Why do most people find science boring?

[paddoboy]

You should not believe it. If you prefer to believe into Gods, UFOs, wormholes or causal loops, feel free to believe into this. Yes, I will repeat myself, I couldn't care less.

Wrong again, first God is not a scientific concept while wormholes are a solution of GR which invalidates your foolish comparison.
And really, whether you care or not about what I accept, is neither here nor there...Just as mainstream accepted science/cosmology is totally oblivious to what you accept and also couldn't care less.

My interpretation is interesting for those who do not follow the mystification of the equations of GR, thus, are ready to think that they are only approximations, with limits of applicability, and that these limits are reached not only near the singularities, but also for solutions with closed causal loops or for wormholes.

If your interpretation had anything going for it, you would not be here.
Please now try not to go into any conspiracy rant about and possible incalcitrant attitude by science because that's all it is.
GR reigns supreme and virtually undeniable within its zone of applicability, which does not include describing Singularities.
Still though I suppose it gives you an inner glow of possible success thinking of it as negative as you put it.

I think you are not that stupid that you cannot understand that this does not mean that I reject the use of such false theories as approximations. Simply, approximations are false, truth is not approximate truth, that's all. In this sense, my continuous ether theory of gravity, being a long distance approximation of an atomic ether, is obviously false too, and my SM model is also false because it is only an SR approximation. This is a disagreement about the use of the words "true" and "false" which, surprisingly, does not have physical consequences, because, AFAIU, you also acknowledge that all the theories you name "true" are only approximations.

If that gives you that warm inner glow about your own interpretation/hypothesis then you are not approaching it scientifically.
Although I must admit your take on science is not quite as far out as your political nightmares.
I do though find it weird that you believe that a carpenter for instant fitting a window has measurements which you see as false....simply because it doesn't hold say with an Engineer fitting a cylinder and piston. Both the rule and the Vernier are correct tools that give correct results within their applicability.

 

[paddoboy]

Nice quote. The point you have to understand is what follows if one wants to know more than today. In this case, you have to start with what we don't know - that means, with philosophy. Then, if one makes the correct philosophical guess, one has a chance that this philosophy in some future (almost nothing for Born's probability interpretation of QM, centuries for the atomic hypothesis) becomes science.

We all philosophise. Then we speculate about possibilities. Then we construct what we believe to be a "workable hypothesis" Then the scientific method takes over.
Here's another.....
“Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.”
― Richard Feynman
Now before any Philosopher wants to rip my head off, I see that quote in the same vane as Einstein's famous "Imagination is more Important than knowledge"quote........

 

[Schmelzer]

Wrong again, first God is not a scientific concept while wormholes are a solution of GR which invalidates your foolish comparison.

God was also a theory used to explain observable things which happened on Earth, thus, God is simply a very archaic version of science. And it was, at least in some variants, a realistic and causal theory (in the sense that God really exists, and is the cause of various things). So, it is even less mystical than some variants of modern science.

Please now try not to go into any conspiracy rant about and possible incalcitrant attitude by science because that's all it is.
GR reigns supreme and virtually undeniable within its zone of applicability, which does not include describing Singularities.
Still though I suppose it gives you an inner glow of possible success thinking of it as negative as you put it.

Please do not try to go into ad hominem arguments about "inner glows" or similar nonsense to explain normal scientific theories, in this case a quite simple different interpretation of the Einstein equations of GR.

If that gives you that warm inner glow about your own interpretation/hypothesis then you are not approaching it scientifically.

And that's why your "inner glow" theory is simply a low level ad hominem attack, used for the justification of the defamation that I would behave in some anti-scientific way. By the way, your "inner glow" theory is in contradiction with my statements that my own theories are also only approximations, thus, logically false in the same sense.

I do though find it weird that you believe that a carpenter for instant fitting a window has measurements which you see as false....simply because it doesn't hold say with an Engineer fitting a cylinder and piston.

If the accuracy is sufficient to fit the window, there is no reason to cry "false". But it is, of course, inaccurate, thus, from a logical point of view, false.

 

[Daecon]

God was also a theory used to explain observable things which happened on Earth, thus, God is simply a very archaic version of science.

No, "Goddidit" is the exact opposite of science.

 

[Schmelzer]

Here's another.....
“Philosophy of science is about as useful to scientists as ornithology is to birds.”
― Richard Feynman

Unfortunately, not a good idea. Positivism - a philosophy of science - has seriously harmed physics. Worse than, say, ornitologists who would, say, kill a lot of birds they consider as noxious.

 

[Schmelzer]

No, "Goddidit" is the exact opposite of science.

This is questionable even today - there are religious scientists even today. In the past, the connection was much more close. Copernicus was a monk, Kepler an astrolog, the whole business of early astronomy was closely related to astrology, chemistry has started with alchemy. The conflict between religion and science is quite modern, part of Aufklärung.

 

[krash661]

I've been sick for some time and the lack of admin support makes it pointless for a single part timer to try to keep up with the spam flood.

yzarc.. yeah craig is over there claiming you let him back with his second handle abg,which is now cwthomson after receiving a warning from someone . he's also claiming you and him are performing an experiment on us all.

 

[timojin]

Unfortunately, not a good idea. Positivism - a philosophy of science - has seriously harmed physics. Worse than, say, ornitologists who would, say, kill a lot of birds they consider as noxious.

Why do you complain in killing birds . Do you like chicken sup, fried duck, turkey for Christmas. If so you like someone do your dirty works, and you will be judging how bad people are. No hard feeling

 

[Truck Captain Stumpy]

However, if you want to call Minkowski a philosopher and not a scientist, have at it.

i called him neither. i said very specifically:

why does philosophy being spouted by any person have any relevance to the argument?

this is worded for a specific reason: philosophy is not constrained in any way, and is completely subjective to the individual perspective, therefore cannot by any means be considered scientific or in any way objective, let alone constantly repeatable. it may be repeated with like mind, but not even agreed with in its entirety

p.s. the word "boring" relates to psychology, another one of those non-sciences? It's not my OP.

psychology is a soft science, using the method at times, but having to veer away at other times because of the known complexities of the human, it's brain, cultural and other external effects etc... like pharmaceutical medicine, it is malleable because of the complexity inherent in the system. there are still scientifically proven standards within the system which can be repeated.

calling it boring only demonstrates your lack of comprehension of the subject

perhaps there are scientists that are "boring" to you, but a lot of that might simply be your inability to appreciate the material. Surely there are those who are not boring at all, from Dr. Tyson, and Carroll to others who promote science and it's glory.
Boring is another subjective term that is used by many people who simply fear the unknown, or the process of long hours of hard work required for some of the matter to actually be considered and mulled over

for those who wish to educate themselves further and love to learn simply for the sake of knowledge and the seeking of the unknown, i highly recommend the following site: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

free and easily used, it is open for everyone and allows you to work at your own pace. it also has resources for help in the subjects that i recommend.

On science being boring, certainly not from my angle as a lay person...I read and am in awe of how we are able to discertain with pretty good accuracy how the Universe was and will be. If I don't understand something, I'll ask questions, check out a reputable link, or read a reputable book.

@paddo
then you will enjoy the link above. enjoy it.
that is the absolute best thing for logical thought and the best way to learn as well, IMHO. and it shows literacy in science, or at least in locating evidence. Most people can't discern between reputable and disreputable sources of knowledge, though. far too many still accept blogs or "interpretations" through secondary (or tertiary- or worse) sites which review source material with the eye of delusion: much like asking a religious zealot to define reality.

... now, not to stir up a debate on this, but... IMHO - i specifically have issues with philosophy
sure, it historically has been included in the study of science, and required for a degree as well, but i personally feel, IMHO, that it is not a requirement for hard science to progress, as hard science will always ask "why".
Hard science is very much like investigation: follow the evidence; ask why it happened and explain it with repeatable experiments which replicate the original observation, etc

i WILL state, however, that it allows one to open ones mind to alternatives and think outside the box at times, which is a good thing to do for the sake of thinking or learning logic.



this is all offered IMHO and i know there are differing opinions on this topic. it is also very highly debated by scientists and philosophers alike, so it is definitely a topic for another thread...

 

[Write4U]

i called him neither. i said very specifically:

Truck Captain Stumpy said: ↑
why does philosophy being spouted by any person have any relevance to the argument?

Because philosophy supported by scientific proofs is relevant, imo. Is that not what we call "theoretical science"?

this is worded for a specific reason: philosophy is not constrained in any way, and is completely subjective to the individual perspective, therefore cannot by any means be considered scientific or in any way objective, let alone constantly repeatable. It may be repeated with like mind, but not even agreed with in its entirety

Philosophy needs not be subjective at all, it just needs to be logical. Are you arguing that the great philosophers (with little hard science) did not contribute to science, because their philosophy was subjective and unconstrained by science. IMO, that is a hasty conclusion.

psychology is a soft science, using the method at times, but having to veer away at other times because of the known complexities of the human, it's brain, cultural and other external effects etc... like pharmaceutical medicine, it is malleable because of the complexity inherent in the system. there are still scientifically proven standards within the system which can be repeated.

ok, I agree. It is premature to judge these disciplines in absolute terms.

calling it boring only demonstrates your lack of comprehension of the subject

Who is calling science boring? I am not. You are calling philosophy not science. Fair enough, but in philosophy lies imagination and it is never boring when an imaginative scientist philosophizes and his radical philosophy is supported by science itself. Science is not boring, Philosophy is not boring, Psychology is not boring, people are boring.

perhaps there are scientists that are "boring" to you, but a lot of that might simply be your inability to appreciate the material. Surely there are those who are not boring at all, from Dr. Tyson, and Carroll to others who promote science and it's glory.

That is a false equivalence. There are good (stimulating) teachers and bad (boring) teachers regardless of the curriculum or the mental capacities of the students.
I agree that Tyson, Sagan are/were excellent teachers and they do/did enjoy an enthusiastic lay following because of their communicating skills, as well as possessing in-depth scientific knowledge.

Boring is another subjective term that is used by many people who simply fear the unknown, or the process of long hours of hard work required for some of the matter to actually be considered and mulled over. For those who wish to educate themselves further and love to learn simply for the sake of knowledge and the seeking of the unknown, i highly recommend the following site: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
free and easily used, it is open for everyone and allows you to work at your own pace. it also has resources for help in the subjects that i recommend.

Thanks for the link, it looks interesting. I am not in quest of pure knowledge. My interests range much too far to conduct in depth study on all the marvellous phenomena produced by nature. I just seek to understand the underlying theory of natural phenomena. I don't need equations other than the constants by which the universe operates. I seek clarity, not clutter.

... now, not to stir up a debate on this, but... IMHO - i specifically have issues with philosophy
sure, it historically has been included in the study of science, and required for a degree as well, but i personally feel, IMHO, that it is not a requirement for hard science to progress, as hard science will always ask "why". Hard science is very much like investigation: follow the evidence; ask why it happened and explain it with repeatable experiments which replicate the original observation, etc

To a layman, philosophy (the narrative framework) is not boring.
To a scientist consistent results of repeated experimentation is exciting . It is proof (and knowledge).
To a layman a single experiment is sufficient to understand the function (as proposed by the theory) and be satisfied when a fundamental understanding emerges.

I think it is clear from spiritualism, a form of philosophy, that lay people seek fundamental clarity. Often they look in the wrong places to find that clarity. But when they seek simple clarity (fundamental understanding) of physics, they are advised to gain more knowledge which may take years to acquire. That is not productive, imo.

Scientists have done the boring work and are deservedly proud of that, but it is unrealistic to expect that interested lay persons are going to invest in long term studies on a proposition that fundamentally can be clearly explained in a few sentences.

As layman, I have no problem with science and scientists. I have a problem with scientist who are unable or unwilling to make an effort to simplify the more intriguing problems in science, but expect the layperson to rise to their level of knowledge in order be able to understand. imo, that is hubris.

i WILL state, however, that it allows one to open ones mind to alternatives and think outside the box at times, which is a good thing to do for the sake of thinking or learning logic.

I agree completely. To a lay person most scientific knowledge lies outside their box, but if they have logical minds and minimal guidance to reliable links which provide clear narratives without reams of incomprehensible equations, the "interested" layman will invest his time to understand the fundamentals.

This is all offered IMHO and i know there are differing opinions on this topic. it is also very highly debated by scientists and philosophers alike, so it is definitely a topic for another thread...

There are few great communicators in science and oddly, those who are, are often criticized by other scientists for being superficial. Go figure.

 

[Write4U]

deleted for duplication

 

[paddoboy]

God was also a theory used to explain observable things which happened on Earth, thus, God is simply a very archaic version of science. And it was, at least in some variants, a realistic and causal theory (in the sense that God really exists, and is the cause of various things). So, it is even less mystical than some variants of modern science.

God was never a scientific theory, only a myth propagated by our collective ignorances after we climbed down out of the trees. As a self claimed scientist I'm rather surprised you believe it is a science archaic or otherwise.
Yet in a similar vane, you go on and on about scientific theories being wrong because they are [naturally] approximations. See the connections, and irony?

Please do not try to go into ad hominem arguments about "inner glows" or similar nonsense to explain normal scientific theories, in this case a quite simple different interpretation of the Einstein equations of GR.

And that's why your "inner glow" theory is simply a low level ad hominem attack, used for the justification of the defamation that I would behave in some anti-scientific way. By the way, your "inner glow" theory is in contradiction with my statements that my own theories are also only approximations, thus, logically false in the same sense.

Your views on what an "ad hominem" attack is, is about as weird and Ironic as your views on science and politics......particularly since if I was as thin skinned as you I would be jumping up and down at the same level "ad hominem" attacks you have thrown my way. Ironic is it not?

If the accuracy is sufficient to fit the window, there is no reason to cry "false". But it is, of course, inaccurate, thus, from a logical point of view, false.

No its entirely accurate for the job it was made to do, and I believe you know that...In other words your reluctance to accept that, is just another crutch to support that which you find rejected in the main by mainstream cosmology.
But it's your right to believe what you want, whether it be correct or otherwise.
And in reality, mainstream academia, [and me] do not really give a stuff. [that's just another way of saying I don't really care ]

 

[paddoboy]

Unfortunately, not a good idea. Positivism - a philosophy of science - has seriously harmed physics. Worse than, say, ornitologists who would, say, kill a lot of birds they consider as noxious.

Here's a couple more......
Philosophy consists very largely of one philosopher arguing that all others are jackasses. He usually proves it, and I should add that he also usually proves that he is one himself.
Henry Louis Mencken.

Scientists are explorers. Philosophers are tourists.
Richard Feynman

 

[paddoboy]

Dr. Tyson, and Carroll to others who promote science and it's glory.

Neil De-Grasse Tyson is doing a lecture tour of Australia next month.
I'm trying to get a couple of tickets.

@paddo
then you will enjoy the link above. enjoy it.

Thanks...Have it bookmarked.

It's rather a common occurrence here and on other forums, how those that are claiming to rewrite 21st century cosmology, are always the ones that attempt to denigrate scientists such as Carroll, De-Grasse Tyson, Greene, Cox and others, as just being science popularisers... I owe those popularisers a lot. Anything more I have needed, I check out the many reputable learned institutions [such as Stumpy's link] or ask questions.
The other of course as I mentioned the other day, is the well known cry from our cranks and quacks that science is a religion and scientists the priests.

 

[brucep]

actually, most people find it difficult likely because of the sheer volume of work involved in getting it right, plus research, and the simple fact that most people are not taught how to differentiate between pseudoscience and science... this is most prevalent in people who make the wrong assumption that philosophy is a scientific subject and relevant to/necessary for science to progress. Science progresses because there is always a question "why"...

What does this even mean? that you are a layman seeking to comprehend science?


another question: why does philosophy being spouted by any person have any relevance to the argument?

the question, i thought, was "why do most people find science boring"... philosophy is not a science.
one of the biggest arguments for this is simply the methodology used for philosophy: there is no requirement for objective empirical evidence. Philosophy is also subjective to the individual and thus can be different for every person, regardless of specific wording or constraints. Science, however, is not that way.

as noted above: the biggest reason for the "boring" feeling re: science is simply the huge investment that is required for comprehension of the topics, and that doesn't even include specialties in any particular field, such as QM, QED, Neurology, Astrophysics, or any other...

this is intimidating to most people, but add in the heavy mathematical requirements and you get a fear based response as well. This is also one reason that there are such huge portions of the societies and cultures that fear it or fight against it, from conspiracy ideation to religious fanatics.

It is far easier for someone to believe in what they can't explain than work hard to learn why things can be explained... especially as it is usually culturally acceptable to simply follow the peer pressures for things like religion or other cultural defense mechanisms against knowledge (like conspiracy theory). Most cultures grow up learning to accept the little lies as real or acceptable in their own society in one way, shape or form.

Very informative post Captain.

 

[Daecon]

This is questionable even today - there are religious scientists even today. In the past, the connection was much more close. Copernicus was a monk, Kepler an astrolog, the whole business of early astronomy was closely related to astrology, chemistry has started with alchemy. The conflict between religion and science is quite modern, part of Aufklärung.

Yeah, and back in the dark ages they thought elements were Earth, Air, Fire, and Water. They used to treat illness with leeches and mercury. And they used to burn people for being witches - I think they still do that in some parts of the world.

What's your point?

"Goddidit" is still the opposite of science.

 

[brucep]

i called him neither. i said very specifically:

this is worded for a specific reason: philosophy is not constrained in any way, and is completely subjective to the individual perspective, therefore cannot by any means be considered scientific or in any way objective, let alone constantly repeatable. it may be repeated with like mind, but not even agreed with in its entirety


psychology is a soft science, using the method at times, but having to veer away at other times because of the known complexities of the human, it's brain, cultural and other external effects etc... like pharmaceutical medicine, it is malleable because of the complexity inherent in the system. there are still scientifically proven standards within the system which can be repeated.

calling it boring only demonstrates your lack of comprehension of the subject

perhaps there are scientists that are "boring" to you, but a lot of that might simply be your inability to appreciate the material. Surely there are those who are not boring at all, from Dr. Tyson, and Carroll to others who promote science and it's glory.
Boring is another subjective term that is used by many people who simply fear the unknown, or the process of long hours of hard work required for some of the matter to actually be considered and mulled over

for those who wish to educate themselves further and love to learn simply for the sake of knowledge and the seeking of the unknown, i highly recommend the following site: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

free and easily used, it is open for everyone and allows you to work at your own pace. it also has resources for help in the subjects that i recommend.



@paddo
then you will enjoy the link above. enjoy it.
that is the absolute best thing for logical thought and the best way to learn as well, IMHO. and it shows literacy in science, or at least in locating evidence. Most people can't discern between reputable and disreputable sources of knowledge, though. far too many still accept blogs or "interpretations" through secondary (or tertiary- or worse) sites which review source material with the eye of delusion: much like asking a religious zealot to define reality.

... now, not to stir up a debate on this, but... IMHO - i specifically have issues with philosophy
sure, it historically has been included in the study of science, and required for a degree as well, but i personally feel, IMHO, that it is not a requirement for hard science to progress, as hard science will always ask "why".
Hard science is very much like investigation: follow the evidence; ask why it happened and explain it with repeatable experiments which replicate the original observation, etc

i WILL state, however, that it allows one to open ones mind to alternatives and think outside the box at times, which is a good thing to do for the sake of thinking or learning logic.



this is all offered IMHO and i know there are differing opinions on this topic. it is also very highly debated by scientists and philosophers alike, so it is definitely a topic for another thread...

The MIT courses include my favorite book on GR. Exploring Black Holes by Edwin Taylor and John Wheeler. One of the video lectures is conducted by Alan Guth. The great thing about this undergraduate introduction to General Relativity and Astrophysics is you only need calculus, an understanding of the principle of least action, how to use the quadratic equation to find limits, and how to do a weak field approximation for weak field analysis. I met Professor Taylor in 2001. The purpose in writing this book was to create an undergraduate introduction to General Relativity.
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/...relativity-astrophysics-spring-2003/index.htm

 

[Write4U]

The MIT courses include my favorite book on GR. Exploring Black Holes by Edwin Taylor and John Wheeler. One of the video lectures is conducted by Alan Guth. The great thing about this undergraduate introduction to General Relativity and Astrophysics is you only need calculus, an understanding of the principle of least action, how to use the quadratic equation to find limits, and how to do a weak field approximation for weak field analysis. I met Professor Taylor in 2001. The purpose in writing this book was to create an undergraduate introduction to General Relativity.
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-224-exploring-black-holes-general-relativity-astrophysics-spring-2003/index.htm

Now I am encouraged. These type of links are not readily available to the average layman, unless pointed out by sympathetic learned minds. Thank you.

 

[Schmelzer]

God was never a scientific theory, only a myth propagated by our collective ignorances after we climbed down out of the trees.

Religion is the early form of science, and that a lot of it is simply nonsense does not change the point, but is what has to be expected from early science. In fact, believes into God are simply a distorted form of history, which has transformed some wise man of the past after a few generations into a God-like status. The priest and the physician were initially the same person, many rituals are helpful in the same way as placebos.

As a self claimed scientist I'm rather surprised you believe it is a science archaic or otherwise.

Self-proclaimed scientists like you can have, of course, a tendency similar to adherents to a sect - everything else is evil, so, that the sect usually proposes only a variant of the same religion is completely ignored, as well as some scientists completely ignore that they have a common past with religion.

Yet in a similar vane, you go on and on about scientific theories being wrong because they are [naturally] approximations. See the connections, and irony?

No, no connection, no irony, simply a trivial fact that an approximation may be close to the truth, but is not the truth. And what is not truth, but has a truth value, is false. A triviality which you, for some unknown reason, don't want to acknowledge. Possibly because the same mental problem of the sectant - which not only declares all similar sects as evil, but the own sect as those who propose absolute truth. This is the only connection I can see.

That I accept existing approximations as being false as theories also has the consequence that I want to find a better theory, in the ideal case a true theory. Once you think existing approximations are true theories, what would be the point of further research? There are no "truer" theories.

Your views on what an "ad hominem" attack is, is about as weird and Ironic as your views on science and politics......particularly since if I was as thin skinned as you I would be jumping up and down at the same level "ad hominem" attacks you have thrown my way. Ironic is it not?

It is very simple - if one switches from the discussion of the content to the discussion of my personal properties, and this discussion of my personal properties is not a compliment, you use ad hominem. This is an indication that you have no more arguments about the content, thus, clarifies that the discussion about the original question is finished, that you have lost it, and that you have now started a new discussion with a different content, namely some of my personal properties. If I'm not interested in this new discussion, I reject this proposal to discuss my person, and the standard way to do this is to clarify that the argument is ad hominem.

This has nothing to do with being thin skinned. If I would be thin skinned, I would not participate in forum discussions at all, because all such forums are full of uneducated people who don't know how to behave in a civilized society.

If you think I use ad hominem attacks, feel free to make this point. Sometimes, for example, I prefer to answer a personal attack with a counter-attack, instead of rejecting a discussion as ad hominem. This is usually the case if I think that this counter-attack, even if it looks quite symmetric, hits the point much better than the original. So, I can even understand if you think I'm very aggressive against you.

No its entirely accurate for the job it was made to do, and I believe you know that...

I know that GR was not made to be entirely accurate to describe the evolution of the universe except its initial moment. It was made with the aim to find a theory which is true, that means, true everywhere and always. This aim has not been reached.

In this sense, there is a difference with my theory of gravity, which has been, almost from the start, only an attempt to find a large distance approximation.

In other words your reluctance to accept that, is just another crutch to support that which you find rejected in the main by mainstream cosmology.
...
And in reality, mainstream academia, [and me] do not really give a stuff. [that's just another way of saying I don't really care ]

In fact, I have never met a scientist who had a problem accepting that GR is only an approximation, that means, false, given that it is not a quantum theory. So, please don't claim that your private ideas are supported by mainstream academia, they are not.

And, again, my theory differs only in some details from mainstream cosmology. The difference looks big for a layman if one compares the interpretation - an expanding universe in the mainstream, a universe with shrinking rulers in my interpretation, but from an instrumentalist point of view there is no difference - the distances between far away galaxies seem to increase as measured by our rulers, and we do not even use different systems of spatial coordinates.

 

[Schmelzer]

Yeah, and back in the dark ages they thought elements were Earth, Air, Fire, and Water. They used to treat illness with leeches and mercury. And they used to burn people for being witches - I think they still do that in some parts of the world.
What's your point?
"Goddidit" is still the opposite of science.

First, I simply don't like ideological nonsense. Presenting religion as being opposite to science is ideological nonsense, some pseudo-religion. It has even a name, scientism. There has been a strong anti-religious aspect of the Aufklärung, which has exaggerated the differences between science and religion. I think it is useful to correct these exaggerations.

There are several related points. The aim to distinguish science from religion has had some fatal negative consequences for science itself, leading to naive empiricism and positivism in scientific methodology, with an almost religious hatred against any form of metaphysics. The consequence was the dangerous attack of Mach's positivism against atomic theory, which, by a happy accident, did not have the fatal consequence of killing atomic theory, because an observational proof of atomic theory appeared at this time. Despite this fatal blow against positivism, it became the leading philosophy of science, and has prevented any progress in the foundations of GR and QT for many years, because new foundational theories have to start as metaphysical interpretations of existing theories and only after this will start to become different theories, thus, a rejection of all metaphysical considerations simply prevents foundational progress by cutting the most natural way to develop more fundamental theories.

Another point: I have the impression that many people here have a strong religious background, and supporting science was a conversion for them. But it is well-known that proselytes are the most fanatical supporters of the new religion, and in particular the most fanatical enemies of their old belief. I think such fanaticism is harmful everywhere, and that it is useful to give some correction here.

Say, of course, intelligent design is nonsense as a scientific theory. But there is no reason to fight it with quasi-religious fanatism. Instead, one can consider them even as useful, because they can help to identify weak points in evolution theory, and finding weak points in existing scientific theories is an important and necessary part of science.