 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
How're you're supposedly such a brilliant scientist and could miss the obvious so easily I don't know. Notice how his problem was with the fact that girl refused to accept even the possibility that evolution might be true. He did, in fact, not quibble with her rejection of evolution, but in her complete rejection of applying the scientific method towards evolution. She just flatly rejected it because it contradicted her beliefs. Such a person shouldn't be a scientist, nor a doctor. After all, science is the root of medicine, and bad science will equal bad medicine. |
I don't think you understand what the scientific method is. It is not about belief. It is about testing models with data. You don't have to believe in a theory in order to understand it and test it. Science and belief and completely divorced - they have nothing to do with each other.
Admitedly though, like you she doesn't seem to see that distinction, since by 'piping up' and presenting her opinion on the matter to the class does rather imply that she thinks her belief is relevant. A good lecturer should have explained that it is not rather than being offensive to her in front of the whole class.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I don't think you understand what the scientific method is. It is not about belief. It is about testing models with data. You don't have to believe in a theory in order to understand it and test it. Science and belief and completely divorced - they have nothing to do with each other. |
Jeez, you still don't get the point. You're too busy being offended that someone might have possibly oppressed a person of religion (never mind the supposed oppressor was a priest) that you're missing the salient factor--it was NOT her belief or lack of it that was the problem, it was her outright refusal to even consider the possibility that it might be true. I know the scientific method pretty well, thank you, and one of the rather important aspects of science is that you can't just outright reject possibilities. Even diehard scientists admit the possibility that established science is in error and could be turned on its head tomorrow. Only a stupid scientist says otherwise. This girl would be a stupid scientist.
quote:
Admitedly though, like you she doesn't seem to see that distinction, since by 'piping up' and presenting her opinion on the matter to the class does rather imply that she thinks her belief is relevant. A good lecturer should have explained that it is not rather than being offensive to her in front of the whole class. |
Offensive? He wasn't offensive, he was honest and damned respectful, considering many would have probably gone after her beliefs instead of her methods.
And the failure to see the distinction is yours. The distinction is between her belief in creationism (which isn't the issue) and her method of rejecting evolution as totally impossible without empirical support. Once again, you're entirely failing to grasp the issue at hand here, which isn't her creationist beliefs. Nobody can be a good scientist while behaving in this manner. Had her answer to the question, "can you at least accept the possibility that evolution might be true" been "yes," then there wouldn't have been any issue. The priest didn't belittle her beliefs nor tell her to leave class or anything like that. He just told her the truth: If she persists in her way of thinking (not in her belief), she should be neither in science nor medicine.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Only a stupid scientist says otherwise. This girl would be a stupid scientist.
|
I know some very good scientists who don't believe in evolution. In fact, I know some very good scientists working on Big Bang physics who don't believe in evolution. They are not 'stupid scientists' - in fact they are very good. In fact, if we only worked on theories which we believed in, not much would get done. Sometimes you need to consider a theory that you are completely sure is wrong, just to be able to rule it out with data.
And I think working as a research physicist is a little more dependent on the 'scientific method' than medicine.
quote:
Offensive? He wasn't offensive, he was honest and damned respectful, considering many would have probably gone after her beliefs instead of her methods. |
Wouldn't you be offended if a lecturer told you to change your degree subject in front of the entire class?
quote:
The distinction is between her belief in creationism (which isn't the issue) and her method of rejecting evolution as totally impossible without empirical support.
|
You are missing the point. Her belief that evolution is wrong is a belief - it is not something which can be proven correct or false. The scientific method is not applicable to beliefs. She can refuse to believe in evolution for whatever reasons she likes - she does not need empirical evidence to believe or disbelieve something. She only needs empirical evidence to prove it scientifically to someone else.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I know some very good scientists who don't believe in evolution. In fact, I know some very good scientists working on Big Bang physics who don't believe in evolution. They are not 'stupid scientists' - in fact they are very good. |
For the upteenth time, the belief in evolution IS NOT THE PROBLEM! How many times do I have to say this? Note that the "stupid scientist" comment was relating not to her belief in evolution, but in her refusal to accept the possibility of it for scientific purposes. Do you not see the distinction here? I'm not sure how to make it any plainer than in the last post!
As an aside, no biologists of any serious merit disbelieve in evolution, and I give that a lot more weight than theoretical physicists. Acceptance of the evolutionary model isn't exactly necessary to be a competent physicist, and the same can't be said for biologists. This girl's refusal to admit the possibility of evolution in a biology course is akin to an astronomy student refusing to accept heliocentricity.
quote:
In fact, if we only worked on theories which we believed in, not much would get done. Sometimes you need to consider a theory that you are completely sure is wrong, just to be able to rule it out with data. |
 Don't you see this is EXACTLY the point of why the girl shouldn't be a scientist?! She's totally UNWILLING to do this. "Sometimes you need to consider a theory that you are completely sure is wrong." YES! And she won't! Ergo...
quote:
Wouldn't you be offended if a lecturer told you to change your degree subject in front of the entire class?
|
First, I don't know if it was before the whole class or not. It was in a lab, so it might have been a one-on-one discussion. I'll have to ask my roommate, since it was he who witnessed it.
Second, no, I wouldn't. If the professor was being honest and respectful in his manner of stating it, then I couldn't complain (since I had made the presumption to air my religious beliefs unbidden in his class). Besides, he's doing her a favor by being so honest.
quote:
You are missing the point. Her belief that evolution is wrong is a belief - it is not something which can be proven correct or false. |
No, you've missed the point. One last time--her belief that evolution is false isn't the issue at hand (while it is irrational), it's her unwillingness to accept the scientific possibility of it for the purposes of research/lab work/etc. If student took a literature course but refused to read some assigned material because of a moral objection to it, should their beliefs be coddled, or should they seek out another course? She is admitting that she's unwilling to accept one of the core tenents of modern biology, what is in fact the basis for modern medicine. How is she going to pass her courses if she won't do this? She won't. She'll flunk. And this professor was being kind enough to warn of this before she went and got all those Fs. Gee, what a bastard.
Last edited by Boris Godunov on 13-04-2004 at 03:52
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:35
|
|
whats incredible is that i had a world religions class that went the opposite. it degenerated into religion-bashing where a few people were attacking Christianity especially as being stupid. it looked like the Christians were about to cuss out their attackers or start fist-fighting for a minute there.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Rogan Josh
|
|
Let's try again....
quote:
Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Note that the "stupid scientist" comment was relating not to her belief in evolution, but in her refusal to accept the possibility of it for scientific purposes. Do you not see the distinction here? I'm not sure how to make it any plainer than in the last post!
|
So seem to twist your definitions to whatever point you want to make. The question that she said no to was:
quote:
Can you at least accept the possibility that evolution is fact?
|
How are we to interpret this question? The way your post reads (and the way she seemed to answer) implies that it is a question of belief systems. If she accepts the 'possibility that evolution is fact', she is accepting that her religious viewpoint may be wrong, and this is unacceptable to her. But nowhere does she say that she would be unwilling to consider it for 'scientific purposes'.
I do not, and will never, accept as 'fact' the idea that the universe is entirely describable by physical law. Period. However, I am willing to behave as if it does in order to perform my science. My beliefs are neither necessary nor relevant.
quote:
As an aside, no biologists of any serious merit disbelieve in evolution, and I give that a lot more weight than theoretical physicists.
|
I find this hard to believe (unless you define 'of merit' as believing in evolution  ), but anyway I was not objecting with respect to the study of biology - but to being a doctor of medicine. Evolution as the origin of species has very little to do with medicine....
quote:
... akin to an astronomy student refusing to accept heliocentricity.
|
...just like planetary science has very little to do with astronomy.
quote:
Don't you see this is EXACTLY the point of why the girl shouldn't be a scientist?! She's totally UNWILLING to do this. "Sometimes you need to consider a theory that you are completely sure is wrong." YES! And she won't! Ergo...
|
It doesn't stop you being completely sure though! That was the statement that she made (as you reported it) - not that she was unwilling to work with it, but that she was unwilling to believe it. If you do not accept this, then your statement is trivial because you are just saying 'one cannot study something that one does not study'.
But if this is what you are saying, fine, then you are correct and I am wrong. I had thought though that your post was intended to have content, rather than meaningless platitudes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Haven't been on site for a few days. The problem with Islam/Sharia is intrinsic and two fold. First, the Muslims SHOULD be in authority over non-Muslims, not the other way around. That is not going to go over well with most people who aren't Muslim. There is no way around the fact that this central tenant if bigoted and intolerant. WE should be in charge.
Please note that Christian religions are not necessarily innocent in that regard. I left the Catholic Church over it's meddling in politics, attempting to push morals into secular law. Please note both Sharia and the Papacy would disagree with that very concept. The difference is that in Sharia it is a central tenant. Which the majority of Muslims adhere to. If you were talking about Christianity circa 1650, to pull out one date, I would be forced to grant you there was no distinction.
However, the majority of Chritians have stepped away from this world view, including practicing Catholics. When Islam does that, I will withdraw my claim.
Secondly, Islam really doesn't play well with non-Christian/non-Jewish peoples, according to the Koran (the anti-Semitism currently in Islam has roots in the Koran, but I am talking about something much more serious). Essentially, without going and hunting up my Koran, it says that a good Muslim is duty bound to convert or put to the sword all pagans, as in animists, polytheists, etc. That's another reason Islam is involved in so many conflicts.
Christianity's record on this is also pitiful, but again MODERN Christianity has largely gotten past this. If you want to look at the historical record, find me a Muslim society (besides Sufi's, a small minority of under 10%) that has a consistant record of not engaging in aggressive warfare with it's neighbors and being tolerant of religious minorities within it's borders. That is why I am not paticularly fond of Islam. If you want a philosophy that is much harder to pervert than any religion of the "Old Book" try Toaism. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
ind me a Muslim society (besides Sufi's, a small minority of under 10%) that has a consistant record of not engaging in aggressive warfare with it's neighbors and being tolerant of religious minorities within it's borders. |
the Ottoman Empire between 1683 (the last of their aggressive wars) and the 20th century would fit this bill.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:35
|
|
agathon, dubious authorities rock
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-04-2004 20:22
|