God & the Fairy Tree

quote:

---

What I see as dangerous to progress is the glorification of any scientific theory as a Holy Grail of Truth. This is the current paradigm. Evolutionary biologists have become Reactionaries to a belief and in so doing demonize anyone who would question the self evident Truth.

---

Evolutionary theory is not some unchanging monolith. It can and does change as our understanding grows. From the "New Synthesis", through the development of the Neutral Theory to the growing "Evo-Devo" field, scientists - real scientists are still working, still generating controversies still changing their minds - when the evidence justifies it.People like Newton and Wegener didn't rely on PR and spin. They sat down and did the work. Do you agree that they did the right thing ? Or do you think that press releases are more important than experiment, observation and reasoning ?

Your misunderstanding of the nature of the processes of science shows.The workings of scientific discovery are, indeed, very conservative. This is a form of safety that stops wasting resources by running off down too many blind alleys. It also delays the overturning of older and incorrect paradigms, as you point out.However, the conservatism is more strength than weakness. There is no race to learn everything in the shortest time. There is instead a desire to build slowly and surely on firm foundations. The conservatism over existing ideas comes from the fact that they were once the new paradigm and had to break through the wall of carefulness. This makes them a stronger foundation to build upon and makes it reasonable to be resistant to throwing them away too quickly.The jigsaw of knowledge about the natural world that we are building consists of many interlocking and carefully placed pieces. As more are added the degree of confidence that we have them correctly placed increases. Since each one had to be carefully scrutinized before it was placed any attempt to move it requires even more careful scrutiny.One may observe that those that think the paradigm is "reactionary" do not understand the existing paradigm, do not know how it came to be accepted, are not willing to do the hard work necessary to break out of it and throw all sorts of accusations at those who are doing the actual hard work. We find that over the last couple of centuries it has been those willing to understand the current views, willing to work hard and who are thick skinned as well are the ones who change the paradigm. In other words they are the insiders in the fields.Edited by NosyNed, : typo

Might I suggest that for the last 15 or so posts we get back to the topic? Thank you.

Sorry, Para, I did skip this one, but I am sure you can see that I have been consistant in my responses to others and that this was simply not noticed by me.I will admit that in threads where similar words are used repeatedly, or where words could be more specifically defined for the purpose of the thread {they may be words that could be loosely interchanged in a more casual communication}, I will 'plug' in a well-used word rather indiscriminatingly. I appreciate your efforts to clarify. I understand that there has been no testing for fairies. In a general sense I say society has falsified fairies by collective agreement, for if all beings of this nature are imaginative, they were only 'true' because we made them so, and 'false' because we caused their existence to cease. Perhaps nullified is a better word.Since we are clearly not talking of things which have been objectively or scientifically falsified, I can only make a distinction in your examples between things which have been 'proved' subjectively and things which haven't.People of faith are, hopefully, realizing that faith is not knowledge. At the same time, things which have undergone their own personal tests with some positive result, can be regarded as more likely than things which have never been seen/felt/experienced.It's definitely not the kind of thing science wants to hear, but people of faith speak in a language where the 'faith' part is a given. We are comfortable with the expressions such as 'felt/seen/heard/experinced God' in the CONTEXT of faith.I don't find hardly anyone who truly is going to say they have evidence of supernatural events, and when I do I regard them with as much skepticism as you would, but I also don't find it a fallacy, as in, a mistake, an error, or an illogic, to speak about spiritual things or events experienced, with comparitive distinction.A person can and may have subjective experience of one deity or another, they may have no experiences and still believe in one deity for other reasons, and, with a big, huge disclaimer saying 'This is all entirely faith based and subjective' be able to contrast two claims of dubious veracity.We do not say 'which one do you know?', but 'which one do you believe?' In a situation where two Christains may discuss 'feeling' God, the disclaimers are not necessary. It may be assumed that Christains hand-wave away all other supernatural things, but there should be some logic behind it, and some inconsistancy in the outcome.Point is, there may be no difference 'scientifically' between a fairy tree and a God sense, but it is not improper or 'wrong' to discriminate within the context of faith. What most atheists seem to be saying is that if you accept one thing you must accept all others or be guilty of some mistake in logic. When you have a belief, the logic changes. If you believe in Jesus, it is therefore illogical to believe in Zeus. It is illogical to believe in one God and also in many.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

I am simply questioning whether the current heirarchy is more interested in defending orthodoxy rather than simply moving on with the business at hand - science. The future does not bode well for any scientist who might come up with an original proposal or theory. When ones reputation can be squashed simply for presenting a theory that does not fit well with orthodoxy nobody is going to come forward with original ideas. I am starting to sense a position that holds theories are absolutel truths that cannot be questioned.

Then I suggest you start a topic to justify your assertions. I suspect what you really mean is that ideas you are sympathetic to are not being given unearned and undeserved credence.

And I think the answer is: no, science is not more interested in defending orthodoxy. Science is interested in protecting a proven, effective means of acquiring knowledge about the physical world against charlatans and quacks.- I don't think so. Scientists are continuing to brainstorm new ideas. Some don't live up to their promise as they are contradicted by observations; others extend our knowledge of the real world.- I do as well, from the religious quacks who advocate a literal reading of their millenia old sacred scriptures.

