Tuesday, January 5, 2010

The personality of science

Some nice anon was good enough to give me a fairly pointless criticism of my previous blog entry.

Yes, really.

You give personality to a discipline? Science isn't biased because science doesn't think, have a personality or take sides. It is a discipline which has the job of observing and making observations on what is observed.
No. Science simply weighs its biases against various aspects of truth. It simply allows others to check the work of different individuals and see what does and doesn't work out. It tries to neutralize the biases and mistakes by employing many different people who get brownie points for disproving things.

It cannot and should not deal with what it cannot observe. AND, not everything that exists can be observed. There is much of space and the microscopic world yet to be observed so science is silence in these arenas at this time.
I'm sure God will be found in one of those areas of microscopic space. Wait, no that's pretty damned silly to think that.

"Science is trying to figure out reality. If God isn't part of reality, tough cookies for God; don't blame the messenger."

I never suggested that science has something to say about everything. Just that science tries to figure out reality and God doesn't seem to be a part of anything science has investigated thus far. Maybe God is a bacterium at the bottom of the ocean in some unexplored part of some trench somewhere, but I don't think so.

In those areas science cannot observe and so is useless...for now. God, if there is a God, is not subject to science's observations, but it doesn't mean he doesn't exist...
I didn't say it wasn't. I said if God  isn't part of that reality, tough cookies for God. For a God who is said to be everywhere we seem to have to search some pretty distant places to find such a being. It isn't that we have no evidence therefore it's not real. I'm fine with that statement, but rather the point is that we aren't finding any evidence for God in our quest to understand reality. That doesn't mean that science is necessarily a godless quest but rather tough cookies for God.

it simply means it's an arena where science cannot go. Science, if done right, is not biased, but it becomes biased with comments like yours today.
No. It doesn't mean that at all. Science has uncovered no evidence for genies. None. It doesn't likewise mean that genies are an arena where science can't go. It means exactly what I said for God. Science tries to figure out reality and if it finds no evidence for genies, well tough cookies for genies.

If my comment was biased shouldn't I need to have overlooked some bit of evidence? I mean, tough cookies for invisible pink unicorns if science doesn't find them. It's not sciences fault that in fiddling with reality to figure out the truth it uncovered no evidence. There's no need to blame science for failing to find evidence for something that doesn't seem to have evidence.
Very pathetic post today, you can do better than this....come on!
Hardly. You misunderstand my comment as being some kind of claim against absence of evidence being proof of absence. Really I'm just saying that science doesn't find God because science concerns itself with reality and the evidence thus far finds that gods have no more support than werewolves do. Tough cookies for werewolves. Tough cookies for gods.

No comments: