Russia’s science and higher education ministry has dismissed the head of a prestigious genetics institute who sparked controversy by contending that humans once lived for centuries and that the shorter lives of modern humans are due to their ancestors’ sins, state news agency RIA-Novosti said Thursday.

Although the report did not give a reason for the firing of Alexander Kudryavtsev, the influential Russian Orthodox Church called it religious discrimination.

Kudryavtsev, who headed the Russian Academy of Science’s Vavilov Institute of General Genetics, made a presentation at a conference in 2023 in which he said people had lived for some 900 years prior to the era of the Biblical Flood and that “original, ancestral and personal sins” caused genetic diseases that shortened lifespans.

  • prole@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    They’re not necessarily incompatible, technically, but I am very suspicious of anyone who claims to be a scientist yet are willing to believe such extraordinary claims despite a complete lack of evidence.

    If they would never use such a low bar for evidence in literally anything else in their lives (such as, presumably, their academic and scientific career, which I hope didn’t involve “faith” at all), and yet are willing to completely suspend that need for evidence for their belief in the supernatural, then I don’t trust them.

    • Signtist@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      This is the real issue. Sure, science and religion COULD exist at the same time, but science is all about not making assumptions where you can instead build data, and heavily distrusting anything you can’t build data for. Religion is specifically designed to never be tested. It can never be meaningfully supported or negated through observable mediums, which makes it the antithesis to science regardless of their potential coexistence.

      • Haagel@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        kuhna

        According to the philosopher of science, Thomas Kuhn, making assumptions and dismissing contradictory data is a regrettable but very common part of the scientific process that eventually results in a shift in the paradigm of thinking. Every scientific theory that we know today has gone through these phases and will likely continue to change in the future.

        • Signtist@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          Humans are fallible, yes, and we do have biases that inevitably worm their way into our data and corrupt it. It’s one of the greatest reasons why we’ll never have real truth - only an approximation of it. However, that is not a reason to accept biases as an integral part of the scientific process. They are something we need to incessantly strive to minimize, specifically to keep the cycle you showed to a minimum; it’s a cycle of the failures of science, not the inherent process of it.

          • Haagel@lemmings.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            I wish I shared your optimism, my friend. Biases are increasing in the post-truth era, even in academia. That is a measurable fact.

            • Signtist@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              All the more reason to never treat them as inevitable. It’s not a bad thing to both accept that we’ll never fully overcome them, but to try our hardest anyway - that’s what keeps them to a minimum. If we were to stop trying to avoid them, the scientific process would degrade even more.

              • Haagel@lemmings.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                Avoid what? Biases?

                I agree with Thomas Kuhn that the bias is intrinsic. I think that his description of paradigm shift is a positive one, borne out of an era of conflicting data and intense argumentation.

                Thesis and antithesis give rise to the a synthesis which becomes the next thesis, so on and so forth until our self inflicted nuclear apocalypse.

                • Signtist@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  Avoid biases, yes. We can say “current data supports X,” and make whatever real-world decisions we need to make, while still accepting that future data may very well completely disprove that notion. It’s bad science to say “current data supports X, so Y is wrong,” but it’s also bad science to say “Yeah, I know current data supports X, but my gut says Y is true even without data, and that’s enough for me.”

                  That’s what I see more and more often in society recently; people are seeing that biases are something that can’t truly be avoided, so they’re accepting them instead, allowing themselves to completely abandon data in place of biases. When you catch yourself believing something is true even when data doesn’t currently support it, forgive yourself, as you’re human, but don’t allow yourself to continue believing that thing.

                  • Haagel@lemmings.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    Well said. It takes a lot of honest introspection to determine why we believe a certain set of data instead of another set.

    • NOSin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      9 months ago

      So, because you don’t understand how can someone accepts that something they don’t have proof for, can exist, because they don’t have proof against after all, you’re ready to start doubting their professionalism or their capacity ?

      That seem even more unscientific than what you tried to condemn through a fallacy.

      • WraithGear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        I do when they are making unsubstantiated claims about “truth” in their field of study. If a geneticist claims that people lived longer because of peer review evidence shows their genetic makeup up allows for it would be one thing. But to make that claim when he should know better means he can’t be trusted and is already abusing his position

        • NOSin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          Soooooo, you’re saying every religious scientists make those kind of claims ? Because what you answered to wasn’t about that anymore.

          • WraithGear@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            I don’t remember saying “every” in my post. I do recall being specific on the conditions when it is a problem.

            • NOSin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              And yet, what you answered wasn’t about that case, thanks for your contribution.

      • Signtist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        It’s not that they accept that it can exist, it’s that they accept that it does exist. We have no reason to believe anything exists after death, or that any particular being created us, and to go even further, we have no reason to believe that one religion’s specific version of heaven exists after death, or one specific religion’s specific vision of god created us. Maybe something exists after death, but it’s just a huge everlasting game of dodge ball. Unlikely, but just as unlikely as heaven existing. Maybe a creature created us, but it’s a huge centipede. Again, unlikely, but just as unlikely as a human-shaped god creating us in his image.

        There are virtually no universally-held consistencies even among all of the the relatively few currently-practiced religions, because none of them are based on anything but human imagination even if God does exist, since we’ve likely never had a real interaction with God even in that instance. Religion can exist, but not only is it highly unlikely, even in the event that it’s true, the likelihood that we randomly guessed the exact correct circumstances in which it does exist are nearly impossible.

        The scientific approach to religion is to make no opinion on its existence, because to make a hypothesis about something that cannot be tested isn’t just worthless, it’s biased, which is even worse to a scientist.

        • NOSin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          If you were scientific, you’d know you’re taking a shortcut, ironically not being scientific.

          The likeliness of it doesn’t matter, it can’t be proved either way, for now. There are a lot of consistencies between religions.

          Because you can’t conceive faith existing with logic doesn’t mean it’s impossible, and that it discredites people you don’t know as a result, is a logic flaw.

          • Signtist@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            9 months ago

            Bud, I literally just wrote out multiple paragraphs about how it isn’t impossible. If the only thing you can think of to argue my point is to imagine I said something else, that should tell you something. Religion could be real, it could be fake. The only correct conclusion to draw is that we don’t know. Have no faith in the existence of a god, have no faith in the lack of a god - have only faith in what you can measure. That’s science.

            • Haagel@lemmings.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              If you don’t mind me asking: why should you have faith in what you can measure? Is there an experiment to prove that empiricism is the best means of knowledge? Such an experiment would also be circular reasoning.

              Obviously we’re plaqued on all sides by a deficiency of our organic senses, yet we seek to understand beyond the range of our senses. Philosophers have wrestled with this conundrum for a while.

              https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/rationalism-empiricism/

              • Signtist@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                Measurement is the closest we’re able to get to the truth. It’s something that anyone can independently observe and achieve exactly the same result. It’s not really the truth - we’re never really able to achieve that - but it’s at least something we know exists beyond ourselves and our fallible tendency to simply take what someone else says is true as the truth.

                • Haagel@lemmings.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Yeah, it’s something. I’ve got nothing against empiricism. Obviously I love the sciences, particularly the applied sciences.

                  But I find it amusing that the most self-evidently desirable things in life tend to resist measurement and empirical observation. I think that we need not be so avowed to that means as the all in all.

                  • Signtist@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    It’s fine to have opinions that you hold close even if they’re not entirely based in observable fact - for example, I understand that the notion of an afterlife brings a lot of people a sense of comfort that they may very much need in their life. The issue is when people take those opinions and apply them to something that extends far beyond their own life, such as this example of someone trying to push their opinion about god’s influence on genetics onto the scientific community at large.

                    If he had any real data at all to base it on, it’d at least be something to think about, but it’s nothing but his own interpretation of religious teachings that themselves aren’t based on any data we know of or currently have access to. If it helps him to think that, he can go ahead - I’d still worry about the effects it’d inadvertently have on the required impartiality of his work, but without the data to back those worries up, I’d have no reason to doubt him - but what he did was a step too far.

            • NOSin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Which you ended by"The scientific approach to religion is to make no opinion on its existence,", which is one of the fallacy in your reasoning, you’re reducing it to opinion, implying it can’t be treated scientifically.

              Inferring from that, at best you could say that it should be left alone until scientists could even apply the scientific approach. As in, we don’t know, as you said. And that doesn’t preclude faith, which isn’t mutually exclusive with being scientific.

              To be clear, what I read a lot in this thread, is being scientific should automatically infer you can’t be religious, because you can’t prove it’s real. But it omits that you can’t prove it isn’t.

              Granted, the mistake might from where it started, IE this post where the scientist was being very unscientific.

              • Signtist@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                The only way the scientific approach could be used to measure the existence of a deity would be to measure the deity itself, at which point the measurement would only be a formality - its existence would already be verified. That’s why it’s the opposite of science. You can learn of a black hole before ever observing one by simply understanding the basic fundamentals of physics, but a deity would exist even outside of that. No amount of measuring nature would be able to prove or disprove something that exists outside of that. You still haven’t made a single argument against that cornerstone of my argument. You can call it a fallacy all you want, but ultimately that’s just a word you’re using in place of actually arguing against my point. Faith is the belief that something is true without needing data. Science is the act of gathering data to form a belief. They are opposites.

                • NOSin@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Wrong, there are so many phenomenons that we couldn’t measure, and could barely infer, and yet they ended up existing, sometimes surprising people a great deal in the process.

                  Sometimes we even have been wrong about things we could measure.

                  So yes, still a fallacy.

                  I understand that the logic mind doesn’t like “It might or might not, for now we can’t say”, when it’s about absolute, but that’s how it is, while you really want to claim that it can’t be, no matter what. Because you can’t conceive god existing inside the laws of physics doesn’t mean it’s true.

                  For the end of your answer, I already explained that faith and logic are compatible, because you just say they are opposite doesn’t make it so. And speaking of observable proof : the many religious scientists we have in this day and age, with much more of them being competent and well composed in their thoughts about religion than the one in the OP (or the many people in this post).

                  • Signtist@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    How many times do I need to tell you that I’m specifically saying that religion CAN exist? It CAN! I’ve never said nor implied that it’s impossible, and I’m not saying we should believe it’s impossible! I’m saying that it’s just as bad to believe it’s specifically real as it is to believe it’s specifically fake when we can’t measure it. To believe in religion is just as wrong as to believe in a lack of religion. We cannot know, so to believe anything about it is nothing more than an opinion and not a measurable fact. It’s fine to have an opinion, but to think about something scientifically is to remove any preconceived notions about whatever you’re studying and focus solely on what you can measure; since you can’t measure religion, you can’t think about it scientifically, which makes it the antithesis to science.

                    Yes, some things that are immeasurable end up being true - of course they do, but until they become measurable, they should not be assumed to be anything. If God shows up and we measure him, then he can be thought about scientifically, but until that point he can’t, and he shouldn’t be. Until we have something to measure, we should not assume any baseless ideas about its existence or lack thereof are true.

                    You say the logical mind has trouble saying “It might or it might not, for now we can’t say” but that has been my entire point this entire time! To be religious is to say “Yes, it does exist,” and to be atheist is to say “No, it does not exist,” both of which are wrong. The scientific way to think about religion is to specifically not make any decision one way or another, so when a scientist says they’re religious, that shows they’ve made a decision, which shows they’ve allowed unscientific biases to enter their daily life. Now, we’re all human, and we all have biases, but when we start making scientific presentations centered around our biases, as this man did, it’s incredibly problematic. Science and religion started out hand in hand, and most of our progress over the years has been due to our slow separation of the two.

                  • JCreazy@midwest.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    I’m curious what some of these phenomena are that you speak of. Also being wrong about the things we measure is exactly what science is for. That we know that it was wrong allows us to learn to do it correctly.

      • prole@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        I understand it just fine, it’s called cognitive dissonance. And you’re correct, I doubt their ability to do their job as a scientist.

        • eatthecake@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          From wikipedia:

          In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the perception of contradictory information and the mental toll of it. Relevant items of information include a person’s actions, feelings, ideas, beliefs, values, and things in the environment. Cognitive dissonance is typically experienced as psychological stress when persons participate in an action that goes against one or more of those things.[1] According to this theory, when two actions or ideas are not psychologically consistent with each other, people do all in their power to change them until they become consistent.[1][2] The discomfort is triggered by the person’s belief clashing with new information perceived, wherein the individual tries to find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce their discomfort.

          Religious scientists do not experience cognitive dissonance if they don’t view religion and science as incompatible, and apparently many of them don’t. Cognitive dissonance is not the same as hypocrisy. Some of those scientists may have experienced cognitive dissonance in the past but they have long since found a way of reconciling the scientific method with a belief in god.

            • NOSin@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              9 months ago

              Stop proving that you aren’t here to discuss, but to “win” debates and start ignoring me, thank you