Neil deGrasse Tyson, the astrophysics genius, speaks on discrimination.

[EirikSmith]

http://www.upworthy.com/neil-degrasse-tyson-reveals-that-hes-been-black-his-whole-life-hilarity-and-wisdom-follow

[Stavros]

Thanks for the link, some interesting points were made although in general I thought it was one of those meetings that went on too long and had too many speakers. These days Dawkins is threatening to turn into a tedious bore, his latest book receiving dull reviews.

I must confess I had never heard of Neil deGrasse Tyson before, one of the perils of not living in the USA. His point about religion and education in the US was particularly sharp and to the point.

[sukumvit boy]

I agree with all of the above ,except the 'astrophysics genius 'part.
Sure ,he's obviously a good administrator and has carved out a place for himself as a communicator in the popular media , i.e. those who don't know Shinola about astrophysics. I always find his presentations just too basic and uninteresting although I have not had the opportunity to hear him address a scholarly audience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson
Hey Stavros , sadly I must agree that Dawson is appearing a bit tedious nowadays. Although , I guess there are just so many ways to say god and religion are delusional thinking. I see that he appeared alongside Lawrence Krauss , from our earlier "something out of nothing" thread .
I am currently reading E.O. Wilson's ,"The Meaning of Human Existence" and would like to see Dawkins readdress the issues that he and Wilson disagree on. You may be familiar that famous spat in the biological evolutionary community. Which boils down to Dawkin's theory of "The selfish gene" vs Wilson's "The social conquest of earth" evolutionary theories.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jun/24/battle-of-the-professors

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=sukumvit boy;1640117]I agree with all of the above ,except the 'astrophysics genius 'part.
Sure ,he's obviously a good administrator and has carved out a place for himself as a communicator in the popular media , i.e. those who don't know Shinola about astrophysics. I always find his presentations just too basic and uninteresting although I have not had the opportunity to hear him address a scholarly audience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson
Hey Stavros , sadly I must agree that Dawson is appearing a bit tedious nowadays. Although , I guess there are just so many ways to say god and religion are delusional thinking. I see that he appeared alongside Lawrence Krauss , from our earlier "something out of nothing" thread .
I am currently reading E.O. Wilson's ,"The Meaning of Human Existence" and would like to see Dawkins readdress the issues that he and Wilson disagree on. You may be familiar that famous spat in the biological evolutionary community. Which boils down to Dawkin's theory of "The selfish gene" vs Wilson's "The social conquest of earth" evolutionary theories.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jun/24/battle-of-the-professors[/QUO

This will have to be a superficial response as I do not have a background in the sciences although I do try to stay informed, as long as there are no maths involved. Dawkins is wrong, and Wilson is also wrong. Selfishness may be an integral part of human nature, but is it always and everywhere the motive by which we behave? The sociobiology of Wilson that implies I was not just born with a genetic passport but that I don't have visas to enter certain (or uncertain) human experiences because of that is nonsense, free will does exist, I can be a rebel or join with other rebels. The later concept of tribal society is not borne out by extensive anthropological evidence so I don't know what led Wilson into this cul-de-sac. That neither Dawkins nor Wilson can relieve themselves of inherited prejudices against God and religion and 'think outside the box' or, as Kuhn might put it, change the paradigm may explain why Dawkins has become a tedious bore. Surely the point is that as humans we are capable of being both selfish and altruistic? One does not cancel out the other. We are capable of living peacefully with each other in societies not marked by an excess of hierarchy or divisions of wealth and power, and clearly that is also how some societies have been.

If we are primed for war, why am I so bad at it? If we are primed to be utterly selfish, why do I on so many occasions fail to get what I want? Why are some men and women boxers, while others write poetry? It comes back to that question I asked about man and the soul -if we humans are all made of the same stuff, why are we not all the same in all things? Can either Dawkins or Wilson truly explain the difference between Mozart and Manson?

[broncofan]

I read the Blind Watchmaker years ago and thought it was an extremely well argued, very clear exposition on the science of evolution. I am an atheist myself but do not find Dawkins' arguments against religion to be as honed as his scientific arguments. He is just outside of his ken when discussing anything sociological and philosophical. I think Dawkins would concede there are circumstances in which people will behave altruistically, although he would probably give reasons you would find unsatisfactory. For instance, the concept of reciprocal altruism developed by Trivers is that members of a species will behave altruistically if there is a prospect that they will be the beneficiary of such treatment in the future. This is altruism in name only. But it's philosophically reasonable to argue that all altruism is altruism in name only. There's also the possibility of course that people engage in all sorts of behaviors that are aberrations or maladaptive...we have not afterall reached the end state of natural selection where we are all perfectly adapted to our environments (what would happen then? Immortality? Infinite numbers of offspring?).

I do not want to get too far afield of the main subject, but I doubt Dawkins would argue that people are all similar. We have certain basic features that define us as a species but enormous genetic variation. Finally, I find the concept of free will to be almost incoherent. Any thought you are capable of having is constrained by the organ from which thought originates. You don't have complete control over the development of your own nervous system. You may be capable of coming up with three possible solutions to any problem, but what makes you choose one over the other? And what about the solutions you were not aware of?

Anyhow, I've heard Neil DeGrasse Tyson talk and I don't know enough about physics to evaluate his work so I'll defer to the opinions of others. He has been a great supporter of the sciences and seems very involved in making scientific ideas accessible to the public so I get good vibes from him.

[Stavros]

...I doubt Dawkins would argue that people are all similar. We have certain basic features that define us as a species but enormous genetic variation...

Are you suggesting that the difference between Mozart and Manson is genetic? Does that mean if someone adores Mozart but detests Manson (or vice versa) it is due to their genetic make-up?

To argue that it is selfish to be occasionally altruistic implies either that there is no real difference between the two, or, as I suspect in Dawkins' case, that one is morally superior to the other -but that only introduces the assumption that morals are also genetic. It sounds to me like he is arguing in favour of free markets rather than collective endeavour, Adam Smith rather than Karl Marx.

[trish]

I’ve only read two of Dawkin’s books: The Selfish Gene and The God Delusion. The former is short (the library I borrowed it from had the first edition - I don’t know if later editions are thicker) and I think it fairly clearly describes his position that natural selection takes place at the level of the gene. There are a number of significant opposing views including those of Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin. I’m not a biologist, but I incline to the view that selection takes place on the number of intricately interconnected levels and any view that maintains one level of selection dominates all the others probably an oversimplification.

One should keep in mind that Dawkin’s point is not that evolution favors selfish individuals; his view is that genes are selfish (metaphorically speaking); i.e. they vie with each other and those which are propagated through the generations with greater flux are those with phenotypic expressions better suited to reproduction and survival. For Dawkins it is as if the essential competition takes place at the genetic level between individual genes - as if genes were themselves selfish.

It seems to me consistent with Dawkin’s thesis that people are sometimes altruistic because their genes are selfish. This doesn’t mean that altruism and selfishness amount to the same thing, because the altruism is on the level of the individual (and sometimes on the level of the group) whereas the selfishness is on the level of the gene (and not even realized as subconscious intent in the individual’s mind).

God Delusion is too long by a factor of ten. I appreciate that, thanks to authors like Dawkins, Harris, HItchens and Dennett, atheists are no longer in closet; but I find their books and articles tedious, repetitive and worst of all, proselytizing.

On the issue of free will. When I reflect on it, I find that I don’t usually will my thoughts. I don’t will the thought, “Now I’m going to have the thought ‘my thoughts simply occur to me.” Instead the thought “my thoughts simply occur to me” occurs to me. If it were otherwise I don’t see how I have any thoughts at all. I don’t see how I’d climb out of the infinite regression of willed thoughts.

I know Neil deGrasse Tyson only through his media appearances. I like him. Occasionally I think he’s off the mark but on the whole I think he’s an excellent spokesman and educator. He’s a real astrophysicist with a modest research record. His day job is Director of the Hayden Planetarium. He has taken the mandate of this job (educate the public and excite the intellectual curiosity of children) and extended its reach way beyond the planetarium, or NYC. For that I admire him.

[broncofan]

Are you suggesting that the difference between Mozart and Manson is genetic? Does that mean if someone adores Mozart but detests Manson (or vice versa) it is due to their genetic make-up?

To argue that it is selfish to be occasionally altruistic implies either that there is no real difference between the two, or, as I suspect in Dawkins' case, that one is morally superior to the other -but that only introduces the assumption that morals are also genetic. It sounds to me like he is arguing in favour of free markets rather than collective endeavour, Adam Smith rather than Karl Marx.
At least one difference between Manson and Mozart is genetic. I don't imagine a person could choose to be a musical genius or I'd have made that choice myself. I don't think genes completely determine the outcome of one's life as I am sure there are probably interventions that could have prevented Manson from being a lunatic. I think where we differ is that you probably think Manson himself could have intervened. At least in theory he could have chosen not to do reprehensible things...but with what faculty would he have made that choice? Trish makes an interesting point about the infinite regress of willed thoughts. If we can will a moral thought to arise in our minds, then who or what is willing the desire to will a moral thought? At the point Manson made his choices, his mind was probably very good at generating malevolent thoughts.

I don't know that Dawkins would argue in favor of free markets rather than collective endeavor. He is always very careful to the point of pedantry to accuse people of not making the is v. ought distinction. Perhaps he would think that genes are selfish and in some circumstances people behave selfishly to ensure their genes are passed on, but society does not have to encourage every behavior that is a human tendency. In fact, the role of government may be a constraining one. If for instance people have a tendency to act violently when their interests are threatened, that does not mean we should not punish assault.

[broncofan]

One should keep in mind that Dawkin’s point is not that evolution favors selfish individuals; his view is that genes are selfish (metaphorically speaking); i.e. they vie with each other and those which are propagated through the generations with greater flux are those with phenotypic expressions better suited to reproduction and survival. For Dawkins it is as if the essential competition takes place at the genetic level between individual genes - as if genes were themselves selfish.

It seems to me consistent with Dawkin’s thesis that people are sometimes altruistic because their genes are selfish. This doesn’t mean that altruism and selfishness amount to the same thing, because the altruism is on the level of the individual (and sometimes on the level of the group) whereas the selfishness is on the level of the gene (and not even realized as subconscious intent in the individual’s mind).

Point taken. What I know is probably an inch deep but I would imagine that behaviors that ensure the propagation of one's genes will often be self-interested. A gene that encoded for a behavior that did not advance one's own interest would have to advance the interest of some other vessel carrying that gene for it to be a selfish gene. Is that right?

I understand your example in the case of kin selection for instance, where one may behave altruistically in order to benefit several siblings at their own expense. This would be altruistic at the level of individual behavior and selfish at the level of the gene. But in reciprocal altruism, a person is helping another at some personal expense. Wouldn't this be altruistic in the short-term but selfish in the long-term, both at the level of the individual?

Anyhow, I guess the point is that genes can confer behaviors that are cooperative among people and still increase the probability they are represented in greater frequency in the next generation.

[hippifried]

I don't know about him being an "astrophysics genius", but he seems likable enough. He just pissed me off when he went on the stump as chief excuse maker for the degradation of Pluto.

[broncofan]

And I understand that genes don't directly encode behavior but proteins. But ultimately this has behavioral consequences etc.

[Stavros]

One should keep in mind that Dawkin’s point is not that evolution favors selfish individuals; his view is that genes are selfish (metaphorically speaking); i.e. they vie with each other and those which are propagated through the generations with greater flux are those with phenotypic expressions better suited to reproduction and survival. For Dawkins it is as if the essential competition takes place at the genetic level between individual genes - as if genes were themselves selfish.



On the one hand this science must be the key point of Dawkins' argument, but on the other hand is it not also the case that theories in science are often brought into the public realm to become part of political discourse, and is this not where many people felt Wilson went wrong with his theory of Sociobiology?

[trish]

Point taken. What I know is probably an inch deep but I would imagine that behaviors that ensure the propagation of one's genes will often be self-interested. A gene that encoded for a behavior that did not advance one's own interest would have to advance the interest of some other vessel carrying that gene for it to be a selfish gene. Is that right?

I understand your example in the case of kin selection for instance, where one may behave altruistically in order to benefit several siblings at their own expense. This would be altruistic at the level of individual behavior and selfish at the level of the gene. But in reciprocal altruism, a person is helping another at some personal expense. Wouldn't this be altruistic in the short-term but selfish in the long-term, both at the level of the individual?

Anyhow, I guess the point is that genes can confer behaviors that are cooperative among people and still increase the probability they are represented in greater frequency in the next generation.

I’m a birdwatcher Jim, not an evolutionary biologist! There a certain species of moth that tastes so badly that Blue Jays avoid them. I was always puzzled how that moth gene got started. Wasn’t the first such mutation eaten? Then there’s another species of moth that mimics the appearance of the yucky tasting ones. They gain the benefit of appearing to taste bad, but when the jays find out they’re actually yummy, the death-by-jay mortality rate goes up for the yucky species too.

What about those genes that code for sexual reproduction? Before sex was ‘invented’ a single-celled life-form could expect to live forever. Do the genes that code for sexual reproduction benefit the individual carrying them? Okay, the carrier gets to have orgasms; but is the trade-off worth it?

The genes that make language possible wouldn’t have served just one individual very well. Could it be that tribes are the proper unit of selection for natural language?

I don’t really have a opinion on any of these questions; just throwing them out as things that may be relevant to your post.


I don't know about him being an "astrophysics genius", but he seems likable enough. He just pissed me off when he went on the stump as chief excuse maker for the degradation of Pluto.

If God wanted Pluto to be a planet he would’ve given it more mass than 136199Eris.


On the one hand this science must be the key point of Dawkins' argument, but on the other hand is it not also the case that theories in science are often brought into the public realm to become part of political discourse, and is this not where many people felt Wilson went wrong with his theory of Sociobiology?

I’m not sure why Dawkins decided in 1976 to write a popular book (The Selfish Gene) or why Wilson decided to write his. I suspect their motivations were one part vanity and one part academic and nearly zero parts political; but I don’t know. Lewontiin was writing at the same time and Stephen Jay Gould had a monthly column in Natural History magazine in which he was pushing an idea that downplayed the just-so-stories that he felt overplayed the hand of natural selection in the course of biological evolution. Eldritch was putting forth his theory of punctuated equilibrium in the popular press. It seems to have been an exciting time for evolutionary biologists and everyone saw their chance to become a guru. I wouldn’t be surprised if economist of a libertarian and democratic socialist bent saw an opportunity to spin the excitement, although I’m not familiar with any particular examples.

[hippifried]

If God wanted Pluto to be a moon, He would've put it in orbit around the plane, He would've put it in orbit around a planet instead of a star.

[Stavros]

[QUOTE=trish;1640345]

The genes that make language possible wouldn’t have served just one individual very well. Could it be that tribes are the proper unit of selection for natural language?

--Language is genetic? Never heard that before.

I’m not sure why Dawkins decided in 1976 to write a popular book (The Selfish Gene) or why Wilson decided to write his. I suspect their motivations were one part vanity and one part academic and nearly zero parts political; but I don’t know. Lewontiin was writing at the same time and Stephen Jay Gould had a monthly column in Natural History magazine in which he was pushing an idea that downplayed the just-so-stories that he felt overplayed the hand of natural selection in the course of biological evolution. Eldritch was putting forth his theory of punctuated equilibrium in the popular press. It seems to have been an exciting time for evolutionary biologists and everyone saw their chance to become a guru. I wouldn’t be surprised if economist of a libertarian and democratic socialist bent saw an opportunity to spin the excitement, although I’m not familiar with any particular examples.

--The deeper problem may be that Science has no interest in morality.

[trish]

--Language is genetic? Never heard that before.Damit Jim, I’m a hungangel, not a geneticist! I wouldn’t say language is genetic, which I would take to mean there’s a single gene or a single, simple grouping of genes which directly confer language to the carrier of those genes (perhaps one mutation conferring Spanish and another Mandarin). There certainly are genes that make language possible in humans. There may be genes that make it likely. I would think there are certainly genes that in the right environment make the quick acquisition of language in developing children almost inevitable and that at some level these have been selected for. I’m just asking whether it’s possible the level of selection was necessarily higher than the level of individual genes.


--The deeper problem may be that Science has no interest in morality.

I don’t think Science is the sort of creature that can have interests. I can say that my interest in morality is not professional. Are there scientists whose professional work is in the area of morality? I’m not sure. As has been discussed here, there are evolutionary biologists who have presented just so stories that attempt to show how altruistic behaviors might have developed within tribes and species. But this wouldn’t be so much a science of morality as an attempt to provide a natural history of what some would call moral behaviors. There are psychologists who investigate what people think is the morally correct thing to do in certain circumstances. I believe the study is called trolleyology. But that’s really a descriptive investigation, more anthropology than philosophy (although a lot of philosophers seem to be interested).

Whether there’s a science of morality or not may depend on what you think morality is. Is there a science that attempts to tease out what is Good and what is Evil and locate these concepts in an absolute Platonic, religious or metaphysical realm? I would think not many scientists (if any) have a professional interest in that sort of thing. Is there a science of what you ought and ought not to do? Insofar as most scientists are professionally interested in describing and understanding what is, their speculations as to what ought to be remain non-professional, given Hume’s is/ought divide. Of course that shouldn’t prevent some ingenious investigators from describing and coming to a correct understanding of what ought is. Right?

[trish]

If God wanted Pluto to be a moon, He would've put it in orbit around the plane, He would've put it in orbit around a planet instead of a star.Yeah, you're right. He put it in orbit around star along with eight planets and a billions of asteroids. Even though Pluto is massive enough to have naturally settled into a roughly spherical shape (geologists say it's in hydrostatic equilibrium) it's not massive enough to have swept it's orbit clear of those pesky asteroids. For some reason the International Astronomical Union (one of those fucking pinko unions trying to second guess God) decided that to be a planet it's not good enough to be round and orbiting a star...you have to be a fucking broom too. Some astronomers call Pluto a dwarf planet but still don't include it in the pantheon of planets. Yikes! That's like saying a dwarf human isn't a human!!

I like to think of Pluto as a reasonably good candidate who just didn't quite get the job because of it's poor debris sweeping skills. (Damn company should provide some on the job learning, don't ya think?)

[trish]

Addendum to Post#16:
On the other hand, scientists (like most people with jobs) have a professional interest in behaving ethically: with their students and their colleagues, as well as keeping their professional pursuits (experiments and writings) within ethical boundaries. But of course, this is not the same thing as having a professional interest in pursuing ethics or morality as research programs in and of themselves.

[broncofan]

But there probably is an ample history of scientists bringing biases to the table and attempting to justify social policies based on their findings. One could say they did not observe the scientific method or they transcended the bounds of their profession, but there's a circularity to that argument. Of course, science is supposed to employ certain methodologies and be more descriptive than normative, but that does not mean scientists are not aware of the social consequences of their research and allow this to bias them.

It would be difficult to study morality from a scientific standpoint...it's not exactly tractable or testable.

[broncofan]

Of course, science is supposed to employ certain methodologies and be more descriptive than normative, but that does not mean scientists are not aware of the social consequences of their research and allow this to bias them.

I realize this is the argument Republicans put forth when they talk about climate change! That's certainly not what I want to evoke. But scientists might want to write popular science books out of vanity, but there is the risk that they are really creeping towards domains of study that are not purely scientific but pretending they are. Or rather implicitly saying that their scientific credentials give them special insight into social problems.

[trish]

I would say that when Einstein wrote Roosevelt informing him of the possibility of a nuclear weapon, he was not doing science but rather doing what he could to sway a wartime policy decision. He was informed by science, yes...but acting as a citizen outside his professional capacity.

Scientists who who insert themselves into the discussion on climate change, vaccines, and other matters may at best be informed by science but insofar as they take it upon themselves to recommend specific legislative solutions (I think) act as citizens outside their professional capacities; their expertise is in a particular field of science...not politics. I'm not saying we shouldn't listen to them, but rather we should know that policy should be informed by science but it is not a matter that is entirely subject to scientific analysis.

[trish]

I realize this is the argument Republicans put forth when they talk about climate change! That's certainly not what I want to evoke. But scientists might want to write popular science books out of vanity, but there is the risk that they are really creeping towards domains of study that are not purely scientific but pretending they are. Or rather implicitly saying that their scientific credentials give them special insight into social problems. I agree, this certainly seems to be a danger. I wouldn't want to tell anyone they shouldn't write, but authors should be aware that what is written is always open to spin and interpretation. Readers should be aware that you can't always believe what you read. YouTube watchers should....oh well we're all fucked anyway!

[Stavros]

I would say that when Einstein wrote Roosevelt informing him of the possibility of a nuclear weapon, he was not doing science but rather doing what he could to sway a wartime policy decision. He was informed by science, yes...but acting as a citizen outside his professional capacity.

Scientists who who insert themselves into the discussion on climate change, vaccines, and other matters may at best be informed by science but insofar as they take it upon themselves to recommend specific legislative solutions (I think) act as citizens outside their professional capacities; their expertise is in a particular field of science...not politics. I'm not saying we shouldn't listen to them, but rather we should know that policy should be informed by science but it is not a matter that is entirely subject to scientific analysis.

