I want to talk a little bit about emotional appeal. In a nutshell emotional appeal is the application of anecdotal evidence put forth to influence an opinion. The problem is, being human makes it extremely difficult to squelch emotion altogether, especially when discussing a topic I am particularly passionate about. I think that emotion has its place, even within the skeptical community. There are times when it is appropriate and times when it could be considered a logical fallacy.
It is important to remember that emotion almost always involves subjective experiences and anecdotal evidence. What that means is that it is rarely useful in science and cannot be logically applied to an argument to bolster your position. Emotion is a tool that can be used to describe a personal or subjective experience/feeling. Take for instance, the blog I wrote about being an atheist. Disbelieving in a god is just as unfalsifiable as believing in one. Because of the nature of that subject, much of the post had to be anecdotal emotional appeal. That has its place as a descriptor, but not as a basis for argument. I cannot say that God doesn't exist because it flies in the face of human achievement. However, I can state that the idea of God flies in the face of human achievement. It doesn't prove anything, but it describes my subjective feelings regarding the issue.
Unfortunately, we are emotional creatures. This is a big part of why skepticism isn't as well received as it ought to be. Skepticism often comes off emotionless, which to most people is a cold and dreary state of being. I want to clarify that misconception. Skepticism can be an immense source of happiness. The mysteries and wonders of science are so amazing, they can leave you breathless if given the chance. Skeptics tend to be more analytical people. To others, that can seem boring and uninteresting. The skeptical movement needs passionate individuals that are simply fans of science, whether or not they are experts in any one field.
There is one thing that much of the skeptical movement lacks that other groups in the world have. Charisma. Often-times a scientist's excitement is simply not expressed in a way that the layman can understand. The media tries to fluff up science pieces to make them sound interesting, but the way they do it is by altering or over-simplifying the science being reported on. I hate to say it, but us skeptics could take a page out of the true believers' book. Why do you think woo and pseudoscience is so good at spreading? Obviously it's not because of the woo itself because the moment they were disappointed by it they would throw it away. It's because of the people pedaling it with great charisma!
I did business with a guy locally that I would consider a friend. After getting to know him a little bit I found out he was drowning in a whole mess of pseudoscientific beliefs. He talks about all sorts of homeopathic remedies, natural cures, and subscribes to all sorts of multilevel marketing ideas. None of what he says is compelling, even to the extremely gullible, beyond a magical emotional appeal. The only reason they believe it is because he has more charisma than anyone I've ever met. He's lovable; of course he is extremely deluded in my opinion, but if you meet him you instantly want to be his friend. I can see why so many people trust him and what he says pretty quickly after getting to know him. He sounds intelligent and in fact he is on numerous subjects, but not many scientific ones. If he, who knows literally nothing of science except for the words "quantum mechanics" (not the definition, obviously), can be that compelling to that many people then so can we as skeptics.
Yes this is all anecdotal, but I still think it applies to a large number of pseudoscientists out there. They are successful because they are enthusiastic, and sadly most of them actually believe the things they say which makes their enthusiasm that much more convincing.
In my line of work I teach business owners why relationship building is so important in running a successful business. The product or service is only a tiny fraction of a business's success in most cases. Only a few businesses ever become successful because they stumble upon some brilliant product or niche that hasn't been filled. Most successful businesses are successful because the owner or marketing team has massive amounts of charisma and enthusiasm. We all need to take a lesson from Carl Sagan. There was a man that knew how to excite the masses about science, without bogging them down; he simplified science in a way that the general population could understand and be excited by and he did it without dumbing down the science. Another one is Bill Nye. The only reason that show is entertaining is because the guy is exciting to watch. You can easily see the excitement he has for science and that transfers to the audience. The bottom line is that skeptics need a better marketing team. We have to appeal to that emotional side of our human minds. There is plenty of room for emotion while still sticking to the science and being a logical thinker.
- Alex
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
The Crazy Skeptic
I had an interesting experience after posting my blog about why I am an Atheist. I created a forum topic asking for any criticism of the blog. I like to do this because I'm not an expert in any given scientific field. While I do consider myself a "thinking" person I still want feedback from anyone who might have something to add. Several great suggestions for clarification were made and I corrected the relevant lines in the blog post. Soon after, something odd happened. I encountered the "crazy" skeptic.
I won't name any names because it was just a forum thread, but this person was the perfect example of a skeptic that the public gets to see. He was the epitome of the skeptic that is always right, super cynical of everything, and was generally ill-willed toward other people. He regarded what he deemed "stupid people" with great contempt. I ended up debating him for many pages because I felt he had misrepresented me and my blog post. The conversation devolved into an argument of semantics about Occam's Razor. I won't delve into the meat of the argument because it was pointless, but I kept it going because I was completely fascinated at the dedication put forth by someone who on the surface seems fairly level-headed.
The conversation lasted for several days and once the board hit around page 17 I decided that I was satisfied. It was down to satire and name calling anyway. I bring all this up because this is the perception the world has of skeptics. It is these people who are just as self-righteous as the crazy pseudo-scientists and creationists, that gives the skeptical movement a bad name. Forgiving the points he made that I disagreed with and the logical fallacies I pointed out, he was overall a very mean-spirited individual. What is sad is that when he interacts with the rest of the world nobody learns anything. He calls them stupid and makes a point out of encouraging them to continue being stupid instead of attempting to enlighten them. His heart seems to be in the right place but his methods for reaching others (if that is even his goal) are extremely flawed.
I bring this up as an example for how skeptics are perceived by the public. This was an argument between two skeptics, supposedly on the same team! I did some research on his name and discovered a sleuth of Amizon.com posts where he went on a review rampage. He attempts to debunk pseudoscience left and right, and while it was extremely entertaining, none of it was useful. He gets into arguments with scientifically illiterate people left and right. Whenever they commit logical fallacies he just steamrolls them with attacks directed at their intellectual capacity. Now and then he actually does reference the studies that support his arguments, but most of the time it is just naked criticism. This doesn't speak to the fact of whether he is right or wrong, only that he doesn't take the time to explain things in a calm enough way that someone else might benefit from it.
This is just one extreme example of a crazy skeptic out to debunk the world. The sad fact is though, that skeptics such as him are the vocal majority. They put out a negative vibe and worsen the connotative meaning of the word skeptic. It is sad to see so many people talk about how much they hate those "skeptics" because of one crazy they interacted with. Most of us are happy skeptics that have just as much meaning in their lives as those that take joy from believing in nonsense. I may end up renaming this blog to "The Happy Skeptic" because that is the image I would like to convey. I want others to see me as an example of a scientifically literate atheist and skeptic that is perfectly happy and lives a great life. I want people to know that all atheists and skeptics don't have an agenda to push on them. Having an agenda to push onto others is no different than the Mormons here in Utah trying to convert the world to their religion.
I want to end this post with a message to my fellow skeptics. As you journey out into the world of woo, do not try to show everyone why you're so intelligent and why they are not. Do not try and convert them to your way of thinking. Set an example and be the happy skeptic that is content with his/her confidence in logic and the scientific method. When you set that example people will become interested. Once those people become interested you have opened the door for rational thinking to take place. Several of my close friends have already come to me asking me about my participation in the skeptical movement. Never once did I tell them they should be interested. I simply set an example and they fell in line. All we can do as skeptics is grease those mental cogs a little bit and hope that they start turning. Don't get caught up arguing with someone that will never see things the way you do. In fact, the more you argue, the worse they will forever stereotype you and all skeptics.
Set an example. Don't stoop to the same tactics that true believers use. Feuding will never accomplish anything. You can make your points and still be calm and collected.
- Chevex
I won't name any names because it was just a forum thread, but this person was the perfect example of a skeptic that the public gets to see. He was the epitome of the skeptic that is always right, super cynical of everything, and was generally ill-willed toward other people. He regarded what he deemed "stupid people" with great contempt. I ended up debating him for many pages because I felt he had misrepresented me and my blog post. The conversation devolved into an argument of semantics about Occam's Razor. I won't delve into the meat of the argument because it was pointless, but I kept it going because I was completely fascinated at the dedication put forth by someone who on the surface seems fairly level-headed.
The conversation lasted for several days and once the board hit around page 17 I decided that I was satisfied. It was down to satire and name calling anyway. I bring all this up because this is the perception the world has of skeptics. It is these people who are just as self-righteous as the crazy pseudo-scientists and creationists, that gives the skeptical movement a bad name. Forgiving the points he made that I disagreed with and the logical fallacies I pointed out, he was overall a very mean-spirited individual. What is sad is that when he interacts with the rest of the world nobody learns anything. He calls them stupid and makes a point out of encouraging them to continue being stupid instead of attempting to enlighten them. His heart seems to be in the right place but his methods for reaching others (if that is even his goal) are extremely flawed.
I bring this up as an example for how skeptics are perceived by the public. This was an argument between two skeptics, supposedly on the same team! I did some research on his name and discovered a sleuth of Amizon.com posts where he went on a review rampage. He attempts to debunk pseudoscience left and right, and while it was extremely entertaining, none of it was useful. He gets into arguments with scientifically illiterate people left and right. Whenever they commit logical fallacies he just steamrolls them with attacks directed at their intellectual capacity. Now and then he actually does reference the studies that support his arguments, but most of the time it is just naked criticism. This doesn't speak to the fact of whether he is right or wrong, only that he doesn't take the time to explain things in a calm enough way that someone else might benefit from it.
This is just one extreme example of a crazy skeptic out to debunk the world. The sad fact is though, that skeptics such as him are the vocal majority. They put out a negative vibe and worsen the connotative meaning of the word skeptic. It is sad to see so many people talk about how much they hate those "skeptics" because of one crazy they interacted with. Most of us are happy skeptics that have just as much meaning in their lives as those that take joy from believing in nonsense. I may end up renaming this blog to "The Happy Skeptic" because that is the image I would like to convey. I want others to see me as an example of a scientifically literate atheist and skeptic that is perfectly happy and lives a great life. I want people to know that all atheists and skeptics don't have an agenda to push on them. Having an agenda to push onto others is no different than the Mormons here in Utah trying to convert the world to their religion.
I want to end this post with a message to my fellow skeptics. As you journey out into the world of woo, do not try to show everyone why you're so intelligent and why they are not. Do not try and convert them to your way of thinking. Set an example and be the happy skeptic that is content with his/her confidence in logic and the scientific method. When you set that example people will become interested. Once those people become interested you have opened the door for rational thinking to take place. Several of my close friends have already come to me asking me about my participation in the skeptical movement. Never once did I tell them they should be interested. I simply set an example and they fell in line. All we can do as skeptics is grease those mental cogs a little bit and hope that they start turning. Don't get caught up arguing with someone that will never see things the way you do. In fact, the more you argue, the worse they will forever stereotype you and all skeptics.
Set an example. Don't stoop to the same tactics that true believers use. Feuding will never accomplish anything. You can make your points and still be calm and collected.
- Chevex
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Why I'm an Atheist.
Today I want to clarify something. Atheism. I feel that many people misunderstand what true Atheism is all about. Most theists see Atheists as naysayers that are just out to attack their beliefs. Well the sad fact is that they are often right. Many Atheists are Atheist simply to be contrarian. The ones that are in it just to piss off theists give the rest of us a bad name and because they are very vocal about it they are primarily what others end up seeing. True Atheism is something very few people have actually considered.
The easiest way for me to describe why an Atheist believes what he/she believes is to describe my own reasoning. I used to be simply agnostic, refusing to pick a side of the debate simply because I did not know enough to make an educated decision. An agnostic can also be a Theist or Atheist, but at the time I was neither. Over time, especially living here in Utah, I have arrived at the personal conclusion that the concept of God is a human creation. Of course you cannot prove or disprove this, much the same way you cannot prove or disprove God. However, I arrived at this conclusion for several reasons. After observing other people for quite some time I found that people have a hard time accepting that they just don't know something. God seems to be the filler that seals all the cracks in knowledge anytime a theist does not understand something. I believe that this human instinct to create answers in the absence of real answers is responsible for the creation of God in order to answer life's greatest questions.
Another reason I have trouble validating the existence of a god is because it is an unfalsifiable, non-scientific claim. I like to bring up a principle known as Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor says that, of two theories that arrive at the same conclusion, the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions is usually the most correct in it's formulation. I believe that of all theories that explain how and why we are here, the theory that we simply don't yet know is the only one that does not require the introduction of another HUGE unknown. It does not need to introduce any new variables. It's not even a theory really, it's just intellectual honesty to state that we don't know something. The concept of God creating the universe is explaining an unknown with another, possible larger, unknown. Such theories cannot be tested and are therefore unfalsifiable.
That is why I made the jump from being a so called "fence-sitter" to being a disbeliever in God. I found that I get more happiness from my life by simply acknowledging and looking upon in awe, the mysteries of our reality. When the answer to every mystery is "God did it" life seems to lose its luster for me. It is the pursuit of knowledge that is fulfilling to me. A true Atheist finds life and every aspect therein to be fascinating!
Another reason I became an Atheist is that the concept of God flies in the face of human achievement. There was a story (http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSEIC47086020070905) where an airline in some other country was worried about the safety of an aircraft and they conducted a religious sacrifice of two goats to ensure the safety of the coming flights. I could not understand how one could be in the presence of such human ingenuity as a large metallic craft that can fly through the air and still think they have to please some whimsical being by killing two goats in order to be safe. In my humble opinion, belief in a god downplays all of humanities accomplishments. Look how far our species has come! It is this reason that I dislike the beginnings of every Thanksgiving dinner.
At Thanksgiving your family likely sits down at the dinner table as mine does. Before you is a grand feast, the likes of which you probably haven't experienced since last Thanksgiving. This food came from all over the world; it was raised or grown using methods that have been developed and refined by humans over hundreds of years. So refined are our methods for growing and raising food that we can manufacture food for humans all over the globe. Afterward, the food is harvested and loaded into trucks which are also a product of human ingenuity. The food is then taken to the appropriate processing facility where more technological development is rampant and always improving. We have learned enough about our environment that within these facilities we can detect and kill microorganisms living in our food that we can't even see! This in turn has contributed to our life expectancy increasing drastically over the last several hundred years. Once the food undergoes all the processing necessary it is packaged appropriately so as to prevent contamination and shipped all over the world.
It is so easy to forget about how far we've come when you get in your car, drive to the store, and come home with a turkey, mashed potatoes, cranberry sauce, pumpkin pie, stuffing, cornbread, dinner rolls, butter, milk, chips and dip, croutons, lettuce, ranch dressing, etc etc etc... And all of that can be done in under an hour. God didn't make that feast. WE DID! God didn't make the soil fertile for the farmers, WE DID! God didn't adjust the diets of farm animals to help raise nutritious food, WE DID! God didn't protect you from getting sick from your food, WE DID! Our accomplishments are vast and yet it is so easy to forget about all of that and thank God for the feast in front of us. We are amazing creatures. Most will argue at this point that we are amazing because God made us that way. Well, at that point it becomes a matter of opinion once again. Some people choose to make the jump from an unanswered question about life to a faith-based answer involving God. Others like myself enjoy the mystery and prefer the intellectually honest answer of "we simply don't yet know."
That is why I am an Atheist. I don't have an agenda other than I choose not to believe anything on faith. I take nothing at face value. I utilize the power of critical thinking and the scientific method to make my decisions. Why am I telling you all this? Because I love to express myself, even if that expression upsets those I am close to. Change can only occur in persons desiring change, therefore the only thing I can do is be an example of an Atheist that lives a perfectly happy life and has good moral values despite the absence of religious belief. I try to be as fair and understanding as possible while still expressing myself and what I believe/disbelieve. Now you see what true Atheism is all about. It is just a choice; one that does not require anyone else to agree. Sure, my bias rests with me wishing other people felt as I do, but I do not seek to convert anyone. I only want to grease those mental cogs a little. If nothing else, at least you can see my perspective and perhaps understand my position just a little better.
Thanks for reading.
- Alex
The Utah Skeptic
The easiest way for me to describe why an Atheist believes what he/she believes is to describe my own reasoning. I used to be simply agnostic, refusing to pick a side of the debate simply because I did not know enough to make an educated decision. An agnostic can also be a Theist or Atheist, but at the time I was neither. Over time, especially living here in Utah, I have arrived at the personal conclusion that the concept of God is a human creation. Of course you cannot prove or disprove this, much the same way you cannot prove or disprove God. However, I arrived at this conclusion for several reasons. After observing other people for quite some time I found that people have a hard time accepting that they just don't know something. God seems to be the filler that seals all the cracks in knowledge anytime a theist does not understand something. I believe that this human instinct to create answers in the absence of real answers is responsible for the creation of God in order to answer life's greatest questions.
Another reason I have trouble validating the existence of a god is because it is an unfalsifiable, non-scientific claim. I like to bring up a principle known as Occam's Razor. Occam's Razor says that, of two theories that arrive at the same conclusion, the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions is usually the most correct in it's formulation. I believe that of all theories that explain how and why we are here, the theory that we simply don't yet know is the only one that does not require the introduction of another HUGE unknown. It does not need to introduce any new variables. It's not even a theory really, it's just intellectual honesty to state that we don't know something. The concept of God creating the universe is explaining an unknown with another, possible larger, unknown. Such theories cannot be tested and are therefore unfalsifiable.
That is why I made the jump from being a so called "fence-sitter" to being a disbeliever in God. I found that I get more happiness from my life by simply acknowledging and looking upon in awe, the mysteries of our reality. When the answer to every mystery is "God did it" life seems to lose its luster for me. It is the pursuit of knowledge that is fulfilling to me. A true Atheist finds life and every aspect therein to be fascinating!
Another reason I became an Atheist is that the concept of God flies in the face of human achievement. There was a story (http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSEIC47086020070905) where an airline in some other country was worried about the safety of an aircraft and they conducted a religious sacrifice of two goats to ensure the safety of the coming flights. I could not understand how one could be in the presence of such human ingenuity as a large metallic craft that can fly through the air and still think they have to please some whimsical being by killing two goats in order to be safe. In my humble opinion, belief in a god downplays all of humanities accomplishments. Look how far our species has come! It is this reason that I dislike the beginnings of every Thanksgiving dinner.
At Thanksgiving your family likely sits down at the dinner table as mine does. Before you is a grand feast, the likes of which you probably haven't experienced since last Thanksgiving. This food came from all over the world; it was raised or grown using methods that have been developed and refined by humans over hundreds of years. So refined are our methods for growing and raising food that we can manufacture food for humans all over the globe. Afterward, the food is harvested and loaded into trucks which are also a product of human ingenuity. The food is then taken to the appropriate processing facility where more technological development is rampant and always improving. We have learned enough about our environment that within these facilities we can detect and kill microorganisms living in our food that we can't even see! This in turn has contributed to our life expectancy increasing drastically over the last several hundred years. Once the food undergoes all the processing necessary it is packaged appropriately so as to prevent contamination and shipped all over the world.
It is so easy to forget about how far we've come when you get in your car, drive to the store, and come home with a turkey, mashed potatoes, cranberry sauce, pumpkin pie, stuffing, cornbread, dinner rolls, butter, milk, chips and dip, croutons, lettuce, ranch dressing, etc etc etc... And all of that can be done in under an hour. God didn't make that feast. WE DID! God didn't make the soil fertile for the farmers, WE DID! God didn't adjust the diets of farm animals to help raise nutritious food, WE DID! God didn't protect you from getting sick from your food, WE DID! Our accomplishments are vast and yet it is so easy to forget about all of that and thank God for the feast in front of us. We are amazing creatures. Most will argue at this point that we are amazing because God made us that way. Well, at that point it becomes a matter of opinion once again. Some people choose to make the jump from an unanswered question about life to a faith-based answer involving God. Others like myself enjoy the mystery and prefer the intellectually honest answer of "we simply don't yet know."
That is why I am an Atheist. I don't have an agenda other than I choose not to believe anything on faith. I take nothing at face value. I utilize the power of critical thinking and the scientific method to make my decisions. Why am I telling you all this? Because I love to express myself, even if that expression upsets those I am close to. Change can only occur in persons desiring change, therefore the only thing I can do is be an example of an Atheist that lives a perfectly happy life and has good moral values despite the absence of religious belief. I try to be as fair and understanding as possible while still expressing myself and what I believe/disbelieve. Now you see what true Atheism is all about. It is just a choice; one that does not require anyone else to agree. Sure, my bias rests with me wishing other people felt as I do, but I do not seek to convert anyone. I only want to grease those mental cogs a little. If nothing else, at least you can see my perspective and perhaps understand my position just a little better.
Thanks for reading.
- Alex
The Utah Skeptic
What is Science?
If you're a skeptic, then you already know what science is and how it operates. You understand science to be a methodological system for learning about our reality. However, I find over and over again that most people do not understand what the concept of science even is. For some reason a large majority of our population, at least here in the United States, is scientifically illiterate. I don't think there is any one cause for this illiteracy, but it is mind boggling to think that so many people are not only scientifically illiterate, but they don't even understand what science is in the first place.
If you look to my last blog you will find a video mockery I put together to make fun of a video created by a theist for the sole purpose of making Atheist's look evil. Already there have been a string of comments underneath my video attacking me for it. This is no surprise and fully expected, but I am quickly realizing as I venture toward the front lines of skepticism that many, if not most, theists believe science is just another belief system. It actually surprised me to find people telling me not to have blind faith in my "science". Either the person that posted that comment was a skeptic cracking a joke, or the public understanding of science is worse off than I originally thought.
I decided with this blog to explain in layman's terms (easy, since I'm pretty much a layman anyway, albeit a skeptical one) what science is. First and foremost you must understand one fundamental concept if you do not already; science is NOT (NOT NOT NOT) a faith based system. Science does not require you to believe anything on faith, nor does it require you to take any claims it makes at face value. If this is news to you then pay close attention because your world view is about to go for a spin. Science has little to no relation to religion or other belief systems. In the simplest of terms, science is nothing more than a method for analyzing the world around us. You have probably heard the term "scientific method" before. This method is an evidence-based way of learning. It does not require you to make any assumptions or believe anything out of hand.
The scientific method consists of several steps, all of which are derived from simple logic.
* Ask a Question
* Do Background Research
* Construct a Hypothesis
* Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
* Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
* Communicate Your Results
It is a very simple concept to understand and you can probably already see why it does not require you to make any mental leaps. First you must ask a question. Simple enough right? It is important to remember that this is a logical system and you must ask logical questions. Questions cannot be unfalsifiable, such as "Do invisible flying unicorns exist?" First of all this question has no compelling reason to be asked. Most questions are based on something we already know to be true and have compelling reasons for why we should develop theories for how it works and then test them. You cannot test if there are invisible flying unicorns because you have no observable effect that would lead you to that hypothesis. Also, the question is unfalsifiable because it is making too many assumptions. The first assumption is that unicorns exist. The second assumption is that the unicorns are invisible. The last assumption is that the unicorns can fly. None of those things have any observable effect on our reality and so we cannot test for the existence of them.
An example of a perfectly logical question to ask is the famous question asked by Sir Isaac Newton. "Why does this apple fall to the ground?" It does not require you to assume that the apple exists, nor does it require you to assume the apple falls to the ground. Those are both things that you can observe and are concrete facts. The apple does exist and it does fall to the ground. But why? Well, that is where the beauty of the scientific method comes into play. Indeed the next step is to see if your question has already been answered. Do your research. If you find that your question has not been asked before or that it has not been properly answered before then it is time to get creative.
Many people think science is boring and is not creative. This is a completely false assertion. Science is one of the most creative endeavors of humanity and coming up with a theory to answer a question is the largest and most creative part of the scientific method. Newton posited that some force that is not immediately visible must exist that pulls the apple to the ground. He called this force gravity, obviously. While for his time he wasn't able to explain why or how gravity existed and operated, he was able to describe gravity and its effects very precisely. He needn't test for the existence of this gravity since its existence was obvious. Something did indeed pull the apple down to the ground. What he was able to do however, was to test different properties of this gravity to more accurately describe it. He conducted many tests, not the least of which was the test wherein he dropped two objects at the same time. Both objects where vastly different in their sizes and masses. Granted they were heavy enough to be affected very little by the air, both objects would hit the ground at the same time, despite weighing different amounts. Newton was able to describe this force of gravity very accurately, despite not being able to explain how or why it existed.
After pulling in all the data from his tests he was able to come up with several laws of physics that would describe gravity and its affects on physical matter. Isaac Newton gave us principles of physics that still hold true to today. Only later, when Albert Einstein came along with his famous theory of relativity, did we finally have a working theory for what gravity is and why it exists. I've taken this example too far so I won't go into anymore detail about gravity, but you can see how the scientific method has helped us to learn much about the world around us and continues to do so in every field of science.
The final step of the scientific method is to communicate your results. Only when your tests can be duplicated by other scientists can there be a consensus among the scientific community. This is very important because it eliminates any bias from the individual that originated the theory and the tests. Everything must be able to be duplicated in order for the theory to hold true.
That's it! That is how science works! Everything we know today within the scientific community has a vast library of empirical evidence supporting it. The beautiful thing about all of this is that as more evidence comes in, theories change. Science is always changing and adapting to new ideas and theories. Everything that is accepted as a scientific fact has been proven over and over again to the best of our ability as the observers. Sometimes we make only subtle changes to theories as we go forward. Other times entire theories go by the wayside to make room for new theories that better describe the mystery for which the scientist is attempting to solve.
As you can see, science does not need you to believe anything. If you hear a scientific claim and that claim is true then you would be able to research it and see for yourself how the community arrived at that conclusion. The thing many lay persons have a hard time accepting is that they cannot possibly specialize in every field of science. So sometimes you have to accept the consensus among the community that specializes in that field. That is, if you don't want to learn everything you can about that field, then run tests of your own to verify the results. I often hear people arguing that science gets lots of stuff wrong. Nothing could be farther from the truth. MANY MANY MANY theories that are postulated end up being wrong, but the very nature of science and the scientific method means that those theories will get weeded out over time. Sure, a theory that gets some things wrong can exist for a long time, but with more time and more testing theories only get stronger or are replaced by stronger ones. On the whole, science is the only way to truly "know" about our reality. It builds upon things we already know and is constantly changing as our understanding evolves. That is partly why it comes head to head with religious factions at times. Religious beliefs often answered many questions that used to be unknown to us, such as the age of the Earth. However, now that we have developed methods of actually measuring the age of the Earth to a fairly precise degree, it directly contradicts how old many creationists think the Earth to be. Science is based on change, it adapts to change. Science couldn't exist without it's ability to change and improve itself. Religion does not change so easily.
There you have it. That is science in a nutshell. Do you see now why science does not contradict a belief system like your religion? The only time your religious beliefs are at stake is when they make claims that are testable using the logical methods of science. The thing that I don't understand is why many religious people think that every detail of the bible must be true. How does the bible getting the age of the Earth wrong contradict your belief in God? Supposedly mortals wrote the text that later became the bible, is it so sacrilegious to think that maybe they just got some minor points wrong? As most of you well know, I am an Atheist, so such questions don't particularly intrigue me. I simply don't understand why so many theists cannot change as science does, learning new things and adapting to new discoveries. I suppose that there isn't much to understand. It is not too different from someone getting ripped off on a purchase and then defending themselves and what they purchased simply out of pride.
I hope this helps some of you to understand better what science is and why it doesn't have to be in direct conflict with your beliefs. Anything that you have "faith" in is inherently NOT science which means you are free to believe in it because science essentially cannot prove or disprove such unfalsifiable claims like God.
I wish you all a good day!
- Alex
If you look to my last blog you will find a video mockery I put together to make fun of a video created by a theist for the sole purpose of making Atheist's look evil. Already there have been a string of comments underneath my video attacking me for it. This is no surprise and fully expected, but I am quickly realizing as I venture toward the front lines of skepticism that many, if not most, theists believe science is just another belief system. It actually surprised me to find people telling me not to have blind faith in my "science". Either the person that posted that comment was a skeptic cracking a joke, or the public understanding of science is worse off than I originally thought.
I decided with this blog to explain in layman's terms (easy, since I'm pretty much a layman anyway, albeit a skeptical one) what science is. First and foremost you must understand one fundamental concept if you do not already; science is NOT (NOT NOT NOT) a faith based system. Science does not require you to believe anything on faith, nor does it require you to take any claims it makes at face value. If this is news to you then pay close attention because your world view is about to go for a spin. Science has little to no relation to religion or other belief systems. In the simplest of terms, science is nothing more than a method for analyzing the world around us. You have probably heard the term "scientific method" before. This method is an evidence-based way of learning. It does not require you to make any assumptions or believe anything out of hand.
The scientific method consists of several steps, all of which are derived from simple logic.
* Ask a Question
* Do Background Research
* Construct a Hypothesis
* Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
* Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
* Communicate Your Results
It is a very simple concept to understand and you can probably already see why it does not require you to make any mental leaps. First you must ask a question. Simple enough right? It is important to remember that this is a logical system and you must ask logical questions. Questions cannot be unfalsifiable, such as "Do invisible flying unicorns exist?" First of all this question has no compelling reason to be asked. Most questions are based on something we already know to be true and have compelling reasons for why we should develop theories for how it works and then test them. You cannot test if there are invisible flying unicorns because you have no observable effect that would lead you to that hypothesis. Also, the question is unfalsifiable because it is making too many assumptions. The first assumption is that unicorns exist. The second assumption is that the unicorns are invisible. The last assumption is that the unicorns can fly. None of those things have any observable effect on our reality and so we cannot test for the existence of them.
An example of a perfectly logical question to ask is the famous question asked by Sir Isaac Newton. "Why does this apple fall to the ground?" It does not require you to assume that the apple exists, nor does it require you to assume the apple falls to the ground. Those are both things that you can observe and are concrete facts. The apple does exist and it does fall to the ground. But why? Well, that is where the beauty of the scientific method comes into play. Indeed the next step is to see if your question has already been answered. Do your research. If you find that your question has not been asked before or that it has not been properly answered before then it is time to get creative.
Many people think science is boring and is not creative. This is a completely false assertion. Science is one of the most creative endeavors of humanity and coming up with a theory to answer a question is the largest and most creative part of the scientific method. Newton posited that some force that is not immediately visible must exist that pulls the apple to the ground. He called this force gravity, obviously. While for his time he wasn't able to explain why or how gravity existed and operated, he was able to describe gravity and its effects very precisely. He needn't test for the existence of this gravity since its existence was obvious. Something did indeed pull the apple down to the ground. What he was able to do however, was to test different properties of this gravity to more accurately describe it. He conducted many tests, not the least of which was the test wherein he dropped two objects at the same time. Both objects where vastly different in their sizes and masses. Granted they were heavy enough to be affected very little by the air, both objects would hit the ground at the same time, despite weighing different amounts. Newton was able to describe this force of gravity very accurately, despite not being able to explain how or why it existed.
After pulling in all the data from his tests he was able to come up with several laws of physics that would describe gravity and its affects on physical matter. Isaac Newton gave us principles of physics that still hold true to today. Only later, when Albert Einstein came along with his famous theory of relativity, did we finally have a working theory for what gravity is and why it exists. I've taken this example too far so I won't go into anymore detail about gravity, but you can see how the scientific method has helped us to learn much about the world around us and continues to do so in every field of science.
The final step of the scientific method is to communicate your results. Only when your tests can be duplicated by other scientists can there be a consensus among the scientific community. This is very important because it eliminates any bias from the individual that originated the theory and the tests. Everything must be able to be duplicated in order for the theory to hold true.
That's it! That is how science works! Everything we know today within the scientific community has a vast library of empirical evidence supporting it. The beautiful thing about all of this is that as more evidence comes in, theories change. Science is always changing and adapting to new ideas and theories. Everything that is accepted as a scientific fact has been proven over and over again to the best of our ability as the observers. Sometimes we make only subtle changes to theories as we go forward. Other times entire theories go by the wayside to make room for new theories that better describe the mystery for which the scientist is attempting to solve.
As you can see, science does not need you to believe anything. If you hear a scientific claim and that claim is true then you would be able to research it and see for yourself how the community arrived at that conclusion. The thing many lay persons have a hard time accepting is that they cannot possibly specialize in every field of science. So sometimes you have to accept the consensus among the community that specializes in that field. That is, if you don't want to learn everything you can about that field, then run tests of your own to verify the results. I often hear people arguing that science gets lots of stuff wrong. Nothing could be farther from the truth. MANY MANY MANY theories that are postulated end up being wrong, but the very nature of science and the scientific method means that those theories will get weeded out over time. Sure, a theory that gets some things wrong can exist for a long time, but with more time and more testing theories only get stronger or are replaced by stronger ones. On the whole, science is the only way to truly "know" about our reality. It builds upon things we already know and is constantly changing as our understanding evolves. That is partly why it comes head to head with religious factions at times. Religious beliefs often answered many questions that used to be unknown to us, such as the age of the Earth. However, now that we have developed methods of actually measuring the age of the Earth to a fairly precise degree, it directly contradicts how old many creationists think the Earth to be. Science is based on change, it adapts to change. Science couldn't exist without it's ability to change and improve itself. Religion does not change so easily.
There you have it. That is science in a nutshell. Do you see now why science does not contradict a belief system like your religion? The only time your religious beliefs are at stake is when they make claims that are testable using the logical methods of science. The thing that I don't understand is why many religious people think that every detail of the bible must be true. How does the bible getting the age of the Earth wrong contradict your belief in God? Supposedly mortals wrote the text that later became the bible, is it so sacrilegious to think that maybe they just got some minor points wrong? As most of you well know, I am an Atheist, so such questions don't particularly intrigue me. I simply don't understand why so many theists cannot change as science does, learning new things and adapting to new discoveries. I suppose that there isn't much to understand. It is not too different from someone getting ripped off on a purchase and then defending themselves and what they purchased simply out of pride.
I hope this helps some of you to understand better what science is and why it doesn't have to be in direct conflict with your beliefs. Anything that you have "faith" in is inherently NOT science which means you are free to believe in it because science essentially cannot prove or disprove such unfalsifiable claims like God.
I wish you all a good day!
- Alex
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
