Starship Asterisk*

Posted: **Wed Oct 29, 2008 7:41 pm**

orin stepanek wrote:I like to think of creation as bringing in being that what was not. Whether by the BB or by God or whatever. True I believe in a Divine Being; but, I believe the tools He uses are what you Science Nerds are discovering. The BB (accepted theory) being one of them. Evolution being another. Who is to say what theories may explain the universe in years to come. That is what makes Science fun. If this makes me a religious nut; so be it.

Orin

[Nereid in mod mode]
So far as this forum is concerned, discussion of religion is out of bounds; please let's leave gods, divine beings, and non-scientific aspects of creation (etc) out of our posts.
[/Nereid in mod mode]

Posted: **Wed Oct 29, 2008 8:50 pm**

Nereid wrote:[...]

The scientific flaw? Among the many mind-twisting things in quantum mechanics (QM) is that 'individual objects may lose their identity' (or 'certain things cannot have an individual identity, period'). Of course, this is 'just' a limitation of the human mind when it comes to trying to interpret the theory ... the mathematics is crystal clear (and not all that difficult); and even the 'greats' are on record as saying they can't grok QM fully (yes, even Feynman!), hence the expression 'shut up and calculate'. Simple example: the two-slit experiment done 'one photon at a time' (or 'one electron' or 'one atom'). Oh, and QED (think of it as 'part of QM') is the most precisely tested theory in science, period (14? decimal places!!!), so unless you define 'fact' so narrowly that it has no physical meaning, these mind-twisting behaviours must count as 'facts'.

There are thousands of sites on the internet which discuss/describe etc the two-slit experiment; by chance (?!) there's a very recent thread in BAUT (an internet discussion forum devoted to astronomy, as I'm sure all readers of this post already know) on just this topic, which is both somewhat amusing and enlightening, wrt QM and individuality: The Double-Slit Experiment - again.

I particularly liked this exchange (on p2):

A: And that´s exactly the problem I have with the kind of experiment I described in my OP. How can the photon "know" that there are detectors behind the slits? It can´t look into it´s own future, or can it? It should be completely free to decide which slit to pass, independent of whether there are detectors or not behind the slits. It will recognize the detectors only after having passed the slit(s). But then it´s too late.

B: Electrons and protons and photons, and all objects in the universe, don't care whether you understand them. They act in a certain manner, whether or not it makes sense to you.

If you do not accept this simple fact, you should stop thinking about quantum mechanics, because it will just frustrate you.

Posted: **Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:15 pm**

Nereid in mod mode wrote:So far as this forum is concerned, discussion of religion is out of bounds ...

[apodman in backtalk mode]

By the nature of the questions being examined in this particular topic, I think certain views from the outside of religion can be as useful here as views from the outside of philosophy and science.

Since, for convenience of presentation, some of us have already chosen to relate personal inside views of scientific observation to illustrate possible outside views, I construe that Orin has simply followed suit. Just like common sense says we shouldn't have to "prove" a theory every time we mention it, we shouldn't have to repeat the context of our commentary on a subject-on-the-edge (or dance around the point with words and more words) once the context has been established within a topic.

The fact that this is a scientific forum that discusses science from a scientific perspective is not open to debate, challenge, argument, or doubt.

[/apodman in backtalk mode]

Posted: **Thu Oct 30, 2008 1:03 am**

Nereid (quoting someone else) wrote:Electrons and protons and photons, and all objects in the universe, don't care whether you understand them. They act in a certain manner, whether or not it makes sense to you.

I might phrase it like this instead:

"The behavior of electrons, protons, photons, and every object in the universe is separate from and independent of the understanding of that behavior."

But since the author brought the anthropomorphic (and entertaining) touch into the phrasing of the idea, I'll address it as a philosopher might:

"Do small and simple objects of the universe care about your understanding of them? Larger and more complex objects (such as living organisms) do. At what size and complexity this begins to be observable is not clear. It could be argued that a human's caring what you know is not the result of a complex cognitive process but a simple reflection of benefit received (all dressed up after the fact with cognition); this would make it arguably no different from a plant that shows appreciation that you know when to water it or a table that shows appreciation that you know when to oil it. This requires the consideration [which we know is based on fallacious reasoning - /apodman as scientist] that, if a large and complex object contains a certain property, some smaller or elementary component of it must contain that property, and so electrons might actually care."

And somebody who hates science might continue with the following twisted logic (real contributors have done quite similarly in this forum - look it up):

"Quantum mechanics is not true science because it does not consider this possibility."

Well, you asked for a non-scientific perspective. I have to find it where I find it.

Nereid (still quoting someone else) wrote:If you do not accept this simple fact, you should stop thinking about quantum mechanics, because it will just frustrate you.

This is why I rarely run into a philosopher thinking about quantum mechanics except as an outside critic, and even then I don't think they do calculations recreationally like physicists do.

Posted: **Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:35 am**

The "Demarcation Problem"

Paraphrasing again.

Question:

What single criterion or test separates Science from Non-Science, Pseudo-Science, and Religion as courses of inquiry?

Answer:

Who says it's a single criterion or test? It sounds to me like that's the question because that's what someone wants the answer to be.

Who says that demarcation is a sharp line of separation and not just a continuous slope from scientific to un-scientific?

What happens if we go through a bunch of text and make the following substitutions?

- replace "scientific" with "practical"
- replace "science" with "practicality"
- replace "scientist" with "practical researcher"
- etc.

Of course it won't work completely nor in every case. I'm really just introducing the suggestion that the difference between scientific and un-scientific is a matter of practicality.

I think science uses practical methods to produce a practical view of things.

Practical methods = things we can actually do that deliver observable results.

Practical view = explanations that continue to work when we try to make further use of them.

This doesn't mean directly applicable to your daily life like a "practical application" (though science has those, too).

Posted: **Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:31 am**

Nereid wrote:
emc wrote:
Nereid wrote:..., isn't there a logical flaw in your comment?
Yes my comment is not logical. Because that’s the way I think (or is my nature).

Nereid wrote:Why MUST the observable universe have been created (or, if you prefer, have a creation event)?
The short answer... no logical reason except it fits my perception.

Longer answer... My perception of creation hinges on the following... I was born... ergo I was created... and I will die. Science is telling me that the sun was born and will die (or drastically change… not sure about the death part). Science is telling me that the universe has a beginning and will die a frozen death but again not sure about the death part. My point is that science sees the universe as start and finish.

I think something has to be infinite… an uncaused cause, if you will, but infinity’s outta the ballpark (comprehensible/detectable range)... So I look outside/beyond science for the answer.
NOW we're getting away from science!

I'd hoped that I'd been sufficiently clear, if pedantic, re what 'science' 'tells' (you) about the origin of the universe, but apparently not.

'Science' can get 'the observable universe' (NOT 'the universe'!) back to a time when it was very hot and dense (and small, compared to now), but it can't get you an origin ('creation') ... without addressing the fatal mutual incompatibility between the two very best physics theories 'science' has today.

There's another logical (or 'scientific', if you prefer) flaw that's more fatal to your non-science: the strong implication that (all) components of the universe are 'born' and 'die' (or 'will die').

The logic flaw? The oldest one in the book: 'This thing (or class of things) was born and later it died, THEREFORE all things (or class of things) are born and (will) die'.

The scientific flaw? Among the many mind-twisting things in quantum mechanics (QM) is that 'individual objects may lose their identity' (or 'certain things cannot have an individual identity, period'). Of course, this is 'just' a limitation of the human mind when it comes to trying to interpret the theory ... the mathematics is crystal clear (and not all that difficult); and even the 'greats' are on record as saying they can't grok QM fully (yes, even Feynman!), hence the expression 'shut up and calculate'. Simple example: the two-slit experiment done 'one photon at a time' (or 'one electron' or 'one atom'). Oh, and QED (think of it as 'part of QM') is the most precisely tested theory in science, period (14? decimal places!!!), so unless you define 'fact' so narrowly that it has no physical meaning, these mind-twisting behaviours must count as 'facts'.

Hi Nereid,

Sorry to have gotten away from science but in order to answer your questions, I had no choice. I think my answers to your questions went under your head. I mean no disrespect, quite the opposite; your grasp of science is impressive… leaps and bounds above my own. The shortest answer to your questions from the depth of my non-science mind is… What science doesn’t explain, faith can. And to further explain... “Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Heb 11:1 KJV (Almost sounds scientific doesn't it??

)

The "problem of induction" you point to or my fatal (kind of a pun huh?) flaw in that...

Ed wrote:Science is telling me that the universe has a beginning and will die a frozen death but again not sure about the death part. My point is that science sees the universe as start and finish.

We know what the BBT tells us about the beginning... What does science tell us about the dark energy, expansion, ... fate of the universe? My understanding is that science spawned a theory that the universe will expand itself into a refrigerated state, how is that my fatal flaw? If this is more non-science please accept my apology. And I hope you're a patient person.

Posted: **Thu Oct 30, 2008 8:31 pm**

emc wrote:[...]

Ed wrote:Science is telling me that the universe has a beginning and will die a frozen death but again not sure about the death part. My point is that science sees the universe as start and finish.
We know what the BBT tells us about the beginning... What does science tell us about the dark energy, expansion, ... fate of the universe? My understanding is that science spawned a theory that the universe will expand itself into a refrigerated state, how is that my fatal flaw? If this is more non-science please accept my apology. And I hope you're a patient person.

Hmm ... once again Ed, "the BBT" does NOT "tell us about the beginning" (of the universe)!

Would it be helpful, to you, to spend some more time on this? I appreciate that it's a common misconception, abetted by far too many science writers, but misconception it is nonetheless.

The 'fate of the universe' (or its end or death or ...) is also not something 'science' can help you with ...

One elephant in the room is the nature of 'dark energy': if it's one kind of thing, then the universe will 'end' in a 'Big Rip'; if another, a gentler eventual utter loneliness but not a 'heat death'; if a third, ... The point is that, today, the constraints on the nature of dark energy are far too weak to rule out anything much.

Another is what's 'beyond the Standard Model' (SM), a.k.a. what broader theory (of particle physics) will replace the SM? We know the SM is incomplete, but can't constrain its replacement much yet, and this matters enormously in terms of the future evolution of the universe.

It seems that what I wrote, way back in this thread, was somewhat confusing or ambiguous (or that I failed to communicate a key point at all), so apologies for my failures there. I did not have an intention of introducing 'faith' in any way, other than to explicitly rule it out of bounds wrt the discussion. And I thought I had also clarified 'belief', in any form, earlier too ... except as a cognate for 'acceptance'.

Posted: **Thu Oct 30, 2008 9:17 pm**

emc wrote:My perception of creation hinges on the following... I was born... ergo I was created... and I will die. Science is telling me that the sun was born and will die (or drastically change… not sure about the death part). Science is telling me that the universe has a beginning and will die a frozen death but again not sure about the death part.

What a dismal vision! Looking through my old original astronomy/blues lyrics, I find more optimistic visions. Here's what looks like the stellar nursery verse:

No second-rate destiny authored by prophets of doom
Infinity furnishes nature the ultimate womb
And starlight stream on as I watch possibilities bloom

Okay, it doesn't move the topic forward much, but your imagery reminded me of it.

---

The "Scientific Method"

I've knocked the "so-called scientific method" a time or two. Let me try to say something more useful about my attitude:

I expected science to be orderly, so I expected the "scientific method" to be precise instructions like an algorithm or a recipe, and so I was disappointed with what I got. Maybe that's the way with some of science's critics. They only got as far as expectation, disillusionment, and disappointment, whereas others of us have gotten past the trauma and learned to appreciate the choices of methods we have in the real world. I guess the reason "scientific method" still rubs me the wrong way is that the words arguably connote more than they deliver.

Posted: **Fri Oct 31, 2008 10:58 am**

I think it’s time I admitted that I know too little about the topic to continue. Thanks for helping me participate.

Posted: **Sat Nov 01, 2008 3:28 pm**

Ken G, a regular poster in the BAUT forum, recently wrote the following (extract, emphasis added; source):

Let me just tell you [another BAUT member] that you keep stumbling over a fundamental misconception about what science is for. I don't blame you for this misconception, it is reinforced constantly by sloppy science writing, but the fact is that it gets a quite unwieldy for every science publication to keep having to repeat what I am about to tell you.

The purpose of scientific theory, like the Big Bang, is not to tell us what "really exists", what "really happened", or what is "the real reason" things behave they way they do. That would be way, way too difficult, and frankly, we have no way to test such claims. So your continual criticism of the Big Bang based on the fact that it cannot tell us what "really happened" is not actually a criticism of that theory at all-- it is a fundamental misunderstanding about what scientific theory is capable of.

What a scientific theory is capable of, and what the Big Bang theory is a wonderful example of, is organizing, unifying, and predicting observations. In effect, a scientific theory is nothing but a kind of shorthand that can be used in place of a vast body of experimental data, most of which is entirely hypothetical because we simply haven't bothered to observe everything we possibly can (take the Hubble deep field, for example, and ask-- how many other deep fields are there that Hubble did not look at?). To the extent that the observations that haven't been done yet also conform to the theory, we say the theory is predictive (an aspect that is only testable in hindsight, when we actually do the observations), and to the extent that the theory unifies and makes sense of existing data, we say it is explanatory.

But either way, at no time does the theory ever cut loose from the body of existing and potential future data, and become what "really is". It just doesn't. [...] what separates the BBT from the [strawman] has nothing to do with which is "right or wrong", it has to do with which one unifies, organizes, and simplifies our understanding of a wide body of existing data and points to intelligent choices for new observations, and which one does none of those things. Do you see now?

Scientific writing does not make this clear at every opportunity, but it is just an implicit aspect of the entire process that bears repeating every now and again.

And a bit later in that thread, this (extract, source):

What scientific theories do not do is hand us a belief system that we can prove or disprove (it wouldn't be a belief if we could prove it). Beliefs are always up to us-- we may structure our beliefs any way that make sense to us, and we may choose science or something else, or a combination-- whatever serves our purpose for having a belief system.

What science can do, and is built to do from the ground up, is to provide a testable theoretical framework that organizes, unifies, explains, and predicts, the observational data at our disposal, and guides future observations within reach of our technology. That it can be tested just means the framework can be challenged to explain new data-- it is not necessary that any single bit of new data must be capable of overturning the entire framework (a framework so inflexible would be useless), that's a misconception we owe to Popper. You still seem to think science should be doing something else and are dissatisfied with it, but your dissatisfaction has nothing to do with the Big Bang theory, it could equally be leveled at any theory.

One of the things I like about this view of the nature of science is that it overcomes so many of the philosophical conundrums (e.g. problem of induction); it also - I think - neatly addresses many of the problems/questions in apodman's posts (not to mention being a powerful tool to examine the 'fact vs theory' question!).

Posted: **Sun Nov 02, 2008 2:40 pm**

I think I have a pretty good idea what "science" is.

I'm a little less clear on "pseudo-science" and "non-science" - without seeing what authorities think, "pseudo-science" sounds to me like "non-science" pretending to be "science", or something that is "like science - but not really".

So tell me, good friends, where does this gem of conceptualization fit:

"Anthropic Principle(s)"

?

And what does it do to advance the astrophysical understanding of the cosmos? Nothing that I can see, yet "scientists" are stirring it in.

Posted: **Sun Nov 02, 2008 2:59 pm**

apodman wrote:I think I have a pretty good idea what "science" is.

I'm a little less clear on "pseudo-science" and "non-science" - without seeing what authorities think, "pseudo-science" sounds to me like "non-science" pretending to be "science", or something that is "like science - but not really".

If you actually do have a good idea what science is, then "non-science" is easy enough- it just describes a discovery process that works differently from "science". And your (first) assessment of pseudoscience is well stated and accurate.

So tell me, good friends, where does this gem of conceptualization fit:

"Anthropic Principle"?

There is no such thing as the Anthropic Priniciple. There are many different arguments which go by that name. All, however, are firmly in the category of non-science (and like any non-science, may be- and sometimes are- presented as pseudoscience). IMO, any version of the Anthropic Principle is nothing more than philosophy, and not very well reasoned philosophy at that.

Posted: **Sun Nov 02, 2008 3:25 pm**

Norman Campbell - in 'What is Science?' (1921?) (1952?) wrote:(source)

The plain man - I do not think that this is an overstatement - calls a "theory" anything he does not understand, especially if the conclusions it is used to support are distasteful to him ... It is only because he does not understand "theory" that the plain man is apt to compare it unfavorably with "practice," by which he means what he can understand.

The practical man is apt to sneer at the theorist; but an examination of any of his most firmly-rooted prejudices would show at once that he himself is as much a theorist as the purest and most academic student; theory is a necessary instrument of thought in disentangling the amazingly complex relations of the external world. But while his theories are false because he never tests them properly, the theories of science are continually under constant test and only survive if they are true. It is the practical man and not the student of pure science who is guilty of relying on extravagant speculation, unchecked by comparison with solid fact.

Posted: **Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:28 am**

Hello Nereid,

What about good ol' astrolabe?

First of all, it is probably nearly impossible to gather facts and be without some personal belief system. If the system is scientific in nature it must have theories and even theories within theories for I believe humans are more comfortable when thinking within a framework of patterns. Whether it be the BBT or the SM or GR or SR or the behaviorals we dutifully record our facts by the ton until a pattern emerges that makes sense of chaos.

An event is a fact that can be observed, sometimes measured, or eventually quantified if a pattern of occurrences allow us to predict a future event in time so that a measurement can be made. Facts seeming to support an idea are not lost on scientist who sees the fact as additional fuel for a proposed hypothesis on it's way to maturation as an accepted theory.

My point being? scientists in the true sense of the word should collect raw, empirical data without knowing why they're collecting it. I think SOME articles, not most of course, get a bit slanted in persuasive or somewhat intoned language to help create a sense of logic supporting some pet theory or another. Behaviorally when readers or audiences are led to conclusions it's mostly for the reason of pattern comfort, not for the sake of reason itself.

There is nothing like a predictable, repeatable, reliable pattern (or a pattern of patterns) to put us at ease.

I will answer your questionaire but it's late here and I have this pattern of sleeping and alarm clocks that I'm reeeeaaaaally into right now.

Starship Asterisk*

Café posts split from Stormy Lagoon Nebula (19Oct)