4 ms·

The main difference being that scientists (are encouraged to) update their model of the world as they gain new information.

RattleyCooper 5y ago
I'm not religious, but isn't that what priests are for? Like to update the church's model of what's right/wrong based on new information... just from god
- bprieto 5y ago
  No, priest are for keeping the doctrine and serving as bridges between the faithful and their god(s). Theologians are the ones who update (or uphold) the church system of belief.
  - RattleyCooper 5y ago
    Right, I guess the overall point being that religion has a mechanism for change as well.
    - jhbadger 5y ago
      Only in the same sense that clothing has a mechanism for change because fashion exists. Theologians have no way of contacting their gods(s) or even knowing whether they exist. Their opinions are not based on evidence.
      - wussboy 5y ago
        Sure they are, but in an evolutionary sense not in a scientific sense. Countless theologians have said countless things and most have gone in to the dustbin of history. But the things that resonated or were useful have remained. Religion is the result of evolutionary processes and like all evolutionary processes it changes slowly and is not perfect. D.S. Wilson's Darwin's Cathedral is the go-to book for this argument and contains a beautiful section that goes like this: We look at a bird's wing and marvel that it is so wonderfully adapted for flying. But we do not scorn birds for not being able to fly faster than the speed of sound. Their wings never required that to be successful in their evolutionary niches. Why do we look at religion which is also a marvel of adaptation for helping humans live together and get mad at it that it has not brought about world peace? World peace or perfection were never required for them to be successful in their evolutionary niches.
      - RattleyCooper 5y ago
        The issue with trying to make an argument that religion has no mechanism for change is that religions have and continue to change. So whether the mechanism is a priest, a turtle's dream, or if it's because of evidence is largely irrelevant. Religion does change.
Kranar 5y ago
Your use of the word encouraged is doing a lot of heavy lifting. In the abstract, sure, scientists are "encouraged" by some platonic ideal. In reality, scientists are not encouraged by other scientists to update their model based on new information and there is a great deal of resistance in many scientific fields to gain such information or even what constitutes new information.
- arrosenberg 5y ago
  That's pretty much why I added it! I've known a lot of scientists who fall in love with their research a bit too much, and some of our most important scientists have been pious Christian monks and Muslim scholars. My point is that the central dogma of science is to be skeptical of existing thought and to update the model. The central dogma of most religions is to preserve tradition and be skeptical of challenges to existing thought.
- mcguire 5y ago
  One of the most important things Einstein did was to not immediately update his model based on the new quantum mechanics and to attack it as strongly as he could. An inherent conservatism avoids a lot of weird, faddish behavior.

RattleyCooper 5y ago

I'm not religious, but isn't that what priests are for? Like to update the church's model of what's right/wrong based on new information... just from god

bprieto 5y ago
No, priest are for keeping the doctrine and serving as bridges between the faithful and their god(s). Theologians are the ones who update (or uphold) the church system of belief.
- RattleyCooper 5y ago
  Right, I guess the overall point being that religion has a mechanism for change as well.
  - jhbadger 5y ago
    Only in the same sense that clothing has a mechanism for change because fashion exists. Theologians have no way of contacting their gods(s) or even knowing whether they exist. Their opinions are not based on evidence.
    - wussboy 5y ago
      Sure they are, but in an evolutionary sense not in a scientific sense. Countless theologians have said countless things and most have gone in to the dustbin of history. But the things that resonated or were useful have remained. Religion is the result of evolutionary processes and like all evolutionary processes it changes slowly and is not perfect. D.S. Wilson's Darwin's Cathedral is the go-to book for this argument and contains a beautiful section that goes like this: We look at a bird's wing and marvel that it is so wonderfully adapted for flying. But we do not scorn birds for not being able to fly faster than the speed of sound. Their wings never required that to be successful in their evolutionary niches. Why do we look at religion which is also a marvel of adaptation for helping humans live together and get mad at it that it has not brought about world peace? World peace or perfection were never required for them to be successful in their evolutionary niches.
    - RattleyCooper 5y ago
      The issue with trying to make an argument that religion has no mechanism for change is that religions have and continue to change. So whether the mechanism is a priest, a turtle's dream, or if it's because of evidence is largely irrelevant. Religion does change.

Kranar 5y ago

Your use of the word encouraged is doing a lot of heavy lifting. In the abstract, sure, scientists are "encouraged" by some platonic ideal. In reality, scientists are not encouraged by other scientists to update their model based on new information and there is a great deal of resistance in many scientific fields to gain such information or even what constitutes new information.

arrosenberg 5y ago
That's pretty much why I added it! I've known a lot of scientists who fall in love with their research a bit too much, and some of our most important scientists have been pious Christian monks and Muslim scholars. My point is that the central dogma of science is to be skeptical of existing thought and to update the model. The central dogma of most religions is to preserve tradition and be skeptical of challenges to existing thought.
mcguire 5y ago
One of the most important things Einstein did was to not immediately update his model based on the new quantum mechanics and to attack it as strongly as he could. An inherent conservatism avoids a lot of weird, faddish behavior.