But just as in the past people might have turned to a priest for guidance on matters -as indeed many still do (and in other religions)- so many people today are, I think, more likely to believe what a scientist has to say about climate change than a politician, as well as on other matters. I am not saying that scientists are the new priesthood -an idea that has been knocking around for a while- but I think you can see where a belief that science is concerned with facts adds moral weight to their position and unless the audience knows where scientists disagree and how and on what, they continue to have the authority of the expert to buttress their preferred policy. Science may not do morality, many scientists do.

[sukumvit boy]

Looks like they are calling it the 'New Atheism' and the new atheists are the usual suspects already mentioned above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

[trish]

But just as in the past people might have turned to a priest for guidance on matters -as indeed many still do (and in other religions)- so many people today are, I think, more likely to believe what a scientist has to say about climate change than a politician, as well as on other matters. I am not saying that scientists are the new priesthood -an idea that has been knocking around for a while- but I think you can see where a belief that science is concerned with facts adds moral weight to their position and unless the audience knows where scientists disagree and how and on what, they continue to have the authority of the expert to buttress their preferred policy. Science may not do morality, many scientists do.

I think we largely agree. If the issue is important, then it is important to check relevant assertions against fact as much as is possible and to understand as well as possible the grounding of any assertion, be it scientific, literary, historical, political etc. Otherwise, invoking a celebrity or scientist’s name is just resorting to an argument by authority. Surely Stephen Hawking’s endorsement, in most matters outside the realm of mathematics or physics, should carry no greater weight than that of any other person’s who is also known in their specific field of endeavor for their intellectual integrity and creative capacities. It’s not the endorsement that should count, but the reasons given for it.


Looks like they are calling it the 'New Atheism' and the new atheists are the usual suspects already mentioned above.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

I prefer Julia Sweeney and recommend her heartfelt stand up album: And God Said Ha!
She hits many of the same points as the New Atheists, but with a whole lot less testosterone. Instead of calling out theists, she narrates her own story and in the course explains why she is not one - at least in the traditional sense.

[hippifried]

Yeah, you're right. He put it in orbit around star along with eight planets and a billions of asteroids. Even though Pluto is massive enough to have naturally settled into a roughly spherical shape (geologists say it's in hydrostatic equilibrium) it's not massive enough to have swept it's orbit clear of those pesky asteroids. For some reason the International Astronomical Union (one of those fucking pinko unions trying to second guess God) decided that to be a planet it's not good enough to be round and orbiting a star...you have to be a fucking broom too. Some astronomers call Pluto a dwarf planet but still don't include it in the pantheon of planets. Yikes! That's like saying a dwarf human isn't a human!!

I like to think of Pluto as a reasonably good candidate who just didn't quite get the job because of it's poor debris sweeping skills. (Damn company should provide some on the job learning, don't ya think?)
Well yeah, but all the others got a head start, & the yellow dog had a much longer runway to vacuum. This is discrimination plain & simple. They're all just pickin' on the runt of the litter. Pluto may be an adolescent, but that just makes it a work in progress. From what I've seen, the debris field is already gathering & gettin' ready to crash dance like marbles in a ring. In 3d of course. I figure it shouldn't take more than a billion years or 2 for the chaos to work lts magic. The blink of an eye in the space time continuum. Lets make it a date. I'll see if I can wrangle up a couple of front row tickets. Better bundle up. I hear lt's cold out there.

Now what's all this about morality vs science? Are they really exclusive? Anthropology is a science. The study of human behavior is a science. When you break it down, morality is the golden rule. If a topic can't be related back to that, then it's not a moral issue. Hilel, Rabbi from Babylon circa 100 BCE, said: "That which displeases you, do not to your fellow. That is the whole Torah. All else is explanation. Go and learn." Throughout our history, nearly every major philosopher, prophet, medicine man, etc..., has preached the same moral code. Where did it come from you ask? Personally, after giving it some thought, I think it's innate. It's a survival tool that keeps our species going by allowing us to live in close proximity to each other without bringing about our own extinction. We humans are not fast, not strong, & bereft of fang or claw. Without the code, we're just prey.

[Stavros]

Hippifried you may have come across the advance notices of 'sensational news' about Pluto from NASA, and may already be in the public domain by the time you read this. I am transferring my thoughts on God to the thread on God fearing if you and anyone else wants to take that further there.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/nasa-announcement-today-live-why-people-think-agency-is-about-to-reveal-that-it-has-found-aliens-on-a6685786.html

[broncofan]

I think hard science has limits but I am glad when they are not filled in with religion but secular philosophy or social science. Whereas science can't explain everything, I don't think religion can explain anything except for personal information about the doctrine's authors and the people who slavishly follow it. Any rule derived from a false narrative can be derived from common sense. But this too begins to meld with the other thread.

I will point out that many dangers of science often come from not adhering to a rigorous scientific methodology (think alchemy, craniometry, eugenicism). The shortcomings of religion come from adhering too closely to the written text (think proscriptions against homosexuality and various draconian punishments). This is at least one advantage of science over religion imo.

[trish]

I will point out that many dangers of science often come from not adhering to a rigorous scientific methodology (think alchemy, craniometry, eugenicism).
Or you can google the Wikipedia article Scientific Misconduct and get arm-length list of very specific recent examples of cheats and frauds that infect academic and corporate research organizations.

You make an interesting point. For some reason (and I don’t know how long this will last into the future) the frauds that have been booted out of science have not been able to establish themselves as successful independent “churches”. Religion, on the other hand, has been plagued with schisms that grow into whole other religions. One reason this hasn’t happened yet in the sciences is because of the empirical nature of the endeavor. One reason it hasn’t happened in mathematics is because of its strict adherence to rigorous proof. There are pressures, however, that may cause both to drift away from these anchors. There is a growing speculative trend in science (as experimentation becomes more difficult, more expensive and more difficult to fund). The dangers of corporate science (pharmaceutical research etc.) are obvious. Even in mathematics, rigorous proof is giving way to computational studies. Since the solution of the four color problem there’s been an ongoing debate about the validity and nature of computer proofs too complex for a single individual to follow and comprehend.

[trish]

Just thought of some counter examples to my last post. Homeopathy and some similar movements related to the medical sciences might be considered successful (but not by any scientific measure) para-schisms.

[sukumvit boy]

Just thought of some counter examples to my last post. Homeopathy and some similar movements related to the medical sciences might be considered successful (but not by any scientific measure) para-schisms.
With regard to Homeopathy , imho , nothing more than the placebo effect and great for folks who , for a multitude of reasons , are afraid to go to a real doctor.

[fred41]

With regard to Homeopathy , imho , nothing more than the placebo effect and great for folks who , for a multitude of reasons , are afraid to go to a real doctor.

Pseudo science - lots of examples in the medical field...acupuncture, chiropractic medicine...some are even accepted by insurance companies...
...but, to me, junk science is more closely tied to religion than any form of modern science, since it seems to me, to be nothing more than faith healing.

[broncofan]

Just thought of some counter examples to my last post. Homeopathy and some similar movements related to the medical sciences might be considered successful (but not by any scientific measure) para-schisms.
This and other examples are put forward out of fairness. But what do the majority of scientists think about their methods? For instance, if homeopathy really only produces a placebo effect, then one would not expect it to fare well in a placebo controlled trial. So, these end up being minor splinter sects...more like cults than religions. Their methods really do violate the tenets of the religion of science and they can be likened to heretics.

On the other hand, with religion you have a self-contained document. And yet for every religion you have dozens of competing interpretations. One could forgive a religion for having a spiritual leader who is a self-aggrandizing charlatan because you could say he is not practicing "true religion". He is a fraud in the same sense as someone who commits scientific malpractice. But what about the serious people who act earnestly from a plausible interpretation of the text? Their actions might be objectionable from a secular standpoint. And they may be viewed as heretical by someone interpreting the same doctrine.

[broncofan]

What I tried to say above and don't think I did very clearly is this: when there is a schism within a religion there is not much basis for saying who is right. And if you figure out whose interpretation is more faithful to the text, they still might be advocating something all non-adherents to the text think is dangerous. Then you will have members of the faith who will say this latter group are too literal and that's why their views have deleterious social consequences. So nobody is right and nobody is practicing the one true religion.

But when someone advocates junk science, you have well-defined methods you can look at to see where they went wrong. As a result, the schism is more likely to be much smaller. You will have a body of scientists who take their discipline seriously and a smaller group of people who either act in bad faith, are sloppy, or are somehow prone to quackery.