Comments for Science and Faith http://scienceandfaith.wordpress.com Just another WordPress.com weblog Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:35:53 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 Comment on Bill of Rights for Scientists and Engineers by Josh Poulson http://scienceandfaith.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/bill-of-rights-for-scientists-and-engineers/#comment-19 Josh Poulson Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:35:53 +0000 http://scienceandfaith.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/bill-of-rights-for-scientists-and-engineers/#comment-19 Doesn't seem tremendously likely to be accepted, however. :( Doesn’t seem tremendously likely to be accepted, however. :(

]]> Comment on Meditation topics on Science Topics, Science, Morals, Ethics, and Religion by Scott http://scienceandfaith.wordpress.com/2006/10/11/meditation-topics-on-science-topics-science-morals-ethics-and-religion/#comment-28 Scott Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:45:11 +0000 http://scienceandfaith.wordpress.com/2006/10/11/meditation-topics-on-science-topics-science-morals-ethics-and-religion/#comment-28 Peter, I wish I could disagree, but for the most part I cannot. It is human nature to work within paradigms. My problem is people who refuse to acknowledge that they work within paradigms and claim some form of “pure science.” Peter, I wish I could disagree, but for the most part I cannot. It is human nature to work within paradigms. My problem is people who refuse to acknowledge that they work within paradigms and claim some form of “pure science.”

]]> Comment on Meditation topics on Science Topics, Science, Morals, Ethics, and Religion by Peter http://scienceandfaith.wordpress.com/2006/10/11/meditation-topics-on-science-topics-science-morals-ethics-and-religion/#comment-27 Peter Sun, 15 Oct 2006 21:01:36 +0000 http://scienceandfaith.wordpress.com/2006/10/11/meditation-topics-on-science-topics-science-morals-ethics-and-religion/#comment-27 As a former scientist, there is indeed nothing quite so intrenched against reason as scientific theory. The dispassionate arbiter of the facts that is presented to the general public is rubbish. After all, why do we have paradigm shifts? What that means is that the body of evidence against the current theory has become so overwhelming that it can no longer be ignored. Nothing quite so partial as a scientist! As a former scientist, there is indeed nothing quite so intrenched against reason as scientific theory. The dispassionate arbiter of the facts that is presented to the general public is rubbish.

After all, why do we have paradigm shifts? What that means is that the body of evidence against the current theory has become so overwhelming that it can no longer be ignored.

Nothing quite so partial as a scientist!

]]> Comment on Science Ethics and Truth by Peter http://scienceandfaith.wordpress.com/2006/10/15/science-ethics-and-truth/#comment-29 Peter Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:56:48 +0000 http://scienceandfaith.wordpress.com/2006/10/15/science-ethics-and-truth/#comment-29 Yes, I was aware of this - it seems little more than an attempt to bring back eugenic thinking by the back door. No moral absolutes, only what is useful - except in this case it isn't even of much use. Yes, I was aware of this – it seems little more than an attempt to bring back eugenic thinking by the back door. No moral absolutes, only what is useful – except in this case it isn’t even of much use.

]]> Comment on One More Look at Scientists and Engineers for America by Scott http://scienceandfaith.wordpress.com/2006/10/06/one-more-look-at-scientists-and-engineers-for-america/#comment-25 Scott Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:55:01 +0000 http://scienceandfaith.wordpress.com/2006/10/06/one-more-look-at-scientists-and-engineers-for-america/#comment-25 Jon Heer Says: “Secular Humanism doesn’t support one political group or another. It is a non-religious set of values. I would say Secular Humanism may be not be theistic but I would say it is religious. Religion being defined in as:”a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.“. The unprovable contention that there is no god, is no different that the claim there is a god. Wanting a secular society devoid of theistic influences is not a presupposed good. Jon Heer Says: “but currently there does not seem to be enough arguments or discussions in politics to say we know where that line of morality is for us to explore up to and not pass.” I would disagree, the moral judgement made by the current administration which are cause of much concern by SEA, are the line established. I do not agree with where that line is in some cases, but I am glad there is a line. We could talk this to death and in the mean times immoral science goes on. Or we can make a decision and then talk some more. I agree with the later. Scott+ Jon Heer Says: “Secular Humanism doesn’t support one political group or another. It is a non-religious set of values.

I would say Secular Humanism may be not be theistic but I would say it is religious. Religion being defined in as:”a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.“. The unprovable contention that there is no god, is no different that the claim there is a god.

Wanting a secular society devoid of theistic influences is not a presupposed good.

Jon Heer Says: “but currently there does not seem to be enough arguments or discussions in politics to say we know where that line of morality is for us to explore up to and not pass.”

I would disagree, the moral judgement made by the current administration which are cause of much concern by SEA, are the line established. I do not agree with where that line is in some cases, but I am glad there is a line. We could talk this to death and in the mean times immoral science goes on. Or we can make a decision and then talk some more. I agree with the later.

Scott+

]]> Comment on Bill of Rights for Scientists and Engineers by traditionalanglican http://scienceandfaith.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/bill-of-rights-for-scientists-and-engineers/#comment-18 traditionalanglican Sun, 15 Oct 2006 16:30:37 +0000 http://scienceandfaith.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/bill-of-rights-for-scientists-and-engineers/#comment-18 Josh Poulson I think you have a good start. If this were part of the SEFORA I may join. Josh Poulson I think you have a good start. If this were part of the SEFORA I may join.

]]> Comment on Bill of Rights for Scientists and Engineers by Josh Poulson http://scienceandfaith.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/bill-of-rights-for-scientists-and-engineers/#comment-17 Josh Poulson Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:19:10 +0000 http://scienceandfaith.wordpress.com/2006/10/01/bill-of-rights-for-scientists-and-engineers/#comment-17 I wrote a counterpoint to the "Bill of Rights for Scientists and Engineers" called the "Bill of Responsibilities for SEFORA" <a href="http://pun.org/josh/archives/2006/10/proposed_sefora.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. While I did not criticize each item line by line, I did think about what the appropriate responsibilities should be for SEFORA based on their demands in the Bill of Rights. I wrote a counterpoint to the “Bill of Rights for Scientists and Engineers” called the “Bill of Responsibilities for SEFORA” here. While I did not criticize each item line by line, I did think about what the appropriate responsibilities should be for SEFORA based on their demands in the Bill of Rights.

]]> Comment on One More Look at Scientists and Engineers for America by Josh Poulson http://scienceandfaith.wordpress.com/2006/10/06/one-more-look-at-scientists-and-engineers-for-america/#comment-24 Josh Poulson Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:16:35 +0000 http://scienceandfaith.wordpress.com/2006/10/06/one-more-look-at-scientists-and-engineers-for-america/#comment-24 I neglected to mention that my own look at SEFORA is documented <a href="http://pun.org/josh/archives/2006/10/scientists_and.html" rel="nofollow">here</a>. I am also skeptical of its affected non-partisan appearance. I neglected to mention that my own look at SEFORA is documented here. I am also skeptical of its affected non-partisan appearance.

]]> Comment on One More Look at Scientists and Engineers for America by Josh Poulson http://scienceandfaith.wordpress.com/2006/10/06/one-more-look-at-scientists-and-engineers-for-america/#comment-23 Josh Poulson Thu, 12 Oct 2006 16:15:17 +0000 http://scienceandfaith.wordpress.com/2006/10/06/one-more-look-at-scientists-and-engineers-for-america/#comment-23 Protagoras's writing seems to imply that the real quote is "Man is the <b>measurer</b> of all things." Because we only know what we directly experience, how we look at the world shapes what we see in it. I think this is also the case with your look into SEFORA. The key difference to me is how SEFORA will come up with its pronouncements. Will it reach out to the scientific community that has joined it, or will it misuse it? To science religion is opaque. At best those using the tools of science will say, "we don't know and we can't know" about any supernatural matters. There are no tools that can scry them out, there are no repeatable miracles to test, there are no hypotheses that are falsifiable to build a test to prove them. Therefore if a pure science organization appears secular, it's no accident. They explicitly have no opinion about religious matters! That they espouse science teaching to not be colored by ideology is actually a good thing. It encourages people to explore the difference between the two. Ideology and religion are intensely personal. Science seeks to explain and explore what is universal. There have been many intensely religious scientists. Don't paint SEFORA with a broad brush without knowing its membership. Protagoras’s writing seems to imply that the real quote is “Man is the measurer of all things.” Because we only know what we directly experience, how we look at the world shapes what we see in it. I think this is also the case with your look into SEFORA. The key difference to me is how SEFORA will come up with its pronouncements. Will it reach out to the scientific community that has joined it, or will it misuse it?

To science religion is opaque. At best those using the tools of science will say, “we don’t know and we can’t know” about any supernatural matters. There are no tools that can scry them out, there are no repeatable miracles to test, there are no hypotheses that are falsifiable to build a test to prove them. Therefore if a pure science organization appears secular, it’s no accident. They explicitly have no opinion about religious matters! That they espouse science teaching to not be colored by ideology is actually a good thing. It encourages people to explore the difference between the two. Ideology and religion are intensely personal. Science seeks to explain and explore what is universal.

There have been many intensely religious scientists. Don’t paint SEFORA with a broad brush without knowing its membership.

]]> Comment on Meditation topics on Science Topics, Science, Morals, Ethics, and Religion by Patrick http://scienceandfaith.wordpress.com/2006/10/11/meditation-topics-on-science-topics-science-morals-ethics-and-religion/#comment-26 Patrick Thu, 12 Oct 2006 15:42:21 +0000 http://scienceandfaith.wordpress.com/2006/10/11/meditation-topics-on-science-topics-science-morals-ethics-and-religion/#comment-26 The comment "president Bush preventing funding for stem cell research" by one of the site commentators is absolutely wrong. President Bush is the first and only President to allow federal funding for "embryonic" stem cell research within certain moral and ethical guide lines. President Bush has not moved to stop federal funding for non-embryonic or for State or private funding for any type of stem cell research. The fact that the federal money trough was not opened willy-nilly to every aspect of embryonic stem cell research has been used by the anti-Bush crowd to falsly claim that President Bush banned or prevented funding of stem cell research. The comment “president Bush preventing funding for stem cell research” by one of the site commentators is absolutely wrong. President Bush is the first and only President to allow federal funding for “embryonic” stem cell research within certain moral and ethical guide lines. President Bush has not moved to stop federal funding for non-embryonic or for State or private funding for any type of stem cell research. The fact that the federal money trough was not opened willy-nilly to every aspect of embryonic stem cell research has been used by the anti-Bush crowd to falsly claim that President Bush banned or prevented funding of stem cell research.

]]>