Most Published Scientific Research Is Wrong

-SWS wrote: .......... As an example, the notion of anything other than a geocentric model of the universe was once considered religious heresy among Christians. .....

This is just not true. It would be too lengthy for me to argue here, but see D'Souza, chapter ten which is titled An Atheist Fable: Reopening The Galileo Case. Only a small sample:

Prior to the sixteenth century,most educated people accepted the theories of the Greek astronomer Ptolemy, who held that the sun was stationary and the earth revolved around it. The geocentric universe was a classical, not a Christian, concept. The Christians accepted it, though not because of the Bible.

There were people who proposed the heliocentric model prior to Galileo. They were ridiculed and ignored but not because of the Bible or Christianity, but because of excellent evidence (science of the time). D'Souza states this evidence (science of the time) in chapter ten.

Any research, even Ioannidis' paper, always has the quantum possibility of being "right" or wrong", or even being in both states at the same time.

So where do that leave us in quantum terms... better go ask Werner Heisenberg!

Cheers,

Bill

Does Werner know how far a dog can run into the woods?

Prior to the sixteenth century,most educated people accepted the theories of the Greek astronomer Ptolemy, who held that the sun was stationary and the earth revolved around it. The geocentric universe was a classical, not a Christian, concept. The Christians accepted it, though not because of the Bible.

Rooster, I certainly never came even close to implying the geocentric model was invented by Christianity. Odd that you should argue it as if I did.

But the fact of the matter is that Christianity not only largely accepted the geocentric model at one time, but largely incorporated it into their belief systems of the era. What was that ratio of educated Christians to non-educated Christians anyway? I believe that ratio was almost exclusively uneducated---leaving the consensus Christian opinion not only embracing the geocentric belief, but also incorporating those views into their consensus Creationist views of the era.

Rooster,are you arguing the case that science and religion have not historically diverged, regarding central issues? And is that dog running into the woods for the correct answer? Because if he is I'm getting a box of Milk Bones ready for his return...



P.S. The answer is to the middle point. Gave him a Milk Bone for that answer too...

So Albert Einstien, Pope Pius XII, and the Dalai Lama were all three walking their dogs to the middle of the forest when suddenly . . . oh, sorry, wrong board.

Is there a Revised Standard version of revisionist history?

All those early religious philosophers of science must have felt really conflicted. Maybe that's why most of what they wrote turned out to be "wrong."

rooster wrote:

-SWS wrote:Interesting that you should mention that, Jeff.

I was just thinking how science, religion, and philosophy are attempts to know the same truths... and how often those three have historically been at odds with one another. Those three very often embrace the perception of knowing versus proving differently. As a result their conclusions of truth frequently differ as well.

It is not correct that science and Christianity (I have narrowed your reference to religion) have historically been at odds or are at odds today.

Science as an organized, sustained enterprise arose only once in human history. And where did it rise? In Europe, in the civilization then called Christendom. Why did modern science develop here and nowhere else? ... it was due to Christianity's emphasis on the importance of reason. ... modern science is an invention of medieval Christianity, and .. the greatest breakthroughs in scientific reason have largely been the work of Christians.

There is a convincing discussion with evidence presented in chapter 8 - 10 of What's So Great About Christianity by Dinesh D'Souza.

Away for a day and you guys (... and gals) get into a really nifty discussion without me .

It all depends on how you define science Rooster. The scientific method has been used since way before Christianity (even as a sustained enterprise as it is what allowed civilizations to rise ... and fall) ... perhaps it was just not called science (or Christendom) before then.

Jeff gave a really good explanation on his second post on the first page. ... and as Jeff pointed out in jest, the reason that some of the greatest breakthroughs in scientific reason have largely been the work of Christians is because they did not want to be reinvented as Bar-B-Q.

I just went over to visit the D'Souza web site and I can see how his book (and long list of other book titles) would appeal to Regan-like conservative Christians ... not quite my style.

-SWS wrote:

rooster wrote:

-SWS wrote:Interesting that you should mention that, Jeff.

I was just thinking how science, religion, and philosophy are attempts to know the same truths... and how often those three have historically been at odds with one another. Those three very often embrace the perception of knowing versus proving differently. As a result their conclusions of truth frequently differ as well.

It is not correct that science and Christianity (I have narrowed your reference to religion) have historically been at odds or are at odds today.

Science as an organized, sustained enterprise arose only once in human history. And where did it rise? In Europe, in the civilization then called Christendom. Why did modern science develop here and nowhere else? ... it was due to Christianity's emphasis on the importance of reason. ... modern science is an invention of medieval Christianity, and .. the greatest breakthroughs in scientific reason have largely been the work of Christians.

There is a convincing discussion with evidence presented in chapter 8 - 10 of What's So Great About Christianity by Dinesh D'Souza.

Rooster, my statement doesn't preclude the fact that subscribers of most religions have and continue to contribute to science. Rather, my statement simply alluded to the fact that philosophy, science, and religion have historically diverged on a regular basis. As an example, the notion of anything other than a geocentric model of the universe was once considered religious heresy among Christians. The accepted "Truth" is but a forever-changing perception of a singular body of truth in all cases and of all historical eras. Today science, religion, and philosophy all tend to reject that same geocentric model that was formerly prescribed by the religious interpretations of yesteryear. Today issues such as the age of the universe or the role of evolution enjoy heated scholarly debates very similar to yesterday's geocentric debates.

Rooster, I never meant to say that science, religion, and philosophy disagree about everything---only that they have often been at odds with one another about very central truth-related issues throughout history---despite there being a singular body of truth.

... and you left out politics.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 095495.ece

So has science always been wrong about Africa being a continent? ... or do Christians really know the "truth" about Palin? ... or is it correct to tell half-truths about your wardrobe?

It all depends on how you define science Rooster. The scientific method has been used since way before Christianity (even as a sustained enterprise as it is what allowed civilizations to rise ... and fall) ... perhaps it was just not called science (or Christendom) before then.


Actually, you will find a lot of scientific facts in the Bible. Job 26:7 describes the earth suspended over nothing, and there are a lot of interesting facts concerning astronomy, weather forcasting and even one verse that says the earth was created to look aged. Early Christians didn't have access to the Bible and most didn't even read so they assumed the earth was flat. The Bible contradicts that fallacy. I think if you get facts straight from the Bible rather than what people (even Christians) think, you will be getting the truth.

Enjoy your discussion. It is interesting to read each other's views and I respect everyone on here even if I don't personally agree with everything they say or believe. I think the important thing is that everyone is interested in finding the truth.

I have to get to an appointment so have to run.

Take care, all

Anne

One Tired Puppy wrote: ...

Actually, you will find a lot of scientific facts in the Bible. Job 26:7 describes the earth suspended over nothing, and there are a lot of interesting facts concerning astronomy, weather forcasting and even one verse that says the earth was created to look aged. Early Christians didn't have access to the Bible and most didn't even read so they assumed the earth was flat. The Bible contradicts that fallacy. I think if you get facts straight from the Bible rather than what people (even Christians) think, you will be getting the truth.

.....

Anne

Uhhh yea ... now why didn't I think of that?

One Tired Puppy wrote: ....... I think if you get facts straight from the Bible rather than what people (even Christians) think, you will be getting the truth.........

Please cite the book/chapter/verse in the Bible where it is said, "Thou shalt read the Bible for thine science while forsaking the science book and the laboratory".

-SWS wrote:......... Rooster, I certainly never came even close to implying the geocentric model was invented by Christianity. Odd that you should argue it as if I did.

Nor did I argue that you claimed this. Check my post. Before my argument I referenced this statement of yours:

-SWS wrote: .......... As an example, the notion of anything other than a geocentric model of the universe was once considered religious heresy among Christians. .....

As I said this statement is just not correct. At one time Christians (and non-Christians) considered this notion scientific, not religious, heresy. The geocentric model came from Ptolemy who was not a Christian. Christians accepted it and defended it because of available evidence not the Bible or religious faith. Some of the evidence observed at the time:

"The earth does not appear to move, and we can all witness the sun rise in the morning and set in the evening. If the earth moves at high speeds around the sun, then birds and clouds and other objects not attached to the ground should be left behind. A stone hurled into the sky would land many miles away from the spot at which it was thrown, as the earth would have traveled a considerable distance while the object was in the air. Human beings standing on the ground would be flung about. As none of this was observed, the earth was held to be stationary."

So no, I maintain your highlighted statement is not correct. The heliocentric model was never considered religious heresy. It was considered wrong because of the crude scientific observations Christians and non-Christians made.

The answer is to the middle point. Gave him a Milk Bone for that answer too...

Good boy. Make that a grass-fed, free-range, organic Milk Bone.

Rooster, perhaps we shall have to agree to disagree despite D'Souza's compelling Christian D'marching music. We know that the overwhelming majority of Christians during that era were uneducated. And you are telling me that those highly uneducated masses typically distinguished the constituent components of their Creationist views as being either scientific or religious?

And you are telling me that those scientifically-minded yet highly uneducated Christians would not have ostracized you, or far worse, had you strolled up to their pews on Sunday with staunch heliocentric debate? Wouldn't you just love to travel back in a time machine to visit a few thousand of those pews with staunch heliocentric debate? I'm thinking rather than hearing those uneducated masses consistently exclaim things like, "Oh, dear no, my good man Rooster, you have the science all wrong!" that much more often you would hear angered admonition about your views being an abomination to God. And the key word there is "God", making those typically human responses of the day inherently religious---and not scientific or political.

That's not to say that scientific discoveries haven't been incorporated into religious living interpretations over the generations---only to say that the gradual incorporation of many scientific discoveries into Western religious paradigms have often been latent and socially painful, or worse.

But back to our time machine experiment and those status-quo religious reactions of Christian days gone by. Rather than expecting those uneducated Christian masses to warmly entertain your staunch heliocentric views, if only for but the sake of open-minded scientific consideration, I wouldn't be surprised if many of those localities arrested you as you imposed extreme social and cognitive dissonance on what they had collectively incorporated into their Creationist views. Rather than college dorm-room style debate, I'm thinking your rear would be in a sling, so to speak, throughout many of your time-machine experiments. And again, it sure wouldn't be politics or science that put your rear in a Christian sling of each social era.

Definition of Heresy:
n., pl. -sies.

1.
a. An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member.
b. Adherence to such dissenting opinion or doctrine.

2.
a. A controversial or unorthodox opinion or doctrine, as in politics, philosophy, or science.
b. Adherence to such controversial or unorthodox opinion.

http://www.answers.com/heresy

Rooster,

I hope you mean research in some fields, because if the research I use is wrong, I've been doing my job(meteorologist) wrong for almost 15 yrs. I know that the system we use to "go over" research is pretty tough, and any off-kilter studies usually get run out of town. Of course, the science we use gets backed up when used in our numerical models.

Steve

I think I hear you, Rooster. But no one is saying that you have to be an atheist to do science or that you have to swear that you will be unscientific in order to be religious. (Philosophers don't count because they are like photons--they don't exixt until you try to define where they are.)

There once was a time when science, religion, and philosophy were mostly considered to be much the same thing. The Galileo trial has taken on some mythical and metaphorical significance in modern times, and it may be that he was punished more for being a pushy smart-mouth moreso than for his science, but hey the pope apologized for something, it would seem.

The bottom line is that there is now a consensus that there is some difference in modern scientific approach and modern religious approach to some questions. So if you have a doctrinal question, you may not want to bother your physics professor or biology professor with it. And if you are working out a scientific equation, it will effect your grade if you insert a symbol for "god" in york proof. And except for some rare circumstances, you don't want your family doctor to tell you he has decided to stop prescribing pills because he has prayed for you instead. Different fields, different approaches, and different areas of expertise. At times in history, certainly a bit at odds. But that's OK. Really it is.

Remind me never to quote Pontius Pilate again!

jeff

Amontilado wrote:Rooster,

I hope you mean research in some fields, because if the research I use is wrong, I've been doing my job(meteorologist) wrong for almost 15 yrs. I know that the system we use to "go over" research is pretty tough, and any off-kilter studies usually get run out of town. Of course, the science we use gets backed up when used in our numerical models.

Steve

Oh no my dear man Steve, only science that is not approved by Christians and documented in the bible is wrong or perhaps better defined as "untrue". Just because numerical models can produce repeatable answers does not make it true .... unlike verses from the bible

BTW - Feel free to PM me about your numerical model science ... I'm a modeler too