PDA

View Full Version : Scientist Resigns as Stem-Cell Creation Method Is Discredited



shunyadragon
12-26-2014, 02:23 PM
Scientist Resigns as Stem-Cell Creation Method Is Discredited

Haruko Obokata, the stem-cell biologist whose papers caused a sensation earlier this year before being retracted, has resigned from the RIKEN Center for Developmental Biology in Kobe, Japan.

Her emotional resignation letter was posted on RIKEN’s website on December 19 alongside results of the organization’s own investigation, which failed to confirm her claims of a simple method to create pluripotent stem cells.

Such cells are scientifically valuable because they can develop into most other cells types, from brain to muscle. But they are difficult to make.

Obokata’s method—known as stimulus-triggered acquisition of pluripotency, or STAP—was published in Nature in January. However, the results immediately came under suspicion, and the papers were retracted in July. A few weeks later, one of the paper’s co-authors, Yoshiki Sasai, took his own life.

Obokata wrote she could not “find words enough to apologize... for troubling so many people at RIKEN and other places”.

In an accompanying statement, RIKEN president Ryoji Noyori wrote that Obokata had been subject to extreme stress over the affair, and that in accepting her resignation he hoped to save her "further mental burden".

shunyadragon
12-27-2014, 07:02 AM
This post represents how science has a peer review and redundant research methods that uncover bad research and fraud. This self correcting process greatly reduces the influence of the individual fallible human element and is the reason we should trust the reliability of science in the long run. It is very rare if not at all that the discovery of fraud and bad research is discovered outside science.

One of the long term problems we face in the 'information age' is the attempts by the layman popular is sensationalize, interpret and second guess advances in science.

robrecht
12-27-2014, 07:13 AM
This post represents how science has a peer review and redundant research methods that uncover bad research and fraud. This self correcting process greatly reduces the influence of the individual fallible human element and is the reason we should trust the reliability of science in the long run. It is very rare if not at all that the discovery of fraud and bad research is discovered outside science.

One of the long term problems we face in the 'information age' is the attempts by the layman popular is sensationalize, interpret and second guess advances in science.Peer review also works well outside of hard sciences.

shunyadragon
12-27-2014, 07:25 AM
Peer review also works well outside of hard sciences.

Yes, but the worldwide skeptical peer review and redundant research process is a universal self correcting method, probably unique to science in its intensity. In this thread I would like to address the reasons for the widespread mistrust and misinformation concerning science among laymen and popular media. It does extend to the applied sciences like archeology, as far as the factual nature of discoveries and research.

An important part of this process is in the nature of Methodological Naturalism, which does work well to keep science neutral to the many theological and philosophical worldviews and agendas despite claims, conspiracy theories and accusations otherwise.

robrecht
12-27-2014, 07:30 AM
Yes, but the worldwide skeptical peer review and redundant research process is a universal self correcting method, probably unique to science in its intensity. In this thread I would like to address the reasons for the widespread mistrust and misinformation concerning science among laymen and popular media. It does extend to the applied sciences like arch[a]eology, as far as the factual nature of discoveries and research.I don't think it is unique in its intensity, but it is certainly easier to apply in objective sciences where results can be replicated.

shunyadragon
12-27-2014, 07:38 AM
I don't think it is unique in its intensity, but it is certainly easier to apply in objective sciences where results can be replicated.

Pretty much all other disciplines such as in Theology, and Philosophy the peer review is more internal on belief system, school or narrowly defined field. There, of course, may be criticisms and critique from outside, but they rarely impact the individual scope of the publication. Outside science there are more subjective and anecdotal issues which complicate things.

robrecht
12-27-2014, 07:49 AM
Pretty much all other disciplines such as in Theology, and Philosophy the peer review is more internal on belief system, school or narrowly defined field. There, of course, may be criticisms and critique from outside, but they rarely impact the individual scope of the publication. Outside science there are more subjective and anecdotal issues which complicate things.It all depends on the editorial policies of the journal and publisher. Academic publishers do not conduct peer review in accord with a belief system. In such a context, good peer review certainly does always impact the individual scope of a publication.

Epoetker
12-27-2014, 09:00 AM
This post represents how science has a peer review and redundant research methods that uncover bad research and fraud. :no: :no: :no:This self correcting process greatly reduces the influence of the individual fallible human element and is the reason we should trust the reliability of science in the long run. It is very rare if not at all that the discovery of fraud and bad research is discovered outside science.

One of the long term problems we face in the 'information age' is the attempts by the layman popular is sensationalize, interpret and second guess advances in science.

Sanctimonious drivel, of the type that I would expect from someone who didn't post any details of the case. This was a slam-dunk case: (http://www.nature.com/news/acid-bath-stem-cell-study-under-investigation-1.14738)


That scepticism deepened last week when blogs including PubPeer started noting what seem to be problems in the two Nature papers and in a paper from 20114, which relates to the potential of stem cells in adult tissues. In the 2011 paper, of which Obokata is first author, a figure showing bars that are meant to prove the presence of a certain stem-cell marker seems to have been inverted and then used to show the presence of a different stem-cell marker. A part of the same image appears in a different figure indicating yet another stem-cell marker. The paper also contains another unrelated apparent duplication.

The corresponding author of that study4, Charles Vacanti, an anaesthesiologist at Harvard Medical School in Boston, Massachusetts, told Nature news that he learned only last week of a “mix up of some panels”. He has already contacted the journal in which the paper was published, Tissue Engineering, to request a correction. “It certainly appears to have been an honest mistake [that] did not affect any of the data, the conclusions or any other component of the paper,” says Vacanti.

In other words, "peer" review had a history of failing so hard that the bad actors didn't even bother making convincing-looking fake graphs, and only took action when disinterested public review forced them too. What the over/under discovery of fraud in papers not sexy or audacious enough to draw public view before slipping into the footnote list and 'works cited" tab?

Peer review is no more reliable than the judgment of your peers, and may be a good deal less valuable than reviews with names and faces of prominent scientists attached to them. Most collective decisions are abdications of responsibility to the God of Large Numbers, which has a greater and greater likelihood to be Satan in disguise as the penalty for lying gets ever smaller.

shunyadragon
12-27-2014, 12:09 PM
It all depends on the editorial policies of the journal and publisher. Academic publishers do not conduct peer review in accord with a belief system. In such a context, good peer review certainly does always impact the individual scope of a publication.

I fully acknowledge that there is peer review and critique in all academic fields, but there is an important difference with science, discoveries and research in Japan is eventually repeated and check elsewhere either in Japan or in India, USA, France, Germany or where ever by the same methodology. This is not the case in other academic disciplines. Bad or faulty research, and fraud is fairly common in science, but virtually all the problems are resolved in time. This intensive global redundant process of research is what resolves any personal bias, errors, fraud and bad research over time. The issue is why do many people mistrust science other then a religious, philosophical or personal agenda?

robrecht
12-27-2014, 12:19 PM
I fully acknowledge that there is peer review and critique in all academic fields, but there is an important difference with science, discoveries and research in Japan is eventually repeated and check elsewhere either in Japan or in India, USA, France, Germany or where ever by the same methodology. This is not the case in other academic disciplines.I have already said this, in saying that peer review is certainly easier to apply in objective sciences where results can be replicated.


Bad or faulty research, and fraud is fairly common in science, but virtually all the problems are resolved in time. This intensive global redundant process of research is what resolves any personal bias, errors, fraud and bad research over time. The issue is why do many people mistrust science other then a religious, philosophical or personal agenda? I suppose that covers most of the reasons. It seems some of the early Baha'i opposition to the early scientific theories of evolution were based on religious/philosophical objections based on the need to see the creation of humanity as a more direct creation by God rather than the evolution of one species from other species. If I recall correctly, I think you've said that this is no longer the current Baha'i position.

shunyadragon
12-27-2014, 12:24 PM
I suppose that covers most of the reasons. It seems some of the early Baha'i opposition to the early scientific theories of evolution were based on religious/philosophical objections based on the need to see the creation of humanity as a more direct creation by God rather than the evolution of one species from other species. If I recall correctly, I think you've said that this is no longer the current Baha'i position.

No, there was never any specific opposition to anything. Foundation principles have always held prescedence concerning the evolving nature of scientific knowledge. I have explained several times the problem that Baha'u'llah and Abdul'baha spoke and wrote in Persian and Arabic and never had the rudimentary education in 19th century science, that is why the first principles take prescedence. The following explains this further:



"As a final observation it should be noted that because many of the scientific discoveries and theories referred to in the Bahá'í Writings were yet unknown to the contemporaries of Bahá'u'lláh and `Abdu'l-Bahá, They obviously could not have used the technical terms applied for their description nowadays. Instead, They had to make use of and sometimes redefine already existing concepts and terms (e.g. the ether concept or the idea of the four elements of ancient Greek philosophy) in a way that they would accurately explain what They had in mind. On a superficial level, this might give the impression that the Central Figures of the Faith did not actually formulate any new ideas about physical reality. When we study Their Writings more closely, however, we come to realise that this only seems to be the case because Their references to such topics were purposely made in such a way that they would neither offend Their addressees who believed in certain (erroneous) contemporary scientific concepts, nor make use of a terminology that had not yet been developed by contemporary scientists."

Full text available on request. Any more questions concerning this issue, please address them in the appropriate thread. I know of no references by Baha'i scientists nor in non-science publications that have ever objected to the evolving scientific knowledge in the 19th, 20th nor the 21st centuries.



Actually, not the topic of the thread.

Adrift
12-27-2014, 12:40 PM
Actually, not the topic of the thread.

Yeah robrecht! In other words, when he says, "The issue is why do many people mistrust science other then a religious, philosophical or personal agenda?" he means people from religions not this own. Stop trying to change the topic by including Bahais! :hehe:

shunyadragon
12-27-2014, 12:45 PM
Yeah robrecht! In other words, when he says, "The issue is why do many people mistrust science other then a religious, philosophical or personal agenda?" he means people from religions not this own. Stop trying to change the topic by including Bahais! :hehe:

Please do include Baha'is in the proper context.

No, there was never any specific opposition to anything. Foundation principles have always held prescedence concerning the evolving nature of scientific knowledge. I have explained several times the problem that Baha'u'llah and Abdul'baha spoke and wrote in Persian and Arabic and never had the rudimentary education in 19th century science, that is why the first principles take prescedence. The following explains this further:




"As a final observation it should be noted that because many of the scientific discoveries and theories referred to in the Bahá'í Writings were yet unknown to the contemporaries of Bahá'u'lláh and `Abdu'l-Bahá, They obviously could not have used the technical terms applied for their description nowadays. Instead, They had to make use of and sometimes redefine already existing concepts and terms (e.g. the ether concept or the idea of the four elements of ancient Greek philosophy) in a way that they would accurately explain what They had in mind. On a superficial level, this might give the impression that the Central Figures of the Faith did not actually formulate any new ideas about physical reality. When we study Their Writings more closely, however, we come to realise that this only seems to be the case because Their references to such topics were purposely made in such a way that they would neither offend Their addressees who believed in certain (erroneous) contemporary scientific concepts, nor make use of a terminology that had not yet been developed by contemporary scientists."

© Copyright Original Source


Full text available on request. Any more questions concerning this issue, please address them in the appropriate thread. I know of no references by Baha'i scientists nor in non-science publications that have ever objected to the evolving scientific knowledge in the 19th, 20th nor the 21st centuries.


Actually, not the topic of the thread.

robrecht
12-27-2014, 01:13 PM
So when some of the founders of the Baha'i faith opposed current scientific theories as they understood them that is somehow fundamentally different from some Muslims or Christians or animists or members of other religions who might oppose current scientific theories as they understand them?

shunyadragon
12-27-2014, 01:21 PM
So when some of the founders of the Baha'i faith opposed current scientific theories as they understood them that is somehow fundamentally different from some Muslims or Christians or animists or members of other religions who might oppose current scientific theories as they understand them?

Robrecht, apparently you have a distinct problem with the English language, and references I have provided. Commentary in the Arabic and Persian scriptures on the nature of our physical existence is not considered in opposition to science at any time. The foundation principles are what stand for how the Baha'i Faith believes and teaches concerning the relationship of science and religion and the independence of science concerning the knowledge of our physical existence.
I know of no references by Baha'i scientists nor in non-science publications that have ever objected to or openly opposed the evolving scientific knowledge in the 19th, 20th nor the 21st centuries.

You sure are dense cookie when trying to communicate in basic English.




"As a final observation it should be noted that because many of the scientific discoveries and theories referred to in the Bahá'í Writings were yet unknown to the contemporaries of Bahá'u'lláh and `Abdu'l-Bahá, They obviously could not have used the technical terms applied for their description nowadays. Instead, They had to make use of and sometimes redefine already existing concepts and terms (e.g. the ether concept or the idea of the four elements of ancient Greek philosophy) in a way that they would accurately explain what They had in mind. On a superficial level, this might give the impression that the Central Figures of the Faith did not actually formulate any new ideas about physical reality. When we study Their Writings more closely, however, we come to realise that this only seems to be the case because Their references to such topics were purposely made in such a way that they would neither offend Their addressees who believed in certain (erroneous) contemporary scientific concepts, nor make use of a terminology that had not yet been developed by contemporary scientists."

© Copyright Original Source

shunyadragon
12-27-2014, 01:26 PM
So when some of the founders of the Baha'i faith opposed current scientific theories as they understood them that is somehow fundamentally different from some Muslims or Christians or animists or members of other religions who might oppose current scientific theories as they understand them?

The problem with Christians and Muslims is that many, not just some, give primacy of their scripture over science. The Baha'i Faith absolutely does not.

Robrecht, apparently you have a distinct problem with the English language, and references I have provided. Commentary in the Arabic and Persian scriptures on the nature of our physical existence is not considered in opposition to science at any time. The foundation principles are what stand for how the Baha'i Faith believes and teaches concerning the relationship of science and religion and the independence of science concerning the knowledge of our physical existence. I know of no references by Baha'i scientists nor in non-science publications that have ever objected to or openly opposed the evolving scientific knowledge, nor gave primacy of scripture over science in the 19th, 20th nor the 21st centuries.

You sure are dense cookie when trying to communicate in basic English.





"As a final observation it should be noted that because many of the scientific discoveries and theories referred to in the Bahá'í Writings were yet unknown to the contemporaries of Bahá'u'lláh and `Abdu'l-Bahá, They obviously could not have used the technical terms applied for their description nowadays. Instead, They had to make use of and sometimes redefine already existing concepts and terms (e.g. the ether concept or the idea of the four elements of ancient Greek philosophy) in a way that they would accurately explain what They had in mind. On a superficial level, this might give the impression that the Central Figures of the Faith did not actually formulate any new ideas about physical reality. When we study Their Writings more closely, however, we come to realise that this only seems to be the case because Their references to such topics were purposely made in such a way that they would neither offend Their addressees who believed in certain (erroneous) contemporary scientific concepts, nor make use of a terminology that had not yet been developed by contemporary scientists."

Full text available on request. Any more questions concerning this issue, please address them in the appropriate thread. I know of no references by Baha'i scientists nor in non-science publications that have ever objected to the evolving scientific knowledge, nor gave primacy of scripture over science, in the 19th, 20th nor the 21st centuries.

DesertBerean
12-27-2014, 02:45 PM
Shuny...you just don't know how to quit when you're ahead, do you? You started so well...

shunyadragon
12-27-2014, 02:48 PM
Shuny...you just don't know how to quit when you're ahead, do you? You started so well...

Pease do not follow the other problem children, and post relevant to the subject.

Science has demonstrated that it is a self, correcting consistent body of knowledge, and cleans its own house over time concerning bad research and fraud.

Why do many Christians and Muslims not trust science concerning evolution and cosmology?

Chrawnus
12-27-2014, 03:52 PM
apparently you have a distinct problem with the English language

...I find this ironical given that is is coming from someone who habitually abuses the syntax of the English language to the point of hilarity.

jordanriver
12-27-2014, 04:12 PM
Pease do not follow the other problem children, and post relevant to the subject.

Science has demonstrated that it is a self, correcting consistent body of knowledge, and cleans its own house over time concerning bad research and fraud.

Why do many Christians and Muslims not trust science concerning evolution and cosmology?
Who doesn't trust *science* ?

Maybe its agenda-driven individual PERSONS we don't trust.

...Hawking let the cat out of the bag when he noted some "scientists" rejected theories if they might enable religion
...because they "smacked of the divine"

jordanriver
12-27-2014, 04:29 PM
...of course, to be fair,
...in the religious precinct, we've had charlatans who said if we didn't give them all our money, that meant we didn't trust God

shunyadragon
12-27-2014, 08:04 PM
...I find this ironical given that is is coming from someone who habitually abuses the syntax of the English language to the point of hilarity.

Airball!!! From the anal retentive grammarian. If you have something meaningful to contribute please do.

shunyadragon
12-27-2014, 08:06 PM
Who doesn't trust *science* ?

Maybe its agenda-driven individual PERSONS we don't trust.

...Hawking let the cat out of the bag when he noted some "scientists" rejected theories if they might enable religion
...because they "smacked of the divine"

Hawking's personal comments are not science and not at tissue here.

shunyadragon
12-27-2014, 08:07 PM
...of course, to be fair,
...in the religious precinct, we've had charlatans who said if we didn't give them all our money, that meant we didn't trust God

Off topic!! But on the other hand there doing quite well in the USA.

Adrift
12-27-2014, 08:17 PM
Airball!!! From the anal attentive grammarian. If you have something meaningful to contribute please do.

Again, its "anal retentive", not "anal attentive".

Adrift
12-27-2014, 08:31 PM
We should start a list of shunyisms.

"anal attentive"
"airball"
"the three stooges, duck bob and weave"
"OFF TOPIC!!!"
"still waiting . . ."
"the source that some call God(s)"
"cling/clinging to ancient paradigms"

robrecht
12-28-2014, 01:27 AM
Robrecht, apparently you have a distinct problem with the English language, and references I have provided. Commentary in the Arabic and Persian scriptures on the nature of our physical existence is not considered in opposition to science at any time. The foundation principles are what stand for how the Baha'i Faith believes and teaches concerning the relationship of science and religion and the independence of science concerning the knowledge of our physical existence.
I know of no references by Baha'i scientists nor in non-science publications that have ever objected to or openly opposed the evolving scientific knowledge in the 19th, 20th nor the 21st centuries.

You sure are dense cookie when trying to communicate in basic English.




"As a final observation it should be noted that because many of the scientific discoveries and theories referred to in the Bahá'í Writings were yet unknown to the contemporaries of Bahá'u'lláh and `Abdu'l-Bahá, They obviously could not have used the technical terms applied for their description nowadays. Instead, They had to make use of and sometimes redefine already existing concepts and terms (e.g. the ether concept or the idea of the four elements of ancient Greek philosophy) in a way that they would accurately explain what They had in mind. On a superficial level, this might give the impression that the Central Figures of the Faith did not actually formulate any new ideas about physical reality. When we study Their Writings more closely, however, we come to realise that this only seems to be the case because Their references to such topics were purposely made in such a way that they would neither offend Their addressees who believed in certain (erroneous) contemporary scientific concepts, nor make use of a terminology that had not yet been developed by contemporary scientists."

© Copyright Original Source
You have not really explained the what the difference is between foundational members of the Baha'i faith opposing scientific theories and members of other religions opposing scientific theories. You've mentioned a few differences, but the significance of each difference is not clear. Uneducated. Commenting on scriptures. Not wanting to offend their addresses. These sound like excuses that you yourself would not accept from people in other faiths.

Chrawnus
12-28-2014, 02:42 AM
Airball!!! From the anal attentive grammarian. If you have something meaningful to contribute please do.

It's not an airball. Robrecht's alleged problem with understanding you is much more likely to be the result of your inability to write in proper English than anything on his part.

jordanriver
12-28-2014, 04:30 AM
Off topic!! But on the other hand there doing quite well in the USA.



Why do many Christians and Muslims not trust science concerning evolution and cosmology?

so this is the topic here?

.


.

Hawking's personal comments are not science and not at tissue here.

.


Why do many Christians and Muslims not trust science concerning evolution and cosmology?

so this comment is science and is what is at issue here?


.
what a silly man

shunyadragon
12-28-2014, 04:48 AM
Again, its "anal retentive", not "anal attentive".
Thank you for the correction. I like both!!

shunyadragon
12-28-2014, 04:53 AM
It's not an airball. Robrecht's alleged problem with understanding you is much more likely to be the result of your inability to write in proper English than anything on his part.

It is not my English that is the problem. I have directly cited sources to clarify my position from publications.

Do you have anything to contribute to thread instead of anal retentive insults? Which by the way represent a well known fallacy.

Do you trust the science of Evolution and Cosmology?

Cerebrum123
12-28-2014, 05:22 AM
Airball!!! From the anal attentive grammarian. If you have something meaningful to contribute please do.

His post wasn't an "airball", but yours did earn you a "screwball". :hehe:

shunyadragon
12-28-2014, 05:34 AM
His post wasn't an "airball", but yours did earn you a "screwball". :hehe:

Do you have any constructive post to contribute?

Do you trust science concerning Evolution and Cosmology?

Cerebrum123
12-28-2014, 05:40 AM
Do you have any constructive post to contribute?

I think it is constructive to point out your dismissals of your own failures, and errors.


Do you trust science concerning Evolution and Cosmology?

You already know the answer to that.

shunyadragon
12-28-2014, 05:48 AM
I think it is constructive to point out your dismissals of your own failures, and errors.
You already know the answer to that.

Do you have any constructive post to contribute?

Do you trust science concerning Evolution and Cosmology?

Chrawnus
12-28-2014, 05:50 AM
It is not my English that is the problem. I have directly cited sources to clarify my position from publications.

Do you have anything to contribute to thread instead of anal retentive insults? Which by the way represent a well known fallacy.

Do you trust the science of Evolution and Cosmology?

Pointing out your difficulties with writing proper English is insulting you? Give me a break. :ahem:

And I didn't say that there even was a problem in the first part. I was saying that if there is a problem the blame is much more likely to be on you than on robrecht.

shunyadragon
12-28-2014, 06:36 AM
Pointing out your difficulties with writing proper English is insulting you? Give me a break. :ahem:

And I didn't say that there even was a problem in the first part. I was saying that if there is a problem the blame is much more likely to be on you than on robrecht.

Do you have anything to contribute to thread instead of anal retentive insults? Which by the way represent a well known fallacy.

Do you trust the science of Evolution and Cosmology?

Chrawnus
12-28-2014, 07:04 AM
Do you have anything to contribute to thread instead of anal retentive insults?

I have not insulted you once in this thread.

Cerebrum123
12-28-2014, 07:10 AM
I have not insulted you once in this thread.

He takes any kind of challenge to his "superior knowledge" as an insult.

shunyadragon
12-28-2014, 07:34 AM
I have not insulted you once in this thread.
Do you have anything to contribute to thread instead of anal retentive insults? Which by the way represent a well known fallacy.

Do you trust the science of Evolution and Cosmology?

MaxVel
12-28-2014, 07:46 AM
One of the problems is the conflation of 'science' with 'everything scientists say / everything scientists do'. I can trust the former, but I don't automatically trust the latter. Scientists get things wrong. And they should be happy to have that pointed out, when they do.

We know that the peer review process can be corrupted (and has been (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/07/scientific_corruption_exposed_peer_review_ring_bus ted.html)), and a Nobel Prize winning scientist says (http://kingsreview.co.uk/magazine/blog/2014/02/24/how-academia-and-publishing-are-destroying-scientific-innovation-a-conversation-with-sydney-brenner/):


I think peer review is hindering science. In fact, I think it has become a completely corrupt system. It’s corrupt in many ways, in that scientists and academics have handed over to the editors of these journals the ability to make judgment on science and scientists. There are universities in America, and I’ve heard from many committees, that we won’t consider people’s publications in low impact factor journals.

Now I mean, people are trying to do something, but I think it’s not publish or perish, it’s publish in the okay places [or perish]. And this has assembled a most ridiculous group of people. I wrote a column for many years in the nineties, in a journal called Current Biology. In one article, “Hard Cases”, I campaigned against this [culture] because I think it is not only bad, it’s corrupt. In other words it puts the judgment in the hands of people who really have no reason to exercise judgment at all. And that’s all been done in the aid of commerce, because they are now giant organisations making money out of it.



Shunya, it seems to me that you do conflate 'science' with 'whatever scientists say / whatever scientists do'. Scientists are people, it's foolish to trust them 100%, just like it's foolish to trust anyone 100%. People are fallible, even when they have the best of intentions.

Adrift
12-28-2014, 08:17 AM
One of the problems is the conflation of 'science' with 'everything scientists say / everything scientists do'. I can trust the former, but I don't automatically trust the latter. Scientists get things wrong. And they should be happy to have that pointed out, when they do.

We know that the peer review process can be corrupted (and has been (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/07/scientific_corruption_exposed_peer_review_ring_bus ted.html)), and a Nobel Prize winning scientist says (http://kingsreview.co.uk/magazine/blog/2014/02/24/how-academia-and-publishing-are-destroying-scientific-innovation-a-conversation-with-sydney-brenner/):





Shunya, it seems to me that you do conflate 'science' with 'whatever scientists say / whatever scientists do'. Scientists are people, it's foolish to trust them 100%, just like it's foolish to trust anyone 100%. People are fallible, even when they have the best of intentions.

Yeah. I was recently reading a scientist on another forum, and he said that he wished that the process was more open ended. The peer review process itself can sometimes help protect bad research. I don't know. Thought that was interesting.

robrecht
12-28-2014, 08:51 AM
Yeah. I was recently reading a scientist on another forum, and he said that he wished that the process was more open ended. The peer review process itself can sometimes help protect bad research. I don't know. Thought that was interesting.
Traditionally, peer reviewers and authors are anonymous to each other, but there have been experiments with a more open process, especially with the hard sciences. Open access journals are also changing the process, with the technological ability for on-going peer-review through something akin to discussion boards. I think both of these trends toward transparency and wider capability for comment by more peers will ultimately have a positive effect.

Chrawnus
12-28-2014, 09:37 AM
Do you have anything to contribute to thread instead of anal retentive insults?

Repeating your ridiculous assertion more than once does not make it any less of an untruth.

shunyadragon
12-28-2014, 10:27 AM
You have not really explained the what the difference is between foundational members of the Baha'i faith opposing scientific theories and members of other religions opposing scientific theories. You've mentioned a few differences, but the significance of each difference is not clear. Uneducated. Commenting on scriptures. Not wanting to offend their addresses. These sound like excuses that you yourself would not accept from people in other faiths.

I have addressed the foundational members of the Baha'i Faith and references as to how the Baha'i Faith carries those principles and teaching forward concerning science, and your ignoring my references. The foundation principles of the Baha'i Faith concerning the Harmony of science and religion, the primacy of science concerning the knowledge of our physical existence, and the independent investigation of truth dictates that ALL scripture including the Baha'i Writings must accept the knowledge of science as having primacy over scripture concerning the understanding of our physical existence.

shunyadragon
12-28-2014, 10:36 AM
One of the problems is the conflation of 'science' with 'everything scientists say / everything scientists do'. I can trust the former, but I don't automatically trust the latter. Scientists get things wrong. And they should be happy to have that pointed out, when they do.

We know that the peer review process can be corrupted (and has been (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/07/scientific_corruption_exposed_peer_review_ring_bus ted.html)), and a Nobel Prize winning scientist says (http://kingsreview.co.uk/magazine/blog/2014/02/24/how-academia-and-publishing-are-destroying-scientific-innovation-a-conversation-with-sydney-brenner/):





Shunya, it seems to me that you do conflate 'science' with 'whatever scientists say / whatever scientists do'. Scientists are people, it's foolish to trust them 100%, just like it's foolish to trust anyone 100%. People are fallible, even when they have the best of intentions.

It does not rely on trusting either, it depends on trusting the collective body of science that develops and evolves over time, and one need not trust individual scientists.

'It seems to me . . .' misquotes me and misunderstands science. No, I do not conflate science with 'what scientists say. whatever scientist do.' that is your problem. The redundant repeating research, and the peer review process does not depend on what individual scientist say or do. It depends on the long term process that results in our body of scientific knowledge.

shunyadragon
12-28-2014, 10:37 AM
Repeating your ridiculous assertion more than once does not make it any less of an untruth.

Do you have anything constructive to add to this thread?

shunyadragon
12-28-2014, 10:43 AM
Traditionally, peer reviewers and authors are anonymous to each other, but there have been experiments with a more open process, especially with the hard sciences. Open access journals are also changing the process, with the technological ability for on-going peer-review through something akin to discussion boards. I think both of these trends toward transparency and wider capability for comment by more peers will ultimately have a positive effect.

The peer review process is only one small part of the vast process involved of how scientific knowledge develops. Actually many examples of fraud and bad research pass muster on the initial peer review process before publication. It is the repeating of the research by others that most often uncovers the problems. In the case of this fraudulent research it is the failure of others to replicate the results by independent research, after it was published.

robrecht
12-28-2014, 10:59 AM
I have addressed the foundational members of the Baha'i Faith and references as to how the Baha'i Faith carries those principles and teaching forward concerning science, and your ignoring my references. The foundation principles of the Baha'i Faith concerning the Harmony of science and religion, the primacy of science concerning the knowledge of our physical existence, and the independent investigation of truth dictates that ALL scripture including the Baha'i Writings must accept the knowledge of science as having primacy over scripture concerning the understanding of our physical existence.
No, I acknowledge all of that, but none of it addresses the fact that individual Baha'i, including founders of the Baha'i faith, also rejected scientific theories for religious/philosophical reasons. It is sad that you cannot acknowledge this fact.

robrecht
12-28-2014, 11:02 AM
The peer review process is only one small part of the vast process involved of how scientific knowledge develops. Actually many examples of fraud and bad research pass muster on the initial peer review process before publication. It is the repeating of the research by others that most often uncovers the problems. In the case of this fraudulent research it is the failure of others to replicate the results by independent research, after it was published.
Of couurse. I have already spoken of the importance of replication of results.

Adrift
12-28-2014, 11:03 AM
I get the feeling you created this thread to intercept what you assumed would be religious naysayers from doing the same and then condemning science for being faulty. Like, you read the article, and quickly ran to TWeb to post about it first so that you could say to everyone "we science lovers know that fraud can happen sometimes, but because the process works they get caught!" Its almost like you had to post this because you were afraid that someone else would and take it in another direction.

But the truth is, just about everyone here is okay with this, regardless of their worldview. Outside of maybe 1 or 2 bizarro exceptions, that are considered extreme even by those who share a similar world-view, everyone here appreciates the scientific method, and the processes that ensures its sound. I don't think any of us think any less of the scientific community because the occasional cases like this. It doesn't matter if you're Christian, Jew, Muslim, Agnostic, Atheist, or Bahai, I think we can all agree we all love science and the positive things its brought into our lives. The idea that there's some sort of religious based Illuminati that has it out for all things science I think is more in your head than actually in the real world.

That said, what you will find resistance to are forms of scientism, which is essentially the worldview that all truths can only be known through science. It essentially makes a god out of science. And you're just as likely to find atheists and agnostics against that sort of extremist view of science as you are Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.

Chrawnus
12-28-2014, 11:13 AM
Do you have anything constructive to add to this thread?

No, I feel like I've said everything I wanted to say in this thread.

shunyadragon
12-28-2014, 11:21 AM
That said, what you will find resistance to are forms of scientism, which is essentially the worldview that all truths can only be known through science. It essentially makes a god out of science. And you're just as likely to find atheists and agnostics against that sort of extremist view of science as you are Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.

At the root of all scientific knowledge is Methodological Naturalism without any forms of scientism (whatever that means??), nor any metaphysical claims of atheism, agnosticism, theism nor deism. No, Methodological Naturalism does not remotely make the claim that all truths can only be known through science.

robrecht
12-28-2014, 11:24 AM
... No, Methodological Naturalism does not remotely make the claim that all truths can only be known through science.Adrift did not claim this so if you are attempting to contradict him on this point, you are mistaken.

shunyadragon
12-28-2014, 11:30 AM
Yeah. I was recently reading a scientist on another forum, and he said that he wished that the process was more open ended. The peer review process itself can sometimes help protect bad research. I don't know. Thought that was interesting.

The fraudulent research that began this thread passed muster of peer review and published. The bad and fraudulent research that is caught in peer review is not published. The principle way bad and fraudulent research that found most often occurs when others try and repeat the research and fail to replicate the results, as is the case here. It is mainly the redundancy of research, and research using modern methods that corrects older work.

Adrift
12-28-2014, 12:00 PM
At the root of all scientific knowledge is Methodological Naturalism

Yes. I agree that it is sensible that methodological naturalism be at the root of scientific knowledge, or at least, the hard sciences.


scientism (whatever that means??),

I believe I described what scientism is in the post you replied to. But here is a link to a dictionary definition of the term http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientism And another link to the wikipedia article on the term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism


No, Methodological Naturalism does not remotely make the claim that all truths can only be known through science.

Did you imagine that I said that it did?

Adrift
12-28-2014, 12:01 PM
The fraudulent research that began this thread passed muster of peer review and published. The bad and fraudulent research that is caught in peer review is not published. The principle way bad and fraudulent research that found most often occurs when others try and repeat the research and fail to replicate the results, as is the case here. It is mainly the redundancy of research, and research using modern methods that corrects older work.

Indeed. Do you believe there's room for improvement as far as the peer review process goes?

phank
12-28-2014, 05:32 PM
If the issue here is whether some theological or philosophical conviction can influence one's scientific research, this is pretty obvious. In the worst cases, scientists must sign a pledge that their findings must be frankly absurd, before being allowed in the door. We might laugh at the ICR, since such pledges NOT to find what's there are the opposite of good science, but it's probably good to recognize that most people do this sort of thing to themselves subconsciously. Hopefully, most scientists tend to avoid areas where they know their religious beliefs are strong.

As science atomizes into ever tinier fields of focus, the peer review process gets more problematic. Perhaps only one or two people in the entire world are sufficiently qualified to comment intelligently on a paper, and these tend to be competing scientists whose own work strongly flavors their reviews. How likely are you to approve a paper that purports to refute what you've been publishing for a decade? And conversely, how likely are you to approve work supporting your own, even if it fails to meet the usual requirements of originality or methodology? Peer reviewers, of course, do not attempt to replicate results as part of their reviews. It's not hard to see these tendencies as hindrance to good science, and to recommend a somewhat more open and transparent review process.

As a glamor field, stem cell research has now had a couple of major frauds, both of which sailed through peer review but foundered on inability to replicate. But softer sciences have had similar problems. Matina Horner famously "identified" womens fear of success in a study nobody could ever replicate. Turns out the study was riddled with confirmation bias, but it made her rich and famous. The temptation for fraud is always there.

shunyadragon
12-28-2014, 05:54 PM
Yes. I agree that it is sensible that methodological naturalism be at the root of scientific knowledge, or at least, the hard sciences.

I believe I described what scientism is in the post you replied to. But here is a link to a dictionary definition of the term http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/scientism And another link to the wikipedia article on the term. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

There is a problem with the use of the word 'scientism.' The only simple translation that is workable is 'Metaphysical or Philosophical Naturalism. This is the atheist perspective, and in reality not distinguishable from Methodological Naturalism except for the Metaphysical assumption.

I find it most often used as rhetorical accusation or a theological club against science without specific differentiation as to how the term scientism is differentiated form just plain old fashioned Methodological Naturalism science except for the metaphysical assumption.

Adrift
12-28-2014, 06:17 PM
There is a problem with the use of the word 'scientism.' The only simple translation that is workable is 'Metaphysical or Philosophical Naturalism. This is the atheist perspective, and in reality not distinguishable from Methodological Naturalism except for the Metaphysical assumption.

I find it most often used as rhetorical accusation or a theological club against science without specific differentiation as to how the term scientism is differentiated form just plain old fashioned Methodological Naturalism science except for the metaphysical assumption.

There is no problem with the word "scientism". As the Wikipedia article I linked states, "In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth." "and has been used by social scientists such as Friedrich Hayek,[5] philosophers of science such as Karl Popper,[6] and philosophers such as Hilary Putnam[7] and Tzvetan Todorov[8] to describe the dogmatic endorsement of scientific methodology and the reduction of all knowledge to only that which is measurable"

And there are people who hold this view of science. So its useful to put a label on it.

As far as I can see, scientism and Metaphysical Naturalism are not necessarily synonymous. One may hold that the material world is all that there is, and reject supernaturalism as does the Metaphysical Naturalist, but I don't see anything in the Metaphysical Naturalist's worldview that would prevent them from ascertaining truths through methods other than the scientific method. They may believe that we can obtain truths through the study of history, philosophy, literature, art, etc. It just needs to be grounded in materialism.

phank
12-28-2014, 07:11 PM
There is no problem with the word "scientism". As the Wikipedia article I linked states, "In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth." This definition seems just a bit limited. There is a distinction between verifiable and non-verifiable truths. Pure guessing is also an avenue to the truth, but often guesses are wrong. Are wrong guesses "knowledge"? Are ANY guesses "knowledge" even if we guess right?



As far as I can see, scientism and Metaphysical Naturalism are not necessarily synonymous. One may hold that the material world is all that there is, and reject supernaturalism as does the Metaphysical Naturalist, but I don't see anything in the Metaphysical Naturalist's worldview that would prevent them from ascertaining truths through methods other than the scientific method. They may believe that we can obtain truths through the study of history, philosophy, literature, art, etc. It just needs to be grounded in materialism.So are you saying that the distinction is that scientism requires a fairly defined and rigid set of methodological rules while Metaphysical Naturalism does not necessarily do so? Or are you distinguishing here between the search for knowledge, and the search for meaning?

Adrift
12-28-2014, 07:46 PM
This definition seems just a bit limited. There is a distinction between verifiable and non-verifiable truths. Pure guessing is also an avenue to the truth, but often guesses are wrong. Are wrong guesses "knowledge"? Are ANY guesses "knowledge" even if we guess right?

No, I don't think I'd say that guesses are knowledge, unless we're prepared to say that something like a theory is merely a guess. I guess if you're okay with saying that, then never mind. :shrug:


So are you saying that the distinction is that scientism requires a fairly defined and rigid set of methodological rules while Metaphysical Naturalism does not necessarily do so?

As far as I understand it (and I could be wrong) that sounds about right. Professor of philosophy and secular humanist activist, John R. Shook writes here (http://www.naturalisms.org/shookonscienceandnaturalism.htm):

Other kinds of naturalism do not agree with reductionist universalism and feel comfortable with permitting other scientific fields to describe reality with just as much legitimacy as physics. Because the biological and social sciences have traditionally used some methodological principles and modes of causality that depart from the physical sciences, many naturalists want to draw a line between trustworthy physical sciences (physics, chemistry, geosciences, astronomy, cosmology) and suspicious biological and social sciences. For example, some approaches to the social sciences have assumed the existence of social entities (that must not be treated as mere aggregates of people), and some biological and social sciences have use teleological causality (explanations that appeal to future outcomes to explain present behaviors). We will not discuss this internal dispute among naturalists here. However, the naturalists who would permit just the physical sciences to describe reality (let us call their view "scientism") do form a separate camp from those naturalists who are comfortable with all of the physical, biological, and social sciences describing reality (let us call their view "pluralism").

So, it seems to me that all those who hold to scientism are Metaphysical Naturalists, but its not necessarily the case that all Metaphysical Naturalists need hold to scientism. And here I take it that Metaphysical Naturalism is mainly to do with rejecting forms of supernaturalism entirely. So, in other words, its sort of a...all dogs are animals, but not all animals are dogs kinda thing.

Like I said, maybe I'm wrong about that though. Regardless, if you want to call it scientism, or Metaphysical Naturalism, or whatever, what most theists (and many nontheists) reject is the idea that the scientific method is the only way to ascertain truths about reality.

phank
12-28-2014, 08:58 PM
Like I said, maybe I'm wrong about that though. Regardless, if you want to call it scientism, or Metaphysical Naturalism, or whatever, what most theists (and many nontheists) reject is the idea that the scientific method is the only way to ascertain truths about reality.

I understand that you see scientism as a subset of Metaphysical Naturalism. What I'm getting at is the distinction between knowledge and truth. Theists believe at least one god exists (that is, exists external to the human imagination), and this might be true, but it can never be knowable. So we might say that science is the only avenue to knowledge, but NOT the only avenue to truth. I think (I'm not sure) that we agreed that correct guesses are true, but we can't KNOW that they are true.

To the Metaphysical Naturalist, I'd say that reality is the ultimate arbitrator of what is true, and reality can be known only through empircal investigation. People might intuit, or guess, or speculate things that are true, but until empirical investigation ratifies them, they are truths but not knowledge.

Adrift
12-28-2014, 09:11 PM
I understand that you see scientism as a subset of Metaphysical Naturalism. What I'm getting at is the distinction between knowledge and truth. Theists believe at least one god exists (that is, exists external to the human imagination), and this might be true, but it can never be knowable.

I don't really see this as a theist vs. nontheist sort of thing. Certainly there are nontheists who think that science is not the only avenue to knowledge (and here I go with the dictionary definition of knowledge as "the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time").


So we might say that science is the only avenue to knowledge, but NOT the only avenue to truth.

The study of literature, and history, and art, and soft sciences like philosophy, and social science are avenues of knowledge that some may not consider strictly scientific, at least, not in the same way that hard sciences are. They don't necessarily use the scientific method in order to collect data and ascertain truths.


To the Metaphysical Naturalist, I'd say that reality is the ultimate arbitrator of what is true, and reality can be known only through empircal investigation. People might intuit, or guess, or speculate things that are true, but until empirical investigation ratifies them, they are truths but not knowledge.

Hmm. I'm not sure I entirely agree with that, but I'm no authority on the subject.

rogue06
12-29-2014, 04:05 AM
I don't really see this as a theist vs. nontheist sort of thing. Certainly there are nontheists who think that science is not the only avenue to knowledge (and here I go with the dictionary definition of knowledge as "the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time").
Correct. There are many agnostics and atheists that don't see science as providing all of the answers. While they may not turn to religion in search of solutions to questions that science is ill-equipped to answer (such as all of the "whys") they have no trouble turning toward philosophy.

phank
12-29-2014, 09:29 AM
I don't really see this as a theist vs. nontheist sort of thing. Certainly there are nontheists who think that science is not the only avenue to knowledge (and here I go with the dictionary definition of knowledge as "the body of truths or facts accumulated in the course of time").Nor do I. I gave one example, but there are many others.

shunyadragon
12-29-2014, 09:30 AM
Correct. There are many agnostics and atheists that don't see science as providing all of the answers.

This is a bit vague, agnostics as a category is a bit messy. The materialists, atheists and agnostics, in the metaphysical naturalists end of the spectrum consider Metaphysical Naturism to basically answer all the questions concerning the nature of our existence. This would be equivalent to scientism.


While they may not turn to religion in search of solutions to questions that science is ill-equipped to answer (such as all of the "whys") they have no trouble turning toward philosophy.

This is confusing and anecdotal at best.

phank
12-29-2014, 09:35 AM
Correct. There are many agnostics and atheists that don't see science as providing all of the answers. While they may not turn to religion in search of solutions to questions that science is ill-equipped to answer (such as all of the "whys") they have no trouble turning toward philosophy.Yes, to be sure. The question here, as I understand it, is whether "answers" is the same thing as "knowledge." When a child asks why the sky is blue and the parent answers "because god wants it that way", this might be a fully satisfying answer to the child. But is it knowledge?

Maybe another way to phrase it is, are questions that science is ill-equipped to answer, truly meaningful questions? I suspect that most of the time, such questions (such as the "why" questions you mention) are hard for science to answer because no answer is meaningful that does not accept the set of assumptions on which the "why" question rests. Most such questions are asking about the "final cause" -- that is, "for the sake of which a thing is done." But there may very well BE no final cause in most instances, and teleological thinking might be a logical blunder.

rogue06
12-30-2014, 04:41 AM
This is a bit vague, agnostics as a category is a bit messy. The materialists, atheists and agnostics, in the metaphysical naturalists end of the spectrum consider Metaphysical Naturism to basically answer all the questions concerning the nature of our existence. This would be equivalent to scientism.
By agnostic I mean those who aren't sure whether or not that there is a God. I don't know why that would be any messier as a category than would theists or atheists.


This is confusing and anecdotal at best.
I don't know why this would be confusing unless you don't think that any agnostics or atheists ever turn to philosophy for answers that science is ill-equipped to provide such as the aforementioned "whys." Science is tremendously successful at answering how something happens but really stinks at answering why which religion does a much better job at supplying answers for.

rogue06
12-30-2014, 04:49 AM
Maybe another way to phrase it is, are questions that science is ill-equipped to answer, truly meaningful questions? I suspect that most of the time, such questions (such as the "why" questions you mention) are hard for science to answer because no answer is meaningful that does not accept the set of assumptions on which the "why" question rests.
Many folks -- and not just theists -- consider some of those why questions to be the truly important ones. Of course I imagine that those beholden to metaphysical naturalism (a.k.a. ontological or philosophical naturalism) would not be interested and be dismissive.

shunyadragon
12-30-2014, 05:07 AM
By agnostic I mean those who aren't sure whether or not that there is a God. I don't know why that would be any messier as a category than would theists or atheists.

In part almost everyone turns toward philosophy in one way or another, and yes agnosticism is a vaguer category then atheism. For example I consider myself a very skeptical agnostic in many ways, but also a theist as a Baha'i. Metaphysical Naturalism is itself a philosophy.



I don't know why this would be confusing unless you don't think that any agnostics or atheists ever turn to philosophy for answers that science is ill-equipped to provide such as the aforementioned "whys." Science is tremendously successful at answering how something happens but really stinks at answering why which religion does a much better job at supplying answers for.

Answering questions of why? is pretty much a universal Metaphysical question. fundamentally science is 'descriptive' in its nature from as much a detached manner as possible. In reality it would be an naive illusion if one hopes that science whether Metaphysical Naturalism nor Methodological Naturalism would ever be capable of answering this question. Probably most who believe in Metaphysical Naturalism are indifferent to the question why, because our physical existence would simply exist naturally without a reason 'why?'

shunyadragon
12-30-2014, 05:47 AM
As far as I understand it (and I could be wrong) that sounds about right. Professor of philosophy and secular humanist activist, John R. Shook writes here:



Other kinds of naturalism do not agree with reductionist universalism and feel comfortable with permitting other scientific fields to describe reality with just as much legitimacy as physics. Because the biological and social sciences have traditionally used some methodological principles and modes of causality that depart from the physical sciences, many naturalists want to draw a line between trustworthy physical sciences (physics, chemistry, geosciences, astronomy, cosmology) and suspicious biological and social sciences. For example, some approaches to the social sciences have assumed the existence of social entities (that must not be treated as mere aggregates of people), and some biological and social sciences have use teleological causality (explanations that appeal to future outcomes to explain present behaviors). We will not discuss this internal dispute among naturalists here. However, the naturalists who would permit just the physical sciences to describe reality (let us call their view "scientism") do form a separate camp from those naturalists who are comfortable with all of the physical, biological, and social sciences describing reality (let us call their view "pluralism").

I will play the Devil's advocate on the way this source words some things.

'Because the biological and social sciences have traditionally used some methodological principles and modes of causality that depart from the physical sciences, many naturalists want to draw a line between trustworthy physical sciences (physics, chemistry, geosciences, astronomy, cosmology) and suspicious biological and social sciences. For example, some approaches to the social sciences have assumed the existence of social entities (that must not be treated as mere aggregates of people), and some biological and social sciences have use teleological causality (explanations that appeal to future outcomes to explain present behaviors).'

First, ALL sciences must be 'trustworthy,' regardless of one's view of Naturalism, and Methodological Naturalism methodology applies to ALL sciences. 'Suspicious biological and social sciences' needs to defined more carefully to be meaningful here, because again the academic criteria and methods of ALL sciences would not consider 'suspicious' science regardless.

Sciences like the social sciences and economics DO NOT depart from the Methodology of the physical sciences. This methodology applies to all sciences, and departing would indeed lead to 'suspicious science,' and be unacceptable. They apply the knowledge and methodology of the physical sciences to their fields.

Second, the problem of 'teleological causality,' is a given in sciences like economics and social sciences, and the limits of such descriptice and predictive value in these sciences should keep in touch with the reality of such predictions regardless of one's philosophy concerning naturalism. The predictive value in some of these disciplines is actually increasing with the better integration of basic sciences, and math models such as 'Chaos Theory.' Nonetheless regardless of ones view of Naturalism, the bottom line is whether it is Good Science versus BAD Science, which is the topic of this thread.

It should be noted that common accusations of those who object to the science evolution and cosmology describe these sciences as 'scientism,' also misuse these questions in science on the issue of teleological predictability and causality, and accuse biological and social sciences as 'suspicious at best' concerning evolution and cosmology.

The claim of scientism vs pluralism. I do not believe the Metaphysical Naturalists 'permit' just the physical sciences to describe reality. Nor do they in reality form a separate 'camp' from those who are comfortable with all science physical as well as applied, or whatever. There, of course, may be differences in how individual scientists may consider theses issues, but that is too vague and anecdotal.

The only criteria that differentiates Metaphysical Naturalism from Methodological Naturalism is the metaphysical assumption, and not how comfortable one scientist or the other is with other sciences then the physical sciences. ALL sciences have their foundation in the methodology of Methodological Naturalism

Adrift
12-30-2014, 07:34 AM
It should be noted that common accusations of those who object to the science evolution and cosmology describe these sciences as 'scientism,' also misuse these questions in science on the issue of teleological predictability and causality, and accuse biological and social sciences as 'suspicious at best' concerning evolution and cosmology.

Show us examples of people who describe the science of evolution and cosmology as scientism. I'd also like to see examples of those same people accusing biological and social sciences as "suspicious at best". For the record, when John R. Shook was describing people who find biological and social sciences suspicious, he was, of course, referring to some Metaphysical/Philosophical Naturalists. I thought that was clear. You did read the paper, right? Also, it of course makes no sense to describe scientific fields as "scientism", since scientism describes the personal philosophy of people, and not the science itself.


The claim of scientism vs pluralism. I do not believe the Metaphysical Naturalists 'permit' just the physical sciences to describe reality. Nor do they in reality form a separate 'camp' from those who are comfortable with all science physical as well as applied, or whatever. There, of course, may be differences in how individual scientists may consider theses issues, but that is too vague and anecdotal.

Ok. Well you'll have to take that up with John R. Shook, The author of the paper I cited who is the Research Associate in Philosophy, and Instructor of Science Education, at the University at Buffalo, and who "also worked with several secular organizations, including the Center for Inquiry, the American Humanist Association, the Institute for Humanist Studies, the Humanist Institute, and the Society of Humanist Philosophers." He is an open supporter scientism and the overall scientistic-worldview (http://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/04/12/spelling-out-scientism-a-to-z/).

shunyadragon
12-30-2014, 08:05 AM
Show us examples of people who describe the science of evolution and cosmology as scientism. I'd also like to see examples of those same people accusing biological and social sciences as "suspicious at best". For the record, when John R. Shook was describing people who find biological and social sciences suspicious, he was, of course, referring to some Metaphysical/Philosophical Naturalists. I thought that was clear. You did read the paper, right? Also, it of course makes no sense to describe scientific fields as "scientism", since scientism describes the personal philosophy of people, and not the science itself.

Yes, I read the article, and does not change my objections. Referring to '. . . some Metaphysical Naturalists' is too vague, and does not address the problem of defining 'scientism' as some how different from Metaphysical Naturalism. My challenge is such references is vague and anecdotal. I am sure Jorge and AIG consider the science of evolution and cosmology 'suspicious' at best.


http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4744-The-Jorge-against-scientism][/url]

Accusations of 'scientism' are easily flung about, often by people who aren't fully informed on what scientism actually is. It has become one of those all purpose derogatives like 'fundamentalist'.

Science described as scientism in AIG.



Science, or more accurately “scientism,” has not hesitated to wade into the domain of religion. In 1981, theologians and scientists met at Massachusetts Institute of Technology under the auspices of the World Council of Churches to discuss “Science, Faith and the Future.” The general premise of the conference was that modern science requires us to develop an entirely new religion for the future. One theologian proposed evolutionary theory as an especially rich source for this new religion. Another proposed “ecotheology” as an approach to religion that starts with the premise that the universe is god. Not to be outdone by theologians, a scientist claimed to have localized the exact part of the brain responsible for what “traditional religion calls the intuitive perception of God.” Religious experience, he claimed, is a product of the parietal-occipital region on the non-dominant side of the brain! Who knows—by now he may even have found a cure.



Ok. Well you'll have to take that up with John R. Shook, The author of the paper I cited who is the Research Associate in Philosophy, and Instructor of Science Education, at the University at Buffalo, and who "also worked with several secular organizations, including the Center for Inquiry, the American Humanist Association, the Institute for Humanist Studies, the Humanist Institute, and the Society of Humanist Philosophers." He is an open supporter scientism and the overall scientistic-worldview (http://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/04/12/spelling-out-scientism-a-to-z/).

You cited him to support your argument, and in the this thread I am taking it up with you as promoting this view.

Adrift
12-30-2014, 08:38 AM
Yes, I read the article, and does not change my objections. Referring to '. . . some Metaphysical Naturalists' is too vague, and does not address the problem of defining 'scientism' as some how different from Metaphysical Naturalism. My challenge is such references is vague and anecdotal.

Science described as scientism in AIG.



Science, or more accurately “scientism,” has not hesitated to wade into the domain of religion. In 1981, theologians and scientists met at Massachusetts Institute of Technology under the auspices of the World Council of Churches to discuss “Science, Faith and the Future.” The general premise of the conference was that modern science requires us to develop an entirely new religion for the future. One theologian proposed evolutionary theory as an especially rich source for this new religion. Another proposed “ecotheology” as an approach to religion that starts with the premise that the universe is god. Not to be outdone by theologians, a scientist claimed to have localized the exact part of the brain responsible for what “traditional religion calls the intuitive perception of God.” Religious experience, he claimed, is a product of the parietal-occipital region on the non-dominant side of the brain! Who knows—by now he may even have found a cure.

Okay. I see you weren't able to back your assertion that, "common accusations of those who object to the science evolution and cosmology describe these sciences as 'scientism,'". The paragraph you cited does not support that assertion at all. What the paragraph you cited describes is a conference of scientists and theologians who were actively looking for ways to form a new religion based on science, with, perhaps, the theory of evolution playing a part as a source for that new religion. The article does not assert that the theory of evolution itself is "scientism". I knew you wouldn't be able to back your assertion, which is why I asked you to support it. You have a terrible habit of making bald assertions like that.


You cited him to support your argument, and in the this thread I am taking it up with you as promoting this view.

What exactly do you think my argument is?

shunyadragon
12-30-2014, 09:19 AM
Okay. I see you weren't able to back your assertion that, "common accusations of those who object to the science evolution and cosmology describe these sciences as 'scientism,'". The paragraph you cited does not support that assertion at all. What the paragraph you cited describes is a conference of scientists and theologians who were actively looking for ways to form a new religion based on science, with, perhaps, the theory of evolution playing a part as a source for that new religion. The article does not assert that the theory of evolution itself is "scientism". I knew you wouldn't be able to back your assertion, which is why I asked you to support it. You have a terrible habit of making bald assertions like that.

It is a direct quote from AIG describing science as scientism when referring to the conference. The fact stands. Added is the thread on Jorge, and the quote by pancreasman.




What exactly do you think my argument is?

Trying to make an illusive vague definition of scientism. The issue of the thread is good and bad science and the accusations of those who attack evolution and cosmology misusing science, and making accusations that do not reflect the reality of science. I am arguing that science is consistent and reliable and reasonably detached from metaphysical issues regardless.

Adrift
12-30-2014, 09:53 AM
It is a direct quote from AIG describing science as scientism when referring to the conference. The fact stands.

You have some of the worse reading comprehension of anyone I think I've ever met in my life. Your direct quote from AIG does not describe science as scientism, nor does it describe evolution as scientism. If you doubt my own reading comprehension on this quote, I suggest we create a thread with a poll on it to decide who is reading the paragraph correctly.


Added is the thread on Jorge, and the quote by pancreasman.

I don't give a crap what you think Jorge thinks is suspicious. The word "suspicious" used in the article I had previously linked to by John R. Shook was referring to the debate between Philosophical Naturalists. People who have absolutely no problem whatsoever with evolution or cosmology. Also, I have no idea what you're trying to prove with your Pancreasman quote.

Your reading comprehension was an issue on the Canaanite Psalms thread too were you seemed totally incapable of understanding your own citations. For instance, I tried to get you to explain your implication that a sentence you quoted (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4651-Canaanite-Psalms&p=136773&viewfull=1#post136773) referred to the 13th century BC, when it quite clearly referred to the period between the destruction of Judah and the Persian and then Hellenistic periods (http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/ancient-israel-through-a-social-scientific-lens/) (approx 587 BC - 332 BC). I know you saw my post because you offered a vague reply to it (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4651-Canaanite-Psalms&p=136848&viewfull=1#post136848). When I pushed you on the subject again (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4651-Canaanite-Psalms&p=136856&viewfull=1#post136856) to get a specific answer to the very straightforward question, you ignored me. Unfortunately, this is par for the course in discussions with you.


Trying to make an illusive vague definition of scientism.

