----- Original Message -----
From: "Marco Alpert"
Subject: Re: Religon, Christ vs. the Other Guy
On Feb 17, 2006, at 12:32 PM, William Robb wrote:
I tend to believe that if we can't explain something through scientific
means, we should be inventing better science, and not concluding that
some giant invisible hand is steering things.
I'm totally with you on this, right up until:
There is as much or more bad science as there are bad religions.
Just curious as to your basis for that belief. Of course there have been
and will certainly continue to be scientific theories that turn out to be
inaccurate, either through inadequate research technology or flawed
methodology. Scientists are people and are as subject to self-deception
(e.g., subjective validation, confirmation bias, etc.) as the rest of us.
However, a great strength of the scientific method is that it recognizes
this and is, over time, self-correcting.
You have hit on the major difference between the two. Bad science gets
refuted when better science comes along.
Bad religion just forms another cult.
In many ways though, science is now a commodity, sold to the highest bidder,
who may well have an agenda that is less than stellar.
This makes a lot of science suspect, since the owners of the science want a
particular result.
Drug companies are very good at tilting results in their favour, there is a
GMO grain that may well wipe out the Monarch butterfly if it gains
widespread acceptance in the agricultural community, the psycho-sciences
have had their share of foul ups (recovered memory syndrome as an example),
there is still debate in some corners of the scientific community that
global warming is either natural or non existent.
Just because something gets corrected doesn't mean it wasn't bad to begin
with.
William Robb
