To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 26264
26263  |  26265
Subject: 
Re: You have got to be kidding me...
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:35:48 GMT
Viewed: 
1445 times
  
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton wrote:
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, J. Spencer Rezkalla wrote:
Because religious research shouldn't be confused with scientific research and
it shouldn't pretend to be. One is legitimate science that can produce
beneficial results (in medicine, engineering, technology etc) - which
represents a gain to our society. The other is the application of bad
science, which hinders the production of these beneficial results - and
represents a loss to our society.

Again no one is preventing creationists from conducting all the research they
want on their own. So far all the theories they have presented are scientific
rubbish - and that doesn't help ones reputation in being able to accomplish
something useful. Why would the government want to waste money funding these
jokers? Would you hire someone to build you a house, if they demonstrated the
lack of proper knowledge to do it? What would be the benefit to society when
their shoddy construction subsequently collapsed?

Well, that's not the point-- the point isn't that to date, religious science has
been a joke, it's that "what if it weren't"? Should the fact that it just
happens to be religious preclude a research project from going forward, even if
it's conducted scientifically, or could yield beneficial results?

I'm not saying that it's likely to happen, or even that it COULD happen. I'm
asking on what grounds should funds be denied? Personally, I think it's based on
potential merit of the project (IE will it be useful if it succeeds?), and on
whether it looks like it'll be successful or not (IE do the methods involved
sound legitimate?).

Of course not. And you are correct that such projects are generally judged on
merit. Personally I like the ones involving Near Death Experiences - although it
should be noted in this case that this doesn't necessarily imply it's
religiously-based. There isn't any biological evidence or reason to suggest we
survive death, and yet NDE is an actually phenomenon reported often enough to
warrant scientific investigation. The reason I like these experiments is they're
typically cheap and unobtrusive (i.e. LED signs placed above the patient in
emergency rooms) and regardless of the results it's a win-win situation for me
personally. If we go on, then I guess it's good news. If we don't then people
can stop deluding themselves that NDEs are proof of an afterlife.

Spencer



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: You have got to be kidding me...
 
(...) Well, that's not the point-- the point isn't that to date, religious science has been a joke, it's that "what if it weren't"? Should the fact that it just happens to be religious preclude a research project from going forward, even if it's (...) (20 years ago, 21-Oct-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)

21 Messages in This Thread:











Entire Thread on One Page:
Nested:  All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:  All | Brief | Compact
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR