Science could use a widespread PR shift

[The Bear's Key]

One reason people believe they "just have to" convince science of the existence of the supernatural is possibly due to many a reporter's claim that scientists have disputed its existence, or are skeptical of it.

 

However, I'm not convinced that many real scientists have claimed anything of the nature. The reporter probably either asked a wanna-be scientist, or did get a real scientist's opinion but presented it as a factual statement.

 

Or the reporter may have colorfully tweaked the answer, so the scientist's claim has been totally altered.

 

For example, a scientist's response might be "it's certainly not science" or "there is no evidence" -- you know, the typically logical response to a question such as "is there any scientific basis to the phenomenon?"

 

Of course they might really have meant, "no experiments have been conducted that follow the scientific method -- like producing observable results which have been verified, peer reviewed, and consistently tested by others. Because nothing is science that hasn't followed the strictest criteria necessitated by science to be labeled as science. It might be true/real for all we know, but it's not science."

 

But then, if the reporter misrepresented it as "that stuff is garbage, unscientific, no basis in reality, etc", any viewer who believes its possibility, might think it unfair of science to debunk anything that's not immediately logical.

 

However, such a viewer doesn't realize there's a fine distinction going on. Nobody's debunking the event, they're simply not mixing it with anything in science until it's passed the requirements that have been a discipline for centuries, and which enabled its stable growth into today's body of scientific knowledge.

 

I mean, wouldn't Einstein's contributions have gotten a big dose of skepticism if no maths had supported not only Eintein's claims but also previously established works?

 

In the link below is an example of a reporter claiming "scientists out there are skeptical and they say this is a sham". The vid is about farmers resorting to witchcraft, but you can imagine any documentary on religion, or the supernatural, etc, where the commentator says something similar.

 

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=11921090&ch=4226713&src=news

 

The vid helps imply that scientists consider the event, and perhaps others like it, unworthy of consideration -- and not for science, but for truth. If we're to bust this perception of what exactly science is and its purpose (which isn't to disprove the existence of something that it can't observe/detect), we have to define these and leave barely any room for misinterpretation.

 

The question arises: if religions, ghost hunters, and the supernatural believers didn't expect science to authenticate them, and if the science establishment discouraged certain physicist anti-supernatural book writers from giving the impression that science itself is out to disprove everything non-scientific (and their publishers weren't given much leeway to craft that impression either), wouldn't the entire problem become lessened overall?

 

Also if ID followers better knew what the scientific method really is for, and what the purpose of science really is (and what "theory" means in the context of science), far less of them might view ID as a legit alternative to science. Because in their current view, science is the enemy of the non-scientific (especially vs religion), thanks largely to the political commentators who drill out such nonsense. But if you hear a person spewing that nonsense, it's best to view them as -- unknowingly -- a secondary mouthpiece for the political commentator, and thus hopefully able to unpollute their reasoning after science has been redefined correctly.

 

Hardly anyone's to blame who says religion or the like is illogical, for there's been lots of harm caused by the associated establishments, thus it's probably our sensibilities lashing-out against a perceived injustice. But doing so in the context of science plays right into the hands of the scoundrels at fault. They desire a continual "us against them" perception going as fuel, especially when the science weakens their grip on the religious establishment and flocks in the network.

 

The weapon those against science most often use is getting to frame the debate. The way to pull the rug from under them is to define science, clarify its purpose, make this known widespread, and discourage the portrayal of science as a truth yardstick or a destroyer of the non-scientific.

 

And if you hear anyone claim something as being science which isn't, they're better educated by learning what science actually is than to be informed of how wrong their belief system is.

 

Lastly, keep in mind the "reverse" form of astroturfing where a scoundrel is disguised as the opposition (e.g. scientists), in this case to make them appear out to crush everything holy. Or they'll reengineer the sockpuppet trick to cheerlead anyone who makes science look a certain way (e.g. intolerant).

[Daecon]

Science's attitude to Religion can be summed up as: "Which God? Proof or STFU."

 

Religion's attitude to Science can be summed up as: "La-la-la I can't hear you."

[The Bear's Key]

Science's attitude to Religion can be summed up as: "Which God? Proof or STFU."

This might be ironic, but cite your references.

 

Religion's attitude to Science can be summed up as: "La-la-la I can't hear you."

Ditto for that.

 

You see, these very statements are unsceintific. Thus my point.

[Daecon]

Can "internet message boards" be used as a reference?

[The Bear's Key]

lol

[JohnB]

The problem is here.

The question arises: if religions, ghost hunters, and the supernatural believers

Lumping things together doesn't work. Ghost hunters aren't required to be religious, yet for some strange reason they all get lumped together.

 

Part of the problem is the word "Supernatural", I think. It is often given religious overtones it doesn't warrant. You can be an atheist and still believe in a supernatural entity. In that case, supernatural simply means that we can't detect or understand it yet.

 

"Supernatural" evolves. Today we put food into a box and it comes out hot, 200 years ago that would be supernatural.

 

Perhaps this is the area of discord between the groups. Acceptance of the "Supernatural" requires the belief that current understanding of the Universe falls far short of what there is to know. That there are great principles yet to be discovered.

 

To make it worse, sometimes we can see it, but we can't understand it. It's like an 8 year old can see a book on atomic physics, but can't understand it.

 

Maybe with a million years of evolution and thought, we will understand and those things that appear supernatural to us now will be no stranger than a microwave oven.

 

Perhaps the area of discord is simpler.

 

Consider the question; "Does science have all the answers?"

The sceptics (or those who talk to the media a lot) like to give the impression that the answer is "Yes". (Although with the rider that there are still some footnotes to be added, i's dotted and t's to be crossed.) For the believers the answer is "No". They believe that the great "Book of Physics" is going to be rewritten many times in the future.

 

This doesn't mean they believe the current laws are wrong, just that they are incomplete.

 

This can be demonstrated with some simple questions from the physical realm. We know that most of the Universe is composed of dark matter, presumably it is non baryonic in nature.

Is there only 1 type of dark matter? Or is the Universe composed of many different types, each with it own laws? Just by understanding what the stuff is and the laws it follows will change our interpretation of the known laws of physics. (Note, I said "interpretation")

 

If I have a kilo of dark matter on my table, what colour is it? Can I touch it? If it's invisible, is that what Wonder Womans 'plane is made out of?

 

AFAIK, our current laws can't give answers to these questions, and in that sense they are incomplete. Or maybe we'll find that what we think of as "Laws" only apply to the subset of matter called "baryonic"?

 

The stuff has always sounded pretty supernatural to me. But I believe, I have faith, that with thought, and persistance (and satisfactory funding:D) we will turn the "supernatural" into the "natural".

 

I fear I may not have expressed myself clearly, but I hope people get the idea.

[D H]

The question arises: if religions, ghost hunters, and the supernatural believers didn't expect science to authenticate them, and if the science establishment discouraged certain physicist anti-supernatural book writers from giving the impression that science itself is out to disprove everything non-scientific (and their publishers weren't given much leeway to craft that impression either), wouldn't the entire problem become lessened overall?

While some non-scientific beliefs do not conflict with science, many do. Example: There is a lot of fake medicine out there. These faux medical techniques can kill people, either outright or by keeping the victims away from the medical techniques that could have cured them. Should scientists refrain from debunking those techniques just because some people believe these non-scientific techniques work?

 

A lot of "religions, ghost hunters, and the supernatural believers" pretend to use science to authenticate their beliefs. They create evidence, ignore falsifying evidence, use every form of logical fallacy, all to justify their beliefs. Lying in the name of one's religion apparently is not a sin. Things like the Creation Museum damage science and society as a whole. Scientists have long learned that such garbage must be addressed.

 

Look at it this way: Suppose some unscrupulous scientist falsifies evidence or creates an out-and-out hoax (e.g., Igor and Grichka Bogdanov, Charles Dawson, Hwang Woo-Suk, ...). Scientific ethics demands that these hoaxes be thoroughly exposed rather than ignored. How does creating fake fossils for pure greed differ in any way from creating false evidence in favor of young earth creationism? Scientific hoaxes, whether religiously motivated or not, must be addressed.

[padren]

While some non-scientific beliefs do not conflict with science, many do. Example: There is a lot of fake medicine out there. These faux medical techniques can kill people, either outright or by keeping the victims away from the medical techniques that could have cured them. Should scientists refrain from debunking those techniques just because some people believe these non-scientific techniques work?

 

Well, first I think if someone makes a claim something is scientifically sound, then it is automatically open to scientific challenge. If someone wants to believe any given religious view, I personally don't mind - up until they start claiming that science supports their beliefs, at which point it's fair game. Same goes for people claiming scientific proof of alien UFOs, False Flag Ops, or alternative medicine. If someone makes the the claim x regarding an alternative medicine, (has been seen to cure xyz in n people... etc) that opens the door to pick apart that claim. If they say "I can cure cancer by hovering my hands over your body because of magical energies given to me by aliens" then that's a claim with only one testable element - is there any proof they cured cancer in any patients? The other parts are basically a belief that anyone listening should take with a grain of salt. It's pretty untestable but really it's immaterial. The claim they can cure cancer should be investigated because that's a material claim.

 

Now, if they don't claim they can cure cancer, just that if the Aliens consider the patient "worthy" that they'll cure him. Now there really isn't anything to test but at that point the claim is pretty moot. Anyone who puts their medical health in someone making that claim is pretty much "informed" because really, they are not making any false testable claims - just untestable claims that are likely false.

 

One point of contention - people who hold to a belief that does not originate from science, tend to be overly optimistic and overly biased towards their belief ultimately panning out scientific proof. Many "Young Earthers" still expect to find Noah's Ark or a fossil of a man riding a dinosaur or such, and believe even now their theories are fairly strong and "established science" is pretty weak simply because they are biased and don't realize how much evidence there is or how well it's been reviewed.

 

They'll have some small "sound bite" sized point of contention with say, evolution and simply don't understand that they decided to get into a scientific discussion when they raised the contention, and start to feel their beliefs are under attack when the refuting evidence is presented.

 

The second factor, is that many (especially in conspiracy theories, prophecy theory etc) believers that want to discuss things in a scientific manner often feel dismissed out of hand due to their claims being unpopular (hard to accept, etc), when it's really just their claims have no proof of a quality that can be part of a scientific discussion, and many people are just tired of repeating that all the time and prefer not to get into such discussions.

 

Thirdly, someone may never make a claim any of their beliefs are scientifically testable and still have their beliefs "attacked" - if they support legislation solely based on untestable beliefs. The moment law is involved (something we all have to live under, regardless of faith or lack thereof) many people feel "faith" is not a good enough reason to interfere with a citizen's life and demand evidence to the benefit, whereas others find it perfectly nature and even urgent to legislate based entirely on a religious belief.

 

 

Anyway, this is all the long way to say that science doesn't go looking to mess with anyone's beliefs, but it will make theoretical claims that contradict many people's beliefs, and the moment someone wants to use their beliefs to challenge that scientific claim, things can get ugly.

[The Bear's Key]

While some non-scientific beliefs do not conflict with science, many do. Example: There is a lot of fake medicine out there. These faux medical techniques can kill people, either outright or by keeping the victims away from the medical techniques that could have cured them. Should scientists refrain from debunking those techniques just because some people believe these non-scientific techniques work?

 

A lot of "religions, ghost hunters, and the supernatural believers" pretend to use science to authenticate their beliefs.....

I might've not expressed myself well, but I did cover those bases.

 

For example, a scientist's response might be "it's certainly not science" or "there is no evidence" --

Accurate, but surely many viewers don't interpret it as: "I'm not against people's beliefs -- just know science can't judge the untestable, as science is a record of calculations and testable predictions, able to be verified by many and consistent with previous records.

 

And because of that I'm unable to give it professional scrutiny."

 

The question arises: if religions, ghost hunters, and the supernatural believers didn't expect science to authenticate them, and if the science establishment discouraged certain physicist anti-supernatural book writers from giving the impression that science itself is out to disprove everything non-scientific.....

