I keep having to remind myself that science is self-correcting …

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 20, 2009

Ethics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I have often been wearied by legends in their own lunchroom huffing that science differs from other endeavours because it is “self-correcting.”

To which I reply: Aw come off it, fellas. Any system that does not go extinct is self-correcting – after it collapses on its hind end. This is true of governments, businesses, churches, and not-for-profit organizations. I’ve seen enough of life to know.

Here’s a classic: At The Scientist’s NewsBlog, Bob Grant reveals (May 7, 2009) that

Scientific publishing giant Elsevier put out a total of six publications between 2000 and 2005 that were sponsored by unnamed pharmaceutical companies and looked like peer reviewed medical journals, but did not disclose sponsorship, the company has admitted.

Elsevier is conducting an “internal review” of its publishing practices after allegations came to light that the company produced a pharmaceutical company-funded publication in the early 2000s without disclosing that the “journal” was corporate sponsored

[ … ]

The allegations involve the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, a publication paid for by pharmaceutical company Merck that amounted to a compendium of reprinted scientific articles and one-source reviews, most of which presented data favorable to Merck’s products. The Scientist obtained two 2003 issues of the journal — which bore the imprint of Elsevier’s Excerpta Medica — neither of which carried a statement obviating Merck’s sponsorship of the publication.

The linked related stories and comments are most illuminating, and bear out my critique of “peer review” here. Let’s just say that peer review started out as a good idea, but …

(Note: There is no paywall, but you may need to register to view the story, .)

Also, today at Colliding Universes

Neutrinos: Sudbury Neutrino Observatory does the sun’s bookkeeping

Origin of life: The live cat vs. the dead cat

Cosmology: Wow. It takes guts to wage war with Stephen Hawking … he appeared in Star Trek

Universe: Arguments against flatness (plus exposing sloppy science writing)

Origin of life: Latest scenario gives RNA world a boost

Colliding Universes is my blog on competing theories about our universe.

Comments

----Diffaxial: "Therefore contemporary physics has rendered the “Truth” that “it is impossible for something to appear out of nothing” inapplicable under any circumstance." No, it has not. It has shown that something can come from the "unknown," which is not the same as coming from "nothing." The source of many things is unknown, but that source has never been nothing nor can it be.StephenB_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
08:10 PM
8
08
10
PM
PDT}

---Diffaxial: quoting Wikipedia: "The experimental facts are so highly reproducible that there is virtually no argument about them, but the APPEARANCE of there being an uncaused event (because of the unpredictability of the sequencing) has aroused a great deal of cognitive dissonance and attempts to account for the sequencing by reference to supposed “additional variables. ….The electrons (and the same applies to photons and to anything of atomic dimensions used) arrive at the screen in an unpredictable and arguably causeless random sequence , and the APPEARANCE of a causeless selection event in a highly orderly and predictable formulation of the by now familiar interference pattern has caused many people to try to find additional determinants in the system which, were they to become known, would account for why each impact with the target appears.” Why do you continue to waste so much time and space with irrelevancies. Hundreds of things APPEAR not to have a cause, which means, of course, that we do not yet know what that cause is. The article itself recognizes this. You continue to defend the indefensible position that effects can occur without causes, that things can exist and not exist, and that something can come from nothing. You know the drill by now, the word that expresses that postion begins with the big "I."StephenB_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
08:06 PM
8
08
06
PM
PDT}

That should read, "an 'alleged' revealed truth cannot be a mere hypothesis.StephenB_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
07:40 PM
7
07
40
PM
PDT}

The electrons (and the same applies to photons and to anything of atomic dimensions used) arrive at the screen in an unpredictable and arguably causeless random sequence
Diffaxial, this statement seems an appeal to ignorance. As per Beelz' assertion of the provisional nature of scientific investigation, it is not possible to utter the phrase "arguably causeless". It has yet to be established beyond a reasonable doubt that electron behavior is unpredictable, since we know very little about the 'nature' of quantum particles. Electrons can only be said to appear to act unpredictably based on the current state of knowledge of the quantum world. Therefore, a quantum concept could not be used reliably as a supporting analagy to bolster the validity of a a separate concept.Oramus_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT}

StephenB writes:
As I stated earlier, one cannot have 100% intellectual certitude that a dogma of faith is true, but one can accept it unconditionally.
And my point is that it's foolish to accept a dogma unconditionally if you're not certain that it's true. Suppose it's wrong. By accepting it unconditionally, you're locking yourself into error. You have closed off the possibility of self-correction. I can't understand why someone who professes to care about the truth would do that.
I am not “providing” the dogma.
There are really two questions here: What should the Church (or any institution) promulgate as dogma, if anything, and how should individuals assess the validity of dogma?
A “revealed truth” cannot be a mere hypothesis.
We have to treat it like one, because the mere fact that someone calls it "revealed truth" does not mean that it is true. We have to judge for ourselves based on evidence and reason, just as we would with any hypothesis.beelzebub_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
07:19 PM
7
07
19
PM
PDT}

Vivid:
For the record the quantum void is not nothing. To say that the universe came from nothing by making reference to the quantum void is highly misleading and false.
The real significance is that there is no "nothing." Therefore contemporary physics has rendered the "Truth" that "it is impossible for something to appear out of nothing" inapplicable under any circumstance. That's a far cry from "applicable in every instance."Diffaxial_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
07:18 PM
7
07
18
PM
PDT}

StephenB @ 250:
In which cases would it not be a powerful tool? How do you differentiate between those events which are subject to the law and those that are not? If any event if the real world can, at one time or another, evade the principle of cause and effect, then why cannot all events evade the laws of cause and effect? If there is any exception, the entire rational enterprise breaks down.
I'd start somewhere like here: "Regardless of whether it is an electron, a proton, or something else existing on what is considered a "quantum" scale, where it will arrive at the screen is highly determinate (in that quantum mechanics predicts accurately the probability that it will arrive at any point on the screen). However, in what sequence members of a series of singly emitted things (e.g., electrons) will arrive is completely unpredictable. The experimental facts are so highly reproducible that there is virtually no argument about them, but the appearance of there being an uncaused event (because of the unpredictability of the sequencing) has aroused a great deal of cognitive dissonance and attempts to account for the sequencing by reference to supposed "additional variables. ....The electrons (and the same applies to photons and to anything of atomic dimensions used) arrive at the screen in an unpredictable and arguably causeless random sequence , and the appearance of a causeless selection event in a highly orderly and predictable formulation of the by now familiar interference pattern has caused many people to try to find additional determinants in the system which, were they to become known, would account for why each impact with the target appears." (Bold emphases only mine.) From the Wikipedia entry on the double slit experiment, which notes that all efforts to find such additional determinants have failed to date. Here we have a foundational empirical finding at the heart of quantum physics that remains "arguably causeless." Assuming the accuracy of this passage, you are now in the position of having to await the final interpretation of findings such as these (and you are certainly not alone in finding them disquieting) to learn the fate of the entire rational enterprise. Since the balance of your post simply consists of EVEN LOUDER repetitions of your bare assertions, and you are inexorably lapsing into your nasty habit of ad hominem remarks and characterizations, I'll forgo responding further to it - other than to chuckle at your incorporation of "every rational person who has ever lived" to your list of dropped names.Diffaxial_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT}

Clive writes:
The same argument I supplied before still applies, just modify it a bit to read “suggest” where I put “intervene.”
That doesn't help your case, because God is still free to suggest or not to suggest. He's not a puppet. And Jephthah is free to ignore the suggestion if he wishes. He is also not a puppet.
You’re really changing the terms of your original complaint. You asked why didn’t God “stop” Jephthah, not why didn’t God “suggest” something to him.
I didn't change my original complaint, I added another one in response to your argument regarding free will. Are you actually complaining that I'm paying attention to your posts?
Besides, it could be said that through Jephthah’s conscience, supplied by God, God did urge him not to sacrifice her.
Do you really think that Jephthah would have killed his beloved daughter if he didn't think God wanted him to?
Maybe God wouldn’t have minded if he wouldn’t have sacrificed her. Maybe God hated that he sacrificed her.
Then why didn't he say something?
There are lots of precedents in scripture where God allows things that He doesn’t agree with.
True, but you haven't explained why he does that.
To assume that everything that God allows He agrees with and condones is silly.
Then why did God allow Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter, in your opinion? So far all of your attempts to explain this have failed.beelzebub_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT}

I wrote, “The whole point about defining a dogma is to speak for God—to provide an clear, reliable, and unchanging truth so that God’s creatures need not run around forever reinventing the wheel, either theologically or morally.” ----beelzebub asks: “How can you reliably “provide a clear, reliable and unchanging truth” if you can’t be certain that it’s true? As I stated earlier, one cannot have 100% intellectual certitude that a dogma of faith is true, but one can accept it unconditionally. You seem to misunderstand something, though. I am not “providing” the dogma. I am choosing to believe the dogma based on the credibility of the one who teaches it. -----“In effect, a “revealed truth” is just a hypothesis like any other, subject to acceptance or rejection on the basis of reason and evidence.” No, you misunderstand. A “revealed truth” cannot be a mere hypothesis. It can only be one of two things: It is either a truth communicated by God, which means that it is authentic, or else it is a lie from hell or some kind of lunatic, which means it would not be a revealed truth at all. A dogma cannot possibly be morally neutral.StephenB_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
07:05 PM
7
07
05
PM
PDT}

—-Diffaxial: “And the notion that universes may appear out of the (quantum) void has genuine scientific currency.” For the record the quantum void is not nothing. To say that the universe came from nothing by making reference to the quantum void is highly misleading and false. Vividvividbleau_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT}

Clive writes:
I observe these atheists maintaining their creeds in convoluted contortions all the time.
I can believe that you tell yourself that, at any rate.
You have not shown that God condones human sacrifices.
Of course I haven't, since the Old Testament is clearly not the word of an omniscient, omnipotent, loving God.beelzebub_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
06:41 PM
6
06
41
PM
PDT}

ScottAndrews wrote:
Jepthah’s daughter was to be offered “as a burnt offering.” I don’t speak ancient Hebrew. Do you?
I looked up the passage in all 18 English translations of the Old Testament available at biblegateway.com. 17 of the 18 render the phrase specifically as "a burnt offering," including Young's Literal Translation. One (the Contemporary English Version) calls it "a sacrifice." Do you speak ancient Hebrew? Are you implying that at least 17 of the 18 translators got it wrong, including one who was deliberately translating as literally as possible?
There appears to be some room for interpretation.
What room? Where's the ambiguity in the phrase "burnt offering"?
Even the most careless copyists aren’t going to accidentally throw in a human sacrifice story in stark contrast to the context.
What stark contrast? Jephthah vows that he's going to make a burnt offering if he wins the battle. He wins the battle. He does as he vowed. What could be more "in context" than that?
I believe that how people interpret the evidence is determined largely by what they prefer to believe or disbelieve.
I hope you're smarter than that and that you'll examine the evidence with an open mind.
You may think that you examine the evidence, but it examines you.
What's your justification in saying that, apart from your feeling of discomfort at confronting the horrible story of Jephthah's daughter?beelzebub_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
06:36 PM
6
06
36
PM
PDT}

beelzebub, ------"Suppose that’s true. Nothing would have prevented God from saying to Jephthah, “Do as you wish, but I don’t want you to sacrifice your daughter to me.” The final decision would still have been Jephthah’s. His free will would not have been denied." The same argument I supplied before still applies, just modify it a bit to read "suggest" where I put "intervene." You're really changing the terms of your original complaint. You asked why didn't God "stop" Jephthah, not why didn't God "suggest" something to him. Nothing pleases you. Besides, it could be said that through Jephthah's conscience, supplied by God, God did urge him not to sacrifice her. Maybe God wouldn't have minded if he wouldn't have sacrificed her. Maybe God hated that he sacrificed her. You would have to speculate that God condones sacrifice by not stopping it, but this is a total non sequitur. There are lots of precedents in scripture where God allows things that He doesn't agree with. To assume that everything that God allows He agrees with and condones is silly.Clive Hayden_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT}

Beelz(e)bub :): Your statement:
Science is wonderfully self-correcting.
is actually not 'correct'. It should read: Science is self-adjusting. It is only logical that science' findings, being provisional, are not true (since provisional truth is an oxymoron), but rather mere mutually acceptable concepts. For the statement "The sun shines" is true. But the statement "The sun shines is due to chemical reactions" can never be true. For it is altoghether possible that we will discover some time in the future that the 'cause' of chemical reactions that result in the sun shining is due to Beelzebub and Lucifer fighting it out for top dog in the hothouse. Such is the bain of "provisionalism".Oramus_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
06:25 PM
6
06
25
PM
PDT}

beelzebub, I observe these atheists maintaining their creeds in convoluted contortions all the time. You have not shown that God condones human sacrifices. But, God does condone Himself as a sacrifice for the sake of humanity. This, you should take literally, for it is literal in the text. Japhthah's sacrifice being condoned by God exists only in your far-flung speculation, and exists nowhere in the text explicitly.Clive Hayden_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT}

Clive writes:
Were far afield from the original point of this post.
Not so far as you might think. It's quite relevant to observe the contortions that believers will put themselves through in order to salvage a point of dogma, in this case the idea that God could not possibly condone human sacrifice and also that the Old Testament is the word of God.beelzebub_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
06:01 PM
6
06
01
PM
PDT}

Beelzebub:
The story of Jephthah is just one of many problematic stories suggesting that the Old Testament is not the inerrant word of an omnipotent, omniscient, loving God. You suggest that Jephthah did not sacrifice his daughter. If so, then you are admitting that Judges 11 is in error when it states the following…
Jepthah's daughter was to be offered "as a burnt offering." I don't speak ancient Hebrew. Do you? There appears to be some room for interpretation. Even the most careless copyists aren't going to accidentally throw in a human sacrifice story in stark contrast to the context. But I won't rehash that debate. I believe that how people interpret the evidence is determined largely by what they prefer to believe or disbelieve. You may think that you examine the evidence, but it examines you.ScottAndrews_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT}

I asked allanius:
...God didn’t intervene to stop a human sacrifice that was sincerely being offered to Him. How do you explain that?
Clive responded:
That’s easy. We cannot move God to intervene by committing evil acts, no matter how heinous. Otherwise, if we could, God would become our puppet, always dancing to our strings of the threat of violence.
Not at all. God is free to choose whether to respond. He's not a puppet unless you believe that he has to respond a certain way, but that would mean that God does not have free will. Surely you don't believe that. God freely chose not to intervene to save the life of an innocent girl. Why?
Besides, we have free will, and God will allow us to use it.
Suppose that's true. Nothing would have prevented God from saying to Jephthah, "Do as you wish, but I don't want you to sacrifice your daughter to me." The final decision would still have been Jephthah's. His free will would not have been denied. Getting a message from God doesn't prevent someone from acting freely. If it did, then God denies free will to humans over and over throughout the Bible, contradicting your assertion.beelzebub_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

beelzebub, Were far afield from the original point of this post.Clive Hayden_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
05:48 PM
5
05
48
PM
PDT}

Clive writes:
It’s good to know that you do not reject the possibility of revelation.
If God exists, I see no reason why he couldn't choose to reveal truths directly to his creatures. I just don't see any evidence that he has done so. The holy books I've seen (including the Bible) all appear to be flawed human creations, not the products of an omnipotent, omniscient God.beelzebub_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
05:27 PM
5
05
27
PM
PDT}

StephenB writes:
It’s not a question of being 100% certain of religious belief, which, by definition does not lend itself to philosophical certitude.
StephenB, earlier in the thread:
The whole point about defining a dogma is to speak for God—to provide an clear, reliable, and unchanging truth so that God’s creatures need not run around forever reinventing the wheel, either theologically or morally.
How can you reliably "provide a clear, reliable and unchanging truth" if you can't be certain that it's true? You've undermined your justification for dogma.
What is your standard for knowing which revealed knowledge is right and which revealed knowledge is wrong?
Evidence and reason, same as for any other belief. As I wrote to Scott Andrews:
Unfortunately, most (if not all) “revealed knowledge” is wrong, as you point out in your comment. That means we’d be foolish to believe something just because someone claims that it is “revealed”. That is why we should question all claims, including dogmatic ones. In effect, a “revealed truth” is just a hypothesis like any other, subject to acceptance or rejection on the basis of reason and evidence.
beelzebub_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT}

StephenB,
It’s not a question of being 100% certain of religious belief, which, by definition does not lend itself to philosophical certitude. It is a question of acquiring sufficient information to make a reasonable judgment about what deserves to be believed and then making that judgment.
I accept that you can and in some cases must make judgments, but I also reserve the right to change my mind if new evidence comes in. So I would have to say these judgments are provisional.herb_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT}

beelzebub, It's good to know that you do not reject the possibility of revelation.Clive Hayden_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
05:10 PM
5
05
10
PM
PDT}

Clive @253:
You either say that all revealed knowledge, all revelation, is wrong, categorically, or you’re committed to the view that some is right, or that some could be right, or that some might be right in the future, or has been right in the past. [emphasis mine]
Exactly. I'm glad you finally recognized that as a logical possibility. That's why I wrote (repeating myself for the fifth time, now) that "…most (if not all) ‘revealed knowledge’ is wrong.” The phrase "most (if not all)" was deliberate, Clive. Also, I'm not "committed to the view" if by that you mean that I hold it absolutely. I don't. It's provisional.beelzebub_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

StephenB, Thanks very much, I appreciate that. I continue to be amazed at your ability to argue straight from yourself.Clive Hayden_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

