Russia’s science and higher education ministry has dismissed the head of a prestigious genetics institute who sparked controversy by contending that humans once lived for centuries and that the shorter lives of modern humans are due to their ancestors’ sins, state news agency RIA-Novosti said Thursday.
Although the report did not give a reason for the firing of Alexander Kudryavtsev, the influential Russian Orthodox Church called it religious discrimination.
Kudryavtsev, who headed the Russian Academy of Science’s Vavilov Institute of General Genetics, made a presentation at a conference in 2023 in which he said people had lived for some 900 years prior to the era of the Biblical Flood and that “original, ancestral and personal sins” caused genetic diseases that shortened lifespans.
Not throwing a pike here, but you are short sighted.
To think it needs to be compartmentalized or that religion and science are mutually exclusive is a false dilemma as said above.
Science can simply be the way that God/s would choose to interact with our world.
They’re not necessarily incompatible, technically, but I am very suspicious of anyone who claims to be a scientist yet are willing to believe such extraordinary claims despite a complete lack of evidence.
If they would never use such a low bar for evidence in literally anything else in their lives (such as, presumably, their academic and scientific career, which I hope didn’t involve “faith” at all), and yet are willing to completely suspend that need for evidence for their belief in the supernatural, then I don’t trust them.
This is the real issue. Sure, science and religion COULD exist at the same time, but science is all about not making assumptions where you can instead build data, and heavily distrusting anything you can’t build data for. Religion is specifically designed to never be tested. It can never be meaningfully supported or negated through observable mediums, which makes it the antithesis to science regardless of their potential coexistence.
According to the philosopher of science, Thomas Kuhn, making assumptions and dismissing contradictory data is a regrettable but very common part of the scientific process that eventually results in a shift in the paradigm of thinking. Every scientific theory that we know today has gone through these phases and will likely continue to change in the future.
Humans are fallible, yes, and we do have biases that inevitably worm their way into our data and corrupt it. It’s one of the greatest reasons why we’ll never have real truth - only an approximation of it. However, that is not a reason to accept biases as an integral part of the scientific process. They are something we need to incessantly strive to minimize, specifically to keep the cycle you showed to a minimum; it’s a cycle of the failures of science, not the inherent process of it.
I wish I shared your optimism, my friend. Biases are increasing in the post-truth era, even in academia. That is a measurable fact.
All the more reason to never treat them as inevitable. It’s not a bad thing to both accept that we’ll never fully overcome them, but to try our hardest anyway - that’s what keeps them to a minimum. If we were to stop trying to avoid them, the scientific process would degrade even more.
Avoid what? Biases?
I agree with Thomas Kuhn that the bias is intrinsic. I think that his description of paradigm shift is a positive one, borne out of an era of conflicting data and intense argumentation.
Thesis and antithesis give rise to the a synthesis which becomes the next thesis, so on and so forth until our self inflicted nuclear apocalypse.
Avoid biases, yes. We can say “current data supports X,” and make whatever real-world decisions we need to make, while still accepting that future data may very well completely disprove that notion. It’s bad science to say “current data supports X, so Y is wrong,” but it’s also bad science to say “Yeah, I know current data supports X, but my gut says Y is true even without data, and that’s enough for me.”
That’s what I see more and more often in society recently; people are seeing that biases are something that can’t truly be avoided, so they’re accepting them instead, allowing themselves to completely abandon data in place of biases. When you catch yourself believing something is true even when data doesn’t currently support it, forgive yourself, as you’re human, but don’t allow yourself to continue believing that thing.
So, because you don’t understand how can someone accepts that something they don’t have proof for, can exist, because they don’t have proof against after all, you’re ready to start doubting their professionalism or their capacity ?
That seem even more unscientific than what you tried to condemn through a fallacy.
I do when they are making unsubstantiated claims about “truth” in their field of study. If a geneticist claims that people lived longer because of peer review evidence shows their genetic makeup up allows for it would be one thing. But to make that claim when he should know better means he can’t be trusted and is already abusing his position
Soooooo, you’re saying every religious scientists make those kind of claims ? Because what you answered to wasn’t about that anymore.
It’s not that they accept that it can exist, it’s that they accept that it does exist. We have no reason to believe anything exists after death, or that any particular being created us, and to go even further, we have no reason to believe that one religion’s specific version of heaven exists after death, or one specific religion’s specific vision of god created us. Maybe something exists after death, but it’s just a huge everlasting game of dodge ball. Unlikely, but just as unlikely as heaven existing. Maybe a creature created us, but it’s a huge centipede. Again, unlikely, but just as unlikely as a human-shaped god creating us in his image.
There are virtually no universally-held consistencies even among all of the the relatively few currently-practiced religions, because none of them are based on anything but human imagination even if God does exist, since we’ve likely never had a real interaction with God even in that instance. Religion can exist, but not only is it highly unlikely, even in the event that it’s true, the likelihood that we randomly guessed the exact correct circumstances in which it does exist are nearly impossible.
The scientific approach to religion is to make no opinion on its existence, because to make a hypothesis about something that cannot be tested isn’t just worthless, it’s biased, which is even worse to a scientist.
If you were scientific, you’d know you’re taking a shortcut, ironically not being scientific.
The likeliness of it doesn’t matter, it can’t be proved either way, for now. There are a lot of consistencies between religions.
Because you can’t conceive faith existing with logic doesn’t mean it’s impossible, and that it discredites people you don’t know as a result, is a logic flaw.
Bud, I literally just wrote out multiple paragraphs about how it isn’t impossible. If the only thing you can think of to argue my point is to imagine I said something else, that should tell you something. Religion could be real, it could be fake. The only correct conclusion to draw is that we don’t know. Have no faith in the existence of a god, have no faith in the lack of a god - have only faith in what you can measure. That’s science.
Which you ended by"The scientific approach to religion is to make no opinion on its existence,", which is one of the fallacy in your reasoning, you’re reducing it to opinion, implying it can’t be treated scientifically.
Inferring from that, at best you could say that it should be left alone until scientists could even apply the scientific approach. As in, we don’t know, as you said. And that doesn’t preclude faith, which isn’t mutually exclusive with being scientific.
To be clear, what I read a lot in this thread, is being scientific should automatically infer you can’t be religious, because you can’t prove it’s real. But it omits that you can’t prove it isn’t.
Granted, the mistake might from where it started, IE this post where the scientist was being very unscientific.
The only way the scientific approach could be used to measure the existence of a deity would be to measure the deity itself, at which point the measurement would only be a formality - its existence would already be verified. That’s why it’s the opposite of science. You can learn of a black hole before ever observing one by simply understanding the basic fundamentals of physics, but a deity would exist even outside of that. No amount of measuring nature would be able to prove or disprove something that exists outside of that. You still haven’t made a single argument against that cornerstone of my argument. You can call it a fallacy all you want, but ultimately that’s just a word you’re using in place of actually arguing against my point. Faith is the belief that something is true without needing data. Science is the act of gathering data to form a belief. They are opposites.
Wrong, there are so many phenomenons that we couldn’t measure, and could barely infer, and yet they ended up existing, sometimes surprising people a great deal in the process.
Sometimes we even have been wrong about things we could measure.
So yes, still a fallacy.
I understand that the logic mind doesn’t like “It might or might not, for now we can’t say”, when it’s about absolute, but that’s how it is, while you really want to claim that it can’t be, no matter what. Because you can’t conceive god existing inside the laws of physics doesn’t mean it’s true.
For the end of your answer, I already explained that faith and logic are compatible, because you just say they are opposite doesn’t make it so. And speaking of observable proof : the many religious scientists we have in this day and age, with much more of them being competent and well composed in their thoughts about religion than the one in the OP (or the many people in this post).
If you don’t mind me asking: why should you have faith in what you can measure? Is there an experiment to prove that empiricism is the best means of knowledge? Such an experiment would also be circular reasoning.
Obviously we’re plaqued on all sides by a deficiency of our organic senses, yet we seek to understand beyond the range of our senses. Philosophers have wrestled with this conundrum for a while.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
Measurement is the closest we’re able to get to the truth. It’s something that anyone can independently observe and achieve exactly the same result. It’s not really the truth - we’re never really able to achieve that - but it’s at least something we know exists beyond ourselves and our fallible tendency to simply take what someone else says is true as the truth.
Yeah, it’s something. I’ve got nothing against empiricism. Obviously I love the sciences, particularly the applied sciences.
But I find it amusing that the most self-evidently desirable things in life tend to resist measurement and empirical observation. I think that we need not be so avowed to that means as the all in all.
I understand it just fine, it’s called cognitive dissonance. And you’re correct, I doubt their ability to do their job as a scientist.
Very scientific answer, nice.
I’m sure you think you dunked on me or something, but… Ehhhh
Stop proving that you aren’t here to discuss, but to “win” debates and start ignoring me, thank you
Yes. And it’s just as likely that super-god created God to do exactly that.
But that’s not the point. The scientific mind requires evidence and repeatability. To believe in God without evidence or repeatability means they’ve compartmentalized that part of their thinking.
You’re claiming a fact out of one of your assumption.
That thread is delightful in irony today, lots of self proclaimed unbiased and scientific, acting very biased and unscientific.
He who smelt it, dealt it
Can you prove that the scientific mind requires evidence and repeatability? That sounds like circular reasoning.
I have a hypothesis, I collect evidence, record the results and see if it supports the hypotheses.
The experiment is repetable.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Yes, of course. And we all love the results of this methodology.
It’s just that using the scientific method to prove the validity of the scientific method is circular reasoning. At some point, we have to think philosophically about the means of knowledge.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
We can think practically about knowledge too.
I put my hand on a hot stove, it burns, I remove my hand and the burning stops. Isn’t that knowledge?
Yes, of course, but it’s not the extent of knowledge.
Nor is it universal knowledge. What burns your hand isn’t going to burn other materials, or even other organisms.
There’s always a limit to what can be perceived with the organic senses. That’s the axiomatic flaw of empiricism.
What do you think? What is knowledge?
Are you suggesting there may be forces or powers we can’t yet measure?
Because that’s pretty much what science has been about for all of human evolution. We’ve observed events, and then tried to work out why they happen, and yet in all that time we’ve been unable to prove, or disprove god.
There are many forces and powers that cannot be measured. They’re often the most self-evidently desirable things in the world. Love, hate, determination, artistry, joy, generosity, compassion, character, wisdom, justice and beauty, etc. Hence the cute quote from sociologist William Bruce Cameron that “not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted”. Most psychological and sociological phenomena are immeasurable by the strict meaning of the word.
As for physics, we can’t measure the future, for example, though there are interesting equations which could possibly account for an near infinite variety of outcomes in a given system. And there are many theories that we can only measure under ideal, localized conditions. We can only hope that they are ubiquitous throughout the universe.
Then there are problems like the Duhem–Quine underdetermination thesis. This thesis says that the agreement of the empirical consequences of a theory with the available observations is not a sufficient reason for accepting the theory. In other words, logic and experience leave room for conceptually incompatible but empirically equivalent explanatory alternatives. This is especially endemic in biology.
And if you want to be more philosophical, it has been argued by guys like Hume and Locke that there is always a “veil of perception” between us and external objects: we do not have directly measurable access to the world, but instead have an access that is mediated by sensory appearances, the character of which might well depend on all kinds of factors (e.g., condition of sense organs, direct brain stimulation, etc.) besides those features of the external world that our perceptual judgments aim to capture. According to many philosophers, nothing is ever directly present to the mind in perception except perceptual appearances.
My point in all of this is that empiricism is axiomatically limited in it’s scope and potential. All of our chest-thumping and shouting, “Science! Science! Science!” is a bit naive when it ignores core issues of epistemology.
My personal belief is that knowledge is, in it’s first phase, abstract. Only then can it be quantifiable or measurable within a particular system.
The recent trend towards scientism shys away from abstraction, perhaps because they perceive it as a sort of dog-whistle for God.