The most depressing "conversation" I've had in a while

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov

Damn you!

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Nazi not Nazii. [/Spelling Nazi]

HAHA, you fell into my trap..

now you die.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
How're you're supposedly such a brilliant scientist and could miss the obvious so easily I don't know. Notice how his problem was with the fact that girl refused to accept even the possibility that evolution might be true. He did, in fact, not quibble with her rejection of evolution, but in her complete rejection of applying the scientific method towards evolution. She just flatly rejected it because it contradicted her beliefs. Such a person shouldn't be a scientist, nor a doctor. After all, science is the root of medicine, and bad science will equal bad medicine.

I don't think you understand what the scientific method is. It is not about belief. It is about testing models with data. You don't have to believe in a theory in order to understand it and test it. Science and belief and completely divorced - they have nothing to do with each other.

Admitedly though, like you she doesn't seem to see that distinction, since by 'piping up' and presenting her opinion on the matter to the class does rather imply that she thinks her belief is relevant. A good lecturer should have explained that it is not rather than being offensive to her in front of the whole class.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I don't think you understand what the scientific method is. It is not about belief. It is about testing models with data. You don't have to believe in a theory in order to understand it and test it. Science and belief and completely divorced - they have nothing to do with each other.

Jeez, you still don't get the point. You're too busy being offended that someone might have possibly oppressed a person of religion (never mind the supposed oppressor was a priest) that you're missing the salient factor--it was NOT her belief or lack of it that was the problem, it was her outright refusal to even consider the possibility that it might be true. I know the scientific method pretty well, thank you, and one of the rather important aspects of science is that you can't just outright reject possibilities. Even diehard scientists admit the possibility that established science is in error and could be turned on its head tomorrow. Only a stupid scientist says otherwise. This girl would be a stupid scientist.

Admitedly though, like you she doesn't seem to see that distinction, since by 'piping up' and presenting her opinion on the matter to the class does rather imply that she thinks her belief is relevant. A good lecturer should have explained that it is not rather than being offensive to her in front of the whole class.

Offensive? He wasn't offensive, he was honest and damned respectful, considering many would have probably gone after her beliefs instead of her methods.

And the failure to see the distinction is yours. The distinction is between her belief in creationism (which isn't the issue) and her method of rejecting evolution as totally impossible without empirical support. Once again, you're entirely failing to grasp the issue at hand here, which isn't her creationist beliefs. Nobody can be a good scientist while behaving in this manner. Had her answer to the question, "can you at least accept the possibility that evolution might be true" been "yes," then there wouldn't have been any issue. The priest didn't belittle her beliefs nor tell her to leave class or anything like that. He just told her the truth: If she persists in her way of thinking (not in her belief), she should be neither in science nor medicine.

[Rogan Josh]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
Only a stupid scientist says otherwise. This girl would be a stupid scientist.

I know some very good scientists who don't believe in evolution. In fact, I know some very good scientists working on Big Bang physics who don't believe in evolution. They are not 'stupid scientists' - in fact they are very good. In fact, if we only worked on theories which we believed in, not much would get done. Sometimes you need to consider a theory that you are completely sure is wrong, just to be able to rule it out with data.

And I think working as a research physicist is a little more dependent on the 'scientific method' than medicine.

Offensive? He wasn't offensive, he was honest and damned respectful, considering many would have probably gone after her beliefs instead of her methods.

Wouldn't you be offended if a lecturer told you to change your degree subject in front of the entire class?

The distinction is between her belief in creationism (which isn't the issue) and her method of rejecting evolution as totally impossible without empirical support.

You are missing the point. Her belief that evolution is wrong is a belief - it is not something which can be proven correct or false. The scientific method is not applicable to beliefs. She can refuse to believe in evolution for whatever reasons she likes - she does not need empirical evidence to believe or disbelieve something. She only needs empirical evidence to prove it scientifically to someone else.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Rogan Josh
I know some very good scientists who don't believe in evolution. In fact, I know some very good scientists working on Big Bang physics who don't believe in evolution. They are not 'stupid scientists' - in fact they are very good.

For the upteenth time, the belief in evolution IS NOT THE PROBLEM! How many times do I have to say this? Note that the "stupid scientist" comment was relating not to her belief in evolution, but in her refusal to accept the possibility of it for scientific purposes. Do you not see the distinction here? I'm not sure how to make it any plainer than in the last post!

As an aside, no biologists of any serious merit disbelieve in evolution, and I give that a lot more weight than theoretical physicists. Acceptance of the evolutionary model isn't exactly necessary to be a competent physicist, and the same can't be said for biologists. This girl's refusal to admit the possibility of evolution in a biology course is akin to an astronomy student refusing to accept heliocentricity.

In fact, if we only worked on theories which we believed in, not much would get done. Sometimes you need to consider a theory that you are completely sure is wrong, just to be able to rule it out with data.

Don't you see this is EXACTLY the point of why the girl shouldn't be a scientist?! She's totally UNWILLING to do this. "Sometimes you need to consider a theory that you are completely sure is wrong." YES! And she won't! Ergo...

Wouldn't you be offended if a lecturer told you to change your degree subject in front of the entire class?

First, I don't know if it was before the whole class or not. It was in a lab, so it might have been a one-on-one discussion. I'll have to ask my roommate, since it was he who witnessed it.

Second, no, I wouldn't. If the professor was being honest and respectful in his manner of stating it, then I couldn't complain (since I had made the presumption to air my religious beliefs unbidden in his class). Besides, he's doing her a favor by being so honest.

You are missing the point. Her belief that evolution is wrong is a belief - it is not something which can be proven correct or false.

No, you've missed the point. One last time--her belief that evolution is false isn't the issue at hand (while it is irrational), it's her unwillingness to accept the scientific possibility of it for the purposes of research/lab work/etc. If student took a literature course but refused to read some assigned material because of a moral objection to it, should their beliefs be coddled, or should they seek out another course? She is admitting that she's unwilling to accept one of the core tenents of modern biology, what is in fact the basis for modern medicine. How is she going to pass her courses if she won't do this? She won't. She'll flunk. And this professor was being kind enough to warn of this before she went and got all those Fs. Gee, what a bastard.

[Al B. Sure!]

whats incredible is that i had a world religions class that went the opposite. it degenerated into religion-bashing where a few people were attacking Christianity especially as being stupid. it looked like the Christians were about to cuss out their attackers or start fist-fighting for a minute there.

[Drake Tungsten]

Is Boris really trying to tell a research physicist what it takes to be a scientist?

I guess he'll be lecturing MtG on the power industry next...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Is Boris really trying to tell a research physicist what it takes to be a scientist?

Sounds like you don't have a counterargument. So far, I haven't seen a valid one.

RJ did, in fact, substantiate exactly what I said, though for some inexplicable reason doesn't want to apply that logic it to the girl in question. Should she get a free pass on what is expected of every scientist?

[Drake Tungsten]

Sounds like you don't have a counterargument. So far, I haven't seen a valid one.

I haven't really read the argument in question. When it comes down to research scientist vs. opera singer in a debate about science, the conclusion is so foregone that I don't see the need to waste my time watching it go down...

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I haven't really read the argument in question. When it comes down to research scientist vs. opera singer in a debate about science, the conclusion is so foregone that I don't see the need to waste my time watching it go down...

Too bad for you then, because it just proves you don't know what you're talking about, not me. In logic circles, this is "Appeal to Authority," one of the most obviously inept fallacies around.

So tell me... what part of the scientific method allows a scientist to exclude the mere possibility of a theory based on religious ideology? I'm all ears to hear how science can proceed under such an assumption.

[Drake Tungsten]

Hell if I know. I'm not a scientist and am not arrogant enough to pretend to know what it takes to be one...

[Boris Godunov]

Concession accepted.

Maybe you should read back to the salient point that it was a science professor telling a freshman student what it takes to be a scientist that started this? Your Appeal to Authority should be satisfied by that.

[Drake Tungsten]

Concession accepted.

Yep, you sure got me. You may now enjoy the fruits of this pointless victory.

[Boris Godunov]

It is rather flavorless. I mean, there's not much fun in taking the spoils of war from one already so accustomed to defeat.