---beelzebub: “…most (if not all) ‘revealed knowledge’ is wrong.” What is your standard for knowing which revealed knowledge is right and which revealed knowledge is wrong?StephenB_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT}

vjtorley, Moving on to address the rest of your comment: I wrote:
The problem with dogma is that if you get it wrong, it’s wrong forever.
You responded:
The nice thing about dogma is that once you have shown it’s wrong, it’s wrong forever.
That's true of any belief, dogmatic or not.
If religion X teaches a dogma which is manifestly untrue, then if I can show it to be such, I can cross it off my list of candidates for the true religion.
Only if you assume that "the true religion", if it exists at all, is absolutely guaranteed to reach you in its pure, uncorrupted form. I don't see how you could justify such an assumption.
If the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming being a significant and potentially deadly influence on climate turns out to be mistaken, you can be absolutely sure that it will not die a clean death by Popperian falsification. Rather, the AGW hypothesis will mutate in its death throes, and its scientific refutation will therefore be messy and drawn-out.
True, and that is how it should be, as long as the "mutated" versions are live possibilities. Truth is not obligated to fit neatly into our preconceived frameworks. It may be that one of the "mutated" hypotheses is actually correct.
The point I want to make is that the absence of dogma is actually hindering the public’s search for truth, as the claims and counter-claims continue to fly.
What a strange argument. I would say just the opposite: that the public is best served when disputants modify their positions in response to new evidence rather than digging in their heels dogmatically. After all, it might turn out that neither dogmatic position is correct, in which case dogmatism would altogether prevent us from discovering the truth.
Dogmas are at least refutable.
Actually, some dogmas aren't refutable because they're not falsifiable. And any falsifiable belief is refutable whether or not it is a dogma.
You suggest that cultural influences are responsible for the ascendancy of these ideas. I would respond that history refutes you here: sociologically speaking, it is extremely hard to get a society to give up polytheism altogether. Even the Jews took centuries to do so.
That argument only works if you assume that intellectual influences can work slowly but cultural influences cannot. Why would you think that?
So why did monotheism and belief in an infinite God come to seem more rational? That’s easy: people could see the benefits these beliefs offered. An essentially good and infinitely powerful God can smash the power of evil. Polytheism can’t offer that; neither can belief in a finite God.
That's not rational at all. Believing in something simply because you want it to be true is the height of irrationality. Also, it's not correct to say that polytheism cannot offer hope of an eventual triumph over evil. It can. All that's required is a good god who, even if finite, is capable of defeating the forces of evil.
To account for the fact that evil is flourishing in the world today, you have to accept the following propositions: that the world was originally intended to be free from wickedness and suffering; that wickedness and suffering entered the world as a result of evil choices made by moral agents (both human and super-human); that the world is now a giant battlefield between good and evil; that we are foot-soldiers in the battle, and that our lives are a small part of a giant cosmic drama; that total victory by God is assured; and that God has not vanquished the powers of evil yet, for reasons best known to Himself, but having to do with the exercise of free will by His moral agents.
Or you could believe, much more plausibly, that a) God isn't perfectly benevolent, or b) that he isn't all-powerful and thus cannot instantaneously defeat the forces of evil, or c) that he is a deistic God who created the universe and doesn't meddle with it, or d) most plausibly of all, that God doesn't exist.
The discoveries of the last two centuries have shown that animal suffering predates the dawn of humanity by tens of millions of years. That would be a decisive refutation for monotheism if it taught that humans were the only moral agents who could mess with God’s original plans for the cosmos...
It's still manifestly unjust unless you somehow see the animals themselves as moral agents deserving of their suffering. But to think that a fawn burning to death in a forest fire deserves to suffer and die seems as bizarre as claiming that all of those Indonesian infants deserved to drown when the tsunami hit Banda Aceh.beelzebub_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
04:38 PM
4
04
38
PM
PDT}

Clive Hayden, I continue to be amazed at your mastery of G.K. Chesteron and C.S. Lewis. To be sure, they are as relevant today as they were in their own time, because it is the nature of truth to be timeless. Still, your capacity to zero in on right passage from the right book at the right time boggles the mind.StephenB_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

beelzebub, ------"Clive, this is getting very tiring. For the fourth time, this is what I wrote: “…most (if not all) ‘revealed knowledge’ is wrong.” That is not an admission that some revealed knowledge is right." You either say that all revealed knowledge, all revelation, is wrong, categorically, or you're committed to the view that some is right, or that some could be right, or that some might be right in the future, or has been right in the past.Clive Hayden_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

beelzebub, ------"As Richard Dawkins wrote, We are all atheists about most of the gods humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Why not reject all women if we have to reject all the rest of them but one? Why get married if we reject 99% of women? Do you go one woman further and have no girlfriend or wife? Where's the logic in that? Nowhere.Clive Hayden_{May 26, 2009
May
05
May
26
26
2009
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 17 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply