Talk:Science

From Conservapedia

Science is not identical to physical science. The hard sciences like physics and chemistry may be physical sciences, but economics, sociology and psychology are also sciences. There's even a field of academic study called "political science". --Ed Poor ^Talk 17:37, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

How many articles have links to this article, with physical science being the intended destination? Philip J. Rayment 20:31, 10 July 2007 (EDT)

Albert Einstein was not a Christian. Perhaps we should explain more about his religious ideas. Did he ever come out as a full-fledged atheist, positively denying the existence of God? --Ed Poor ^Talk 12:17, 12 February 2008 (EST)

Wouldn't the Albert Einstein article be the place for that? Philip J. Rayment 01:00, 13 February 2008 (EST)

Einstein was a Jew, (BTW, why isn't there an article Judaism and Science?).

Question: why is it significant that many scientists are atheists. (It would have been just as accurate to say "many scientists are Christians/Jews/Buddhists/" etc.) DLerner 12:21, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

The significance would be that their atheism colours their science, such as rejecting God as a possible explanation of how we came to be. And I don't think that it would be "just" as accurate to say that many scientists are Buddhists. Some religions have greater representation than others. Philip J. Rayment 18:46, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Scientists before Christ

In regard to [1], Eratosthenes calculated the Earth's radius and Callippus calculated the length of a solar year. Drochld 19:51, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Does astronomy count? If so, you could use the entire Mayan civilization. Barikada 20:23, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

It might depend to some extent on what you call "science". See for example these quotes from a review of Rodney Stark's book[2]:

India, China, Persia, Greece and Rome all had venerable traditions of scholarship but why did only Christian Europe develop science?

The Greeks pursued learning with great zeal but there remained always a gap between their speculative philosophy and their observation.

These both indicate that science didn't exist before Christian Europe.

So were Eratosthenes' and Callippus' works not quite what we'd refer to as "science" (e.g. simply mathematical calculations rather than use of the 'scientific method'), or were they isolated exceptions to the rule?

Qualifying the scientists as "since Christ" seems a bit arbitrary. Perhaps we could change it to "Most of the early scientists of the modern scientific era who started many of the scientific fields...", although that seems a bit awkward to me. Or is it currently okay because "who started many of the scientific fields" is sufficient qualification?

What do you think?

Philip J. Rayment 20:35, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

I don't think it's accurate to say that they started the scientific fields in the modern era, so I would qualify the statement as "in the early modern scientific era", since nowadays, scientists are less likely to be religious than the public.

Regarding the Greeks, science has become more rigorous throughout history. See phrenology and race science, for example. I would be surprised if the beginning of any ancient scientific fields didn't start in superstition. Drochld 21:10, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

I'm not sure that science really has become more rigorous. Whilst some things like phrenology are no longer around, other areas, such as evolution, are as alive as ever.

Are you suggesting the following: "Most of the early scientists in the early modern scientific era who started many of the scientific fields...". That still seems a bit awkward or unnecessarily wordy for me. At the very least, I would drop the first use of the word "early" if we went with something like that.

Philip J. Rayment 22:42, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

I suggest "Most of the scientists in the early modern scientific era . . ." It's not clear that they started the fields they were investigating. Drochld 23:37, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Maybe we should also note that most Europeans and Americans at the time were also Christians. It puts into contrast the strange divide we see now. Drochld 23:41, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

I've been trying to figure out for a few days what I think of the suggested wording. I've decided that I don't like it (sorry). I think that the meaning of "early modern scientific era" is unclear. I'm now thinking that a better wording would be along the lines of "Most of the scientists from the scientific revolution to the 19th century...". Also, the claim about them starting the various scientific disciplines is essentially correct (the first scientists in the fields are pretty-well by definition the founders of those fields).

Researcher Rodney Stark, apparently an agnostic, researched this issue. The following is from a review of one of hist books:

To illustrate the role of Christians in the rise of science, Stark researched ‘scientific stars’ from 1543 to 1680, the era usually designated as the ‘scientific revolution’, and came up with a list of the top 52. Of these, 26 were Protestant and 26 Catholic; 15 of them were English, 9 French, 8 Italian, 7 German (the rest were Dutch, Danish, Flemish, Polish and Swedish respectively). Only one was a sceptic (Edmund Halley) and one (Paracelsus) was a pantheist. The other 50 were Christians, 30 at least of which could be characterized as ‘devout’ because of their evident zeal. It is not until the time of Darwin that atheism appeared to accomplish anything significant in science (Halley’s work in astronomy and mathematics owed no debt to atheism).[3]

Philip J. Rayment 09:09, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

I like "scientific revolution", and I don't think the naturalistic theory of evolution is a significant finding. It seems more like an way to justify atheism.

What's wrong with kicking back and marveling and the intricate patterns in the world God created for us? Why all the distrust and fear? --Ed Poor ^Talk 09:13, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Distrust and fear? More like a "willing ignorance", because they don't want there to be a God to whom they are answerable.

Regarding evolution, the quote continues with "And the obvious flaw in Darwinism is that it ‘falls notably short of explaining the origin of species’ (p. 177). So atheism is left nakedly ideological, with all its attempts to wrap itself in science thwarted." Also, there is a footnote which adds "By attributing the appearance of design to natural selection, Darwin replaced this argument for the existence of God with a naturalistic process. His argument was flawed, however, in that natural selection can only select from things that already exist so it does not explain the origin of the created kinds".

Philip J. Rayment 09:20, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

This appeal to authority is not impressive. And I'm all for marveling at the patterns of the world... but marveling is not science!-PhoenixWright 09:25, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Why do you consider it unimpressive? Philip J. Rayment 09:31, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

A quote does not the truth make. Argument ought not be throwing sources at one another all day. Further it's from a biased source. Anyways, I have to go, but keep that in mind.-PhoenixWright 09:37, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

No, a quote does not make the truth, but research can, in principle, establish the truth, and that is what Stark did. So what's the problem? And how is the source biased? And what sources would be unbiased? Philip J. Rayment 09:47, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Okay, let's go into it further. The source is biased - CreationOnTheWeb - because it professes to be a scientific group with an agenda. The world's dominant mind on the philosophy of science, had this to say about agenda'd science -

“

The scientist must, for example, be concerned to solve problems about the behavior of nature.... More important, the solutions that satisfy him may not be merely personal but must instead be accepted as solutions by many.... One of the strongest, if still unwritten, rules of scientific life is the prohibition of appeals to heads of state or to the populace at large in matters scientific.

”

"Structure of Scientific Revolutions," p. 168. See, I have quotes too. That suggests that one ought to distrust a scientist with an agenda, who, by assuming an agenda, becomes no scientist at all. That makes me doubt anything arising within the "Journal of Creation."

Moving on, though, the analysis of the quotes has no context. The quoter takes "falls notably short of explaining the origin of species," out of context, so I have no way of verifying the quote short of buying the book, which I assume you haven't done.-PhoenixWright 09:59, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

The source is a book review of a book that is by someone who is apparently an agnostic, and certainly not someone who works for CMI (Creation Ministries International). You're shooting the messenger. Second, CMI (the organisation; you named the web-site) does not profess to be a scientific group. They profess to be a Christian ministry that employs scientists and does its best to make its articles, etc. scientifically accurate. Yes, they have an agenda, just as almost everyone does, including atheists like Richard Dawkins and Eugenie Scott. But that doesn't mean that their science is faulty, nor that they have ceased to be scientists. Rather, you are engaging in the genetic fallacy: finding fault with the source rather than the argument. As for your quote, it doesn't refute anything I've said, but it's an interesting coincidence that the very person that you've been accused of being a sockpuppet of quoted me that book a few days ago. But as you're repeating, I'll repeat: Questioning the source of a claim rather than the claim itself is fallacious. It is clear that most mainstream journals also have agendas (for evolution, etc.), so do you distrust them also? I didn't think so. The fallacy of taking a quote out of context is one of removing it from its context in such a way as to change the meaning. As you have not read the book, you have no basis for claiming that it is out of context. Philip J. Rayment 10:27, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Thomas Kuhn is wildly popular among scientific and enlightened individuals, and he's widely taught in most colleges' humanities courses. I would call that no coincidence; I'm sure that, just like the person of whom I'm an alleged sockpuppet, I've gone to the bathroom in the last 24 hours :-).

Also, have you read the book :-) ?-PhoenixWright 10:36, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

It's not a coincidence? There is a connection? So you are him? And here I was prepared to put it down to (an interesting) coincidence!

No, I haven't read Kuhn's book. How many and what creationist books, magazines, and/or journals have you read?

Philip J. Rayment 10:55, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Oops! Sorry

Sorry for the misstatemet Philip. I meant to say "that is a coincidence." forgive me. I also meant to ask if you'd read Stark, not Kuhn, but I do commend Kuhn to your attention.-PhoenixWright 11:14, 13 March 2008 (EDT)

Removal of quotes

TheGySom removed a couple of quotes with the edit comment Since articles are not collections of quotes, a start, and I agree that articles should be more than a collection of quotes. However, in doing so, he's removed the points that the quotes were making. This I don't agree with. Further, the replacement "basis of science" section is talking about its principles, not the basis for it. Philip J. Rayment 23:00, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

Could you please clarify a little. I removed the first quote because it belongs in the Christians and Science article, not this one. The second quote seemed to state that the basis of science was an orderly universe, and that this was proof of a Creator. This doesn't really talk about the basis or need for science, although I will admit that I was incorrect in replacing it with the principles of science. How about renaming the section "Principles of Science", and we can try creating a "Basis of Science" section without relying on quotes? TheGySom 23:10, 25 March 2008 (EDT)

There is no Christians and Science article, but I'm happy for the first quote to be left out of this article, for now at least. The second quote did indeed state that the basis of science was an orderly universe. It did not say that this was proof of a Creator. You will note some discussion above about the multiplicity of science articles; I think that natural science should be merged back into this one. It has more on this issue of the basis of science. But the quote did talk about the basis of science: without the basis, derived from the Bible, of believing that the universe was orderly, science as we know it would not have come into existence.

Also, although I agree that an article should not comprise only or primarily quotes, it is quite useful and appropriate to include quotes, and this one is worth including, I believe. Philip J. Rayment 01:41, 26 March 2008 (EDT)