Latest testimony on MST proves DCP wrong

[_Gadianton]

A cocksure DCP posted a new thread on MAD recently with the intent of dismissing one of the threads started on MDB by our noble friend of good intent, Zeezrom. In his thread, Zeezrom asked the question, "Does religion dampen interest in science?"

DCP apparently took the question personally enough as a slight that he created his own thread on MAD to answer Zeezrom's question using his favorite rote response: MST somehow proves whatever DCP thinks is true, which in this case is that religion does not dampen an interest in science.

He takes a gratuitous stab at Tarski, EA, and Mr. Stak, all known for their strong backgrounds in not only science, but in philosophical questions regarding science,

Last time I looked, to the limited extent that evidence has been presented, it's been essentially anecdotal. So I again offer "Mormon Scholars Testify" as offering anecdotal evidence of at least equal quality and relevance.

What he meant here was MST offers content regarding the question "at least" equal in quality and relevance to the comments on Zeezrom's thread. His italicizing of "at least" is meant to sarcastically imply that our friends' opinions here at MST are barely worthy of mention while the content at MST represents the 800 pound gorilla in the discussion.

He elaborates:

Today's new, featured, entry comes from a metallurgist and engineer. After her testimony will follow...

Ok, well, unlike most of the apologists out there, I'm not opposed to reading something off of MST so I gave it a go. I read the testimony of today's featured engineer to see if the content of her testimony provided a thoughtful answer to Zeezrom's question. And it did! Except that, the answer she gives is "YES," that religion indeed dampens an interest in science! How embarrassing this is for DCP and I have to now wonder if even he reads the testimonies he edits.

Jamie Turner begins,

I went into engineering because I used to believe that science had all the answers. I wanted a field of study with solid truths where nothing was ambiguous or subjective. I did not want opinions; I sought experimentally verifiable facts through which I thought I could finally see a clear picture of the world. I now have a clearer picture (not perfectly clear, but much clearer), but this clarity did not come through science—it came when I joined the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

She's already destroyed DCP's hopes for religion here. According to her, she at one time believed science could answer everything. But then she joined the LDS church, and her new religious influence convinced her that science couldn't answer everything, the LDS church specifically, dampened her interest in science.

But let's get some particulars, she writes,

Science and engineering do a pretty good job when dealing with the inanimate, with those things that are acted upon...Newton’s first law of motion states that “An object at rest will stay at rest until acted upon by an unbalanced external force.” What unbalanced force acted upon your body to make it rise up out of bed this morning? The rocks outside your front door did not get up this morning, they are still sitting in the same place they were last night. What makes you different than the rocks? We are not rocks; we are not puppets being pushed around by external forces. We are living sentient spiritual beings residing within physical bodies. We are more than just matter and energy. We are the children of a loving Heavenly Father.

In other words, where as Jamie once believed science could answer all questions, including "what force acted upon your body to make it rise up out of bed this morning," she now has sealed off this line of inquiry as impossible for science to answer due to her newly acquired beliefs in religion. Religion has dampened her interest in science somewhat. DCP, therefore, has been proven wrong, yet again.

It's also worth noting that Jamies mastery of the philosophy of science is non-existent, and she would be destroyed in debate with any of the three aforementioned MDB posters above. Oh, she might be brilliant, didn't say otherwise, but the bottom line is that her testimony a) proves DCP wrong, b) is a freshman-level or worse treatment of the philosophy of science or religion.

Once again, I raise my hands in victory.

[Doctor Steuss]

The kind of religion offered by Mormonism may not dampen an interest in science, but more insidiously, it interferes with comprehension and understanding of what science really is. Belief in Mormonism confounds skepticism and judgment, making it hard to differentiate science from nonsense. A Mormon could say, "My favorite scientist was Immanuel Velikovsky. He gave us a better understanding of geology and Biblical events," and not have any clue what is wrong with that.

(I realized this weekend that Velikovsky was part of the inspiration for Thundar the Barbarian

"In the year 1994, a comet hurtles between the Earth and the moon...."

-- that's cool, at least.)

[_JohnStuartMill]

First off, engineers aren't scientists. They don't discover things; they apply discoveries made by others, mainly physicists and chemists.

Second, I'm not sure I follow your point, Gad. Are you saying that if someone doesn't think science can answer everything, they necessarily have a "dampened" interest in science? I hope not, because that's a pretty silly thing to say. The whole human experience with scientific knowledge has been that it is limited. There are fewer inductions more strongly supported than "science can't answer everything", so this is actually a very scientific belief.

(I have more to add, but my laptop is dying.)

[_Gadianton]

JSM, it's not my concern to establish just how much "interest" a person should have in science or what questions science can and can't answer. Your objection really has nothing to do with what I wrote, but to what you're reading into my post as my own commentary on the philosophy of science.

The Dude brings up a good point, "interest" is a pretty loose word and can simply mean an intense love for a subject the person might not understand very well. I'm kind of assuming "interest" refers to what can actually be considered as valid science. This forces the point that if someone ditches one particular area of science because it conflicts with their beliefs, then they have for all intents and purposes allowed religion to dampen their interest in science.

In regards to both comments, if a person has an interest in science such that science explains x, y, and z; and if the person changes their view - regardless of whether their change is intellectually justified or not - to science explaining only x and y (assuming that Z is yet a valid branch of science), then the person's interest in science has been "dampened".

The testifier I'm commenting on clearly reduced her place for science to explain the world, her interest had been dampened somewhat.

by the way, religion isn't the only thing that has dampened interest in science. Arguably, philosophy etc. has both increased and decreased interest in science for both justifiable and unjustified reasons. Again, whether or not religion dampens an interest in science is that question, DCP pointed to MST as answering the question profoundly as "no", and it turns out, exhibit A's testimony answers the question as a "yes."

