Science topic

History of Science and Religion - Science topic

Explore the latest questions and answers in History of Science and Religion, and find History of Science and Religion experts.
Questions related to History of Science and Religion
  • asked a question related to History of Science and Religion
Question
23 answers
The Nobel Prize Summit 2023: Truth, Trust and Hope has started today, 24 May 2023. The summit encourages participation. Thus, I have sent an open letter and eagerly anticipate their response. Please comment if the points I have made is adequate enough.
Open Letter to The Nobel Committee for Physics
Is There a Nobel Prize for Metaphysics?
Dear Nobel Committee for Physics,
Among the differences between an established religion, such as Roman Catholicism, and science, is the presence of a hierarchical organization in the former for defending its creed and conducting its affairs. The head of the religious institution ultimately bears responsibility for the veracity of its claims and strategic policies. This accountability was evident in historical figures like John Wycliffe, Jan Hus, and Martin Luther, who held the papacy responsible for wrong doctrines, such as the indulgence scandal during the late Middle Ages. In that context, challenging such doctrines, albeit with the anticipated risk of being burned at the stake, involved posting opposing theses on the doors of churches.
In contrast, the scientific endeavour lacks a tangible temple, and no definitive organization exists to be held accountable for possible misconducts. Science is a collective effort by scientists and scientific institutes to discover new facts within and beyond our current understanding. While scientists may occasionally flirt with science fiction, they ultimately make significant leaps in understanding the universe. However, problems arise when a branch of science is held and defended as a sacred dogma, disregarding principles such as falsifiability. This mentality can lead to a rule of pseudo-scientific oppression, similar to historical instances like the Galileo or Lysenko affairs. Within this realm, there is little chance of liberating science from science fiction. Any criticism is met with ridicule, damnation, and exclusion, reminiscent of the attitudes displayed by arrogant religious establishments during the medieval period. Unfortunately, it seems that the scientific establishment has not learned from these lessons and has failed to provide a process for dealing with these unfortunate and embarrassing scenarios. On the contrary, it is preoccupied with praising and celebrating its achievements while stubbornly closing its ears to sincere critical voices.
Allow me to illustrate my concerns through the lens of relativistic physics, a subject that has captured my interest. Initially, I was filled with excitement, recognizing the great challenges and intellectual richness that lay before me. However, as I delved deeper, I encountered several perplexing issues with no satisfactory answers provided by physicists. While the majority accepts relativity as it stands, what if one does not accept the various inherent paradoxes and seeks a deeper insight?
Gradually, I discovered that certain scientific steps are not taken correctly in this branch of science. For example, we place our trust in scientists to conduct proper analyses of experiments. Yet, I stumbled upon evidence suggesting that this trust may have been misplaced in the case of a renowned experiment that played a pivotal role in heralding relativistic physics. If this claim is indeed valid, it represents a grave concern and a significant scandal for the scientific community. To clarify my points, I wrote reports and raised my concerns. Fortunately, there are still venues outside established institutions where critical perspectives are not yet suppressed. However, the reactions I received ranged from silence to condescending remarks infused with irritation. I was met with statements like "everything has been proven many times over, what are you talking about?" or "go and find your mistake yourself." Instead of responding to my pointed questions and concerns, a professor even suggested that I should broaden my knowledge by studying various other subjects.
While we may excuse the inability of poor, uneducated peasants in the Middle Ages to scrutinize the veracity of the Church's doctrine against the Latin Bible, there is no excuse for professors of physics and mathematics to be unwilling to revaluate the analysis of an experiment and either refute the criticism or acknowledge an error. It raises suspicions about the reliability of science itself if, for over 125 years, the famous Michelson-Morley experiment has not been subjected to rigorous and accurate analysis.
Furthermore, I am deeply concerned that the problem has been exacerbated by certain physicists rediscovering the power and benefits of metaphysics. They have proudly replaced real experiments with thought experiments conducted with thought-equipment. Consequently, theoretical physicists find themselves compelled to shut the door on genuine scientific criticism of their enigmatic activities. Simply put, the acceptance of experiment-free science has been the root cause of all these wrongdoings.
To demonstrate the consequences of this damaging trend, I will briefly mention two more complications among many others:
1. Scientists commonly represent time with the letter 't', assuming it has dimension T, and confidently perform mathematical calculations based on this assumption. However, when it comes to relativistic physics, time is represented as 'ct' with dimension L, and any brave individual questioning this inconsistency is shunned from scientific circles and excluded from canonical publications.
2. Even after approximately 120 years, eminent physicist and Nobel Prize laureate Richard Feynman, along with various professors in highly regarded physics departments, have failed to mathematically prove what Einstein claimed in his 1905 paper. They merely copy from one another, seemingly engaged in a damage limitation exercise, producing so-called approximate results. I invite you to refer to the linked document for a detailed explanation:
I am now submitting this letter to the Nobel Committee for Physics, confident that the committee, having awarded Nobel Prizes related to relativistic physics, possesses convincing scientific answers to the specific dilemmas mentioned herein.
Yours sincerely,
Ziaedin Shafiei
Relevant answer
Answer
I looked at the link you gave which was
In that link I found the statement:
Einstein claimed that “If a unit electric point charge is in motion in an electromagnetic field, the force acting upon it is equal to the electric force which is present at the locality of the charge, and which we ascertain by transformation of the field to a system of co-ordinates at rest relatively to the electrical charge.”
I also get from the above link that you have a disagreement with the above statement. I think the confusion here is about which observer is defining the force. The electromagnetic field as transformed to coordinates at rest relative to the charge is the field needed to predict the force as seen by an observer at rest with the charge (an electric force but no magnetic force because the charge is not moving). Field transformations to other coordinate systems are needed to predict the force as seen by observers moving relative to the charge. This means that different observers (having different motions relative to each other) can see different forces even if all coordinate systems are inertial. This is in contrast to Newtonian mechanics in which the same force is seen in all inertial coordinate systems. Newtonian mechanics is wrong when applied to electromagnetic forces so we need to include things like field energy or field momentum (outside the scope of Newtonian mechanics) to obtain conservation laws. However, I think that your complaint is not that Newtonian mechanics should be used when it isn't, but rather that special relativity is wrong. Special relativity does have limitations (when general relativity becomes an issue) but for its intended applications (i.e., when general relativity is not needed) it has done a great job of producing all of today's modern technology derived from it. In particular, the treatment of electromagnetic forces in the context of special relativity is one of the most thoroughly studied of all topics in physics. If there was a real incompatibility between special relativity and electromagnetism, we would have known about that a long time ago. We would have known about it during the days when special relativity was first introduced and had a lot of opposition, and a lot of people searched very hard to find inconsistencies with the theory. The theory survived attacks by brilliant people searching for problems with the theory, and it will survive attacks by people that perceive it to be wrong because of their own lack of understanding.
  • asked a question related to History of Science and Religion
Question
8 answers
Why does religion become first port of call during social and economic strife?
Within religion, why does a large chunk of the population not go deeper into orthodox religion but head instead towards these new age guys with their superficial cosmologies and simplistic solutions?
Relevant answer
Answer
Well, is it really the first way of reacting? The question you are posing is really good, and provoking, but we also need to be cautious and critical with the way we pose questions, since they otherwise may display, or convey, prejudice and superficial ideas. It is not superficial at all to note that religion provides a language, or a way of expression, to other problems, but I think we may question if the first answer is religion (is it not violence, radicalization? - as Olivier Roy has suggested recently), and even more serious we have to take into account that 'religion' as such is not a concept agreed upon. 
Given all these (perhaps: academic) presuppositions it is really interesting that religion can provide language and symbolic expressions to socio-political restriction and economic deprivation. To me, on a more personal note, it stress the fact that religious belief, and religious tradition as far as I know it, is closely knit with identity (existence and experience), belonging (fellowships and history) and horizon (projection/projects and hermeneutics (reading of 'my self')).
Thank you for a good question, Muhammad; it is so much more encouraging and engaging than most answers and statements.
Henrik Sonne P
  • asked a question related to History of Science and Religion
Question
48 answers
While there are obvious differences, There seems to be similarities between fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalist Muslims. Both see their scriptures (Bible, Quran) as without error and both interpret them literally, even the parts encouraging violence against outside groups. Fundamentalist devotees also seem vulnerable to political exploitation.
On the other hand, moderate, contempletive and progressive groups in both religions teach and encourage peace, non-violence, compassion and inclusion. Progressives groups find increasing common ground with agnostics and atheists. They also seem more independent.
Religion helps many people, but more and more people seem to be finding similar help outside traditional religion. Is humanity slowly evolving beyond traditional approaches to religion, and is that a good thing, overall? 
Relevant answer
Answer
I would suggest that the evidence is just the opposite. Empirical evidence from a variety of sources indicates that children very early on are equipped for religious cognition. The research is summarized by the cognitive science of religion (CSR) researcher Justin Barrett in his 2012 book Born Believers. Barrett contends that that the are a number of naturally occurring processes that provide a foundation for religious thought, including teleological reasoning and intelligent design attribution, both concepts empirically verified by researcher Deborah Kelemen and colleagues. Of the three hypotheses Barrett identifies as explaining how children learn about God, both the indoctrination and anthropomorphism hypotheses lack empirical support. The preparedness hypothesis, or the hypothesis that children possess cognitive faculties that equip them to believe in the superhuman agency of God, has the most empirical support. I cannot do justice to Barrett's excellent treatment and commend his work to you.
So, in short, no. Humans continue to demonstrate an innate capacity for belief in God, something both Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin called the sensus divinitatus and current CSR researchers term the hypersensitive agency detection device (HADD). Such beliefs continue to maintain traditional religious traditions, organizations, practices, and beliefs. 
How humans operationalize the sensus divinitatus is another question altogether. You wonder about the persistence of fundamentalism, and I would argue that it is not a function of belief in God but rather a function of belief itself. You will find fundamentalists among atheists, Hindus, feminists, communists, vegans, etc.Strong convictions and unadulterated devotion to an in-group and exclusion and vilification of the out-group is not exclusive to religion. I'm sure you've seen this demonstrated when two rival high school football teams meet. 
One important distinction is whether the reader wishes to explain or explain away belief in God. Barrett wrote, "A scientific explanation of how human cognitive systems form beliefs in gods only ‘explains away’ gods if you already believe they don’t exist. For believers, such explanations just specify the means by which actual gods are perceived and understood (or misunderstood) (2011, p. 150).
  • asked a question related to History of Science and Religion
Question
3 answers
Religion and medicine
Relevant answer
Answer
Because of confidential records this would be a difficult study for the medical field to control. my suggestion would be to contact the churches who claim the healing from supernatural resources. Most churches with theses claims do keep records, medical data that can be researched,. again confidential records but the churches and the patients will be more open to share the medical data you seek.
  • asked a question related to History of Science and Religion
Question
25 answers
I'm interested in comparing Indigenous research methods with other ancient cultures. Indigenous research methods are relatively well documented for Australian Aboriginals, New Zealand Maori and North American Indians. I was hoping to locate examples of other non-Western (non-Eurocentric) research methods used by cultures, such as China, Africa, South America, India etc. For example, what methodology did the Chinese use to develop their knowledge of Chinese medicine? I realise these methods may not have been documented or may be in a non-English language. Any leads would be helpful at this stage.
Relevant answer
Though I am not a specialist on ancient science, as Egyptologist I can recommend some references for medicine and other fields, as, for instance, J. F. Nunn, 'Ancient Egyptian Medicine', where you can easily find the medical procedures and knowledge of ancient Egyptians. You can also find some remarks in:
-N. Baum, "L'organisation du règne végétal dans l'Égypte ancienne...", in: S. Aufrère (ed.), 'Encyclopédie religieuse de l'univers végétal de l'Égypte ancienne I', Montpellier, pp. 421-443, 1999.
-N. Beaux, 'Le cabinet de curiosites de Thoutmosis III. Plantes et animaux du 'jardin botanique' de Karnak', Leuven, 1990.
-S. Uljas, "Linguistic Conciousness", in: UEE, available at the website: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/0rb1k58f 
Of course, some interesting remarks are avalaible in the classical work of C. Lévi-Strauss, 'La pensée sauvage'.
I hope this can be useful for you.
Regards