Comments on: Bridging science and religion https://rose.geog.mcgill.ca/wordpress/?p=1023 Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:16:01 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.8.10 By: guesswho https://rose.geog.mcgill.ca/wordpress/?p=1023&cpage=1#comment-65543 Thu, 13 Nov 2008 23:01:05 +0000 http://rose.geog.mcgill.ca/wordpress/?p=1023#comment-65543 Thank you for your comment. I must admit that I was not thinking about the fact that truth in science may be only true for a little while, until another theory emerges. After all, the scientific community once believed that earth was the center of the universe. Maybe there is a certain part of beliefs in science too.

]]> By: Eric Wolf https://rose.geog.mcgill.ca/wordpress/?p=1023&cpage=1#comment-65542 Thu, 13 Nov 2008 19:06:52 +0000 http://rose.geog.mcgill.ca/wordpress/?p=1023#comment-65542 You say “to be considered credible, a new theory has to be based on data and supported by the scientific community”. How is “supported by the scientific community” objective and free of value or moral judgement? Is it not possible for a theory to be objectively true and NOT supported but the scientific community?

As for the data supporting science, all too frequently scientists are not willing to share their data (http://www.newamerica.net/publications/articles/2002/scientists_say_sharing_of_key_data_has_slowed) and make gross errors in reporting results (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/4/13).

The error is that scientists assume an almost religious stance in their role in determining what is “real”. Scientists need to be overtly critical of any bias in their work – and understand that, as human beings, our perception is always biased.

]]>