Russia fires a top geneticist who claimed people could live to 900 before sins caused Biblical flood
Russia’s science and higher education ministry has dismissed the head of a prestigious genetics institute who sparked controversy by contending that humans once lived for centuries and that the shorter lives of modern humans are due to their ancestors’ sins, state news agency RIA-Novosti said Thursday.
Although the report did not give a reason for the firing of Alexander Kudryavtsev, the influential Russian Orthodox Church called it religious discrimination.
Kudryavtsev, who headed the Russian Academy of Science’s Vavilov Institute of General Genetics, made a presentation at a conference in 2023 in which he said people had lived for some 900 years prior to the era of the Biblical Flood and that “original, ancestral and personal sins” caused genetic diseases that shortened lifespans.
Not throwing a pike here, but you are short sighted.
To think it needs to be compartmentalized or that religion and science are mutually exclusive is a false dilemma as said above.
Science can simply be the way that God/s would choose to interact with our world.
They're not necessarily incompatible, technically, but I am very suspicious of anyone who claims to be a scientist yet are willing to believe such extraordinary claims despite a complete lack of evidence.
If they would never use such a low bar for evidence in literally anything else in their lives (such as, presumably, their academic and scientific career, which I hope didn't involve "faith" at all), and yet are willing to completely suspend that need for evidence for their belief in the supernatural, then I don't trust them.
This is the real issue. Sure, science and religion COULD exist at the same time, but science is all about not making assumptions where you can instead build data, and heavily distrusting anything you can't build data for. Religion is specifically designed to never be tested. It can never be meaningfully supported or negated through observable mediums, which makes it the antithesis to science regardless of their potential coexistence.
According to the philosopher of science, Thomas Kuhn, making assumptions and dismissing contradictory data is a regrettable but very common part of the scientific process that eventually results in a shift in the paradigm of thinking. Every scientific theory that we know today has gone through these phases and will likely continue to change in the future.
Humans are fallible, yes, and we do have biases that inevitably worm their way into our data and corrupt it. It's one of the greatest reasons why we'll never have real truth - only an approximation of it. However, that is not a reason to accept biases as an integral part of the scientific process. They are something we need to incessantly strive to minimize, specifically to keep the cycle you showed to a minimum; it's a cycle of the failures of science, not the inherent process of it.
I wish I shared your optimism, my friend. Biases are increasing in the post-truth era, even in academia. That is a measurable fact.
All the more reason to never treat them as inevitable. It's not a bad thing to both accept that we'll never fully overcome them, but to try our hardest anyway - that's what keeps them to a minimum. If we were to stop trying to avoid them, the scientific process would degrade even more.
Avoid what? Biases?
I agree with Thomas Kuhn that the bias is intrinsic. I think that his description of paradigm shift is a positive one, borne out of an era of conflicting data and intense argumentation.
Thesis and antithesis give rise to the a synthesis which becomes the next thesis, so on and so forth until our self inflicted nuclear apocalypse.
Avoid biases, yes. We can say "current data supports X," and make whatever real-world decisions we need to make, while still accepting that future data may very well completely disprove that notion. It's bad science to say "current data supports X, so Y is wrong," but it's also bad science to say "Yeah, I know current data supports X, but my gut says Y is true even without data, and that's enough for me."
That's what I see more and more often in society recently; people are seeing that biases are something that can't truly be avoided, so they're accepting them instead, allowing themselves to completely abandon data in place of biases. When you catch yourself believing something is true even when data doesn't currently support it, forgive yourself, as you're human, but don't allow yourself to continue believing that thing.
Well said. It takes a lot of honest introspection to determine why we believe a certain set of data instead of another set.
So, because you don't understand how can someone accepts that something they don't have proof for, can exist, because they don't have proof against after all, you're ready to start doubting their professionalism or their capacity ?
That seem even more unscientific than what you tried to condemn through a fallacy.
I understand it just fine, it's called cognitive dissonance. And you're correct, I doubt their ability to do their job as a scientist.
From wikipedia:
Religious scientists do not experience cognitive dissonance if they don't view religion and science as incompatible, and apparently many of them don't. Cognitive dissonance is not the same as hypocrisy. Some of those scientists may have experienced cognitive dissonance in the past but they have long since found a way of reconciling the scientific method with a belief in god.
It's not that they accept that it can exist, it's that they accept that it does exist. We have no reason to believe anything exists after death, or that any particular being created us, and to go even further, we have no reason to believe that one religion's specific version of heaven exists after death, or one specific religion's specific vision of god created us. Maybe something exists after death, but it's just a huge everlasting game of dodge ball. Unlikely, but just as unlikely as heaven existing. Maybe a creature created us, but it's a huge centipede. Again, unlikely, but just as unlikely as a human-shaped god creating us in his image.
There are virtually no universally-held consistencies even among all of the the relatively few currently-practiced religions, because none of them are based on anything but human imagination even if God does exist, since we've likely never had a real interaction with God even in that instance. Religion can exist, but not only is it highly unlikely, even in the event that it's true, the likelihood that we randomly guessed the exact correct circumstances in which it does exist are nearly impossible.
The scientific approach to religion is to make no opinion on its existence, because to make a hypothesis about something that cannot be tested isn't just worthless, it's biased, which is even worse to a scientist.
If you were scientific, you'd know you're taking a shortcut, ironically not being scientific.
The likeliness of it doesn't matter, it can't be proved either way, for now. There are a lot of consistencies between religions.
Because you can't conceive faith existing with logic doesn't mean it's impossible, and that it discredites people you don't know as a result, is a logic flaw.
Bud, I literally just wrote out multiple paragraphs about how it isn't impossible. If the only thing you can think of to argue my point is to imagine I said something else, that should tell you something. Religion could be real, it could be fake. The only correct conclusion to draw is that we don't know. Have no faith in the existence of a god, have no faith in the lack of a god - have only faith in what you can measure. That's science.
If you don't mind me asking: why should you have faith in what you can measure? Is there an experiment to prove that empiricism is the best means of knowledge? Such an experiment would also be circular reasoning.
Obviously we're plaqued on all sides by a deficiency of our organic senses, yet we seek to understand beyond the range of our senses. Philosophers have wrestled with this conundrum for a while.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/
Measurement is the closest we're able to get to the truth. It's something that anyone can independently observe and achieve exactly the same result. It's not really the truth - we're never really able to achieve that - but it's at least something we know exists beyond ourselves and our fallible tendency to simply take what someone else says is true as the truth.
Yeah, it's something. I've got nothing against empiricism. Obviously I love the sciences, particularly the applied sciences.
But I find it amusing that the most self-evidently desirable things in life tend to resist measurement and empirical observation. I think that we need not be so avowed to that means as the all in all.
It's fine to have opinions that you hold close even if they're not entirely based in observable fact - for example, I understand that the notion of an afterlife brings a lot of people a sense of comfort that they may very much need in their life. The issue is when people take those opinions and apply them to something that extends far beyond their own life, such as this example of someone trying to push their opinion about god's influence on genetics onto the scientific community at large.
If he had any real data at all to base it on, it'd at least be something to think about, but it's nothing but his own interpretation of religious teachings that themselves aren't based on any data we know of or currently have access to. If it helps him to think that, he can go ahead - I'd still worry about the effects it'd inadvertently have on the required impartiality of his work, but without the data to back those worries up, I'd have no reason to doubt him - but what he did was a step too far.
What would you say about Hitler's explicit reference to Darwinism as a large part of the justification for his persecution of Jews and cripples? He based his opinions on real data.
He based his opinions on real data, but not all of the available real data. Darwinism and eugenics commonly point to certain 'bad genes" that they claim are present in the population, leading to such things as increased criminal activity and laziness. Real studies on these traits, however, find no familial correlation when accounting for upbringing; essentially, if you separate a child of a criminal from the life of a criminal, they're no more likely to become a criminal than anyone else. Hitler only focused on studies that fail to account for the socioeconomic effect that children of criminals tend to have fewer options, and are thus more likely to become criminals themselves. This is an example of one of the most common ways that scientific results can be corrupted - by the inclusion of only data that fits a preestablished opinion, and excluding data that doesn't.
Hitler also applied his cherry-picked data to certain scenarios, but not others. He claimed that he would create a future "utopia" by forcing subsequent generations to only carry desirable genes, but didn't talk at all about the fact that doing so creates a current dystopia, the horrors of which completely outweighing any potential benefit. Yes, selective breeding and/or culling of undesirable traits from the gene pool is an effective way to create a creature with certain characteristics - it's something we see often with breeding dogs and crops - but it's extremely unethical to apply this reasoning to humans, whose lives most would say have inherent worth outside of their genetics. It's also something we're starting to realize is unethical to do to animals - an example of how new data and new understanding of current data change our outlook on the world over time.
Ultimately, impartial assessment of all available data should never bring you to the same conclusion as Hitler.
That sounds like a lot of gray area. Hitler wasn't wrong about the premises of Darwinism that still stand today. This is straight out of Mein Kampf:
"In the struggle for daily bread all those who are weak and sickly or less determined succumb, while the struggle of the males for the female grants the right or opportunity to propagate only to the healthiest. And struggle is always a means for improving a species' health and power of resistance and, therefore, a cause of its higher evolution."
You say that it's unethical to apply this reasoning to humans. Why? If the Third Reich had succeeded in conquering Europe or even the world, would we then consider this ethical?
Co-discoverer of the DNA double helix Francis Crick agrees, unfortunately:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/dna-pioneer-james-watson-loses-honorary-titles-over-racist-comments-180971266/
Which you ended by"The scientific approach to religion is to make no opinion on its existence,", which is one of the fallacy in your reasoning, you're reducing it to opinion, implying it can't be treated scientifically.
Inferring from that, at best you could say that it should be left alone until scientists could even apply the scientific approach. As in, we don't know, as you said. And that doesn't preclude faith, which isn't mutually exclusive with being scientific.
To be clear, what I read a lot in this thread, is being scientific should automatically infer you can't be religious, because you can't prove it's real. But it omits that you can't prove it isn't.
Granted, the mistake might from where it started, IE this post where the scientist was being very unscientific.
The only way the scientific approach could be used to measure the existence of a deity would be to measure the deity itself, at which point the measurement would only be a formality - its existence would already be verified. That's why it's the opposite of science. You can learn of a black hole before ever observing one by simply understanding the basic fundamentals of physics, but a deity would exist even outside of that. No amount of measuring nature would be able to prove or disprove something that exists outside of that. You still haven't made a single argument against that cornerstone of my argument. You can call it a fallacy all you want, but ultimately that's just a word you're using in place of actually arguing against my point. Faith is the belief that something is true without needing data. Science is the act of gathering data to form a belief. They are opposites.
Wrong, there are so many phenomenons that we couldn't measure, and could barely infer, and yet they ended up existing, sometimes surprising people a great deal in the process.
Sometimes we even have been wrong about things we could measure.
So yes, still a fallacy.
I understand that the logic mind doesn't like "It might or might not, for now we can't say", when it's about absolute, but that's how it is, while you really want to claim that it can't be, no matter what. Because you can't conceive god existing inside the laws of physics doesn't mean it's true.
For the end of your answer, I already explained that faith and logic are compatible, because you just say they are opposite doesn't make it so. And speaking of observable proof : the many religious scientists we have in this day and age, with much more of them being competent and well composed in their thoughts about religion than the one in the OP (or the many people in this post).
