Fair

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

found nowhere else in among the vast corpus of pre-Columbian inscriptions

Vast corpus? Surely you jest.

[Mariner]

Aww, science worship.

http://www.plosone.o...al.pone.0005738

http://classic.the-s.../display/55606/

http://online.wsj.co...0903888207.html

http://www.americant...nd_what_to.html

Science does not believe in the supernatural. Yet, I and many others have had supernatural experiences. FAIR deals with events of a supernatural nature, which operates outside the scope of a scientists's world view. So comparing the two is not relavent.

JMS

You do realize that the reason we know about the falsified or misrepresented scientific data you cite is because of open peer review, do you not?

Do you realize that open peer review of many of the truth claims of the LDS Church, using the ordinary standards of proof required in science, show these truth claims to be false?

Have you ever stopped to think about the fact that, unlike the LDS Church, individuals are not ostracized or kicked out of the lab or out of science because they ask tough questions of their leaders or demand to actually see the data before judging the validity of the truth claims made based upon that data?

The beauty of the scientific method is that it is self-correcting. Sometimes the process is incredibly slow, but it works.

This is not the case in religion. The status and credibility of those who claim talk with an eternal and unchanging God depends on the perception that they are right, no matter how wrong they really are. Thus, religious dogma rarely changes. When it does, religionists seldom admit that they were wrong before the change took place. Such changes are generally the result of adverse exigencies and the whims of leaders, and not in a rational institutional response to new and credible information.

You are correct that science does not deal with the supernatural. That is because the supernatural does not exist in any way that can be systematically studied or understood. There are no explanatory models or descriptive mathematics for the supernatural. The supernatural is simply what superstitious individuals say it is, or believe it to be. As it always has, belief in the supernatural arises from superstition and a lack of knowledge and sufficient understanding.

So, as you implied, it is at the threshold of the supernatural that scientists and religionists part ways. Science does not accept the supernatural - by definition and for good reason. Religion requires it.

[jskains]

You do realize that the reason we know about the falsified or misrepresented scientific data you cite is because of open peer review, do you not?

You do realize that 73% is high, do you not? You do realize these are just the people caught, do you not?

Do you realize that open peer review of many of the truth claims of the LDS Church, using the ordinary standards of proof required in science, show these truth claims to be false?

In your angry, I hate the Church vision, yes.

Have you ever stopped to think about the fact that, unlike the LDS Church, individuals are not ostracized or kicked out of the lab or out of science because they ask tough questions of their leaders or demand to actually see the data before judging the validity of the truth claims made based upon that data?

You mean like when drug companies or grant providers want certain results and fire scientists who don't provide them? You mean like when people ask uncomfortable questions about homosexuality and have their funding pulled? You mean like when scientists speak up against global warming/cooling/whatever is popular, they can get put down or ostricized from the Scientific community?

The beauty of the scientific method is that it is self-correcting. Sometimes the process is incredibly slow, but it works.

And what if it's postition on the LDS Church is slow and has not corrected itself yet?

This is not the case in religion. The status and credibility of those who claim talk with an eternal and unchanging God depends on the perception that they are right, no matter how wrong they really are. Thus, religious dogma rarely changes. When it does, religionists seldom admit that they were wrong before the change took place. Such changes are generally the result of adverse exigencies and the whims of leaders, and not in a rational institutional response to new and credible information.

Science is a human creation. The belief of religion is that it was created by the guy that created everything, thus superseeding science.

You are correct that science does not deal with the supernatural. That is because the supernatural does not exist in any way that can be systematically studied or understood. There are no explanatory models or descriptive mathematics for the supernatural. The supernatural is simply what superstitious individuals say it is, or believe it to be. As it always has, belief in the supernatural arises from superstition and a lack of knowledge and sufficient understanding.

Your attitude really demonstrates a closed mind.

So, as you implied, it is at the threshold of the supernatural that scientists and religionists part ways. Science does not accept the supernatural - by definition and for good reason. Religion requires it.

So says you. What is your motive anyways? Why bother Mormons? By your standards, every religion can be attacked by you.

JMS

[jskains]

jskains:

As the supernatural is untestable by natural means it is not a matter of belief or disbelief (I simply can not put God into my test tube). But what is testable using the Scientific Method. Individual scientists of course are free to believe or not believe as is their personal desire.

Um... Ok.. Thanks for pointing out my point I guess..

[thesometimesaint]

Ostracized?

The Flat Earth Society is still alive and well. So are the people who deny the Moon landings.

Maybe B.E.S.T will help clarify what actual scientists say.

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/u/2/tciQts-8Cxo

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ostracized?

The Flat Earth Society is still alive and well. So are the people who deny the Moon landings.

Maybe B.E.S.T will help clarify what actual scientists say.

http://www.youtube.c...u/2/tciQts-8Cxo

To bad neither of those is analogous to AGW.

Nice try Saint but it is time to give up the hoax.

[jskains]

Ostracized?

The Flat Earth Society is still alive and well. So are the people who deny the Moon landings.

Maybe B.E.S.T will help clarify what actual scientists say.

http://www.youtube.c...u/2/tciQts-8Cxo

Really? And they get lots of time in major scientific journals with everyone else? Wow.

[Mariner]

You do realize that 73% is high, do you not? You do realize these are just the people caught, do you not?

Actually, it would seem that you are exaggerating a bit here. The data aren't referring to scientists who "got caught". They came from meta analysis of a number of mainly self-report studies on scientific misconduct. In other words, the important take home from the study you cite comes from scientists reporting on their own behavior.

So, having gotten that little detail out of the way, let's look at what the meta analysis actually said:

Less than 2% (1.97%) admitted to fabricating data.

Up to 33.7% admitted to "questionable practices" other than fabrication of data.

In response to questions regarding colleagues:

Approximately 14% said that they were aware of a colleague who falsified data.

And approximately 72% said that they were aware of a colleague engaged in "questionable" practices.

As I am sure you can figure out if you think about it, this does not mean that 72% of scientists engage in "questionable" practices.

It means that 72% of scientists report that they know of a colleague who has engaged in questionable practices.

Since one individual who has engaged in questionable practices could have dozens of colleagues who might know about this one individual, dozens of the reports may concern the same single individual. So, you can see how misleading both the 14% and the 72% numbers could be.

Personally, I would tend to go with the individual self-report numbers as the best estimate. And as you suggest, I would even agree that these may be a bit low, but not by much.

But thanks for the vote of confidence for scientists. Given the dire situation you describe, it is truly amazing that we have things like computers, jet aircraft, cell phones and effective pharmaceuticals.

[jskains]

Actually, it would seem that you are exaggerating a bit here. The data aren't referring to scientists who "got caught". They came from meta analysis of a number of mainly self-report studies on scientific misconduct. In other words, the important take home from the study you cite comes from scientists reporting on their own behavior.

So, having gotten that little detail out of the way, let's look at what the meta analysis actually said:

Less than 2% (1.97%) admitted to fabricating data.

Up to 33.7% admitted to "questionable practices" other than fabrication of data.

In response to questions regarding colleagues:

Approximately 14% said that they were aware of a colleague who falsified data.

And approximately 72% said that they were aware of a colleague engaged in "questionable" practices.

As I am sure you can figure out if you think about it, this does not mean that 72% of scientists engage in "questionable" practices.

It means that 72% of scientists report that they know of a colleague who has engaged in questionable practices.

Since one individual who has engaged in questionable practices could have dozens of colleagues who might know about this one individual, dozens of the reports may concern the same single individual. So, you can see how misleading both the 14% and the 72% numbers could be.

Personally, I would tend to go with the individual self-report numbers as the best estimate. And as you suggest, I would even agree that these may be a bit low, but not by much.

But thanks for the vote of confidence for scientists. Given the dire situation you describe, it is truly amazing that we have things like computers, jet aircraft, cell phones and effective pharmaceuticals.

Creating a profitable product like a computer through science and invention has different motives than trying to disprove God's existance, a position some scientists have even admitted.

JMS

[HeatherAnn]

...Science is a human creation. The belief of religion is that it was created by the guy that created everything, thus superseeding science.

Your attitude really demonstrates a closed mind.

So says you. What is your motive anyways?...

Excellent question: "What is your motive anyways?"

One's motive is probably the most significant aspect of spirituality.

Why do people post on a forum like this? To socialize, to try to improve the world by improving perceptions, to justify one's belief, to protect one's pride?... Many possible reasons. It's good to explore "the kingdom of God within" to figure out.

Who says that religion was created by the "guy" that created everything? So says you & other human beings.

Is this an open mind - to the gospel - good news?

Especially considering Constatine influenced phrasing in the bible to protect political powers & people have been persecuted & killed for trying to translate scriptures.

[Mariner]

Creating a profitable product like a computer through science and invention has different motives than trying to disprove God's existance, a position some scientists have even admitted.

JMS

Science does not "try to disprove" the existence of God. Since there is no credible evidence whatsoever that God exists, science as a profession, in general, does not concern itself with such claims.

People who try to use science to convince themselves of the existence of God are generally religionists. The results they come up with are about what one would expected.

[Pahoran]

Science does not "try to disprove" the existence of God. Since there is no credible evidence whatsoever that God exists, science as a profession, in general, does not concern itself with such claims.

On the contrary, there is very credible evidence that God exists. However, since it is evidence that cannot be examined in a laboratory, it is very properly outside of the scope of science. However scientism, a secular religion, tries to take it a step further by insisting that whatever science cannot test must not be real. Followers of scientism begin by excluding as evidence anything that science cannot test, and then triumphantly claim victory on the basis that all the evidence they will admit supports the all-sufficiency and only-sufficiency of science.

People who try to use science to convince themselves of the existence of God are generally religionists. The results they come up with are about what one would expected.

And people who try to use science to convince themselves of the non-existence of God are invariably atheists. The results they come up with are about what one would expect.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Mariner]

And people who try to use science to convince themselves of the non-existence of God are invariably atheists. The results they come up with are about what one would expect.

Regards,

Pahoran

The main difference between the outcomes for religionist and rationalist is that the results the rationalists come up with are internally consistent and supported by the physical data. The religionists are not so fortunate.

[thesometimesaint]

Mariner:

"Rationalists" are just as inconsistent as religionists. Further given the premature death and unhappiness quotients for Atheists are statistically higher than that of Theists. I believe it is demonstatrated that Atheism is in no way superior to Theism.

Edited November 16, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[jskains]

Science does not "try to disprove" the existence of God. Since there is no credible evidence whatsoever that God exists, science as a profession, in general, does not concern itself with such claims.

People who try to use science to convince themselves of the existence of God are generally religionists. The results they come up with are about what one would expected.

Yes, Science has no motives. Is just some awesome benevelant organization that we should all kneel to without question.... Worship science all! It is perfect!

[thesometimesaint]

jskains:

Science itself has an agenda. What can be demonstrated in the natural world/universe. Scientists OTOH can and do have other agendas. The same science that made the Atomic Bomb also made nuclear medicine possible. Just depends on what use it is put to, just like religion.

[jskains]

Science is not a being. It does not have an agenda. But every human who is part of science does. To ignore bias, agendas, perceptions, and angles of every scientist is ignorant. That is why I find Mariner ignorant of the flaws that science is plauged with.

JMS

[Mariner]

Mariner:

"Rationalists" are just as inconsistent as religionists. Further given the premature death and unhappiness quotients for Atheists are statistically higher than that of Theists. I believe it is demonstatrated that Atheism is in no way superior to Theism.

You have a point.

I thought about using the terms "believers" and "non-believers" instead of rationalists and religionists, but that would not work vey well either.

What I was trying to contrast is the worldview of those who believe in the supernatural and magic as compared to the worldview of those who believe in the natural and science.

While you can cite population studies that compare perceived "fulfillment" and "happiness" of those who do not believe to those who do, I am not sure this parsing gets at the distinction I had hoped (but obviously failed) to draw.

Perhaps the best distinction to make would be that related to intelligence and education level. Any number of studies show that more intelligent and / or highly educated one is, the less likely they are to be religious in general. The more intelligent and highly educated tend to score higher on a number of "life satisfaction", "fulfillment" or "happiness" scales.

[Mariner]

Yes, Science has no motives. Is just some awesome benevelant organization that we should all kneel to without question.... Worship science all! It is perfect!

Why, thank you.

Glad to see you have finally come around.

[Calm]

Any number of studies show that more intelligent and / or highly educated one is, the less likely they are to be religious in general.

Except for studies of LDS.

[jskains]

You have a point.

I thought about using the terms "believers" and "non-believers" instead of rationalists and religionists, but that would not work vey well either.

What I was trying to contrast is the worldview of those who believe in the supernatural and magic as compared to the worldview of those who believe in the natural and science.

While you can cite population studies that compare perceived "fulfillment" and "happiness" of those who do not believe to those who do, I am not sure this parsing gets at the distinction I had hoped (but obviously failed) to draw.

Perhaps the best distinction to make would be that related to intelligence and education level. Any number of studies show that more intelligent and / or highly educated one is, the less likely they are to be religious in general. The more intelligent and highly educated tend to score higher on a number of "life satisfaction", "fulfillment" or "happiness" scales.

Really?

75% of the U.S. is Christian. 80% of the country believes in some kind of God. That's a lot of stupid people....

Lets forget that the LDS Community has spit out a lot of scientists, lawyers and businessmen, right?

JMS

[LeSellers]

. Any number of studies show that more intelligent and / or highly educated one is, the less likely they are to be religious in general.

But oddly, this does not apply to Saints.

Saints have, on average, higher participation rates as their education levels rise. The only exception is PhDs for women, but even that is far from the "standard". Sisters with PhDs participate fully in LDS practices at a far higher rate than women from any other religion

Lehi

Edited November 16, 2011 by LeSellers

[Pahoran]

The main difference between the outcomes for religionist and rationalist is that the results the rationalists come up with are internally consistent and supported by the physical data. The religionists are not so fortunate.

That's not a very significant difference. As I mentioned, the (self-congratulatory) "rationalists" pick and choose the data they will admit as evidence and then smugly announce (surprise surprise) that the data support their conclusions.

Well, duh!

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

You have a point.

I thought about using the terms "believers" and "non-believers" instead of rationalists and religionists, but that would not work vey well either.

What I was trying to contrast is the worldview of those who believe in the supernatural and magic as compared to the worldview of those who believe in the natural and science.

IOW, you are not even trying to discuss anything in good faith.

Here are three absolute truisms:

The sky is blue.

The grass is green.

Atheists use "magic" as a term of ridicule against religious believers as a dishonest polemical trick.

And besides all that, you've created a false and irrelevant dichotomy. Religious believers "believe in the natural and science" as well as in God. OTOH, I've seen professed (heh heh) "rationalists" blowing on dice, wearing their "lucky" shoes when sitting exams and displaying astrological symbols. Your "contrast" is an invented contrast between essentially nonexistent categories of people.

Regards,

Pahoran

[KevinG]

IOW, you are not even trying to discuss anything in good faith.

Here are three absolute truisms:

The sky is blue.

The grass is green.

Atheists use "magic" as a term of ridicule against religious believers as a dishonest polemical trick.

And besides all that, you've created a false and irrelevant dichotomy. Religious believers "believe in the natural and science" as well as in God. OTOH, I've seen professed (heh heh) "rationalists" blowing on dice, wearing their "lucky" shoes when sitting exams and displaying astrological symbols. Your "contrast" is an invented contrast between essentially nonexistent categories of people.

Regards,

Pahoran

I just checked out my window and the sky is grey while the grass is taking on a distinctive brown tint.

You still have the consistency of smug Atheists to lean on.