Scientists are Human Too

[Evangelical]

So far there have been a number of threads involving scientific discussions. Science has been presented as something factual, irrefutable, unquestionable, in the face of irrationality.

However research in psychology shows that scientists are prone to the same cognitive biases as anyone else. It is not surprising given that scientists are in fact human. Even the most sound methodology and rigor cannot overcome the fact that a scientist's brain is prone to various cognitive biases that affect all humans. Even the most sincere and careful scientist cannot escape it.

A number of articles about the various cognitive biases affecting science can be found here:

http://www.nature.com/news/let-s-thi...e-bias-1.18520

One enemy of robust science is our humanity — our appetite for being right, and our tendency to find patterns in noise, to see supporting evidence for what we already believe is true, and to ignore the facts that do not fit.


http://nautil.us/issue/24/error/the-...ith-scientists

Psychologist Brian Nosek of the University of Virginia says that the most common and problematic bias in science is “motivated reasoning”: We interpret observations to fit a particular idea. Psychologists have shown that “most of our reasoning is in fact rationalization,” he says. In other words, we have already made the decision about what to do or to think, and our “explanation” of our reasoning is really a justification for doing what we wanted to do—or to believe—anyway. Science is of course meant to be more objective and skeptical than everyday thought—but how much is it, really?

This website provides a good summary of cognitive biases:

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/co...cisions-2015-8

It is unclear whether there is any real solution to cognitive bias. Peer review is well known to be a flawed process, but it remains because there is no better alternative. Even though the peer review process will always be subject to dishonesty and manipulation, one reason it is flawed is that scientific experiments are unlikely to be repeated which means publications remain in the public arena, unquestioned, for many years. The peer review process cannot discover, for example, a bug in the software used to generate the published results.

A good article describing the flaws of peer review is found here:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

What is science really about? Some would say fact, evidence, observations, knowledge. But actually science is also about belief. In that respect it is not too different to religion. A peer reviewed article is accepted because the reviewers believe it to be right, not because the reviewers have checked the work or repeated the experiments for themselves. A scientist draws conclusions on the basis of data that they believe to be correct, and statistical methods involving belief are often used. For example hypothesis testing is a big part of science, and hypotheses are about belief - is it unlikely or is it very likely? Testing beliefs is a big part of what science is all about. Religion is also about testing beliefs - my belief versus your belief, which belief is more likely?

"Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion":
http://listverse.com/2012/12/15/top-...ther-religion/

We may say then that the question of "science versus religion", is actually more like "religion versus religion". Those who combine science with the bible, are actually combining two belief systems together in the hope that more belief systems are better than a single belief system alone. The approach is not so different to those who combine Christianity with Buddhism or Hinduism.

It may seem unlikely, but combining belief systems together or Pantheism when it is taken to the extreme, is actually as Richard Dawkins describes, "sexed-up atheism":

http://www.pantheism.net/atheism
Richard Dawkins, in his book The God Delusion, has described Pantheism as “sexed-up atheism.” That may seem flippant, but it is accurate. Of all religious or spiritual traditions, Pantheism – the approach of Einstein, Hawking and many other scientists – is the only one that passes the muster of the world’s most militant atheist.

Not committing to one religion or another, yet still holding onto some idea of the supernatural or meta-physical "god", is basically a form of unbelief, a form of atheism.

[OBW]

I realize that there are some that treat science and the scientific method like religion. But I am not ready to go so far as to call science a religion.

But sometimes scientists go beyond what the actual science can tell them and wander into a land in which they create a scientific-sounding religion. The big bang has to be believed. It cannot be established though something a lot like a really big explosion could explain a lot. Just can't explain where the explosion and the matter in it came from.

And the problem of seeing what you are looking for is always a problem. I see it in the conclusions drawn from political polls. And in statements about what the Bible means. Sometimes we are reading the Bible and realize that as we read a particular passage for the untold"th" number of times suddenly realize that what we thought about it was based upon misreading the connection of prepositions, or ignoring the context.

I did that about 9 years ago when reading 1 Corinthians 3. Paul calls the teachers (Apollos, Peter, himself, and others) farmers, then builders. And he calls the Corinthians the Farm, and the Building. So who does the building? The building . . . or the builder? Not trying to duck any part in the "gold, silver precious stones, wood, hay, stubble" analysis, but he was not talking about us. He was talking about the teachers.

We are all prone to bias in our view. It has been found that people who learn the Bible in what I call "fortune cookie" fashion (each verse is an independent nugget that can be gleaned for doctrine and teaching without reference to its context) learn things that are not there. Then, when later confronted with the context and shown the almost obvious error in their thinking, a little over 50% of them will retain their error anyway because that is what they learned first. Sort of an "if you get it wrong you can never get it right" kind of curse.

But whether in science or in the Bible, if the "peers" who review will not simply start with the assumption that what they are reviewing is from an unassailable source and actually review the context, look at the data, etc., and determine whether the conclusions drawn are actually supported by the data (scientific or theological (the Bible)) then such errors can be rooted out.

Not 100%. Not all the time. But the obvious ones should be discoverable.

That would mean that all those "this simply means . . ." statements that Lee made could be challenged. But they never were from within the LRC. They just accepted that if Lee said it, it was as good as scripture.

I know. I was there for 14+ years and am often amazed at the things that I thought were sound teaching while there.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

I realize that there are some that treat science and the scientific method like religion. But I am not ready to go so far as to call science a religion.

But sometimes scientists go beyond what the actual science can tell them and wander into a land in which they create a scientific-sounding religion. The big bang has to be believed. It cannot be established though something a lot like a really big explosion could explain a lot. Just can't explain where the explosion and the matter in it came from.

And the problem of seeing what you are looking for is always a problem. I see it in the conclusions drawn from political polls. And in statements about what the Bible means. Sometimes we are reading the Bible and realize that as we read a particular passage for the untold"th" number of times suddenly realize that what we thought about it was based upon misreading the connection of prepositions, or ignoring the context.

I did that about 9 years ago when reading 1 Corinthians 3. Paul calls the teachers (Apollos, Peter, himself, and others) farmers, then builders. And he calls the Corinthians the Farm, and the Building. So who does the building? The building . . . or the builder? Not trying to duck any part in the "gold, silver precious stones, wood, hay, stubble" analysis, but he was not talking about us. He was talking about the teachers.

We are all prone to bias in our view. It has been found that people who learn the Bible in what I call "fortune cookie" fashion (each verse is an independent nugget that can be gleaned for doctrine and teaching without reference to its context) learn things that are not there. Then, when later confronted with the context and shown the almost obvious error in their thinking, a little over 50% of them will retain their error anyway because that is what they learned first. Sort of an "if you get it wrong you can never get it right" kind of curse.

But whether in science or in the Bible, if the "peers" who review will not simply start with the assumption that what they are reviewing is from an unassailable source and actually review the context, look at the data, etc., and determine whether the conclusions drawn are actually supported by the data (scientific or theological (the Bible)) then such errors can be rooted out.

Not 100%. Not all the time. But the obvious ones should be discoverable.

That would mean that all those "this simply means . . ." statements that Lee made could be challenged. But they never were from within the LRC. They just accepted that if Lee said it, it was as good as scripture.

I know. I was there for 14+ years and am often amazed at the things that I thought were sound teaching while there.

Good post OBW. Thanks.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

We are all prone to bias in our view. It has been found that people who learn the Bible in what I call "fortune cookie" fashion (each verse is an independent nugget that can be gleaned for doctrine and teaching without reference to its context) learn things that are not there. Then, when later confronted with the context and shown the almost obvious error in their thinking, a little over 50% of them will retain their error anyway because that is what they learned first. Sort of an "if you get it wrong you can never get it right" kind of curse.

But whether in science or in the Bible, if the "peers" who review will not simply start with the assumption that what they are reviewing is from an unassailable source and actually review the context, look at the data, etc., and determine whether the conclusions drawn are actually supported by the data (scientific or theological (the Bible)) then such errors can be rooted out.

Yes. I am reading the book Sapiens. In this book the author identifies human language of the Homo Sapiens that originated 30-70,000 years ago as the key determinant for our unprecedented success. He says this language gives us the ability to form groups larger than 150 individuals, something never done with any other species on this planet. (He distinguishes the kinds of social interactions we have with those of ants and bees as being far broader and virtually unlimited in scope, whereas with insects it is extremely limited in scope and has not changed much for millions of years).

He then discusses how we could do this. The great apes require an intimate knowledge of an individual before they can cooperate and coordinate with them. Likewise with wolves. However, this is where he says that works of "fiction" and "mythology" plays a role. If a group can share the same myth then they can cooperate. By myth he is very clearly referring to the Bible, Koran, and other texts that are central to various cultures.

So then, why do scientists refer to these stories as "myths" rather than "truths". The definition that he is using is traditional stories involving supernatural beings. But the second definition of myth is "false belief". Regardless of how you wish to dress it up, the scientists are demonstrating their bias that these stories are false and part of a false belief construct.

However, based on the theory of Evolution we should prune out and eliminate anything that does not make us more fit. So the scientists have come up with a problem. They must realize that the incredible amount of time devoted by Homo Sapiens to these books and their faith is in fact the reason we have been successful (blessed). It is what has made us more fit (we used to be a mid level predator beneath lions and hyenas, hence our specialty in dealing with bones). Scientists credit our ability to work together in larger and larger groups as the reason we have zoomed to the top of the food chain, and they recognize that ability is derived from the Bible, laws, and other unprecedented developments from Homo Sapiens.

So then why use a term that means "false belief" to describe these books? Why not use "truth". When the Bible says "if you keep these commandments you will be blessed" that is truth, even the Scientists have confirmed this. How could a "false belief" be responsible for making man more fit? How do you reconcile the importance of "myths" with man's evolution?

To me this is an example of their bias sticking out.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So then, why do scientists refer to these stories as "myths" rather than "truths". The definition that he is using is traditional stories involving supernatural beings. But the second definition of myth is "false belief". Regardless of how you wish to dress it up, the scientists are demonstrating their bias that these stories are false and part of a false belief construct.

For example, he describes a limited liability corporation as one of the most incredible inventions of man. He says it is a fiction. There is no "google", they own buildings, but that is not Google. They have employees, but that is not Google. Their are share holders but they are not Google. He says that Google is considered a "fiction" that is created by modern day shaman's and priests with their sacred documents and procedures that cause this LLC to come into existence. It is certainly something that is quite unique from all the animals, no animal could fathom such a "creature" as an LLC. The term "corporation" comes from the Latin for Body. It was Paul and the NT that "fathomed" a spiritual body.

The fact that we have nations, corporations, and other organizations like this is evidence that we are a spiritual being. We recognize the importance of the "spirit" whereas animals cannot.

And, these "Bodies" are in the image and likeness of God. Teddy Roosevelt said "let there be a Panama Canal and it was so". Herbert Hoover said "let there be a dam and it was so". JFK said "let there be a space program, and it was so".

These are not fictions. If we do not consider the Panama canal a fiction, why would the creator of that canal be a fiction? These Bodies are every bit as real as the things they create.

[OBW]

When I look up "myth," it is the fourth out of 6 definitions in which fallacy, imagination, or being unverifiable first appears. The first definitions were more about the way history is told. Not necessarily as a modernistic history, but as a pointed recounting.

Lets face it. While many still hold religiously to the 6-day account of creation, it is a myth. Not that it is untrue in what it is trying to describe — that God created the heavens and the earth, and every living thing on it — but that the means by which that description is made is very shortened and probably metaphorical in some/many aspects.

So rather than asserting what someone else means when they say "myth" (something you don't really know unless they spell it out for you), assert what you mean by it. Or explain how the manner of the telling of creation, or so much more of the biblical history, is not simply a modern textbook.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

When I look up "myth," it is the fourth out of 6 definitions in which fallacy, imagination, or being unverifiable first appears. The first definitions were more about the way history is told. Not necessarily as a modernistic history, but as a pointed recounting.

Lets face it. While many still hold religiously to the 6-day account of creation, it is a myth. Not that it is untrue in what it is trying to describe — that God created the heavens and the earth, and every living thing on it — but that the means by which that description is made is very shortened and probably metaphorical in some/many aspects.

So rather than asserting what someone else means when they say "myth" (something you don't really know unless they spell it out for you), assert what you mean by it. Or explain how the manner of the telling of creation, or so much more of the biblical history, is not simply a modern textbook.

The "6 day account of creation" is not what he is referring to as a "myth" that we use to form governments, corporations, etc. This is referring to the OT laws, the 10 commandments, things like this. Our concept of right and wrong, what is righteous, what is a sin. To refer to the 10 commandments as "myths" is biased.

As an aside, I realize many readers of the Bible see the "6 day account of creation" as that. I don't. I see the first verse of Genesis 1 as the account of the creation. The reference to the "6 days" is not a creation account, it is the account of the restoration of the Earth. It does not follow the account of evolution, rather it follows the account of what would take place as a glacier retreated. "Water covering the land" in my opinion refers to the last ice age. The major give away is the appearance of grass. It is one of the last things to appear in the evolutionary record yet one of the first in Genesis 1. Therefore I do not agree that the account is a "myth", rather I think the understanding of it is greatly flawed and that calling it a myth merely ignores the fact that your interpretation is flawed.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

"Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion":
http://listverse.com/2012/12/15/top-...ther-religion/

We may say then that the question of "science versus religion", is actually more like "religion versus religion".

This is silly talk. Science refutes religion so religion strikes back by calling science a religion, thus bringing science down off its high horse, and down to the low horse of religion.

Typically religion is a closed system. But science is an open system. Science is not fixed, it's been changing ever since the science age began, and is still changing. While religion does everything in its power to stay the same. "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."

And science doesn't have a book like the Bible and Koran. Science has many books ; more than the Bible and Koran combined.

So, just because science has been refuting religion since it began, doesn't mean you have to bring it down to the level of religion by calling it a religion.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by awareness

This is silly talk. Science refutes religion so religion strikes back by calling science a religion, thus bringing science down off its high horse, and down to the low horse of religion.

Typically religion is a closed system. But science is an open system. Science is not fixed, it's been changing ever since the science age began, and is still changing. While religion does everything in its power to stay the same. "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."

And science doesn't have a book like the Bible and Koran. Science has many books ; more than the Bible and Koran combined.

So, just because science has been refuting religion since it began, doesn't mean you have to bring it down to the level of religion by calling it a religion.

Science tries to stay the same too. Scientific careers are built around trying to keep things the same. it is also in the best interest of companies to re-use same old methods and products, rather than completely change everything. Also, religion tries to change - liberalism for example is an attempt to make religion up to date and relevant for modern society.

Well the article I quoted was written by a biologist with a PhD, so I think it has some credibility as it comes from a scientist or at least someone trained as one. I would not say it is silly talk.

If we watch debates between science and religion it is obvious they are just exchanges around different belief systems, or "religions". It's one belief versus another. If science was truly objective then a scientist could point to some objective fact and everyone would believe them. This is related to my posts a while ago about how objectivity doesn't really exist, everything is subjective.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Science tries to stay the same too. Scientific careers are built around trying to keep things the same. it is also in the best interest of companies to re-use same old methods and products, rather than completely change everything. Also, religion tries to change - liberalism for example is an attempt to make religion up to date and relevant for modern society.

Well the article I quoted was written by a biologist with a PhD, so I think it has some credibility as it comes from a scientist or at least someone trained as one. I would not say it is silly talk.

If we watch debates between science and religion it is obvious they are just exchanges around different belief systems, or "religions". It's one belief versus another. If science was truly objective then a scientist could point to some objective fact and everyone would believe them. This is related to my posts a while ago about how objectivity doesn't really exist, everything is subjective.

Science will continue changes that surpass that of religions. So fast religions will be left in its dust. Watch and see, while you live. In a hundred years it will be undeniable.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Science will continue changes that surpass that of religions. So fast religions will be left in its dust. Watch and see, while you live. In a hundred years it will be undeniable.

True religion is taking care of widows and orphans. This did not occur prior to the agricultural revolution. We now know that the life of the foragers was more challenging and a higher standard of living than that of the early adopters of agriculture. They (early farmers) didn't choose this life because of the glamor or wealth. Rather, what is far more likely is that they couldn't make the cut to be part of the elite forager tribes. We have evidence that hunter gatherer tribes were very selective, killing members that did not measure up in one way or another.

It was the agricultural revolution that found a place for the less "gifted". This is where the mundane jobs were invented. This boredom was critical to our development because it forced us to focus our creativity in other areas like inventions and story telling. We have stories that date back to the beginning of the Agricultural revolution, but have little to no stories of hunter gatherer tribes, even those that lived relatively recently.

It was the agricultural revolution that first made true religion a reality. A society where widows and orphans could have a place, contribute to society and be cared for in return.

But by contrast we find the laws governing widows and orphans from six thousand years ago to be barbaric. As we developed industry, science and technology our standard of living increased to the point we could be horrified by the treatment of the elderly, infirm, widows, orphans and pets. Compare this to one former hunter gatherer in the Amazon rain forest who said 'his job used to be to sneak up on the old women who couldn't keep up and kill them, but now that he lives with the whites he has become weak.' (Sapiens). Clearly the hunter gatherer tribes did not have true religion.

Although Awareness longs for the day when religion will be left in the dust, it seems to me that the arc of inventions (robots to take of people, better health care, replacing jobs with robots) indicates exactly the opposite. As for science the most arrogant of them have claimed their "superiority" to faith (which they refer to as myths, i.e. false beliefs), yet all they have been able to do is confirm things that were written thousands of years earlier.

[zeek]

This thread is based on the false proposition that someone claimed that science is anything other than a fallible human endeavor. To the best of my recollection that didn't happen.

What has happened on this forum if not on this thread is that apologists for Witness Lee's Local Church claim that it is somehow literally the supernatural "body of Christ". I would suggest to you that that proposition is unsupportable. It is the disparity between the realities of typical group behavior manifest in the Local Church Movement [LCM] and the group's claims that there is something supernatural about it that produces disillusionment with the movement.

Evangelical misunderstands science. Whether that misunderstanding was caused by the LCM or part of a mindset that led him to join the group in the first place, it's evident in the position he has taken on this thread.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

This is silly talk. Science refutes religion so religion strikes back by calling science a religion, thus bringing science down off its high horse, and down to the low horse of religion.

Typically religion is a closed system. But science is an open system. Science is not fixed, it's been changing ever since the science age began, and is still changing. While religion does everything in its power to stay the same. "Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever."

And science doesn't have a book like the Bible and Koran. Science has many books ; more than the Bible and Koran combined.

So, just because science has been refuting religion since it began, doesn't mean you have to bring it down to the level of religion by calling it a religion.

This is silly. The book Sapiens is a scientifically based discussion and it demonstrates that Science is now verifying the significance of religion in the development and "evolution" of man.

They point out that unlike all other creatures, we can evolve without genetic mutation, rather the changes in society can take place simply based on the stories we tell. Likewise they also realize you can't study the history of "Sapiens" by simply looking at biology and DNA, you have to include an understanding of the stories.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

This is silly. The book Sapiens is a scientifically based discussion and it demonstrates that Science is now verifying the significance of religion in the development and "evolution" of man.

They point out that unlike all other creatures, we can evolve without genetic mutation, rather the changes in society can take place simply based on the stories we tell. Likewise they also realize you can't study the history of "Sapiens" by simply looking at biology and DNA, you have to include an understanding of the stories.

So Teilhard De Chardin was right, with his noosphere, evolution is now of collective consciousness, that's headed to the Omega point?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

So Teilhard De Chardin was right, with his noosphere, evolution is now of collective consciousness, that's headed to the Omega point?

Don't know what you are talking about. Not familiar with "omega point", etc.

[zeek]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

So far there have been a number of threads involving scientific discussions. Science has been presented as something factual, irrefutable, unquestionable, in the face of irrationality.

That's false. I challenge you to find a quotation asserting that science is "irrefutable or unquestionable" in Alt Views. Any proposition that is not refutable or questionable is unfalsifiable and therefore not subject to the scientific method. I haven't asserted otherwise, and to the best of my recollection neither has Awareness. Back up your accusation. Or shall I just accept your unsupported propositions without question as if I were listening to Witness Lee in the Local Church?