Yup, thankfully.

Aaron W. ---

You seem to think that science is a sterilized discourse, strait-jacketed in some hyper-stylized "method."

Um...it isn't. As an extreme example, take Douglas Hofstadter and the near embarrassment of riches he brings to his scientific contemplation. Or consider this excerpt from Chomsky, where he shows with maximum clarity why naive reductionism hides a dualistic fallacy.

But, dazzling anecdotes aside, it's the merest truism that scientists are the most sophisticated thinkers alive. You like to talk about "worldview assumptions." Well, consider: in 100 years, every worldview in modern currency will be primitive beyond words. That's not an assumption, that's a fact. (Edit - assuming civilization survives that long. )

I swear, I am this close to changing my location to 'gay for Subfallen'...

Hardly. Knowing many academic scientists, I'm well aware of the bumbling nature of scientific research. (I'm also aware of the political side of peer review publishing... but something else entirely.) In the context of understanding scientific materialism, the assumption that science is the only reliable source of information is often made manifest in some form of epitomization of scientific knowledge.

(Granted, you take "science" to mean "the interaction of all true statements" which is a definition that basically nobody else on earth takes, so this may not apply to you so much. I don't really know what the implications are on your definition because I've never spent the time to think about it (and honestly, I don't care to).)

I don't believe this is true. They are certainly the most sophisticated when it comes to thinking about their respective fields, but I do not believe that this implies a higher overall level of sophistication of thought. For example, (hard) scientists are generally not that strong when it comes to political contemplation or ethical reflection. If you ask them about matters of social justice, they'll likely give bland responses that you would expect from that of a a merely moderately educated person (a person who selects "some college" in those demographic surveys).

Of course, this does not negate that there are sophisticated, deep thinkers among the scientists who are able to consider larger questions and contexts, but being a scientist does not on its own imply that the person is a deep thinker in all areas. Those people are the exceptions, and are quite rare.

I would call that a projection into the future, not an assumption nor a fact. I make no claims about how accurate or inaccurate it will be. Time will reveal this one to us when it gets around to it. I do think that your broad brush is playing more to dramatics than to a sober assessment.

No, that's an ambitious assertion. When the time comes, then we'll know if it's true of false.

I really wish mods could still change user titles.

That's a suggestive picture. We might imagine scientists as sculptors, trying to mimic Michelangelo's David. But their eyes cannot bear much light; they look through filters or from behind shades. Even then, they get uneasy at full scale. They always want something small enough to handle. (And it's rather perverse how they seem to find real joy in finishing a rough mock-up of a toe.)

No doubt, they make progress of a sort. From a shed where they played with damp sand, they moved to an old saw mill over a clay river bed. Then someone abandoned a quarry, and they started mutilating rocks. Now there's too many busy buildings to count. The mystery of the statue haunts them all, but what of its immediate glory? Goodness, does anyone even remember where the blessed thing is?

Why can't these bumblers understand that the statue is MARBLE, and its aesthetic essence is INDIVISIBLE, and one should rather be blinded in EXPERIENCE of it than leer with curious eyes? For shame.

...

And so you look at the bumblers behind the Blue Brain project, and perhaps admire their ingenuity for a moment. But you know they've failed to grapple with the ineffable truth that St. Paul spoke: human experience is spiritual, transcending brains.

Stepping back, you look at science and know it will ALWAYS fail to grapple with the core reality that you understand: that is, a group of first century Jewish mystics already laid out the deepest truths of the human experience. Centrally, that one of those mystics (the ex-carpenter) was actually Incarnate God, who 14 billion years prior was responsible for the Big Bang. And sometime soon (come quickly, Lord Jesus!) He will return to destroy the entire universe and inflict unspeakable torments on all hominids who failed to worship Him. (Except, of course, those who hadn't evolved the symbolic intelligence necessary to understand substitutionary atonement. That goes without saying; He's not unreasonable.)

It doesn't require much thought, it's a pretty solid working definition. And I'm not sure why you think it's uncommon; I got it from Heidegger, probably the most influential Continental philosopher of the 20th century.

You're assuming that 'sophistication' is domain-independent in a strong sense. It isn't. The humanities are mostly incompatible with sophistication, since they're completely disconnected from reality.

Incidentally, they're always scientists.

Well god knows we wouldn't want to lose our sobriety. We might start overrating our own sincerity, or giving unmerited authority to random mystics, or even end up in hell.

Your prose confuses me, and I fail to understand your point.

The "bumbling" statement was in direct contrast to your attempt to characterize my understanding of science as "sterilized discourse, strait-jacketed in some hyper-stylized 'method.'"

And if you ask them, most scientists will admit to you that there is a lot of bumbling in what they do. Failed experiment after failed experiment. And then there's the experiment that looked like it was going all wrong, yet somewhere in the middle of it something was revealed that turned out to be far more insightful into the problem than they were expecting.

Do you think that because Heidegger says it, that scientists think it?

It's not "functional" until you define parameters for determining "true statements." But when you do this, most people grab at "science" in the common sense, and then you start to head right back down the path of scientific materialism.

In certain places, you'll be tarred and feathered for such statements.

(Are you counting philosophers in the same category as scientists? You know that many schools lump philosophy into the humanities, right? And Heidegger is a philosopher...)

Part of the reason for this is because scientists have the floor and the man with the mic always wins. We live in a scientifically-minded age, so that the scientists (rightly or wrongly) are usually given deference by position, not necessarily by quality of thought. A man with the capacity to have become a research scientist who instead decides to do something else with his life will not have an audience for his thoughts, even though they are as clear (or clearer) than that of a research scientist.

I know this to be true from my own experience. The Ph.D. that I can choose to put after my name gives me instant credibility with a lot of people, regardless of whether I'm talking about something related to my field of study, or something completely different. It's like people who think Paul Krugman's political ramblings are deeply insightful because he has a Nobel Prize (never mind that his field was Economics).

Exactly, science is nothing like a prefigured method. Scientists are just people who struggle to describe reality in a way that could be wrong, but is actually right (within certain parameters.) That takes all the emotional and aesthetic resources you have.

Also, let's not forget...let's not forget, Dude...that Nabokov was a scientist. And he wrote the greatest love story in the English language.

I don't know. I don't think many people (scientists or otherwise) feel it's necessary to "define" pursuits as multidimensional as science. But among those who do, Heidegger is probably one of the key voices.

I have no idea what you think "scientific materialism" is. I really don't. That's why I keep linking you to that Chomsky article, which obviously you never read.

Hopefully I can avoid those places.

I think he was just someone who wanted people to do less talking and more pondering. Which is probably why he wrote such long and bizarre books.

You live in a different world than I do. I live in America, and specifically Arkansas, and the people I know trust scientists far less than their local pastors.

Again, I wish I lived in your world. :/

Works out well for him I guess.

And my spastic prose can be explained by the fact that I am just enrolled to take the math pre-reqs to what will be effectively back-to-back M.S. degrees from the University of that estimable state. (I am, needless to say, very bad at life.)

On the one hand, I am probably the least delusional I've been thus far. On the other hand, that's saying practically nothing. So I'm ambivalent. Maybe I'll actually apply myself this time? I think so, but history says... Either way, we live on a lovely planet that combines many high places with a charming gravitational effect. I have options.

Whoa now. Science can certainly be bumbling. But that is not due to experiments that don't produce the expected (or hoped-for) result. That attitude is part of why science can get so stupid sometimes. The only "failed" experiment is an experiment with shoddy methodology (or an experiment that can't be complete due to lack of funding, etc). The main function of an experiment is to provide accurate information, not to win publicity or prestige for the researchers.

I'm not flush with Heidegger here, but what the average scientist thinks is irrelevant. The average scientist doesn't know what science is nor care about science. The average scientist is more interested in his or her own career than in much else. I think the words of Albert Einstein express this better than I can.

Huh? I know more people who care about what George Clooney thinks than about what Paul Krugman thinks. Of course people with status are granted higher respect than those without, that is human society in a nutshell. And no, it doesn't matter how deserved that status is. But scientists have nowhere near the status in the general population (at least here in the US) that others such as entertainers, sports figures, television personalities, artists (especially film directors and actors), and so on have. Honestly, I doubt that more than 20% of Americans have even heard of Krugman. Even people like Jerry Falwell have far more influence and are in more possession of "the mic" than scientists.

I grew up in California, and am a product of the University of California System. It's definitely a different world than Arkansas.

It's probably also true, then, that the people you know don't know very many scientists (if any at all).

I see you finally looked at the Chomksy. Ferocious, isn't he? And not so very prone to over-simplification and category mistakes. One might even consider him...wise?

Edit - siicck link madnak, thx.

Nope. Still haven't read it. Just making a social commentary.

Damn, my instincts are terrible. In any case, brace yourself for a distinct lack of "materialism"...whatever you think that is.

I think you would probably enjoy reading the Chomsky Link
. At least the first 6 pages 13-18 before he gets into analysis of language. It looks to me that his views on "Reduction" are very simliar to yours. According to him, chemistry has not been reduced to physics but rather unified with it. However he does think biology has been reduced to chemistry. Regardless ...

From the Link (top page 18)

I've never read any Chomsky before looking at this link. I can see why people recommend him.

PairTheBoard

Apologies for the dupe thread that had to be locked. Sam Harris' recent op-ed in the NYT and his expansion of it is well worth a read. Hopefully he felt the need to elaborate because it's generating a lot of discussion. If anyone hears of or sees a response by Collins (just imagine a debate set up between the two ...) please post it here.

thanks for that, this paragraph stuck out especially for me, cause that is exactly what is wrong with arguments from atheists concerning the "new atheists", its condescending in a scary sort of way I hadnt fully realized before: underlining is mine

"While it is invariably advertised as an expression of “respect” for people of faith, this accommodationism is nothing more than naked condescension, motivated by fear. Mooney and Kirshenbaum assure us that people will choose religion over science, no matter how good a case is made against religion. In certain contexts, this fear is probably warranted. I wouldn’t be eager to spell out the irrationality of Islam while standing in the Great Mosque in Mecca. But let’s be honest about how Mooney and Kirshenbaum view public discourse in the United States: watch what you say, or the Christian mob will burn down the library of Alexandria all over again. By comparison, the “combativeness” of the “New Atheists” seems entirely collegial. We merely assume that our fellow **** sapiens possess the requisite intelligence and emotional maturity to respond to rational argument, satire, and ridicule on the subject of religion—just as they respond to these discursive pressures on all other subjects. Of course, we could be wrong. But let’s admit which side in this debate currently views our neighbors as dangerous children and which views them as adults who might prefer not to be utterly mistaken about the nature of reality."

I feel even better that Collins was nominated to the NIH director position especially since coming across the Damadian controversy.

There has been some speculation that one of the main contributors to the scientific development of the MRI was denied a Nobel prize because he was a creationist. talkorigins says that is not correct he may have been overlooked still it is disturbing when science becomes so political that it could impact the most competent people's motivation to work in key areas of science. Especially since a lot of discoveries have an "accidental quality" any way. Why limit the surprise discoveries? Don't we need all the surprise discoveries too?

Of course the Nobel deliberations are sealed for 50 years. Not to mention people's minds and lips.

New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/23/sc...her-prize.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA320_2.html

excerpt from Damadian's wiki entry:

[edit] Nobel Prize controversy

In 2003, the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine was awarded to Paul Lauterbur and Sir Peter Mansfield for their discoveries related to MRI. Although Nobel rules allow for the award to be shared by up to three recipients, Damadian was not given the prize.

The controversy over who played what part in the development of the MRI had gone on for years prior to the Nobel announcement, and many in the scientific community felt that the Nobel had not been awarded for the MRI for so long due to debate over Damadian's role in its development.[8] Damadian said that credit should go to "me, and then Lauterbur," and Lauterbur felt that only he should get credit. As an example of the debate, in 1997 the National Academy of Sciences commissioned a timeline of MRI milestones, and four of the 12 in an initial draft were attributed to Damadian. At the final publication in 2001, longer than any other publication in the series had ever been taken, none of the milestones were attributed to Damadian. The text said that Damadian's methods had "not proved clinically reliable in detecting or diagnosing cancer."[8] After Damadian's lawyers sent the NAS a threatening letter, the text on the NAS website was revised, but still not to Damadian's satisfaction. Damadian said in 2002, "If I had not been born, would MRI have existed? I don't think so. If Lauterbur had not been born? I would have gotten there. Eventually."[8]

The New York Times wrote:

The issue has been the subject of a dispute between Dr. Damadian and Dr. Lauterbur and has been known for years in academic circles, with some fearing that the Nobel committee would steer clear of magnetic resonance imaging altogether because of the Swedes' supposed distaste for controversial discoveries. Dr. Lauterbur, 74, is not in good health, and the committee may have decided that its prize, which cannot be given posthumously, needed to be awarded for the discovery now or never."[16].

After the announcement of Lauterbur and Mansfield's Nobels, between October and November 2003, an ad hoc group called "The Friends of Raymond Damadian"[citation needed] took out full-page advertisements in The New York Times twice, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times and one of the largest newspapers in Sweden, Dagens Nyheter protesting his exclusion with the headline "The Shameful Wrong That Must Be Righted"[18] in an attempt to get the Nobel Committee to change its mind and grant him a share of the Prize,[5][19] apparently unaware that the decision to award a Nobel Prize is final and with no possibility for appeal. Damadian suggested that Lauterbur and Mansfield should have rejected the Nobel Prize unless Damadian was given joint recognition. Supporting Damadian were various MRI experts including John Throck Watson, Eugene Feigelson, V. Adrian Parsegian, Dr. David Stark and James Mattson[citation needed]. New York Times columnist Horace Freeland Judson criticised this behavior, noting that there is "no Nobel Prize for whining" and that many deserving candidates who may have had better claims than Damadian, such as Lise Meitner, Oswald Avery and Jocelyn Bell, had been previously denied a share of the Nobel.[20]

Others point out that while Damadian had hypothesized that NMR relaxation times might be used to detect cancer, he did not develop (nor did he suggest) the current way of creating images.[11] Since the Nobel Prize was awarded to Paul Lauterbur and Sir Peter Mansfield for the development of Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Damadian's exclusion makes more sense.

Some felt that research scientists sided with Lauterbur because he was one of their own, while Damadian was a medical doctor who had profited greatly from his early patents.[8] Charles Springer, an expert in MRI at Oregon Health and Science University, said that if a poll was taken of the academic community, most would agree with the Nobel Committee's conclusions.[16] Damadian's contributions were consistently recognized more outside of the academic community than within it. Others said that Damadian had not acted in the manner of a scientist on many occasions, which alienated the academic community, including when he held a 1977 press conference to announce that his full-body scanner could detect cancer anywhere in the body. Even in modern uses, MRI is not usually used for diagnosis but for location of tumors already diagnosed.[16]

Some consider Damadian to be a controversial figure in academic circles, not least for his exuberant behavior at conferences.[21] He is also fundamentalist Christian and a young earth creationist[22] and a member of the 'Technical Advisory Board' of the Institute for Creation Research.[23] Philosopher Michael Ruse writing for the Metanexus Institute suggested that Damadian might have been denied a Nobel prize because of his creationist views, saying:

I cringe at the thought that Raymond Damadian was refused his just honor because of his religious beliefs. Having silly ideas in one field is no good reason to deny merit for great ideas in another field. Apart from the fact that this time the Creation Scientists will think that there is good reason to think that they are the objects of unfair treatment at the hands of the scientific community.| M. Ruse[24]

Damadian himself said, "Before this happened, nobody ever said to me 'They will not give you the Nobel Prize for Medicine because you are a creation scientist.'... If people were actively campaigning against me because of that, I never knew it."

You realize that nothing you posted indicates that his religious views played any part in the decision, and in fact gives a number of much more likely reasons right?

partial quote:

and many in the scientific community felt that the Nobel had not been awarded for the MRI for so long due to debate over Damadian's role in its development. -end quote


Its a controversy. Most controversies aren't black and white. (I've got no problem showing both sides. Professional discrimination in the field of science. That's a whopper. The world used to worry about the religionist impacting science now we have to worry about the scientists impacting the scientists. Discrimination is discrimination. No matter which direction it comes from.)

I find it very threatening to think some of the brightest minds in science would feel peer pressured to choose between science and their religious beliefs because they feel professionally marginalized.

Again, the problem with the way you posted isn't that you failed to show both sides. It's that the links and quotes you posted make it pretty clear that his YECism is extremely unlikely as a reason for his snubbing. His abrasiveness, his false claims about what he discovered/it's implications, the fact that he wasn't an academic, etc. are much more likely reasons for it. And that's only IF he deserved it, which isn't at all clear.

Its not only about the tidy explanation.

Its about how this man felt. How is he suppose to do his best work with discrimination upon him or even the perception that he is not taken seriously by his peers?

The truth is that the scientific community should be aware of its own proclivity to talk itself out of their beliefs based on their education but that doesn't stop them. Nope they keep on drawing conclusions then applying them when they should have stopped at the hypothesis.

There are 3 relevant points here. The first is that not getting a Nobel prize is not the same as not being taken seriously. The second is that he was clearly an abrasive personality so the fact that people didn't like him should be no great surprise. The third is that there is a huge difference between being religious (or even being a YEC) and being on the board of an institute that actively campaigns to undermine science education. In the case of the latter one deserves every bit of disdain one gets from the scientific community.

Also could you please elaborate (or even just give a definition) regarding

He makes a major contribution to humanity and it all comes down to his personality. Hmmmmm.....