Biologists are the maddest

[CharonY]

At least according to This.

 

Though I do not understand why they split neurobiology from biology proper.

[Sisyphus]

Hmm. We're also at a big spike in mad pseudoscientists.

[ewmon]

I'd vote for Mathematicians if they were included.

[Mr Skeptic]

Well the original mad scientists were the chemists, they were mad as a hatter (who also used mercury). Now we try to avoid tasting, touching, or smelling random chemicals, and have the equipment so that we don't need to. Having made some progress into biology, we can now "play god" with it. Since there is a lot of overlap with chemistry, that makes it the perfect fit.

[ajb]

I'd vote for Mathematicians if they were included.

I second that as I am "mad, quite mad "...

[Darwinsbulldog]

I don't know about mad, but physicists and mathematicians are the most deluded. They think that life can be reduced to a formula. Biologists are the sanest, even though they use some maths, they are not obsessed with it.

[CharonY]

This is very much an oversimplification of the issue and I have to add that biologists would do very well by taking lessons from other methodologies.

[ajb]

I don't know about mad, but physicists and mathematicians are the most deluded. They think that life can be reduced to a formula.

 

I don't know if every aspect of human life can be modelled, but one cannot deny the power of mathematics in describing the physical world.

[Darwinsbulldog]

I don't know if every aspect of human life can be modelled, but one cannot deny the power of mathematics in describing the physical world.

I agree. Except I was not just talking about human life, but all life. More physicists and mathematicians seem to subscribe to creationism. Biologists seldom do, at least not the good ones. There is Michael Behe, of course, but I don't rate him highly.

[ajb]

More physicists and mathematicians seem to subscribe to creationism.

 

More that biologists?

 

I doubt many physicists or mathematicians do in fact subscribe to creationism.

[D H]

I agree. Except I was not just talking about human life, but all life. More physicists and mathematicians seem to subscribe to creationism.

Citation needed.

 

Here's one study that shows just the opposite: Ecklund, Elaine Howard, and Christopher P. Scheitle, “Religion among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics,” Social Problems, 54(2): 289-307, 2007. Amongst the natural sciences, physicists are second only to biologists when it comes to disbelief or doubt about the existence of a god.

 

 

It's chemists and engineers who tend to be the woo-woos.

[Genecks]

[iNow]

Citation needed.

 

Your interpretation was, in fact, closer to the truth. Chemist and engineers tend more to be woo woos, indeed.

 

 

 

http://people-press.org/report/528/

http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=474

 

Levels of religious faith among scientists vary quite a bit depending on their specialty and age. Chemists, for instance, are more likely to believe in God (41%) than those who work in biology and medicine (32%).

 

 

 

And here are a few neat breakdowns:

 

 

 

 

 

 

However, while roughly 80% of americans believe in god, only about 30% of scientists do.

 

http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/god-and-country/2009/07/16/pew-survey-a-huge-god-gap-between-scientists-and-other-americans

[CharonY]

Actually that poll above is somewhat faulty as it conflates biologists with people from the medical field. The latter tend to be more religious. (Though it does make the point that physicist tend to be less religious than chemists).

I recall a survey from 1998 by the NAS (which therefore consisted of well-established "famous" scientists) in which the believe in god was highest in mathematicians (low double digits), the lowest in biologists (around 5) and physicists a tick higher.Though it is possible that they also conflated disciplines.

Edited October 10, 2010 by CharonY

[D H]

Note well: The poll that iNow cited queried scientists about their belief in god. Similarly, the article that I cited queried scientists about whether they were religious. Neither polled scientists about creationism, particularly young Earth creationism.

 

There are plenty of biologists who reconcile their understanding of evolution with their religious beliefs. The same goes for religious geologists and their understanding of the Earth, religious cosmologists and their understanding of the origin of the universe, religious archeologists and their understanding of the ascent of man, and so on. Just because a scientist is religious does not mean they ascribe to the nonsense of young Earth creationism.

