tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1746564418600302090.post2087591996990976579..comments2023-08-09T09:01:29.229-07:00Comments on Pliny's Tangent Du Jour: Knowing, Understanding and Belief: Essential Differences Between Religion and SciencePliny-the-in-Betweenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16580900408227953736noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1746564418600302090.post-25024848829364319392009-03-30T12:16:00.000-07:002009-03-30T12:16:00.000-07:00I agree with you Harvey. The problem with science...I agree with you Harvey. The problem with science to a certain extent is the same problem that parents often face - we get to be the downer boy's that are charged with the thankless task of 'taking all the fun out of something". Match that with the fact that we are products of evolution where long-term planning in the biological sense is no more than one or two seasons and it's probably more amazing that we make any headway at all.Pliny-the-in-Betweenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16580900408227953736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1746564418600302090.post-64062460523660944322009-03-30T11:42:00.000-07:002009-03-30T11:42:00.000-07:00Pliny:When I entered medical school in 1960, 85% o...Pliny:<BR/><BR/>When I entered medical school in 1960, 85% of my class were smokers (including me). When we finished in 1964, only 15% were still smoking. It has always concerned me how long it took for the incontroverible evidence of the relationship between cigarette smoke and Lung cancer, laryngeal and oral cavity cancer (my specialty), bladder cancer, and its overwhelming association with emphysema and chronic lung disease to "filter" (pardon the pun) through to public awareness and public policy. The incidence of all these tobacco related diseases have only just started to decline with the slowing in the rate of teenage smoking. What a tragedy that our governement (and all the rest of the world) could not get past the "beliefs" of tobacco lobbies that this relationship was "unproven" on purely financial grounds!Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10797750710657979526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1746564418600302090.post-35719432853361900392009-03-29T13:52:00.000-07:002009-03-29T13:52:00.000-07:00What ... you think OJ did it?? ....;-) (/snark)What ... you think OJ did it?? ....;-) (/snark)Stacyhttp://car54.wordpress.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1746564418600302090.post-63918370361675123012009-03-28T20:42:00.000-07:002009-03-28T20:42:00.000-07:00Actually the example of the tobacco industry is an...Actually the example of the tobacco industry is an excellent example of my point,<BR/><BR/>In 1953 one of my surgical mentors attended the national thoracic society meeting. At that time ~ 90% of the thoracic surgeons smoked. The first papers warning of a correlation between smoking and lung cancer came out that year to be followed by more supportive research. In 4 years less than 10% of the surgeons at the meeting smoked and many began to recommend that thire patients stop as well. <BR/><BR/>these studies were published and circulated by scientists.<BR/><BR/>The problems that started next were not the fault of science but rather examples of the corruption of our government, the impotence of the media and corporate greed. Due to powerful lobbying and support from tobacco producing states representatives, it took years to get the message out and the public warned. Not the fault of science or scientists. The media presented the story but in a pattern similar to how they distort the discussion of evolution and climate change today, the media presented the story from both sides creating the impression that the there was controversy within the legitimate scientific community (ie not from tobacco company owned technicians creating sham reports of distorting the facts.) The tobacco industry just lied - that's not the fault of science. <BR/><BR/>As for the courts juries, uneducated in science partly due to the efforts of those who oppose public education, make decisions based upon ignorance and emotion not science. science can't be blamed for court room theatrics (hello OJ!)Pliny-the-in-Betweenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16580900408227953736noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1746564418600302090.post-68994943930906325922009-03-28T19:07:00.000-07:002009-03-28T19:07:00.000-07:00Mike:How you can contend that "faith" is not, by d...Mike:<BR/><BR/>How you can contend that "faith" is not, by definition, "blind" is hard for me to understand. Since one must "believe" tnat he has experienced being "born again" (as an example of faith) without any external support or "proof" other than his belief, I cannot see how this is any way similar to "adopting" scientific facts, most (but certainly not all) of which cn be either observed personally or have been subjected to reproducible observations by others. The key word here is "reproducible", since affirmation by others of similar born again experiences does not equate with scientific documentation.<BR/>I do not belittle the long history and widespread belief expressed by millions of Christians (for example)throughout history, since as more or less an agnostic I have come to see the strongest argument I can find for the existance of God is that every Human culture has seen fit to create one. I simply cannot see equating religious "belief" with acceptance of scientific proof, especially since religion by its very nature neither requires or wants "proof".Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10797750710657979526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1746564418600302090.post-29336092444970585952009-03-28T08:03:00.000-07:002009-03-28T08:03:00.000-07:00Harvey, I can see that you have little regard for ...Harvey, I can see that you have little regard for the concept of faith, equating it with "blind belief." That would, indeed, make faith based systems of belief unattractive.<BR/><BR/>I long to respond, but do not see how to do so with respect to the idea of "comment." I already tend to go too long. Nor do I wish to do you the disservice of trite bumper sticker comments.<BR/><BR/>That would be as disrespectful as bunching centuries of thoughtful literature into a small concept such as "blind belief."<BR/><BR/>I will think on this and try to get my thoughts together in my own blog, Philosophy On Purpose. I see you are one of my two followers, so when I do get my thoughts together you will have opportunity to see them.<BR/><BR/>I have enjoyed the interactions here. It is good to keep the mind sharp.<BR/><BR/>MikeMichael Lockridgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06748256055779697021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1746564418600302090.post-32130462707466302232009-03-27T20:52:00.000-07:002009-03-27T20:52:00.000-07:00Michael:"Still, I contend that science IS a belief...Michael:<BR/><BR/>"Still, I contend that science IS a belief system. It is adopted by the believer for the same personal reasons that any other believer adopts their belief system."<BR/><BR/>The obvious difference between science and religion is that if one chooses to accept science there are extensive, repeatable, and confirmatory observations to support that "belief", whereas religion has no such support. If we use Christianity as an obvious example, there is essentially only scripture to "support" its allegations (or theories, if you will). Scripture itself demands "belief" without support or reproducibility. <BR/> The reasons why anyone "adopts" either religion or science are irrelevant to whatever "truth" they may perceive. Any person in the world can "adopt" science, simply by learning enough about it to either see that it makes sense or finding an opportunity to "test" its hypotheses for him/herself. "Adopting" any religion demands suspension of any attention to evidence or rigorous proof in favor of "faith" or blind belief. regardless of whether or not one is Christian, areligious, or has never had any contact whatsoever with religious writings of any kind.Harveyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10797750710657979526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1746564418600302090.post-35060566711795597072009-03-27T17:17:00.000-07:002009-03-27T17:17:00.000-07:00An excellent response. I appreciate your careful r...An excellent response. I appreciate your careful reasoning before responding, and thoughtful assessment of the science/religion dichotomy.<BR/><BR/>The only fault I find is that the comparison is skewed. You compare a pure science with religion as expressed through faulty systems. <BR/><BR/>I do not contest that Christian principles have been perversely applied by people in power to justify, legitimize and support some pretty nasty social orders. <BR/><BR/>Indeed, the fundamentalist movement was intended to return to FUNDAMENTALS, and move away from perversions and false applications of Biblical truth. <BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, they became activists in a political structure, and adopted many of the political tools and techniques to apply the truth (as they saw it) to the world.<BR/><BR/>One might observe a similar development in the Islamic fundamentalist movement. An admirable initial intent with a disastrous result.<BR/><BR/>They became perverse, and unworthy of the truth on which they claimed to stand. Not everyone involved, of course, but the movements have become misdirected and unholy.<BR/><BR/>Science is not beyond such criticisms, either. At its essence science does seek truth, or at least a true perspective on what is being observed. In its pure form, science is most admirable.<BR/><BR/>Science has been often called into the service of less truthful social orders. <BR/><BR/>Consider the application of science in the courtrooms of our own country. The ongoing contentions of the tobacco industry could serve as one of the most blatant examples.<BR/><BR/>Science is not always, perhaps even not often, pure in application.<BR/><BR/>Science suffers from the same diseases that religion and other belief systems experience when exposed to the real world.<BR/><BR/>I have not contended that religious belief systems necessarily stand above scientific systems of belief. I cannot even imagine having sufficient knowledge and perspective to offer such a judgment! <BR/><BR/>Still, I contend that science IS a belief system. It is adopted by the believer for the same personal reasons that any other believer adopts their belief system.<BR/><BR/>I am afraid that my thoughts are running down a path that will require considerable time for contemplation, and I will close my comment now.<BR/><BR/>Again, thank you for your serious consideration in response. Your blog is proving to be a valuable part of my life.<BR/><BR/>MikeMichael Lockridgehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06748256055779697021noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1746564418600302090.post-62544223608193885892009-03-27T15:31:00.000-07:002009-03-27T15:31:00.000-07:00Per Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law of Prediction ("A...Per Arthur C. Clarke's Third Law of Prediction ("Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"), Science is majic that WORKS.<BR/><BR/>This is the main reason why the fundies complain about science; they see it as encroaching on their territory.GearHedEdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09288513835630145996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1746564418600302090.post-22280719364285496792009-03-27T14:25:00.000-07:002009-03-27T14:25:00.000-07:00I think it's important to note however, that not a...I think it's important to note however, that not all religions use ancient text literally - but use it as a guideline.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com