What on earth does the New York Times think a “scientific convention” is? (H/T Amy Welborn) In the course of describing the first Sunday sermon by the new New York archbishop, the NYT writer writes:

He did not refer to it, but

Which is a wonderful way of being able to write about almost anything at all — there being an infinite number of things that aren’t mentioned in any talk. So what did the writer have in mind?

there is conflict between Catholic dogma and scientific conventions on several fronts

The writer’s purpose becomes a little clearer. Dogma (bad-word) versus scientific convention (good-words). Religion versus science. But still murky writing because a convention is a “set of agreed, stipulated or generally accepted standards, norms, social norms or criteria”. So, not scientific knowledge itself, but merely a social working agreement about certain aspects of it, amendable as socially decided — which of course actual scientific knowledge is not. Though the writer perhaps had science in mind, his point is watered down to a disagreement between religion and particular social conventions.

including

Now we’re looking for a list of what the writer considers to be “scientific conventions” that are in conflict with “Catholic dogma”.

the medical definition of brain death

But which definition? There are several, because medical decisions have consequence for further treatment,  further expense, and the harvesting of organs. There isn’t much Catholic dogma in this area beyond a desire to make sure that dead is really dead. Since the social convention of the point of death has consequences for the availability of resources and other financial considerations, there is clearly a temptation to define it as early as possible. And perhaps too early. Hence Catholic caution in this area.

the legal definition of the beginning of human life

That’s clearly not a scientific convention (though it may have some scientific input), but a social and legal convention. Much the same considerations apply as to the definition of death.

and the ethics of embryonic stem cell research

And if you’re talking about ethics, then “scientific” doesn’t come into it. Science produces no ethics whatsoever. No amount of is can produce an ought. (There is vast muddiness and stimulated ignorance on this point, not just in this article.)