Scientist's Creed

[crosscountry]

"I will do my best to understand and explain the universe from big to small without invoking miracles, unrepeatable events, or divine intervention. In place of those things I will use observations, mathematics, and evidence."


-Cross








what do you guys think? Is this worthy? People often ask me why I cannot accept that God did everything. I tell them that as a scientist I look for evidence.

[Superluminal]

And when that fails I will call the people who disagree with me, gov. disinfo agents, gov. shills or NASA cover-up artists.

[crosscountry]

you should put smilies after your thoughts. it's definitly hard to read your post

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

"I will do my best to understand and explain the universe from big to small without invoking miracles, unrepeatable events, or divine intervention. In place of those things I will use observations, mathematics, and evidence."


-Cross








what do you guys think? Is this worthy? People often ask me why I cannot accept that God did everything. I tell them that as a scientist I look for evidence.
Sounds Good, to me, Cross.

THAT'S, What Should Be, Taught, in the Schools!!!!

[Mosheh Thezion]

The scientists creed:

should be..
1) question everything.
2) make good detailed observations, and take good detailed notes.
3) always re-read and study ones notes.
4) Design and contemplate everything by way of rules 1,2,3.
-MT

[Mosheh Thezion]

As far as explaining the universe ... did i mention that my theory just so happens to fit perfectly with moses genesis?

i thought i did? oh well.. now i did.

-MT

[Kristophe]

As far as explaining the universe ... did i mention that my theory just so happens to fit perfectly with moses genesis?

i thought i did? oh well.. now i did.

-MT

Did anyone mention to you that your theory is largely just a collection of indecipherable doodles?

I thought they did... Oh well...

[Ara Pacis]

Perhaps the scientists' creed could be the scientific method. That they define as scientific that which can be explained by science, empirically and experimentally.

[rahuldandekar]

I agree with you all. Scientists should only form their world-view on obervations and the logical conclusions drawn from observations, that predict something that should fit future observation. ;)

But Although Bible, Quran, Bhagavad Gita are all in contradiction with scientific discoveries, people prefer tham because they provide a guide to 'life' , a 'world-view'. Science lacks this world view, and if such a one is formed, it also bring in philosophy which is not entirely scientific, and somewhat complex. Thus, the common people prefer religion.

Science has got to find a 'world-view' in the sense I mentioned it in the above paragraph, because then only will science and religion become separate. Otherwise, inevitably, and unfortunately , "Science with out religion is lame and religion without science is blind." (Or is it the other way round? ;) ) .

BTW, I'm an atheist.

[isferno]

Rahul, could you please omit religious statements, because
1. they don't belong in this entire forum, even off topic babbling
2. they are unsound from scientific point of view.

[Van Rijn]

But Although Bible, Quran, Bhagavad Gita are all in contradiction with scientific discoveries, people prefer tham because they provide a guide to 'life' , a 'world-view'. Science lacks this world view, and if such a one is formed, it also bring in philosophy which is not entirely scientific, and somewhat complex. Thus, the common people prefer religion.

Science has got to find a 'world-view' in the sense I mentioned it in the above paragraph, because then only will science and religion become separate. Otherwise, inevitably, and unfortunately , "Science with out religion is lame and religion without science is blind." (Or is it the other way round? ;) ) .


Science is about logic and objective evidence. That's it. Everyone has philosophical beliefs - what they believe is "good" or "bad," how people should be treated, and so forth. This is not science and cannot be. Some people base their philosophical beliefs on one of the numerous religions, and some don't. I don't mind what other people believe except in two cases: When they believe that everyone else should be forced to follow their particular brand of philosophical beliefs and if they try to put religion in the place of science.

[zebo-the-fat]

You should observe how reality works, atempt to explain its behavior and if later observation of reality does not fit with your theory, change your theory. That is the most important part of the scientific process .. being willing to change your ideas in the face of new evidence.

[Mosheh Thezion]

Like i said.. all that stuff is irelivant as it can all vary...

but to be sure of our vision, and be sure of our understanding when we formulate our ideas in the first place, second place, and third place, and forever until the end of time, when it comes to our efforts in engineering and science... we must..
1) question everything.
2) make good detailed observations, and take good detailed notes.
3) always re-read and study ones notes.
4) Design and contemplate everything by way of rules 1,2,3.
if we do not re-read our notes we will forget and the nuerons we formed will die.. and we will not make the mental connections we would have made, if we had taken good notes and daily and weekly.. re-read all our notes on the subject to refresh and streghten the brain nureons that relate to those ideas..
in this way we build strong nueral nets, which can link and relate all the details..
without regular refreshing.. it is a fact.... we just forget.. as our mind assumes it wasnt that important cause we dont deal with it, or remember it everyday.
and we must question everything even our own notes, as it is when we stop doing so and blindly believe in either religion or theory... then.. we are blind.
and it is only the wondering and questioning mind that is free.
-MT

by the way... the same rules apply to the study of scriptures of any kind.

[rahuldandekar]

I said there, Isferno, that they contradict science. I just mentioned them to show what's lacking in science :) .

Van, I was just saying that since religious claims are scientifically unsound, and that science *may* be able to find some world-view which is consistent with the scientific method and findings.

Disclaimer: I did not want to start a religious debate. Those who think that religious claims are consistent with science, please ignore my comments. I am just raising a point of finding a scientific world-view. :)

[Mosheh Thezion]

thats cool man...

i happen to be the founder of a church based fundamentally in science..
i think of science as my religion... but everyone tells me i can't do that...
I call my self a scientist... but my laboratory is a joke.
so what can ya do?
-MT

[Frog march]

perhaps it should say "without referring to miracles or divine intervention"

I don't agree that religion discussion doesn't belong on a science board.
Just because science can't really deffer to divine intervention(if it wants to be taken seriously) doesn't mean that religion can't in some way play a role in scientists discussions and lives. I suppose some people would ban the discussion of Harry Potter next!

what do you mean "but my laboratory is a joke." Mosheh Thezion?

[taurus26]

You should observe how reality works, atempt to explain its behavior and if later observation of reality does not fit with your theory, change your theory. That is the most important part of the scientific process .. being willing to change your ideas in the face of new evidence.

Are you saying the new evidence is always more accurate than the old evidence? Can anybody really believe this trite observation?

Say Mosheh, may I join your Church?

[Mosheh Thezion]

My laboratory is literally a Joke, more than it is a laboratory.

And any one can join... as long as you are human. You are Human? arent you?

the only question is what level of rank if any were you imagining?
as none officers are considered privates and specialists..
as in officers are leaders...
and privates and specialist are general workers.
-MT

[taurus26]

Thank you Mosheh, I am human.
I had assumed as a private, until such time I was considered for anything more!

Speaking of laboratorys - you should see mine!

With kind regards,

[Donnie B.]

You mean us AI's can't join? :cry:

[Kristophe]

Huh. I guess that means we'll be losing ToSeek...

[crosscountry]

You should observe how reality works, atempt to explain its behavior and if later observation of reality does not fit with your theory, change your theory. That is the most important part of the scientific process .. being willing to change your ideas in the face of new evidence.


[/quote]"I will do my best to understand and explain the universe from big to small without invoking miracles, unrepeatable events, or divine intervention. In place of those things I will use observations, mathematics, and evidence."


-Cross[/quote]

Where did I say anything about stagnant ideas? I said, "observations, mathematics, and evidence." If new evidence or observations come around, then we should adapt/change our ideas.

[Arneb]

"I will do my best to understand and explain the universe from big to small without invoking miracles, unrepeatable events, or divine intervention. In place of those things I will use observations, mathematics, and evidence."

A very nice creed.

If you are looking for something with more heft and pathos, I suggest the following: Science isn't usually well represented in the arts, but one notable exception is a scene form The Life of Galilei by Berthold Brecht. I am not overly fond of Brecht as a dramatist, but in this scene he hits the nail on the head.

The scene plays out before Galilei is finally forced to recant his therories. He hears about the election of a new pope reputed to be fonder of science. Eager to begin anew his investigation into sunspots and the Copernican system, he outlines his scientific creed (this is an impromptu translation from German, so please be generous with my mistakes):

Yes, we will question everything, everything! And we will not proceed in seven-mile boots, but at a snail's pace. And what we find today we will strike from the blackboard tomorrow and not write it again until we have found it once more. And what we wish to find, we will watch with special distrust. Thus we will begin the observation of the Sun with the unshakeable determination to prove that in fact the Earth stands still. And only after we have failed, when we have fully and hopelessly been beaten to our aim, licking our wounds in the most desperate condition, will we begin to ask if not we were right and the Earth in fact turns. However, should every other hypothesis have withered to dust under our hands, then no mercy upon those who haven't researched and yet talk!

I haven't yet found a better description of the scientist's creed (although I certainly applaud yours, cc ;) ) and the single most important difference between the scientist and the woo-woo.

[zebo-the-fat]

"I will do my best to understand and explain the universe from big to small without invoking miracles, unrepeatable events, or divine intervention. In place of those things I will use observations, mathematics, and evidence."


-Cross[/quote]

Where did I say anything about stagnant ideas? I said, "observations, mathematics, and evidence." If new evidence or observations come around, then we should adapt/change our ideas.[/QUOTE]

Maybe you misunderstood me, I agree with all you said!

[isferno]

I said there, Isferno, that they contradict science. I just mentioned them to show what's lacking in science :) .




You started your statement with this quoted statement, but you didn't stop there.

What you do now is starting a statement by saying "grass is green", followed by a very unscientific founded statement and afterwards claim that you (only) said "grass is green" which is generaly speaking a correct statement, but hardly scratches the total statement you made.

And that which you omitted now (and should have in the first place) was from a scientific point of view incorrect.

[crosscountry]

whoa now, this thread is about bringing people together.... let's keep it that way.

[Ara Pacis]

If science relies on empiricism and reproducible experiments then it would seem to be limited to admitting and explaining only those things that are empirical and reproducible. Perhaps all things are empirical and reproducible and science explains all. However, if there are things that are not empirical or reproducible then it would seem that science could not admit or explain them. Does this indicate that at some point, one must choose to believe that all things are empirical and reproducible as opposed to believing that some things are not empirical and reproducible?

[Kristophe]

Science makes a couple of basic assumptions. The first is that nature obeys "laws". That is, in any given situation, the options a system has is limited in some way. Another is that these laws are static in time. If they are not, there is another force at work, and the laws that are changing with time are not fundamental.

The most important assumption is that we can figure out what these laws are. In order to do this, we have to be able to witness a scenario multiple times. If you say "this can happen", but you can't show anybody, then why should they believe you?

If an anomoly occures, a scientist will try to make it recur until they can explain it. If it never recurs, and they don't have evidence of it ever occuring, then they don't know that it actually did occur. And this whole science thing? It's about knowledge.

[rahuldandekar]

Hey Isferno, I didn't omit anything, and what I said I believe. I said that religious has no scientific base. And I also said that anyone who disagrees should ignore my statement because this forum does not allow religious topics. I only made such a statement to show how religion and science are, currently, and unfirtunately, incomplete witout each other. :)

They only thing I'm trying to ask here is wheter we can form a scientific world-view that is simple.

[crosscountry]

They only thing I'm trying to ask here is wheter we can form a scientific world-view that is simple.



You too?

[Ilya]

You should observe how reality works, atempt to explain its behavior and if later observation of reality does not fit with your theory, change your theory. That is the most important part of the scientific process .. being willing to change your ideas in the face of new evidence.
And amazingly few non-scientists realize that. Far too many people perceive scientists as essentially modern equivalent of a priesthood -- "guardians of knowledge" speaking ex-cathedra. Quite a few times I heard this sentiment: "When have you ever heard of a scientist changing his mind??" A rhetorical question, as the person assumed scientists never change their minds.

In particular, I heard that during 1997XF11 asteroid scare, when in the course of one day the threat was downgraded from 1/2000 to zero.

[crosscountry]

it's amazing the concepts lay people have of scientists and the educated in general.

they feel threatened or something.



I mean really, we've got the smartest people in the world working on special problems. And they are resented by the common man.




maybe if scientists had a unified goal that could be stated explicitly, the vagueness of it all would go away, and people would understand science benefits everyone.

[crosscountry]

I just wanted to bump this thread.



as you can see I changed the last word to science. It flows better.

[Swift]

I had not noticed this thread the first time around. I don't know if this quite covers what you are talking about crosscountry, but the American Chemical Society has what they call the Chemist's Code of Conduct (LINK (http://www.chemistry.org/portal/a/c/s/1/acsdisplay.html?DOC=membership%5Ccode.html))
Chemists Acknowledge Responsibilities To:
The Public
Chemists have a professional responsibly to serve the public interest and welfare and to further knowledge of science. Chemists should actively be concerned with the health and welfare of co-workers, consumers and the community. Public comments on scientific matters should be made with care and precision, without unsubstantiated, exaggerated, or premature statements.

The Science of Chemistry
Chemists should seek to advance chemical science, understand the limitations of their knowledge, and respect the truth. Chemists should ensure that their scientific contributions, and those of the collaborators, are thorough, accurate, and a unbiased in design, implementation, and presentation.

The Profession
Chemists should remain current with developments in their field, share ideas and information, keep accurate and complete laboratory records, maintain integrity in all conduct and publications, and give due credit to the contributions of others. Conflicts of interest and scientific misconduct, such as fabrication, falsification, and plagiarism, are incompatible with this Code.

The Employer
Chemists should promote and protect the legitimate interests of their employers, perform work honestly and competently, fulfill obligations, and safeguard proprietary information.

Employees
Chemists, as employers, should treat subordinates with respect for their professionalism and concern for their well-being, and provide them with a safe, congenial working environment, fair compensation, and proper acknowledgment of their scientific contributions.

Students
Chemists should regard the tutelage of students as a trust conferred by society for the promotion of the student's learning and professional development. Each student should be treated respectfully and without exploitation.

Associates
Chemists should treat associates with respect, regardless of the level of their formal education, encourage them, learn with them, share ideas honestly, and give credit for their contributions.

Clients
Chemists should serve clients faithfully and incorruptibly, respect confidentiality, advise honestly, and charge fairly.

The Environment
Chemists should understand and anticipate the environmental consequences of their work. Chemists have responsibility to avoid pollution and to protect the environment

I think most of this can apply to other sciences too.

[crosscountry]

yea, I like that.


my idea was kind of an umbrella. since the general public has some inherent distrust for scientists, I thought it would be nice for us to tell them what we do in just a few words.


bridge the gap so to speak.

[ToSeek]

And amazingly few non-scientists realize that. Far too many people perceive scientists as essentially modern equivalent of a priesthood -- "guardians of knowledge" speaking ex-cathedra. Quite a few times I heard this sentiment: "When have you ever heard of a scientist changing his mind??" A rhetorical question, as the person assumed scientists never change their minds.


I remember watching some of the coverage of one of the Voyager flybys of either Uranus or Neptune. As the bizarre data poured in, the scientists were all but dancing around and cheering, "Everything we know is wrong! Everything we know is wrong!"

[ZaphodBeeblebrox]

I remember watching some of the coverage of one of the Voyager flybys of either Uranus or Neptune. As the bizarre data poured in, the scientists were all but dancing around and cheering, "Everything we know is wrong! Everything we know is wrong!"
WOW ...

Is That, Where "Weird Al" Yankovic, Got the Idea, for This Song:

"Everything you Know is Wrong (http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/weirdalyankovic/everythingyouknowiswrong.html)"

:clap:

[TheBlackCat]

I think in addition to the initial quote, the following one should also be considered the scientist's creed (which is why it is in my sig in the first place). It is not by a scientist, but that does not make it any less applicable:

I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.