Take psychology for example, or sociology, both areas where science starts getting a bit "soft".
Because of this reputation, psych in particular has taken to making VERY sure their research experiments have REALLY good design and scientific method behind them.
I read a book several years ago (around the same time I read Guns Germs and Steel - but I can't remember the book I'm quoting... stupid brain) that indicated that surveys of high powered scientists indicate roughly a third of them consider themselves religious as well. Many scientists recognize the limitations of the scientific avenue of describing "what is" and find philosophy/religion useful in understanding the rest. Not all scientists consider religion to be stupid brainwashing (though I know my fair share who think that way).
As for religion flamethrowing science... I think that's an overgeneralization as much as claiming all scientists dismiss religion as bullshit. Unfortunately, as with most things, those who do such things are loudest and most reported, so the impression we are left with is that being devoutly religious can not coexist with being scientifically minded. One of the families in my beekeeping group is devoutly religious in the homeschooling, simple dress, long beard, covered female heads kind of way. But dad works for JPL, if I remember correctly, and the kids' activities range from beekeeping/knitting/art to scuba diving. During the convention their teenage sons engaged in one of the most thoughtful philosophical discussions I've heard in ages. In essence, I guess what I'm trying to say is we have to be careful that we don't assume what we hear loudest is what happens most often. Marginal positions often get a LOT of coverage, while those of us in the middle of the bell curve have enough social support to not feel the need to shout about it.
My relationship with science has become less trusting of late, largely in thanks to J's training with "instrument design" (instrument meaning survey, questionnaire, poll, experiment, etc.) and what I've gleaned from his knowledge of stats and data analysis. It's been ... disconcerting. The letters after one's name infrequently indicate a thorough understanding of how to interpret data objectively. I even found myself questioning data presented at last week's conference during the brief run through presentations because I've been trained so well in what kinds of details to look for, and which assumptions to question. On the flip side, my personal pursuit of Biblical scholarship (I'm still depending on those with letters after their names for that one - I can not begin to research on my own) leads me farther and farther from literal or absolute statements in my understanding. The more I know, the more quoting Biblical texts makes me cringe. But simultaneously it has strengthened my belief that reading and studying and analyzing them is incredibly valuable in learning things about how to interact in society, how to treat fellow humans.
I think both science and spiritual realms are useful for teaching us "what is" and how to navigate it. I am all about gathering as much data as I can and synthesizing it, finding where things agree and where the truth might be somewhere in the grey between observed data points.
Because of this reputation, psych in particular has taken to making VERY sure their research experiments have REALLY good design and scientific method behind them.
I read a book several years ago (around the same time I read Guns Germs and Steel - but I can't remember the book I'm quoting... stupid brain) that indicated that surveys of high powered scientists indicate roughly a third of them consider themselves religious as well. Many scientists recognize the limitations of the scientific avenue of describing "what is" and find philosophy/religion useful in understanding the rest. Not all scientists consider religion to be stupid brainwashing (though I know my fair share who think that way).
As for religion flamethrowing science... I think that's an overgeneralization as much as claiming all scientists dismiss religion as bullshit. Unfortunately, as with most things, those who do such things are loudest and most reported, so the impression we are left with is that being devoutly religious can not coexist with being scientifically minded. One of the families in my beekeeping group is devoutly religious in the homeschooling, simple dress, long beard, covered female heads kind of way. But dad works for JPL, if I remember correctly, and the kids' activities range from beekeeping/knitting/art to scuba diving. During the convention their teenage sons engaged in one of the most thoughtful philosophical discussions I've heard in ages. In essence, I guess what I'm trying to say is we have to be careful that we don't assume what we hear loudest is what happens most often. Marginal positions often get a LOT of coverage, while those of us in the middle of the bell curve have enough social support to not feel the need to shout about it.
My relationship with science has become less trusting of late, largely in thanks to J's training with "instrument design" (instrument meaning survey, questionnaire, poll, experiment, etc.) and what I've gleaned from his knowledge of stats and data analysis. It's been ... disconcerting. The letters after one's name infrequently indicate a thorough understanding of how to interpret data objectively. I even found myself questioning data presented at last week's conference during the brief run through presentations because I've been trained so well in what kinds of details to look for, and which assumptions to question. On the flip side, my personal pursuit of Biblical scholarship (I'm still depending on those with letters after their names for that one - I can not begin to research on my own) leads me farther and farther from literal or absolute statements in my understanding. The more I know, the more quoting Biblical texts makes me cringe. But simultaneously it has strengthened my belief that reading and studying and analyzing them is incredibly valuable in learning things about how to interact in society, how to treat fellow humans.
I think both science and spiritual realms are useful for teaching us "what is" and how to navigate it. I am all about gathering as much data as I can and synthesizing it, finding where things agree and where the truth might be somewhere in the grey between observed data points.
Reply
Leave a comment