"It's fascinating to me that a process at the heart of science is faith not evidence based. Indeed, believing in peer review is less scientific than believing in God because we have lots of evidence that peer review doesn't work, whereas we lack evidence that God doesn't exist."
Though I agree 100% with that founding principal it doesn't mean that I take some random person's advice on facebook as worth as much as my doctor's advice on a medical issue. It may mean that I should question my doctor as to why their decision is "best (and if I'm unconvinced I'll get a second opinion.)
Funny thing about that graph - Egypt, Greece and Rome were all extremely religious societies. Clearly nothing incompatible between religiosity and scientific progress, then!
I think the "religion is bad" motif quickly changes to "monotheism is bad," but don't expect your average internet atheist to consider these things too carefully (or at all).
Great read, glad some historians are finally hitting back against this nonsense. It's shameful that the "new atheist" contingent is so vocally belligerent that they've tended to bully theist scientists into silence about their faith.
I know I’m a little late to this party, but I wanted to express my appreciation for this entertaining and important book review. Before the Manhattan Project led to a model where governments fund most scientific research, the funding agency for science was the church, bringing us such discoveries as the Linnean system of biological classification and Mendelian genetics. Thank you very much for this post.
Thank you for this. Not to be nit picky, but the advances in science that you fantastically attribute to the Romans is far overblown. Science did not advance much beyond Aristotle until the late middle ages.
In another article (https://www.experimental-history.com/)], Richard Smith, the former editor of the British Medical Journal, commented:
"It's fascinating to me that a process at the heart of science is faith not evidence based. Indeed, believing in peer review is less scientific than believing in God because we have lots of evidence that peer review doesn't work, whereas we lack evidence that God doesn't exist."
Hahaha - that's quite good. I have also mentioned previously (https://williampoulos.substack.com/p/owen-jones-peter-hitchens-and-the) Prof John Ioannidis, who wrote the famous article "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False."
When I hear the term "trust the science" I hear a request to maintain the faith - a religious appeal, if you wish.
trust is something that cannot be demanded, but should be earned.
The founding principal of science was *nullius in verba*, take no one's word for it. Anyone calling you to "trust the science" is anti-science.
Scientists take things on trust all the time, and it isn’t necessarily a bad thing. The argument from authority is not necessarily a fallacy. See the discussion here: https://williampoulos.substack.com/p/owen-jones-peter-hitchens-and-the
Though I agree 100% with that founding principal it doesn't mean that I take some random person's advice on facebook as worth as much as my doctor's advice on a medical issue. It may mean that I should question my doctor as to why their decision is "best (and if I'm unconvinced I'll get a second opinion.)
Funny thing about that graph - Egypt, Greece and Rome were all extremely religious societies. Clearly nothing incompatible between religiosity and scientific progress, then!
I think the "religion is bad" motif quickly changes to "monotheism is bad," but don't expect your average internet atheist to consider these things too carefully (or at all).
Love it
Thank you!
Great read, glad some historians are finally hitting back against this nonsense. It's shameful that the "new atheist" contingent is so vocally belligerent that they've tended to bully theist scientists into silence about their faith.
Thank you for the comment! Historians have been hitting back against this since it started, but the myth of the Conflict Thesis is very powerful.
Very enlightening and intelligent discourse. I learned quite a few things and appreciate your skilled dissection on some murky suppositions.
Thank you for the kind comment!
Are you religious? If you don’t mind me asking.
I don't mind. I am a Christian. Are you religious? I'm fascinated by how religion might interact with your magical powers.
Catholic. Christian writings, arts and music fascinate me.
Very interesting. I assume you can hear the music of the spheres?
You mean the Coldplay album?
Hahahaha, no, I wasn't thinking that. But I do wonder if you have a stereo on the island.
Have either of you seen the Paul Mazursky movie adaptation of Tempest starring John Cassevetes, Gena Rowland and, yes, Molly Ringwald as Miranda?
Its worth seeing if you can find a copy.
I haven't - but I'll keep an eye out for it!
The claim about Bruno seems right. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/bruno/
Sorry - which one?
I know I’m a little late to this party, but I wanted to express my appreciation for this entertaining and important book review. Before the Manhattan Project led to a model where governments fund most scientific research, the funding agency for science was the church, bringing us such discoveries as the Linnean system of biological classification and Mendelian genetics. Thank you very much for this post.
Thank you for reading, and thanks very much for your generous comment!
Thank you for this. Not to be nit picky, but the advances in science that you fantastically attribute to the Romans is far overblown. Science did not advance much beyond Aristotle until the late middle ages.
Thanks for the comment. I don't mind my readers being nit picky -- they keep me in check! But which advances did I attribute to the Romans?
It was the incline of the curve that I was commenting on.
Oh, I see! That chart isn't mine. It's one that internet atheists like to produce, but it isn't based on any data.
Thank you for the comment, I'm glad you liked the piece!
Yes, Tom Holland has been doing a lot of good work lately.
Nice piece: you (and Tom Holland) are right to emphasise that, especially as it's often overlooked.