If a scientist comes to the conclusion that there seems to be design in nature, or seems to hint at a 'mind' behind their findings, will they automatically be regarded as bad scientists by the rest of the scientific community? Or must they strictly stick to 'naturalistic' explanations?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
A matter of opinion?
- Thread starter Youtellme
- Start date
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
It is entirely possible for scientists to develop their understanding of nature and in doing so identify what they believe to be a design - there is nothing that prohibits this; to explain this phenomena, how they found it and so forth - must be done in such a way as to conform to the scientific method, to be falsifiable, to be testable, repeatable and so forth. Otherwise there is no way for the scientific community to verify the claims; if they are unable or unwilling to do this then yes, they will be considered poor scientists - not because of their conclusion but rather because of their methodology.
Me Myself
Back to my username
Informed ignorance pretty much told you the answer.
For him "coming to the conclussion" there is nothing wrong. Now if he wants to say he came to this conclusion withh the scientific method, then he would need to explain procedure and there would. Need be peer reviewed material, everything must be coherent and such and such.
ImmortalFlame
Woke gremlin
That depends entirely on the evidence they've provided to support their conclusion. If it's just a statement of personal belief, and they do not state that this conclusion is a scientific one, they're just as good a scientist as any other. If, however, they claim that their conclusion is scientific and fail to present evidence indicating that their conclusion is accurate, they might well be frowned upon.
It's simple, really. Good scientists don't present unscientific claims as science.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
Almost every thing we see in the universe is mostly empty space.
I am not talking just about the space between stars and galaxies but also include what we see as solid matter. Molecules and atoms are made of more basic particles such as electrons and protons and still smaller elementary particles and forces. These them selves inhabit spaces vastly larger than themselves, to the extent that these spaces are mostly composed of nothing at all.
Every thing we see in the universe has virtually no substance compared to the space it occupies.
"Things" that we see and use every day are mostly empty space. Yet they hold their form and can be moved around at will. Matter is far less important than the forces and energies that contain it.
The fundamental particles that make up matter have no fixed position and might be anywhere and can not be defined or plotted.
All this has led me to suppose that starting with the smallest elementary particles, "Thought, or Will", may be sufficient to influence their position and movement... and that God exists and operates at that level.
There is so much unknown about matter, forces and energy; including dark matter and dark energy and the "anti" alternatives of them all. That the opportunity that they might be manipulated is a distinct possibility.
I am not talking just about the space between stars and galaxies but also include what we see as solid matter. Molecules and atoms are made of more basic particles such as electrons and protons and still smaller elementary particles and forces. These them selves inhabit spaces vastly larger than themselves, to the extent that these spaces are mostly composed of nothing at all.
Every thing we see in the universe has virtually no substance compared to the space it occupies.
"Things" that we see and use every day are mostly empty space. Yet they hold their form and can be moved around at will. Matter is far less important than the forces and energies that contain it.
The fundamental particles that make up matter have no fixed position and might be anywhere and can not be defined or plotted.
All this has led me to suppose that starting with the smallest elementary particles, "Thought, or Will", may be sufficient to influence their position and movement... and that God exists and operates at that level.
There is so much unknown about matter, forces and energy; including dark matter and dark energy and the "anti" alternatives of them all. That the opportunity that they might be manipulated is a distinct possibility.
If a scientist decided that, and decided to promote it as sound, he would be willing and able to explain himself.
Looncall
Well-Known Member
Where do you get your "may be"? How do you demonstrate that these things are possible?
Wild speculation based on nothing but ignorance and wishful thinking is pretty contemptible.
Last I heard E. O. Wilson characterized himself as a provisional deist.
It's pretty simple really.
After observation, offer a claim that can be falsifiable. Then through the claim based on observational evidence, conduct repeated tests on such a claim to see if it is false, or if through repeated tests, see if it is a valid claim. Then offer the studies to peer review to minimize any confirmation bias.
Rinse, lather, repeat. If the claim if falsifiable, we have a good start. If it is testable, it's even better. And if it stands up to peer review, let's do it again, have some fun, and see what is revealed to be self-evident.
It isn't this: Design theories are to be immediately scorned, mocked, and ridiculed in public because scientists are all hateful atheists who don't like religious people.
After observation, offer a claim that can be falsifiable. Then through the claim based on observational evidence, conduct repeated tests on such a claim to see if it is false, or if through repeated tests, see if it is a valid claim. Then offer the studies to peer review to minimize any confirmation bias.
Rinse, lather, repeat. If the claim if falsifiable, we have a good start. If it is testable, it's even better. And if it stands up to peer review, let's do it again, have some fun, and see what is revealed to be self-evident.
It isn't this: Design theories are to be immediately scorned, mocked, and ridiculed in public because scientists are all hateful atheists who don't like religious people.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
They will only be regarded as a "bad scientist" if they stop using the scientific method to test their conclusions.
Once you insist that you can't question or test your conclusions then you stop doing science.
There are quite a lot of scientists who are theists of one stripe or another. In fact, about half of my science professors (perhaps more) were theists. They also had no problems with doing science and accepting scientific research.
wa:do
apophenia
Well-Known Member
Interesting. What did he mean by 'provisional' ? Did he say what that meant, or was that just a stand-alone quote ?
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
"Wild Speculation and a touch of wishful thinking"
has been the cornerstone of most ....
Science
engineering
Science fiction
Religion
Politics
Finance.
And virtually all fantasies.
I do not find that contemptible in the least.
Looncall
Well-Known Member
You left out the ignorance part.
painted wolf
Grey Muzzle
From what I understand of his position... and granted that may not mean much... he means that he is open to evidence that could change his mind.
His deism isn't set in stone.
wa:do
apophenia
Well-Known Member
Fair enough. That is the mark of a worthwhile scientist - "open to evidence that could change his mind ". I realise that they are your words btw, but from what I know of Mr Wilson it sounds about right.
Alceste
Vagabond
They'll immediately become a celebrity over at AIG. Wheelbarrows full of money collected in the tithing baskets will start flooding in, followed by publishing deals, fellowships, lucrative public speaking opportunities, etc.
But as to whether they're going to be considered poor scientists by other scientists, that depends entirely on the quality of their work. Most creationist celebrity "scientists" don't do science any more. I expect they gain more wealth and fame promoting creationism than they ever did in a lab.
Terrywoodenpic
Oldest Heretic
I was sure you will be able to fill that part for yourself.
InformedIgnorance
Do you 'know' or believe?
Someone called?
(now now be nice)
Wishful thinking as you call it is all well and fine; one can posit models of existence which incorporate all known information and fill in the blanks, the gaps, with what they determine sufficient to fill that gap. Filling that gap while it is unknown may not be particularly useful for many people, but for others it is; I think provided that the fill is not something which directly contradicts what we know to be true, 'may be' is certainly possible; not always plausible, but certainly possible. For that reason unless there are any objective, directly attributable negative outcomes as a result of that belief (as often occurs when people attempt to uphold beliefs which contradict evidence and reason, rather than merely are not supported by it), what does it matter?
(now now be nice)
Wishful thinking as you call it is all well and fine; one can posit models of existence which incorporate all known information and fill in the blanks, the gaps, with what they determine sufficient to fill that gap. Filling that gap while it is unknown may not be particularly useful for many people, but for others it is; I think provided that the fill is not something which directly contradicts what we know to be true, 'may be' is certainly possible; not always plausible, but certainly possible. For that reason unless there are any objective, directly attributable negative outcomes as a result of that belief (as often occurs when people attempt to uphold beliefs which contradict evidence and reason, rather than merely are not supported by it), what does it matter?
Last edited:
shawn001
Well-Known Member
It seem that what you saying here is some "God" or something is manipulating quantum mechanics?