• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why Science is not Controversial

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
In the long run it isn't.

As the common understanding changes, so does scientific opinion. Good science depends upon common understanding of repeatable measurements and calculations. Therefore it appeals to large groups of people. Over time it tends to appeal to everybody, because it depends upon common agreement about what is seen. That is its strength. At the heart if it is common access to laboratory information, calculations and reasoning along with people willing to look at and attempt to reproduce results.

What about new developments? They tend to be controversial at first until they have achieved either common acceptance or rejection. This can take a long time, or it can progress quickly.

Often new developments are overlooked and forgotten. One person writes up a paper and does some experiments, but they lack the notoriety to inspire interest or cannot find anyone with the expertise to check their work.

What about state supported research? This is a weakness. When the government is behind something it can cause problems. Sometimes politics interferes with science.

What about industry? Industry has its share of corrupt research.

What about Church sponsored work? Its mostly useless. Churches have long been antagonists and underminers of science. Their comments do not inspire interest. Churches are primarily interested in keeping science from affecting themselves, so they do not really participate in the process. They like everything to continue unchanging.

What about Universities with their hugely wasteful micro-economies? They are nothing new. Back in the days of Isaac Newton the universities were approximately just as corrupt, favoring wealthy students. The only difference today is the scale. Science has an advantage, because it actually can result in products that the universities can patent. It also results in usable bachelor's degrees, so to a large degree it is insulated from a lot of the problems caused by university bloat. That's how I see that.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
In the long run it isn't.

As the common understanding changes, so does scientific opinion. Good science depends upon common understanding of repeatable measurements and calculations. Therefore it appeals to large groups of people. Over time it tends to appeal to everybody, because it depends upon common agreement about what is seen. That is its strength. At the heart if it is common access to laboratory information, calculations and reasoning along with people willing to look at and attempt to reproduce results.

What about new developments? They tend to be controversial at first until they have achieved either common acceptance or rejection. This can take a long time, or it can progress quickly.

Often new developments are overlooked and forgotten. One person writes up a paper and does some experiments, but they lack the notoriety to inspire interest or cannot find anyone with the expertise to check their work.

What about state supported research? This is a weakness. When the government is behind something it can cause problems. Sometimes politics interferes with science.

What about industry? Industry has its share of corrupt research.

What about Church sponsored work? Its mostly useless. Churches have long been antagonists and underminers of science. Their comments do not inspire interest. Churches are primarily interested in keeping science from affecting themselves, so they do not really participate in the process. They like everything to continue unchanging.

What about Universities with their hugely wasteful micro-economies? They are nothing new. Back in the days of Isaac Newton the universities were approximately just as corrupt, favoring wealthy students. The only difference today is the scale. Science has an advantage, because it actually can result in products that the universities can patent. It also results in usable bachelor's degrees, so to a large degree it is insulated from a lot of the problems caused by university bloat. That's how I see that.
The problem is that "science" like "pc" or "sjw" is being named as an opponent in controversy. The assumption is that science is the opposing side and is villified. There is a fight against intellectualism underway, and that makes science to some as controversial. I agree that science should not be controversial, I am worried that over time it will appeal to less because of the emotional responses and the high level of villification.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
The problem is that "science" like "pc" or "sjw" is being named as an opponent in controversy. The assumption is that science is the opposing side and is villified. There is a fight against intellectualism underway, and that makes science to some as controversial. I agree that science should not be controversial, I am worried that over time it will appeal to less because of the emotional responses and the high level of villification.
Much as technologists are vilified by aristocrats throughout history, you can expect Science to be opposed by religious lords. That is war not controversy if you ask me. They oppose both sound religion and Science, not because they are confused but because it threatens their hope for a hegemony that they must never be allowed to have again.
 

Curious George

Veteran Member
Much as technologists are vilified by aristocrats throughout history, you can expect Science to be opposed by religious lords. That is war not controversy if you ask me. They oppose both sound religion and Science, not because they are confused but because it threatens their hope for a hegemony that they must never be allowed to have again.
I don't think of it as just the religious. I think there are chunks of society irrespective of religious beliefs that are attacking intellectualism and science.
 

sun rise

The world is on fire
Premium Member
Science as such is a method for determining how the world works. There are, as was pointed out, disagreements amongst researchers about new theories as they emerge and are tested, that's part of the method. New ideas need to be tested and confirmed.

The "controversy" comes in when people don't like some findings because it challenges their biases and preconceptions, whether they be religious or political.

This problem has been going on for centuries where people were accused of heresy because reality did not meet the prejudice of religious doctrine. It continues today. Maybe someday humanity will have grown up and stopped fearing and hating knowledge.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
On RF one finds that a good deal of rejection of the findings obtained by the scientific methods is motivated not by religion but by allegiance to non-religious metaphysics. For example, the theses of determinism and materialism are commonly promoted and tenaciously adhered to despite the fact that experimental findings and theories of physics unequivocally refute these theses (the violations of Bell and Leggett-Garg inequalities disprove determinism, and it is undeniable that the world consists of empirical phenomena other than just objects that have mass and volume, i.e., "matter"). Similarly, on the same grounds, many people reject the experimental findings of people having experiences and veridical perceptions and forming memories during or immediately after clinical death when there was no or insufficient electrical activity in their brains to create such elaborate experiences and form such memories.

Yeah, the findings gotten by the scientific method are “controversial” to all manner of people when the findings conflict with their cherished beliefs.
 

eldios

Active Member
In the long run it isn't.

As the common understanding changes, so does scientific opinion. Good science depends upon common understanding of repeatable measurements and calculations. Therefore it appeals to large groups of people. Over time it tends to appeal to everybody, because it depends upon common agreement about what is seen. That is its strength. At the heart if it is common access to laboratory information, calculations and reasoning along with people willing to look at and attempt to reproduce results.

What about new developments? They tend to be controversial at first until they have achieved either common acceptance or rejection. This can take a long time, or it can progress quickly.

Often new developments are overlooked and forgotten. One person writes up a paper and does some experiments, but they lack the notoriety to inspire interest or cannot find anyone with the expertise to check their work.

What about state supported research? This is a weakness. When the government is behind something it can cause problems. Sometimes politics interferes with science.

What about industry? Industry has its share of corrupt research.

What about Church sponsored work? Its mostly useless. Churches have long been antagonists and underminers of science. Their comments do not inspire interest. Churches are primarily interested in keeping science from affecting themselves, so they do not really participate in the process. They like everything to continue unchanging.

What about Universities with their hugely wasteful micro-economies? They are nothing new. Back in the days of Isaac Newton the universities were approximately just as corrupt, favoring wealthy students. The only difference today is the scale. Science has an advantage, because it actually can result in products that the universities can patent. It also results in usable bachelor's degrees, so to a large degree it is insulated from a lot of the problems caused by university bloat. That's how I see that.

All scientists and religious people are deceived by what they observe
 

Skwim

Veteran Member
In the long run it isn't.

What about Church sponsored work? Its mostly useless. Churches have long been antagonists and underminers of science. Their comments do not inspire interest. Churches are primarily interested in keeping science from affecting themselves, so they do not really participate in the process. They like everything to continue unchanging.
Not sure what you mean by "long run," but ever since Darwin brought evolution to light the science under-girding it has been quite controversial. Granted that the controversy only exists because of an exceedingly biased base of religious beliefs, but the efforts to denounce it and keep it before the public are considerable.

.
 
Last edited:

eldios

Active Member
Yeah, yeah, and the world is ending in 2000, er ... 2012, er .. some day. I'm not holding my breath for you to fulfill your boast.

The world that you observe has already been programmed to end. Be patient and if you're lucky, you will get to experience the earth shaking violently before your body perishes in the fire. Then you will start hearing the voice of God after that terrible experience.

Zephaniah 1
18: Neither their silver nor their gold shall be able to deliver them on the day of the wrath of the LORD. In the fire of his jealous wrath, all the earth shall be consumed; for a full, yea, sudden end he will make of all the inhabitants of the earth.

John 5:
25: "Truly, truly, I say to you, the hour is coming, and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.
26: For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself,
27: and has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of man.
28: Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Scientists don't have any facts. They have subjective theories that some people either believe or don't believe. They are liars just like religious people are.
The usefulness of the Theory is its strength which leads to it being non-controversial. Scientists make physical measurements which matter, and then they explain those measurements. A model develops that is consistent physically and Mathematically with known observations, and this model is called a Theory, such as the Big Bang theory. It is strong because it fits observations, explains new ones and is Mathematically consistent. Its also strong because it doesn't attempt to talk about things that it knows nothing about.
 

Brickjectivity

Turned to Stone. Now I stretch daily.
Staff member
Premium Member
Science itself isn't the problem. It's biased scientists that are the problem with science.
In the long run they are overturned. For example when the Petroleum industry had us filling our environment with toxic tetra-ethyl lead, they had a paid scientist who worked to fool everyone into accepting that it was safe. He fooled us for a while, but because he did not have the facts on his side he was overturned. Now only unleaded gas is sold in the USA.
 
Top