How many times do I need to tell you that I'm specifically saying that religion CAN exist? It CAN! I've never said nor implied that it's impossible, and I'm not saying we should believe it's impossible! I'm saying that it's just as bad to believe it's specifically real as it is to believe it's specifically fake when we can't measure it. To believe in religion is just as wrong as to believe in a lack of religion. We cannot know, so to believe anything about it is nothing more than an opinion and not a measurable fact. It's fine to have an opinion, but to think about something scientifically is to remove any preconceived notions about whatever you're studying and focus solely on what you can measure; since you can't measure religion, you can't think about it scientifically, which makes it the antithesis to science.
Yes, some things that are immeasurable end up being true - of course they do, but until they become measurable, they should not be assumed to be anything. If God shows up and we measure him, then he can be thought about scientifically, but until that point he can't, and he shouldn't be. Until we have something to measure, we should not assume any baseless ideas about its existence or lack thereof are true.
You say the logical mind has trouble saying "It might or it might not, for now we can't say" but that has been my entire point this entire time! To be religious is to say "Yes, it does exist," and to be atheist is to say "No, it does not exist," both of which are wrong. The scientific way to think about religion is to specifically not make any decision one way or another, so when a scientist says they're religious, that shows they've made a decision, which shows they've allowed unscientific biases to enter their daily life. Now, we're all human, and we all have biases, but when we start making scientific presentations centered around our biases, as this man did, it's incredibly problematic. Science and religion started out hand in hand, and most of our progress over the years has been due to our slow separation of the two.
That would apply if the scientists believing in their religion would claim to do so scientifically.
You're again saying that a scientific can't use faith in a case where he can't know, or it means that he will do so for the entirety of his work, but we both know that's not necessarily true. Because they choose to rely on opinion on this subject, does not necessarily mean that they do the same with their work ethic. (That would also mean doubting the work of a crushing majority of scientists, them being religious or atheist in most cases, unless agnosticism is much more widespread that last time I brushed the subject)
In essential, what I'm saying is because a scientist claims to be religious or atheist, thinking that their whole work should be doubted because of that, is a flawed argument.
PS : And because we can't measure it, and don't know if it's "can't measure yet" or "can't measure ever", we can't say that religion is the antithesis of science. Which means we can think about it scientifically, we just don't have the means to know if it's correct.
You're really desperate to find an argument I'm not making. Again, people can be religious. Scientists can be religious. However, if a scientist is religious they need to make very sure that their religion - that they believe in spite of no data, and is thus nothing more than an opinion - does not affect their science, which is required to be based on measurable data alone.
What this man did was make a scientific presentation based on his beliefs - his opinions - which were not based on measurements, and were thus unscientific. That was what crossed the line. I will always be wary of a religious scientist because I cannot determine whether their measurements are unaffected by the biases their religion gives them, but I can never truly dismiss their measurements, because I cannot be sure they are not legitimate. But when someone openly announces that they believe sin has caused a god to directly influence human genetics, and their claim is not based on any collected data, it shows that they absolutely have allowed their biases to affect the legitimacy of their work. In that instance, any past or present data that that person has collected will need to be re-measured by someone who has not shown to have allowed their biases to influence their work.
Something immeasurable is the antithesis to science, which is the act of measuring. If that thing later becomes measurable, it stops being the antithesis to science, because that immeasurability is no longer present. Insofar that we cannot know whether or not religion exists, it will continue to be something immeasurable, and will be antithetical to science. If someone wants to support both, they need to make absolutely sure that they are entirely compartmentalized, so that if the day comes that religion is either confirmed or denounced, it will not affect their work.
Ok, so considering that my original point, to which you answered, was that you don't need to compartmentalize to be able to experiment science and religion at the same time, what is your point ?
Yes. And it's just as likely that super-god created God to do exactly that.
But that's not the point. The scientific mind requires evidence and repeatability. To believe in God without evidence or repeatability means they've compartmentalized that part of their thinking.
You're claiming a fact out of one of your assumption.
That thread is delightful in irony today, lots of self proclaimed unbiased and scientific, acting very biased and unscientific.
He who smelt it, dealt it
Can you prove that the scientific mind requires evidence and repeatability? That sounds like circular reasoning.
I have a hypothesis, I collect evidence, record the results and see if it supports the hypotheses.
The experiment is repetable.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Yes, of course. And we all love the results of this methodology.
It's just that using the scientific method to prove the validity of the scientific method is circular reasoning. At some point, we have to think philosophically about the means of knowledge.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning
We can think practically about knowledge too.
I put my hand on a hot stove, it burns, I remove my hand and the burning stops. Isn't that knowledge?
Yes, of course, but it's not the extent of knowledge.
Nor is it universal knowledge. What burns your hand isn't going to burn other materials, or even other organisms.
There's always a limit to what can be perceived with the organic senses. That's the axiomatic flaw of empiricism.
What do you think? What is knowledge?
Are you suggesting there may be forces or powers we can't yet measure?
Because that's pretty much what science has been about for all of human evolution. We've observed events, and then tried to work out why they happen, and yet in all that time we've been unable to prove, or disprove god.
There are many forces and powers that cannot be measured. They're often the most self-evidently desirable things in the world. Love, hate, determination, artistry, joy, generosity, compassion, character, wisdom, justice and beauty, etc. Hence the cute quote from sociologist William Bruce Cameron that "not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted". Most psychological and sociological phenomena are immeasurable by the strict meaning of the word.
As for physics, we can't measure the future, for example, though there are interesting equations which could possibly account for an near infinite variety of outcomes in a given system. And there are many theories that we can only measure under ideal, localized conditions. We can only hope that they are ubiquitous throughout the universe.
Then there are problems like the Duhem–Quine underdetermination thesis. This thesis says that the agreement of the empirical consequences of a theory with the available observations is not a sufficient reason for accepting the theory. In other words, logic and experience leave room for conceptually incompatible but empirically equivalent explanatory alternatives. This is especially endemic in biology.
And if you want to be more philosophical, it has been argued by guys like Hume and Locke that there is always a “veil of perception” between us and external objects: we do not have directly measurable access to the world, but instead have an access that is mediated by sensory appearances, the character of which might well depend on all kinds of factors (e.g., condition of sense organs, direct brain stimulation, etc.) besides those features of the external world that our perceptual judgments aim to capture. According to many philosophers, nothing is ever directly present to the mind in perception except perceptual appearances.
My point in all of this is that empiricism is axiomatically limited in it's scope and potential. All of our chest-thumping and shouting, "Science! Science! Science!" is a bit naive when it ignores core issues of epistemology.
My personal belief is that knowledge is, in it's first phase, abstract. Only then can it be quantifiable or measurable within a particular system.
The recent trend towards scientism shys away from abstraction, perhaps because they perceive it as a sort of dog-whistle for God.
Perhaps there's an argument against scientific hubris: if we look through history, and to this day, we can see those who champion rigid adherence to religion above all else as the cause of much suffering. On the other hand the latter half of the 10 Commandments provide a fairly sensible groundwork for law and order in society.
As for love, whilst we may not be able to measure it directly, we can certainly see evidence of it's power; "I would do anything for love, I'd run right in to hell and back" Meatloaf. I'd also argue that the core human emotions can be explained by evolution, and compared with animal behaviour. In preparing for fight or flight fear can be measured in a raised heart rate, the release of chemicals, and electrical activity within the brain.
I think one of the cornerstones of science is that it is open to a theory being overturned as new evidence comes to light.
Duhem–Quine, or the "veil of perception”, well yes, we do have to make some assumptions somewhere, you assume that I know how to read and understand your words written in English, which I do and I'm sure a great many others do - perhaps we could use this as a baseline example of knowledge. We all know the word "stop" and it's meaning in context though we might not all react to it in the same way.
Then again, it could all just be my imagination.