| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:cuts no ice | |
| Posted by: | Malcolm Peltu | |
| Date/Time: | 01/07/08 11:11:00 |
| I don't have time to read through the whole of this thread, which I have just come to, so am probably repeating what's already been said by some. But I am interested in Matthew's line that science is no different to religious faith as it seems to me to be following the growing use of a red herring that tries to argue that science and religion are just different parts of a spectrum of 'worldviews'. However, science thrives on disproving its basic theories, religion on adhering to interpretations of eternal truths usually stated in sacred, unvarying texts. For example, quantum physics is now an established part of science and technology, although at the time it was discovered it undercut some basic scientific beliefs. Of course, the institutions of science favour the establishment view at any given time - like any human group or institution. But scientific methodology is designed to try to minimise these biases and to ensure that over time decisions about which is the most likely understandings in a given field are based on evidence and rational debate - until disproved by a new theory supported by new evidence. That was shown in the debate between the big bang v steady state views of the origins of the Universe, for which evidence eventually accumulated in favour of the big bang as radio astronomy tools gathered more data. Debates about climate change are essentially evidence based - and the evidence is complex and ever changing as the environment is monitored by an increasingly sophisticated range of tools. Probabilities are always attached to predictions (even if the aren't reported in popular media) because knowing knowing a model's limitations is crucial. (I've never seen a religious prediction come with a similar warning.) It is because the probabilities of man-made contributions to climate change are deemed high enough that a 'consensus' has formed among most scientists in the field. The evidence has been accumulating for decades. If the evidence changes (ie new data shows say a reverse in global warming), it will be reported by scientists and models will change. Yes, some scientists go over the top in emphasising warnings, usually because they believe something needs to be done and are trying to stimulate political action. But those largely non-scientists shouting loudly against this view are also going over the tope, but with less basis in evidence. The main evidence offered by religions are subjective testaments of faith and belief or 'miracles', usually carried out by individuls with the supposed special power. Science is about objective observation and replicable experiments that produce outcomes that can be carried out anywhere by anyone - a doctor doesn't need special mystical powers to make a particular medicine work. All this seems to be so far removed from religions that I can't see how they can be reasonably compared as being similar. They adopt completely different approaches and largely deal with different kinds of issues. |