OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

PZ Again

Entry 807, on 2008-07-02 at 21:33:50 (Rating 4, Religion)

About a month ago I blogged about an interview I had heard with PZ Meyers, the well-known biologist, blogger, and critic of creationism (including its latest form: intelligent design). Today I heard another interview with him, this time in the excellent Point of Inquiry podcast, and he's just as controversial again this time. Of course, I have to comment on this.

One of the more unexpected claims he made was that leading scientific organisations, such as the National Academies of Science and the AAAS, are being dishonest when they say that science and religion are compatible. He suggests that this is a political move to make science less threatening to religious people, but it isn't necessarily scientifically accurate or even honest.

I think I agree. Clearly from a political persepctive this is a good move, but by doing this scientists are indulging in the same misleading behaviour that they criticise creationists and other believers in superstition and pseudoscience for using.

Of course, the degree of compatibility depends on your exact definition of the words "science" and "religion" but let me point out a few ways they aren't compatible when using the more common definitions. First, science depends on information revealed through careful, objective testing and and critical analysis. Religion depends on revealed truth with no independent support or serious criticism. Science relies on natural mechanisms which can be observed and tested. Religion depends on hypothetical concepts based on subjective experience and faith.

It doesn't really matter how old you think the Universe is, whether evolution is true or not, or which god is responsible for what. The key difference between the two world views is the empirical and logical testing and analysis of theories versus uncritical acceptance of untested beliefs.

I think science needs to state the facts and let people make up their own minds. If the truth is too hard for these fundamentalist religious nuts to accept then that's their problem. But its science's problem too, because the fundies then indulge in propaganda campaigns and other forms of dishonesty designed to discredit science. They do this because they see the threat is real.

And the majority of the population are so badly informed or so apathetic that they can't see the attack on science for what it is. That's why so many people, including leading politicians, still talk about evolution, global warming, and other contentious issues like they are highly doubtful. When this happens a theoretical scientific issue becomes a more pragmatic one which affects everyone.

So its a tough issue. Should science adopt some of the tactics of the opposition and indulge in a certain amount of dishonesty in order to advance its own cause, or should it report the facts as they arise, which is the correct scientific response. I personally think science should maintain its integrity, even at the risk of alienating a significant part of the population. Science without facts. What's the point?

There are no comments for this entry.

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.