Subject:
|
Re: You have got to be kidding me...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 21 Oct 2004 21:35:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1489 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
|
|
|
|
