@boneh3ad I have heard that about anti-vaxxers, which is funny enough because virtually every politician I’ve seen try to capitalize on the fear is a republican.
I suppose part of the problem is that people, including myself on occasion, do not realize just how little they know about anything beyond their field of expertise. A mathematician in one particular category of mathematics is not necessarily informed at all on the particulars of another related field, let alone an engineer about particle physics, or even a doctor about the leading edge of medical research. Yet a lot of people think that a few google searches can make them experts on anything. I’ve encountered to-be-engineers who honestly think they can do physics better than physicists, which makes me wonder why they aren’t out disproving all of these theories they say are bunk and picking up their nobel prizes. Oh well.
As a quick note on the topic of global warming, “more research required” is often just another way of saying “we’ll fund more research in order to delay having to actually act on the evidence.” The results are pretty conclusive - it’s just that some parties would rather drag their feet than add significant limitations on industrial activity.
There is another fairly easy way for a scientist to be a Christian and not feel conflicted. It involves realizing that the Bible was written a long time ago, in some cases 3500 years ago (the book of Job). It’s perfectly plausible that people in antiquity simply had to fill in blanks based on their incomplete knowledge of the world. So then for many scientists who are also Christian, it is simply a matter of reevaluation of how they interpret the books based on new evidence.
I feel like at this point I am treading dangerously close to starting a theological discussion so I’ll stop and just leave it at this: even the Pope insists that science (including evolution) is not in conflict with Christianity. I therefore don’t see that they are required to be mutually exclusive. In fact, I think the popular myth of their incompatibility is a big part of why there are so many people who reject mainstream science that challenges their belief system.
I don’t want to turn this into a theological discussion either, although I do wonder, if one interprets the Bible as being written by fallible men, why occam’s razor ought not prompt them to make the logical conclusion that the “God exists” part is also a product of said fallible men. It seems a bit of a convenient compromise to pick and choose which parts of the Bible can be ignored from the fallibility of its authors, and which parts can still maintain a status of divinity.
You can probably guess that I’m not very religious - I do think that religion and science can coexist from a practical, political standpoint. I do not think they are philosophically compatible. “God created the universe and watches over us” is an empirical claim, and therefore falls under the realm of the scientific method to falsify.
At some point you have to realize that, so far, science can’t describe everything. Some people choose to believe it eventually will and there is no supernatural being. Some choose to believe that some all-powerful being or entity filled in those holes and will continually reevaluate those believes as new, concrete data become available. Some choose to just take their chosen holy book literally and think scientific data is a temptation from some devil figure.
As long as a researcher falls into one of two former classes, then they can still be an effective researcher. It really only requires one to be open-minded about the implications of new data that is collected.
@boneh3ad Our body of scientific knowledge can’t explain everything, but the scientific method can tell us that believing in things that aren’t falsifiable and make no testable predictions is silly. Sure, I guess it doesn’t necessarily conflict with one’s ability to do research. My belief in flying unicorns doesn’t either. It’s still a contradiction.
@GMTplus7 You’re backtracking. It was you who claimed that Genesis got the order of creation right.
I apologize though, I might have contributed in steering this off-topic.
Religion and science are not contradictory so long as said hypothetical religious scientist is willing to reevaluate their beliefs as new scientific evidence is uncovered.
What logic by your statement, the earth is getting warmer in most area. The greenhouse issue is because we have too many people. But even when we didn’t have too many people the earth was getting warmer, heck otherwise we wouldn’t be here.
The earth is getting warmer because of the greenhouse gases. That’s completely separate from recent Ice Ages. The problem is the burning of carbon-based fuels.
Yes I read that but as I said if you apply that same comment, not logic, it was the same for the ice age.
I think the problem is too many people, of course they use carbon- based fuels, but years ago when they were walking the earth to find food, no carbon-based fuels, the earth was getting warmer already. And that was my point.
And I would love to see this “empirical support”, a study done by some grad student at UCB? Something you read in Mother Jones?
Ah yes, the old Conservatives are idiots point….good one…because no one else is as susceptible to confirmation bias and ideological conveniences like a conservative…
And creationist would have issues with majoring in Chemistry, Physics, Math, and Computer Sciences? In fact, the most conservative group of professors at UF are in the College of Agricultural and Life Sciences (where the CALS facility senate members recently gave a presentation in support of gun carry on campus….).
Something else you just made up? What type of family do you think other STEM folks come from?
What’s your point? Of course there is a “design” in organic life. It’s one that evolution impacts. Seeing a “design” doesn’t make you a creationist that thinks evolution is the devil’s work…
The old Appeal to Authority fallacy. Being an engineering doesn’t give me any special insight into science. However, it does give me a solid understanding of how to make things work in the real world. I have a far better idea of what goes into building a pipe line (including doing the risk assessment) than a typical life sciences “scientist”. I’ve seen plenty of scientist talk about subjects out of their field of expertise…why should everyone else not have an opinion?
Well, thank you for not thinking we’re all a bunch of crazed anti-vaxxers…
Ah…the all knowing pure scientist….
Back to your original point. I’ve never heard of the “Salem Hypothesis”, and I haven’t notice engineers leading the way on creationists (teaching it in schools), truthers, global warming deniers, or anti-vaxxers. I’ve seen engineers argue about policy, especially environmental policies that impact building a road, pipe line, or nuclear powered satellites (got to love RTGs…). I"m sure we can find an engineer that believes President Obama is an Alien clone and that vaccines are the governments way to implant tracking devices, but I wouldn’t describe that as “typical”…
Engineers are are trained to see things as they are, not as they would like to be. They are trained to follow paths that work, not paths that don’t work again and again and again because ‘we didn’t have enough money’ , or ‘the program was too small’.
What engineers don’t do well is make emotional arguments and extrapolate the wrong conclusions from a few data points.