If you wish to contact me, but don’t feel like writing a comment on my blog (or perhaps what you want to say is not directly relevant to a post of mine), feel free to email me on:
petersapology [at] googlemail [dot] com
-
Recent Posts
-
Recent Comments
Paul Sagar on Dizzy doesn’t Think Paul Sagar on Dizzy doesn’t Think Valerie on Public Service Announceme… Grace on Public Service Announceme… Peter on Public Service Announceme… Archives
a
Pages
January 2010 M T W T F S S « Dec 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Meta
I would like to comment on your remarks about Kroto, but first would like to know who you are? (at least, I couldn’t find out on this blog). I don’t like to talk to people hidden behind a screen.
Sure, drop me an email at the above address so that I can get back to you, and I’ll do so as soon as I can.
My real name shan’t be appearing on this blog. A pseudonym is fine, provided you stick to it.
[...] Post-Script: Best of luck by the way Peter, it seems like it’s all about to kick off in the most tiresome tradition over there. [...]
Well, I’m perplexed why you would not reveal your identity on your blog… I think I won’t bother. One thing I know is that, by critisizing Kroto you are not familiar with the nature of scientific inquiry. Good bye.
Suit yourself.
As for your latter comment, I’m not sure how criticising someone means that I’m not familiar with the nature of scientific enquiry. I mean … Oxford University have disputed Kroto’s comments (see the article I linked to). Are they not familiar with the nature of scientific enquiry either?
Can you give me a link where “Oxford University” disputes Kroto’s opinions? I’m shure many scientists at Oxford agree with Kroto. For example, funding a study on the effects of intercessory prayer is as “unscientific” as funding research in the effect of the positions of the planets at the birth of a person on his or her character. To spell it out, in science, before you do an experiment, you have to have a theory that will be validated or refuted by this experiment. This theory implies a causal link, or a hypothesis of it, between two events: for example, administring homeopathic medicaments can improve the recovery of a patient because of a “placebo” effect. The placebo effect is a well understood psychological phenomenon that links the effect of a socalled placebo (the patient believes that he or she is given a medical drug) on his or her recovery. In the intercessory prayer experiment there is no such link, or theory for such link. So what next, are we going to research the connection between such disparate events like someone sticking needles in somebodies effigy and the welfare of that person? Is this something “Oxford University” would support as being scientific?
“In a statement, the University said, ‘The research is rigorous and will ultimately be published in peer-reviewed journals, and donors and funders have no influence over how research is conducted and cannot influence the final result.’”
From here:
http://cherwell.larrytech.com/index.php?news=2538
EDIT: I shall address your other points in the comment track for the Harold Kroto post, since I don’t want to clutter up the ‘Contact Me’ page. That’ll be later though, as I’m off to bed. Thankyou for your comments.
Who at the University said? The only real quote in this article about this subject is from someone of the theology department, and they are not more related to science (or knowledgeable about science) than Pipo the Clown.
There are two kinds of knowledge: the scientific one, based on observation, deduction and rationality–the sciences– and knowledge based on revelation–that of religion–the Bible, Koran, etc. These two modes of knowledge don’t intersect. Knowlege based on revelation is not science, it is myth, and theologians should stop claiming that they are scientific, no more than astrologers. By the way, theology has been banned from universities in France since 1905. And an attempt to start a chair in astrology at the Sorbonne by an astrologer has been foiled a few years back.
I would like to add an interesting link, pertaining to this discussion:
https://listserv.umd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0711&L=BOBPARKS-WHATSNEW&P=R264&I=-3
No, it would appear that there is more than just one real quote in the piece: there are several. If something is attributed to the ‘University’, then it was a spokesperson for the University as a whole, I’d imagine. Certainly not anyone from the theology faculty, and nowhere in the article is there such an implication. Though I’m sure you couldn’t resist getting the jibe in there about Pipo the Clown. Very funny.
You seem to use the words theology and astrology interchangeably or to at least equate the two areas Mr. Hellemans and I for one find that deeply disrespectful of your fellow academics. Mainstream Catholic and Protestant theologians generally do not hold court on scientific matters, they know better than to do so. Their work in the multidisciplinary analysis of texts might be described as in part scientific – it certainly can encompass it – but as far as I know you will not be able to find a mainstream theologian who has made scientific pronouncements (or has even claimed to.) By mainstream, of course, I mean someone hailing from Rome, Regensburg, Maynooth or perhaps even Paris as opposed to Paris, TX.
As for theology being ‘banned’ in French universities since 1905, that’s only an effective ban in state (not private) universities, which cannot use government funds for any religious activity. Even then Alsace-Lorraine has schools of Theology at Marc-Bloch university (which was under German control at the time of law’s passing by Briand.) The study of theology in and of itself is not banned, the Republic merely refuses to fund it in order to maintain a totally religion-neutral stance: voicing neither approval nor disapproval. Much as I’m sure you would like to view it as the Republic having declared theology to be poppycock.
After all, in a country in which the majority of people are religious that would be a terrible misstep for the Republic to take, do you not feel?
Well, Mr Anonymous, besides the scientific study of religious documents, does Christian theology not advance theories about the relationship between humans and a personal god and creator? And are these theories not to be viewed as scientific?
Alexander Hellemans,
“For example, funding a study on the effects of intercessory prayer is as “unscientific” as funding research in the effect of the positions of the planets at the birth of a person on his or her character. To spell it out, in science, before you do an experiment, you have to have a theory that will be validated or refuted by this experiment. This theory implies a causal link, or a hypothesis of it, between two events: for example, administring homeopathic medicaments can improve the recovery of a patient because of a “placebo” effect. The placebo effect is a well understood psychological phenomenon that links the effect of a socalled placebo (the patient believes that he or she is given a medical drug) on his or her recovery. In the intercessory prayer experiment there is no such link, or theory for such link. So what next, are we going to research the connection between such disparate events like someone sticking needles in somebodies effigy and the welfare of that person? Is this something “Oxford University” would support as being scientific?”
- But nothing you’ve said there rules out scientific experiments regarding the effects of intercessory prayer, does it? I mean … it would be fairly obvious what the null hypothesis would be in that sort of case (ie. that prayer has no effect). If it turns out that prayer does nothing, the null hypothesis will not be falsified. If it turns out that prayer does have results, it doesn’t follow from that that God exists (and I don’t think any thinking religious person would claim otherwise).
The same can be said regarding the positions of the planet’s or whatever. Sure, I doubt the null hypothesis would be falsified in either case (or in the case of prayer, I imagine any deviation from the null hypothesis could be explained in terms of other variables eg. placebo effects that can be controlled for). Nevertheless, that doesn’t make it unscientific, does it? Whether or not the practise of intercessory prayer makes people return to good health quicker is something I think is worth knowing, even if you don’t. If someone is willing to pay for that sort of research, so be it.
“Who at the University said? The only real quote in this article about this subject is from someone of the theology department, and they are not more related to science (or knowledgeable about science) than Pipo the Clown.”
- I’ve no idea who at the University issued the statement. But universities are collective entities, and as such it makes perfect sense for ‘the University’ to say something, in the same way it makes perfect sense for the ‘the Government’ to say something. If you don’t think that the University has actually issued such a statement, you’re welcome to take it up with Cherwell’s editors.
“There are two kinds of knowledge: the scientific one, based on observation, deduction and rationality–the sciences– and knowledge based on revelation–that of religion–the Bible, Koran, etc. These two modes of knowledge don’t intersect. Knowlege based on revelation is not science, it is myth, and theologians should stop claiming that they are scientific, no more than astrologers. By the way, theology has been banned from universities in France since 1905. And an attempt to start a chair in astrology at the Sorbonne by an astrologer has been foiled a few years back.”
- This is question-begging. I don’t think that knowledge can be exhaustively split into scientific knowledge and religious ‘knowledge’ (scare quotes because you obviously don’t think that there can be religious knowledge). What’s more, such a claim is philosophically loaded – it rules out moral realism for example, and I don’t think that such a claim should be accepted lightly. It certainly shouldn’t be accepted under the authority of science. It needs separate argument. Argument which you’ve conspicuously failed to provide.
Though, I did say in my post that I was taking the compatibility of science and religion as a premise. Sure, you don’t agree with my premise. Good for you. But my post wasn’t meant as a defence of the compatibility of science and religion, so I’m not sure I’ll offer any further justification on it. If you don’t buy my premise, you won’t agree with the analysis that follows from it it. That’s fine. But I’ve no interest in defending the premise here.
Again, thankyou for taking the time out to comment, and kind regards.
Peter said:
<>
No, I said you need a theory for the causal link between the two events. What is the causal link between the act of prayer and possible recovery rate among patients (don’t forget, the people praying can be thousands of miles away from the patients, and half the patients didn’t know people were praying for them, so no placebo effect). There is no such physical link, or theory for that, unless you accept some deity who listens to the praying people and then acts on the recovering patients. Well, such an assumption is even farther fetched than the assumption of the influence on us by the positions of the planets. John Gribbin once predicted the Jupiter effect: around 1980 all the planets were lined up at one side of the sun, and this would cause extra earthquakes. Here the is a causal link, the joint gravity would deform the Earth much more than usual (a tidal effect) which might have triggered earthquakes.
The search for the Higgs particle with the LHC in the future and now with the Tevatron near Chicago can be viewed as null hypothesis experiments–but there are precise theories why this particle (which gives other particles mass) since the British physicists Peter Higgs first came up with a theory 50 years ago.
Do you know the book by Lynne McTaggart: “The Intention Experiment”? She is making a lot of money with it!
You mention “moral realism.” I find this concept interesting and will come back to that in a following message.
Alex
My previous message was in response to a quote from Peter’s message, which dissappeared. Here it is:
But nothing you’ve said there rules out scientific experiments regarding the effects of intercessory prayer, does it? I mean … it would be fairly obvious what the null hypothesis would be in that sort of case (ie. that prayer has no effect). If it turns out that prayer does nothing, the null hypothesis will not be falsified.
Peter said:
Begin quote:
- This is question-begging. I don’t think that knowledge can be exhaustively split into scientific knowledge and religious ‘knowledge’ (scare quotes because you obviously don’t think that there can be religious knowledge). What’s more, such a claim is philosophically loaded – it rules out moral realism for example, and I don’t think that such a claim should be accepted lightly. It certainly shouldn’t be accepted under the authority of science. It needs separate argument. Argument which you’ve conspicuously failed to provide.
End quote
So you think that “moral realism” is religious knowledge? In what way?
It definitely is not based on science, if we look at nature, nature is highly immoral, even we eat animals that have a consciousness. Morality is not based on some facts that exist somewhere, morality is a corpus of ideas that we as human beings acquired during evolution. And our ideas of morality depend very much on our culture (which can be religion based), historical age (slavery was viewed as moral) and varies still very much. For example, I as a non-religious person find capital punishment unacceptable(I think we have no right to “play God “) while Opus Dei is not opposed to it (I asked them, and I was shocked by their answer).
Best, Alex
Just for reference, I’m in the process of transferring the comments here to the Harold Kroto thread. Once they are transferred and safe, I’ll delete the ones that are here (I forgot to disable comments on the ‘contact me’ page. You’ll see how comments are not possible on the other pages).