Throwing science under the bus

[semlogo]

common sense?

Not a branch of science. Nor even something that any large group of people can agree upon.

[semlogo]

Sem,

Do you know what "fundamentalist" thought looks like? Let me give you an example: If you don't unquestioningly accept everything the guy in the white coat says on every subject, you are "throwing science under the bus." That's what fundamentalism looks like when it latches on to scientism.

You seem to have this black-and-white, all-or-nothing approach to every little bee you get in your bonnet. You also seem to have a fixation on buses. I saw on another thread where you pontificated that everyone who wasn't a socialist was "throwing the teachings of Jesus under the bus."

The real world is a little different than your fundamentalist paradigm would make it, Sem. All scientists are specialists, and most people are not scientists. To expect non-scientists to understand science the way scientists do is unrealistic; to expect non-scientists to accept the pronouncements of scientists as if they were holy writ is unreasonable; and to expect non-scientists to have no opinions except those that are sanctioned by science is "fundamentalist" thinking.

Are you sure that's what you want us all to adopt?

Regards,

Pahoran

I don't find your straw man caricatures of my arguments terribly compelling. I have helpfully colored them in red.

[ElfLord]

I love NOVA, even if I find their explanations a bit simplistic for certain things. However, I forgive this because they have to appeal to a broad audience, and many people are innumerate.

I love NOVA too. But I had a good chuckle when I watched one special and they totally reversed "matter cannot be created nor destroyed: only transformed from one state to another." When they said "in the first few momments of the Big bang, all matter was "created".

[Mordecai]

Speaking of throwing science under the bus, Michael Behe just got a paper published in a biological journal, peer-reviewed and all. For those that didn't like my whale evolution thread, you won't like this at all. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/12/michael_behes_first_rule_of_ad041461.html#more

This has serious implications, seeing as Lenski's experiment (and the like) has such a huge population and e-coli has such a short life cycle.

[zelder]

I love NOVA too. But I had a good chuckle when I watched one special and they totally reversed "matter cannot be created nor destroyed: only transformed from one state to another." When they said "in the first few momments of the Big bang, all matter was "created".

I've began to wonder if the quantum vacuum is the source of all matter. If the vacuum is an endless sea of energy and e=mc^2 then maybe God takes the vacuum energy to create any type of matter he wants. Its an endless supply of energy that can be used to create an endless supply of matter.

[littlechild]

Hard-line fundamentalists (whether LDS or Evangelical or Muslim etc) insist that in order to follow the word of God, we must reject certain branches of science as false, possibly satanic. From our many discussions hear at MADB, I have identified the following that fundamentalists insist we reject:

Evolution

Evolutionary biology

Evolutionary developmental biology

Paleobiology

Paleontology

Genetics

Genomics

Proteomics

Population genetics

Zoology

Geology

Quantum physics

Chemistry

Mathematics

Physics

Abiogenesis

Astronomy in general

Cosmology

Planetary science

Planetary geology

Astrophysics

Glaciology

Paleontology

Biology

Neurology

Cognitive science.

Did I leave anything out?

Oh, it is you again. The "scientist" with an historically inaccurate timeline of the development of life on the planet. Masquerading as a brilliant light in a sea of ignorance.

And permitting no other interpretation of the evidence than that approved by the "Scientific" Magisterium.

[44Foxtrot]

Oh, it is you again. The "scientist" with an historically inaccurate timeline of the development of life on the planet. Masquerading as a brilliant light in a sea of ignorance.

And permitting no other interpretation of the evidence than that approved by the "Scientific" Magisterium.

littlechild,

I find it interesting that in trying to belittle semlogo, scientists and science in general in your response above you used six capital letters, four periods, and more than 40 words and yet only managed to generate one sentence in the English language out of four attempts.

[semlogo]

Oh, it is you again. The "scientist" with an historically inaccurate timeline of the development of life on the planet. Masquerading as a brilliant light in a sea of ignorance.

And permitting no other interpretation of the evidence than that approved by the "Scientific" Magisterium.

Please, go on.