"J'accuse!" I accuse the sloppy media who have written on "science and religion" topics for generations with grossly imprecise and inaccurate statements amounting to crimes. As a practicing scientists for 60 years known worldwide for my science, I produce data, hard facts (not my opinions) to make my contributions to science, industry, and posterity. In the mass-press treatment of "science-religion" topics, I am insulted by the absurd confrontations engineered by black-and-white print and video media, and the ridiculous, self-anointed representations of the position of "science" we are exposed to, from the most esoteric brand of science.
Who can be said to speak for "science"? First emblazon on your mind that science must have experimentally verifiable facts as its data.
Surely not the likes of Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, and Sam Harris? Not one of whom qualifies as any kind of (hard) scientist. Stephen Weinberg or Stephen Hawkins, whom I respect enormously as brilliant experts in their fields, are distinguished enough in "science," but astronomy and cosmology are not classical science. (Search Google for the list of criteria by the Nobel laureate in Physics, P. Anderson.)
A worthy media person should surely demand some standards of achievements, some survey, statistics, polls, how many, and in what kind of "science," a quoted expert who has credentials, etc. Never, never, never have I seen such in science/religion articles. J'accuse the media of hiding their personal beliefs under such sloppy work, for selecting scientists in esoteric fields with a known bias and with zero knowledge of contemporary religion, for a strawman debate on "science" and "religion."
Instead, I propose a NCIS approach as better science. Get the facts first. Who represents science? There are over 5.5 million engineers and scientists in the United States. Who does the real science that the world recognizes as "scientists"? For example, I believe most citizens would accept designers and engineers from Intel, Kodak, or Caterpillar as "scientists." There are approximately 20,000 physicists and 100,000 chemists in the U.S. who qualify by title largely in Universities and sound research labs. Among these there are probably 3000-5000 theoretical physicists, astronomers, and particle physicists, etc. in the country. However good their "science," can it fix a light bulb?
Ben Stein, in his detailed, scientific critique of the current biased debate, unearthed amazing facts about some scientists' fanatic commitments. Although the movie was poorly named Expelled, it includes essential information to highlight facts on science and scientists. For example, approximately 20 years before the Nazis, the "Darwinists" largely funded in the U.S. used gas-chambers and furnaces to kill off handicapped citizens. It's true! All of this is documented in living color!
In Stein's movie, the tour guide explains that those who were so dispatched were referred to as "useless eaters" -- not carrying their weight is the world. Is there a parallel here among "non-performing" scientists who do not produce anything of value to society? "Useless scientists"?
To represent science, let's use the real, useful hard science from the last 200 years that the public at large accepts as good and valuable. Experiments on stuff you can touch and feel, "results you can measure and repeat a dozen times." Where the experiments of friends and competitors confirm or deny your work. Mainly -- yes, mainly -- on something of value to society. That's what I have been trying to do for 60 years. (Visit Google for the records.) American citizens think the media are referring to such scientists and their fields when they see absurd headlines about "scientists" and caregivers denying (yes, "deniers") the possibility of spiritual healing, previous lives, or eternal life. Which scientists? Who is checking the facts? What percentage are useless eaters vs. real hard scientists?
How come the "deniers" are never confronted by facts and investigated by a reporter who has carefully gathered information from senior scientific authorities (for example, Prof. Larry Dossey's data on the huge percentage of doctors who pray with or for patients, and on their "belief" in miracles)? Why is the hard data for pure scientific and spiritual healing by the shamans of Hawaii by Jeanne Achterberg never mentioned? All are recorded on MRI scans. Or the three decades of research and data collected by Professors Ian Stephenson and Jim Turner at the University of Virginia on reincarnation here and now, worldwide? Remember, in science, one white crow destroys your theory of "all crows are black."
Real science and real religion (not theology) have done well together in describing overlapping views of reality. That is the biggest opportunity for 21st-century science.
"Verbum sapientiae satis."
Therefore, j'accuse the U.S. media of irresponsible, unbelievably biased reporting. More to come, folks, on this forum and elsewhere.
An invited contribution to the Ervin Laszlo Forum on Science and Spirituality.
Relationship between religion and science - Wikipedia, the free ...
Religion and Science (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
with this assertion dr. roy puts the cart before the horse in exposing his misunderstanding of the scientific method, and the concept and purpose of a scientific theory to launch a fatally flawed dismissal of theoretical physics, cosmology, and arms of theoretical sciences by alluding that they are more akin to mysticism than a hard science like engineering.
"but astronomy and cosmology are not classical science."
"Among these there are probably 3000-5000 theoretical physicists, astronomers, and particle physicists, etc. in the country. However good their "science," can it fix a light bulb?"
and the silliest assertion:
"To represent science, let's use the real, useful hard science from the last 200 years that the public at large accepts as good and valuable. Experiments on stuff you can touch and feel, "results you can measure and repeat a dozen times.""
since when was science's scientific method review process handed over to the public like a usa today poll?
attempting to deny theoretical scientists are scientists by arguing that their theories haven't been tested is simply ludicrous as scientific theories are expressly presented to be tested by the scientific method by design. furthermore, it is the very fruits of such theories, when proven, that engineers use in their endeavors.
dr. roy does not understand the process by which science discovers, investigates, and ultimately resolves and delivers for use, the secrets of the universe.
July 4, 1776 comes to mind, but another good date is 2007 -- Climategate.
"Still, 'confidence' is not the same as scientific law, something the public obviously recognizes. According to a December survey, only 25 percent of Americans believed there was agreement within the scientific community on climate change. And unless things fundamentally change, it could remain that way, said Taylor. " (http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climategate-data/)
The point is, scientists can think whatever they like, most of the time it is a private social club and hardly anyone cares what they are doing. I have a friend, a hard rock geologist who regales me with tales of university politics. It's a wonder that any science gets done. Anyway, when feeding time comes, they must then produce their work for public inspection.
That said, you are on the right track, but let's keep the debate scientific. It's not science versus religion. It's science versus non-science and religion versus non-religion first, then addressing any consequent conflict between the two. The religion I pursue transcends the science I know and is altered as new scientific evidence is understood.
Consider two references. The Oxford Dictionary of Science which has no definition of science and the Oxford Dictionary of World Religions which offers a ten page description as to what religion can be considered to be. For me, this suggests that the definition of science is intuitively obvious and that of religion transcends description.
I look forward to future insights.
That's not the most foolish thing I read in your text but close too it.
J'accuse! my butt.
Ben Stein? BEN STEIN?? The creationist... the "intelligent design" advocate? What a waste of time!
Dr. Roy, you are preeminent in the science of crankiness, you have graced this site with the grumpiest bit of something it has ever seen. If you're the best advocate for indulging in the "study" of spiritual healing, previous lives, or eternal life, then it's all in a sorry state...
What? In order to attain expertise in either of these sciences the principles of physics must be mastered. Astronomers observe, hypothesize, verify, and develop metatheses, what more is there to classical science?
Dr. Roy is picking at small problems and insisting that the entire cloth be thrown out. I find his arguments less than convincing seeing as he is obviously bringing his own prejudices to bear (a fault he excoriates in others). His use of Ben Stein's vacuous and fallacious movie doesn't help his position either.
I'm not completely sure about this. The article certainly is bewildering at first. But I've given it some careful thought, and I think that that is its basic thrust.
Step 1 : Produce a remedy that you know will not kill the patient.
Step 2 : Tell the patient the remedy will make them feel better.
Step 3 : ???
Step 4 : Profit!
Roy also makes the valid suggestion that many bona fide scientists pray and acknowledge a spiritual component to life. To prejudge this reality as bogus, or to dismiss it as "placebo," exposes an ignorance of the facts, in the referred to and scientifically conducted studies; it also exhibits the kind of arrogance that typically accompanies a closed mind down the rabbit hole of religion.
I am not arguing for religion or any of its faux scientific causes (e.g., Intelligent Design), but for an open mind, even in the face of earned skepticism. For there are phenomena in this world that many readers here are profoundly skeptical of, yet regardless of your certainty, they do happen. To simply dismiss them out of hand is itself an unscientific and unhelpful attitude.
What scientifically conducted studies show any spiritual phenomena that do happen? To simply say that they do and dismiss skeptical questioning is another route to that rabbit hole you mentioned.
One last - Are you talking about the Templeton funded study ($2.4 million) to prove the relevance of prayer?
I do not consider this to be a problem. Much more serious in my opinion is agendas that are not transparent, such as the huge financial shenanigans behind cap-n-trade which hijacked meaningful movements toward a sustainable energy future.
"whether they themselves are believers in a deity or not"
This is a biggie. I have serious doubts about the integrity of some of the television preachers that sure do seem to be in it for the money.
"there are probably 3000-5000 theoretical physicists, astronomers, and particle physicists, etc. in the country. However good their "science," can it fix a light bulb?"
I think this implies that you think only science that can verify facts is useful and I understand that you are a believing person so Dr. Roy please enlighten us and show us the 'hard science' you have uncovered in your religion.
and If I may add.. theoretical physicist sometimes come up with ideas like "relativity" or "quantum theory" or ask questions like "does the Higgs boson actually exist ?"...
Really.. how can we call those people serious scientists ?
/sarcasm off
I don't know of any skeptic claiming that prayer/faith healing doesn't have some benefit. But if you want to claim it does more than the placebo, you better have better data than some vague claims there is some benefit for such. No one is denying there is some benefit.
Largest Study of Third-Party Prayer Suggests Such Prayer Not Effective In Reducing Complications Following Heart Surgery
STEP investigators enrolled 1,802 bypass surgery patients from six hospitals and randomly assigned each to one of three groups: 604 patients received intercessory prayer after being informed they may or may not receive prayers (Group 1); 597 patients did not receive prayer after being informed they may or may not receive prayer (Group 2); and 601 patients received intercessory prayer after being informed they would receive it (Group 3).
The STEP team, composed of investigators at six academic medical centers, including Baptist Memorial Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee; Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, Massachusetts; Integris Baptist Medical Center in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma; Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota; St. Joseph's Hospital in Tampa, Florida; Washington Hospital Center in Washington, D.C; and the Mind/Body Medical Institute, found that intercessory prayer had no effect on recovery from surgery without complications. The study also found that patients who knew they were receiving intercessory prayer fared worse. The paper appears in the April issue of American Heart Journal.
http://web.med.harvard.edu/sites/RELEASES/html/3_31STEP.html
What is their bias, do they have one, and if so did they construe the study to suit their bias, effectively producing an outcome that supports their bias?
I believe that a case can be made for bias in this study that you have cited.
Equally, as has been pointed out by other scientific researchers, the studies conclusion is corrupted by the fact that one group was told, definitively, that they would be receiving prayer, which can raise not just the anxiety levels of those patients, but raise doubt in their minds as to the severity of their illness. In turn the preoperative psychological truma has a snow ball effect on the outcome of their surgery.
They fared worse because they thought they were worse, in fact so worse that they needed prayer.
A close and honest assessment of the study, imo, shows not just bias of the author of the study, Benson, if I remember correctly, (who has a pre bias against Judeo/Christian, prefer) but was irresponsible, reckless disregard for the safety and well being of human beings
March 31, 2006
Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer
By BENEDICT CAREY
Prayers offered by strangers had no effect on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery, a large and long-awaited study has found.
And patients who knew they were being prayed for had a higher rate of post-operative complications like abnormal heart rhythms, perhaps because of the expectations the prayers created, the researchers suggested.
To continue reading, go to:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print