Submitted by Elaine Magliaro, Weekend Contributor
Last week, I wrote a post titled “Cosmos” Host Neil deGrasse Tyson Speaks Out about the News Media, Flat Earthers, Science Deniers, Climate Change Skeptics, Religion, and Dogma. Tyson—an astrophysicist, director of the Natural History Museum’s Hayden Planetarium in New York City, and the host of Fox Networks’ new science series Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey—appeared on a multi-part series on Moyers and Company in January. Tyson and Bill Moyers explored a variety of topics—including the nature of an expanding, accelerating universe (and how it might end), the difference between “dark energy” and “dark matter,” the concept of God in cosmology and why science matters.
In the final episode of the series—which I’ve posted below the fold—the two men discuss science literacy and why it’s so critical to the future of our democracy, our economy, and our country’s standing in the world. Their discussion lasts about twenty minutes.
“Science is an enterprise that should be cherished as an activity of the free human mind. Because it transforms who we are, how we live, and it gives us an understanding of our place in the universe.”
~ Neil deGrasse Tyson
********************
~ Submitted by Elaine Magliaro
The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other weekend bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.
Do we need science? Yes, but we must remember that a great deal of science is theory, with no substantial proof. We have scientists spouting new theories all the time in order to win recognition, notoriety, and financial security.
Christians/Creationist question many of their theories, and with good reason. Many scientist are found to be wrong in their hypothesis. Some of them go years before realizing that their theory is wrong.
For example, look at Stephen Hawking–For years he was awarded notoriety for his Black Hole theory, which recently he recanted and said he was wrong.
From Popsci.com . Stephen Hawking has a big announcement. No, it’s not that aliens exist or that humans won’t survive another 1,000 years on Earth. The physicist claims, in a paper posted online Wednesday, that the idea of an event horizon—the point of no return at a black hole—conflicts with quantum theory. With no event horizons, there are no black holes, according to Hawking.
“There is no escape from a black hole in classical theory,” Hawking told Nature News. Quantum theory, however, “enables energy and information to escape from a black hole.” Instead of an event horizon, Hawking’s new paper proposes a so-called apparent horizon, which would suck in matter and eventually spit it out in a much different form. Hawking says trying to predict what this matter will be like would be like trying to predict the weather: possible, but very difficult to do.
Science is NOT one singular body of knowledge and it shouldn’t be. There are too many scientists who agree with a certain body of scientists that proclaim a certain theory and ride on their coat tails, backing the proclamation, as if it’s some good ole’ boys club. That’s like the Hans Christian Anderson story of the “Kings New Clothes.” One scientist says it and all the others agree.
Science needs to be many bodies of knowledge proving and disproving a hypothesis and theory.
The science touting atheists/agnostics on this site seem to think that agreeing with every scientific method makes them more intelligent and “open minded,” than one who claims to be a Christian. But all I see is more closed minded comments. How preposterous!
Just for the record, there is no fairness doctrine any more. That’s why we have Fox news.
And don’t forget the canaries…
Sea Star Wasting Syndrome
http://www.eeb.ucsc.edu/pacificrockyintertidal/data-products/sea-star-wasting/
And before the loss of the scallops…
West Coast sardine crash could radiate throughout ecosystem
http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/05/local/la-me-sardine-crash-20140106
Acidic waters killing off millions of scallops along the West Coast
Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/acidic-waters-killing-off-millions-of-scallops-along-the-west-coast-1.1732028#ixzz2woKnG8Pu
NOAA Ocean Acidification Demonstration
What Chuck said!
Nick, in all seriousness, I walk with most here on most issues. Where I depart from the majority is on this one. I think I’m open while many think I must be narrow. And the fight goes on. And my wife is unhappy that I’m blogging in church. Gotta go.
Tony, A churchgoer here is more rare than an honest politician.
Selective retrieval is unprofessional and rude. Are Darren or raff available to help folks? I have none stuck, I’m speaking for the other back benchers.
Charlton S. Stanley, PhD, ABBP, I’m on my way to church at the moment. I’ll read the case later and respond. Thanks.
Tony Vieira sez: “The notion that science is a singular body of knowledge that speaks with one voice and answers all questions of physical reality accurately is nonsense.”
***************************************
That is a true statement. If science was static with all the answers to everything, there would be no need for ongoing research, more professional journals, or continuing education.
It is also true there are people who will testify to all kinds of things for a fee. Some may believe what they say, and others are just venal and dance to the tune of “who brung them to the dance.”
However, there are many things that have been proven to be true, and are only called theories because every last detail has not yet been identified. A scientific theory is different than an unprovable philosophical theory. I wonder how a creationist would fare under a rigorous Daubert based cross-examination? Oh wait. That has already happened.
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School Dist., 400 F. Supp. 2d 707
T.V. claims “The notion that science is a singular body of knowledge that speaks with one voice and answers all questions of physical reality accurately is nonsense.”
Except this is not the function of science. A conversation requires another listener — you — and you are not required to listen. Nor are you required to accept even so much as one scientific principle. The modern era — constructed based on science — will continue to hum along, so believe whatever you like.
T.V. claims, “The notion that there is a singular and generic scientific method that applies to all disciplines, except in the most vague and therefore meaningless sense, is also nonsense.”
Who has made this claim? Science certainly doesn’t. If you want to talk about spiritual matters, the language of science creates many conflicts for those who proceed from belief. This is not the fault of science, which you are free to ignore.
If you are looking to science for answers, you are on the wrong path. Science is about the questioning.
Religion is mocked on this blog on a weekly basis at least, and, of course, the target is almost always Christianity. The ammo for this mockery is purportedly found in the fruits of the “scientific method” anthropomorphically speaking with a unified voice as it reveals to us the truth of physical reality.
I am a trial lawyer and have done this work exclusively for nearly 25 years. I have litigated and tried tobacco, asbestos, hormone replacement therapy, benzene, beryllium, med mal, and many many murder cases. In this time I’ve tried more than 300 cases to verdict.
My experience, therefore, is in the day-to-day testing of the veracity of truth claims and in particular “scientific” truth claims. I know the things that I’ve seen.
Over this entire time I have dealt with scientific questions. I have seen biased and lying PhD after biased and lying PhD. I have seen each lay claim to the “scientific method.” On each each occasion experts take the stand and claim that their side is the side doing “good science” and that their side is the side following “the scientific method” – and each side comes to opposing conclusions. This same dynamic extends outside the courtroom and into the peer reviewed journals and them into the textbooks. I see this as I see these same experts cherry pick what research they choose to “believe” and as I see large corporations fund “fund” researchers and journals in order to ensure the “scientific” validation of a predetermined agenda. Bias and perversion and agenda driving what you all would call objective science.
The notion that science is a singular body of knowledge that speaks with one voice and answers all questions of physical reality accurately is nonsense.
The notion that there is a singular and generic scientific method that applies to all disciplines, except in the most vague and therefore meaningless sense, is also nonsense.
David2575 claims, “His method of indoctrination is dependent upon censorship of critics.”
Except creationism is not science. So there is literally nothing to criticize. Further, name one critic that has been silenced? Not being invited to one show is not being “censored.” How many more churches are needed to project your level of whining about it? Dr. Tyson has but one office.
It’s like having a debate between the AFC East of the NFL vs Mascera by Maybelene. Your complaints register as making zero sense.
You’re just upset that fewer and fewer take creationism seriously. You’re irritated because government will not promote the bully you need to institutionally knock other people down so you can “believe.” That bully is fleeing the stage.
It’s as transparent as air, David.
James Knauer wrote: “Except creationism is not science. So there is literally nothing to criticize.”
I was talking about the censorship of critics of evolutionary theory, not creationist theory. Surely you are not suggesting that theories of evolution are not science and therefore not subject to criticism?
As for creationism being science, any empirical evidence suggestive of a creator that is potentially falsifiable is science. I would say that young earth theories of origins fall into this camp because several empirical clocks seem to falsify them if we accept the commonly accepted assumptions about these methods. If science is able to falsify this tenet of a Young Earth, then the Young Earth model is subject to empirical testing and is scientific by the commonly accepted Popperian definition of science.
James Knauer wrote: “Further, name one critic that has been silenced?”
Robert Gentry for one. Have you ever watched Ben Stein’s movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed? He interviews several. Positivists are not open to creationist interpretations of data. Who could possibly doubt this bias in science?
James Knauer wrote: “You’re just upset that fewer and fewer take creationism seriously. You’re irritated because government will not promote the bully you need to institutionally knock other people down so you can “believe.””
I’m not upset or irritated about anything. I just like honest discussions that are not dismissive of information because the questions being asked are difficult to answer. For me, I am deeply interested in the truth. I like the question of origins and am open to rational viewpoints based upon empirical studies from all sides.
Draft of 3/31/14 IPCC Climate Change Report
davidm2575
Dredd wrote: “The majority of churchianity believes that the universe or cosmos was created less than 10,000 years ago and that evolution did not, does not, and will not happen.”
I doubt most of “churchianity” believes the cosmos was created less than 10,000 years ago. The seminaries are stronger advocates for evolution than the scientists are.
…
======================
I posted replies that WordMess ate without even burping up a trail for Elaine to follow.
So here is all I can recover from what I posted:
(A Survey of Clergy and Their Views on Origins, emphasis added). Generally congregations go to a specific church because they agree with the teachings and beliefs of the pastorate.
Dredd wrote: “So here is all I can recover from what I posted: Overall, while a slight majority of the pastors surveyed fall under the label of Young Earth Creationism (54%), sizeable portions of clergy accept Progressive Creation (15%) and Theistic Evolution (18%).”
If you look at the actual survey results, 35% expressed doubt about Young Earth Creationism. Only 19% were actually Young Earth Creationists. The 54% number is playing a little loose with the definitions. Also, 743 telephone interviews is not a very big sample, and usually not very scientific in terms of random sampling methodology. I suspect they focused more upon certain Protestant denominations and were less thorough toward including Orthodox and Catholic priests. Notice their use of the word “pastors” instead of priests. Furthermore, it focused upon pastors and not those churched individuals sitting in the pews. So I still remain skeptical that the majority of the churched are young earth creationists. Nevertheless, numbers in the 40% is rather high considering the censorship and discrimination of the creationist framework from the public school system.
RTC,
Elaine M.
Dredd,
I went through ten pages of the spam filter but didn’t find either of your comments.
==============
It was ~3.5 hours before your search that I first complained, so WordMess wins again.
Stuff happens.
I meant that was all I had stuck in the filter, Elaine. Thanks again, and thanks for another great post.