I wonder if there isn't a fundamental "science does, too, equal religion" aspect.
I consider science to be an approach to solving intricate problems, of observing, of posing explanations, of testing those proposed explanations, and verifying that the proposed explanation does explain all that was observed.
But - most of what we call "science" is applied science, that is, technology. And that is an expression of organizations and engineering and merchandising.
I consider religion to be the expression of organizations, of applied faith.
I won't go into comparing scientific understanding of life and nature, with it's mistakes, to whether religion has likely made mistakes in understanding divinity.
But what we call "science", the organizations, the merchandising, the engineering and politically related machinations, that I think does compare closely with religion.
Now, "scientific method or approach", that I think differs, often, with "a spiritual relationship with divinity".
As for mentions of evolution, I find the history of "intelligent design" to be quite suspect. Intelligent design has been traced back to five guys in Seattle, that set out to impede education in America with their own agenda. Unlike Charles Darwin's "On the origin of species" which was a novel idea of it's time, and persists because it has been useful in so many contexts. Kind of like algebra.
Oh boy, two topics bound to generate discussion. People DO need to realize, however, that science does not provide a binary 1 or 0...it proposes an idea (hypothesis), tests it in some way (proper science does this in a repeatable, reproducible way), and generates a conclusion about the hypothesis based on that test.
Then there's the whole 'correlation vs. causation' thing where so many people believe that a correlation implies causation (e.g. greenhouse gasses are going up, humans cause emission of greenhouse gasses, therefore humans are the cause of increased greenhouse gasses...without more information this cannot be accurately concluded).
I wonder how a very devout and deeply religious person in Bangalore or Calcutta is so capable of doing actual Science, while we rhetorically trip over it like our shoes are tied?
Not quite as contentious as 'Mac vs PC". But still.
ReplyDeleteApologies again for hijacking your earlier thread.
I wonder if there isn't a fundamental "science does, too, equal religion" aspect.
ReplyDeleteI consider science to be an approach to solving intricate problems, of observing, of posing explanations, of testing those proposed explanations, and verifying that the proposed explanation does explain all that was observed.
But - most of what we call "science" is applied science, that is, technology. And that is an expression of organizations and engineering and merchandising.
I consider religion to be the expression of organizations, of applied faith.
I won't go into comparing scientific understanding of life and nature, with it's mistakes, to whether religion has likely made mistakes in understanding divinity.
But what we call "science", the organizations, the merchandising, the engineering and politically related machinations, that I think does compare closely with religion.
Now, "scientific method or approach", that I think differs, often, with "a spiritual relationship with divinity".
As for mentions of evolution, I find the history of "intelligent design" to be quite suspect. Intelligent design has been traced back to five guys in Seattle, that set out to impede education in America with their own agenda. Unlike Charles Darwin's "On the origin of species" which was a novel idea of it's time, and persists because it has been useful in so many contexts. Kind of like algebra.
Oh boy, two topics bound to generate discussion. People DO need to realize, however, that science does not provide a binary 1 or 0...it proposes an idea (hypothesis), tests it in some way (proper science does this in a repeatable, reproducible way), and generates a conclusion about the hypothesis based on that test.
ReplyDeleteThen there's the whole 'correlation vs. causation' thing where so many people believe that a correlation implies causation (e.g. greenhouse gasses are going up, humans cause emission of greenhouse gasses, therefore humans are the cause of increased greenhouse gasses...without more information this cannot be accurately concluded).
I wonder how a very devout and deeply religious person in Bangalore or Calcutta is so capable of doing actual Science, while we rhetorically trip over it like our shoes are tied?
ReplyDelete