---

Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. -- jhuger

The only problem here is - Those who are doing the actual work don't make the budgets. They don't determine who is going to get the research dollars nor do they determine what is worthy of research dollars. They worry about making tenure -their first priority if they wish to remain employed is to please the university by conducting research deemed worthy.The business of science has become just as poltical as any other institution. Everyone fights for research dollars. Backstabbing and rivalry is not uncommon. Maintaining the status quo is.Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.

The problem with this view is that there isn't just one university that hires all the scientists, nor is there only one organization that funds research, nor is there only one journal that publishes research, nor is there only one conference that has ever invited people to speak.Science today is really a pretty close model of anarchism in action. Scientists come from all walks of life, from many different cultures, and possess very different beliefs. There are thousands of universities and research institutions all over the world, each one determining their own hiring and promotion policies. There are hundreds of different organizations that give money to researchers, each one independently setting its own criterion of worthiness. There are hundreds of different journals, each with its own editorial board and setting its own policies for acceptance of research.Anyone who thinks that some sort of orthodoxy can be long maintained among such a great number of people with such a wide variety of backgrounds, without some sort of central commissariat to enforce that orthodoxy really doesn't understand human psychology very well.There have been some organizations that have been able to maintain a stable rigid orthodoxy, but these organizations have usually been relatively small in membership, uniform in membership, controlled by a central organization that determines by fiat what the orthodoxy is, and/or couldn't maintain the orthodoxy for a very long time.

---

Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. -- jhuger

I don't want to continue too much with this if it is against Parasomnium's wishes.It is an interesting topic that seems to be coming up in various places.Accomplishment is definitely in the eye of the beholder, and in order to accomplish, you must have a goal. The goal is the biggest question there is. If your goal is to ease suffering, Ma Theresa accomplished. She did not eradicate disease, sure, but she eradicated lonliness. In my view, neither goal can be set without some belief in the value of life, the goodness of helping people, and our purpose or obligation to the world. All of these things come intrinsically or are left over from very Christian concepts. I feel it is important for people to examine why they declare as 'useful' those things which they do, rather than subconsciously fall back onto the deep-thinking of others.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

As an atheist I simply wonder how believers can rationalize for themselves their choice of faith in the absence of evidence for any of the options. And as I have noted earlier in this thread, I think they rarely make a conscious choice. Instead, what they believe is strongly influenced by the peer group into which they were born.

---

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.

If you think funding is not political you need to think again. Committees are chaired by those who get to decide what is worthy of research. Often these chairs have their own interests in making sure the funds get channeled into those areas from which they will benefit. Putting the majority of funds into string theory while other scientists are warning it may be a dead end has been met with deaf ears. Careers are on the line and the money is now too tied into this endeavor.Speaking of backstabbing it was a travesty that Carl Sagan was left out of the National Academy of Sciences. The only reason he was blackballed was because many of his collageus were jealous of his popularity and notoriety in the public. They fought hard to keep him out. Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.

I'm saying that without a centralized organization to enforce the same orthodox positions among all the different scientists all over the world, then there is no reason to believe that the current scientific theories are simply a rigid orthodoxy being maintained by squashing innovative ideas.Your problem is two-fold:First, neither you nor the creationists/IDists have ever demonstrated that there is a rigid orthodoxy being maintained by suppressing legitimate alternatives.Second, neither you nor the creationists have ever really proposed a mechanism that would be effective in maintaining a rigid orthodoxy among the myriad of independent centers of research that exist worldwide, certainly not for very long.

---

Q: If science doesn't know where this comes from, then couldn't it be God's doing?A: The only difference between that kind of thinking and the stereotype of the savage who thinks the Great White Hunter is a God because he doesn't know how the hunter's cigarette lighter works is that the savage has an excuse for his ignorance. -- jhuger

Someone further up the thread suggested that you should set up a topic on the subjects you've been discussing here, and I agree. Several people (myself included) have wandered off the fairies and Gods topic, and the author of the topic has made a justifiable complaint. Your first post on this thread might serve as a base for that topic (just a suggestion!).Unless, of course, you're suggesting that studies of the fairies and gods should get scientific research funding. Perhaps, in a way, you are?

I am not a creationist nor a supporter of ID. I am a realist.The naive view that science is now all about the search for truth simply is a ridiculous pipe dream. Like other things it has become mired down in politics and big business where a lot of money exchanges hands. Committees control the funding and hold the keys to people's careers and reputations. If you want your funding you had better stick with the status quo. If you want tenure you had better not rock the boat and if you do you had better be successful or your ass is out the door. Proposing new ideas or theories that go beyond orthodoxy are not deemed worth the risk. If you do take the risk you are in danger of losing not only your career but your reputation should the jigsaw puzzle not come together. One simply becomes too fearfull to propose new avenues of research. Original reserach is risky and consumes time and money and shuts down funds available for current programs.I do not doubt the ability of science to arrive at natural truths. I simply distrust the structure we have built. The current scientific establishment in the US and abroad is a system of natural selection that favors economics over original research. The mechanisms of change arrise from financial neccesity and political and ideological loyalties rather than the desire to understand. It is an establishment in which I have lost faith. In the 21st century Science has lost its purity and has been corrupted by power, money, and the personal ambitions of many of its contributors.Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.Edited by Grizz, : No reason given.