|
Help defend science: flunked not expelled
Author: cbit on April 18 2008 Viewed 7010 times. 29 people liked this blog. You can rate it below if you haven't already.
People who enjoyed reading this: EsromCole, yghartsyrt, bodo, Zanf, Analog, Logo, hecanjog, crabster, bleen, license, Otterfan, minisystem, mlbot, Jetsom, subset, 11t1, zach, monty, Spark, SenorFrio, Fredo, ignatius, delete, tantan, p, tylth, jp, sAMsKi, flies
-->
Apologies, a completely non-music related post.
The creationist/ID friendly pseudo documentary called Expelled will be screening near you soon. In the film, Ben Stein claims that scientists critical of the theory of evolution are being silenced by the powers behind "big science". Through ham fisted montages the film also tries to establish a link between the theory of evolution and Nazism and other genocidal ideologies.
Christian fundamentalists are lobbying hard to promote this film, even offering incentives to school groups to go and see it.
A counter site has been launched by the national center for science education that lists, and refutes, the lies and important omissions of the expelled film.
Publishing hyperlinks to the expelled exposed site, using 'expelled' as the visible link text, will help make the counter site more visible in search engines, and help ensure that people really do hear 'both sides' of the story. If you can, please help out.
Here's a review of the film:
link
Digging this page will help spread the word too (there's a subtle digg link beneath this blog post)
edit: "help defend science" == shorthand for 'help protect people from being robbed of the chance to understand the scientific method, to understand the crucial importance of evidence based reason in evaluating truth claims, to understand the principles or critical thought, to appreciate the enormous weight of evidence in support of evolutionary theory.' | |
Comments
04/20/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
everamzah
04/20/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
sAMsKi
*tickles* 
04/20/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
jp
dach said: "What religion has going for it is that, in general, it's saying people should be nice to each other. Science doesn't do this (and basically permits the opposite) so I'm gonna say that despite all the great things it's given us recently, science is unable to give us what we will need most during the next century."
yes, science doesn't command people to do anything.
but religion does. i could name a dozen conflicts where people killed each other because of religion. i don't know of a single conflict that was inspired by science.
04/20/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
cbit
dach said: "science is unable to give us what we will need most during the next century"
Religion, whatever its merits might be, is a very important source of exactly what we don't need, in this or any century: reinforcement and perpetuation of 'us/them' tribalism.
04/20/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
dach
what a bunch of psychos
04/20/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
flies
i wish that these discussions didn't have to be so acrimonious. dach, i'm osrry that you seem to feel attacked, for whatever reason. i mean, where from this hostility of yours?
04/20/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
crabster
dach: Yes, disagreeing with your position is a clear indication of a psychological illness.
04/20/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
Spark
friends become enemies over nothing
04/20/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
elronhubbard
cbit said: " elronhubbard said: "of course science as a method of discovery doesn't want anything. science as a community, however, is subject to the same political tos and fros of any other community of people."
To me it's doesn't seem helpful to call that 'science', 'parts of the scientific community' would be more accurate. It causes unnecessary confusion to conflate the two imo. (i guess im guilty of some conflation in the title of this blog too, but i hope it's clear what was meant there)"
shall i just call it big science? it doesnt really matter. im not conflating the two, and you apparently arent either.
what i mean to say is we both know what i mean. everybody has some kind of an agenda. and they serve their little agendas through their profession and personal life to varying degrees. sometimes that means bad science, and bad (sometimes dangerous) governmental policies based on said science. sometimes that means molestation of innocent children. sometimes that means holy wars.
its not like you can do anything about it ... unless you're the antichrist.
in which case ...
my life for you.
04/20/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
nagrom
Three reflections on this thread:
1. "being scientific" does not entail 'believing in something (science)'. A scientific theory is useful only in its ability to explain and predict phenomena, not necessarily in its capacity for revealing "the truth". That's the domain of philosophers.
2. Science may have a "built in mechanism" for assuring the validity of its results, but this does not mean that Science as an abstract social structure does not control and manipulate society. One only needs to read some Foucault and general STS studies to see how science and society intertwine throughout history.
3. People often conflate science and 'enlightenment rationality' (an ethical-philosophical position). This is a good paper that touches on the negative aspects of Rationality: link Cbit, Dawkins, Pinker et al are part of a sort of new-Rational movement that is seeking to replace philosophy and religion with "Science". The media outlets that Spark linked are part of this phenomenon. Whether scientific neo-Rationalists should be involved with ethics (that is, how you live your life) is an open question. Mlbot is right, however, in pointing out that science is not Spark's Science (which is really a philosophical position).
Science is the creation of theories that explain and predict phenomenon. Scientific theories are _useful_, not necessarily indicators of _the truth_.
04/21/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
nagrom
A good example of 1. is Newtonian physics vs. general/special relativity. Fact: Newtonian physics was used for the calculations that took us to the moon and that routinely take satellites to the outer atmosphere. Why does NASA still use Newtonian physics when it has been replaced by a better theory? Newtonian physics has not be 'proven wrong'. It is still valid within its (narrow) explanatory domain. Relativity is superior only in that it explains everything that Newtonian physics does and more. This does not nullify Newtonian physics however.
Whether relativity is describing "the way things really are", again, is in the domain of philosophy (of science, and metaphysics) and scientists generally don't make claims about this (except in interviews / in private). Science (big S) often does, sadly.
04/21/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
Spark
When I eat stuff I look to see what its like when it comes out as poop.
04/21/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
cbit
link Cbit, Dawkins, Pinker et al are part of a sort of new-Rational movement that is seeking to replace philosophy and religion with "Science".
hi nagrom, you're wrong here about wanting to replace philosophy with anything, on all three counts.
04/21/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
cbit
nagrom said: "Cbit, Dawkins, Pinker et al are part of a sort of new-Rational movement that is seeking to replace philosophy and religion with "Science". The media outlets that Spark linked are part of this phenomenon."
1. What do you mean with the scare quotes around "Science" here?
2. Then can you provide any evidence (quotes would work) to substantiate your claim that Dawkins and Pinker are participants in whatever you imagine this sinister "Science" is.
04/21/08
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
nagrom
Yikes, I just reread what I wrote an realized I had very little to support what I said. What I'm referring to is this: link
The popularization of science seems to be concurrent with a revival of something like Positivism link or Empiricism. This comes along with a particular approach towards ethical and metaphysical problems. It frames a dualism: 'spiritual' people vs. 'rational' people.
Register / login
|
^
EM411 is Copyright 2001-2008 EM411.com
All rights reserved. | Contact | RSS
|
