7.0 Social postulates / values of science

In a 1942 article on the ethos of science, Robert K. Merton described the scientific ethos as “that emotionally toned complex of values and norms which are held to be binding on the man of science.” He was interested in studying the interactions between social and cultural structures and science. He arrived at a list of ideals and values that are dictated by the goals and methods of science, and which are binding on scientists operating in the wider scientific and social milieu.These ideals and virtues, widely accepted as desirable by most members of the scientific community, are so widespread as to be treated alongside the other fundamental assumptions of science discussed in this chapter. Scientists’ behaviors are strongly influenced through these norms by sanctions and rewards and “are in varying degrees internalized by the scientist”. As with the philosophical postulates regarding reality and inference, these values cannot be proved or disproved, but are built into functioning of the community of scientists:

Communalism
Scientific knowledge is public knowledge; freely available to all. The results of research do not belong to individual scientists, but to the world at large.

Universalism
There are no privileged sources of scientific knowledge; the laws of science are the same everywhere and are independent of the scientists involved.

Disinterestedness
Scientists are unbiased; science is conducted in order to further human knowledge. They have no personal stake in the acceptance or rejection of data or claims.

Originality
Science is the discovery of the unknown; all scientific work must be novel, continually adding to the body of scientific knowledge.

Skepticism
Scientists take nothing on trust; knowledge, whether new or old, must always be scrutinized for possible errors of fact or inconsistencies of argument.

8.0 Why Science is not a religion

The corollary to the accusation that science relies on faith to the same degree as religion is that science IS the new high-tech religion of the 21st century. This facile criticism is easily countered. The following retorts are taken from “Science is Not a Religion: Why Science and Scientific Research are not Religions” by Austin Cline, on About.com

• Belief in Supernatural Beings: The most common and fundamental characteristic of religion is belief in supernatural beings - usually, but not always, including gods. Few religions lack this characteristic and most religions are founded upon it. Does science involve belief in supernatural beings like gods? No - many scientists are themselves theists and/or religious in various ways while many others are not. Science itself as a discipline and profession is godless and secular, promoting no religious or theistic beliefs.


• Sacred vs Profane Objects, Places, Times: Differentiating between sacred and profane objects, places, and times helps religious believers focus on transcendental values and/or the existence of a supernatural realm. Many scientists, godless or not, probably have things, places, or times which they consider "sacred" in the sense that they are venerated in some way. Does science itself involve such a distinction? No - it neither encourages nor discourages it. Some scientists may believe that some things are sacred, and others won't.


• Ritual Acts Focused on Sacred Objects, Places, Times: If people believe in something sacred, they probably have rituals associated with it which are also sacred. A scientist who holds something as "sacred" may engage in some sort of ritual or ceremony. As with the very existence of a category of "sacred" things, however, there is nothing about science which either mandates such a belief or excludes it. Some scientist participate in rituals and some don't; there are no scientific rituals, godless or otherwise.


• Moral Code With Supernatural Origins: Most religions preach a moral code which is typically based upon whatever transcendental and supernatural beliefs are fundamental to that religion. Thus, for example, theistic religions typically claim that morality is derived from the commands of their gods. Scientists have personal moral codes which they may believe have supernatural origins, but those are not an inherent part of science. Scientists also have professional codes which have purely human origins.


• Characteristically Religious Feelings: Perhaps the vaguest characteristic of religion is the experience of "religious feelings" like awe, a sense of mystery, adoration, and even guilt. Religions encourage such feelings, especially in the presence of sacred objects and places, and the feelings are typically connected to the presence of the supernatural. Most scientists experience such feelings; often, it's a reason why they got involved in science. Unlike religions, however, these feelings have nothing to do with the supernatural.


• Prayer and Other Forms of Communication: Belief in supernatural beings like gods doesn't get you very far if you can't communicate with them, so religions which include such beliefs naturally also teach how to talk to them - usually with some form of prayer or other ritual. Most scientists believe in a god and therefore probably pray; other scientists don't. Because there is nothing about science which encourages or discourages belief in the supernatural, there is also nothing about it which deals with prayer.


• A Worldview & Organization of One's Life Based on the Worldview: Religions constitute entire worldviews and teach people how to structure their lives in relation to their worldview: how to relate to others, what to expect from social relationships, how to behave, etc. Scientists have worldviews, and there are common beliefs among scientists in America, but science itself doesn't quite amount to a worldview. It provides a basis to a scientific worldview, but different scientists will arrive at different conclusions and incorporate different elements.


• A Social Group Bound Together by the Above: A few religious people follow their religions in isolated ways; more often than not religions involve complex social organizations of believers who join each other for worship, rituals, prayer, etc. Scientists belong to a variety of groups, many of which will be scientific in nature, but not all the same groups. What's important, though, is the fact that even these scientific groups are not "bound together" by all of the above. There is nothing in science which is even remotely like a church.

And from the Counter Creationism Handbook, by Mark Isaak come these counter arguments. Although originally phrased in the context of evolutionary biology, the same rebuttals are equally meaningful for any science:

• No faith is required. Scientific knowledge is based on evidence that has been observed.


• "Faith" in religion is different that "faith" in science. The two uses of the same word are not equivalent. Religious faith is better called "gullibility" (believing with no evidence and no logical backing). Religious faith is on the same footing as faith in Bigfoot, Leprechauns, UFOs, and ESP.


• Religion explains ultimate reality and moral purpose. Science describes how things and processes work and creates theories that predict outcomes of future events and new discoveries.


• Religion describes the place and role of humans within ultimate reality. Science does not attempt to make these types of value judgments.


• Religions include reverence for and or belief in a supernatural power or powers. Science does not. In the words of the great scientist, Laplace, to Napolean when asked about his famous discourse on the variations of the orbits of Saturn and Jupiter, "I had no need of that hypothesis".


• Religions have a social structure (priests, deacons, congregation) built around their beliefs. No such social structure is built into science. Although there is a social element to science, it is no more nor less than in any other profession.


• Religions impose moral prescriptions on their members. Science does not. Science has been used (and misused) as a basis for morals and values by some people (Hitler’s eugenics, justification for slavery, etc). These views, though invoking science, are themselves not science. Science cannot be held responsible for its misapplication.


• Religions include rituals and sacraments. With the possible exception of college graduation ceremonies, there is nothing comparable in scientific studies.


• Religious ideas are highly static; they change primarily by splitting off new religions. Ideas in evolutionary biology change rapidly as new evidence is found.


• How can a religion not have any adherents? When asked their religion, many, perhaps most, people who believe in evolution and the scientific method will call themselves members of mainstream religions, such as Christianity, Buddhism, and Hinduism. None identify their religion as science. If science is a religion, it is the only religion that is rejected by all its members.


• Science may be considered a religion under the metaphorical definition of something pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. This, however, could also apply to stamp collecting, watering plants, or practically any other activity.

Calling science a religion renders the term, "religion", effectively meaningless. If "religion" is to retain anything resembling its common definition, it should be clear that science falls far short of having the requisite properties of a religion. It does share several traits with religion, but so do political parties, sporting fandom, and many other social organizations. Among those common properties are:

• Evangelism (but this is a feature of politics, economics, sports, and many other social systems)


• Meetings, hierarchies, orthodoxy


• Occasional fanaticism


• Dogmatism (sometimes)


• Membership in organizations

But again, just because some elements are shared with religion, science does not share the key attributes (belief in a supernatural deity, faith without proof, rules for morality, holy books and legends, and all the rest). To extend the definition of religion to include science, political parties, sports fans, etc would so dilute that term as to render it practically meaningless. By that definition, avid stamp collecting would be a religion.