That's fine Mr. Roper, it is nothing, haha! To continue with the topic at hand though, the principles of the person being their own judge on the matter and being able to explain to someone's self-satisfaction seem sound standards. Granted, some people will inevitably be more difficult to satisfy than others, but that can be readily assessed by noting the extent of one's knowledge on a subject. To quote from earlier: "So, as scientists, when we don't know enough about a subject, we should suspend judgement of that subject, or learn more. But, we should definitely NOT feel obliged to have opinions about that of which we know nothing. Religion is often just that - forming opinions on that about which one knows little or nothing." While I would generally agree that this is true, there are issues presented in this statement. Since science is based off the notions of rationalism, empiricism, the sensory and the provable, it is a 'relatively' simple and straightforward process to acquire and learn new knowledge on the subject in question. Religion, and its precepts of faith, relying upon intuition before logic, on the idea of "the unknowable" or "unprovable" prohibit the application of scientific principles to understand religious questions. I think this is where many scientists acquire their apprehension of spirituality and religiosity in general: they try to apply the scientific principles and methodologies (how they've been taught to think, act, speak, live) to something where such ideas do not work and do not apply. It is trying to understand something unreasonable with reason, and that itself seems absurd. It isn't as if there is anything wrong with trying to understand "old" human knowledge with "new" human knowledge, but there are many cerebral pitfalls to be avoided in my opinion. I've been reading "Why we do it: rethinking the selfish gene" by Niles Eldredge (a book I'd highly recommend if one is interested in evolutionary biology, and it is written with sufficient clarity that non-scientists can understand it). His central point I find striking, in that the modern interpretations of some evolutionary biologists that propagate Dawkins' "selfish gene" idea are assigning traits we'd typically assign to specimens of a species (sexual selection, the general struggle for continued existence), to genes, the mechanics of organisms and species. I'm very curious as to what people think about the selfish gene idea here, considering the pool of intellectual heft here to weigh upon it. - Derek E. Pursell
--- On Sun, 5/16/10, James J. Roper <[email protected]> wrote: From: James J. Roper <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? To: "Derek Pursell" <[email protected]> Date: Sunday, May 16, 2010, 1:45 PM Sorry Derek, I realized I called you Dave just AFTER I clicked the send button. I indeed did mean you, and not Dave, whoever he may be. Cheers, Jim On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 18:55, Derek Pursell <[email protected]> wrote: Mr. Roper makes an excellent point here; the value of establishing that one should not have an opinion (interpretation: bias?) before studying or gaining further knowledge of a subject is invaluable to the pursuit of knowledge. This principle applies for scientific and non-scientific purposes. This idea, so presented, does bring up another question: what would we like to define as "sufficient knowledge" in order to justify having an opinion on a subject? From my personal experience, people tend to form opinions on subjects relatively early in the process of learning about them (if indeed, any meaningful degree of learning takes place), so the perils are obvious. Granted, the definition of "sufficient knowledge" is broadly interpretative and would vary from subject to subject, but it can be troublesome because of the age-old issue of how people define and use the same word to mean many different things. The problems surrounding definition and how words are understood and used is something that is best solved by the evolving pursuit of greater education, for all people. Not to send the topic too far askew, but if we'd like to make the normative suggestion that people -should- learn more about a topic before forming an opinion on it, how do we go about creating that education and awareness, especially considering that the traditional academic structure of learning is not something that all people have access to? The internet has done wonders to help people to this effect, but the pursuit of knowledge remains implicitly voluntary. Granted, it almost always has, but it seems to suggest that to better educate the public at large with the necessary (Interpretations: knowledge of what, and to what degree?) education that is required, that the traditional K-12 + College/University structure needs to evolve to suit the needs of the people. How to go about doing that, oy, that is a topic in and of itself. -Derek E. Pursell --- On Sat, 5/15/10, James J. Roper <[email protected]> wrote: From: James J. Roper <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Science and Religion Dogmatic conflict? To: [email protected] Date: Saturday, May 15, 2010, 1:38 PM I think that some of us may forget about the possibility of NOT forming opinions. On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 18:50, Frank Marenghi <[email protected]>wrote: > I agree with Mr. Sibley. It would be impossible for each of us to weigh all > of the evidence available on every issue and come up with our own rational > conclusions On those things we know little or nothing, we do NOT really have to have an opinion. I am reminded of a lay friend who told me outright that global warming was not happening (I think she thinks it is a communist plot). I asked her, why do you even HAVE an opinion on this matter, when you know nothing of the subject? After all, if it is, or is not, occurring, it is not a matter of opinion. Just like evolution - not a matter of opinion. So, if the situation is such that I cannot weigh ENOUGH evidence, I don't come to conclusions either. So, if someone asks me what I think of the grand unified theory of physics, I will say, I don't know enough to form a good viewpoint. That is a much freer position, and more logical for a scientist. Read Futuyma's review of the book "What Darwing got wrong" (the review is titled "Two Critics Without a Clue") and you will see what happens when ill-informed people try to make an argument based on insufficient knowledge of a subject. So, as scientists, when we don't know enough about a subject, we should suspend judgement of that subject, or learn more. But, we should definitely NOT feel obliged to have opinions about that of which we know nothing. Religion is often just that - forming opinions on that about which one knows little or nothing. Cheers, JIm James J. Roper, Ph.D. Ecology, Evolution and Population Dynamics of Terrestrial Vertebrates Caixa Postal 19034 81531-990 Curitiba, Paraná, Brasil E-mail: [email protected] Telefone: 55 41 36730409 Celular: 55 41 98182559 Skype-in (USA):+1 706 5501064 Skype-in (Brazil):+55 41 39415715 Ecology and Conservation at the UFPR Home Page Ars Artium Consulting In Google Earth, copy and paste -> 25 31'18.14" S, 49 05'32.98" W