[_EAllusion]

Ha!

Also, her testimony as quoted here seems to be an endorsement of vitalism*. That's awesome. As a Mormon, I've come to believe in an idea that struck nearly the entire academic world as dumb by the early 1900's. She doesn't think biochemical forces can explain the physical act of getting out of bed from neurons firing to muscles contracting? Her scholarly testimony is supposed to reflect well on Mormondom?

*More than that, really, since she doesn't seem to accept a natural elan vitale. It's got to be spirit ghosts operating the machine.

JSM -

II think it's worth noting that it's not just that she doesn't think science can answer everything. She thinks science no longer can answer questions like why do living (possibly sentient) things move. That's definitely closing off scientific inquiry from an area it can explore.

[_Ray A]

In the thread linked, started by DCP, this claim is made:

There is, however, evidence beyond the anecdotal in the case of Latter-day Saints. Mormons have been found, at least in the past, to produce scientists at a comparatively high rate:

http://www.sciencema...ct/185/4150/497

(The article itself needs to be read. The short abstract given at the link doesn't actually address the topic, but it gives the reference.)

This is a dated article (1974), so I offer for perusal a more recent and critical approach to these claims:

Does Utah really lead the nation in per capita production of scientists?.


Excerpts:

This document examines claims by some members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS, or Mormons) that Utah is the leading per capita producer of scientists, and that "the high percentage of Latter-day Saints in Utah largely accounts for Utah's distinctiveness in these studies." In view of these claims, this article examines a broad assortment of statistics related to birthplace, education, patents, and employment of scientists in hopes of understanding better the general relationship between Mormonism and higher education in science and engineering. And, it probes directly the validity of the studies that Mormons promote.

Given these many significant problems with science, is it really possible that Mormonism is a leading producer of scientific talent, and that these problems with science have actually been resolved in the minds of thousands of world-class LDS scientists? Or, are the claims of Utah dominance in per capita production of scientists nothing more than hubris; propaganda distributed by the faithful to quell uncertainty in the masses? Before going further, let me be clear that no amount of democratic voting among scientists gives credibility to religious or mythological ideas that lie outside the scope of science. All theories and hypotheses must be evaluated on the strengths and weakness of the specific claims they make. The aim of this report is not to somehow prove or disprove Mormonism based on the statistical profiles of scientists that may or may not espouse the Church’s doctrines. That would be as illogical as the LDS who attempt to give Mormonism more credibility than it deserves by citing suspect statistics about Utah’s production of scientists. Scientists are not immune to irrational thought – especially outside their field of expertise, and particularly where such emotional, traditional, and familial issues as one’s religion are concerned.

These facts do establish that anti-Mormon literature, which has attacked Mormonism from its earliest beginnings, has not prevented highly educated professional people from being strong believers in the Mormon church. They did not find anti-Mormon arguments to be convincing. These well-informed scientists used their broad knowledge and reasoning to uphold the Mormon claims and counter the prejudiced half-truths and misrepresentations used against the Mormons. Can anyone of similar ability and desire also embrace and enjoy the truths and activities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Yes.

This statement clearly illustrates the LDS motive in using statistics about scientists in Utah – to fight the evils of anti-Mormons who question the validity of LDS doctrines as they relate to science.

In contrast to Wootton’s work, this report looks at many different statistical metrics (as opposed to just one), all drawn from data collected by disinterested third parties (as opposed to Wootton, who essentially constructed a custom-made database). In doing so, I’ve searched through government data from the 2000 US census, the US Department of Education, and the National Science Foundation. What I’ve found is that the claims made by the LDS are not only baseless; they are often not even close. In other words, Utah is often found, in these metrics, falling behind the median in areas where the LDS boast supremacy. For example, in terms of per capita production of individuals with science and engineering college degrees (based on place of birth) no fewer than 31 other states have higher per-capita rates than Utah, based on data from the National Science Foundation (normalizing to 2000 population data). These data are in direct conflict with Wootton’s claims.
The most important definition in this report is the word "scientist." For the purposes of this report, I’ve chosen to define a "scientist" as someone who has a college degree of Bachelor or higher in a field related to science or engineering. This is a rather broad definition, and tends to include some people that real scientists would not ordinarily classify as such. In a literal sense, a scientist is someone who attempts to describe the world in which we live by using the methods of science. This might preclude many individuals who have degrees in science and engineering, but are employed as managers. Also, many engineers aren’t true scientists because they primarily use established methods that have already been developed by scientists.

I think the apologists who use this dated (and uncritical) claim may need to do some updating.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Nice shootin' Dan



It'd be awesome if he'd discuss the actual thread, but oh well.

[_Gadianton]

Ray, that's a fantastic point.

[_Doctor Scratch]

What DCP is doing is really pretty shameless. He's taking what I assume are very personal testimonies and using them to try and score points on a public messageboard. What would the testimony-bearers think if they knew that he was parading around a link to their deepest spiritual feelings as a part of his obsessive, 30+ year crusade to destroy critics of the Church? DCP is taking advantage of these people, and I find it disgusting. At the very least, he and FAIR should notify them beforehand that he's going to be using their testimonies as pawns in his never-ending war with critics. If I was one of the people on there and I found out what he'd been up to, I would feel humiliated and taken advantage of.

[_Some Schmo]

If I was one of the people on there and I found out what he'd been up to, I would feel humiliated and taken advantage of.

If I was one of the people on there, I would feel humiliated... Period.

Oh, and then there's the way DCP tries to use them... so there's that, too.