Debunking harmful, testable beliefs is good. But disproving everything that isn''t science falls out of the jurisdiction of its purpose.

 

The way to pull the rug from under them is to define science, clarify its purpose, make this known widespread, and discourage the portrayal of science as a truth yardstick or a destroyer of the non-scientific.

Sicence isn't about truth.

 

And if you hear anyone claim something as being science which isn't, they're better educated by learning what science actually is than to be informed of how wrong their belief system is.

People usually make better decisions given the factual variables, or worse decisions given political/invented ones.

 

You're right, it's ethical to denounce unethical practices. But I think padren explained better than me, on when it can be or should be done. If they make a scientific claim, then it's fair game. However, if it's not testable, don't use science to dispute it. A recognized scientist can precede their denouncement with "I say this as a concerned person, not as a scientist, because it's untestable." That might do wonders for how science is perceived in that instance.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Well, first I think if someone makes a claim something is scientifically sound, then it is automatically open to scientific challenge.

Bingo.

 

The second factor, is that many (especially in conspiracy theories, prophecy theory etc) believers that want to discuss things in a scientific manner.....

Why it's essential that more people know what science really is.

 

Thirdly, someone may never make a claim any of their beliefs are scientifically testable and still have their beliefs "attacked" - if they support legislation solely based on untestable beliefs.

And it's a highly discomforting issue. But that's a civil matter for the people to rise against, not for science to get involved or denounce -- unless claims against science are being made, or it's testable.

Edited February 9, 2009 by The Bear's Key
Consecutive posts merged.

[Sisyphus]

Part of the problem is the word "Supernatural", I think. It is often given religious overtones it doesn't warrant. You can be an atheist and still believe in a supernatural entity. In that case, supernatural simply means that we can't detect or understand it yet.

 

"Supernatural" evolves. Today we put food into a box and it comes out hot, 200 years ago that would be supernatural.

 

Perhaps this is the area of discord between the groups. Acceptance of the "Supernatural" requires the belief that current understanding of the Universe falls far short of what there is to know. That there are great principles yet to be discovered.

 

Really? That's not what I mean at all when I use the word "supernatural," and I'm pretty sure most people don't, either. A supernatural explanation is quite different from a naturalistic explanation that we don't yet understand. To me, anyway.

 

Consider the question; "Does science have all the answers?"

The sceptics (or those who talk to the media a lot) like to give the impression that the answer is "Yes". (Although with the rider that there are still some footnotes to be added, i's dotted and t's to be crossed.) For the believers the answer is "No". They believe that the great "Book of Physics" is going to be rewritten many times in the future.

 

I don't think anyone who actually knows what science is would claim that "science has all the answers." People who do might give that impression anyway, however, simply because science offers the best answers currently available. In other words, accepted science is not always right and is never really complete, but that doesn't make it not irrational to believe something directly contradictory to it.

[swansont]

The problem is here.

 

Lumping things together doesn't work. Ghost hunters aren't required to be religious, yet for some strange reason they all get lumped together.

 

Part of the problem is the word "Supernatural", I think. It is often given religious overtones it doesn't warrant. You can be an atheist and still believe in a supernatural entity. In that case, supernatural simply means that we can't detect or understand it yet.

 

"Supernatural" evolves. Today we put food into a box and it comes out hot, 200 years ago that would be supernatural.

 

But one isn't lumping ghost hunters in as a subset of religious, one is categorizing them as all believing in some supernatural power. And as far as supernatural goes, I think you have to distinguish between "science can't currently explain it" and "science can never explain it." I think supernatural is the latter, and not many are really positing that a deity or ghosts are examples of the former.

 

 

Consider the question; "Does science have all the answers?"

The sceptics (or those who talk to the media a lot) like to give the impression that the answer is "Yes". (Although with the rider that there are still some footnotes to be added, i's dotted and t's to be crossed.) For the believers the answer is "No". They believe that the great "Book of Physics" is going to be rewritten many times in the future.

 

I don't think that scientists, or skeptics, generally claim that science has all the answers. I think the claim is that given sufficient data, science could eventually figure out answers that fall within the scientific sphere. It's ideology in its various forms that claims to have all the answers.