Why would science reject evidence?

[Bunyip]

So many times in so many contexts here I see science and scientists being accused of dismissing, ignoring, rejecting or denying evidence for the divine, the supernatural or creationism.

What I have never been able to figure out is WHY anybody could think this is true? Science and scientists would have nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing so.

For example a scientist who had evidence for psychic powers or creationism would have something incredibly valuable. There is no way on earth your average scientist would sit on the most incredible discovery in history - one that could make her rich and famous just to protect their job. It makes no sense whatsoever.
So my question is if any of you truly believe this sort of conspiracy theory, can you give me a reason WHY any scientist would reject such evidence?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So many times in so many contexts here I see science and scientists being accused of dismissing, ignoring, rejecting or denying evidence for the divine, the supernatural or creationism....can you give me a reason WHY any scientist would reject such evidence?

I can give you a reason and an example:

"Despite the growing popularity of the multiverse proposal, it must be admitted that many physicists remain deeply uncomfortable with it. The reason is clear: the idea is highly speculative and, from both a cosmological and a particle physics perspective, the reality of a multiverse is currently untestable...For these reasons, some physicists do not regard these ideas as coming under the purvey of science at all. Since our confidence in them is based on faith and aesthetic considerations (for example mathematical beauty) rather than experimental data, they regard them as having more in common with religion than science...To the hard-line physicist, the multiverse may not be entirely respectable, but it is at least preferable to invoking a Creator. Indeed anthropically inclined physicists like Susskind and Weinberg are attracted to the multiverse precisely because it seems to dispense with God as the explanation of cosmic design"
from the editor's introduction to
Carr, B. (Ed.). (2007). Universe or multiverse?. Cambridge University Press.

 

[Bunyip]

I can give you a reason and an example:

"The growing popularity of the multiverse picture has encouraged a drift towards Carter's view, because it suggests that the anthropic fine-tunings can at least have a 'quasi-physical explanation. Despite the growing popularity of the multiverse proposal, it must be admitted that many physicists remain deeply uncomfortable with it. The reason is clear: the idea is highly speculative and, from both a cosmological and a particle physics perspective, the reality of a multiverse is currently untestable...For these reasons, some physicists do not regard these ideas as coming under the purvey of science at all. Since our confidence in them is based on faith and aesthetic considerations (for example mathematical beauty) rather than experimental data, they regard them as having more in common with religion than science. To the hard-line physicist, the multiverse may not be entirely respectable, but it is at least preferable to invoking a Creator. Indeed anthropically inclined physicists like Susskind and Weinberg are attracted to the multiverse precisely because it seems to dispense with God as the explanation of cosmic design"
from the editor's introduction to
Carr, B. (Ed.). (2007). Universe or multiverse?. Cambridge University Press.)

The multiverse is problematic because it can not yet be tested. This has nothing to do with the topic - which was supernatural claims. There is nothing supernatural, divine or paranormal about the multiverse hypothesis. The multiverse hypothesis does not in any way whatsoever reject evidence for the hand of god as a creator - because the existing hypothesis do not indicate any evidence for the involvement of a god anyway. Science does not need to refute or reject 'god of the gaps' style arguments. A god of the gaps argument is not evidence.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The multiverse is problematic because it can not yet be tested. This has nothing to do with the topic - which was supernatural claims. There is nothing supernatural, divine or paranormal about the multiverse hypothesis.

You asked why a scientist would reject evidence. Carr specifically notes that Susskind and Weinberg accept an almost religiously based theory because they believe it explains away evidence for god.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So my question is if any of you truly believe this sort of conspiracy theory, can you give me a reason WHY any scientist would reject such evidence?

None at all. It sounds like sour grapes to me.

 

[Bunyip]

You asked why a scientist would reject evidence. Carr specifically notes that Susskind and Weinberg accept an almost religiously based theory because they believe it explains away evidence for god.

No Legion. Read it again - I asked why scientists reject evidence for parapsychology, the supernatural and the divine. There is nothing even remotely religious about the multiverse hypothesis. It is (as i said) problematic because it can not yet be tested for. Carr is confused, there is no multiverse theory yet.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

No Legion. Read it again - I asked why scientists reject evidence for parapsychology, the supernatural and the divine. There is nothing even remotely religious about the multiverse hypothesis. It is (as i said) problematic because it can not yet be tested for.

You aren't getting it. Why would someone be attracted to a theory because "it seems to dispense with God as the explanation of cosmic design"? Because they think that without it there might be a need to invoke god to explain cosmic design. Put differently, both Susskind and Weinberg see the fine-tuning problem as suggestive of design, and reject that evidence by invoking what is essentially a mathematical fix.

 

[Bunyip]

You aren't getting it. Why would someone be attracted to a theory because "it seems to dispense with God as the explanation of cosmic design"?

They wouldn't be. There is nothing in the current theories that argues FOR a god, there is nothing to dispense with. Just asserting god as an explanatiin explains nothing, there is nothing to reject.

Because they think that without it there might be a need to invoke god to explain cosmic design.

Invoke all the arguments from ignorance they like - it still leaves nothing to reject.

Put differently, both Susskind and Weinberg see the fine-tuning problem as suggestive of design, and reject that evidence by invoking what is essentially a mathematical fix.

What 'fine tuning' problem? 'Fine tuning' is a logical nonsense.

Something being 'suggestive of design' is nowhere even close to evidence of a god.

The multiverse hypothesis no more dispenses with god as an explanation than current theories argue for it.

 

[Thana]

So many times in so many contexts here I see science and scientists being accused of dismissing, ignoring, rejecting or denying evidence for the divine, the supernatural or creationism.

What I have never been able to figure out is WHY anybody could think this is true? Science and scientists would have nothing to gain and everything to lose by doing so.

For example a scientist who had evidence for psychic powers or creationism would have something incredibly valuable. There is no way on earth your average scientist would sit on the most incredible discovery in history - one that could make her rich and famous just to protect their job. It makes no sense whatsoever.
So my question is if any of you truly believe this sort of conspiracy theory, can you give me a reason WHY any scientist would reject such evidence?

Well, They do have a reason. Parapsychology or ID is treated as a joke and mocked by any who pursue it. You should read the things skeptics say about studies conducted by parapsychologists.
Simply put, It isn't taken seriously and yes studies and evidence is dismissed as luck or usually accused of being mishandled/tampered with. And that's only to those who actually look at these studies, Most people don't even bother investigating their claims.

People think scientists are somehow immune or above the petty things the rest of us experience but it's not true. You'll find scientists who are fanatical and unprofessional.

But that's not to say that all scientists do this or it's a common practice, It's just not unreasonable to say some do ignore/dismiss evidence in certain circumstances.

 

[Bunyip]

Well, They do have a reason. Parapsychology or ID is treated as a joke and mocked by any who pursue it. You should read the things skeptics say about studies conducted by parapsychologists.

I have done. Parasychology and ID are treated as jokes because so far parasychology has come up with no good evidence and ID has yet to even posit a test for design. There is nothing there for science to reject. To be honest, it is those who believe evidence for parasychology or ID who have not read the research.

Simply put, It isn't taken seriously and yes studies and evidence is dismissed as luck or usually accused of being mishandled/tampered with. And that's only to those who actually look at these studies, Most people don't even bother investigating their claims.

People think scientists are somehow immune or above the petty things the rest of us experience but it's not true. You'll find scientists who are fanatical and unprofessional.

But that's not to say that all scientists do this or it's a common practice, It's just not unreasonable to say some do ignore/dismiss evidence in certain circumstances.

Sure, but that does not explain why nobody has come up with good evidence. Were there any, all scientists would need to be participating in some kind of conspiracy of suppression.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Carr is confused, there is no multiverse theory yet.

1) Carr wrote that introduction, but he didn't write the volume he was the editor: "This book grew out of a conference entitled ‘Universe or Multiverse?’ which was held at Stanford University in March 2003 and initiated by Charles Harper of the John Templeton Foundation, which sponsored the event. Paul Davies and Andrei Linde were in charge of the scientific programme, while Mary Ann Meyers of the Templeton Foundation played the major administrative role. The meeting came at a critical point in the development of the subject and included contributions from some of the key players in the field, so I was very pleased to be invited to edit the resulting proceedings. All of the talks given at the Stanford meeting are represented in this volume and they comprise about half of the contents. These are the chapters by James Bjorken, Nick Bostrum, Robin Collins, Paul Davies, Savas Dimopoulos and Scott Thomas, Renata Kallosh, Andrei Linde, Viatschelav Mukhanov, Martin Rees, Leonard Susskind, Max Tegmark, Alex Vilenkin, and my own second contribution." Carr goes on to discuss the other meetings that resulted in contributing papers and ends the story of the volumes origins as follows: "
The third meeting was held at Cambridge in September 2005. It was again hosted by Martin Rees, but this time at Trinity College, Martin having recently been appointed Master of Trinity...the introductory talk by Steven Weinberg and the summary talk by Franck Wilczek were very general and nicely complemented the articles already written. I was therefore delighted when theyboth agreed – at very short notice – to produce write-ups for this volume. The article by Stephen Hawking also derives from his presentation at the Trinity meeting, although he had previously spoken at the 2001 meeting as well. It is therefore gratifying that both Cambridge meetings – and thus all three Templeton-supported meetings – are represented in this volume."
2) It's actually a class of theories. The oldest is the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. The next class grew out of the work by Vilenkin, Guth, Linde, and others on inflationary cosmology. Then there are multiverse theories that arose out of particle physics. So while it is true to say that there is no singular multiverse theory (even though most of them are equivalent; see e.g.,
Bousso, R., & Susskind, L. (2012). Multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics. Physical Review D, 85(4), 045007.

 

[Bunyip]

Thana

Just FYI. Micheal Behe, one of the principle founders of the ID movement stated in court that ID theory should not be taught in schools because there is no ID theory to teach. ID does not exist as a scientific theory, it is rejected as a sceintific theory, because it does not exist as a scientific theory - nothing to do with bias.

 

[Bunyip]

1) Carr wrote that introduction, but he didn't write the volume he was the editor: "This book grew out of a conference entitled ‘Universe or Multiverse?’ which was held at Stanford University in March 2003 and initiated by Charles Harper of the John Templeton Foundation, which sponsored the event. Paul Davies and Andrei Linde were in charge of the scientific programme, while Mary Ann Meyers of the Templeton Foundation played the major administrative role. The meeting came at a critical point in the development of the subject and included contributions from some of the key players in the field, so I was very pleased to be invited to edit the resulting proceedings. All of the talks given at the Stanford meeting are represented in this volume and they comprise about half of the contents. These are the chapters by James Bjorken, Nick Bostrum, Robin Collins, Paul Davies, Savas Dimopoulos and Scott Thomas, Renata Kallosh, Andrei Linde, Viatschelav Mukhanov, Martin Rees, Leonard Susskind, Max Tegmark, Alex Vilenkin, and my own second contribution." Carr goes on to discuss the other meetings that resulted in contributing papers and ends the story of the volumes origins as follows: "
The third meeting was held at Cambridge in September 2005. It was again hosted by Martin Rees, but this time at Trinity College, Martin having recently been appointed Master of Trinity...the introductory talk by Steven Weinberg and the summary talk by Franck Wilczek were very general and nicely complemented the articles already written. I was therefore delighted when theyboth agreed – at very short notice – to produce write-ups for this volume. The article by Stephen Hawking also derives from his presentation at the Trinity meeting, although he had previously spoken at the 2001 meeting as well. It is therefore gratifying that both Cambridge meetings – and thus all three Templeton-supported meetings – are represented in this volume."
2) It's actually a class of theories. The oldest is the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. The next class grew out of the work by Vilenkin, Guth, Linde, and others on inflationary cosmology. Then there are multiverse theories that arose out of particle physics. So while it is true to say that there is no singular multiverse theory (even though most of them are equivalent; see e.g.,
Bousso, R., & Susskind, L. (2012). Multiverse interpretation of quantum mechanics. Physical Review D, 85(4), 045007.

So what? The fact remains that the multiverse hypothesis no more dispenses with god as an explanation than the current theory argues for one.

If you have found somebody who embraced the multiverse theory because it eliminated god as an explanation - then they did so in error. I doubt that the victims in your citation would agree that they embraced the multiverse for that reason. It would be redundant to do so.

 

[Altfish]

If the evidence is there, write it up, publish and win a Nobel Prize - simples.

Seriously, if the evidence is compelling as you believe it to be, then there is nothing stopping it being put in a learned paper and presented for peer review; if it survives that then the world's your oyster you will be the next Einstein.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So what? The fact remains that the multiverse hypothesis no more dispenses with god as an explanation than the current theory argues for one.

I didn't say there was. I gave you an example of two scientists who believe there is evidence that they don't just ignore, but develop a highly speculative theory in order to explain away.

Anyway, the truth is that far from there being any scientific conspiracy preventing research into the paranormal, there is a great deal of such research, including multiple journals dedicated to the subject, many labs across the globe, and journals which publish such articles. For example:
Storm, L. A. N. C. E., Tressoldi, P. E., & Di Risio, L. (2012). Meta-analysis of ESP studies, 1987–2010: assessing the success of the forced-choice design in parapsychology. J. Parapsychol, 76, 243-274. (uploaded/attached below).

Rabeyron, T. (2014). Retro-priming, priming, and double testing: psi and replication in a test–retest design. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 8.

 

[Thana]

Thana

Just FYI. Micheal Behe, one of the principle founders of the ID movement stated in court that ID theory should not be taught in schools because there is no ID theory to teach. ID does not exist as a scientific theory, it is rejected as a sceintific theory, because it does not exist as a scientific theory - nothing to do with bias.

Well, From what I've looked at ID does have a scientific method, They use CSI (Complex specified information) to look for ID. And as far as I know it is considered a scientific theory, Although I do understand there are those that disagree. I could care less though, I don't think ID nor anything supernatural can be proven.

 

[Bunyip]

Well, From what I've looked at ID does have a scientific method, They use CSI (Complex specified information) to look for ID. And as far as I know it is considered a scientific theory, Although I do understand there are those that disagree. I could care less though, I don't think ID nor anything supernatural can be proven.

Thana, they do not even have a testable hypothesis. It is most definitely NOT a scientific theory, it is not yet at the stage of testable hypothesis. Scientists can not be fairly accused of denying a theory that does not yet exist.

 

[Bunyip]

I didn't say there was. I gave you an example of two scientists who believe there is evidence that they don't just ignore, but develop a highly speculative theory in order to explain away.

Nonsense, they did not develop multiverse hypothesis to explain away evidence for a divine explanation, because that evidence does not exist. There was nothing to 'explain away'. You have taken a frankly asinine interpretation of their agendas as gospel. Those two scientists would most likely just laugh at such an accusation.

You can find a quote to support or refute ANYTHING Legion. For every expert there is an equal and opposite expert - it means nothing. You have a source that attributes to two men a motivation they are incredibly unlikely to actualy possess, and which makes no sense whatsoever in context. Do you have an argument?

Anyway, the truth is that far from there being any scientific conspiracy preventing research into the paranormal, there is a great deal of such research, including multiple journals dedicated to the subject, many labs across the globe, and journals which publish such articles. For example:
Storm, L. A. N. C. E., Tressoldi, P. E., & Di Risio, L. (2012). Meta-analysis of ESP studies, 1987–2010: assessing the success of the forced-choice design in parapsychology. J. Parapsychol, 76, 243-274. (uploaded/attached below).

Rabeyron, T. (2014). Retro-priming, priming, and double testing: psi and replication in a test–retest design. Frontiers in human neuroscience, 8.

Yes, there is a lot of good research going on in these fields. Nobody has suggested a conspiracy to stop the research, the posited conspiracy was to deny the results of such researc - not to prevent it from taking place.

 

[Bunyip]

Well, From what I've looked at ID does have a scientific method, They use CSI (Complex specified information) to look for ID. And as far as I know it is considered a scientific theory, Although I do understand there are those that disagree. I could care less though, I don't think ID nor anything supernatural can be proven.

I just wanted to add that a test for design would have immeasurable real world applications. If the ID movement did come up with such a test it would be an incredible contribution to science. Science would not reject it - they would be installing it into their satellites and space probes.

 

[Thana]

Thana, they do not even have a testable hypothesis. It is most definitely NOT a scientific theory, it is not yet at the stage of testable hypothesis. Scientists can not be fairly accused of denying a theory that does not yet exist.

Erm, Well seems you're pretty convinced of this so I won't argue.