paarsurrey
Veteran Member
"on the whole? Opinions"
Truly said. And opinion are no Science.Right, please?
Regards
-
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!
Do “Quotes from scientists” belong to “Science and (or) Religion”?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
-
- Tags
- religion science scientists
Truly said. And opinion are no Science.Right, please?
Regards
Given, as others have noted, scientists are people and, generally, given their location, have some level of the right to express themselves. Their views, and others can correct or expand on this, fall generally into the usual categories of personal opinion, speculation, and statements of fact. In addition, and for the reason that they are scientists, they regularly publish conclusions based on their scientific observations. Given that these conclusions are based on prior art, existing knowledge, informed questions, constant review, and recorded procedures and observations, they hold the highest credibility and supprt. However, being placed in the public domain, all are freely available for citation with the proper and appropriate attribution.
Samantha Rinne
Resident Genderfluid Writer/Artist
Yeah, I'm not sure why we should feel the need to compartmentalize quotes either. If you suddenly decide to quote Pasteur, or Plato for that matter, it's probably all good.
I wonder too, if you might be leading to the idea that a scientific conclusion about the world around us has no more weight than the personal opinion of anyone, which is where religious views actually fall to.
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
I hold that unless a Scientist's project goes under the rigorous mill of the experiments, his off the cuff statements are neither Science nor Religion. Right, please?
Regards
Personal opinions can be about anything. This fact does not render them, or counter personal opinions, correct or incorrect by some default metric based on the personal opinion of others. Their favorite flavor of ice cream is neither religious or scientific and can be accepted or rejected as the reader sees fit, based on the readers own personal opinion.
If a scientist has religious views, they are personal opinion and subject to the same conditions as views on a favored ice cream flavor with regards to the reader.
You will have to explain where you are going with this.
It depends on whether the statements are supported by any evidence, obsevations, or logical reasoning. 'Off the cuff' provides no information on the validity of whatever the remark may be. There is no default that 'Off the cuff' is automatically without value.
QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Quotes from scientists belong to the scientist that made them, period.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Quotes about science go in science, quotes about religion go in religion?
Yep, agreed.
syo
Well-Known Member
It depends on the quote.
As others have said, your intent is not clear.
Let's do it this way.
Stephen Jay Gould was a top biologist of the late 20th century.
But, he liked to write about baseball. When he was writing about baseball he was not writing about science, nor was he doing science. if he was posting in RF, this topic would not be in the 'Science and Religion' part of the forum. A better place would be the Sports forum. Quotes from these writings would also go there.
Gould also wrote extensively on the roles of science and religion in society. When he did this, he was (mostly) doing a sort of philosophy. If he was posting in RF, it would be very appropriate to put these comments in the 'Science and Religion' forum.
Gould also wrote extensively *about* science, how it is done, and it's conclusions. When he did so, he was NOT doing science. He was writing *about* science. If he was posting in RF, this would mostly be in the 'Science and Technology' forum.
Gould also wrote extensively about the battle between certain religious sects and the theory of evolution. Once again, when he did so, he was NOT doing science. He was discussing the interaction between science and religion in society. In RF, these would best go in the 'Creation and Evolution' forum.
Finally, Gould wrote many scientific papers published in refereed journals. These would simply not appear in RF, but quotes from such could be used in several of the debate forums to back up a position.
Hopefully that helps.
Let's do it this way.
Stephen Jay Gould was a top biologist of the late 20th century.
But, he liked to write about baseball. When he was writing about baseball he was not writing about science, nor was he doing science. if he was posting in RF, this topic would not be in the 'Science and Religion' part of the forum. A better place would be the Sports forum. Quotes from these writings would also go there.
Gould also wrote extensively on the roles of science and religion in society. When he did this, he was (mostly) doing a sort of philosophy. If he was posting in RF, it would be very appropriate to put these comments in the 'Science and Religion' forum.
Gould also wrote extensively *about* science, how it is done, and it's conclusions. When he did so, he was NOT doing science. He was writing *about* science. If he was posting in RF, this would mostly be in the 'Science and Technology' forum.
Gould also wrote extensively about the battle between certain religious sects and the theory of evolution. Once again, when he did so, he was NOT doing science. He was discussing the interaction between science and religion in society. In RF, these would best go in the 'Creation and Evolution' forum.
Finally, Gould wrote many scientific papers published in refereed journals. These would simply not appear in RF, but quotes from such could be used in several of the debate forums to back up a position.
Hopefully that helps.
@paarsurrey , there is an idea about separate magisteria that, as it happens, is proposed by Stephen Jay Gould.
Non-overlapping magisteria - Wikipedia
I find myself wondering if you might not be thinking along the same lines, or even proposing the same or a similar idea on your own.
I personally find the idea well-meaning, but ultimately misguided. Things can have and often do in fact have both religious (or pseudo-religious) significance as well as scientific significance. Many subject matters - such as education and nutrition, to mention two out of the top of my head - are of genuine interest to both fields.
It is not as frequent for a statement from a given person to have significant weight in both fields, but I don't see any reason why it would not or could not happen, although it is perhaps necessary to establish clear relevance and precedence.
Non-overlapping magisteria - Wikipedia
I find myself wondering if you might not be thinking along the same lines, or even proposing the same or a similar idea on your own.
I personally find the idea well-meaning, but ultimately misguided. Things can have and often do in fact have both religious (or pseudo-religious) significance as well as scientific significance. Many subject matters - such as education and nutrition, to mention two out of the top of my head - are of genuine interest to both fields.
It is not as frequent for a statement from a given person to have significant weight in both fields, but I don't see any reason why it would not or could not happen, although it is perhaps necessary to establish clear relevance and precedence.
Last edited:
paarsurrey
Veteran Member
It is not the quotes from science, it is the quotes of the "scientists", these neither make "Science" nor make "Religion". Right, please?
Regards
Is is definitely true that not everything that scientists say should be considered of either religious nor scientific significance.
But it is just as true that some of what they say has that significance. Scientists are expected to say things of scientific significance fairly regularly, after all.
And there is nothing to stop them from saying things of religious significance either. It happens, and it is supposed to happen. It just won't be as typical, nor is it particularly related one way or another with their role as scientists.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
like in China....and no intellectual property law
wha?...yu thinck yu haf idea?
an it belung to yu?
I'm no expert, but I am fairly sure that IP laws do not imply (let alone state) that ideas "belong" to anyone.
Laws can be absurd, but they are not that absurd in this case.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
I have held a pocket knife designed by an American
nice knife
I have held a copy made in China
exact same profile
cheap materials
junk
but the same idea
they don't care
Thief
Rogue Theologian
and the Koreans do the same thing
Lester Thurow made a speech decades ago
The Future of Capitalism
in which he noted an event....having assisted that country with economic advice
they presented to him a copy of his own work
in hardback
they did not ask his permission
they simple published the work
approx. 20min into the next post offered
Lester Thurow made a speech decades ago
The Future of Capitalism
in which he noted an event....having assisted that country with economic advice
they presented to him a copy of his own work
in hardback
they did not ask his permission
they simple published the work
approx. 20min into the next post offered
Last edited: