Watchtower Society and Science

by FusionTheism 25 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  FusionTheism

  Is the Governing Body's methods and practices all that much different from the way scientists work?

  Some prominent scientists and big media in the 1970's were pushing imminent disaster from Global Cooling. Now its Global Warming and they all sweep the Global Cooling fiasco under the rug and act like it was just one or two rogue individuals.

  Other examples can be given: Scientists being wrong on the eternal universe, black holes, whether eggs or coffee are healthy or harmful, presenting fake fossils, etc. etc.

  How is this really much different from The Watchtower Society?
• 

  marmot

  The Myth of the Global Cooling Consensus

  Posted by Ross Pomeroy January 13, 2014

  "Contrary to what Crichton, Dobbs, and others might assert, climate scientists never agreed that the Earth was destined for long-term cooling back in the 1970s. Yes, the Earth cooled between 1940 and 1970, but it was exceedingly slight. Scientists now agree that the cooling resulted from excessive use of sulfur-based aerosols. Aerosols only remain in the atmosphere for a short period of time compared to other greenhouse gases, so the aerosol cooling effect faded away as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rose. Knowing this, the majority of climate scientists at the time still anticipated warming. A review of climate change literature between 1965 and 1979, undertaken in 2008, found that 44 papers "predicted, implied, or provided supporting evidence" for global warming, while only seven did so for global cooling.

  "Global cooling was never more than a minor aspect of the scientific climate change literature of the era, let alone the scientific consensus..." the reviewers remarked.

  Today, the myth of the 1970s global cooling consensus lives on through blanket statements, often cited back to cherry-picked news media coverage from the time."
• 

  FusionTheism

  Don't scientists often use the same claim of "the light (knowledge) getting brighter" even while they do "tacking", sometimes going back-and-forth between old and new ideas?
• 

  TJ Brother

  the following verses apply to both :
  Psalm 62: 9; 118: 9; 146: 3
• 

  breakfast of champions

  You're not going to see the difference between how science works and the governing body works if you don't stop looking to People Magazine for answers.
• 

  FusionTheism

  So you're agreeing that the popular scientists who appear in magazines like People, Time, and Newsweek are like the Governing Body?
• 

  LoveUniHateExams

  Is the Governing Body's methods and practices all that much different from the way scientists work? - yes, they are. Scientists collect empirical data to test a hypothesis or answer a question. The method used is explained and replicable. The report is peer-reviewed. Other scientists are free to disagree with a paper's findings/conclusions and are still allowed to talk to colleagues, friends and family, and remain scientists.

  The GB deal in beliefs and interpretations of the bible, i.e. not in hard evidence. They never reveal their working out but expect no JW to question this. WTS publications are not, and never have been, peer-reviewed. Despite this, the GB expect all JWs to accept their findings/conclusions - including changes in doctrine. If JWs persistently question or openly disagree with this, they will no longer remain JWs.

  Yes, scientists can be wrong or change their view on something. But they don't tell others what to think - the GB does.

  Perhaps questioning/disbelieving JWs should become scientists.
• 

  Viviane

  Don't scientists often use the same claim of "the light (knowledge) getting brighter" even while they do "tacking", sometimes going back-and-forth between old and new ideas?

  No.

  So you're agreeing that the popular scientists who appear in magazines like People, Time, and Newsweek are like the Governing Body?

  No. He's saying that's a poor source of information for science reporting and you will likely to know less after reading their articles than before.
• 

  StephaneLaliberte

  There is a very big difference between the two:

  On one hand, you have scientist who share their interpretation of what they can observe. You are free to agree or disagree as they do encourage discussions that challenge their conclusions. They will debate and their views may be wrong, but they will still be willing to debate it and respect your right to your opinion.

  On the other hand, you have the Governing Body who's interpretation of the scriptures is, according to them, made brighter under God's Holy spirit. You are not entitled to challenge these conclusions. If you do so, you are a bigot only trying to promote yourself above your brothers and sisters and should be viewed as a threat and treated as such. Should you pursue your desire to question their current teachings, you will be thrown outside of the congregation and effectively put an end to all of your social life (family and friends).

  It is not because two things are similar in one aspect that they should be compared. A red plane and a red car, though both being red, are very different thing and do not equate one another.
• 

  FusionTheism

  Viviane,

  So scientists who talk to magazines or are featured in magazines are "poor sources of information?"

  Which scientists are "good" sources of information, and why should I believe you?