3 ms·

> He also could have argued that science and creationism are not fundamentally incompatible, but instead sort of orthogonal. Creationism can be thought of as a

> He also could have argued that science and creationism are not fundamentally incompatible, but instead sort of orthogonal. Creationism can be thought of as a cosmological hypothesis. It happens to be a hypothesis that is basically impossible to test, so scientists instead spend their time evaluating other hypothesis. I'm really surprised this didn't come up more as the idea that "science is attacking my religion" tends to be one of the main reasons that people seemed to be adverse to science. It places a false dichotomy in choosing between their faith & science.

lutusp 13y ago
> I'm really surprised this didn't come up more as the idea that "science is attacking my religion" tends to be one of the main reasons that people seemed to be adverse to science. It places a false dichotomy in choosing between their faith & science. There's a dichotomy between science and religion, but it's not false by any means. In the most fundamental sense, and not to oversimplify, the scientific mind assumes ideas to be false until there is evidence to support them (scientists call this the "null hypothesis"), and the religious mind assumes an idea to be true until evidence proves it false -- exactly the opposite outlook. Why is it a mistake to assume claims are true unless proven false? Easily explained — let's say I'm a True Believer who believes in Bigfoot. According to the True Believer's way of picturing reality, Bigfoot exists unless someone can prove he doesn't exist. But think about this — Bigfoot cannot possibly be proven not to exist somewhere in the universe, hiding under some rock. In formal logic, a disproof would require "proof of a negative", an impossible evidentiary burden. Therefore a skeptical, scientific outlook is essential to avoid wasting time on childish fantasies. Need I add that religious people just don't understand this? Remember this when you see endless phony TV documentaries about Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster and ghost hunters. These shows are popular because most people don't have the slightest idea how to process ideas. And only some of them have religious beliefs -- others are simply out in the ozone. The above is the "big secret", the divide that separates science and religion. And it's not a puddle, it's bigger than the Grand Canyon.
- joelrunyon 13y ago
  That might be true - but it doesn't have to necessarily relevant on the topic of evolution. If you want to convince people, it's best to find common ground rather than running to points where you'll know you find contention. Baby steps.
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > If you want to convince people, it's best to find common ground rather than running to points where you'll know you find contention. Some contention is unavoidable. Consider the chasm that separates science and religion -- the scientist's default outlook is that ideas are assumed to be false until there's supporting evidence. The religious believer's default outlook is that ideas are assumed to be true until evidence proves them false (and some believers refuse to examine any evidence) -- exactly the opposite outlook. This can't be waved away, and no meaningful discussion can begin until the chasm is bridged. Until 1600, religion solved the science problem by killing all the scientists. Since then, it has solved the problem by ignoring science, even while living in a world increasingly defined by science and scientific thinking. That's not a trivial problem, and it's not a question of common ground -- there isn't one. > Baby steps. Let the religious make the journey to science, with steps of any size they choose.
    - joelrunyon 13y ago
      > Let the religious make the journey to science, with steps of any size they choose. I wrote a comment earlier where this attitude is commonplace. that seems to take an approach of "let them figure it out" - while abdicating any responsibility for helping them do so. That approach exemplifies the attitude of "amateurs get angry, professional educate"[1]. I think you can argue that Nye was the consummate professional in that regard in that he's willing to engage a discussion in order to educate people & explain the importance of science & the need for proper education. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7200474 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7200474
      - lutusp 13y ago

lutusp 13y ago

> I'm really surprised this didn't come up more as the idea that "science is attacking my religion" tends to be one of the main reasons that people seemed to be adverse to science. It places a false dichotomy in choosing between their faith & science. There's a dichotomy between science and religion, but it's not false by any means. In the most fundamental sense, and not to oversimplify, the scientific mind assumes ideas to be false until there is evidence to support them (scientists call this the "null hypothesis"), and the religious mind assumes an idea to be true until evidence proves it false -- exactly the opposite outlook. Why is it a mistake to assume claims are true unless proven false? Easily explained — let's say I'm a True Believer who believes in Bigfoot. According to the True Believer's way of picturing reality, Bigfoot exists unless someone can prove he doesn't exist. But think about this — Bigfoot cannot possibly be proven not to exist somewhere in the universe, hiding under some rock. In formal logic, a disproof would require "proof of a negative", an impossible evidentiary burden. Therefore a skeptical, scientific outlook is essential to avoid wasting time on childish fantasies. Need I add that religious people just don't understand this? Remember this when you see endless phony TV documentaries about Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster and ghost hunters. These shows are popular because most people don't have the slightest idea how to process ideas. And only some of them have religious beliefs -- others are simply out in the ozone. The above is the "big secret", the divide that separates science and religion. And it's not a puddle, it's bigger than the Grand Canyon.

joelrunyon 13y ago
That might be true - but it doesn't have to necessarily relevant on the topic of evolution. If you want to convince people, it's best to find common ground rather than running to points where you'll know you find contention. Baby steps.
- lutusp 13y ago
  > If you want to convince people, it's best to find common ground rather than running to points where you'll know you find contention. Some contention is unavoidable. Consider the chasm that separates science and religion -- the scientist's default outlook is that ideas are assumed to be false until there's supporting evidence. The religious believer's default outlook is that ideas are assumed to be true until evidence proves them false (and some believers refuse to examine any evidence) -- exactly the opposite outlook. This can't be waved away, and no meaningful discussion can begin until the chasm is bridged. Until 1600, religion solved the science problem by killing all the scientists. Since then, it has solved the problem by ignoring science, even while living in a world increasingly defined by science and scientific thinking. That's not a trivial problem, and it's not a question of common ground -- there isn't one. > Baby steps. Let the religious make the journey to science, with steps of any size they choose.
  - joelrunyon 13y ago
    > Let the religious make the journey to science, with steps of any size they choose. I wrote a comment earlier where this attitude is commonplace. that seems to take an approach of "let them figure it out" - while abdicating any responsibility for helping them do so. That approach exemplifies the attitude of "amateurs get angry, professional educate"[1]. I think you can argue that Nye was the consummate professional in that regard in that he's willing to engage a discussion in order to educate people & explain the importance of science & the need for proper education. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7200474 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7200474
    - lutusp 13y ago