Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Anyone interested in Bad Science

Here's the new Bad Science quiz to test your knowledge and learn some interesting facts:

http://www.bad-science-quiz.info/

Bad science? If there is such a thing, what makes for good science?

If science can be good, and/or bad, why does Richard Dawkins not point this out is his book, The God Delusion?

In HARPER'S excellent review of the book, Marilynne Robinson, points out that RD makes all religion The arch enemy of humanity and science the only hope for its salvation--whatever that means for those who believe that the end of all life is death. Here is the complete review.

http://darwiniana.com/2006/10/23/marilynne-robinson-on-dawkins/


Here is a quote

As one who values good science--as a partner of good religion--may I suggest that it, in the form of pneumatology, psychology and theology--be used to research and uncover what makes for good religion.

Consciousness recognizes Consciousness

Dawkins clearly recognizes there is bad science and non-science masquerading as science, as for example the various attempts to justify religion with science.

FF, on what basis does it make good sense, not to mention good science, for Dawkins to make all religion The arch enemy of humanity, and science the only hope for its salvation?

Was the Roman Catholic monk and scientist, Gregoire Mendel, the founder of genetics, an arch enemy of humanity?

Copernicus was a monk. Galileo, was persecuted by certain narrow-minded religionists, but he remained a loyal Christian because he realized that there were many who supported his findings?

How about Dr. Albert Schweitzer--an enemy of humanity?
Of course there has been conflict,
but there has also been otherwise as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_between_religion_and_science
points out.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sci_rel.htm
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/

First, you are changing the subject, which is "bad science." Dawkins is clearly aware that bad science exists - and a common factor that makes the science bad is that it is non-science masquerading as science.

Second, you are purveying a common, erroneous apologetic in that you are conflating individuals with the activities in which they engage. To use an extreme hypothetical example to drive the point home: A person can be the world's greatest violin player and a mass murderer. That his music is beautiful does not excuse the crimes he commits.

It would seem a move to divert the conversation into the territory of personal opinion rather than something impervious to personal opinion, as well as an attempt to change the direction of the topic.

SINCE WHEN IS THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION BAD SCIENCE?

As a student in three universities--in company with students who were of a variety of religions, and of no religion--over the years, I took several courses on the history--a social science--of religion, including churches.

I also took courses on the psychology and philosophy of religions. Some of these courses were taught by people who were not of my faith. It is now common, even for some seminaries, to have teachers who are Christians of a variety of denominations, Jews, Muslims, whatever.

As I recall, in keeping with the scientific approach, all topics we studied were approached as objectively and analytically as any topic can be. There was no attempt to indoctrinate. I was never told: "You have to accept the Bible as being inerrant, the virgin birth, and bodily resurrection of Jesus, or else..."

I welcome Dawkins, and any scientist, to opinionate about religion all they want. But, until he comes up with the scientific evidence, I am not obligated to accept his dogma that all religion is bad.

HERE IS A FRIENDLY CHALLENGE
As a student of pneunmatology--a science as respectable as that of psychology--I invite all scientists, including psychologists--in which I have an undergraduate degree--to get together and help design the best possible model of religion and offer it, without imposing it, to the service of humanity.

In my opinion, unless there is evidence that all religion is bad, it would be bad science to blindly reject this challenge.
BTW, No less a person than Carl Jung--the one who I said, "I know there is GOD..."--called on philosophers, scientists and theologians to work together this way.

We can study criminal behavior using science. One should not infer from this fact that criminal behavior is science.

To those who say that I am off topic: Have you actually looked at what Dr. Ben Goldacre is all about? Take a look.
http://www.badscience.net/about-dr-ben-goldacre/

Like all valid religions, his book is aimed at the checking and challenging the morals and ethics of those who say they "do" science, but who are doing bad science. He is also not impressed by the media, generally speaking, and the way the report on science.

Take note: Moral and ethics are very much the concern of religion. Would you not say: Goldacre is talking religion?

"... checking and challenging the morals and ethics of those who say they "do" science ..."

Not exactly. The problem is that any uninformed person can claim that he is "doing science" or "being scientific." The less well-informed the person, the more likely he is to be oblivious to his own ineptitude.

"He is also not impressed by the media, generally speaking, and the way the report on science. "
This is not a side-issue. This is one of his major points - that those who are reporting the science are often completely ignorant. Do we conclude that science = religion = ethics = journalism?

"Like all valid religions, his book"
His book is a religion?

Let me be clear that I consider the discussion of whether religion is science to be an appropriate one for the NQS forum. What I don't see is how it relates to this specific thread, except through some wild chain of free association.

With the primary topic in mind, I write to make myself clear: Other than out of curiosity, I am not interested in "Bad Science". With those like Dr. Goldacre, I would like to rid the world of bad science so that we can spend our time focusing, constructively, on the good--the moral, ethical and loving--kind of science.

RELIGION, SCIENCE AND THE ART OF LIVING
=======================================
Religion, including the good kind, is NOT the science of living; it is the art of living. As a religionist I am very interested in the following: With the help of good and useful science, I am interested in learning the art of living life at its best, until the day I die.

SCIENCE, RELIGION AND THE ART OF DYING
======================================
With the help of good science--including that practiced by our family doctor, specialists and lab technicians--I have been diagnosed with a life-threatening prostate condition. Because of this, I now have the following serious questions to explore: What, for me, is the best and most useful way to spend my life? And, what do I need to know about the art of dying?

A HORIZON IS BUT THE LIMIT OF OUR VISION
========================================
BTW, because I believe that death is but a horizon, and that a horizon is but the limit of our vision, I am not interested just in living longer. I am more interested in the quality of life that I add to each day than I am in the quantity of days that I add to this life.

Things are not so simple, as the AWT explains, how every logical reasoning requires less or more ad hoced assumptions on background. By AWT every logics is just a dual side of belief and here's always symmetry, which follows from equillibria between longitudinal and transversal energy spreading inside of our Universe.

For example, to explain the Universe evolution by logical way you're required to believe in BigBang theory, which is extremely illogical, because by common logics something (the Universe) can not be formed from nothing spontaneously. If we accept such possibility, then we can accept the existence of God as well.

By such way, you're just replacing belief in God by belief in Big Bang on background.

I found a survey on a new science called nanotechnology. Is this science good or bad?

Here is the survey link if anyone wants to take it.

http://www.surveygizmo.com/s/75546/nanotechnology

Good point. The same is true for religion. I took several courses about the PSYCHOLOGY/PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION. I am a strong advocate of approaching THEOLOGY--the scientific study of the god-hypothesis--in the same way. Since the 1960's I have been advocating PNEUMATOLOGY--the scientific study of what it means to be spiritual.

I did the survey. Any comments as to what the results reveal?

BTW, everyone: Come next Wednesday, Jean and I will be on holiday, in the south, for three weeks.

Hiya Revl.
Enjoy your vacation! Maybe I can keep up the metaphysical phyte around these parts.

Above you asked, "SINCE WHEN IS THE SCIENTIFIC STUDY OF RELIGION BAD SCIENCE?"

Science, by definition deals with material reality, so metaphysical considerations fall outside of the realm of "good science."
Now... a sociological study of religion(s) is more close to the good science definition, but that's not why you called.

I would argue though, that science is pushing the bounds of materialism. Or maybe a better way of saying it would be that:
Materialism is starting to limit and constrain science.
Somebody suggested I read "The Web of Life" by Fritjof Capra, 1995. Capra also appreciates Stuart Kauffman's "Recreating the Sacred" ideas.

From The Web of Life


Integrative science is a tool that this new, holistic perspective uses.
...and as this includes social considerations, ethical judgements, and long-term values, there may be room for some recognition for the values and ethics of religions.

To my way of thinking, the religions--like the sciences--are tools we use to try and understand reality.
None of them are reality, or perfectly describe reality; but they work well as tools to help us evolve.

~