Shame on you. You're being very dishonest shunyadragon. I offered you two links on the definition of scientism I was using. One from Merriam Webster, and one from Wikipedia. Then I offered you a definition from a professor of philosophy and an instructor of science education who is a very diligent secular humanist activist, who openly holds to and advocates scientism himself. I have been neither illusive nor vague, and you know it.

shunyadragon
12-30-2014, 02:45 PM
You have some of the worse reading comprehension of anyone I think I've ever met in my life. Your direct quote from AIG does not describe science as scientism, nor does it describe evolution as scientism. If you doubt my own reading comprehension on this quote, I suggest we create a thread with a poll on it to decide who is reading the paragraph correctly.

Let the others speak if they wish, but the quote was clear and unambiguous. pancreasman agreed with me concerning the common misuse of scientism.




I don't give a crap what you think Jorge thinks is suspicious. The word "suspicious" used in the article I had previously linked to by John R. Shook was referring to the debate between Philosophical Naturalists. People who have absolutely no problem whatsoever with evolution or cosmology. Also, I have no idea what you're trying to prove with your Pancreasman quote.

The problem is the people who have problems with evolution and cosmology. The use of the word suspicious is ambiguous, misleading and non scientific in they way he used it and I believe I am justify having a problem with how he used it.



Your reading comprehension was an issue on the Canaanite Psalms thread too were you seemed totally incapable of understanding your own citations. For instance, I tried to get you to explain your implication that a sentence you quoted (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4651-Canaanite-Psalms&p=136773&viewfull=1#post136773) referred to the 13th century BC, when it quite clearly referred to the period between the destruction of Judah and the Persian and then Hellenistic periods (http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/reviews/ancient-israel-through-a-social-scientific-lens/) (approx 587 BC - 332 BC). I know you saw my post because you offered a vague reply to it (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4651-Canaanite-Psalms&p=136848&viewfull=1#post136848). When I pushed you on the subject again (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4651-Canaanite-Psalms&p=136856&viewfull=1#post136856) to get a specific answer to the very straightforward question, you ignored me. Unfortunately, this is par for the course in discussions with you.

Not the topic of the thread. I will respond to the Canaanite thread after I read the books.




Shame on you. You're being very dishonest shunyadragon. I offered you two links on the definition of scientism I was using. One from Merriam Webster, and one from Wikipedia. Then I offered you a definition from a professor of philosophy and an instructor of science education who is a very diligent secular humanist activist, who openly holds to and advocates scientism himself. I have been neither illusive nor vague, and you know it.

pancreasman agreed with me concerning the common misuse of scientism by Creationists. I disagree with the professor of philosophy and an instructor of science education and gave my reasons why. I believe the ambiguous definition of 'scientism' makes it subject to abuse.

Adrift
12-30-2014, 04:00 PM
Let the others speak if they wish, but the quote was clear and unambiguous.

I thought that's what you'd say. I remember we did this once before on the old forum, and things didn't turn out so well for you.

The link to the poll can be found at this location: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4960-Need-Help-With-Reading-Comprehension


pancreasman agreed with me concerning the common misuse of scientism.

We'll ask pancreasman what he thinks about the discussion when/if he gets back.

rogue06
12-30-2014, 05:36 PM
By agnostic I mean those who aren't sure whether or not that there is a God. I don't know why that would be any messier as a category than would theists or atheists.


I don't know why this would be confusing unless you don't think that any agnostics or atheists ever turn to philosophy for answers that science is ill-equipped to provide such as the aforementioned "whys." Science is tremendously successful at answering how something happens but really stinks at answering why which religion does a much better job at supplying answers for.
In an attempt at clarity perhaps instead of saying that science explains the hows whereas religion and philosophy explains the whys I should have said while science describes the universe and everything that it contains it does not explain them. That is where religion and philosophy steps in.

Hope this helps.

Adrift
12-30-2014, 05:39 PM
In an attempt at clarity perhaps instead of saying that science explains the hows whereas religion and philosophy explains the whys I should have said while science describes the universe and everything that it contains it does not explain them. That is where religion and philosophy steps in.

Hope this helps.

I think most of us got your point. :smile:

shunyadragon
12-30-2014, 08:22 PM
I thought that's what you'd say. I remember we did this once before on the old forum, and things didn't turn out so well for you.

The link to the poll can be found at this location: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?4960-Need-Help-With-Reading-Comprehension



We'll ask pancreasman what he thinks about the discussion when/if he gets back.

I quoted him accurately.

phank
12-30-2014, 08:44 PM
Another reference to peer review in this case showed up in the latest Science News magaziner. Here it says:


The STAP cell saga exposed possible weaknesses in scientific publishing and peer review. The journal Nature, where the STAP papers appeared, contended that peer reviewers could not have spotted the papers' fatal flaws. In September, however, copies of reviews from Nature revealed that peer reviewers had grave concerns over the work and didn't recommend it for publication. One reviewer called the STAP cell method a "magical" approach that wasn't supported by experimental evidence.

This is kind of disturbing. So the papers were peer reviewed, the peers doing the reviews didn't buy it, but Nature decided to go ahead and publish anyway. Then why did they bother having it reviewed at all?

robrecht
12-30-2014, 08:48 PM
It is a direct quote from AIG describing science as scientism when referring to the conference. But the description of the conference was supposedly, in the view of the AIG author, not merely describing science but an overreaching approach, eg, intending to use evolutionary theory as a rich source for the basis of a new religion, an approach discussed by a theologian. Now it may also be the case that this author considers all evolutionary theory to be an example of scientism (I believe Jorge may hold such a view), but you cannot demonstrate this on the basis of this paragraph. The nature of this conference, at least as understood and described by the AIG author, confounds the issue and does not allow your conclusion.

shunyadragon
12-30-2014, 08:53 PM
Another reference to peer review in this case showed up in the latest Science News magaziner. Here it says:



This is kind of disturbing. So the papers were peer reviewed, the peers doing the reviews didn't buy it, but Nature decided to go ahead and publish anyway. Then why did they bother having it reviewed at all?

Yes, it is disturbing, but science survives such foolishness.

robrecht
12-30-2014, 08:55 PM
Another reference to peer review in this case showed up in the latest Science News magaziner. Here it says:



This is kind of disturbing. So the papers were peer reviewed, the peers doing the reviews didn't buy it, but Nature decided to go ahead and publish anyway. Then why did they bother having it reviewed at all?
Another example of journal editors not doing their job, or at least not doing it well. Sometimes authors may successfully argue their case to an editor to get him to disregard negative peer-review comments or at least to send an article out for additional review by other peers, but this should have been mentioned if that were the case.

phank
12-30-2014, 09:03 PM
Another example of journal editors not doing their job, or at least not doing it well. Sometimes authors may successfully argue their case to an editor to get him to disregard negative peer-review comments or at least to send an article out for additional review by other peers, but this should have been mentioned if that were the case.

The reviewers did not attempt to replicate the results, they simply doubted the described methodology could produce them. However, a more detailed investigation in Japan found that the papers photoshopped the images and plagiarized some of the text. I suppose Nature is correct in saying THAT fraud couldn't have been detected simply by reviewing the papers, since it would require external knowledge not available to them.

And a couple of the co-authors continue to insist that while STAP cells are nowhere near as easy to make as the paper claimed, it is still possible to do so using a revised protocol they released in September. I don't know if this revision has been effective.

robrecht
12-30-2014, 09:07 PM
The reviewers did not attempt to replicate the results, they simply doubted the described methodology could produce them. However, a more detailed investigation in Japan found that the papers photoshopped the images and plagiarized some of the text. I suppose Nature is correct in saying THAT fraud couldn't have been detected simply by reviewing the papers, since it would require external knowledge not available to them.

And a couple of the co-authors continue to insist that while STAP cells are nowhere near as easy to make as the paper claimed, it is still possible to do so using a revised protocol they released in September. I don't know if this revision has been effective.
Peer reviewers are not expected to replicate results, although they may try to do so in a subsequent paper, provided they acquire the necessary funding.

phank
12-30-2014, 09:14 PM
Peer reviewers are not expected to replicate results, although they may try to do so in a subsequent paper, provided they acquire the necessary funding.

Then do you see Nature as equivocating here, saying the reviewers could not be expected to detect the outright fraud, and therefore their doubts about the process itself didn't disqualify the papers?

robrecht
12-30-2014, 09:30 PM
Then do you see Nature as equivocating here, saying the reviewers could not be expected to detect the outright fraud, and therefore their doubts about the process itself didn't disqualify the papers?Don't know. I have not read their statement, but a journal editor equivocating certainly would not surprise me!