[pioneer]

Chemistry is one of the most fundamental sciences associated with the broadest view of hard reality. Without chemistry, in the form of organic chemistry, biology would still be stuck at cataloging without any logical chemical mechanism to explain anything. But chemistry is more than just O-chem. There are many areas of chemistry, such as physical chemistry that interfaces chemistry with what is now the floor of physics; early physics. The chemist has a wider view of reality, yet ironically is not counting out religion, like the narrower view of biology.

 

Engineers are connected to practical reality. The sciences needed to maintain connection to practical reality need to be the firmest science. The engineer needs to produce results that are not only repeatable but subject to scale-up. The engineer has little need for science with levels of subjectivity. One will not see engineers using Darwinism in practice, since it is not firm enough to extrapolate into hard practical reality. It is not like chemistry which is widely used since it can scale up. This objectivity, to needs of hard reality, tends to make engineers less anti-religious.

 

The two areas that are less likely to deny religion, also have the firmest grasp of hard and practical reality. Those which are more likely to deny, tend to use the subjectivities of theoretical and empirical science. This adds their own religion effect.

Edited October 10, 2010 by pioneer

[Mr Skeptic]

What I find more interesting about that graph is that the older folks from back when we were more religious... aren't.

[ajb]

Not looking at any statistics, just based on my personal experiences...

 

I know some very religious mathematicians and physicists (both Christian and Islamic). I am sure that in any field of scientific enquiry you will find this. Even then, this does not necessarily mean they believe in creationism as opposed to evolution in a very literal sense. As DH points out they find ways to reconcile the two. Though I must stress, I tend to avoid asking about religion when working with people. Less stress and arguments that way!

[iNow]

What I find more interesting about that graph is that the older folks from back when we were more religious... aren't.

Bear in mind that (if I'm reading correctly) the population sample is comprised of scientists only, which means that the effect we see with age might not apply to the population in general. What I see from that metric is that the longer a person has spent in a life of rational thinking, scrutiny of claims, evidence based thinking, and simply doing science in general... The more likely they are to reject the religions around them. In short, the more time you've been a scientist the less compelling become religion and claims of deities.

 

That's my interpretation, anyway. I could be mistaken with this conjecture.

 

---

 

 

As DH points out they find ways to reconcile the two. Though I must stress, I tend to avoid asking about religion when working with people. Less stress and arguments that way!

Yes. I totally agree. One should restrict workplace conversations to the domains of sex and politics.

 

---

 

 

The chemist has a wider view of reality, yet ironically is not counting out religion, like the narrower view of biology.

 

Engineers are connected to practical reality.

 

<...>

 

The two areas that are less likely to deny religion, also have the firmest grasp of hard and practical reality.

I've read a lot of bullshit this week, but the above rises to the top. What utter hogwash, pioneer. That's sort of your standard operating procedure, though, so I cannot say I'm surprised.

[Darwinsbulldog]

Citation needed.

 

Here's one study that shows just the opposite: Ecklund, Elaine Howard, and Christopher P. Scheitle, "Religion among Academic Scientists: Distinctions, Disciplines, and Demographics," Social Problems, 54(2): 289-307, 2007. Amongst the natural sciences, physicists are second only to biologists when it comes to disbelief or doubt about the existence of a god.

 

 

It's chemists and engineers who tend to be the woo-woos.

 

True, chemists and engineers are the worst. Mathematicians that I know of also. And the odd physicist. Even one creationist cretin is one too many if they have been awarded a PhD in any science. I am going on anecdotal and personal information, and on encounters on forums like RDF and Rational Skeptics.

[ajb]

Mathematicians that I know of also. And the odd physicist.

 

I have a PhD in pure mathematics (in mathematical physics really), so now you know one mathematician that does not subscribe to creationism

[Darwinsbulldog]

I have a PhD in pure mathematics (in mathematical physics really), so now you know one mathematician that does not subscribe to creationism

 

Very good to know!

[ajb]

Though I am thinking about converting to Norse mythology. Once I started to read about it, it spoke to me and just makes sense somehow. I can feel the presence of Odin's raven watching over me.

 

The natural beauty and order in the universe (all 9 of them) is not due to the physical laws, mathematics and chance, but due to the ancient war between Giants and Gods.

 

No matter what you say or scientific evidence you provide, which is just Loki messing with us anyway I will simply say due to the war.

 

Now can anyone prove I am wrong?

[Darwinsbulldog]

Though I am thinking about converting to Norse mythology. Once I started to read about it, it spoke to me and just makes sense somehow. I can feel the presence of Odin's raven watching over me.

 

The natural beauty and order in the universe (all 9 of them) is not due to the physical laws, mathematics and chance, but due to the ancient war between Giants and Gods.

 

No matter what you say or scientific evidence you provide, which is just Loki messing with us anyway I will simply say due to the war.

 

Now can anyone prove I am wrong?

 

Whatever rocks your boat. Believe or not believe. And yet you are making claims about nature....that natural beauty and order etc are not due to natural processes, but supernatural ones. Also, absolute proof or disproof in science is probably impossible. [To make an absolute claim, you would have to have absolute knowledge. ] But i think you are pulling my leg!

 

And the beauty thing? yes there is beauty, but also ugliness in nature. If there are god, they are probably cunts. A "benevolent god" certainly dreamed up this monster:-

 

http://www.suite101.com/content/isopod-parasite-eats-fish-tongue-a148659

Then again, it is only doing it's thing...natural selection and all that.

[ajb]

Also, absolute proof or disproof in science is probably impossible. [To make an absolute claim, you would have to have absolute knowledge. ]

 

I agree with that. One can only really supply evidence in the form of experimental\observational data that supports a theory or more importantly does not disagree with a proposed theory.

 

For example, we have no experimental evidence that quantum mechanics is not realised in nature. There is no experiment that disagrees with the mathematical predictions no matter how strange. However, some physicists feel that some modification will be required when dealing with strong gravitational fields. Even with this modification put in place, no-one is going to claim that quantum mechanics has been disproved.

 

 

But i think you are pulling my leg!

 

Indeed.

 

However, can one really prove that the universe (all 9 of them if we believe in the Viking myth ) was not created by gods fighting with giants?

 

I think not. More importantly the question is phrased wrong. Can we provide any evidence that supports this particular creation myth? I am no expert in Viking mythology, but if the myth provides testable predictions then we have a hope of examining it scientifically. Lets say, for example that something like the 9 worlds of Viking mythology were discovered. (Lets forget how etc.) This could be taken as supporting evidence.

 

We have no hope of proving that these 9 worlds do not exist. Not finding them is not the same as saying they do not exist. So we cannot disprove the Viking myth by not finding the evidence.

 

We could disprove the myth by finding something that is not consistent with the myth. Say, 10 worlds. The myth either would require modification and I see no reason why this is not a valid option or complete abandonment.

 

 

And the beauty thing? yes there is beauty, but also ugliness in nature.

 

To me the beauty lies in the fact that nature seems very mathematical.

 

 

If there are god, they are probably *****.

 

I cannot condone swearing on this forum. But I agree with the sentiment.

 

A "benevolent god" certainly dreamed up this monster:-

 

http://www.suite101.com/content/isopod-parasite-eats-fish-tongue-a148659

Then again, it is only doing it's thing...natural selection and all that.

 

Please ask your local vicar to explain this.

 

Very informally a "god" to me is more like a metaphor for "gap in our understanding". Accepting we do not know everything is not a weakness nor a reason to invoke supernatural beings.

 

Anyway, as I said I do not myself subscribe to any creation myth based on gods, though I like the Viking one . The notion of a god is very clearly a "manmade" notion. Of course all notions in physics are manmade, but should come from observations of nature. The notion of a god seems not to really add much to our understanding of the world. Therefore I see little reason to invoke such a notion.