In Defense of Science

[NeoZeon]

*Disclaimer, this rant is stemming from an argument I had with one of my students who questioned the age of the earth. I teach intro geology at the university level, and we were learning about plate tectonics, a process that occurs over millions of years.

*This rant will probably have very little organization, I'm fairly upset right now.

I'm sure that most of you do not need convincing, but I will make the claim anyway: a rejection of science is equivalent to rejecting mankind itself. This is important to say, because in recent years, the primary contributor to scientific funding, the United States, is cutting funding to the National Science Foundation, NASA, and other objective science funding sources. For those of you that do not know, the National Science Foundation is pretty much the pay source of all academic scientists in the fields ranging from the Natural Sciences to the Applied sciences. They are the people that are currently funding my graduate education, without which it would cost me upwards of 500k to complete my degree, not including research expenses. This funding makes my accomplishments, and the rest of sciences accomplishments (most is publicly funded in academia), not just my own, but society's. Scientists truly stand on the shoulders of giants.

For those of you who are approaching voting age, in any country, its time to start thinking about what kind of world you want. The Dark ages in Europe coincided with the massive reduction in scientific funding, and ended with a renewing interest in science and natural law. What does the candidate you favor think about scientific funding?

In the United States, there is a push to have creationism taught alongside science in classrooms; fine, with the exception that they want to use money budgeted for science classes to do so. This is not acceptable. This might offend you, but creationism has no place in a liberal (think classical Greek definition, not political definition) environment. Creationism is less than a theory, which requires observable evidence. When a school board, makes you qualify evolution as "The Theory of Evolution", it's not to correctly define a scientific idea, but to provide a contrast where creationism is not a theory and therefore seems more substantiated. You may believe creationism is the Truth, with a capital T, but if you claim that there is more evidence supporting creationism than Evolution you really need to evaluate your sources.

When you attack science, you attack yourself. Every scientist, no matter what they study, has one goal: to change the world. In a few years, New Horizons will swing by Pluto, and take hi-resolution photos of the icy surface. Once those pictures are taken, the people born after that will never know a world where Pluto was just some flickering ball in a high powered telescope. The normal of knowledge will have changed, along with the world. Why are people so adamant to stop this? Why do people choose to hurt themselves, and their children so much? When you vote, defend science, as it directly defends society as well.

 

 

If this post is unacceptable, too political, or what ever, please delete it, and accept my apologies. I don't intent to start a war, I just want people to realize what they are doing when they hurt the scientific community.

 

[tristan1035]

We should create a new country where the national god is aethismo and the entire budget goes to science.

Really good post by the way.

[Titanicium]

I couldn´t agree with you any more!

I myself is attending high school at the moment and I decided to attend a so called "Science class". This is basically a test project carried out by the school I attended and which is aimed at getting more scientists in Norway.

 

We have an extra topic which focuses on the very roots of how scientific research is being done and how everything works within science.  So far it is the best subject I have ever attended and i really enjoy it.

 

My point being that this is a project that costs money. Lots of money. And that money disappearing from Science and is rather put towards other things like religion, art and foreign help... I don´t think I should state my opinion on that any further...

 

Anyway a refreshing reading it was and i hope you have a nice day

[Drown]

I'm totally fine with people who believe in God and in creationnism, but no matter what you believe in, the future is science. There is no way to prove the theory/beliefs of the people who believe in creationnism, so no matter what facts, articles and researchs you 'throw' at these people, they won't agree with you. So, the debate will remain endless for as long as I can imagine.

 

What really annoys me in this situation is this part : 

'with the exception that they want to use money budgeted for science classes to do so'

 

We can spend 5 years learning how God created the earth and made us, humans, into what we are, but that's not going to be of any help. Teach creationnism if you want, but not at the cost of science. What we will need in the decades to come is new ideas, new technologies and huge steps forward in the science world. I really struggle to see the point into allocating money that is used to fun science classes/researches to teach people how a mysterious entity created us. After all, what are they going to teach? It's a theory, can't be backed up with many things appart from some old documents. Science's innovations is what we will need to survive.

 

God isn't going to develop new ways of transportation, find ways to survive the overpopulation, the lack of natural resources and everything like that. 

[nicehat]

The Judeo-Christian paradigm of creation is false. Embrace your shortcomings, and unveil yourself from the darkness. Embrace the light that is truth. 

 

http://www.venganza.org/2011/06/billboard/

 

 

Anyway, I agree that the GOP has decided to progressively villify and demonize public funding, not only of Academia, but public/social enterprise in its totality (think PBS, ACORN, low income food subsidies and other social initiatives). I believe it all started with McCain's inflammatory remarks that would later on help spark the maniacal cost cutting zealots known as the Tea Party:

"My friends, we spent $3-million of your money to study the DNA of bears in Montana. Now I don’t know if that was a paternity issue or a criminal issue," he said to laughter from the crowd gathered at Saddleback Church in Orange County, Calif., on Aug. 16, 2008, "but the point is, it was $3-million of your money."

 

Politicians are not economists. If they knew a thing about economics, they would see the value of public grants as an investment into America's future instead of a soundbite to inflame the masses of baboons that vote for them. 

[Vitalius]

I enjoyed your post. Simply because I believe it is true in regards to Science and it's importance to humanity.

Interestingly, I, quite some time ago, believed that a rejection of belief (the concept of it) is in turn a rejection of one's humanity. I still believe that just the same. Just thought it was interesting that your statement is so similar that one I made a long time ago. 

I am not trying to push this towards the "Science VS Religion" stuff, so, future posters, do not push it that way please. This is a good thread and OP. I would hate to see it locked/deleted for something as petty as internet arguing.

 

[UselessBread]

mildly interesting and somewhat related:

I actually took an optional class of phytology not so long ago, and our prof wanted one person to give a short presentation on creationism. Why? because he wanted us to be aware that there actually is a lot of people who deny evolution, and will do everything to make scientist in this field look bad. As a researcher in the field of morphological evolutionary Phytology, our prof apparently had a lot of close contact with creationists. In a country like Germany, the creationists might not be in as high numbers as in places like the US, (I mean nobody has tried to force intelligent design down our throat) but apparently you can encounter a lot of them if you work in the right field. There apparently is occasionally even students of biology who are creationists.

[T.Vengeance]

I think it is wrong to dictate how people should live. That'd being said, I also think that having religion intervene in the advancement of humankind is just as equally wrong, if not worse. People can believe what they chose to believe. It is not our place to tell them what is right. We should only say that, it is right, take it or leave it. The problem with this whole "religion vs science" is not that one is too extreme over the other, but rather, they don't mix at all. Religion is based mainly on faith, and science the exact opposite (Let's not get into technicalities. It is true that we need faith to assume that our measurements are true and the data is correct. But, through countless amount of experiments it is safe to say the data is true.) How can we expect both to exist at the same time. I can think of so many advancements that have happened based on science, and very few based on religion. To have religion intervene in the advancement of science would be an utter detriment.

 

I quote Dr Tyson's example of the God of the Gaps.

[T.Vengeance]

In a country like Germany, the creationists might not be in as high numbers as in places like the US, (I mean nobody has tried to force intelligent design down our throat) but apparently you can encounter a lot of them if you work in the right field. There apparently is occasionally even students of biology who are creationists.

Perfect example of keeping Science and Religion apart. I applaud those biologist who are creationist too. They, unlike most creationist don't refute data and therefore they got their degree.. There is nothing wrong with being a creationist/religious and still doing Science. Science properly done should never have bias, or minimal bias. So being religious or atheist shouldn't matter because the data and therefore conclusions should be the same. What workplace doesn't encourage to keep personal life and work apart? The same could be said about science. Work is work. What you do in your life/ what you believe in should be kept separate.

[NeoZeon]

Perfect example of keeping Science and Religion apart. I applaud those biologist who are creationist too. They, unlike most creationist don't refute data and therefore they got their degree.. There is nothing wrong with being a creationist/religious and still doing Science. Science properly done should never have bias, or minimal bias. So being religious or atheist shouldn't matter because the data and therefore conclusions should be the same. What workplace doesn't encourage to keep personal life and work apart? The same could be said about science. Work is work. What you do in your life/ what you believe in should be kept separate.

 

I understand the point you are trying to make, but there is such a thing as scientific bais, which are built in assumptions in an expierment. Generally those are disclosed in academic papers.

[Slaeowulf]

A very good point exceptionally well made. As an elected member of my University's Atheist, Humanist and Secularist Society during my years at Uni, I can do nothing more than stand behind you whole-heartedly and hope for the sake of the USA that such an idea never comes to fruition. 

There is a place for teaching Creationism within schools. In Britain our national curriculum includes a subject called Religion Education (often abbreviated to RE, as Physical Education is to PE). In RE, children are taught about what different religions believe to break down barriers, promote diversity, improve community relations and (above all else) eliminate ignorance in all its forms. At no point would any religious text be shown anywhere within any Science classroom because it is pure defiance of the Scientific Method. As Tim Minchin once put it "Religion is the denial of evidence so that faith may be preserved".

People have the right to hold whatever they want sacred and believe whatever they want so long as it doesn't affect me or my fellow man. When it can harm others, be it anything from running into a building and blowing themselves up to trying to promote ignorance in our schools, that's when I step in and stop them. Another of my favourite quotes, which I shall end on, "Your right to swing your arm ends at my nose".

Good on you

[UselessBread]

Perfect example of keeping Science and Religion apart. I applaud those biologist who are creationist too. They, unlike most creationist don't refute data and therefore they got their degree.. There is nothing wrong with being a creationist/religious and still doing Science. Science properly done should never have bias, or minimal bias. So being religious or atheist shouldn't matter because the data and therefore conclusions should be the same. What workplace doesn't encourage to keep personal life and work apart? The same could be said about science. Work is work. What you do in your life/ what you believe in should be kept separate.

 

There is a lot of people who drop out of Biology after a year at my University. That is after having had all of the Phytology and Zoology classes, which are very evolution heavy. I have the suspicion that most of the creationists drop out after that as well.

[beebskadoo]

is a video highlighting the topic. AronRa is one of my heroes

[beebskadoo]

I think if it is to be taught in school it should be an elective class. I took a Theology class and I loved it! I don't believe any of it but I love learning about people and culture. There is a time and place for religious teaching and it is not in the science class. 

[T.Vengeance]

I think if it is to be taught in school it should be an elective class. I took a Theology class and I loved it! I don't believe any of it but I love learning about people and culture. There is a time and place for religious teaching and it is not in the science class. 

Yup definitely agree. It's like taking philosophy. It's not like we're using philosophy to describe science like in the greek days. Theology class is definitely interesting. 

[beebskadoo]

Yup definitely agree. It's like taking philosophy. It's not like we're using philosophy to describe science like in the greek days. Theology class is definitely interesting. 

See it becomes a problem when things that are philosophical are taught as fact. In school that is. Science is evidence based not faith based, so as soon as you bring philosophy and faith based arguments into the science class, it's no longer science. 

[Jaybird]

yeah i got a problem. too many words. maybe if there was a nice illustration to describe what i dont want to read.

[Mooshi]

Like I've said in another thread, the Left and the Right should go and never return. Let the sane middle have the country so it can advance without any agenda getting in the way.

[TideRower]

Are you all meaning natural sciences when you're talking about science?

Because I also consider the arts/the humanities as sciences.

 

I agree partially with the first post. I don't understand why they are teaching creationism in school, it's one of the worst religious theories. In Italy we have a subject called 'Catholics Religion' (it's more like 'religion' or 'history of religion and other beliefs'). I just want to say that I attended it for 13 years and we never really talked about creationism (I'm pretty sure even the pastor who taught didn't believe in it).

It's stupid that they take away science funds, but not only natural sciences need more funds. For example philosophy can't be ignored, because science and society need morality (ethics). Science can't give you that and a society can't work if everybody makes its own concept of what's right and what's wrong.

Science brings us forward but in wich direction? Science can be a bad thing. (e.g. nuclear energy)

We also need to answer the question: What's allowed when 'doing' science? (I don't like humans as test subjects for new medicaments or nations like Chile as a test for neo-liberalism.)

 

a rejection of science is equivalent to rejecting mankind itself. 

I don't really agree with that, there is much more that defines us, but I think that a rejection of science would put a society very far back, although the same is true for culture.

In a 'good' society science and religion, philosophy, ethics or whatever is responsible for morality are well balanced. Sorry for that but I can never fully agree with simple(short, absolute) statements like that.  

They remind me a little of the philosophical mega-theories in the 19. century e.g. Hegel who created a system an then adapted the world to it (that's just too similar to religion with its dogmas).

 

* This is just my personal opinion, so don't be offended, you can ignore it.

[TideRower]

Like I've said in another thread, the Left and the Right should go and never return. Let the sane middle have the country so it can advance without any agenda getting in the way.

Advance doesn't mean necessarily that it's getting better.

I hope you mean only the extreme directions of Left and Right and that your middle is a broad one (which hasn't a clear direction though).

[Mooshi]

Advance doesn't mean necessarily that it's getting better.

I hope you mean only the extreme directions of Left and Right and that your middle is a broad one (which hasn't a clear direction though).

 

Any extremism is bad. There are valid propositions that can be found from both sides of the political spectrum -- the problem is that wavering too far either direction usually results in an agenda tainting any legitimate value said proposition once had.

[TideRower]

Any extremism is bad. There are valid propositions that can be found from both sides of the political spectrum -- the problem is that wavering too far either direction usually results in an agenda tainting any legitimate value said proposition once had.

Do you mean that we should stay moderate and not absolute with our political position?

I agree with that.

The problem is that extremism is subjective. No extremist sees himself as one, but I say that they have all similar arguments and no logic.

[Mooshi]

If you lean more towards the center, it's easy to tell if someone is being too extreme left or right. In an ideal society, people wouldn't try to divide one another with political factions, but to work together for the greater good. Unfortunately, my country is run by a government with agendas.

[TideRower]

If you lean more towards the center, it's easy to tell if someone is being too extreme left or right. In an ideal society, people wouldn't try to divide one another with political factions, but to work together for the greater good. Unfortunately, my country is run by a government with agendas.

What is the 'greater good'? I don't mind the divide as long as they are tolerant.

I don't understand why you are against agendas. I want every party to have a clear one. So I know which one to vote.

 

PS: Have you made a judgment about my political attitude?

[Mooshi]

What is the 'greater good'? I don't mind the divide as long as they are tolerant.

I don't understand why you are against agendas. I want every party to have a clear one. So I know which one to vote.

 

PS: Have you made a judgment about my political attitude?

 

I guess it depends on what the agenda is. Let's just say for American politics at least, neither side is really all that good on the extreme ends. My country has such a damaged reputation abroad because of policies that I don't support.

 

And no, everyone has their own take on how things should be, no harm in that. It's what debate is all about so long as people stay civil.

 

PS: The 'greater good' for me is not trying to sway people with sweet lies to get votes..so many people fell for that when Obama first ran for office. We were so sick of Bush that we'd believe in anything. The greater good is the government protecting the people, not enslaving them. Not starting conflict with other nations, but to advance itself and its people. I mean damn, a prisoner in Norway is way better off than the poorest "free" American.