators have strong held religion over the years NO MATTER THE TOLERATION of belief (system(sic.).!

Why do you keep posting in this manner? You are difficult to understand most of the time. It is like you're talking to yourself.[This message has been edited by nos482, 10-22-2002]

Hi Brad!Just wanted to let you know that while we all agree your posts are often hard to understand, many of us admire your struggle to express yourself clearly and hope you keep up the effort. All the best!--Percy

Well within the context of the reference I sited I could not say and still am barely able on my understading of what "kind" of Science Wolfram is opening up classes for in the Boston area this summer ( I may attened if I think the fugus is good for it etc)I could not reliably seperate my distintion of adaptations from changes in moleuclar free path lengths and the apparent differenceof inteterpreation of the 2nd law thermo between Steven and my self in what in letter to WIll Provine IN TERMS OF MUTATIONS IN FROGS of genus RANA WOULD BE REVESIBLE. Stephen W. makes an awfully big claim for reversibility but this is the point that "a" Lewontin could have criticized him for statistically so while it may be disconcerting to have to igore these rather "raw" posts they are part of the "thought process" that lead to rather more comprehensible statements (not that the below is any better but if you must just read the CAPS to see if there is any subject that may be interest in the future or past posts etc etc) so ... chemcial means of adapation and adapting the theory of Wolfram's network to repoducing Mendelisms (which I take it to be Stephen's belief he is contributing to biology) NO MATTER THE DARWINISM (AND THAT is the point of c/e but again I ramble for this also require some work on IIREVESIBILIY with respect to the Russian supported by British scientists on static irreversibility THAT WOULD NOT BE reducible to electometrics of straight Pauling chemsity and again I am back at the BOOK NOOK from which I had started by criticizing Crick but ALL THIS is much to big even IF VITALISM was true but since most likely you do not even hold this I must drop the ball and paste the click bug:but if I didnt and simply just put in all below:: then you are correct the style would be a mess for your deletion etc.
From: herp Sent: 10/23/2002 10:32 AM
I do think that in line with the posters in and on this thread that c/e enthusiats can definitely CLAIM in Debate that "evolutionists" of the Will Provine example certainly at least DID deny free will in the sense that Stephen Wolfram intends differences in Chrisitan denominations ar may likely still provide the continiuty that is freey being willed to not exist whether it does or does not aprirori.The mycologogical funugs can possibly be "interogated" to this affect when not in effect etc.Wolfram intends to relativize SPACE as network apparently in the post-modernism such that if one started with a 3 point network for ERINACEUS (Hericium) and arbitrarily (at this random, sensu inter alia) selects a fractal to fit in the computer memory between the 1-D and 2-D models of the effect or cause of gravity in the growth and development of this living and reproducing form, then by the time the MODEL reaches biogeographic precision the continuity of the theory-expt cycle which topography necessarily can not split even if the Mendelian "mechanics" does a better approximation to emprical measures that take into account variance as well as simply randomly tried intitial conditions could result such that one may predict with the same model both the any allopatric speicaiton geography AND the reason chemcaily or merely adapationally that AMERICANUM only sporulates out the branch tips while the European kind does anywhere along the Underside of the "branch" which is part of the NEtwork Erinaceus sp model to begin the relax and realize that such is not only doable but preferable to the current intelligence that tends to think the rxn diffusion equations are the way to do the theory that has yet to emerge from the catatstrophe that motivated it.This muc can be again simply be viewing the sityuation and in WOlfram's ideas would if nothing else be able to distingusih the difference of tugging (in the mycelia) vs differential allometry but the role of gravity needs be causally explict even if we still can not give a cause of gravity any better that Maxwell. Techniclaly model rigidity would be defined and somewhat arbitary unless isssues in chemcial vs bioentropic adaptaions are not worked out in a difference of language of code and program for teleology may have been correct after all.From this genus if this works one may actually HAVE a micro thoeory speaking to the time of Dobshansky MESO EVOLUTION able to "predict" mushroom CAP biogeography as the toothed fungus button and the mushroom button are oftern indistinguishable to the expert without genetic analysis. Mycologists would finally be disabused of the applelation of GILLS with respect to the ORIENTATION of the automatic direciton of continuance but now I begin to speak of a truth that has not been more objectivised as it OUGHT.

Please, try to make some sense.

Ok tommarrow or so I will type in the REFERENCE material at P's etc Quilities COFFEE HOUSE SHOP and try to show how the use of Russian material to say that plants are as "nervous" as animals is a boondogle, what ever that is that is not tubrerculosis. But that is not longer an issue for me in this thread. The work is about the following question: "Do seeds fall to the Earth or The Sun or some other orbit?" Only I will try to look from the perspective of a fungus which may be neither (plant or animals) ...depends.

soory duplicated[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 10-23-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
Ok tommarrow or so I will type in the REFERENCE material at P's etc Quilities COFFEE HOUSE SHOP and try to show how the use of Russian material to say that plants are as "nervous" as animals is a boondogle, what ever that is that is not tubrerculosis. But that is not longer an issue for me in this thread. The work is about the following question: "Do seeds fall to the Earth or The Sun or some other orbit?" Only I will try to look from the perspective of a fungus which may be neither (plant or animals) ...depends.

---

Would you like to join in to the discussions on here sometime? Or do you just like talking to yourself? You seem to put in a lot of work basicially saying nothing.

He's not bothering you. Let him be.

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
He's not bothering you. Let him be.

---

He was replying to me and saying gibberish. If he doesn't want to say anything he shouldn't reply.

Thanks gene90,nos# if that is what you think you are entittled to the statement of you opnion etc. but here in US there has been some legal actions that you may not be familiar with. This is not the only board I post on and I intended my posts to be generic. Yes I did respond to you becuase you do not seem to accept that there are view of science as religion. In the case of being unable to tell if the student studied physiological chemistry or biochemistry COULD? be an example if general but for me personally I was struggling with defining differences of bioPHYSICS from physcial chemsitry FOR any organic vs inorganic chemistry NO MATTER THE BIOCHEMISTRY. I had to know these things in order to choose what courses I was going to study but seeing how LEGALLY EVOLUTION and PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY can be confused as has HAPPENED HERE IN USA if this is not understood in general c/e discourse then this can lead to wrong ideas both of how science is NOT religion as well as in the mistake how IT IS. Please go to the Coffee Shop and if you still can not make sense of my interruptions PLEASE do list the words (IN ORDER) that you feel are more indicative of your "faith" or "belief" etc. Thank you GENE90 once again.