to be surprised that a scientist with a doctorate is religious

[Margaritapracataz]

I assumed she was joking, but no she's a very intelligent woman (double first) but she has deeply religious beliefs.

Aibu to think this is a bit strange and to think less of her professionally?

for the time being is correct. Sensible to keep an open mind. Scientists shouldn't have closed minds.

.

Maidofstars do you understand how the scientific method works?

Formulate hypothesis
Test hypothesis
Data doesn't contradict hypothesis
Hypothesis remains possible until eventual test result contradicts hypothesis.

Sorry,I'm didn't mean to post a passive aggressive full stop. I meant to post this.

Have to agree with him.

If a person is so opposed to the idea of religious beleif that they have not done this, and they refuse to accept what religious people say to be true about their own beliefs (as on this thread) then I would suggest that it's prejudice at work, not rationality.

no one is doubting what you say about your own beliefs. Indeed, we understand that you think you are a believer and from what you have said I believe you. What we question is that your beliefs on this topic are rational or scientific. One of the reasons why I would question that is that you yourself describe these beliefs as faith. if so, how can they be rational? It's possible that they are rational once we accept your basic premises, but then of course you need justification for them.

I follow a theology based on the philosophy and ideas about God formulated, in his metaphysics, by the mathematician Alfred North Whitehead. Very logical. Very rational, carefully argued and takes modern physics seriously. Process Thought.

It's clear some of us don't know what process thought is (and various other terms you have used) but write them as if they are commonly used terms. Perhaps you could explain the basics to us and why you think it is logical. Simply being formulated by a mathematician doesn't it make it logical.

It makes intellectual sense to me and gives me a language for articulating my own experiences. Experiences which are mine, but appear to be shared with many others - they often choose different language to articulate theirs. I don't find that a problem, not everyone is able to tackle metaphysics - or would want to.

again, it making sense to you doesn't of course make it logical. Also, does this language lend it self to clear communication? If the only use of the language is that it helps you communicate your ideas to only people who have similar ideas, I doubt the usefulness of it.

Sensible to keep an open mind. Scientists shouldn't have closed minds.

isn't there some quote about minds being too open?

An open mind doesn't mean that you are not descerning- you make it sound as if you let anything in without thinking about it and assessing and making up your own mind. If you close your mind you are not even going to consider it.
I would agree with Brian Cox and can't see why it precludes a faith.

Brian Cox is open minded. He wants debate with artists, theologians, philosophers and not science in a compartment. here

Maidofstars do you understand how the scientific method works?
Let's assume I do.

Because, after all, you've gone on to repeat the process I outlined. Hypothesis unsupported (for the time being), find another test/whatever.

Of course, the main reason I highlighted Micah's post was the absurd nature of the conclusion drawn. Do you think her example is a valid conclusion?

An open mind doesn't mean that you are not descerning- you make it sound as if you let anything in without thinking about it and assessing and making up your own mind

Why discern god and not dragons?

This is a very odd thread! Most people, including very intelligent ones with PhDs, are capable of holding conflicting (or at least not fully compatible) beliefs. Few of us are completely rational all the time. It's just as well or no one would ever fall in love and have children .

And PhD scientists are not some sort of special breed. I work in an office full of them, and some of them are not even (to be blunt about it) particularly intelligent. Knowledgeable in their subject area, yes. Capable of wide ranging and flexible thinking outside their subject area, not always.

The reason that I liked my link to Brian Cox was that he liked intelligent debate.
Very true, Mistigri.

Hypothesis unsupported (for the time being), find another test/whatever.

Hypothesis is not discarded.
Scientists don't look for support for hypotheses. They look to disprove them.

I am so depressed to discover that people just don't understand the scientific method. It's so simple.

Indeed. Which is why I didn't use the word 'discarded' . I said the hypothesis is 'rejected (for the time being)'. I'm really not clear why you think that means the hypothesis is discarded, especially when the bracketed statement is added in.

As I said, I'm an academic scientist. You're not speaking to children, so stop making out like we're thick. It's not conducive to civilised conversation

Can you tell me what you think about the purpose of my response to Micah, that her conclusion is unfounded? It seems that she hasn't just put the hypothesis on ice.

Hypothesis: Protein A switches on Gene B.
Test: Add Protein A to cells and examine expression of Gene B.
Data: Expression of Gene B goes up when you add Protein A to cells.
Conclusion: Data supports hypothesis, which is held up for further scrutiny.

Hypothesis: God started the world.
Test: ??
Data: ??
Conclusion: ??

We seek to bring down hypotheses, but those hypotheses have to be falsifiable. God Dunnit is not falsifiable, which is why Micah's example is bollocks, not least for its ludicrous conclusion.

Bertrand is correct in that we cannot maintain all 'framed but not yet contradicted hypotheses' as equally (or even minorly) plausible. Her teapot hasn't been contradicted (I think it's not falsifiable) but we don't believe it's there. No evidence against is not enough to maintain a hypothesis, we need data to support it too.

Max Perutz on hypotheses. I quite like it. Never properly talked about scientific method (despite science degree, PhD) until I did another degree in psychology, which talks about scientific method a lot.

For me, my faith is the irrational remains of years of questioning the religion in which I was brought up. There is no reason for me to believe, yet I can't seem to help it. Mind you, psychology, while scientifically unsatisfying, does seem to suggest that anyone who reckons they approach the world with dispassionate reason in all areas is probably kidding themselves.

Formulate hypothesis
For the purposes of conversation, it's worth considering that hypotheses are formulated in lab books, not imaginations, sometimes after several years of observation. Thus, when a hypothesis like 'Protein A switches on Gene B' is formulated, there is already data to support its formulation e.g. Protein A is always in the cells when Gene B is on/Gene B is controlled by Protein C which is structurally similar to Protein A/etc.

Nobody would propose the hypothesis that 'Protein A switches on Gene B' in the absence of evidence to prompt it.

I do understand. I was teaching my year 10s about Semmelweis and Jenner last week, and we talked about observations and subsequent hypotheses. I'm not sure I'd be explaining to Max Perutz how Science works though.

Bert, I know that you know that it is possible to be a theist scientist. What I don't understand is your "surprise" when it comes up on these threads.

However your wariness regarding theist scientists is interesting. Are you wary because evidence shows that scientific work by theists is less reliable than that done by atheists? Or
Is it because your prejudice against believers tells you that it can't be as good?

Hypothesis: God started the world.
*Test: ??
Data: ??
Conclusion: ??
*
You could just as easily say:

Hypothesis: The Big Bang started the world.
Test: ??
Data: ??
Conclusion: ??

Yet so many people choose to believe the big bang over a creator God.

Well, so far the Big Bang predictions have stood up, AFAIK, particularly the cosmic background radiation, which was predicted and found.
What we can't test is what's behind the Big Bang.

Maidofstars

Hypotheses may come about in many ways.
They can be formulated after a single event as a possible explanation for further testing. Or yes, as per your imagination.
To observe that protein A turns on gene B we need to formulate the hypothesis that it does.
Say you want to find out what protein A does. You can test it against several genes and see which ones are not turned up. Every time you are testing it against a gene you are testing the hypothesis that protein A turns on that gene.
In this case to formulate the hypothesis you don't need any evidence apart from the idea that protein A may turn on a gene. Each time it doesn't turn on a gene you disprove that theory and move on. For the sake of cost effectiveness we tend to test things that make sense or for which there is already some form of data.
So, we test genes that we know or suspect are related to what we think protein A does, from comparison with other similar genes.
What ends up coming out as a published theory with good support is the one that has survived scrutiny. But if you look at research papers there are many theories that were implicit in the experiments and discarded along the way.
It's actually sad that negative data is not published so often, which is why I said earlier in the thread that the drive to publish positive results is much more worrying in terms of researchers reliability. Particularly when the data comes from industry.

Missed that you said you are a research scientist. This makes your comments even more surprising.