A- A A+

ChatterSquare: How science intersects with politics, religion and the humanities

3 Comments
Podcast |  26 June 2017

 

Is science political? Does it actually have something in common with religion? And how do the humanities enhance scientific endeavour? We tackle these questions with @realscientists co-founder, science communicator and nanotech researcher Upulie Divisekera.

Soundcloud | iTunes

 


Fatima MeashamFatima Measham is a Eureka Street consulting editor. She co-hosts the ChatterSquare podcast, tweets as @foomeister and blogs on Medium.

 



Comments

Comments should be short, respectful and on topic. Email is requested for identification purposes only.

Word Count: 0 (please limit to 200)

Submitted comments

Interesting discussion. But, I would have drawn the boundaries between science and politics in terms of practice. That is, the purest practice of science is not political and the purest practice of politics is not scientific. Inevitably, because these practices are performed by people, in whom science and politics are not separate, they can become corrupted. I would argue that one cannot implement successful policies if one ignores the appropriate science (e.g. ignoring global warming) nor can one do successful science if it is driven by policy (e.g. Lysenkoism). Both the scientist and politician must keep an open mind. Similarly, science has clearly drawn a boundary around itself about what it can decide and what it cannot decide. This is Gödel's proof of the "undecidability of certain mathematical propositions" - that is some propositions such as "This sentence is false" cannot be proven right or wrong. So, I would mistrust proofs of the existence of God almost as much as I would mistrust proofs of his non-existence. (Note, evidence and proof are not the same thing). Mathematics, and therefore science, is agnostic (without knowledge), not theistic or atheistic. So, I can happily accept belief in God alongside belief in Science. Life experience leads to God, not proofs.

Peter Horan 28 June 2017

In the beginning, there was no distinction between Science and Religion. The were part of one essential thrust to find out just 'What is out there'. Religion, response to God, was based on what passed for Science at that time. The response to what we still call 'Acts of God', was 'God did it'. It was left to science to determine HOW God did it; and it is only now that we are realising that it is through Constant and Universal Laws, not through arbitrary partisan acts. The response of early religions was to try to manipulate God, to bribe or appease God, instead of trying to become in tune with God. Science is progressive; Religion is conservative. Conservatism is an enemy of progress. Ancient 'Status quo' needs aggiornament when situations change. Those favoured by a Status quo resist updating lest they 'lose face', or privileges; or because it seems too hard.

Robert Liddy 29 June 2017

my brother Dr. Kevin Treston has written a number of books canvassing the Cosmic Christian Story in this area--latest is Who do you Say I Am--well worth reading

Bernie Treston 29 June 2017

Similar articles

ChatterSquare S01E09: Trump at the Vatican, unsafe journalists, and a Statement from the Heart

2 Comments
Podcast | 31 May 2017

Chattersquare logoShould Pope Francis be meeting the likes of Donald Trump? Do politicians owe journalists anything? And what makes the Uluru Statement a potential game-changer? Join Jim and Fatima as they dive into these and other questions.


ChatterSquare S01E08: Comey dismissal and the Australian federal budget

Podcast | 16 May 2017

Chattersquare logoWe come to grips with the dismissal of FBI director James Comey. Is this about optics, process or something else? Then we turn to a more sedate pace in Australia, where the federal budget has neither damaged or boosted the Turnbull government. We finish with a few ways to stay intact in a tumultuous world.


ChatterSquare S01E07: Good or bad debt, the first 100 days of Trump, and Pope Francis talks TED

Podcast | 02 May 2017

Chattersquare logoIs there such a thing as bad debt when it comes to national budgets? Is infrastructure spending a great idea by default? We also take a glance at the first 100 days of the Trump presidency. As an antidote, we finish with a quick reflection on the latest moves by Pope Francis.


ChatterSquare S01E06: John Clarke, the federal budget, United Airlines

1 Comment
Podcast | 20 April 2017

Chattersquare logoOn this episode, we take a moment to remember satirist John Clarke. Then we do an initial read of the story that the Australian federal budget might tell. We also break down that United Airlines incident. There might be detours, so stick close.


ChatterSquare S01E05: Moscow connections and the persistence of coal

Podcast | 06 April 2017

Chattersquare logoIn this episode, we try to take a knife through Donald Trump's entanglements with Russia. We also discuss coalcare, which is like government insurance for terminal fossil fuel industries. We finish with a quick note on a couple of films that have not been well-received.