Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8985 total)
51 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, jar, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), PurpleYouko, vimesey (6 members, 45 visitors)
Newest Member: Harrypotter123
Post Volume: Total: 877,725 Year: 9,473/23,288 Month: 488/1,544 Week: 202/561 Day: 28/14 Hour: 2/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   XXXX Science
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10313
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 1 of 96 (376689)
01-13-2007 3:56 AM


What actually is 'creation science'?

What is 'Christian science'? Islamic science? Hindu science? Is there such a thing as 'atheist science'?

Is there conceivably such a thing as 'socialist science'? 'Fascist science'?
Would 'socialist science', for example, necessarily conclude that we are all born equal? Would 'fascist science' necessarily conclude that there is a genetic elite of some sort?

Does the very need to prefix the word science with a label that indicates predetermined conclusions indicate a complete lack of objectivity and therefore make the "science" in question wholly unscientific?

Is XXXX Science actually a contradiction in terms?
(where XXXX is any ideology or belief system you care to think of)

Given the nature of this forum my target is obviously 'creation science'.
If creationists want to claim that 'Evolutionary science' is a belief based science here AND can make a case for it then I would like that to be considered on topic - AS LONG AS - they also address the main question -

Is XXXXX Science a contradiction in terms where XXXXX is ANY ideology or belief system?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by ramoss, posted 01-13-2007 11:10 AM Straggler has responded
 Message 5 by anglagard, posted 01-13-2007 11:44 AM Straggler has responded
 Message 7 by Coragyps, posted 01-13-2007 12:15 PM Straggler has not yet responded
 Message 35 by Hyroglyphx, posted 01-15-2007 11:12 PM Straggler has not yet responded
 Message 55 by mick, posted 01-17-2007 10:38 AM Straggler has responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12705
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 2 of 96 (376700)
01-13-2007 9:17 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3149
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 3 of 96 (376703)
01-13-2007 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
01-13-2007 3:56 AM


"Creation Science" is a term used by fundamentalist Christians to try to take their view of the world when it comes to how it is was created, and to take their religious view on how man was 'created' and find 'scientific explanations' for it. Because they start with the preconceptions that the world is 6-12,000 years old, and man was literaly created from dust by God in the garden of Eden, they reject
or misrepresent any evidence to the contrary. In other words, it is not science, but rather religion that is trying to mascarade as science.

"Creation science" is not science, but rather the antithesis of science.
The scientific method demands that when evidence to the contrary to a theory or hypothesis is discovered, the theory or hypothesis is either modified to meet the new evidence, or discarded.

With 'Creation science', if evidence is found to be contrary to the initial beliefs, then the evidence is modified or discarded, or just plain lied about.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 01-13-2007 3:56 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Straggler, posted 01-13-2007 11:18 AM ramoss has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10313
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 4 of 96 (376706)
01-13-2007 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by ramoss
01-13-2007 11:10 AM


What About -
Yes I agree with all of that (which suggests that we are going to need a creationist or two to get this debate off the ground).

However I am also interested to know (and I would guess from your post than the broad answer will be yes) if you think any XXXXX Science (where XXXXX is ANY ideology/dogma/faith/belief system) is the antithesis of science for the very same reasons you detail?

Science is science. I don't see how you can have XXXXX science without it being inherently unscientific.

That obviously includes "creation science"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by ramoss, posted 01-13-2007 11:10 AM ramoss has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2227
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 5 of 96 (376708)
01-13-2007 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
01-13-2007 3:56 AM


Prefixed Science
Two examples of the term science being prefixed with another term come immediately to mind.

One is Christian Science, which is a religious denomination/sect/cult (feel free to use whatever suffix is appropriate) which uses the prefix to add legitimacy to the movement.

The second is Jewish Science as contrasted with Aryan Science, which was used as a derogatory term by Nazis concerning any form of intellectual achivement in the sciences that was first propounded by Jews. Under this prefix the Nazis exiled under threat of death the German or Austrian Einstein, Freud, Franck, Haber, Willstaetter, Warburg, Jaspers, Gumbel, Litt, Barth, Ebbinghaus, and Lessing (the last of which was murdered in Czechoslovakia). Such persecution helped insure their eventual military defeat.

I believe the term Creation Science seeks to do both. Add a false legitimacy by including the term science and to attack conventional science by contrasting it with the "holy" (or is it pure?) creation science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 01-13-2007 3:56 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Straggler, posted 01-13-2007 11:57 AM anglagard has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10313
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 6 of 96 (376709)
01-13-2007 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by anglagard
01-13-2007 11:44 AM


Re: Prefixed Science
The Jewish science and Aryan science examples you mention are very interesting.

Did the Naziz actually actively preclude themselves from using Jewish science or did they just ignore it to their detriment?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by anglagard, posted 01-13-2007 11:44 AM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by anglagard, posted 01-13-2007 12:38 PM Straggler has responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5512
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 7 of 96 (376712)
01-13-2007 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
01-13-2007 3:56 AM


Is there conceivably such a thing as 'socialist science'?

Not just conceivably - the USSR operated under the plant-breeding ideas of Rrofim Lysenko, much to the detriment of their food supple, up into the 1960's. It was more in keeping with Stalin's ideas on Socialism than that nasty old Mendelian-Darwinian inheritance was.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 01-13-2007 3:56 AM Straggler has not yet responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2227
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 8 of 96 (376715)
01-13-2007 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Straggler
01-13-2007 11:57 AM


Re: Prefixed Science
Did the Naziz actually actively preclude themselves from using Jewish science or did they just ignore it to their detriment?

A paragraph from Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich may help answer this question:

quote:
As for the German atom bomb project, which had given London and Washington much worry, it had made little progress due to Hitler's lack of interest in it and Himmler's practice of arresting the atom scientists for disloyalty or pulling them off to work on some of his pet nonsensical "scientific" experiments which he deemed more important. Before the end of 1944 the American and British governments had learned, to their great relief, that the Germans would not have an atom bomb in this war.

The Manhatten Project was full of refugees from Germany and Eastern Europe. Many were Jews for obvious reasons, some were not, for pretty good, if not equivalent, reasons.

By ignoring, or even actively persecuting the proponents of the theory of relativity, the Nazis essentially delayed any hope of creating nuclear weapons despite the best efforts of remaining scientists such as Heisenberg.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Straggler, posted 01-13-2007 11:57 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Straggler, posted 01-13-2007 12:56 PM anglagard has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10313
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 9 of 96 (376719)
01-13-2007 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by anglagard
01-13-2007 12:38 PM


Atheist Science - What is it???
So we have had forms of fascist/aryan science and socialist science as well as christian/creation science.

In the absence of any creationists to get to grips with....

I was wondering what you, and anybody else, might think 'atheist science' might be like.

Would it be different to science as we normaly mean it in any way at all??
If not is that part of the reason why creationists and the like have such a problem with science??

Edited by Straggler, : Atheist Science?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by anglagard, posted 01-13-2007 12:38 PM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by anglagard, posted 01-13-2007 1:34 PM Straggler has responded
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2007 1:47 PM Straggler has responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2227
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 10 of 96 (376731)
01-13-2007 1:34 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Straggler
01-13-2007 12:56 PM


Re: Atheist Science - What is it???
straggler writes:

So we have had forms of fascist/aryan science and socialist science as well as christian/creation science.

We haven't even touched upon Mao. Even during the height of the Cultural Revolution where scientists, doctors, and teachers were persecuted, the nuclear and petroleum industries were off-limits.

Such hipocrisy achieved its most blatant form in this instance but is also is a part of current hipocrisy against science. One need only think of the gasoline that came from the ground by using geologic principles used to fuel the YEC preacher's Cadillac.

I was wondering what you, and anybody else, might think 'atheist science' might be like.

Atheism alone lacks a reason to attack science so far as I know. Therefore athiest science would be indistinguishable from actual science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Straggler, posted 01-13-2007 12:56 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Straggler, posted 01-13-2007 1:48 PM anglagard has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 11 of 96 (376733)
01-13-2007 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Straggler
01-13-2007 12:56 PM


Re: Atheist Science - What is it???
"Atheist Science" would be science based on the absolute conviction that there is no god.

