Based upon all of my past discussions of the last ten years or so, I would have to say that scientists--not theologians--are the most arrogant and illogical fellows thus far.
"Science types" like to think of themselves as the owners of empirical knowledge, but just listen to what they so often say. Nothing of it is either empirical or particularly knowledgeable. And yet when I make such an assertion, they will balk aloud with nonsensical complaints.
Bring it on, ye who claim to know but do not! Simply being able to identify mitochondria and to distinguish mitosis from meiosis does not make you a wise man. Your philosophy is like the vacuole: quiet suitable for non-thinking vegetation, but not valuable for the thinking man.
Science without the scientific method is not science. It is pseudo-science at best. It is the offspring of phrenology--a fine hypothesis, were it not for all the facts against it.
I disagree on many counts with your statements. It is true that scientific laws are based on repeatable experiments. However many of the questions we ask as humans are unsolvable in a lab. Should we not ask the questions? Should we not try to interpret the data we have available to us to try and make sense of the universe around us? How do we create a supernova in a laboratory? We can't, it is impossible. We can use computer simulations but those could be skewed by human error. We have to scour the skies for evidence of these explosions and collect as much data as we can. Each piece of data allows us to construct a clearer picture of the universe. Are some of our scientific theories complete garbage? I'm sure some are, but we go on based on the evidence we have and we try to construct the best theories based on that evidence. A good example of that is the recent demotion of Pluto. We had to reevaluate our definitions of a planet based on the number of new Pluto-sized objects we have found in our solar system. Just because we can not experiment in a lab doesn't make it not science. As long as you make observations objectively and try not to let your personal bias warp your theories you can be doing science.
ReplyDeleteKind of off topic, but based on how well I know you I find it funny that you consider anyone else arrogant.
Of course the aforementioned questions should be asked. However, they should not be considered science. When done well, such studies are quasi-scientific and quite useful to humanity. When done poorly, such studies are pseudo-scientific and quite damaging to humanity.
ReplyDeleteAs for you latter comment about my arrogance, I can offer no self-defense. However, my arrogance has never caused legislation that will ruin businesses, lead to unnecessary job losses, and have just a generally poor affect on the economy (e.g. California's new green house gas law).
Scientist arrogance hasn't caused that either. The crazy legislatures who think they can fix education by enacting laws that say every child must learn at the same rate did that. Kind of off topic, but how will the U.S. ever catch up to the rest of the world in math and science if we keep holding the best and brightest back so the slow kids don't feel bad about themselves.
ReplyDelete