Honorable Forum: Especially given the generally taboo nature of the subject, I am greatly impressed with the quality of the discourse. It is nourishing rather than debilitating, refreshing, not intoxicating. I still have a lot more reading and considering to do on the previous posts, but will try to use Sibley's comments as a center about which to further flesh out my own thoughts, though they are also based on reflection of other commenters.
I read Annie Dillard's book shortly after it was first published, and am only vaguely aware of her discussion of meshing a creator with "modern" science, but I do remember her eloquence. Those who want more of this sort of thing mixed with "non-teleological" thinking should not miss "Breaking Through: Essays, Journals, and Travelogues of Edward F. Ricketts" by Edward F. Ricketts (Author), Katharine A. Rodger (Editor). It is a mix of science and what might be called "philosophy" that comes as close to reconciling the two as I have seen. Then, of course, there's literally all of Richard Feynman's writings, recordings, and biographies and other material about Feynman that are always worth the reading. Feynman put it this way: "It is our responsibility as scientists, knowing the great progress which comes from A SATISFACTORY PHILOSOPHY OF IGNORANCE (capitals/italics mine), the great progress which is the fruit of freedom of thought, to proclaim the value of this freedom; to teach how DOUBT IS NOT TO BE FEARED BUT WELCOMED AND DISCUSSED (capitals/italics mine); and to DEMAND THIS FREEDOM AS OUR DUTY (capitals/italics mine) to all coming generations." This is about as close to proselytizing as Feynman ever got. The quote is from his essay, "The Value of Science" which can be read in Ralph Leighton's (ed.) 2006 book, "Classic Feynman." The Essay that follows, "Cargo Cult Science," is an essential companion. Both should be required reading for EVERY scientist of ANY kind. All science is PROVISIONAL; that is, it is considered to be "true" until it is disproved, such as the "laws" of physics. Their validity is demonstrated by their predictive value in experiment and application--this (especially) takes precedence over "review" (peer and otherwise), popularity, and even "replication." And the job of the scientist, custom to the contrary, is to work to disprove hisher own theory. Still, the specter of GIGO hangs over all of science, and illusions of validity can be quite convincing. "Sciences" like ecology and geology, lacking a body of testable "laws" that continue to persist in spite of persistent questioning and proofs over time, must rely upon the PREPONDERANCE of the evidence, which is similarly tested and retested, refined, as it were, over generations. So, if things like formulae are relied upon in the PRACTICE of, say, methods in science education, and thought of as "faith," such faith must be a provisional one, subject to continued testing and application--a continual feedback loop of actual consequences of application. Appeal to a "higher authority" is not absent from science, e.g., the Millikan Oil Drop Experiment was taken on "faith" for a considerable time, apparently with scientists being so intimidated that when they came up with numbers inconsistent with Millikan, they apparently presumed that Millikan must be right, so "adjusted" their data to achieve conformance (I say "apparently" because I provisionally accept "on faith" the superiority of "authorities" that the story and the data are true--how's that for irony?). "Continental Drift" was "denied" for about four decades until it became "Plate Tectonics" under new authors, and "Piltdown Man" was considered valid for about the same period until it was exposed as outright fraud. Millikan himself was a proponent of reconciliation of science and religion. http://www.aip.org/history/gap/Millikan/Millikan.html So what if Nature and God were one and the same? And which state of mind will bring us closer to Nature or God--an unshakable belief in a human tradition (scientific authority or scripture/self-anointed "men" of God) or an eternal Quest for, as Feynman once put it (essay and book), for "The Pleasure of Finding Things Out?" WT ----- Original Message ----- From: "Adam Sibley" <s1b...@yahoo.com> To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 11:42 AM Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? > I've jumped into this conversation late, so I apologize if this has already > been mentioned, but Annie Dillard addresses the dilemma of meshing the > concept of a creator with modern science quite eloquently in her book Pilgrim > at Tinker Creek. > > Something to think about: scientists have endeavored to explain just about > every phenomenon in the natural world. Some of these explanations are easy to > understand and are easily testable, but some are not. Some aspects of quantum > physics, space-time distortion, etc... are not easily testable and are only > fully understood by a few brilliant minds. They cannot convey the explanation > of these phenomena to me because I would not understand it: I take it on > faith that their calculations are correct and that those who conduct a peer > review on their work are able to catch every error. > > A few more examples: > - I am looking to solve a problem in my micrometeorology class, and I come > across an equation in a textbook which will give me the answer I need. I > don't know who came up with the equation, how they tested it, how many times > it has been validated (especially newer equations), and how rigorously the > reviewer who allowed it into "the literature" thought about it. As I'll be > using dozens of equations throughout the semester, I'm not going to gather > any of this information myself. I take it on faith that the peer review > process has produced a quality product. > - The East Anglia Climate Research Unit recently took a lot of heat for not > being able to produce the original data by which their global climatologies > were produced. Now think of all the data products out there for which people > have not asked for the original data. Could every scientist retrace every > step they took to come to their final conclusions? Can every scientist point > to the data they used to make every graph in every paper they have written? > No: nor does every reviewer ask for the data, nor can they catch every error. > The scientific method and peer review are the best things we have for > validating scientific observations and discoveries, but there is room for > errors to slip through the cracks. Or even worse: no scientist likes to think > this, but the scientific method and peer review are not impervious to > purposely falsified data, especially in studies that involve direct > environmental observation. Sure, experiments are supposed to be > reproducible, but how long do ecology and environmental science experiments > go before a second group of researchers tries to replicate them? Sometimes > years, if ever. > > The basic point I'm trying to make here is that unless you yourself > understand on a fundamental level every scientific concept you have used, you > are involved in a faith based process of discovery. If you've ever said "I > don't know why this works but I trust it does," that is faith. Conclusions > based on non-laboratory observation of the natural world also require faith > in the integrity of the research group conducting the study. > > Thank you, > Adam Sibley > > > > > > ________________________________ > From: William Silvert <cien...@silvert.org> > To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU > Sent: Fri, May 14, 2010 12:24:13 PM > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? > > Certainly one can be a religious scientist, so long as one's areas of > interest do not overlap. I see no reason why a chemist or hydodynamicist > could not believe in creation, but for a biologist or geologist it would be > more difficult, and for a paleontologist pretty well impossible. > > James writes that "Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the > view that, if scripture says something that conflicts with science, then that > bit of scripture is not literally true." Certainly not all, and I doubt the > "most". And of course not all science is universally accepted as fact. The > underlying issue is whether we base our opinions (I deliberately avoid the > word "beliefs") on rational evidence or on beliefs with no logical foundation. > > Bill Silvert > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Crants" <jcra...@gmail.com> > To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> > Sent: sexta-feira, 14 de Maio de 2010 16:14 > Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? Re: > [ECOLOG-L] evolution for non-scientists textbook > > >> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 9:01 AM, Sarah Frias-Torres < >> sfrias_tor...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Science is based on fact. >>> Religion is based on faith. >>> They don't mix. >> >> >> These statements, and some others that have come up, show how narrowly >> religion has come to be defined in western cultures. In America, >> particularly, fundamentalist Christianity has come to be equated with all >> religion. We have come to think that religion is about believing in >> specific supernatural things in the absence of any evidence, and even >> believing in certain natural things in spite of all the evidence (e.g., that >> species do not evolve or the earth is 6,000 years old). Even to many people >> who consider themselves religious, that would be the definition of faith. >> >> Religion and faith are not necessarily about believing in invisible supermen >> who reward their worshippers and punish unbelievers. Science has proven to >> be highly compatible with Buddhism and Judaism, for example, and the Jesuits >> have made significant contributions to science. I've known very good Hindu >> and Muslim scientists (well, one of each), too. I also worked three growing >> seasons for an evangelical (not to say fundamentalist) Protestant Christian >> ecologist, and we debated religion almost every week through that whole >> period. In all that time, I could find no way in which his religious >> beliefs conflicted with his science or made him a worse ecologist. >> >> Most or all religions are capable of accommodating the view that, if >> scripture says something that conflicts with science, then that bit of >> scripture is not literally true. Science and religion seem incompatible >> partly because many scientists don't share the need many people have for >> religion or spirituality, and partly because the popular and political >> influence of fundamentalist Christianity makes religion seem to serve only >> to delude people into believing things that are demonstrably untrue. >> >> Jim Crants > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.437 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2873 - Release Date: 05/14/10 06:26:00