The only thing this does is force the person to use only natural explanations and evidence without any blinders on that issue, but it doesn't change the evidence. It is possible that this might limit some avenues of research, but I am not sure how that would happen.

Creationists frequently argue that this is what evolution etc IS because they "take god out of the equation" etc.

What science in general is would - should - be classified as is "Agnostic Science" - let's wait and see what the evidence says eh?

I think what you want to ask about is: can there be a supernatural science?

...

I'm still waiting to see what "Porn Science" is about ... (XXXX?):D


Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Straggler, posted 01-13-2007 12:56 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Straggler, posted 01-13-2007 1:56 PM RAZD has responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10313
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 12 of 96 (376734)
01-13-2007 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by anglagard
01-13-2007 1:34 PM


Re: Atheist Science - What is it???
Atheism alone lacks a reason to attack science so far as I know. Therefore athiest science would be indistinguishable from actual science.

I think it is more complex than that.

'Atheist science' would necessarily preclude the role of any sort of creator or designer, on principle, when forming it's conclusions.

Conventional science does not have any role for a creator but does it consciously preclude the very concept or is it strictly down to the fact that there is no evidence to suggest a creator/designer?

IF the evidence did support it, would the inclusion of a creator or a designer be a valid scientific conclusion?

If the answer is No then are we effectively undertaking 'Atheist Science'?
Whether in practice 'atheist science' happens to be indistiguishable from conventional science does not detract from the principle.

I would say that a creator/designer has to be a potentially valid conclusion for us to be doing non-prefixed science.

Don't get me wrong I am no IDist. There is no evidence for any such thing but I do think thre is an issue in principle.
If we are actually conducting 'atheist science' when undertaking scientific investigation then, as wrong headed as they are in many other ways, I might have some sympathy with the creationists complaints of exclusion from mainstream science.........


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by anglagard, posted 01-13-2007 1:34 PM anglagard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by anglagard, posted 01-13-2007 2:26 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10313
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 13 of 96 (376737)
01-13-2007 1:56 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by RAZD
01-13-2007 1:47 PM


Re: Atheist Science - What is it???
So is the existence of a creator/designer a valid scientific conclusion then??

I think it has to be a potentially valid conclusion otherwise, in some ways, we would be acting as unscientifically as the creationists by limiting the conclusions before the investigation has even begun.

'Porn science' eh? Let me know if you find any.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2007 1:47 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 01-13-2007 2:35 PM Straggler has responded
 Message 16 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2007 2:53 PM Straggler has responded

  
anglagard
Member
Posts: 2227
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 14 of 96 (376745)
01-13-2007 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Straggler
01-13-2007 1:48 PM


Re: Atheist Science - What is it???
straggler writes:

Don't get me wrong I am no IDist. There is no evidence for any such thing but I do think thre is an issue in principle.
If we are actually conducting 'atheist science' when undertaking scientific investigation then, as wrong headed as they are in many other ways, I might have some sympathy with the creationists complaints of exclusion from mainstream science.........

Yes, you are right. To approach science with any prior conclusions is not science. If the evidence leads to the involvement of a divinity or an intelligent designer then that is the conclusion according to science.

I was viewing the question in the narrow light of athiesm not presuming a deity or ID rather than insisting upon no deity or ID. I stand corrected.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Straggler, posted 01-13-2007 1:48 PM Straggler has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 32667
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 15 of 96 (376748)
01-13-2007 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Straggler
01-13-2007 1:56 PM


Re: Atheist Science - What is it???
So is the existence of a creator/designer a valid scientific conclusion then??

Only if the evidence supported such a conclusion.

I think it has to be a potentially valid conclusion otherwise, in some ways, we would be acting as unscientifically as the creationists by limiting the conclusions before the investigation has even begun.

The term potentially valid conclusion really has no meaning. Conclusions come after the evidence. When you start off with the conclusion firmly in hand, you have stopped doing science.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Straggler, posted 01-13-2007 1:56 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Straggler, posted 01-13-2007 3:20 PM jar has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020