8 ms·

It's not a belief. I said "...may limit your capacity to effectively perform your job." Providing a list of Christian scientists does not disprove my statement.

by druddha 11y ago

It's not a belief. I said "...may limit your capacity to effectively perform your job." Providing a list of Christian scientists does not disprove my statement. Obviously being religious doesn't necessarily mean you will perform at a lower level relative to your peers. But to borrow from Sam Harris, if you met a scientist who openly admitted to believing Elvis is still alive, would you hold the same opinion of them professionally?

statictype 11y ago
if you met a scientist who openly admitted to believing Elvis is still alive, would you hold the same opinion of them professionally? Basing your professional opinion of someone on anything other than their professional work strikes me as very 'unsciency'
- druddha 11y ago
  Of course. But with all else being equal, would a manager be more likely to promote a scientist who believes in a higher power or a religiously agnostic scientist? The former implies anti-scientific thought.
  - stefantalpalaru 11y ago
    > anti-scientific thought https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime
    - fabulist 11y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism
engi_nerd 11y ago
Honestly? I've worked with so many absolutely brilliant people who had beliefs in other areas of life that I found baffling and confusing that I would just shrug and file that away as an eccentricity.
- druddha 11y ago
  Being brilliant doesn't necessarily make you a good scientist. Skepticism is a core quality of being a scientist. Believing in something without proof is contrary to being skeptical. Thus, believing in god or Elvis are anti-scientific beliefs.
  - engi_nerd 11y ago
    You make good points. Skepticism is a core quality of being a scientist. But people are remarkably good at erecting fences in their minds. Many of those brilliant people I refer to (I call them brilliant because of their past good work in science) were able to sort of build a fence in their mind around their work and let irrational beliefs take root around it. So they were not true scientists in all aspects of their lives. Believing in God doesn't necessarily make you a bad scientist, either.
    - druddha 11y ago
      Agreed all around.
  - Verdex 11y ago
    I'm not trying to be facetious, but: Skepticism is a core quality of being a scientist. Is something I'm skeptical about (if we all end up learning something here, I'll definitely appreciate the irony ... also I'm happier with your "a core" than I would be if you had said "the core"). Anyway, I just got done reading [1] and found it interesting that Galileo's biggest advantages as a scientist were that he could grind a lens and being trained as an artist (so he had a good idea what he was looking at when he looked at the moon). [And probably also being really witty so he could make friends at parties and impress his financial backers.] Also: Believing in something without proof is contrary to being skeptical. This is something I would love a proof for (being a little bit facetious this time, but a proof for this would actually be really useful for some of my purposes). I took several history of science and technology courses at university and the impression I got was that the most important aspects of being a scientist was messing around with technology, taking notes, and having a lot of time to sit around and think. [Having some sort of rival who was also doing teh science whom you really wanted to show up seems to be a bonus.] Being willing to be disappointed when you're proved wrong seems a lot more useful than only believing things you have proof for. In fact believing something without proof seems like a great way to get started on something very important as long as you're willing to do a lot of additional work. [1] - http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown.html http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smac...
stefantalpalaru 11y ago
Judging one's work by anything other than the work itself is unscientific.
- Retra 11y ago
  The purpose of science is to generate correct beliefs about the world. If you believe in nonsense, that's very poor scientific work.
  - isolate 11y ago
    Presumably you can imagine a somewhat stupid robot that does random scientific experiments, generating good beliefs and bad ones. Why would that invalidate the good beliefs? Belief A has no rational basis. Belief B has a rational basis. If you believe A yet have proven B, that doesn't make B wrong. Even if believe that it was A which led you to the discovery.
    - Retra 11y ago
      It doesn't. But it is a good clue that the robot isn't using a rational process to select beliefs, and is instead doing so randomly. It is far easier to come up with an invalid belief than a valid one, and if you aren't selecting them rationally, you are practically guaranteed to be wrong. >If you believe A yet have proven B, that doesn't make B wrong. It makes you wrong. All the time you spend as a proponent for A is wasted.
      - isolate 11y ago
        Brute force approaches can work. For example, evolution produced humans. I agree that it's better not to waste your time believing A if you can avoid it.
  - stefantalpalaru 11y ago
    > If you believe in nonsense, that's very poor scientific work. Non sequitur. What you believe is separated from your work. Just like when you were a kid and your math homework had nothing to do with the fact that you believed wrestling was real.

by druddha 11y ago

statictype 11y ago

if you met a scientist who openly admitted to believing Elvis is still alive, would you hold the same opinion of them professionally? Basing your professional opinion of someone on anything other than their professional work strikes me as very 'unsciency'

druddha 11y ago
Of course. But with all else being equal, would a manager be more likely to promote a scientist who believes in a higher power or a religiously agnostic scientist? The former implies anti-scientific thought.
- stefantalpalaru 11y ago
  > anti-scientific thought https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime
  - fabulist 11y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

engi_nerd 11y ago

Honestly? I've worked with so many absolutely brilliant people who had beliefs in other areas of life that I found baffling and confusing that I would just shrug and file that away as an eccentricity.

druddha 11y ago
Being brilliant doesn't necessarily make you a good scientist. Skepticism is a core quality of being a scientist. Believing in something without proof is contrary to being skeptical. Thus, believing in god or Elvis are anti-scientific beliefs.
- engi_nerd 11y ago
  You make good points. Skepticism is a core quality of being a scientist. But people are remarkably good at erecting fences in their minds. Many of those brilliant people I refer to (I call them brilliant because of their past good work in science) were able to sort of build a fence in their mind around their work and let irrational beliefs take root around it. So they were not true scientists in all aspects of their lives. Believing in God doesn't necessarily make you a bad scientist, either.
  - druddha 11y ago
    Agreed all around.
- Verdex 11y ago
  I'm not trying to be facetious, but: Skepticism is a core quality of being a scientist. Is something I'm skeptical about (if we all end up learning something here, I'll definitely appreciate the irony ... also I'm happier with your "a core" than I would be if you had said "the core"). Anyway, I just got done reading [1] and found it interesting that Galileo's biggest advantages as a scientist were that he could grind a lens and being trained as an artist (so he had a good idea what he was looking at when he looked at the moon). [And probably also being really witty so he could make friends at parties and impress his financial backers.] Also: Believing in something without proof is contrary to being skeptical. This is something I would love a proof for (being a little bit facetious this time, but a proof for this would actually be really useful for some of my purposes). I took several history of science and technology courses at university and the impression I got was that the most important aspects of being a scientist was messing around with technology, taking notes, and having a lot of time to sit around and think. [Having some sort of rival who was also doing teh science whom you really wanted to show up seems to be a bonus.] Being willing to be disappointed when you're proved wrong seems a lot more useful than only believing things you have proof for. In fact believing something without proof seems like a great way to get started on something very important as long as you're willing to do a lot of additional work. [1] - http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smackdown.html http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-great-ptolemaic-smac...

stefantalpalaru 11y ago

Judging one's work by anything other than the work itself is unscientific.

Retra 11y ago
The purpose of science is to generate correct beliefs about the world. If you believe in nonsense, that's very poor scientific work.
- isolate 11y ago
  Presumably you can imagine a somewhat stupid robot that does random scientific experiments, generating good beliefs and bad ones. Why would that invalidate the good beliefs? Belief A has no rational basis. Belief B has a rational basis. If you believe A yet have proven B, that doesn't make B wrong. Even if believe that it was A which led you to the discovery.
  - Retra 11y ago
    It doesn't. But it is a good clue that the robot isn't using a rational process to select beliefs, and is instead doing so randomly. It is far easier to come up with an invalid belief than a valid one, and if you aren't selecting them rationally, you are practically guaranteed to be wrong. >If you believe A yet have proven B, that doesn't make B wrong. It makes you wrong. All the time you spend as a proponent for A is wasted.
    - isolate 11y ago
      Brute force approaches can work. For example, evolution produced humans. I agree that it's better not to waste your time believing A if you can avoid it.
- stefantalpalaru 11y ago
  > If you believe in nonsense, that's very poor scientific work. Non sequitur. What you believe is separated from your work. Just like when you were a kid and your math homework had nothing to do with the fact that you believed wrestling was real.