Science for the Non-Scientist

[Smellyoldgit]

In arguing with theists – we regularly come across the faith v reason debate. (Irrational Belief v Reasoned Evaluation). Often the discussion moves into the realms of some fairly detailed science – where comprehension and explanation falls over for the layman.

Even our great Choobus in his latest blog post says:-

“I look forward to someone else figuring it all out and then explaining it to me in a way I can understand”

Now I understand fully that irrational faith doesn’t need detailed scientific argument to make it look stupid – but seeds of victory for the theist can often be sown when the atheist is unable to expand with more clarity some of the key points of a scientific argument.

We are left in the paradoxical situation of having to have faith (trust?) in the scientist being right.

Perhaps this has been explored on this forum elsewhere – but I for one would feel much more comfortable if scientists were able to explain some of the major aspects of their field in a more “layman friendly” manner.

[a different tim]

I think that your main point, about theist claiming victory if an atheist "runs out of science" is valid. However I'm not sure if it's down to the scientists. There are thousands of popular science books which explain the main points of any given field extremely clearly, and the best of these do so in a way which allows the layman to follow and reconstruct the logic of the argument. If this isn't the case in String theory then it's because the scientists don't really understand it either as it isn't worked out yet! I think that's what Choobus was looking forward to. There are also accessible magazines like New Scientist and Scientific American. If you want to search for the actual experimental results and theoretical papers, they are often findable via Google Scholar. I'll personally stay away from QM on the forums except in the most general terms because I don't have the maths, but papers on paleontology, for example, are pretty comprehensible if you bother to read them through.

I think that if someone is going to argue the case, atheist or theist, they have an intellectual duty to inform themselves. This is not especially hard to do at a basic level. Of course I think theists are the main offenders on this but I have seen some atheists, even on this site, make some basic errors when arguing evolution, for example. I think this is deplorable. I don't hold with the view that the ignorant and lazy have the same "democratic" right to a voice on scientific issues as those who have actually bothered to find something out about a subject by hard study. So I'll comment on neuro stuff because I've read a lot about it recently and think I understand a little of it, but Scathach's opinion is worth a lot more than mine becuas she is an actual neuroscientist, and I accept that I could get slapped down at any moment if I say something crass. On the other hand I'm quite happy to comment on epistemology and philosophy because Ive studied them at degree level.

OK, beyond the basics sometimes the science is hard to understand, but that is because understanding the universe is not easy. If I, as a layman, want to comment on something, it is perfectly correct for Choobus to ask me if I do anal unless I put some work into studying the basics. There isn't an "easy way" to somehow become knowledgable without going to the effort of acquiring knowedge.

PS Sorry if this seems harsh. It isn't meant to be a dig at you, but you happen to have hit on one of my pet annoyances.

"We are left in the paradoxical situation of having to have faith (trust?) in the scientist being right."

But that's not accurate. All we need to trust is if the scientist is honestly using the scientific method, I.E. If he's actually a scientist. Any schmuck can CLAIM to be a scientist, and use some media outlet to blather on about whatever bullshit they feel like.

Meaning, you don't need to know everything about evolutionary biology to trust what Richard Dawkins (For example) says, because he's an honest scientist. It's the METHOD an honest scientist uses that makes them trustworthy.

If you have a guy you question, or if someone tells you some guy's science is iffy... a little research will expose him. For example: Kent Hovind... Anyone who understands the scientific method knows why he's no scientist and cannot be trusted on ANYTHING scientific.... or anything related to tax law, either.

So... When some scmuck tells you you are taking science on 'faith' instruct their sorry ass on the scientific method.

A different tim,

A problem with that is that it's simply impossible to be highly knowledgable about more than one or two subjects. You HAVE to trust knowledgable experts.

You trust Scathach on things neurological because you believe she is an honest scientist who, through a process that exposes dishonesty, will remain an honest scientist because that best serves her position. The REASON you trust Scathach is what is important here, not the sum total of Scathach's super-knowledge on all things neuro.

Science is a process that even the most entry level layman can use. Only if people understand now it works at the simplest level can they begin to trust scientists that speak of things that are beyond their comprehension.

[Smellyoldgit]

You both have valid points.
There is no question that research will help the layman develop a basic understanding of any subject. How deep you go depends on your intellectual capacity and the time you can make available to learn.
There comes a point when you get in too deep – and have to admit defeat – nothing to be ashamed of.
My frustration with theists is that they have nothing positive to contribute. They are only able to look for the current gaps – home in on them and if you don’t have an immediate answer, the seeds of “victory” are sown.
In discussion, stressing the importance of following the scientific method is always a strong argument and one which baffles most theists - as many don’t understand even the most basic scientific terminology. But at some stage – one of those damn gaps emerges – and you’re into detail that can’t be dealt with.

[a different tim]

RenaissanceMan wrote

A different tim,

A problem with that is that it's simply impossible to be highly knowledgable about more than one or two subjects. You HAVE to trust knowledgable experts.

You trust Scathach on things neurological because you believe she is an honest scientist who, through a process that exposes dishonesty, will remain an honest scientist because that best serves her position. The REASON you trust Scathach is what is important here, not the sum total of Scathach's super-knowledge on all things neuro.

Science is a process that even the most entry level layman can use. Only if people understand now it works at the simplest level can they begin to trust scientists that speak of things that are beyond their comprehension.

I think you're right on the whole. The issue I have is those who don't even bother to try to understand it at an elementary level. If you can get the basics - and in most cases you can - you are in a position to know why you're trusting experts, and which experts to trust. Scientific method is a good case in point - it's a simple idea that can be applied to anything, but how many stupid arguments have we seem posted by people - usually theists, admittedly - who haven't bothered even to try to understand it? In a lot of cases taking the effort to understand the basics seems to be too much for people, and I think that sucks, because the information is usually out there in easy to understand form.

The point I'm making, I think, is that when we are in the position of trusting experts we should be very careful about posting arguments as if WE were the experts, and if we get caught out by a theist in those circumstances it's our own fault.

SMG - It's worth pointing out to them in the circs you mention that the God of the Gaps is held to be poor theology by every theologian I can think of. The counter argument, I think, is to paraphrase them as saying "we don't know how this happened, therefore God exists", put a wall smiley up, and ask if they do anal.

I think that a basic lack of public understanding of the scientific method plays a huge part in the skepticism towards science, and thereby in peoples general ignorance. People simply don't know how it works, or that such a thing even exists.

shade wrote

I think that a basic lack of public understanding of the scientific method plays a huge part in the skepticism towards science, and thereby in peoples general ignorance. People simply don't know how it works, or that such a thing even exists.

But don't use the word "skepticism" to describe that, since the acceptance of "whatever" leads to the logical opposite.....ignorance!