Science and belief: duel or duet?
''A clergyman in charge of education for the country's leading scientific organisation - it's a Monty Python sketch." Discuss.
It would make an excellent question for an introductory course in the history of science. The quotation comes from Richard Dawkins, and he is referring to Michael Reiss, the former director of education for the Royal Society. Some of the leading figures in the early days of the Royal Society were clergymen, and some of the leading figures in the history of science more generally have also served as clergy. Here's Paul Vallely's answer to the History of Science 101 exam question.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~20~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Hold on a minute...
I don't know an awful lot about Michael Reiss, but presumably he's passed his science exams, yes?
Absolute nonsense, Dawkins.
Complain about this comment
Dawkins is right; science is about the philosophy of objective reasoning, it is not the mere authority of 'scientists'.
Any idiot can pass an exam, or be awarded some title in an academic establishment; look how many feminist professors there are!
The religious have exposed their willingness to place faith as their fiducial point, and this is contrary to objectivism; so Occam's razor applies, either a scientist or a cultist, not both.
Complain about this comment
Objectivism?
Cultist?
Occam's razor? It don't think it was meant to ensure that no one can think of two things at once, was it?
Complain about this comment
JG
Do you belive in singularities?
GV
Complain about this comment
@3
You can think of as many things as you like, but what you believe will be measured against reality.
A thing is either real or not real; an idea is either true or not true; if we split our standards of reasoning so that we can make a subject both true and not true, then we lose integrity; like 'running with the hare and running with the hounds'.
Michael Reiss has split his standards between faith and science; he therefore can not be said to have credibility of either.
Occam's razor doesn't limit thinking, it limits reality.
Complain about this comment
@4
Can you give an example within this context?
Complain about this comment
Jimmy Giro
Oh, really simple. Should I believe you have intentions, or should I just act as if you had? In other words, should I believe you are a useful fiction?
As for singularities (and you were wise to duck that question) and other unobservables, should I believe in their existence? Or are they all useful fictions?
What about the world external to my mind? Should I believe in it just because it's a helpful idea, that allows me to make good predictions?
Empiricists really only want to use that razor as a magic wand; there are very few who reallt take it seriously.
Graham Veale
Complain about this comment
Jimmy;
"A thing is either real or not real; an idea is either true or not true; if we split our standards of reasoning so that we can make a subject both true and not true, then we lose integrity"
I agree with all that. If we say that a thing is both true and not true, we are talking nonsense.
However, don't you accept that different fields of inquiry deal with different questions?
As far as I know, Michael Reiss is not claiming anything to be "true scientifically" and yet "not true faithfully"
There is no conflict in standards of reasoning.
Complain about this comment
No worse than having an atheist as Chair for the Public Understanding of Science. Dawkins knows nothing about the public other than to think that most of them are delusional.
Before you can believe in something, you have first to consider it reasonable. There is nothing inconsistent in being a Christian and a scientist. These fundamentalist scientists are giving science a bad name.
Complain about this comment
Presumably Reiss, as a scientist, accepts an account of human origins based on evolutionary biology, which maintains that all the primates have a common ancestor. We humans are only one species of the primate group and we share a very high percentage of our DNA with the rest.
However, as a Christian clergyman, Reiss must believe that humans have a life after death. There are many tales in the books of Arabic folklore that Christians revere which refer to the life hereafter, the Judgment after death, rising from the dead, etc.
It is very difficult to reconcile these two accounts. Does Reiss think that humans acquired their extra ingredient, an after-life, somewhere along the line in our evolutionary history? Do we have some ancestors who had no after-life and others (more recent ones) who did? Are there any other species which enjoy the bonus of an after-life?
The scientific account leads naturally to the conclusion that humans are mortal like any other species and that tales of the hereafter are mere fictions. This is an example of Occam's Razor being used to remove mythological excesses from the scientific account of human evolution.
Complain about this comment
There is no reason for anybody to contradict themselves, therefore we all do and say what we believe to be right.
In order to resolve contradiction we must resort to another standard other than our beliefs; science and faith are two such standards, each refutes the other, hence one claiming both standards can only contradict themselves.
Complain about this comment
Les;
"However, as a Christian clergyman, Reiss must believe that humans have a life after death. ...It is very difficult to reconcile these two accounts."
Why?
"Does Reiss think that humans acquired their extra ingredient, an after-life, somewhere along the line in our evolutionary history?"
Probably, yes. We certainly acquired some kind of extra ingredient, of that we can be sure.
"Do we have some ancestors who had no after-life and others (more recent ones) who did?"
Who knows. Are apes, in the proper sense, our ancestors? They're not the same as us. our fish our ancestors? You may be able to trace a line, but does "ancestor" not imply a commonality? Is inert matter an "ancestor"?
"Are there any other species which enjoy the bonus of an after-life?"
Who knows. I don't think reiss would want to committ one way or t'other.
"The scientific account leads naturally to the conclusion that humans are mortal like any other species"
But the scientific account only deals with the physical aspects of humans. St Pauls "Ressurection bodies" aside, most Christians would probably suggest that the afterlife is not bound by physicality
and that tales of the hereafter are mere fictions. This is an example of Occam's Razor being used to remove mythological excesses from the scientific account of human evolution
Complain about this comment
Accidentally left the end of your post in there, ignore that.
Complain about this comment
"But it was the terrorist attacks in 2001 that turned Dawkins into an Alpha atheist and transformed him from an academic backwater into a populist ideologue"
What took him so long? Did he have an epiphany or did he just become more assertive? Inquiring minds want to know?
Widespread belief in god and religion is one of many evidences that ultimately the human characteristic trait is usually to be irrational. We call believers who try to reconcile the irreconcilable between religion and science "good believers" liberal, tolerant, enlightened, and those who would surpress scientific knowledge and research any way they can to any degree they can "bad believers" also known as "fundimentalists." From my point of view...they're all nuts.
Complain about this comment
"Widespread belief in god and religion is one of many evidences that ultimately the human characteristic trait is usually to be irrational"
And yet you think that it is right to be rational....why is that, if it's so unnatural?
Complain about this comment
Bernards_Insight, you missed my point completely as usual. What a misnomer you have chosen for a moniker. There ultimately is no right or wrong. These value judgements including all moralities are an artificial human construct. The only problem with irrationality is that it leads to actions which are unintentionally self destructive. Every crisis we face today is the result of it. Global warming, overpopulation, the economic meltdown, nuclear weapons proliferation, they all have one thing in common. They could have been prevented had we acted rationally. Instead it seems inevitable that at least one of them will wipe our pathetic species out. Religion denies what we know to be true. It wanted to see man as the ultimate reason for existance with earth at the center of the universe and all time directed at an ultimate salvation and eternal life because we are genetically programmed to fear death. Instead we know factually that it is a mere speck of dust that exists for the briefest of moments in time in a universe without limits in size, without end, and most probably of all, in truth without any beginning, just eternal oscillation between explosion and collapse. Why does it exist? The question itself is laughably absurd, there is no reason. The ultimate folly, a war of extinction over a reason for it which does not exist.
Complain about this comment
"The only problem with irrationality is that it leads to actions which are unintentionally self destructive"
And what's wrong with that?
"There ultimately is no right or wrong"
Oh, right. Nothing!
"They could have been prevented had we acted rationally."
Why bother though?
"Religion denies what we know to be true"
like what?
"The ultimate folly, a war of extinction over a reason for it which does not exist"
If there's no reason, then avoiding extinction is just as much of a folly, surely...
Complain about this comment
Plenty of people have held some religious belief and been good scientists (most of the great scientists in human history fall into this category). I don't see the issue, so long as his science is not informed by his religion.
Complain about this comment
Les Reid writes: "However, as a Christian clergyman, Reiss must believe that humans have a life after death. There are many tales in the books of Arabic folklore that Christians revere which refer to the life hereafter, the Judgment after death, rising from the dead, etc."
First of all, this doesnt follow. Belief in the after life is challenged by some theologians who are nevertheless believers in God. The two beliefs are different.
Second, even if it is the case that Reiss believes in the afterlife, so what? The question is whether this belief disqualifies him from his job as a scientist and educator. It clearly does not.
Reiss is not only a defender of evolution, Les, he has written many books about teaching evolution, and books about defeating creationism in the schools. This is why it is particularly annoying that he should be targeted by militant atheists like Dawkins. It is a crime against intellectual freedom that they should seek to ruin this man's career as they have done.
Complain about this comment
a quick word to John Wright. I agree with your basis point. There is no inconsistency in a clergyman scientist. Your second point is more controversial though. Many very distinguished scientists have written about how their science has been influenced by their faith. This is not to say that they use God language or religious terms in their scientific papers. But they have been inspired to certain work, and have acted on religious impulses as part of their research. Nothing odd about that at all. The double helix research was inspired by a non scientific sense of geometrical beauty. The same point applies there too.
Complain about this comment
John Wright;
At the instant someone believes in god, they are not a scientist. They can go back to being a scientist the next minute but at that minute they are entirely irrational thinking in non scientific terms. Science does not accept what there is no evidence for and is strongly suspicious of what there is no proof for.
Bernard's_Instinct;
The only reason to avoid extinction is the instinct for survival. But in the end, since life has no purpose and human existance is always finite, it hardly matters. There is a certain satisfaction in knowing that I will have lived what is a reasonably long lifespan for my species in a reasonably comfortable and interesting existance at the last possible moment this could have happened. Events seem to suggest that I may live to see the coming of the end of human life on earth in my old age. When I die, everyone else will be dying with me. If there is such a thing as wisdom, it is acceptance of what seems to be real and inevitable no matter how much we don't like it.
Complain about this comment
"at that minute they are entirely irrational thinking in non scientific terms"
Again, Marcus, as is your wont, you equate "rational" with "scientific". for someone who believes in the applicability of logic, this is a strange equation to make, as logic is in no way scientific.
However, if you really believe this;
"since life has no purpose and human existance is always finite, it hardly matters"
then, really, it hardly matters what arguments you make, what you think of science, what you think of rationality, or any claims that you make. Sure it doesn't matter. It's meaningless, in fact. so says you.
Complain about this comment
Re 19.
"Belief in the after life is challenged by some theologians who are nevertheless believers in God. The two beliefs are different."
I never said that they were the same. I simply stated that conventional Christianity has always asserted that humans do not die like other species but continue into another life in the alleged hereafter. This is an ancient belief which can be found in many primitive cultures.
It is contrary to the account of human origins which evolutionary biology gives us. There is no evidence for any special afterlife for humans. You have no more chance of living again in the fictitious hereafter than a gorilla or a chimpanzee.
People have emotional ties to the ancient beliefs which were fed to them as children. They can find it very difficult to abandon obsolete beliefs, even in the face of sound rational argument. But they should recognise that hanging on to those beliefs will sometimes prove to be an embarrassment for them. That is what has happened to Reiss, as far as I can see.
Complain about this comment
"It is contrary to the account of human origins which evolutionary biology gives us"
No, it is not.
"There is no evidence for any special afterlife for humans"
Perhaps not. in what way does this make it "contrary to evolution"?
So humans represent a development from apes...what does that say about any notion of an afterlife, or even of the mind/body problem?
Nothing. It simply says that humans represent a development from apes. It does not state that humans are identical to apes, or that we have ape-like minds. It just states that humanity may well have developed from apes.
Complain about this comment
Marcus says the minute someone believes in God, they're not a scientist. I think you're playing with words. Believing in God is not science, true, but not all of our thoughts are conducted scientifically. When he turns to science, though, he doesn't stop being a scientist because he believes in God. Belief in God does not affect the rational processes he uses when he looks through a microscope or studies the genome or fires protons or studies fossils.
Complain about this comment
John_Wright
When your conscious thoughts are that you believe in something for which there is no evidence, you are not a scientist. Science is a method which bases tentative conclusions about the physical universe on observed facts and logical deductions drawn from those facts. There is no way to logically deduce god because there is no observation to support such a theory.
You can be a scientist one minute and a believer in magic or the supernatural the next but you can't be both at once.
Complain about this comment
Marcus- Saying a religious person cannot be a scientist is like saying a gambler cannot be a banker. He's a good banker even when he's at the track placing unwise bets, and the fact that he gambles with his own money does not mean he is imprudent with someone else's. And at no point does he cease to be a "banker." At no point does our religious scientist stop being a "scientist": he always is, even if he believes things without evidence on a basis other than science when it comes to his religion. He's still observing the real world, reporting on his findings, hypothesizing on that empirical basis, testing his hypotheses, studying the results. Unless he's doing that improperly or neglecting the scientific method, I'm sorry, but he's as much and as good a scientist as the atheist in the next lab.
Complain about this comment
John_Wright
I don't agree and I don't accept your analogy. But I will say this about it. When a banker is using the mentality of the racetrack in his professional life, he isn't much of a banker. BTW, isn't that how the worldwide economic and financial crisis we are now in arose, by armies of bankers acting like high risk gamblers?
I am not saying human beings can't be multifaceted and have different aspects of their personalities which express themselves at different times. But the two ways of viewing the world are inherently incompatible and cannot be expressed by the same person at the same time.
Science draws tentative conclusions based on empiracle evidence and logic. Belief in god is a conclusion without such evidence. Religion is generally presented as a rigid dogma which will not easily bend even in the light of incontrovertable contradictory evidence.
Complain about this comment
Marcus - how do you the great scientist explain the prevalance of belief in God. It is an undeniable fact that man has evolved into a being, who, in the majority of cases, believes in God.
And how do you explain the quantum difference in capacity between man and apes, given the similarity of DNA?
Do you think that every time a scientist thinks he's in love, or reads a work of fiction, or goes to the ballet, he stops being a scientist?
Complain about this comment
Marcus- I agree and I think most people accept religion on entirely different terms than the way they approach almost any other thought; one of the only times at which they suspend reason is to assert belief in God. Thus, a scientist who believes in God is suspending his scientific judgement to believe in God, yet he's still utterly scientific when it comes to his work. That's what I'm getting at, and this man is therefore still an excellent scientist.
Complain about this comment
Smasher-Lagru
Why do some people deny global warming when the evidence is overwhelming while those who accept it expend their money and scientific resources on redundant super jumbo airplanes, redundant space programs, redundant global positioning satellites and giant atom smashers instead of finding answers to a threat to all of human existance?
Why do people sit back and allow insane lunatics like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim IL Sung to research and build nuclear weapons when they know if and when they get them there will be a nuclear war that will kill many millions?
Why do people remove all of the safeguards that were developed to prevent wild speculation by bankers that caused the great depression from happening again and then seem utterly surprised when it inevitably does?
Why do people think the earth can support a population of unlimited size and then rail at everything but their own folly when its resources and ability to sustain ever larger populations actually fails?
Why do people look on horror at the bloodbath of mass murder in a world war, swear never again, and then sit back when there is a Cambodia, Uganda, Ruwanda, Darfur, and countless others sometimes pretending it isn't even happening?
The answers to all of these questions and many more questions like them is that ultimately, human beings are in the end irrational. They know the answers, they know what to do to prevent trouble they have seen and studied to death, but they do the wrong thing anyway and then curse each other at what tragedy inevitably befalls them? And instead they worry about the nearly impossible like earth getting hit by a meteorite or a comet or the unimportant like who will win at the Olympic games.
So it is not surprising that frightened of inevitable death, wishing for an explanation of why they are alive and a meaning for life, they invent fairy tales to soothe their worst fears and then fight wars over whose fairy tale is correct. And if they actually tolerate others having a different version of this fairy tale, they are seen as tolerant and enlightened.
Inside many scientists are these same deep dark fears they haven't come to grips with and when they lie awake at night thinking about it, they are no different than the primitives 5000 and 50,000 years ago sitting around a fire or at the mouth of a cave in the dark looking up at the sky with the same fears and wonder reacting in exactly the same way. A lifetime of training and practice of how to think rationally is thrown out the window so that they can have the same comfort for that moment. You can hardly expect me to take them seriously when they talk that way because at that moment they are just plain crazy like a congenital liar who knows in half his brain that what the other half is telling him just doesn't add up but says it and half believes it anyway.
I'm not going to research for you the latest research on developmental anthropology explaining why homo sapiens evolved to a much further degree than simians. Go to a library or to the internet and research it for yourself. There are tons of information about it resulting from lots of careful study and the research will continue to find even better and more detailed explanations than we already have.
Complain about this comment
John
Did you see my question directed to you on the other ABC thred?
I want your take on the current state of the ecconomy, as a free market capitalist...
Otherwise i presume you just agree with the generally accepted belife that more regulation is required.
Complain about this comment
John (at #30), I think you are mistaken in this notion of parallel lives or ways of thinking. Any religious scientists I know are very integrated - they are ultimately interested in truth. They certainly don't believe in contradictory things at the same time, nor do they consider their faith irrational or that they have to suspend reason to believe in God.
Marcus - excellent points - clearly you believe in The Fall, and only the grace of God can save us from the chasm of irrationality. St Paul describes it well "For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate" (Romans 7:15)
Complain about this comment
Theists have been accused of dodging questions. Now I'd like a few answers from the skeptics waving Occam's Razor about. Are you going to be consistent? Do scientific theories successfully refer to extra-mental realities? Are there electrons, quarks, singularities, animals united by membership of a class and a common nature, laws etc? Or are these merely practically useful ideas?
Graham Veale
Complain about this comment
Re 34.
"Do scientific theories successfully refer to extra-mental realities?"
What an odd question!
I wonder if the answer could be "No. The moon, the Earth, etc are all figaments of our collective imagination."
Bizarre.
And yet I suspect that somehow GV hopes to deduce from the obvious existence of the material world that all the fictions of Arabic folklore have some claim to credibility. That's what I call going the long way round. In fact, I do not think that life is long enough for such a traipse.
Complain about this comment
Hello Graham,
I didn't mention Occam's razor, but I can provide some info on the others questions in your post.
"Are there electrons, quarks, singularities, animals united by membership of a class and a common nature, laws etc? Or are these merely practically useful ideas?"
The things you see around you are made up at the lowest level (at least as far as we know now, at some point protons and neutrons were thought to be elementary) of two families of particles, quarks and leptons.
There are 6 quarks: up, down, top, bottom, charm, strange.
There are 6 leptons, forming three pairs: electron, electron neutrino, muon, muon neutrino, tauon, tauon neutrino.
These particles can be combined into many other forms of particles (of which most have extremely short life times). They are susceptible to four fundamental interactions: the strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetism and gravitation. Not all interactions work on all particles.
And then we have what could somewhat simplified be called 'interaction carriers', the bosons: photon, gluon, the two associated with the weak force and the elusive Higgs boson, the latter being predicted by theory but not observed yet. Hopefully the LHC will change that. Other particles were all predicted by the Standard Model of particle physics and except for the Higgs boson they have all been observed as they were predicted with rather incredible accuracy.
If you'd like to know more then Google 'Standard Model of particle Physics' or 'particle zoo'.
greets,
Peter
Complain about this comment
Peter
Oh, I believe in Leptons etc, and I've no quarrel with you believing in them either. You haven't been thoughtlessly waving Occam's Razor around .
But a thoroughgoing empiricism banishes these beliefs to the realm of "useful" rather than true, no matter how accurately we measure them. They cannot be verified by sense experience. Try Googling "Bas Van Fraasen" or "WVO Quine" or look at Stephen Hawkings view of Scientific Realism.
Like you, I'm a realist, and find it difficult to explain the results without the truth of the theories. And thank you for the post.
G Veale
Complain about this comment
Les
NO philosopher, mediaeval or otherwise, wants more entities than they need in their philosophy. The qusetion is, when are they necessary? The razor doesn't settle any debate just by invoking it; one philosopher might feel that the real existence of numbers is necessary to explain knowledge and science. Another may disagree. Shouting "Occams razor" hardly helps.
I was curious to see just how seriously you took the principle - whether or not you wanted to embrace an empiricism that wanted to base our concepts and our knowledge on sense experience. That would leave knowledge of the external world, or any inductively based knowledge claim, problematic. However it may be pragmatically useful to posit an external world and other minds. That's a different issue. And of course nothing says that empiricists have to DENY truth-claims about the external world. They just remain agnostic and judge them according to their usefulness.
Of course such a belief system is bizarre. We just can't prove it's bizarre. And, intellectually, it's much more rigorous than basing beliefs on "common sense/life's too short".
Now quarks are rather smaller than the moon. Perhaps you should follow the advice on Peter Klaver's post just to see what we are talking about here. Science posits many entities that are in principle unobservable. If you took Occam's Razor seriously you would not believe in them, but just take them as pragmatically useful. (Go tell Stephen Hawking that life's too short to take his opinions on Theoretical Entities seriously). But you don't really believe in the razor. You just like waving it at Theists.
Of course Science cannot explain the order and uniformity of nature, and it has to presuppose that our minds can make reliable inferences. And like it or not, robust arguments for Theism are still being published at the highest level, arguing from knowledge and nature to God. They may not compel belief, but they remain respectable arguments.
Now, by claiming that I was asking an odd question, you reveal that you haven't thought too hard about empiricism or philosophy of Science. And that reduces your posts to bluster.
Now let's probe a little deeper, just to see if there's any substance to your position. Should I believe that there is a person called Les Reid? Or should I merely adopt an "intentional stance" towards you?
However you can feel free to dodge the whole debate by saying you've far too much common sense for all this philosophy. Life is short.
But then, why did you introduce philosophy in the first place? And should you believe in things like "intentions" which are invisible to science, but necessary to common sense? And what about all that strange Quantum stuff? Best left to all those physicists who lack your common sense?
Graham Veale
Complain about this comment
PeterKlaver
Just been to particle zoo. Very good. Thanks for the pointer.
If I laughed when I seen the site, does that mean I'm not getting out enough?
GV
Complain about this comment
I'm assuming you meant the cuddly toys, and didn't want me to read essays on the theoretical entities. I know their names and what, roughly, they're meant to do. And that's quite enough for me thankyou very much.
GV
Complain about this comment
gveale #37
"Oh I believe in leptons..."
Then can I assume you beleive in Leprechauns too? After all, there's about as much evidence for the little people as there is for god.
Think of what a great insult that is, "you half life of a lepton you." :-)
Complain about this comment
Hello Graham,
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. When believers talk about science the result is often less than impressive. Usually you will find a dose of ignorant negativity in it. The believers just can't help but to talk down mankinds achievements, knowledge and insights. Usually because no competition to their divine imaginary friend can be allowed, let alone when that competition (i. e. scientists, engineers, etc) easily outdoes their imaginary friend by a long shot.
While I can't say for sure that the latter is your motivation, your post 37 in reply to me is yet another example that has all the hallmarks.
"Oh, I believe in Leptons etc"
Belief in leptons.....not the best opening half sentence for someone who wants to be taken serious when making a post about science.
It soon gets worse:
"But a thoroughgoing empiricism banishes these beliefs to the realm of "useful" rather than true, no matter how accurately we measure them. They cannot be verified by sense experience. Try Googling "Bas Van Fraasen" or "WVO Quine" or look at Stephen Hawkings view of Scientific Realism."
And where on FSMs green earth did you get the idea that something not directly observed by our senses can only be a useful construct and can not be judged to be real or not?! I don't know the work of Bas van Fraasen but I know you didn't get that idea from Stephen Hawking. It would make for a most bizarre and unstable notion of what is real or not. Suppose that there is some tiny little species of animal just too small for people to see. Then some people are born with remarkably good eyes who can see them. So then they are suddenly real whereas before they weren't? The birth of persons with sharper eyes than anyone before them changes these tiny animals being real or not? Come on. It's just the usual ignorant negativity of believers, in a different wrapping paper: "Nonono, we don't know all those things for sure at all. No one has ever seen a top quark. You shouldn't believe everything those damned scientists say. Here, if you want to really understand then I have a book for you. It's in two parts actually. There is an old part, written when people didn't have much of a clue about most things. And there is an even ridiculously older part, written by some troublesome, semi-literate goat herders living around the Eastern Medditeranean millenia ago."
In post 40 you wrote
"I'm assuming you meant the cuddly toys, and didn't want me to read essays on the theoretical entities."
It would have been good if you had read about these things, and the working of science in general, before posting. It really cracks me up that believers so often complain that it is atheists who don't know enough about the religion they reject.
Complain about this comment
Hi Peter (K),
I've been following your conversation with Graham and have a couple of (genuine) questions.
But before that a preamble.
I have no intention whatsoever of adopting the approach to the bible you outlined in post 42, indeed I have no intention of mentioning it at all on this thread, so I have no hidden agenda with my questions, I'm just interested. Second, I'm not, in any way, a scientist, so you are going to have to keep this simple for me, but I'll try to follow you as best as I can.
So after all that, can I ask, what do we mean (in this particular context) when we say that the particles have been observed, and how do the mathematical formulas and physics work together?
Please feel free to correct (even) my question!
Complain about this comment
Hello petermorrow,
I read your post a bit late in the evening to give a detailed answer covering everything. So let me give you some bits now, let me get back for more later hopefully.
One of the leptons, the electron, is probably a good one to start with. The electron has a tiny charge. So if you place it in an electric field, a force we be exerted on it. If you add or remove some electrons to/from an object, force will be exerted on that object if it is placed in the field. That object also experiences gravity of course. You can learn the charge of the electron by seeing when the two forces match. So in a famous experiment, a tiny oil droplet was made to hover in an electric field by adding or removing a few electron charges to it. One way to do this is to shoot high energy photons (you can think of them as little packets of light, only of wavelengths invisible to the human eye) at the droplet. These will sometimes tear an electron free from the object that is hit, giving the object a charge. And then gravity pulls the droplet down, the field pulls it up, letting it rest in equilibrium. As you can measure the weight of the droplet, you know how hard gravity is pulling on it, and thus how hard the field is pulling in the other direction. A field will pull on a charge proportional to the size of the charge, so then we have uncovered one secret of the electron, its charge.
Since we can make electrons move by placing them in a field, we can now start playing billiards with them. We can accelerate the electrons in a field and let them collide with other particles. From the way that the electron bounces of whatever it hits, as well as what happens to the target, we can learn various things. For instance, if we let the electron hit a relatively heavy particle, the electron will bounce off with most of its energy still with it. If it was a lighter particle, it can transfer a good deal of its energy to the particle it hits. This is called scattering and the way we learn about it is by seeing what comes flying off, where, and with how much energy. If the particle studied is an electron, it could for instance be detected by placing current measuring detectors all around the collision area and seeing which one shows the tiny current. That would be the one the electron went into after the collision (normally a current from many scattered electrons will be measured, as one is so tiny, very difficult to measure on its own).
Charged particles can also be visualized in a more appealing way by letting them travel through oversaturated water vapour. The charged particles can ionize atoms that then become condensation nuclei. The result is that if you place a radiation source in oversaturated vapour, you see trails of tiny droplet appearing.
People have found the rules that govern how particles with different mass, charge and spin scatter off each other. With that knowledge, we are then just going to have a series of frames of sub-atomic snooker. Once you learned the properties of some particle, like the electron, throw it at a different particle. The way the electron and its target scatter away from each other tells you things about the target. And so the number of experiments you can do quickly increases. With every bit you nail down, you immediately open up the way to the next bit.
As final thing for tonight, we are going to raise the stakes considerably. We're not just going the bounce particles of each other. Instead, we're going to crash them into each other with unimaginable energies. Such high energies that particles like the ones that form atomic nuclei are smashed into their smaller constituent parts. Again, where, and with how much energy you detect what comes off gives you information of what went on.
Not all particles can be measured like electrons by looking at e.g. a current they induce in a detector. Sometimes it is not the charge but e.g. the spin of a particle that is used for detection.
It's almost midnight now. End of post. One thing to disappoint you for next time: the mathematics of the Standard Model of particle physics are hugely complicated. I hardly understand any of it myself. And it's almost purely equations, not easily handled in html. So I leave that for someone else to elaborate on. Sorry to appear a lazy bum.
Complain about this comment
And to pile on the insults, it turns out you weren't sending me to a humorous website - you really did assume that only a scientist would have heard of the term "particle zoo"
Complain about this comment
And I don't confuse detectability with observability. If English isn't your first language I apologise. Or maybe your eyesight is really good.
Complain about this comment
I mean when I found out that you can do experiments, I mean wow, does the philosophical world know? You should publish in the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, you should!
Complain about this comment
Can you write to Hawking and let him know that physicists do experiments, and that he's wasting his time reading Karl Popper and the Positivists? (I've quoted him extensively elsewhere on the blog - I thought too extensivley at the time, but now it turns out you can't be too careful).
Complain about this comment
Now I'm not a physicist, but I've Christian friends who are, and have done research in the interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. My knowledge of science is just that of an undereducated layman. But if I compare it to your knowledge of philosophy I'd say I come out on tops. That's not much of a boast. I'm stunned that you are totally unaware that there is any deabte about the reality of Theoretical Entities, and that empiricists are those who are casting doubt- not religious believers. Heliopolitan and MarcusAurelius (both scientists, the first who refuses to believe in Theoretical Entities, the latter who thinks that all this quantum weirdness is just a passing phase) are the doubters on the blog, not me. Go argue with them.
But please have the courtesy to read their posts first, and don't make lazy assumptions about their arguments or presuppositions. They're atheists - but you mightn't like them, because they advance arguments rather than dismiss people.
As a matter of fact I double dare you to take on Marcus and Heliopolitan. Marcus thinks reality will turn out to be simple. So I'm assuming the standard model will go the way of phlogiston in his thinking. (You can do a google search on phlogiston - and it's always safe to read the first article you caome to and belive everything it says). Helio is one of the few scientists I know who is a thoroughgoing empiricist. And I'm willing to wager a lot of money that collectively they know much more about the subject than you do. (By subject, I mean any subject). So you may want to drop the condescending "I teach physics at a grammar school" tone if you decide to test your views against theirs.
In short, if you had read, actually read, some of the comments you remarked on in earlier threads, you would know that there are ATHEISTS on the blog who are skeptical about the truth of many respectable Scientific theories (but not their practical value, or their ability to make accurate predictions. Imagine that! They know that the theories they doubt make good predictions!).
I AM NOT SKEPTICAL AND HAD BEEN DEBATING WITH HELIO ON THIS ISSUE. MY REMARKS HAD A CONTEXT OF WHICH YOU ARE BLYTHELY UNAWARE.
Now that's a free period wasted and me in a bad mood for the rest of the day.
I'll see y'all Monday. I've four hundred students who can be more insulting for free.
GV
(PS I'd be prepared to pay money to watch you take on Helio on this issue).
Complain about this comment
I mean you go on a four day course that makes you give CPR to a gender confused doll called "Annie", and then you find the sub teacher used all your coffee.
Complain about this comment
What sort of world are we living in?
Complain about this comment
And PK Tonite wasn't having a converstaion with me, he was winning a monlogue
Complain about this comment
I mean there's no problem with interpreting an electron realistically. It obviously has a definite location, and it's wavefunction is a useful fiction - oh wait, that's incoherent... let's see the wavefunction is real, and the electron takes a location when we're measuring it... no that doesn't seem to explain that damn cat... no there has to be a really simple explanation, all those A-Level teachers couldn't be misleading us...
Complain about this comment
Now that I've had my coffee
Peter
Now that I have had my caffeine infusion, this is what I should have typed earlier...
I think you may have misunderstood my position, and that you may be missing out on some rather interesting debates on the nature of reality.
Your posts were very clear, and now I am in a better mood, I should hope that you are considering a career in teaching rather than research.
I don't doubt your skills as a researcher, or a government lackey, but you obviously have a talent and a passion for communicating physics. And I've known one very fine physicist who gave up a promising career to teach physics at a Grammar school, and has never regretted it.
I just think your passion for physics (and the lack of precision in my posts) led you to assume I held a position that is in fact taken by many empiricists.
I am told that van Fraasens grasp of the mathematics involved in interpreting Quantum Mechanics is intimidating. It may not be wise to dismiss him so easily.
Sorry for the flame - this will happen when someone steals my coffee, and you are the only person around to get into a row with
Graham Veale
Complain about this comment
Just to be very clear, I reject "thoroughgoing empiricism" - I was critiquing that position. One reason I am not is that most scientists clsim they don't need that worldview. I was annoyed that you leapt in assuming that I held that Scientists were all rigid empiricists, and that you attacked that philosophical position without really understanding it.
Complain about this comment
GV wrote: ".. an empiricism that wanted to base our concepts and our knowledge on sense experience. That would leave knowledge of the external world, or any inductively based knowledge claim, problematic."
The external world? External to what? This sounds like some archaic version of empiricism which starts by assuming a solipistic scepticism ('my sensations are all I know for certain') and then gets in a tangle trying to find the material world. That stuff died out after WW2. Russell gave up on Logical Atomism and the model of the mind as a little box where sense data occurred gave way to a model which took as its basis the social foundation of language. End of 'the external/internal world' dichotomy.
But now it seems you do not subscribe to that antequated version of empiricism yourself, GV. So what on earth was the point of dragging it into this discussion? Don't we have enough red herrings and digressions to contend with?
Complain about this comment
Peter (K)
Thank you for time you have taken to respond to me.
As I was reading through the reply I jotted down a few questions which came to mind.
Really I'm not being a smart ass, I just find the science a bit bewildering. For example, I can see my keyboard, I can feel my keyboard, I can smell my keyboard, hear the keys click as I type and could, I suppose, taste it, tho' that might be a crime! Can I do this with electrons?
What is being measured, and how is it being measured? Where do we get photons from? How do we fire them? Do we need photons to see the effect of the photons we are firing?
Personal disclosure here, it was questions like this, and their equivalent, which frankly, were not answered in 'O' and 'A' level physics, and which led me to give up, switch off, and generally become suspicious of what I was being told. I'm not saying that what I was told was wrong, just that the answers never satisfied me and that on more than one occasion the questions were not answered at all.
You see, I could keep asking these kinds of questions about energy, the weight of particles, the charge of particles, how are they isolated and so on, but I'm not sure I'll ever be satisfied. Now, to be fair to you I have a friend who has already tried to explain this to me, he calls me a skeptic(!), and even though he has also explained the history of the subject to me, the people involved, the experiments carried out, the results and so on, I'm still struggling to visualise (maybe that's the problem, I'm a very visual person) what is going on.
I think I do understand that the maths and the physics match, in that the predications match the results of the experiments, (maybe that's a poor way to put it) but I really don't get how anyone knows what is happening.
I definitely get that it is all a process, that, "With every bit you nail down, you immediately open up the way to the next bit.", but I don't get what is being nailed down in the first place. The words, and I know you need them to help me understand and that they are descriptions, but the words you use like throw, scatter, spin, and the like make sense when it comes to 'real' snooker, I can see the balls bounce and scatter and spin and so on, they can hit me on the head and knock me out, but when it come to the things I haven't seen, I struggle.
Peter, this may come across as pretty dumb to you, or maybe I'm just voicing the questions that the average 'Joe Bloggs' in the street doesn't want to ask, but even though I'm happy to accept that these things are part of what makes this website and my computer work (scientifically I'm a pragmatist) I do genuinely struggle at times with the thought that none of it is 'real'. Maybe the other thing is that I could say that *I* don't need the knowledge to go about my everyday business, to enjoy my arabica, go to work and so on, in fact most people probably go about their daily business without ever thinking about the knowledge they don't have!, so (and I'm not being cheeky) how would you deal with a skeptic like me?
And here's the only criticism I'm going to make about scientists like Dawkins, as it is pertinent to this thread; maybe if he and others, spent as much time and energy in bringing the science to a popular audience as they have done in lampooning religion, we would all understand more, and he would do more good. Personally, I for one would be a 'watcher', if we could have a 'Particle Physics' version of some of the natural history programmes that the BBC makes very well.
Complain about this comment
Les
No I don't subscribe to that form of empiricism. But of course various versions are alive and well today (I hate 'em all) and I am stunned to find your grasp of the topic naive and simplistic.
GV
I'm off now, so I'll see everyone Monday
Complain about this comment
Peter;
"maybe if he and others, spent as much time and energy in bringing the science to a popular audience as they have done in lampooning religion, we would all understand more, and he would do more good"
An excellent point, well made. And surely that's precisely Dawkins' supposed role. Given that many many scientists have no problem with their faith and their science going hand in glove, why does Dawkins think that his vocational role is to show us all how stupid religion is.
Even on his recent Darwin programme, far far more time was given over to arguing with theists than to actually explaining the science.
I for one would like to see that, because i think Dawkins is actually a good explainer, and has a knack for accurately simplifying complex arguments.
Complain about this comment
Les
Conscience has got the better of me - I'm winding you up a bit.
Yes empiricism has moved on, but soemtimes Humanists talk as if the only philosophers who ever wrote was Hume. (Empiricism can be defined broadly enough to include Aristotle in any case).
I'm just trying to point out that shouting "Occam's Razor" solves nothing. And that any worldview that evades metaphysics altogether runs into very serious difficulties. And that if you are unaware of those difficulties you are better keeping quiet.
Graham Veale
Complain about this comment
And now I really have to go until Monday.
Complain about this comment
"(Empiricism can be defined broadly enough to include Aristotle in any case)."
Even Aquinas, in fact.
Complain about this comment
Graham, Peter M, Bernard:
I'm taking a break from preparing Humanism Ireland to see what you three are up to.
Ah, just as I thought when I first read it, Peter M! When you told Peter K that you had no hidden agenda with your questions, it was a total bluff. Maybe if theists stopped misrepresentating reality in the wider world (in the media, for example), dictating to others what they should think and do (especially children) and obstructing scientific progress (Embryology Bill), then we could all move on to a better world.
Scientists open their eyes and look and then acknowledge what they do see and detect, and either suspend judgement or reject any ideas for which they lack sufficient reason to give their assent. Theists tend to close their eyes, shut down their brains, and take a leap of faith into falsehood. Then they order the brain to waken out of its self-inflicted stupor to justify this leap by spurious reasoning. You would all learn something by following the scientific example.
Theists should stop lying about and/or misrepresenting what science has found and asserting that it says something that it does not say. It gets you nowhere, except to show your disrespect for the truth.
An example of this misrepresentation is the following from Graham, to whom most of the rest of this post is mainly addressed:
“Of course Science cannot explain the order and uniformity of nature, and it has to presuppose that our minds can make reliable inferences”.
The first part of this statement is a misrepresentation of both nature and science. It wrongly implies the absence of chance, poor design, chaos and illogicality.
(1) No major scientist would make such a presumption about nature being 'ordered or uniform'. If anything, they would say the opposite: there may be tiny pockets of order, but it is more likely that most of the universe is chaotic and random. Most of the matter and energy of the universe shows little structure and no sign of design. I was told ad nauseam on another thread by Graham and Bernard that this position was conceptually impossible, which proves how devoid of any reference to the real world some of your pseudo-philosophical reasonings are. They are positively a prioristic in their attempt to prove everything from deduction, based on your own biased theological assumptions.
(2) Evolution argues that organisms accumulate change by natural selection, modified by random mutations, that enables them to survive and have progeny that maintain those features. This implies that humanity was an accident and not the special creature of a creator.
(3) Biology tells us that the eye in all vertebrates is wired backwards, whereas other animals, such as the octopodes and squids, have their eyes wired more rationally. Indeed, it tells us that there are many flaws in the human body which an engineer would have avoided and would enable us to live longer. For example, our bones lose minerals after 30, making them susceptible to fracture, osteoporosis etc. Our rib cage does not fully enclose and protect most internal organs. Our muscles atrophy. Our leg veins become enlarged and twisted, lead o varicose veins. Our joints wear out as their lubricants thin. Our retinas are prone to detachment. Last, but not least, the male prostrate enlarges, squeezing and obstructing urine flow.
(4) To this list we may add the presence of vestiges of once useful parts of the human body. The appendix, the coccyx, and wisdom teeth may once have been vital to survival, but now tend to cause more problems than they are worth. If we were designed with a divine purpose in mind then these organs must play some very mysterious role indeed.
(5) A better designed human would have bigger ears, rewired eyes, a curved neck, a forward-tilting torso, shorter limbos and stature, extra padding around joints, extra muscles and fat, thicker spinal discs, a reversed knee-joint etc.
Bernard, as for Dawkins, you are quite wrong. He has spent years popularising science and evolution. What about all his other books: The Selfish Gene, The Blind Watchmaker, The Ancestor’s Tale... etc?
Presumably, you think he shouldn't write about evolution because it challenges your own beliefs.
Graham: As for you statement that "sometimes Humanists talk as if the only philosophers who ever wrote was Hume", well, he did make some devastating comments about religion, did he not? Humanists are quite capable of talking about other philosophers where the subject is not religious but political, social, moral, philosophy of science etc. The Humanist magazine which I edit ran a series on The Great Philosophers, which had 20 parts. I wrote most of them.
As for saying that science has to presuppose that our minds can make reliable inferences, sure this is true. I agree with you that it is reasonable to ask whether scientific theories successfully refer to extra-mental realities. But I would say that causal realism is the most satisfactory answer (you seem to hold to a similar position). The causes of our sense experiences are physical objects in the real world, which exists independently of our perceiving it. I accept that this is a metaphysical assumption, but it seems a reasonable one.
Hume would be sceptical on the grounds that we not have sense impressions of connections. Nevertheless, we could call him a sceptical realist because, although he did not think we could have perceptual access to the necessary connections, and thus we have no rational justification for believing in them (hence scepticism), yet at the same time we are compelled by natural instinct to believe there to be a necessary connection when we observe a regularity or constancy in our perceptions, and this natural belief is of an objective causal necessity (hence realism).
This view implies a correspondence theory of truth, at least on matters of fact or logic. Moral 'truths' are another matter altogether.
So I agree with the second part of your statement about scientific presuppositions, but the first is not an accurate description of the nature of the universe.
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian
I hope you are having a good break, of course you don't have to believe me.
I haven't read all you post, I stopped at "An example of this misrepresentation is the following from Graham, to whom most of the rest of this post is mainly addressed:"
I was just taking a quick look and have more important things to get back to, namely the new version of FIFA 09 for the Playstation, I will read the rest later.
Just a couple of comments for now. Where exactly did I betray my hidden agenda? Was it the Dawkins criticism? My use of the word skeptic? What?
Did it ever occur to you that I actually do have doubts and that these can relate to my faith?
And where did this come from? "Maybe if theists stopped misrepresentating reality in the wider world (in the media, for example), dictating to others what they should think and do (especially children) and obstructing scientific progress (Embryology Bill), then we could all move on to a better world."
That is a rant.
It was the Dawkins criticism - wasn't it, or is it just me?
"Theists should stop lying about and/or misrepresenting what science has found and asserting that it says something that it does not say."
Brian I wasn't lying, I made it clear that I don't know the science, that I find it 'bewildering', what's your problem with this? Do you read sarcasm into everything? And which bit of, "Personally, I for one would be a 'watcher', if we could have a 'Particle Physics' version of some of the natural history programmes that the BBC makes very well." is closing my eyes.
Brian - wise up. Better still maybe you could explain the intricacies of The Standard Model to me.
FIFA calls.
Complain about this comment
Peter:
a few quotes from La Rochefoucauld:
"If we had no faults, we should not take so much pleasure in noticing them in others"
"One gives nothing so freely as advice".
"Hypocrisy is the homage paid by vice to virtue".
"We only confess our little faults to persuade others that we have no larger ones".
Or, if you prefer, a remark about motes and beams spring to mind.
And as if there wasn't more than enough real football everywhere, you want to play at it as well!
Cheers,
Brian
Complain about this comment
Brian
Is there anything I can say that will be acceptable?
Complain about this comment
Hi Peter:
Stick to the arguments, perhaps?
Oh, I forget another La Rochefoucauld quote:
"Good advice is something a man gives when he is too old to set a bad example".
Complain about this comment
Hi Peter:
BTW:
Not ALL my criticisms of theists necessarily apply to you personally, or even to Graham or Bernard. only some. Unless you all want to tarred with the same brush! Collective suffering? Or collective guilt?
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian
Let me try and come at this a different way. Of course everyone has agendas. On this blog, I am biased towards theism. At break time in school, I am biased towards coffee. (in fact, maybe I'm just biased towards coffee - period) I have all sorts of petty idiosyncrasies, but when I said to Peter Klaver that I had no hidden agenda it was in direct response to his post 42 when he said that he was concerned about the "ignorant negativity of believers" and "Here, if you want to really understand then I have a book for you. It's in two parts actually. There is an old part, written when people didn't have much of a clue about most things."
I was making the point (or trying to), by asking a question (which I have asked others before), that I didn't understand the physics, and that I wasn't going to start into a whole defense of the bible. I was, and am interested in the science, and I am skeptical about some it in the sense that sometimes it all just sounds like words, and I'm sure that that's true for many. Peter gave a very thoughtful reply and I am grateful for that, but as I said in reply to him, I still really don't grasp what's actually going on (which is why I asked about the Maths bit too). Like I said I'm a scientific pragmatist, and one with open ears at that?
I then made a comment about Richard Dawkins, an opinion which is, incidentally, shared by others:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/tv_and_radio/article4473274.ece
The thread is about Dawkins and his suggestion that clergymen shouldn't be scientists, or at least not ones with any influence. Maybe it was tongue in cheek, I don't know, but my comment was on topic and that is why I was surprised when you jumped in with:
"Ah, just as I thought when I first read it, Peter M!" and "total bluff" and then the stuff about media and children; what's that all about? As I said before I don't care what you say about me or theism, but I do expect to be able to respond!
So I say again, I wasn't lying, bluffing or misrepresenting anything. I asked about Science and made a comment about Dawkins on a thread about Science and Dawkins.
I really don't see the problem, and it might be helpful to both of us if you could explain why you though I was off the argument/topic, and what it was that exposed a hidden agenda.
Anyway the suggestion for the TV programme stands. What about covering the key historical events, personalities and experiments of the math and physics of light, electricity, magnetism and so on (up to the present day) in a way which will explain to 'Joe Bloggs' what has been done, what we think might be able to be done and how we have benefitted from the models. Goodness me if somebody times it right the last shot could be of William reporting from CERN after the greatest discovery of all!
Complain about this comment
Peter:
We are back to this statement of yours, with which Bernard concurred:
"Maybe if he (dawkins) and others, spent as much time and energy in bringing the science to a popular audience as they have done in lampooning religion, we would all understand more, and he would do more good".
I was responding by saying that theists (in the world at large, not necessarily you personally) spend a lot of time doing other harmful things in the world, so scientists don't need any lectures about the alleged faults in what they are trying to do, especially when, as I say, Dawkins (who occasioned your remark) has done a lot, especially in several books, to bring the science of evolution to a wider public.
In fact, Dawkins is a very bad example, since he has spent most of his life doing exactly what you criticise him for not doing sufficiently.
Complain about this comment
Brian
Some theists can of course bring misery and pain to the world, which is most certainly worse that portraying a clergyman as the central character in a Monty Python sketch. We have agreed about this before.
You should note too that I wasn't criticising the 'faults' in Science; as I said, I don't know enough about the subject to do that. I was suggesting that Richard Dawkins appears to be best known (most certainly in recent years) for ridiculing religion, and that the ridicule of religion seems to be part and parcel of his presentation of science, and that that is a pity. (Could it be that this is how he will be remembered?)
As you will probably have read, AA Gill outlined similar concerns. Indeed Gill's points, too, are directly related to this thread.
On another point, does this mean that I'm being 'let off' the charge of "total bluff"?
Complain about this comment
Brian;
"Most of the matter and energy of the universe shows little structure and no sign of design."
And yet you're able to discuss it.
Brian, you misrepresent me in that I am not offering some form of design argument. I'm merely saying that one of the criterion for being part of the universe is a degree of structure and the resultant ability to be characterised. I agree with Aristotle that there are categories of reality.
You explicity mention energy and matter, and then go on to speak as if these are, in principle, unknowable. They are sufficiently knowable to be characterised as energy or matter...they fall within the remit of our inquiry and knowledge, even if only to a very limited degree.
"I was told ad nauseam on another thread by Graham and Bernard that this position was conceptually impossible, which proves how devoid of any reference to the real world some of your pseudo-philosophical reasonings are."
Nonsense. It IS conceptually impossible to think about or discuss anything which is, in principle, outside of any possible knowledge or inquiry. That is tautological
I don't think the rest of your post has any relevance to me.
I have no problem with evolution. In fact I embrace it.
Complain about this comment
The general scientific world-view which has been accumulating steadily since the Renaissance gives an account of this planet, Earth, and its place in the Milky Way galaxy. It describes the history of the planet in terms of plate tectonics, ice ages and giant impacts, etc. It describes the history of the human species as simply one strand in the evolution of all the species on the planet.
That scientific world-view has superseded the ancient religious world-view which held sway for centuries before that and was based on superstitious tales of miracles, gods and the after-life. Those tales came to Europe from Arabic folklore.
The difference in the two world-views is clearly seen when one considers natural phenomena like lightning and rainbows. The scientific account explains them in terms of layers of atmosphere, friction and electric discharge (lightning) or water vapour, refracted light and angle of observation (rainbow). The religious account tells of angry gods and of a promise made to humankind.
There is now a vast body of scientific knowledge. It is all theoretically open to revision, but much of it is, in practical terms, certain (eg explanation of rainbow; circulation of blood; chemical formulae). Of course, there are things that we do not know and phenomena that we cannot fully explain, but those problems cannot gainsay the fact that the overall scientific account is coherent and rational.
Choosing between those two world-views is no contest, in my opinion. I can only assume that people who cling to the ancient religious world-view are hooked on it emotionally and cannot bear to let go. Marx compared religion to opium, referring to its delusory comforts, but perhaps its addictive properties make the comparison even more telling.
Complain about this comment
Les
"the overall scientific account is coherent and rational."
Of course it is, why wouldn't it be? The explanation of the rainbow in terms of promise (or anything else biblical for that matter) is not a scientific explanation and was never intended to be a scientific explanation. I fear you are driving an unnecessary dichotomy.
Tell me this, whenever you happen upon a rainbow, for example, is your though always, "water vapour, refracted light and angle of observation"?
Complain about this comment
Bernard:
“It IS conceptually impossible to think about or discuss anything which is, in principle, outside of any possible knowledge or inquiry. That is tautological”.
It take it you are not referring to a God here. He, of course, is an exception to your own rule. But your position is frankly stupid. It amounts to saying: "it is possible to understand the universe rationally because it is rational, therefore God exists".
Actually, we could more reasonably argue: if we could prove that God existed by our reason, then there would be good objective evidence for his existence, but since there is no such evidence, he probably does not exist.
My position is perfectly rational. It does NOT say that the universe IS totally outside any possible knowledge or inquiry. It says that it MAY not be ordered or rational but there MAY be pockets of rationality within it. In those aspects where it is not rational or ordered, then indeed there is very little beyond that that we can say, at the moment at any rate. It is you, remember, who think we can say more than most scientists would venture to posit.
It is you who know the secret of the universe. It is the scientists who, by their nature, exercise caution.
Complain about this comment
Peter:
"I was suggesting that Richard Dawkins appears to be best known (most certainly in recent years) for ridiculing religion".
This is quite simply wrong. Before The God Delusion, he had written EIGHT major books outlining and explain evolution. The first, The Selfish Gene, was originally written more than thirty years ago.
In one of the books, Unweaving the Rainbow, he takes Keats's accusation that, by explaining the rainbow, Newton had diminished its beauty, and argues for the opposite conclusion. He suggests that deep space, the billions of years of life's evolution, and the microscopic workings of biology and heredity contain more beauty and wonder than do 'myths' and 'pseudoscience'.
If he is remembered for his 'ridicule' of religion, that certainly won't be his fault.
Complain about this comment
At 74 PM wrote:"The explanation of the rainbow in terms of promise (or anything else biblical for that matter) is not a scientific explanation and was never intended to be a scientific explanation. I fear you are driving an unnecessary dichotomy."
The dichotomy IS necessary. The history of how the scientific world-view has developed since the Renaissance is the story of a struggle to escape from the ancient religious world-view which preceded it. One account of man's place in the cosmos, based on folk tales and tradition, has been replaced by another, based on rational argument, experiment and evidence.
The two world-views have collided head-on at various times. Here are two famous examples.
The old view placed Earth at the centre of the cosmos. The scientific view places Earth in orbit round the sun and on the edge of the Milky Way galaxy. The Church imprisoned Galileo and burned Giordano Bruno at the stake for daring to advance the scientific view.
A similar battle is being waged over evolution. Supporters of the ancient world-view are trying to prevent the general acceptance of the scientific account of how species have evolved on this planet.
The clash of world-views is a matter of historical record. Having failed to halt the advance of the scientific world-view, the supporters of the ancient religious one are now trying to say that there is no incompatibility after all. Sure .... Woden, Zeus, Jehovah, the Bogey Man, Santa Claus .... let's have the whole lot - and eat our scientific cake as well!
Complain about this comment
What on the Flying Spaghetti Monsters green Earth?! A double digit string of posts by Graham, mentioning his rather unchristian sounding games with Annie the doll, the internet equivalent of shouting with his all capitols lines, ranting and raving about coffee (does anyone else get the impression that alcohol was a factor in Grahams posts, rather than caffeine?), and his not very intellectual sounding claims to philosophical superiority over me. Really Graham, that last bit conjures up the image in my mind of you as the silverback dominant gorilla in a group, who is challenged in his authority. I see you know as a big ape, standing up, beating your fists on your chest, roaring 'WHRAAAGH, I AM BETTER THAN YOU! AND WITH MY ALL CAPITOLS POSTS I CAN SHOUT LOUDER THAN YOU! WHRAAAGH'!!
How intelligent. Do you have any idea how you're making yourself look with posts like that?
It gets rather depressing when we realize that you're an RE teacher. I shudder at the thought how intelligent pupils are met when they dare venture into the realm of critical questioning, not taking your lessons as gospel. Are you into such crazy yelling in real life too?
Anyway Mr. self-proclaimed Big Fancy Philosopher, in post 54 you wrote "this is what I should have typed earlier...". I'll not pay any more attention to your posts before that line then and focus on the substance of what came afterward instead. Which is very little. The only bit you present appears to be a single argument from authority when you write
"I am told that van Fraasens grasp of the mathematics involved in interpreting Quantum Mechanics is intimidating. It may not be wise to dismiss him so easily."
You are told? Well what is the argument you are presenting then? Merely waving about van Fraasens name. Not an argument at all, anything other than an argument from authority. Which amounts to very little of course.
While my grasp of the mathematics of the Standard Model is modest, quantum mechanics is involved in just about anything I do for a living. My understanding of the math of it is much better. So why, instead of waving names about, don't you present your argument about the mathematics of QM or give some more detail about your argument about the reality of things depending on whether they can be picked up by sensory perception. I promise you I'll look at it very thoroughly. I'll carefully consider every thought in it, triple check every equation down to the last bracket or square. Looking forward to it.
But it's not going to happen, is it? Just more content-free anti-science, anti-knowledge, obscured in a very thin, serious sounding wrapping paper meant to give it a veneer of acceptability. Too transparent Graham.
For some more confirmation of how your position is just anti-thinking and anti-knowledge in disguise, look at your humongously double standards. You're actually trying to cast doubt on any science not brought to us by sensory perception. If we can't see/smell/hear/touch it, you would have us think it's not true. You think the idea of there being a god is true. Care to tell us what hair style god has, how big his ears are, does he have a loud booming voice, and does jesus have smelly armpits or not? Since you think they're real, obviously you've seen, heard, or smelled them, right?
Or would you just be another believer who is into this very negative, unconstructive habit of talking down science you are almost entirely ignorant of, while giving a free pass to the wildest ideas? That's it, isn't it?
Again, I'll be happy to eat my words if you come up with a detailed presentation, your own presentation, of your broad unspecific FUD claims against science.
Complain about this comment
Brian
So, much the of attention on Richard Dawkins in this last few years hasn't been on his treatment of religion?
OK, if you say so.
And remember, I didn't say he hadn't made great contributions to Science.
"If he is remembered for his 'ridicule' of religion, that certainly won't be his fault."
Nothing to do with him putting thoughts in people's heads then?
OK.
And what various thoughts do you have when you see a rainbow?
I presume there are a variety...
Complain about this comment
Les
The two world views may well have collided at times, but that does not mean that they must. I take it, though, that Faraday's science is questionable.
Of course, if the God of the bible is analogous with Santa, then perhaps we ought to think again, but it's a poor comparison.
However back to the rainbow, are you telling me that you only think scientifically about it? You sort of omitted to tell me.
Complain about this comment
Hello petermorrow,
Documentaries about things like the Standard Model of particle physics for a general audience are indeed very few. An exception would be the 3 part series 'Atom' that the BBC aired:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbcfour/documentaries/features/atom.shtml
It's not about the Standard Model, but you might find it interesting. I looked at YouTube. It seems you can watch it there, although it's chopped up into many parts. As a search term on YouTube I typed in 'Atom Khalili', the latter is the name of the presenting professor.
Closer to the Standard Model, I also did a bit of searching and found a website about particles you might find interesting:
http://www.particleadventure.org/
The part about detectors would hopefully answer some of your questions about how particles are detected.
Then a few specific issues.
How we can experience electrons: we can't hear them, see them individually, etc. There is one way of experiencing them, but it's not a pleasant one: go out into the country side until you see some cows closed in by an electrified fence, then pea against the fence.
I'm not financially liable for any medical care or undertaker bills resulting from the experiment btw.
Photons can be generated in a variety of ways. One is to let a current flow through a thin metal wire, thereby heating it (as in an old light bulb), or set something on fire, again heating it. You see the light coming of a lamp or fire because photons from the fire/lamp hit your eyes.
In a more controlled way, light with specific photon energies (or wavelengths, think of it as the color of light) can be generated by letting electrons pass through an electric field.
We start with two metal objects (say plates) with an electric field between them. Just connect the opposite ends of a battery to either plate and there will be a small field between them. Connect many batteries in series and there will be a stronger field between them. Then we shine some light (doesn't have to be of one specific wavelength, can be 'oridinary' light) on the negatively charged plate. Some of the photons will free electrons from the metal plate into separate particles. These free electrons are then accelerated by the electric field towards the other plate. As they travel through the field, they pick up energy from the field. Once they hit the other plate, this energy is transformed into a photon. The interesting bit is that the energy of the photon is proportional to the field between the plates. So that allows us to tune the wavelength of the photons. Just set the voltage to the right value.
I'm not a 100% sure, but I think this is how the x-rays used in airport luggage scanners are generated.
You asked if we needed photons to observe the photons we fire. The answer is no. Photons that come off something we experiment on, are visible to our eyes by themselves. If they have a wavelength that is in the visible spectrum for the human eye, that is.
It might be interesting to note there that some animal have eyes that are sensitive to wavelengths different from our eyes. If wavelengths are a bit longer than those we can see, the light is in the infrared part of the spectrum. We can't see that. We can feel the heat on our skin, but we can't see it. Animals like some snakes can. They can therefore 'see heat'.
Finally I'll echo others who mentioned Dawkins' earlier work. He hasn't been a full time atheist all his career. Only in recent years in fact. I read two of his books, The god delusion and The selfish gene. If you like nature documentaries, you would probably find The selfish gene a very interesting read. Apart from a few swipes at creationism, sometimes literally confined to footnotes, it's almost purely a very interesting read about how genetics play out in our behaviour. The chapter on genetics in insects in particular is fascinating. I found the first few chapters less interesting but well worth reading through to get to the good part.
Peter
Complain about this comment
PeterKlaver,
Thankyou.
And I will follow up on the links you have given me.
Complain about this comment
Peter M:
"So, much the of attention on Richard Dawkins in this last few years hasn't been on his treatment of religion?"
Let’s be quite clear. This attention has been focused in so small part by theists who don't like what he is saying or the success of his book. It was YOU who complained about him not explaining science to non-scientists.
Recall your words:
"Maybe if he (Dawkins) and others, spent as much time and energy in bringing the science to a popular audience as they have done in lampooning religion, we would all understand more, and he would do more good".
Now the point is that The God Delusion was published in 2006. For 30 years before, Dawkins was doing precisely what you have accused of not doing. It is NOT his fault if you paid absolutely no attention to what he wrote UNTIL he criticised religion.
Which rather raises the question: if you are genuinely interested in the science, then why on earth have you not read any of his other books?
Complain about this comment
Peter
I was about to call your last post silly and immature, but I suppose I started that. Let's start again, if we can.
Yes, I did go into a bit of a rant, and I apologised for that. I'm quite happy to make a little bit of a fool of myself, if it means that I don't have to directly state what I am feeling. You really leave me no choice but to outline why I was so frustrated by your posts.
I am not in the least bit intimidated by the fact that you can do sums. (And therein lies an appeal to authority). It's the interpretation of the Mathematics that is at issue(see question 1 below). Furthermore it is deeply frustrating to be critiqued for holding a position that you do not in fact hold. And then be told that Christians cannot talk about science.
As to my reaction to critical thinking, ask Brian or Helio (by the way, is Brian allowed to talk about science?) I did not detect any critical thinking in your posts, just misinterpretations of my statements (which due to their forcefulness others are now adopting).
However you will not allow critical thinking about the truth claims of Science. You seem to have an unreflective, unthinking acceptance of Scientific Truth claims. You also deliberately ignore the fact that I believe that Science is reliable and truth telling. In other words, I believe that good arguments can be advnced against those who are agnostic about electrons etc. But keep in mind it will do no good to repeat the experimental results; it's the interpretation of those experiments that is at issue.
I have told you several times that it is Helio, an atheist, who is the consistent empiricist - who is agnostic about the truth value of Scientific Theories. Now he is a trained scientist, and I have a lot of respect for him. So I was infuriated to see you dismiss his views with a simplistic accounts of scientific discovery. I also note that you consistently avoid challenging him on this issue. Marcus has views that seem more nuanced - but again you refuse to challenge him. This is ironic - I lack scientific training, yet they don't respond with "Oh, you've got to believe me, I'm a Scientist" when I challenge their views. You have scientific training, yet you will not debate them. And you had your opportunity after you accused me of adopting PB's mantle.
You also conveniently refuse to look at the views of Hawking, Van Fraasen, Popper etc. That's a refusal to accept criticism.
And then to have the temerity to describe the electron as a particle - it makes a person want to weep. (Maybe you hold to the De Broglie Bohm interpretation. If so, you should have said so. Otherwise, in the context of a debate about the interpretation of Scientific Theories, that's unforgivable.)
As to my arrogance, I made it very clear - I was denigrating your knowledge of philosophy, not advancing my own as authoritative. Brian and others on the site have a much clearer grasp of philosophy than I. And if you had bothered to skim through my previous comments on Will and Testament you would have seen that I have said this several time in the past.
Now let's look at the substantial issues that you have dodged.
1) Is the electron a particle? Do you hold to the De Broglie-Bohm interpretation? Can the wave function be interpreted realistically? Just curious. If you hold to the Copenhagen interpretation you are back to some form of empiricism. (My bet is that you are too busy calculating and applying for research grants to have an opinion).
2) Why should we infer to unobserved entities? (a) After all, when we do we are quite often wrong. If you are going to make inductive inferences, shouldn't you make a pessimistic induction about scientific theories? That most have turned out to be false -and that most will turn out to be false.
(b) Can you understand that philosophers who remain agnostic about Theoretical Entities are actually being more rigorous than those who accept them? Such inferences are always underdetermined by the evidence, but our observations are not.
(c) That as a simple matter of logic there are unlimited hypotheses that we have not considered, some of which explain data just as well, and presumably some explain it better? In other words, you could be committing a "base rate" fallacy when evaluating the success of Science? (d) That if false scientific theories can be accepted for social reasons, then the same can be said for scientific claims we consider to be true?
Now I think arguments can be advanced against all of these arguments against Scientific Realism. But they are substantial arguments, and I will not allow you to dismiss the views of posters that I have come to respect a great deal.
Graham Veale
Complain about this comment
Peter M
The two books I rely on for my understanding of Quantum Physics
"Quantum: a Guide for the Perplexed" Jim Al-Khalili
"A Beginners Guide: Quantum Physics" Alistair I. M. Rae
This is as advanced as my mathematics gets.
G Veale
Complain about this comment
Brian
I certainly wasn't referring to you when I was commenting on Humanist rhetoric. And if that 20 part series is online I'll take a read.
I think that Scientific knowledge can be defended on causal realist lines, and I am very grateful for an accurate reading of my position. Pure Empiricism seems untenable. However, if you want to say "make as few metaphysical presuppositions as possible" I think you have a rational position. It seems to sacrifice explanatory coherence and power to explanatory simplicity. But I don't know of any way we can rationally decide if that is a bad exchange.
Thankyou for a refreshing dose of sanity.
G Veale
Complain about this comment
For challenges and replies to Scientific Realism - neither written by a "believer", neither anti-science - I found these articles helpful.
http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/dept/lipton_truth_about_science.pdf
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/
I appreciate how clever scientists are - but the focus is, of necessity, on the detail. Philosophy looks at a bigger picture. So the two cannot ignore each other. It is also unwise to keep history out of our understanding of the world.
GV
Complain about this comment
Graham:
The series is unfortunately not online as it was written before we developed a website.
I think we both agree that we do a disservice to our understanding, and to philosophy, if we 'explain' the world around us merely by appeals to 'common sense', which in my experience is not that common anyway.
Complain about this comment
Brian;
"?It IS conceptually impossible to think about or discuss anything which is, in principle, outside of any possible knowledge or inquiry. That is tautological?.
It take it you are not referring to a God here. He, of course, is an exception to your own rule."
Brian, God is not irrational, or outside of any knowledge or inquiry. He can be known through creation, but not in himself. I can again use the analogy of logic......the axioms of logic are not proven logically, or "known" logically, but they can be adverted to in their bearing on logical expression.
To refer to one single source of rationality outside of the rational universe is not the same as referring to an infinity of possible "irrationan beings" or "pockets of irrationality"....I have explained before, any apparent pockets of irrationality are still capable of being characterised, differentiated and identified.
Anything that cannot be characterised, differentiated or identified must be unique, one and self-sufficient.
To posit a possible infinity of completely irrational "beings" is to fall into the Kantian category error of positing noumena as actual "things" when there is no rational ground for doing so.
"But your position is frankly stupid. It amounts to saying: "it is possible to understand the universe rationally because it is rational, therefore God exists"."
That is my position. i don't think it is stupid. how else would you explain rationality itself? the universe IS rational, in its totality. It makes more sense to assume that that rationality has a rational source than to suggest that rationality springs from chaos.
"Actually, we could more reasonably argue: if we could prove that God existed by our reason, then there would be good objective evidence for his existence, but since there is no such evidence, he probably does not exist."
But it is precisely the nature of our reason that must presuppose an objective measure of rationality. If there is no objective measure of rationality outside of rationality itself, then everything is as rational as everything else....i.e., also as IRRATIONAL as everything else.
"My position is perfectly rational."
Yet you have no notion of any sense of a measure of rationality.
"It says that it MAY not be ordered or rational but there MAY be pockets of rationality within it."
Tell me, can you rationally assert that the universe MAY have pockets of "irrationality"....? If so, those pockets of irrationality are included in the intelligible whole "the universe".
"In those aspects where it is not rational or ordered, then indeed there is very little beyond that that we can say, at the moment at any rate."
What do we mean by "not rational or ordered"? Have you a rational conception of what that means? If so, it falls within the scope of the rational totality of the universe.
"It is you who know the secret of the universe."
I don't, I'm merely making the argument that there is one.
Complain about this comment
Brian
It's a shame about that series.
I'm pretty sure that the problems of induction can only be solved if we presuppose an ordered universe, and the existence of real entities existing on a higher order than quarks and leptons (ie. in many cases the whole really is more than the sum of the parts).
As to what most practicing scientists believe, I'd be surprised if they give the problem of induction a lot of thought. I imagine that they would appeal to "common sense".
But like you have said, common sense clashes with the scientific view of the world - and we don't have to go to the quantum level. Most people believe that there really is a colour red, and that other people have intentions. The scientific world-view can only admit particles and their interactions.
Now of course philosophy can bridge the gap. I think that we should retain as much of the common sense world and the scientific world as possible(following Scruton and O'Hear). Others may opt for the scientific world (the later Quine). Others may pay have more faith in our sense experiences than Scientific postulates (van Fraasen). We can say that the particles are ultimate, but that real properties supervene on them (Elliott Sober and many others). Or we can say that all this theorising is a waste of time, and just hold to what is practically useful (Goodman, the early Quine). I don't thin that one knock-down argument will win the day for any one approach.
But what is clear is that Science cannot validate itself, and that we cannot make the simplistic assumption that to ask questions about Science, and how it relates to other beliefs and common experience, is to be anti-science.
Graham Veale
Complain about this comment
Rereading that post I noticed a horrible mistake - Goodman/Quine would NOT say theorising was a waste of time - quite the opposite in fact. Rather endless speculation about the truth value of our theories was not nearly so important as considering their usefulness.
In one famous passage Quine refers to the myth of objects in the external world, saying that the difference between this myth and Homer's is that the former works.
Whether this coheres with his later work is beyond me.
GV
Complain about this comment
Brian/Les
I've re-read PK's post 78. It's just a horrible misreprsentation of everything I've been arguing for and to from day one on this blog. It also seems to have led Les, who doesn'y post here often, to misunderstand my position.
Thank you Brian for taking the time to read what I actually wrote, and responding with a careful criticism. Hopefully Les can take your word that I am not denigrating Scientific knowledge. I'm just trying to tease out how Les justifies his trust in Science (or to put it another way, how does he explain the success of Science. Something about humans, and something about the world, and something about their relationship need to be true for science to work. There's no mystery to the Christian, Muslim etc. Les seemed to be taking a hard empiricist line - I then found out this wasn't what he held to, quoting Russell. I'm curious to know more. The put-downs can be fun, but it is always good to hear another perspective.)
G Veale
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian
I'm trying to figure out whether or not to respond to your post 83.
Sort of hard to escape the thought that's most things on this thread (and the God on Trial one come to think of it) are my fault!!
I mean, bluff, illiteracy, removal of posts... but I suppose it makes a change from blaming God!!
You're pretty defensive of Mr. D, almost religiously so!!
BTW That wasn't my response!
And please note that this comment is littered with exclamation marks.
Complain about this comment
Brian
When you say that the universe may contain rationality, are you drawing on Hume's idea that the universe we know may be a local area of order in an infinite sea of disorder?
If so this would take some of the strangeness out of the claim.
G Veale
Complain about this comment
Bernard:
You say that the universe is rational but don't claim to know its 'secret'. That's an interesting juxtaposition.
Graham:
You also make the unjustified assumption that "we presuppose an ordered universe".
We do nothing of the sort. As I have said before, the words 'rational' and 'ordered' are human constructs. The patterns, the categories, the mathematics are tools scientists use for manipulating the world around us.
They may apply to some part of the universe, but most scientists would say that the universe is also chaotic and random.
Are you two saying that there is NO chaos or randomness in the universe at all?
Complain about this comment
Graham:
Just read your post after I wrote mine. I said something like that repeatedly on the otheri thread! However, I don't claim to know which is more prevalent: the order or disorder. I will leave that to the scientists. I imagine they will disagree on the degree of order and disorder (they don't know 'the secret' either), but I also imagine they would say that both are there.
Complain about this comment
Graham:
Let me say that I think one of the main problems that theists have is that a lot of shit happens. Yet you believe that God is good. Therefore, he couldn't possibly do anything that is 'irrational' or evil'. So you have to argue that the universe is 'rational' and that somehow or other everything that happens is part of his 'rational' plan, however strange it may seem to us.
The other day I accidentally crushed a bee while out walking the dog. It was probably dying anyway. But 'no one' planned that it should die that way. It happened 'randomly'.
In the same way we die 'randomly'. There is no 'logic' or 'reason' behind the fact that a close friend of mine died in his twenties, while forty years later I am still here.
Nature can be 'cruel' that way. But there is no grand puppeteer of it. Of that, I am pretty sure.
Complain about this comment
Brian;
Talk of "order" and "disorder" is muddying the waters....I am not claiming that the universe is perfectly ordered, well-designed, or totally structured.
I am suggesting that it is "rational"....it is open to the rational inquiry of humans. I'm suggesting that reality is the object of a true judgment.
Now, occassionally, I suggest, we DO know reality...when that is the case we do so by making a judgment. Those things that we don't yet know, we don't yet make a judgment on. However, this in itself is a rational decision.
So I'm not suggesting that we know the entire scope of rationality in the universe, and find it to be beautifully designed.
I'm suggesting that the human mind demands to know...and that its object is unlimited. Even if there are pockets of disorder and un-structured-ness, we can rationally posit such pockets, if we have any evidence to suggest that they might exist. In rationally positing pockets of disorder, we define them and thus bring them into the scope of rationality.
If we have no reason to posit such pockets of irrationality, there probably are none.
Complain about this comment
Graham:
Bernard thinks you are 'muddying the waters' by 'pressuposing an ordered universe'.
Do I detect a sudden split in the ranks?
Complain about this comment
Ha, actually, it was you who were muddying the waters, by conflating my assertion of a "rational" universe with Graham's assertion of an ordered universe.
We may well mean the same thing, but for the purposes of my debate with you, it helps to clear up precisely what I mean.
Complain about this comment
But then, don't let mis-attribution get in the way of misunderstanding someone's argument.
:)
Complain about this comment
Bernard:
Stop digging a hole.
Complain about this comment
Yes, good and comprehensive answer.
What about just making a reply, I'm not digging any hole.
:)
Complain about this comment
Bernard:
Hold on a minute. You talk of a rational universe, but you don't actually mean that it is in itself rational, and he talks of an ordered universe, which you say possibly means the same thing. In which case, my dear fellow, neither of you thinks the universe itself is either rational or ordered. Which means that you have come round to my way of thinking. Good. At last!
But let Graham speak from himself.
Complain about this comment
No Brian, unfortunately I DO think the universe is rational...I don't know where you got the idea that I "don't actually mean that it is in itself rational"
I have never said that.
As for ordered, I have refrained from using the word "ordered", as it does not mean the same thing as "rational". Surely you can see that.
What do you mean by "disordered", for example? You obviously don't mean "outside of all possible perception, conception or categorisation"...that would be silly.
In either case, my fellow dear fellow, I do think that the universe is "rational"....it is a contradiction to say otherwise.
Perhaps if you read what you were replying to...
:)
Complain about this comment
in fact, I'm beginning to think you are mixing my comments up with someone else....
Let me state...
The universe is "rational".
It may or may not be "ordered"...that depends what we mean by "order" and "disorder", both of which are dependent on rational categorisation.
I think it may well be "ordered", but that is not part of my argument, nor is it something that I am interested in trying to prove.
Can you see the difference between "order" and "rational" Brian?
Now....the universe is rational....it inheres within the scope of defineability, falls within the scope of rational inquiry, and conforms to the laws of identity and categorisation.
Now, try telling me that it doesn't, without using categories, conceptions, rational inquiry, or the law of identity....
Ah....I thought so....
Complain about this comment
Brian
I'm not sure Bernard and I ever stopped to check where the ranks where meant to form. But I'm pretty sure you never did either.
After banging my head of a brick wal with Peter K I can understand your frustration at being misunderstood (although hopefully I didn't get your worldview completely upsidedown).
(a) Are we a patch of order in an infinite universe, where laws of nature mostly don't apply? That is impossible to falsify, and I don't think it's a great explanation for the order in this universe. It may also lead to epistemological problems (how do we know we're not in a part that will act unpredictably? The problems of induction begin at this point). But the mere possibility that the whole universe is like this does stop the Cosmological and Teleological arguments from becoming absolutely compelling deductive proofs. I think they are persuasive - but, no, on paper, I can't make you give up your atheism on pain of irrationality.
(b) Can Theism allow "chance" in the universe? On any level? I think this is where we have been talking past each other - I'm starting to understand your objections (I'm a little slow witted, but I expect you're getting used to that by now).
Lets take three ways of describing chance
(i) Happenstance - like the death of that bee. Was this planned from eternity past? I don't see why a Theist should hold to this. Even in a deterministic universe there can be coincidences that are meaningless. For example, suppose that Bernard, you and I all use the same font when typing. Now that's a coincidence - but a meaningless one. It is difficult to see what the common cause of our favourite fonts could be.
(In contrast many corrupt individuals in one profession may call for a common cause - we may ask is there anything in this profession that causes corruption - something that makes the corruption more likely and less coincidental).
So if God's plan includes death the death of bees, that doesn't mean he wanted that particular bee to die on that particular date and providentially arranged it. (Unless the bee was naughty).
(ii) Unpredictable to humans - this is controversial, but I think that an event may be unpredictable in principle on the human level, yet also be determined or foreknown by God.
(iii) Unpredictable to God - quantum events and free choices can be construed as unpredictable even to God. This doesn't threaten omniscience (allegedly) as omniscience means the greatest amount of knowledge logically possible. Could God allow unpredictable events in his Universe? Humans use chance in their designs all the time (casinos are often given as an example). I don't think this is how God does things, but a lot of Theists believe that God does in fact play dice. My own (instinctive and uniformed) position is that I don't mind nature playing dice, so long as God doesn't.
I think that chance, as outlined above, is rather different than chaos. There are laws of probability. So we can predict that if we throw a die an infinite number of times we will not keep scoring "6" on every throw. We may not be able to predict where the particle will be on the collapse of the wave function, but we still know the proabilities of finding it in a certain position. If you like, nature puts constraints on the randomness.
So we cannot predict where the particle is going in the double slit experiment (and according to some neither can God). But we know that if we fire enough particles one at a time we will get an interference pattern at the other side of the slits - as opposed to any pattern at all. And thats all that Bernard and I mean by saying that the universe is not, at heart, random. And we are not presenting that as a conclusion, but as a necessary presupposition for investigative science and the like.
Graham Veale
Complain about this comment
I think the above, particularly the last paragraph, outlines what i mean by "rational"......we can understand the universe, even if what we understand is a set of probabilities that inhere through apparently unordered phenomena.
We can even understand completely random phenomena, precisely as "completely random"......it is possible to conceptualise and understand such a universe....it is "rational", but not neccessarily "ordered".
Complain about this comment
I should add that Bernard and I aren't singing from exactly the same hymnal. I think he has come to his position via Bernard Lonergan. I'm taking my cue from GK Chesterton's "Orthodoxy" and popular apologists like Francis Schaeffer - also Plantinga to some extent.
GV
Complain about this comment
Well spotted Graham.
Complain about this comment
Boy, you read that quick Bernard!
I see how you're using the term now. I don't think ordered necessarily implies deterministic. Human choices can conform to a certian order, yet not be determined.
BTW, can you see where I lost Peter K? I'm still unsure as to whether or not it was my fault.
G Veale
Complain about this comment
The "Bernards Insight" gave it away.
He's a writer I keep meaning to get around to.
Complain about this comment
To be honest a lot of Peter K's comments appeared to be apropo nothing, I wasn't too sure where he was coming from, or who he was attempting to reply to.
Complain about this comment
That's a relief. I was worried that people had me pegged as a Logical Positivist.
Complain about this comment
Hi folks,
Sorry I've been incommunicado lately - vvvvvv busy, like that poor bee. And then off for a wee break, so a while until I'm back. For the record, I am *so* not offended.
We still seem to have Issues relating to the intelligibility of the universe. This all makes sense if you take the Tegmarkian view of the Ultimate Ensemble of possible universes, being purely mathematical.
PeterK, you have my vote!
-H
Complain about this comment
Thanks Helio.
Graham, as you can see from Helios post, your diversions aren't working. Please just address the issues put to you before:
- the requirement of sensory perception for anything to be true is rubbish from a scientific point of view.
- please elaborate on how the mathematics of QM is supposed to support it. Repeatedly waving van Fraasens name about is not an argument at all.
- please explain why science gets burdened with that impossible requirement while you give a free pass to the wildest ideas about your invisible friend up there.
Maybe I stated that your motives were anti-scientific (possibly at a slightly subconscious level) with too great a certainty. But while I can't be sure, it's the best explanation I can come up with sofar. As I said, I'll eat my words if I'm wrong. A very good way for you to start to demonstrate that, would be to give a somewhat detailed answer to the issues I have now repeatedly put to you. It seems Helio would like you to answer them as well.
Complain about this comment
From my point of view, without wanting to speak for Graham;
"- the requirement of sensory perception for anything to be true is rubbish from a scientific point of view."
I don't think Graham ever suggested that this WAS a requirement of science. As I read it, he was rather asking what other evidential basis there is for the method of science...
Rather than sugesting that science requires sensory perception to judge anthing as true, i think Graham was rather trying to tease out the status of intelligible entities in your view of science, i.e. by asking, if not sensory perception, what criteria of truth is there in your view of science.? I could be wrong.
Complain about this comment
Hello Bernards_Insight,
Hmmm, I don't read Graham asking anything, in his post #37:
"Oh, I believe in Leptons etc, and I've no quarrel with you believing in them either. You haven't been thoughtlessly waving Occam's Razor around .
But a thoroughgoing empiricism banishes these beliefs to the realm of "useful" rather than true, no matter how accurately we measure them. They cannot be verified by sense experience. Try Googling "Bas Van Fraasen" or "WVO Quine" or look at Stephen Hawkings view of Scientific Realism."
In the various follow-up posts, he prompted me to debate others, accused me of being condescending to them, waved Fraasens name about some more, came up with a less than useful sidetrack on the nature of electrons. But no questions about another evidential basis or the nature of intelligible entities. So we read his post differently it seems.
greets,
Peter
Complain about this comment
Bernard
Yes, you interpreted me correctly. As did Brian. Which is what happens when you read more than one post.
Posts 86-108 do seem relevant to a defence of Scientific Realism. And I've defended the intelligibility of Theism elsewhere (no-one is saying that talk about unobservedables is meaningless anymore).
I would appreciate your opinions on the articles on post 87. I'm wondering if Lipton's account of inference can tie in with Lonergan's ideas.
I'll not be able to post after tomorrow until 3rd Nov - do you think you'd be able to take a look in that time period. If so I'll do some reading on Lonergan.
GVeale
Complain about this comment
I haven't actually went through those articles, but I'll certainly do so during the next week, as I'll hopefully be on holiday.
For Lonergan, most of his works are available in Collected Works editions, and there are some very good articles on the Lonergan Institute website...well worth looking into.
Complain about this comment
I've a book somewhere by Tekippe - familiar to you?
GV
Complain about this comment
Yes; Insight: A Primer? A very good cursory introduction to the main themes, funnily enough I had a quick glance through it last night just to jog my memory on certain issues.
Here's an article that would be useful for Brian, on Hume, Kant and Rational Theism. That's if he can only get past the word "Jesuit"
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth08.html
I don't know how to make that into a hyperlink, but it's well worth the look. Particularly for Brian.
:)
Complain about this comment
Helio
I'm glad you're not offended. But I have worked very hard (however transparently)to start a big row between two atheists, and I'm not ready to give up that easily. If Peter has convinced you that you should believe in unobservables then I'll be very disappointed.
Perhaps you can explain these previous comments, and Peter and you can show me how you are in agreement on the nature of unobservable entities.
"Protons don't bother me that much in my day-to-day life. I don't *have* to believe in them."
"The problem is this: we might propose that a god or pixie or some other cosmic thingy bends light near a star, but the theory will test *whether or not the bending occurs*, not what the mechanism is. That remains a black box. Occurrence of bending does NOT validate in itself whatever mechanism is proposed within that black box."
"There is a world of difference between an operational acceptance of the veracity of something and the "belief" that something is correct."
Responding to my claim that you should believe HELIOCENTRISM - "You don't need belief in order to accept something operationally. Belief fossilises the brain. It is an entirely redundant business."
"If it is probable that Dark Matter exists, isn't a belief in DM warranted?
No - but an operational acceptance is. Why do you need to upgrade that to "belief"? I'm perfectly happy to keep a soupcon of "doubt" in anything."
So you hold to "operational acceptance" of Theoretical Entities. In fact at one point you explicitly said that heliocentrism should be accepted, not believed in. Now that is in keeping with the Empirical Stance. You can accept want your senses are telling you - so if you do not see an electron, but rather then you do not infer to an electron. You "accept" it (your term, and Van Fraasens funnily enough). And of course that doesn't mean you deny the existence of these entities. You just find it useful to use them in your theories. Otherwise you are agnostic.
As you know, I disagree, and I interpret unobservables that do good explanatory work as real. Could you please testify that this is in fact my view?
I won't be able to post again until the 3rd Nov. (I think I've been working for over a week to draw you and Peter into a debate with me - and when I finally get you both in the same place at the same time, I've got holidays). But I'd like to pick up this debate on this thread if that's agreeable to you both.
And that should give you both some time to get your stories straight.
Graham Veale
Complain about this comment
Bernard
I know that article - very good
GV
Complain about this comment
Peter Klaver
I have been trying to recapture your attention, so apologies to you and all if it looked as if I was trying to take threads off track.
As God is my witness (I don't say that lightly) I did not intend for that piece of pain to end up on the Dostoevsky thread. I usually type up my comments the night before, or before I leave for School, and post them at break or lunch. For reasons I don't understand, the site wouldn't allow me to post a long message, so I had to post it in bite size chunks. What ended up on the Rowan/Fyordor thread was the beginning of my message. I wondered where it went to. The multiple posts that day should be read as one long message. In future I'll just give up.
No, I've never lost my temper like this on W&T - but you obviously didn't read all my comments, misinterpreted comment 37 (which was a challenge to Les to state what his philosophical grounds for scientific inferences were (still waiting)) and then used this misinterpretation to make a massive assumption about my beliefs. Making assumptions about my worldview based on ONE post you then went on to criticise me for a view I don't hold to.Can you see why a person might feel a tad annoyed?
(You also didn't check up on Hawking - I did - and unless he's lying, he's a Positivist of some type.)
Now I wanted your attention, because I think we might have the basis for an interesting discussion.
Some of those criticisng Reiss where swinging Occam's Razor about(I know you weren't) in a naive manner. They seemed totally unaware that (and the idea that Russell settled this is uninformed) a thoroughgoing empiricism doesn't allow belief in Theoretical Entities. It does allow "operational acceptance" - you withhold belief or disbelief, and just use whatever constructs you find useful.
Now I find thoroughgoing empiricism totally unacceptable. I don't hold science to those standards. I believe as humans we can successfully infer to the best explanation. This works in the observable world - and I can't see any reason to believe that we are unable to infer from observed events to entities that are in principle unobservable.
Why are some people skeptical of my faith in such inferences (it's the same view you outlined I think)?
There's no non-circular way of defending them. They don't like metaphysics. They think the weirdness of the Quantum World shows that our observations are an unreliable guide to the unobservable world. There's no reason Natural Selection should equip us to make such inferences. They prefer the rigour of verifying every belief with measurements than the imaginative leaps that are involved in explanations.(In fact, I think empiricists want to be much too rigorous about our claims to knowledge). I don't think these objections have much force.
Deeper objections based on history and logic are given in questions 2a - 2c in post 84. They are further developed in the articles on post 87. I think good replies can be given to these objections (and the articles cited give replies). I only mention this as you asked why someone would think it unreasonable to infer to something like an electron.
To put my cards on the table I suppose that (a) I just find Inference to the Best Explanation too intuitive to abandon and (b) reading science as an outsider, I am somewhat in awe of what scientists have achieved. It's not so much the resulting tecnology that impresses me, but the patience and attention to detail. I could never develop these virtues. It's precisely because science is a HUMAN achievement that I value it so much, and I want to take as high a view of it as possible.
Ignore the wisecrack in question 1 in post 84. Shouldn't you hold to something like the De Broglie - Bohm interpretation if you are going to be consistent? Would you agree that the electron is indeed a particle? That it shouldn't just be treated "as if" it was a particle?
I hope that this clears the air a little, and I am sorry that that piece of pain popped up elsewhere.
(If you check with Helio, insults are usually taken as part of the fun in our exchanges, and never imply disprespect.)
Graham Veale
Complain about this comment
PK
The burden of this post is to show that my previous posts on this thread were not motivated my an aversion to science, but rather by some real challenges to the Scientific picture of the world (which I accept - I just think it isn't the whole picture).
1) I've quoted Helio extensively. You can go check our debate for yourself. Either he has changed position, or he has a very nuanced position or (and knowing Helio, this wouldn't surprise me) he was winding me up for the sake of a good argument.
2) So given that point, lets spell it out clearly - I do not hold that sense experience is the only route to knowledge - far from it in fact.
3) Why should I get it into my head that some scientists would only be interested in sense perception -
Werner Heisenberg
"For the first time, therefore, I now had the opportunity to talk with Einstein himself... he at once began with a central question about the philosophical foundation of the new quantum mechanics. He pointed out to me that in my mathematical description the notion of "electron path" did not occur at all, but that in a cloud chamber the track of the electron can of course be observed directly. It seemed to him absurd to claim that there was indeed an electron path in the cloud chamber, but none in the interior of the atom. The notion of a path could not be dependent, after all, on the size of the space in which the electron's movements were occuring. I defended myself to begin with by justifying in detail the necessity for abandoning the path concept within the interior of the atom. I pointed out that we cannot, in fact, observe such a path; what we actually record are frequencies of the light radiated by the atom, intensities and transition probabilities, but no actual path. And since it is but rational to introduce into a theory only such quantities as can be directly observed, the concept of electron paths ought not, in fact, to figure in the theory.
"To my astonishment, Einstein was not at all satisfied with this argument. He thought that every theory in fact contains unobservable quantities. The principle of employing only observable quantities simply cannot be consistently carried out. And when I objected that in this I had merely been applying the type of philosophy that he, too, has made the basis of his special theory of relativity, he answered simply: "Perhaps I did use such philosophy earlier, and also wrote of it, but it is nonsense all the same.""
So we have Werner Heisenberg proposing a view of science that Einstein admits was important to him when forming his theory of relativity (although he abandoned that view). The early Einstein took what he called his "epistemological credo" from Ernst Mach. He held, at that stage, that knowledge is made up from the totality of sense experiences, and that "contents and propositions get "meaning" only through their connection with sense experience."
There are other quotes. But some very eminent scientists have held this view througot their careers, or at stages of their career. So I wasn't pulling this view out of a hat
3) Let's look at the irrelevant issue of the nature of the electron ("discovered" by Thomson, Stoney and Lorentz). Take one electron- it doesn't exist at a definite location at a definite time. In terms that I understand, an electron can be described by wave-function. AS a consequence of the nature of the wave function, we cannot know the electrons precise location and velocity at the same time. (There - not a single equation for you to correct, and you can still tell me if I'm following this adequately).
Now this leads to an odd picture of the particle. In fact, can we really call such an entity a particle at all. The most we can say is that it behaves like one sometimes. Except when it's in a superpostion of states. It's rather difficult to believe that a particle whizzes through two open slits at once, or down two arms of an interferometer several metres apart.
All this weirdness led to a strong empirical stance among the founding fathers of quantum mechanics - at least this is how I read the Copenhagen Interpretation (I know this isn't a monolithic viewpoint). We should only worry about what we can observe. (I take it that this is what Bohr et al meant when they said that what we do not observe has no reality etc.)
But the evidence for the particle "picture" of the electron was excellent. Excellent, but wrong. And if we can get something like that wrong, even when we have superb evidence, then perhaps a good dose of skepticism is warranted in our beliefs about entities that we cannot directly observe.
Furthermore it seems impossible to picture all this quantum weirdness "really" happening. We just don't know what is going on in the unobservable world. So all we can hope for is good predictions. If theories help us make good predictions, hooray for theories. But we shouldn't believe these theories really describe the world as it is. Quantum Mechanics killed all that.
Now this is NOT my opinion - this is how one anti-realist argument goes. I think it must be wrong as it does not explain WHY theories make such good predictions.
4) Now as an outsider, it does seem that the DeBroglie-Bohm can make sense of all this (that is the particle is real and the wavefunction represents a real physical wave). Or you could go for the Many Worlds Interpretation. Or you could say you don't know which of these two it is, but they're both "live"
options, so your not ready to give up on Scientific Realism yet.
5) Van Fraasen's views -since you asked so nicley- Constructive empiricism has three core components: semantic, methodological and
epistemic. The semantic component is that scientific theories are to be understood in the same way a scientific realist understands them. They are to be given a literal interpretation: they are not metaphors, and they are not shorthand for statements about
observable states of affairs. If a theory seems to be talking about invisible subatomic particles, then it is talking about invisible subatomic particles. Moreover, these are descriptions of a possible noumenal world, of the things as they might be in themselves, not of a phenomenal world partially constituted by our concepts.So that is the first component: a literal semantics.
The second and methodological component of constructive empiricism is
‘immersion’. To immerse oneself in a theory is to enter into the world of that theory and to work from within it. This is not to believe that the theory is true, but it is to enter imaginatively into its "world". In some ways this is like Eddington’s familiar table. Even if as a physicist one does not believe that tables literally have the qualities
of colour and solidity that commonsense attributes to them, one may immerse oneself in the world of the everyday table: for everyday purposes we think about the table as
if it were as commonsense supposes it to be. Indeed we cannot help but do this. The constructive empiricist makes the parallel suggestion for the scientific table. Here we do have a choice, but the suggestion is that even though we are not to believe everything physics tells us about the table, we are to do our science from within that
model, almost as if we did believe in those invisible atoms.Those are incompatible models, but the scientist may well use both, in some context
immersing (as it were) in the one and in other cases in the other, though she does not
believe both.
Immersion is distinct from belief, and this is important, because the third,
epistemic component of constructive empiricism is the suggestion that scientists not believe even their best theories. Scientists should only ‘accept’ them. To accept a
theory, in van Fraassen’s neologistic sense, is not to believe that the theory is true but only that it is empirically adequate, that what the theory says about observable things is true. As for the balance of the content of the theory – all that talk about
unobservable entities and processes – one is agnostic. So in accepting a theory one is believing only a part of it, and the suggestion is that acceptance is the strongest cognitive attitude one should take towards a scientific theory. There is neither warrant nor need to believe more than this. This brings out the contrast between the constructive empiricist and the realist, for while they share their literal semantics, the
realist is willing to believe more, in some cases the entire content of the theory, even where that theory speaks of unobservable entities, properties and processes.
In any case I'm with John Bell "But to admit things not visible to the gross creatures that we are is, in my opinion, to show a decent humility, and not just a lamentable addiction to metaphysics."
Graham Veale
Complain about this comment
Two very long posts, but I'll be gone for neary a fortnight,
Complain about this comment
OMFG Graham. Who has the time to read such a ramble?! Condense, dude!
Complain about this comment
John
Cheerfully!
1) The empiricism adopted by the early Einstein and Heisenberg and Bohr is in fact inimical to Scientific Realism
2) So people should stop making lazy connections between empiricism and Scientific Truth - and stop waving Occam's Razor about as if that dismisses the rationality of Theism. It can dismiss a great deal more besides.
3) In fact Science does tell the truth about unobservables as it uses Inference to the Best Explanation (test results alone are compatible with Heisenberg's view of Science).
4) I've never said that sense experience is the test of truth. That pretty much goes against everything I stand for.
5) The two posts above are so huge because I've been accused of dodging questions I've answered, wandering off topic, being insane, anti-science and making stuff up. So now I've given a brief and two very detailed answers.
6) Another reason for the size of the two posts is I was baby sitting the junor soccer team as their practice was cancelled. It was either this or marking.
If anybody actually reads all that they need to get out more.
G Veale
Complain about this comment
The summary of Van Fraasen is from
http://www.hps.cam.ac.uk/dept/lipton_science_and_religion.pdf
which should be read by anyone who thinks Reiss missed his opportunity to star in "life of Brian".
Also
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/religion-science/
http://www.utexas.edu/cola/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/science.pdf
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/koons/docs/natreal.html
All three writers take different approaches, I know the essays pretty well, and I'm more than willing to discuss them with anyone who will give them a read and still think Reiss needed to be sacked.
G Veale
Complain about this comment
Here, hang on, you've your own blog John. And I've read long essays on it!
Pot, Kettle, Black dude.
Complain about this comment
Hi Graham, Bernard:
Free at last! Humanism has gone to the printers.
It seems to me that certain terms are being used vaguely in this discussion. I would like to take a look at four: intelligible, rational, ordered, and meaningful.
INTELLIGIBLE
Einstein is reported to have said that "the incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible". Is this true? Bernard clearly thinks it is, though I suppose he is not a scientist. But it is entirely possible that the universe is too complex to be fully understood. Yet, as I keep repeating, we don't know. We understand some things, or think we do, but we cannot conclude that everything out there is capable of comprehension in advance of this knowledge. If we did, then we would know everything there is to know already!
RATIONAL
Bernard equates this with intelligible. However, intelligible is used as an attribute of us, whereas rational is an attribute of the thing described. If we were to say that the universe itself is rational, then we would imply that it had a brain and that it thinks like a human being.
I think an assumption that the universe itself is rational is a religious one. God is assumed to be in charge, and he is a superhuman with a superhuman brain. But if no one is in charge, and the universe just is, then it does not 'think' and therefore is not 'rational'.
ORDERED
This refers to structured, designed, patterned, logical etc. We normally describe a statement or structure as 'logical', whereas a person is 'rational'.
Is the universe 'logical' and ordered. Again, there is evidence of both order and disorder. Perhaps it began in chaos and has become more ordered, or there are pockets of order and disorder. Who knows?
MEANINGFUL
This is entirely subjective and relates to living things. What is purposeful for one person is purposeless for another. To describe the universe as meaningful is to imply that it is governed by 'minds' or a 'mind' which has a purpose in creating and presumably sustaining it. Whether there is such a mind(s) is clearly beyond our knowledge at the present time. But its purpose would not necessarily be the same as ours, unless he (they) deliberately equated our purpose with theirs. Since humans have so many different purposes, this seems highly unlikely.
Complain about this comment
Hi Graham, Bernard:
Let me say that the above is an exercise in making distinctions. We are not going to agree on my definitions. For example, 'logical' and 'rational' are often used synonymously. Thev same is true of 'intelligible' and 'rational'. To say that the universe is 'intelligible' might mean that our brain can understand it, or it could mean that the universe is rational and therefore we can understand it.
Alternatively, we might say that 'intelligible', 'rational' and 'ordered' all mean the same thing. If we are to make distinctions, then I think we should spell them out clearly.
Complain about this comment
Hello Graham,
Thanks for your extensive posts and thanks for demonstrating that when christians dabble in debate about science, the result you should expect from it is so hideously ugly.
You took a long, long piece to explain that you do not think only sensory observation determines what is real or not. In that lengthy process of doing so, you demonstrate not having much grasp of quantum mechanics. For instance, you wrote:
"AS a consequence of the nature of the wave function, we cannot know the electrons precise location and velocity at the same time."
Oh dear, unable to distinguish between the uncertainty principle and the wave function. Your confused bit about the 2 slits experiment is also classic.
Not knowing much about quantum mechanics, it's no wonder you have to give up on the bluff you tried to pull re van Fraasens:
"I am told that van Fraasens grasp of the mathematics involved in interpreting Quantum Mechanics is intimidating. It may not be wise to dismiss him so easily."
Bit silly that you owe up to not having a clue on another thread:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2008/10/is_it_time_to_permit_assisted.html#comment17
with those odd explanations of why you're spreading your posts all over the place.
So not much grasp of QM and little to none of the math involved. What do we get instead? Well, just about every means in the arsenal of the christian debater when dealing with science:
- argument from authority. Repeatedly waving Fraasens and Hawkings names about, never presenting the argument that they supposedly came up with or adhered to.
Try presenting your scientific argument instead. If Fraasens had any, that is.
- argument from quotes. Not how science works of course, you're merely saying 'Don't you know what great scientist X or Y said?'. Try presenting your (or, as far as you followed them correctly, their) scientific arguments instead.
- argument from fancy words, like Einsteins "epistemological credo". Making a hugely long post like that with so little scientific substance but such big words. I am so unimpressed.
Hey I have an idea. Why don't you try presenting your scientific arguments instead.
- no argument at all, dodging the issue several times before being dragged back to it.
- diversions, lots of diversion. 'Hey Peter, why don't you go debate MarcusAurelius and Helio about this?'. 'And how dare you treat the electron as a particle in your post to petermorrow?!' (hint: when discussion collisions in simple terms, it works rather well to explain the point I was explaining to petermorrow).
Pity you didn't throw in some verses from Luke or Matthew too. That would have completed the 'christian debating science' bingo card.
So in all, I can't be sure if you're yet another christian who is scared by science because it resigns your fairy tales to the dung head of thinking. But despite your many protests, all the hallmarks of you being such a poster are there. I'm not taking your word on the opposite just yet.
Since you offered little but quotes and pseudo-philosophical tosh which served mostly to demonstrate your poor grasp of quantum mechanics and how to debate science, I'll try to inject something more constructive into our exchanges. Have an interesting read:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=100-years-of-quantum-mysteries
None of that pseudo-philosophical tosh in there, some interesting bits about quantum mechanics instead, real science. And don't worry, it's written in fairly easy language. None of those things with strange-looking symbols in there that would scare. Even if they had been in thee, you shouldn't worry. They're called equations, they're mostly harmless.
Peter
ps petermorrow: congratulations on your perseverance if you kept up to this point. You might find the link I posted for Graham interesting too.
Complain about this comment
Hi Peter Klaver
Well I sort of did and I sort of didn't keep up!
To be honest I'm still struggling with the basic scientific concepts. For me it sort of goes like this. I like reading the articles, I like being wowed by those who know, especially those who present it in a variety of multi-media formats, I am fascinated by visits to museums, to planetariums, to W5 and the like, and my kids love it too, but in the end I'm not sure I really understand. It's like the theology student who, learning Greek and Hebrew, when asked how he was getting on replied, "Well, it's all Greek to me!"
I will however check out the Scientific American article.
One things continues to intrigue me though, you said, to Graham, "I can't be sure if you're yet another christian who is scared by science because it resigns your fairy tales to the dung head of thinking."
And, as it is directly related to the theme of this thread, I'm wondering how it is that Science does this? Was it for example part of your journey away from faith, or was there something more going on?
Complain about this comment
Peter K:
Peter M is always wondering such unscientific things! He is the proverbial drowned man clutching at straws.
Come on, Peter K, spill the Dutch beans! Tell us why you really rejected religious faith. Clearly, it wasn't that you realised it was untrue. How silly that anyone should think anything as simple as that! It could never be the real reason, could it? You must have had some 'deeper' motivation.
A cruel father? A sadistic RE teacher? A failed love affair?
Complain about this comment
Brian;
Just a quick post, I'll come back later.
My view of intelligibility, rationality etc stems from an account of knowing that is borne out in every inquiry or piecemeal aspect of knowing.
Knowing is not a matter of looking at something, it is a three fold process. Data is presented, and an intelligibility is grasped...that grasped intelligibility is then referred back to the data, the evidence, and, according to its correspondence, a judgment can be made.
Now, the relevance that has to the universe is that being, reality, is not simply data, but also intelligibles, which are in turn capable of rational judgment.
That is not to say that we always make rational judgments. Nor is it to say that we already know everything in the universe. However, this is a self-affirming account of knowing. Any attempt at revision would include a presentation of data, a grasped intelligibility, and a judgment. This self-affirming account of knowing can form a metaphysics, for, if that is the structure of knowing, then anything that can, in principle, be known, will conform to that structure.
But when we know, we know reality....To affirm is to say "yes, that is the case in reality". So the structure of knowing grasps at reality. In that sense, it's the only thing on which you can base a metaphsics.
I suspect that you have some kind of agnostically materialist metaphysic, but it must stem from an account of knowing...and I suspect that you see knowing as a matter of looking. But it is not...it is a three-fold process of reaching and striving. .the only way in which we can know REALITY is by KNOWING reality, if those emphases make sense to you. So, what we MEAN by reality, the fundamental assumption within which we make all of our assertions about different types of reality, mst conform to that three-fold structure. There is no sense in which we can mean anything else by "reality." "Reality" MEANS "the object of knowledge"
Now, you are suggesting that there may be some other part of the universe beyond the scope of that account of knowing. In a way, I agree....I think there MUST be something beyond that scope. But, whereas you think it's another part of the "universe", I think that WHAT WE MEAN BY "THE UNIVERSE" must neccessarily comply with that structure of knowing.
What's beyond that is not part of the universe. It is wholly Other.
In short, I'm arguing that our very notions of "reality" and "the universe" are dependent on a particular method of knowing. Anything beyond the scope of that is not part of the universe, is Other, is uncategorised, and beyond finitude.
So really, you're arguing that there might be a "PART of the universe that is wholly unintelligible and beyond the scope of human knowing."
I'm partly agreeing, but saying that, if anything is beyond human knowing, it is beyond categorisation, is not a part of the universe, is not one thing among others, but is simply ONE, or rather, the original ONE, the proto-ONE, beyond all of being, that which simply IS.
No doubt you'll think I've gotten obscurant at the end there...
Complain about this comment
Bernard:
Obscurant only at the end! Instead of elaborating on your understanding of the differences, if any, between the four concepts I mentioned, you insist on piling the obfuscation on by introducing ANOTHER concept, 'knowing'.
Doesn't it say somewhere about seeing through a glass darkly? My glass is full of mist. As Robert Browning reputedly said of one of his poems, so you might say about your post: "God and I both knew what it meant once; now only God knows".
Complain about this comment
Brian (post 136)
Yes, personal journeys interest me, they are part of what makes us who we are. But now I find myself in the awkward position of having to explain a question I asked to Peter Klaver, to you, and speaking about someone in the third person is rather like talking about someone in their presence (rather impolite - so PK if you're reading this please accept my apologies.)
Brian you really will have to stop assuming you know what I mean by the questions I ask. As far as I understand it Peter (K) has a background in the Christian sub-culture, something you, to the best of my knowledge, don't have (I'm not counting Sunday School). This means that he has a story to tell, assuming he wants to of course, about his exit from Christianity. And yes, maybe it was as simple as he realised it was untrue, but realisation is a process, is it not? That interests me, indeed if Peter's experience of the Christian world was in any way like mine, then I expect that there will be aspects about that experience on which we might find agreement. As I keep telling you Brian, I don't buy into the whole Christian sub-culture thing, but I still believe, and I expect that Peter has enough intelligence and enough experience of Christianity to understand the distinction I'm making.
And as for the 'deeper' motives you suggest, it might interest you to know that these so called 'deeper' motives are frequently used as motivators toward God as much as away from him.
I'm actually interested in what Peter has to say, as I am in what you have to say, whether I disagree with you or not.
As I said, everybody has a story.
Complain about this comment
Brian, yes I thought I'd anticipated your reply. No doubt you think I'm making things more complicated than they should be. Although it is a complex and multi-faceted issue, as I'm sure you know.
Let me just say that, in order to have any discussion on the nature of reality, we must also have a discussion on the nature of knowing reality, surely. Otherwise, any assertion about reality can be met with "How do you know?" That's precisely the question I was trying to answer.
The two questions are inextricable and inherently linked. Surely you have to recognise that?
Complain about this comment
Or perhaps not.
Complain about this comment
Peter
Gracious as always. Thankyou for your kind comments.
I had a friend with a PhD in Applied Mathematics and a Masters in Philosophy of Science, specialising in the Philosophical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics check my post. Actually on a Bohmian interpretation the wave function is construed realistically. Perhaps I could be more precise, but this is a blog not a journal, and it is not my subject area. However I now have the green light to mock any imprecision you manage in philosophy and religion
A free-pass I'm not using, given your odd interpretation of my posts. I have presented philosphical argument in detail. You have yet to explain how an electron should be interpreted - meaning you haven't thought about it. Which is fine. I mean, "shut up and calculate" gets results, and doesn't impede your quest for research grants.
But when you dodge genuine questions, and then ask for scientific arguments for philosphical and historical debates I know I'm talking to someone who can't cope with debates outside their speciality.
Even if you think I'm an idiot (which may well be a fair assessment) you have not considered the articles I referred you to. How do you falsify someone who hears what they want?
Graham Veale
Complain about this comment
Peter K, Graham V
Here is a golden oldie from a similar debate I had with Mr Klaver when I KO'd him.
Graham, previously you had asked why Mr Klaver appeared to be so hostile to me and you were told it was because I refused to listen to facts etc.
Now it appears that you too are refusing to listen to facts and are getting the same treatment!
As Peter Hates to be reminded even Oppenheimer said there would have been no modern science without the Christian faith!
OT
////////////////////////////////////////
MY BLAST FROM THE PAST WHICH K'OD MR KLAVER;-
My focus is no longer on whether evolution or creationism/ID is true but actually whether science proves atheism.
This really the main main point that Pete DD, JW and Amen [Helio] are trying to push. Evolution is just a front.
Duuhh. Thanks Mr Dawkins.
Here is a simple illustration.
This is a set of scientists who studied the uniformity of natural causes in an open system.(ie not dismissing supernatural reality as non-existent etc).
Put another way, there was no real dividing line between their science and their faiths. (yes I know many of them werent Christian but the point in question is whether science proves there is nothing outside a closed system. All these guys believed there clearly was).
we have the following periods (the list is not exhaustive);-
- ancient Greeks
- Islamics
- Medievals
- Renaissance
- Scientific Revolution
- "Modern" scientists since then who also believe in a Creator regardless of their view on creation or evolution.
The creation of a closed scientific system in the west was really completed only around the end of the 19th century.
Now you can contest minutiae in that, I'm sure, but the main premise is accurate.
More recently Gould said in this era around half his evolutionist colleagues were devout believers who saw their science, including evolution, as the hand of God.
Francis Collins of Human Genome project is one such example.
That means that the Dawkinsites who actually argue that science affirms there is definitely no creator or supernatural are -in the broad sweep of history- "heretics" and a tiny minority.
It also means that even today you might be only hitting parity with 50 per cent of your colleagues if you are an athiest scientist.
And even the theistic evolutionists you work with still carry over the old belief informally, in a Creator and that their science is an open system.
They believe the God hypothesis is very useful because, as required by Occam's razor, it explains so many problems in science with the minimum number of assumptions.
for example, special pleading which excuses the big bang and the origin of life from the first law of thermodynamics and the law of biogenesis. And the reasons why scientifc laws are stable and comprehendable.
Looking back at the broad sweep of history of science and even the demographics of it today, you are in a tiny minority who seperates your science into a watertight closed system and insists there is nothing outside it. as per Dawkins of course.
This change happened because of the adoption of a philsophical assumption from the enlightenment that has nothing to do with "science" in the strict sense.
So your entire worldview is hanging on a very tenous and recent philsophical or religious hook, and it certainly isnt proven physics Pete.
The last point of course is that, as Oppenheimer (and history) affirm, the scientific revolution which you woe so much to could not have happened without the Christian faith which inspired it.
So you are entitled to your opinion when say there is no God or supernatural (that word again that nobody here can define!)
But you cant say the weight of science history is behind you. And you cant prove it with science either.
It is your decision to take that literal leap of faith.
So, in conclusion, you simply have no grounds for marginalising me as a kook for choosing to have faith.
(Radio commentator speaks: "A points win to PB in round 144, after a dramatic knockdown of Klaver. Klaver is back on his feet again, but shaky.
"Has he got anything left in his armoury for the next round???"
"ding ding!......round 145!
"Let's see......."
ENDS
PS BTW Peter Klaver has never been able to give an objective scientific definition of "supernatural" in order to exclude it from "science" because the real world is not as neat and secular as he would like it to be, as illustrated in my discussion above on the supernatural origins of modern science.
Complain about this comment
Hello Graham,
Come on, if you get criticized over making arguments from authority, then it's hardly an improvement to post
"I had a friend with a PhD in Applied Mathematics and a Masters in Philosophy of Science, specialising in the Philosophical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics check my post."
Ah, a friend huh, with a PhD no less. More argument from authority, only poorer authority this time.
Also despite your repeated mentioning of it, I will not be drawn into the diversionary subject of the nature of electrons. Debating other christians on science on this blog (that is if that could be called discussion, I see my favourite PB has just posted again, I'll attend to him shortly) has made me become very much aware of that tactic.
Oh, and contrary to what you said , I did go through some of the things you posted links for. Like the pdf you linked for van Fraasen. You waved his name about repeatedly for his supposedly intimidating grasp of the mathematics of quantum physics. How telling then that that pdf you linked for that doesn't mention the words 'math' or 'quantum' or 'physics'. Argument by irrelevant url bluf, it seems.
But then you said
"it is not my subject area"
I agree, and I think we can leave it at that.
Peter
Complain about this comment
PB:
Your Jesus is certainly not gentle, meek and mild. There is no 'turning the other cheek' or 'loving your enemies' with you. You want to 'draw blood'.
I now know the true meaning of 'muscular Christianity': it's all about point scoring in an interminable boxing match. Round 145? Are you not dead? Shall we write on your tombstone: "You can stop counting. I'm not getting up"?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Brian, Peter K
From your two responses I count that as another two KOs from my classic post reprinted.
The burden of your two responses were ad hominem attacks.
I guess that shows that you are both really lost for words.
Peter did make a minor response to contest the percentage of scientists today who have faith.
But by definition he is only quibbling about the percentage level; we both agree many many scientists today have faith.
My overall argument stands unchallenged;-
The vast majority of scientists down through history have believed in the supernatural and the scientific revolution on which modern science was formed was inspired and rooted in the Christian faith.
Have a happy Christmas everyone.
OT
PS BTW Brian the boxing analogy was my attempt at humour! It was -and is- quite illustrative of the intellectual position my post has left you in once and Peter K in twice!
;-)
Complain about this comment
Maybe the BBC ought to consider giving specific reasons why comments are either complained about or removed.
Or maybe the person who happens to find offence should explain what it is - that might at least help our understanding of one another.
I read PK's comments on post 146 last night and didn't see a problem.
Does anyone know what the issue is?
Complain about this comment
Peter
Incredibly, your manners are improving. The tone of your last post was tough but fair. So thankyou.
You used an argument from your own authority simply to say my grasp of Quantum Meachanics wasn't good enough to raise the questions I asked. As I predcited you would. I simply asked an authority (who is at least on a par with you) who to look over my post. If you want to construct that as an argument go ahead. It would be in keeping with your grasp of philosophy.(Do you read outside your subject area at all?) I was just pointing out that I wasn't being careless, that's all.
As a concession to you, I'll admit I have been trying to match your considerable force of (online) personality with my own, this being the only way I could see to get you to listen. But I have the greatest respect for mathematicians and physicists - not for the calculating power; it's the patience and attention to detail. I have been deliberately rude and agressive to get your attention, but I would be horrified if I had impled disrespect. I am actually somewhat in awe of the skill and perseverance involved in your line of work. I hate to admit that about physicists (Christian or otherwise), but there you are.
I'll try to reply point by point to your implied arguments.
1) If I read you correctly you want to say that science "tells the truth" about the world. You also want to give science the "veto" over any other truth claim. Now you need a better argument for this than "I can do sums, really difficult sums". So could Heisenberg and Bohr, and they are telling me to ignore you. The mathematics of Quantum Mechanics are entirely consistent with operationalism (the "black box" view that Helio is retreating from, that Science only helps us make predictions. We hypothesise whatever we need to make those predictions, but we need not (and should not according to some) affirm these hypotheticals as real).
Again, just to show that this is not a view simply propounded by philosophers suffering from science envy I'll quote Bohr. "there is no Quantum world. There is only abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think tha the task of physics is to find out how nature is. "
2) If you use scientific arguments to argue that only science tells the truth, then you are arguing in a circle. This much seems obvious.
3) You asked where I would get the idea that only sense experience should be treated as real. (Now you realise that this is not my own view). I quoted Heisenberg at length to make the point that it was (roughly) his. This is why the nature of the electron (or particle of your choice) is not a side issue. Does Quantum physics describe nature as it is?
4) And this is not a "Christian" tactic, much less a creationist posture. (Again another reason for the extended quotations). I have no idea how we can leap from the existence of an electron to the existence of God. What exactly is your point here? I'm simply asking you to advance reasons for your commitment to the truth value of scientific theories. Actually, I'm just asking if you agree with the reasons that I've outlined.
5) I DID outline the arguments that the scientists/ philosophers used. I'm not sure if you are even reading my post.
6) I didn't discuss the double slit experiment. I simply pointed out that it does away with the simple picture of the electron as a particle. In fact you concede this point. You only treat the electron "as" a particle in certain experiments. What happened to your realism? You seem inconsistent at this point. Are you back to "shut up and calculate"? If so that's the very operationalism that you assumed that I was adopting and mocked.
7) As for the wave function, I was quoting Jim al-Khalili directly
(I knew you'd question/mock my knowledge - so I made sure to use direct quotes. You just became an "unreliable witness").
As Rae puts it "The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle is a general property of any wave function associated with a quantum state."
Khalili explains - " An electron whose velocity is pretty well known through a localised momentum wavefunctionwill necessarily have a spread out position wavefunction giving rise ri a large uncertainty in it's whereabouts. This is the essence of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle...it is a consequence of the nature of the wavefunctions that describe the electron's possible location and stae of motion even before we look"
Where exactly does Khalili go wrong?
I referred to the wave function rather than the Uncertainty Principle as the former explains the latter, and because Khalili warns against using simplifications even on a popular level. (Heisenberg's thought experiment (with the imaginary gamma ray microscope), which he used to derive the uncertainty principle formula, removes too much of the weirdness. So I referred to the wave function.
8) As for pseudo-philosophical tosh, I'll leave that to Heisenberg (the physicist). The arguments I presented are just that - arguments. They involve logic and inferences. Scientists use those all the time I'm told. So either put up or shut up. Can you advance a case for scientific realism? Do you even know where to begin. Or do you simply appeal to your own authority, and some very clumsy insults?
9) Diversionary tactics - no, I kept coming after you even after Helio opted out. It would have been fun to see you two argue, but I was too transparent. Just my sense of the mischievious. On face value, you are both saying very differnt things about science. If after a discussion you both say that you agree without either of you changing or qualifying your opinions, that would be hilarious. And also illustrate why many philosophers take the pronouncements of scientists with a pinch of salt (which I think is just snobbish - so don't go proving them right).
10) I made it very clear that I don't follow the mathematics, so I would not be able to discuss/deabte mathematical arguments with you. However, I think that if De Broglie-Bohm does need to be defended on that level . My aforementioned friend has a blog, that I'll point you to if he gives me permission.
In the meantime http://www.princeton.edu/~fraassen/abstract/index.htm
could keep you reading. If you want.
11) In any case, I don't get the impression that your commitment to the scientific picture has been given much thought. "Shut up and apply for them research grants" rather than actually defend your core beliefs. Test results and predctive success are not enough. You need some kind of epistemology. Or maybe Heisenberg and Einstein were idiots when they suggested such.
12) Are PB and orthodox tradition the same person? What exactly is the source of your antagonism? I got the impression that you were attributing someone elses position to me.
I am very sorry for the length of the post, but it's necessary to reply to the slurs. Hopefully all future slurs will be in good fun.
Graham Veale
Complain about this comment
What did PK say? We've been very "robust" with each other, and neither of us has hit the complaint option. Are people really that sensitive?
If so should they be posting here?
GV
Complain about this comment
Hello all,
No time to respond to everything now. Let me just comment on disappearing posts for now.
Yes Graham, PB and orthodox-tradition are the same. PBs behaviour on this blog had been such that he was placed on pre-moderation, i.e. his posts had to be approved first and only then were they posted. Instead of accepting his new status and facing up to his behaviour that had brought it about, PB adopted a variety of different identities like PBmild and his present name Orthodox-tradition to work around the measures that had been imposed on him.
While PBs original identity had managed to get himself on pre-moderation, he is still the champion of complaining about other people. Instead of arguing against points he doesn't like, he chooses to make them disappear. This has happened to several of my posts, that as in this thread, were judged by others not be rude or excessively strong. It happened to many of Dylan_Dogs posts and some of Helios too. At some point PB made one of William Crawleys posts disappear.
It makes me grin that PB is congratulating himself on dealing KO blows, when he actually has to resort to censoring those he is claiming to beat so thoroughly with his arguments.
The thing that must have upset him in my post was probably that I rolled out the data again of how faith adherence is inversely correlated to scientific achievement:
http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm
I also added the extra data of one believing science Nobel laureate in hundreds. No pleasant facts when you want to claim science for christianity, as PB keeps trying. And hence one more push on the complaint button.
Or maybe it was my advice to Graham to avoid letting PB be seen as aligning himself with him. While I have recently disagreed thoroughly with Graham, I wouldn't think of putting him in the same category as PB. Maybe that upset PB.
The debate about QM will have to wait until the end of the weekend or next week I'm afraid.
greets,
Peter
Complain about this comment
Hello Graham, Peter, PB/Mild/Original/OT/MarkB etc/ and to everyone...Hi!
After a brief hiatus I am back.
Graham PB/OT etc and myself, Peter etc go back a long way!
PB is quite delusional he actually believes he is "winning" debates-maybe according to PB's worldview he is which is absolutist, fundamentalism and as such does does consider disagreement. Just look at how many times the gurn sorry complain button has been hit! Everyone else seems to get on fine!
PB is repeating tired (yawn) arguments and he believes by repeating them it somehow makes them true! He also has a nasty habit of constructing false arguments like above when he cites intelligent Christians such as Francis Collins when I have been telling him from day one that intelligent Christians have no problem with evolution/science! I did pull him on this before but as ever no apology was forthcoming!
The "supernatural" question was dealt with ages ago! and PB did let slip that what he defines as "supernatural" is solely Ken Ham Protestant fundamentalism!
PB is also infamously renowned for not answering questions! I am *still* waiting for an answer to stunning scientific claims made by PB see
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2008/06/can_gay_people_be_straighened.html#comment51
(earlier links in this thread show how long I have been asking!over a year!)
I played by PB's rules and simply asked him to back up statements that he made-I made a list at his request but we are still no further than the first one!?
Namely...."Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."
As you can see all I ever get is prevarication and bluster! when obviously the simplest thing to do would be to back up the statement-but PB obviously cannot do that because the statement is without truth(I am being very kind here).
Pb is also very good at commenting on other peoples behaviour when he is (to the best of my knowledge) the only person to have been placed on pre-mod on these boards on at least two occasions!very hypocritical behaviour!
Pb seems to view himself as representing all of Christianity which is of course a blatant falsehood-the Christians that I have had the pleasure to meet and to call my friends and family(and those I have met on these threads) are nothing like Pb.
It is absolutely futile to attempt to debate Pb as it always futile to debate fundamentalists but it is tremendous fun to watch him trip himself up and to observe the cognitive dissonance.
Anyway hope all has been well with everyone and that does include you Pb!
Complain about this comment
Oops third paragraph should read...
PB is quite delusional he actually believes he is "winning" debates-maybe according to PB's worldview he is which is absolutist, fundamentalism and as such does does not consider disagreement.
Complain about this comment
Graham
"If so should they be posting here?"
Exactly Graham! Yo have hit the nail on the head!
DD
Complain about this comment
Peter Morrow m148
Hi Peter!
"Maybe the BBC ought to consider giving specific reasons why comments are either complained about or removed."
That would be great as sometimes it is impossible to tell what is the specific complaint.
"Or maybe the person who happens to find offence should explain what it is - that might at least help our understanding of one another."
That would be being too intelligent and civil! It appears that a certain poster on here found a new toy namely the gurn/complain button and seems to view any disagreement as an insult and thus hits the button! It illustrates the unfortunate limited fundamentalist mindset and shows a distinct lack of wit and intelligence.
"I read PK's comments on post 146 last night and didn't see a problem."
Of course not Peter since you are an intelligent Christian!
"Does anyone know what the issue is?"
See what I have written above and the long term posters on here do have an idea what the "issue" is-namely a certain poster but I could not Possibly Betray the name maybe we could talk about it some Other Time.
Regards
DD
Complain about this comment
Hello Graham,
Let me go through the points you mentioned in post 149, numbers in my post referring back to the numbered points in your post. Point 12 about the various identities of PB was already covered in my post 151 and DDs posts.
1) Yes, in many cases science is the best way to tell the truth, outranking other sources. This is often due to verifyability, reprodicibility. If a philosophical argument or tired old holy book or other source of insight says something is impossible, and someone then says, "Here, look at this experiment." and then does what the old book or argument says is impossible, the old book has to yield.
2) See point 1, it's verifyability.
3) Yes, you have used various lengthy posts to explain that you were voicing a position that wasn't one you hold to. So I'm not pushing that one anymore.
I'm still not interested in the little bits of point scoring on the nature of the electron diversion.
4) Why I think science tells the truth? See answers 1 and 2.
5) I do read your posts, and most of the urls you include as well. But I can't tell which arguments you are referring to here.
6) I think I'll ignore further mentionings of the electron nature point scoring diversion.
7) You mixed up wave function and uncertainty principle, no amount of quoting (I wish you would just present arguments in your own language, state the case as you think it is, see also point 10) is going to take that away. It's as if two people were saying
'The apple is free falling with a Newtonian mechanics of 9.81 m/(s*s)'
'Don't you mean acceleration of 9.81 m/(s*s)?'
'Acceleration is part of Newtonian mechanics. Here, let me quote Newton in Principica.'
8) You'll leave it to Heisenberg, the physicist. I think I'll add any further arguments by famous physicist name to the ignore list. You want me to your arguments? Fine, after you state in your own words what your argument is, rather than endlessly throwing names and quotes about instead.
And please realize also that I never positioned myself as an authority in philosophical matters. Not that it takes an authority in philosophy to answer some of your points, see 10 again.
9) Helio told me he'll be away for a while. After he returns, who knows.
10) That is where we get to the reason some of my posts have been strong. I first replied to your post about how only sensory perception could make things 'true'. While you didn't hold to that position, you rolled out the names of Hawking and van Fraassen. Asked about van Fraassen, you brought up the intimidating math in his understanding of QM. Asked about that repeatedly, you didn't produce any argument (since you now concede not knowing about it). You linked to some pdf that was utterly irrelevant. You made a strange attempt at conceding on another thread that was not part of the discussion. In post 149 you now concede the point more clearly. So how do you think I look at your posts when you steer the discussion toward some fancy philosophical issue? I mean, called out over one specific issue (and boy did it require multiple iterations, no shortage of dodging attempts), not even an issue involving any deep thinking, I find that there was nothing there to start with on your side, that you simply can't present the argument when called out over it. Which makes me rather skeptical when you roll out so many more names of famous physicists and quote them to no end. Like I said before Graham, names, fancy words and quotes have preciously little more validity than bible verses as substitute for arguments. So if you want to state something, then you say in your own words what the argument is.
And I'll await what you have to say.
greets,
Peter
Complain about this comment
Hi DD,
Good to have you back with us. Your points about PB are certainly valid. One thing thaty was maybe not to clear from them was the rather frequently recurring theme of dishonesty in PBs posts. While many posters may at some stage dodge some issue or bend things a bit in their favour, with PB it goes so, so much further. Quote mining Darwin about the evolution of the eye to argue against evolution, claiming Einstein as a believer, making up quotes out of thin air (as with the Prum paper PB brought up), claiming that few ;labs can do radiometric dating, whining on about the supposed lack of transitional fossils but then ignoring (for almost 2 years now) data handed to him on a plate to show the opposite. Classic stuff.
greets,
Peter
Complain about this comment
Hi Peter,
Perhaps I should have been clearer about Pb's transparent dishonesty-I hope posters can observe this at first hand with my link to the many dodged *simple* questions that Pb has refused to answer(bearing in mind that this was in response to the many dogmatic assertions that Pb has made on science).
Something else has occurred to me Peter, with Pb's (or to be accurate Aleister McGrath's) very long running argument-It is very strange and hypocritical for Pb to cite intelligent/enlightened Christians(especially when we gave him the names long ago!)and how much they have contributed to science and the scientific method when...Pb represents a faction (namely absolutist, Protestant, fundamentalist young earth creationism) which...has the stated intention to destroy science! Quite remarkable!
I was wondering Peter if you would mind reposting the message you put up in m146. Peter Morrow stated in m148 that he saw nothing wrong with your comment-I do not necessarily agree with all the Peter M says but I have always found him fair. So perhaps put the post up again and invite the person who complained to state specifically what was wrong with it?
I realise that this would force the poster who complained to behave in an intelligent and reasonable manner...so I will not hold my breath!
Regards
DD
Complain about this comment
Hi DD
Good to see you back. I see you think I'm intelligent and fair! You obviously don't know me!! You know I'm probably going to regret doing this but, sure, you can sit back and watch what happens and maybe even chip in with a thought or two, so here goes:
Hi Peter
(I'm going to drop the K, cos it seems so awkward, impersonal and I guess you know who I mean), you said, "Yes, in many cases science is the best way to tell the truth, outranking other sources." I agree, assuming of course we can trust the accuracy and reliability of the science and, say, for example, ourselves!
However you also say, "If a philosophical argument or tired old holy book or other source of insight says something is impossible, and someone then says, "Here, look at this experiment." and then does what the old book or argument says is impossible, the old book has to yield."
Was there a particular impossible thing you were thinking of? And is it reasonable to point out that the bible isn't, wasn't, and probably won't ever attempt to be a scientific resource? Is it also reasonable to suggest that there are things science can't reliably tell me, for example the content of my wife's thoughts?
And on the issue of verifiability, would it be reasonable to suggest that you think Christianity just doesn't work?
Just a thought.
Complain about this comment
Hi Peter M!
I apologise for making you blush! but as I said-I may not agree with what you are saying but have always found you fair and reasonable hence the reason I trusted your judgement on Peter K's comment in m146.
I may even chip in on the conversation!
Regards
DD
Complain about this comment
PK
We are in danger of becoming agreeable. Much more civilised, but much less fun.
I think we're also nearing the end of the QM debate. I think. It's actually been a lot of fun, and very interesting (from my point of view) in that I've had to dig out old books and remember just how fascinating this stuff is. And then regret dropping maths and science at 16 for arts subjects. How come they keep all the really interesting stuff hidden from science students until A-Level/Unievrsity? That seems to be a cheat.
( I'm still think you're OTT on my using "wavefunction".)
To the substantial issues -
1) I made it clear (but not clear enough) that it is the interpretation of the mathematics that is at issue. Sometimes physicists tend to assume that philosophers of science don't follow the science. I was just pointing out that this isn't the case. (As I pointed out to Helio, Kuhn was a Berkley physicist, Chalmers a physicst etc etc.) If I gave the impression that anything of consequence to my argument follows from Van Fraasens' mathematical skills, I apologise.
This article isn't by Van Fraasen, but you can tell me what you think if you get the time. It's got equations.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-bohm/
2) The nature of Quantum Entities is actually quite important. The quotes I gave establish that there is a view that QM does not describe the world as it really is. It can tell us what it is NOT like, and it can help us make remarkable predictions. But that's it. (The arguments that back up this view are given in post 126point3 just below the Heisenberg quote; and post 84 points2a-2c. I'm not sure why you keep complaining that I don't provide arguments. I give arguments for both sides of the debate, and give my own conclusion. Repeatedly. And I also made it very clear, repeatedly, that I did not restrict knowledge to sense experience. I'm still not sure how you missed that).
If it is true of a theory as tested and as verified as QM does not describe reality, what does that do for other theories? So I think that we need some arguments that show that QM could (at least) be describing the real world. One is given in the article above.
3) The quotes, and arguments, also show that testability and experiments were not enough to convince many great physicists that QM told the truth about reality.
(By the way QM is not the basis for operationalism -
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ernst-mach/).
We need something more - which is why I mentioned Inference to the Best Explanation in post 125.
4) It's worth noting that Mach/Bohr/Heisenberg were certainly thinking in the spirit of Occam's razor. They did not multiply entities beyond necessity. Which is why I complained that early posters on this thread were actually naive in invoking the razor. (Of course you were not one of them, but I think it's important to keep in mind that this was not a aimless distraction). They could cut out more entities than God or FSM's if they're not careful.
5) My view is outlined in post 125. (I only quoted skeptics, not those who agree with my own arguments. So my position is given in my own words). The reason for the quotes was to show that there is view with a respectable pedigree that is skeptical about sciences' ability to tell the truth about the world. And that this view does not have it's origins in Religious thought. In fact, it's aim is to only believe in what we can be absolutely sure of - results, sense experience, logical deductions. Everything else is pared off by Occams' Razor. If anything the viewpoint is too rigorous, and too dependent on Hume. Imagination, inference and insight are devalued.
This is not to say that Science always gets it right; you mention the importance of falsification. But plenty of philosophical ideas have been falsified.
A deeper question would be - under what conditions could the Scientific project as a whole be falsified? (Assuming that the project aims to tell the truth about the world as it really is). And what presuppositions do scientists bring with them when they examine the world?
Maybe those are questions for a different day.
Thanks for the exchange - as I've said I found it very beneficial.
GV
Complain about this comment
DD
Good to see you back. And I agree with you. Peter M's judgment is fair and reliable. I'm also pretty sure that I've borne the worst of Peter K's wrath, and I can't think of any reason to hit the complaint button.
In fact the insults actually seem to help around here. They make damn sure that you check on your arguments, and they're a great incentive to continue a debate.
Tough but fair is how I'd characterise Peter K now that I've heard him out. I don't think it's fair play to censor anyone unless they blatantly break one of the house rules.
Before you hit the complaint button, shouldn't you have the manners to address the person directly? Shouldn't that be a new house rule?
GV
Complain about this comment
Yes, I'd like to see that message reposted, and like to hear exactly what the problem was.
GV
Complain about this comment
Well I couldn't resist another post... but that is the last one on this thread -honest!
This thread was actually created to discuss whether or not it was madness to have a clergyman in charge of education at Britain's elite scientific group, the Royal Society.
Yes Peter K.
A clergyman in charge of education at the Royal Society.
I didnt make that up, it is indicative of the fact that religion and science have been considered compatable through the vast majority of history. This is not novel or contentious;-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_Institute
All the bluff and blather and ad hominem attacks of PK and DD BC on me are just attempts to distract from this fact.
I am such a dangerous radical that I think Paul Vallely's article which Mr Crawley links to above is a pretty good analysis of the matter which overlaps to a significant extent with my classic post above (no 143), which once again KO'd Peter Klaver and Dylan Dog the second time around.
Vallely says: "The idea that science and religion are incompatible is a fairly recent import into contemporary culture".
In fact *he* says the idea that science and religion are not compatible only really solidified in the latter half of the 20th Century.
How about that Peter K, Vallely says it was generally accepted that religion and science were perfectly compatible, and significant opposition to this idea only really arose in the latter half of the 20th century (Gallileo affair is mentioned in context in his article).
That sounds pretty accurate to me Peter K. Do you contest Vallely's assertions???
The Independent is such a dangerous fundamentalist publication isnt it?
;-)
My post reduced PK and DD to little more than foaming at the mouth ad hominem attacks.
Guys, I think that says much more about your position than it does about mine!
You cant even advertise on a bus that "There is no God" because the ASA would pull you up, thus it will have to be "There is probably no God" if it runs as proposed.
If you can't be certain of your atheism then why insist that it is absolutely true in debate?
Or can you allow that you might be wrong.
I for one certainly defend your right to express your views - without the personal attacks on my integrity.
sincerely
OT
PS Perhaps we could tap into Peter K and DD's reactions to my posts as an alternative energy source? They certainly seems to produce plenty of heat, if not much light.
Perhaps I could still win that Nobel after all DD??
;-)
Complain about this comment
ps I also have to applaud the closing remarks from Vallely's piece, which I think strikes at the root of tensions on this thread;-
"Perhaps the conflict is not between science and religion but between good and bad ways of doing both.
"In all of us there will always be a struggle between the craving for certainty, purity and closure and the acceptance of mystery, brokenness and provisionality.
"At their best, both scientists and people of faith are in a permanent state of awe-struck humility before the wonder and strangeness and messiness of things.
"At their worst, they are arrogant, dogmatic, and incurious..."
Complain about this comment
Hi Graham
And thanks for the welcome!
PB/OT etc etc
"All the bluff and blather and ad hominem attacks of PK and DD BC on me are just attempts to distract from this fact."
Please learn what Ad Hominen actually means!
"which once again KO'd Peter Klaver and Dylan Dog the second time around."
Oh dear PB! you do seem to be a bit punch drunk from all the knock out blows that have been delivered onto you! It is very odd since we have been telling you from day one that intelligent Christians have no problem with evolution-you did try this mis-representative tactic before and got pulled for it!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2008/04/expelled_or_flunked_redux.html
M44 on! and still just a lot of prevarication and bluster and running away! dear oh dear!
"My post reduced PK and DD to little more than foaming at the mouth ad hominem attacks. "
Errr yes PB! (backs away slowly) whatever makes you happy! yessss!
"You cant even advertise on a bus that "There is no God" because the ASA would pull you up, thus it will have to be "There is probably no God" if it runs as proposed.
If you can't be certain of your atheism then why insist that it is absolutely true in debate?"
Goodness! why not read what Richard Dawkins actually has to say rather than being reduced to false witnessing.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,3270,Probably-the-best-atheist-bus-campaign-ever,Ariane-Sherine-guardiancouk
Paradoxically you have shown that Dawkins is not a fundamentalist-excellent work PB!
Also PB through your past constant, dogmatic reference to dogmatic Biblical creationism you actually provided us with actual evidence that your god doesn't exist! because PB you showed that Biblical creationism is that stupid that even(and this really is something!) Biblical creationists don't use it!?
"Or can you allow that you might be wrong."
Of course!
"I for one certainly defend your right to express your views - without the personal attacks on my integrity. "
Pb we do not need to perform "personal attacks" to expose your lack of integrity-you do that job very well yourself! I defend the right for you to express your opinions I would just like you top back them up!You would think that would be *simple*!
"PS Perhaps we could tap into Peter K and DD's reactions to my posts as an alternative energy source? They certainly seems to produce plenty of heat, if not much light."
Yessss PB maybe you missed my post above? in m152? I don't know you seem to keep missing it!?
Here it is again for at least the 20th time(sigh!)
"Current scientific assumptions (including those underpinning the evolutionist viewpoint) are increasingly being undermined by quantum science."
Any chance of backing this up? or why not just admit that you told a falsehood? PB we are no further on!and this is only the first in a long series of falsehoods you have told!
"Perhaps I could still win that Nobel after all DD??"
mmm I don't know PB! do they have a Nobel Prize for prevarication/bluster/using mis-quotes/telling falsehoods(see above) etc etc. Sorry PB had a check and they don't!
Did read the article in question PB and liked this...
"Reiss made it clear that he insists creationism is scientific nonsense."
You see PB, he is an intelligent Christian! it is amusing, ironic and hypocritical of you PB that you should cite these intelligent Christians when your own position(which you gave many, many times) is Ken Ham YEC which would destroy all the good work done by intelligent Christians down the ages!
:-/
DD
Complain about this comment
Hi Graham,
I have a bit more time to address you here(was swatting a gnat in the previous post).
Yep these threads are about healthy, robust debate- some people see disagreement as personal attacks or ad hominen attacks. Unfortunately this just betrays a limited, absolutist mentality and the sadness of their own position that the only way they can react is by silencing-quite pathetic!
Anyway
"Before you hit the complaint button, shouldn't you have the manners to address the person directly? Shouldn't that be a new house rule?"
100% Graham! If I see a post I disagree with I prefer to address the person and by using the parameters of normal debate-work something out. There are exceptions when gross language is used but that has been very rare on these threads. I seem to recall that we had a disagreement awhile ago *however* we sorted it out like normal human beings with no need for censorship.
"Yes, I'd like to see that message reposted, and like to hear exactly what the problem was."
So would I and glad you agree with me about Peter M's judgement(he is far too modest!) perhaps if Peter K would like to repost the message and we invite the person who complained to say exactly what was wrong with it! sounds fair and reasonable to me!
I up just getting caught up on this thread and see that you are getting into QM-fascinating, mind boggling subject!
Hope all has been well with you and yours...
DD
Complain about this comment
Just for the record, I DON'T think quantum science undermines evolution. How on earth could it?
GV
Complain about this comment
DD
Life's been great. How 'bout you?
GV
Complain about this comment
And I agree, Peter M is one of the most reasonable guys around here, and is being far too modest.
Not that we're starting a fan club (sorry Pete), but I think most of us would accept his judgment about a post.
Complain about this comment
Thanks DD
So I see from your last post that you are willing to admit that you may be wrong and that God may have created the universe.
Interesting - doesnt that create any problems for you?
You try to muddy the waters by introducing evolution.
But that is not directly relevant to the question of this thread.
It has been a matter of public record for some time that Reiss thinks creationism is nonsense. Not news.
But can you address the central question;-
2) Is it ok for a clergyman to be in charge of education for the UK's leading science organisation?
It appears your main interest is in falsely accusing me of telling lies (three claims in the last post) but you refuse to deal directly with the question in hand.
The only conclusion I can come to to explain your behaviour is that I have challenged your views so deeply that you cant escape it or deny it. Peter K too.
I think the overall Independent Article is pretty fair and accurate, which therefore makes my views on the relationship between religion and science very mainstream.
I will leave you and Peter K to give your own opinions on Vallely's article, seeing as this is the point of the thread.
OT
Complain about this comment
Pb,
"Well I couldn't resist another post... but that is the last one on this thread -honest!"
Being disingenuous again!?
Pb please try and read what I actually said not what you *think* I said!
Yes I may be very well wrong-I'll admit that! no shame! and no problems at all!
I am an atheist for most intents and purposes-I believe that Zeus, Pachamacha, Amon-Ra, YHWH, Jupiter are all man-made constructs however on a philosophical level I am agnostic as...I simply do not know! What you have done through your long and repeated posts on Biblical creationism is show *actual* evidence that *your* god does not exist! You conclusively expressed that Biblical creationism has *no* evidence and the (ahem) "explanation" given by creationists is that mind-bogglingly *useless* that Biblical creationists don't even use it!-remarkable!
There is nothing wrong with admitting that you might be wrong! the alternative is absolutist fundamentalism and we both no how daft that is!(incidentally I did ask you several times to give me examples of Biblical creationists who stated that they might be wrong-but as ever...silence!).
"You try to muddy the waters by introducing evolution."
Not at all! I am just illustrating the fact of how disingenuous your own position is eg., telling us how about intelligent Christians who have made and impact on science(a fact which myself and others were telling you about ages ago!) when in fact you hold a position that wishes to destroy science and replace it with dogmatic religious fundamentalism and is polar opposites to Francis Collins!
"Is it ok for a clergyman to be in charge of education for the UK's leading science organisation?"
Yep! I couldn't give a damn!
"It appears your main interest is in falsely accusing me of telling lies (three claims in the last post) but you refuse to deal directly with the question in hand."
mmmm so I am "falsely accusing" you!? then the *simplest" thing for you top do would be to answer these accusations! apologies if that is too complicated! As everyone can see I have only been asking you for the last year and all I have got is prevarication and bluster!
"The only conclusion I can come to to explain your behaviour is that I have challenged your views so deeply that you cant escape it or deny it. Peter K too."
Ha ha-goodness you are funny! let me get this right-myself (Peter and others) have been telling you from day 1 that intelligent Christians have no problem with evolution/science then(!) you tell us the exact same thing and accuse us!?!?
I think the Vallely is pretty fair.
Anyway Pb what do you think of the suggestion by myself, Peter M and Graham that Peter K repost his message and invite the person to complain to explain what exactly they found so "offensive" about it?
DD
Complain about this comment
Hi Graham!
Life has been not that bad! thank you for asking!I have just been caught up in the real world for the past while.
Yep I trust Peter M's judgement!
DD
Complain about this comment
Hello people,
I have little time for the QM etc discussion outside weekends, but I can repost the bit that was removed after some poor loser pushed the 'whine to mum' button. It said the following to PB/OT/etc:
Apart from rehashing old posts in which you made yourself look less good, you seem to want to align yourself with Graham now. If I were Graham I would avoid being seen as on the same team with you. While your posts and his do have things in common, I wouldn't dream of putting Graham down in the same category as you.
Though I would like to remind you both of a thread that touches on what PB just brought up, how science and faith do (or rather: do not) go together. I had posted a link to some data about the inverse correlation between faith adherence and scientific achievement:
http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm
Add to that the data point that says there has only ever been one science Nobel laureate with a god belief (out of hundreds) and the message is clear: scientific achievement and faith do not go together. You can point out the exceptions like Francis Collin PB, but it's less than fair to pretend that they are representative.
Given that someone (gosh, I wonder who that was) complained about the post, I assume it pained you a bit to see how science, with its tremendous track record, is so clearly opposed to faith, especially your flavour of it, PB. Graham also seemed uncomfortable with that post, see his response, and then mine to his:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/ni/2008/08/richard_dawkins_on_talk_back_1.html#comment58
greets,
Peter
Complain about this comment
Peter Klaver
It is beyond me how anyone could complain about that post.
Odd that anyone should have hit the complaint button. If you compare it to the comments that Helio and I have shared, it doesn't even register as mildly offensive.
I don't even see anyone's argument would benefit by censoring the post.
I can only assume that someone was being mischievous.
GV
Complain about this comment
Also looking back at that thread, it's a conversation that we didn't finish.Also I think we'd both agree that it would only be a "weak-inductive" argument for Atheism. If true it might provide evidence for atheism, but not conclusive evidence. Does that seem fair?
If so, let's review what has happened here.
1) You were censored
2) For a post that was inoffensive
3) Relating to an argument that we didn't conclude
4) And if it was concluded that the argument provided evidence for Atheism, it wouldn't establish Atheism without other arguments/ evidence.
So it was not fair that it was censored. And it did not benefit anyone that it was censored.
I don't know who censored the comment, but I can only hope that the site moderators apply some sort of sanction, and let us all know the outcome. Unless the mischief-maker will come out and explain themselves.
GV
Complain about this comment
Hi Graham,
If someone wants to claim science for the christian faith, then seeing how inverse faith is to scientific achievement is very inconvenient. Since the data is just that, factual data that speaks for itself, not any levels of argument built upon it, it's hard to argue against it. So PB/Orthodox-tradition hits the complaint button instead.
So, as demonstrated on another thread, we have one pastor on this blog who thinks spelling words with capitols or quoting bibble verses makes a valid substitute for reasoned arguments, and we have another pastor over here who thinks the complaint button is good for it. You see why I conclude that faith is a catalyst for brain switch-off to many?
Watch this thread to see how long it takes for posts to disappear again. :)
greets,
Peter
Complain about this comment
I see your point. That post is inconvenient to those who want to claim Science for Christianity or Theism.
That makes the censorship of your post VERY suspicious. Mischievous is too weak a word.
I'd really like to see some answers here - I mean if I criticise young-earth creationism, am I going to have my posts removed? Won't that make it look as if I'd used very abusive terms etc?
I think it's to your credit Peter that I'm expressing more anger than you are. If this sort of thing has happened to you before, it must get very frustrating. Your post was not abusive, and raised an important objection to OT's point that Science depends on a Christian worldview. (I think the historical relationship was a tad more complex than that).
I'm also concerned that OT has not protested innocence.
GV
Complain about this comment
Hi guys,
My tuppence worth...
The post that PeterK had removed and put back up again is certainly robust but offensive-no!
Graham knocks it on the head in m178.
This is a public message board and we all have our opinions we may disagree(and what a boring place the world would be if we all agreed) and we discuss sensitive/conscientious issues so things may become heated!(hey it adds spice) however if we are just going hit the complain willy-nilly then Will Crawley better just wrap the show up and forget about it!
If I happen to believe say...Biblical creationism as science is stupid useless garbage I think that I have the right to say it and I *fully* support the right of Biblical creationists to challenge/criticise me. Likewise if a Biblical creationist wishes to express their opinion that evolution/science is garbage/wrong etc they have my full backing to say it...however they must expect their opinions to be challenged and criticised.
Anyway luvving the opinions expressed from 174 on!
Regards
DD
Complain about this comment
Can the moderators in their wisdom at least tell us which house rule Peter broke?
Complain about this comment
Understanding Science, and Coming to Terms with Living Peacefully Alongside Other Faiths and Peoples ...
Dear William,
I thought that you might be interested in the following email, which I’ve been sending to friends and colleagues for over four years now. Please feel free to use it in any way you see fit in the cause of peace, reason and tolerance – and in promoting actions in support of the longer term future of life on earth. Such uses of course include printing/sending it in whole or part to friends and colleagues, etc. Whatever you think is likely to be best and most effective. Naturally, the same also applies to any subsequent material I send to you.
Please don’t hesitate to get in touch if you have any comments, questions or suggestions.
With best wishes,
James
Dear …,
As you are aware, a vital element in saving life and biodiversity on this planet is coherence of action and unity of purpose of human beings. In these times of conflict, extremism and ever-present religious fundamentalism, I believe (and hope) that you will find the following to be of interest, as it attempts to address one of the main issues limiting societal progress – that of how to get peoples of differing traditions and/or religions to live and work consistently and effectively together. It also lays bare the vital role that religious leaders from all faiths have in dealing with extremism at its source and in moving our society forwards for the good of all, and further the important roles of scientists, historians and other people of learning. If you do find this information to be of value, please feel free to use it in any way you see fit in the cause of peace, reason and tolerance.
For further information, see the following page:
http://www.musicalenglishlessons.org/contributors/jamesmorrow/science+faiths.htm
You may also find these pages to be of interest:
http://www.musicalenglishlessons.org/contributors/jamesmorrow/poems/poems.htm,
http://www.musicalenglishlessons.org/contributors/jamesmorrow/poems/poems2.htm &
http://www.musicalenglishlessons.org/contributors/jamesmorrow/poems/poems3.htm
…and indeed the complete website:
http://www.musicalenglishlessons.org/
Please don’t hesitate to get in touch if you have any comments, questions or suggestions.
With best regards,
James (Morrow)
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS