Thank you for posting that Leon. I felt much the same but, alas, remained silent.Graham
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
-------- Original message --------From: Leon Harris <leon at quoll.com> Date: 6/4/18 6:46 pm (GMT+08:00) To: Catalist <catalist at lists.stawa.net> Subject: Re: [Catalist] Belief in Creationist Pseudoscience in Australia renaissance - Standards for discourse
This discussion up until recently was
characterised by a high degree of respectfulness and polite
discussion of differing views.
You should be aware of the following points:
1) this is a public mail list and both your views and the manner
in which you conduct yourself is permanently available to the
public and future employers.
2) We are all science teachers here and share a common goal of
advancing the profession. While we identify and classify ourselves
based on the differences we see, what we share in common is much
larger.
3) Please avoid needless bad language - if a point can be made
without using a swear word, it generally has a bigger reach and
impact that if it does use such a word.
4) Be kind to each other- life is short!
Have a nice weekend,
Leon
On 5/04/2018 7:33 PM, Roy Skinner wrote:
Not tongue in cheek at all. This
experiment was mentioned at an inaugural lecture by a
professor (Michael..?) at Auckland Uni a few years ago.
By the same token theoretically those
of Christian beliefs should occupy less of the prison
population and commit les crime than atheists n’est pas?
Any research on this? (Don’t mention
the Inquisition and Bloody Mary’s reign!)
Roy
From: Catalist
[mailto:catalist-bounces at lists.stawa.net] On Behalf Of Graham
McMahon
Sent: Wednesday, 4 April 2018 5:19 PM
To: Catalist <catalist at lists.stawa.net>
Subject: Re: [Catalist] Belief in Creationist
Pseudoscience in Australia renaissance
Do I detect a tongue in the cheek? A more
recent modification could be the third reich marching under
their banners bearing the phrase "Gott mit uns". Didn't get
them too far.
On Wed, 4 Apr. 2018, 5:00 pm Roy
Skinner, <rsskinner at optusnet.com.au>
wrote:
There was a scientifically
designed experiment I heard of run by Darwin’s
nephew (?) in the 1800s which purportedly showed
that God di not exist.
The logic was that with all
the brits praying that the kings and queens of
England would have long life (“God save the King”)
then they should live longer than the average
person.
Statistics however, showed
that all the kings since Alfred actually had a lower
life expectancy than the average person – QED, God
does not exist.
This finding was criticised
by the Irish, however, who said the results showed
quite the opposite as all the Irish were actually
praying to God that the English kings would die
early!
Poor experimental design!
Roy
From: Catalist [mailto:catalist-bounces at lists.stawa.net]
On Behalf Of Leon Harris
Sent: Monday, 2 April 2018 7:03 PM
To: Catalist <catalist at lists.stawa.net>
Subject: Re: [Catalist] Belief in
Creationist Pseudoscience in Australia
renaissance
Well you see Michael, the
opposing arguments don't equate in terms of
evidence quality.
Never in any of my long years of biochemical
research did any of my experiments produce a
result that suggested the existence of a god. My
colleagues in physiology and microbiology report
the same. Physics and chemistry are the same,
though in all of these disciplines there are those
who shun the void of no positive results and
choose the cultural beliefs of their upbringing.
No one has yet conceived of an experiment that can
be carried out within a scientific method that has
produced evidence of a god. The closest I know of
produce evidence that belief in a god can produce
a better health outcome in certain disease states
(placebo effects and such like). I rate the view
that there isn't a god at somewhere between a 2
and a 3, on my scale. Note that my scale is
non-parametric - it says nothing about the size of
the gap between 1-2, 2-3, 3-4 the numbers are just
for counting, the order indicates direction, not
size).
To improve the "rating" of the hypothesis that a
deity exists from between 5 and 6 (that may not be
true, but as yet hasn't been disproven; 6. that is
untestable) to something higher would require some
kind of evidence from a controlled scientific
experiment. If you know of such evidence, both
atheistic and religious people would appreciate
you writing it up and publishing it, along with a
reproducible method, in a respected journal. And I
am not being facetious with that - my experience
is that atheism is not a religion, and those who
hold that view do so because there is no
compelling scientific evidence otherwise. If
compelling evidence were available, I think you
would find many converts from the scientific
atheists.
Remember - experimental evidence is required.
While the Bible, Torah and Koran are culturally
persuasive artefacts, they are not controlled
scientific studies, and don't constitute evidence
in the formal scientific sense.
Of course, the opportunity to not subject
religious beliefs to formal testing is also open.
If your theology holds that your deity requires
faith, (the John 20:29 angle), it is fine not to
go there. This is one of the mechanisms by which
reasonable people can hold divergent views on this
matter.
Cheers,
Leon.
(Make love, not war. Hey, get married, do both!)
(edit) because the discussion is open, I have
reposted to catalist. Sorry if you get it twice
Michael.
On 2/04/2018 5:22 PM, Michael Cameron wrote:
I too have enjoyed reading and
participating in this discussion over the last
week or so. One genuine question ...
In light of recent comments
are we agreed in rejecting Creation Science but
admitting that atheism is not necessarily a
natural conclusion of scientific reasoning. From
a reasoning perspective we score a religious and
atheistic worldview equally somewhere between a
3 to 6 on the "Leon Harris quality factor
scale"? Scientists have the freedom to choose
whatever over-aching world view ethic they want,
ie Christian or atheistic? For example McGarry’s
promotion of plainreasoning.org
has just as much credence here on Catalyst as
Christian referring us to the Centre for Public
Christianity (https://www.publicchristianity.org)
in so much it relates to the scientific topic
under discussion?
Regards,
Mick C
On 2 Apr 2018, at 1:32
pm, Paul Walker <3210here at gmail.com>
wrote:
Love these last two
posts! Thank you for sharing
Gentlemen...
We are defined by
our beliefs a nd perhaps our belief in
the ideals of science unite us more
than our spiritual beliefs or
otherwise
Sent from my
iPhone
On 2 Apr 2018, at 10:36 am, Igor
Bray <igor.bray at curtin.edu.au>
wrote:
Leon, may I
assure you, with an exceedingly
high degree of confidence, that
Science will never be a
religion. It is a human
activity, but its culture is to
critically analyse every message
irrespective of the messenger.
Consensus plays no role in
determining what is true and
what is not. Science is not a
democracy, and most progress has
come from individuals who dared
to question the status quo.
The issue of
climate change science is very
complicated as it is attempting
to be predictive with only
computational models in its
arsenal. This is a relatively
new development made possible
only due to the immense growth
in computational technology.
There are senior scientists who
do not subscribe to
“anthropogenic climate change”.
For example, despite immense
social/political pressure the
Australian Academy of Science
does not have a position on the
subject. I’m told that there are
sufficiently many Fellows who
are not convinced. I have been
to several talks by proponents
who have made a strong case, but
none expressed absolute
certainty, or referred to
consensus as a part of the
process. Instead, the reference
is to risk-management. I have
also been to talks at highly
regarded institutions such as
Princeton, by the emeritus
professor William Happer who has
given me very readable
literature that argues against
the consensus view. He was going
to be used by Trump as a science
advisor, but I think this has
fallen through. This literature,
while arguing against
anthropogenic climate change, is
also supportive of renewable
energy and expresses concern due
to overpopulation and the
associated environmental
degradation. CNN interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bf3I_7-Nbpo gives
a hint of the emotion and
complexity of the problem.
Freeman Dyson, of Quantum
Electro Dynamics fame, is
another contrarian who is a
colleague of Happer at
Princeton. No simple answers
here.
Lastly, like
others on this thread before me,
I’d like to say that I have no
concerns about science being
taught at WA schools, be they
public, religious or
independent. Physics is going
through a delightful growth at
both UWA and Curtin. I recently
spoke to Jingbo Wang, new Head
of Physics at UWA, and she told
me that they have seen
substantial growth in their
enrolments. At Curtin we had a
50% increase for this year on
2017, and we now have 50
first-year students with a
median ATAR of 95. Many of them
come to us because of
recommendations of teachers from
schools with a religious
affiliation, and they are
delightfully bright with a
strong scientific culture, and
will do their part to make the
world a better place in due
course. Let’s us never forget
that what unites us is far
greater than what divides us.
With best
wishes to all,
Igor
P.S. May I
also respectfully suggest that
you do not believe everything
you read in Nature. The pressure
to publish in such journals is
so immense that “overreach” is
rather common.
On 1/4/18,
22:19, "Catalist on behalf of
Leon Harris" <catalist-bounces at lists.stawa.net
on behalf of leon at quoll.com>
wrote:
My concern
in all this is that science
doesn't become a religion. Or
more
correctly, that by labelling
something as science, we cease
to keep
our
critical senses active, and we
facilitate the emergence of a
new
priesthood.
This priesthood would hold the
consensus view, and would
silence
alternate attempts to explain
the world around us, including
those
arrived at through the
processes of the scientific
method, but
which
challenged orthodoxy and which
had not yet had time to
accumulate
as much
supporting evidence as the
current view.
We are
vulnerable to this situation
due to the limitations of our
minds,
and the
heuristics that all of us must
apply to get through life.
Our
physical limitations make it
near impossible to apply a
fully
rigorous
scientific approach to all the
things that we believe to be
true. This
means that we work in a kind
of collective and social
space,
where
belief in reputation stands as
a proxy for scientific method.
Most
of the
scientific views that I hold,
I have arrived at through
limited
personal
thinking together with a
belief in the quality of the
source it
came from.
If I read it in Nature, I am
more likely to believe it than
if I read
it in The West Australian (or
Catalist, for that matter!).
For
example, I am told that
spacetime is being created
between galaxies.
I am also
told that the frog spawn in
the sky is actually
collections of
stars.
Someone else has analysed the
colours of the light from this
stuff that
appears to me like distant
frog spawn, and they tell me
that
if they
look at it through an
instrument that I can't
afford, that there
are bands
of darkness similar to that
which appear in light for the
sun.
When they
don't match perfectly, I am
told it is because those dots
of
light are
moving away from me. I am a
simple kind of guy, I have
never
touched a
spacetime, and my senses only
show me 3 dimensional space. I
rely on
something in my head that
gives a sense of the passing
of time,
although I
don't know what time is -
never having seen, touched,
smelt
or tasted
it.
To help me
out of this situation, I have
a body of lore collected by
western
society. Guys like Igor Bray
tell me about how if you
represent
the 3
dimensions of space and one of
time as one entity, they
behave
consistently,
and this explains a number of
paradoxes about light and
things
happening at the same time. It
all seems perfectly reasonable
to
me, and to
the extent that I can fact
check it, it is internally
consistent.
However I recognise that I
can't fact check it very far,
and
I rely upon
Igor's reputation (and another
bloke who married a serbian
mathematician
and worked in a patent office
- what was his name?)
In science
it is mostly the uncertainties
that cause us a hassle. Such
as
determining which is more
right, some of these 11
dimensional string
theories,
or the 4 dimensional theory of
spacetime? How will I know
when
one of the
former supplants the latter?
For me, other than skim the
arguments,
I am left relying on the
reputation of the source of
the
information.
This is the
wiggle room that science
leaves us floundering. An idea
or
theory may
be brought to being, based on
limited data. When do you
believe it?
This is why scientific
conferences sometimes have the
most
intense
fights between people often
looking at the same data, but
interpreting
it differently.
As a
consequence, the best
scientific ideas at one time
are frequently
wrong,
sometimes with profound
consequences
Remember
Paul Kammerer, the scientist
who committed suicide because
he
was hounded
over his toad experiments that
seemed to show Lamarkian
inheritance,
and compare to the current
discipline of epigenetics.
Here
is an
example of high consequences
that arise from scientific
consensus.
There are a
whole bunch of spayed
Appalachians from West
Virginia, as
well I dare
say some aboriginal
Australians in the same
situation (as
late as the
1970s, I am anecdotally told),
due to misunderstanding of
the science
of genetics. In each of these
cases, the label "scientific"
has allowed
travesties to occur.
So we need
to come back to belief. I
don't think it is useful to
deny
that we all
operate with it. I think it is
a human heuristic, a
limitation
(or a feature) of the hardware
our minds run on. I think that
it is
critical to acknowledge
beliefs ("State your
assumptions") and to
try to
separate them from anything
that you are trying to
analyse.
Maybe it is
best if I don't believe you,
if you don't believe me. If we
had a
better philosophy of
knowledge, maybe a more formal
tiered system,
that
allowed us to assign quality
factors (1. that is true,
proven
mathematically;
2. that is true in its current
form but may be part of a
larger
truth (Evolution by Natural
Selection is in this
category); 3.
that is
true within the narrow domain
tested; 4. that is a likely
truth
as shown by
extrapolation from a known
truth; 5. that may not be
true,
but as yet
hasn't been disproven; 6. that
is untestable; 7. that is
false).
In writing
this, I am largely unconcerned
for the views of the
Christians
among our profession. I see
this submission as fighting
for
the "souls"
, or more correctly the
integrity of those who wish to
use
science as
a belief system. The collected
knowledge derived from the
application
of the scientific method(s)
can certainly be used as such
-
I
personally rely on it
extensively to form my world
view. However
without
acknowledging our limits, and
the extent to which we can
know
everything,
we risk creating a new god,
and entrenching falsehood and
myth.
The
question of how to reconcile
the honestly acknowledged
limitations
of science,
and compete against those of a
closed mind who dogmatically
state that
they "know" is something I
haven't fully figured out yet.
We
also live
in a realpolitick. What we
are hitting up against here is
much like
the age old conundrum of "to
what extent do we tolerate
intolerance",
or more generally, how do we
engage in a dialogue for
which each
side has different rules. I
have no final answer, but I
don't
want to be
part of a contest where to win
I must take on the attributes
of the side
I am opposing. I don't want
science to become a god. Too
much evil
(tm) becomes possible.
Finally, I
agree with the points you have
just posted Mike. Don't you
think that
the complaints from the
students, and your presence as
a HOLA
form part
of a corrective loop that
successfully prevented the
teaching
of
Creationism in your school?
Cheers,
Leon
_______________________________________________
Catalist
mailing list
Catalist at lists.stawa.net
http://lists.stawa.net/mailman/listinfo/catalist_lists.stawa.net
_______________________________________________
Catalist mailing list
Catalist at lists.stawa.net
http://lists.stawa.net/mailman/listinfo/catalist_lists.stawa.net
_______________________________________________
Catalist mailing list
Catalist at lists.stawa.net
http://lists.stawa.net/mailman/listinfo/catalist_lists.stawa.net
_______________________________________________
Catalist mailing list
Catalist at lists.stawa.net
http://lists.stawa.net/mailman/listinfo/catalist_lists.stawa.net
Virus-free. www.avast.com
_______________________________________________
Catalist mailing list
Catalist at lists.stawa.net
http://lists.stawa.net/mailman/listinfo/catalist_lists.stawa.net
_______________________________________________
Catalist mailing list
Catalist at lists.stawa.net
http://lists.stawa.net/mailman/listinfo/catalist_lists.stawa.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.stawa.net/pipermail/catalist_lists.stawa.net/attachments/20180406/2354c7ed/attachment.html>