Do “Quotes from scientists” belong to “Science and (or) Religion”?

[paarsurrey]

Do “Quotes from scientists” value as “Science and (or) Religion”,please?
Or none of the two.
Open for comments for everybody.

Regards

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Quotes from any source belong to the world - to everybody, meaning we can all read and judge them, and if we like, reproduce them with attribution. They are attributed to a particular source, but not owned by anybody.

 

[Quintessence]

What does it mean for something to "belong" to someone? What concept of ownership (if any) do you recognize and what are the implications of your concept of ownership?

 

[ChristineM]

Do “Quotes from scientists” belong to “Science and (or) Religion”,please?
Or to neither of the two.
Open for comments for everybody.

Regards

Published quotes are public domain (unpublished are obviously not quotes, my bad but the only way i could think to phrase it)

When reproducing a quote you should cite the author of the quote

 

[LuisDantas]

Scientists may speak as scientists, as religious people, or simply as people.

How their speech should be perceived and treated depends on many factors, some of them circunstantial. Their quotes won't always have scientific nor religious significance.

That said, I too am uncertain of what the OP means by "belonging".

 

[ChristineM]

That said, I too am uncertain of what the OP means by "belonging".

I am assuming @paarsurrey is meaning copyright ownership, i may be wrong though

 

[Left Coast]

I am assuming @paarsurrey is meaning copyright ownership, i may be wrong though

I assumed "belong" meant "should be categorized as." Ie, should we take scientists' word for for how the world works on faith like religious people do for their leaders/holy books?

 

[ChristineM]

I assumed "belong" meant "should be categorized as." Ie, should we take scientists' word for for how the world works on faith like religious people do for their leaders/holy books?

You have a point i had not considered.

 

[Jose Fly]

Either way, I wonder if any science-oriented forums have threads titled "Quotes from Pastors"? I tend to doubt it.

 

[Heyo]

I assumed "belong" meant "should be categorized as." Ie, should we take scientists' word for for how the world works on faith like religious people do for their leaders/holy books?

The third possibility (and the one I thought of when reading the question) is the question under which section of RF they should be discussed.
So, please, @paarsurrey, clarify.

 

[Nakosis]

Do “Quotes from scientists” belong to “Science and (or) Religion”,please?
Or to neither of the two.
Open for comments for everybody.

Regards

Are quotes from scientists, science? Not really. Just opinions. Some opinions maybe more reliable than others.

Can they be a part of religion? Sure. People are free to take whatever they feel is appropriate and make it a part of their religion. I suppose some folks may feel taking quotes from a scientist might give their religion a bit more authority.

 

[sun rise]

The third possibility (and the one I thought of when reading the question) is the question under which section of RF they should be discussed.
So, please, @paarsurrey, clarify.

Yes, on the face of it, the question sounds like "should quotes from Christians be put in a Christian forum or a Muslim one."

 

[sun rise]

Are quotes from scientists, science? Not really. Just opinions. Some opinions maybe more reliable than others.

Can they be a part of religion? Sure. People are free to take whatever they feel is appropriate and make it a part of their religion. I suppose some folks may feel taking quotes from a scientist might give their religion a bit more authority.

So you dismiss a scientist reporting scientific results by quoting the results of experiments as "opinions".

 

[LuisDantas]

I assumed "belong" meant "should be categorized as." Ie, should we take scientists' word for for how the world works on faith like religious people do for their leaders/holy books?

Actually, those are two different, even mutually exclusive ways of dealing with the information.

If it "belongs to science" then it can't be treated dogmatically.

 

[Left Coast]

Actually, those are two different, even mutually exclusive ways of dealing with the information.

If it "belongs to science" then it can't be treated dogmatically.

I agree, I just figured the OP was conflating them as theists often do.

 

[Nakosis]

So you dismiss a scientist reporting scientific results by quoting the results of experiments as "opinions".

That's your word salad, not mine.

 

[halbhh]

Do “Quotes from scientists” value as “Science and (or) Religion”,please?
Or none of the two.
Open for comments for everybody.

Regards

Others have asked what you meant, and perhaps you meant simply can one use quotes from science to inform us about correct/incorrect parts in religions? I think for that the answer would be "Yes, depending". If the quote is purely scientific and additionally a confirmed observation or well confirmed theory; not all quotes from scientists are scientific of course.

For instance, if a hypothetical person were wondering about Genesis chapters 1 through 3, and heard from an 'young-Earth' ideologue, then that person could rightly conclude that ideology was a necessarily incorrect set of assumptions to add onto the text of Genesis 1-3. Ergo, for instance that added assumption or idea that little or no time passed during verse 1 before verse 2 in chapter 1 -- a hypothesis if you like, and clearly shown by observations to be a false hypothesis.

So, one could remove that false hypothesis, and read the text as not saying how much time passed during the formation of the Universe and early Earth before the moment in verse 2 where God visits the very young still forming planet. (in other words, to just read the text as it is, instead of adding that time assumption on top of it)

 

[paarsurrey]

What does it mean for something to "belong" to someone? What concept of ownership (if any) do you recognize and what are the implications of your concept of ownership?

Scientists may speak as scientists, as religious people, or simply as people.

How their speech should be perceived and treated depends on many factors, some of them circunstantial. Their quotes won't always have scientific nor religious significance.

That said, I too am uncertain of what the OP means by "belonging".

Do “Quotes from scientists” belong to “Science and (or) Religion”?

Sorry, English is not my first language. Please note the change in the OP
post #1 .

Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

Do “Quotes from scientists” value as “Science and (or) Religion”,please?
Or none of the two.
Open for comments for everybody.

Regards

Again, scientists are people.

When opine on the merits of Stranger Things they are (usually) not contributing to either science or religion.

When they are speaking about matters of faith they may or may not be practicing their religious views, depending on specific circunstances.

When they publish peer-reviewed works or speak as consultants on their areas of competence, that tends to be contributing to science.

A given person may easily fulfill all three roles (at different moments, of course), and arguably should.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So you dismiss a scientist reporting scientific results by quoting the results of experiments as "opinions".

I agree with him. Unless you're adding qualifiers to indicate the quote is related to scientific work or hypothesis, and further that it's limited to the specific field of science in which the scientist holds expertise.

But on the whole? Opinions.