Non-Scientists and Science

[Bronze Dog]

The reason for thinking that they're acausal, at least with the ordinary view of causality as something going forward in time, is that if they weren't, then it should be possible to send a signal faster than light, which according to Special Relativity is impossible.

Note that one way of looking at virtual particles is to imagine a particle moving forward in time and then going back in time a little bit and then going forward. Then the particle-antipartical creation could be called "causal," but it would be caused by something from the future. Many people do this, and it makes them happy. Of course, it goes against how people think of causality, as something going forward in time.

I think it's kind of pointless to focus on a specific idea, such as "causality," in the hopes that if you could get all of them, you'd somehow eventually prove that the universe is nice and simple in a classical sense. Quantum behavior is such that you always have to give up some desirable intuitive idea, and there is just no way to avoid this. You have some flexibility in picking which intuitive ideas you pick, but you can't keep all of them, and the only way to pretend that you can is to be selectively ignorant.

Ow.

 

[Mojo]

Having recalled Behe being interviewed in The Grauniad recently;

http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,12996,1567977,00.html

one can only be depressed at the lack of critical acumen that the professor of English literature brought to bear when the subject of the interview made a sequence of ridiculous statements that could have been challenged by anyone who could think logically and critically even without a science background.

It looks as if Behe isn't getting such an easy ride this week: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

It looks as if Behe isn't getting such an easy ride this week: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178

"What a maroon"

 

[Mojo]

From the NS story:

“You've got to admire the guy. It’s Daniel in the lion’s den,” says Robert Slade, a local retiree who has been attending the trial because he is interested in science. "But I can’t believe he teaches a college biology class."

 

[Belz...]

But the real problem is not just ignorance per se. It's the fact that people (and in some cases articulate and influential people, such as those who write newspaper columns) actually seem to be proud to be ignorant of science, thus perpetuating the idea that science is not worth learning about.

"Ignorance is bliss", I think is the corresponding motto. Personnally, I think ignorance is a curse.

 

[casebro]

I have noticed that when I debate with some people, such as a creationist, that when they assert that there HAD to be a creator, and I then ask from whence that creator came,
Dave

In light of modern science, it's obvious that the creator must have evolved. We just haven't found the fossil trail yet. We'll have to consult with some Astro-Archeologist on where to dig....

 

[Bronze Dog]

In light of modern science, it's obvious that the creator must have evolved. We just haven't found the fossil trail yet. We'll have to consult with some Astro-Archeologist on where to dig....

There's no fossil record because the creator didn't evolve! He's far too complex for that! He was designed by an Astute Designer Designer! Yes, ADD is the only explanation!

 

[Pastor Bentonit]

It looks as if Behe isn't getting such an easy ride this week: http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178

Riiiight. If hypothesis = theory, then what? Whatever-I-just-pulled-out-of-my-@$$ = hypothesis?!

To paraphrase the article, you almost got to admire the guy. I, for one scientist with some 14 years of experience, have learned (the hard way, mind you) to be wary of ideas that seem "brilliant" at 3 a.m. after some nice Ruby Port... At least, you know, check the literature extensively (the peer-reviewed original research literature in particular), devise experiments to test hypotheses, predict experimental outcome or necessary observations according to said hypotheses, be sure to consider alternative interpretations etc. Sad thing is, in order to become a professor (and publish in scientific journals), Dr. Behe has surely done all of this many times before and yet, religion has obviously gotten the best of him in the end.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Sad thing is, in order to become a professor (and publish in scientific journals), Dr. Behe has surely done all of this many times before and yet, religion has obviously gotten the best of him in the end.

Sometimes I wonder if he got to be a professor in the same way a lot of untalented women became lead actresses.

 

[Just thinking]

But the real problem is not just ignorance per se. It's the fact that people (and in some cases articulate and influential people, such as those who write newspaper columns) actually seem to be proud to be ignorant of science, thus perpetuating the idea that science is not worth learning about.

And why not? Just look at all the people that can make very good livings without doing much in the way of thinking at all. I know one personally -- doesn't know squat about science (beyond very basic stuff), but his particular profession (broker) makes him $$$$$. And even in his field, he's no great performer -- just the nature of his work. Look at all the actors, performers, politicians, non-science teachers, township workers, bankers, police, store managers, secretaries, business owners -- get the drift? For every 50 of them you might find 1 or 2 others that actually use science in their field.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Sad thing is, in order to become a professor (and publish in scientific journals), Dr. Behe has surely done all of this many times before and yet, religion has obviously gotten the best of him in the end.

Does his CV include real science or is it all of the made-up variety?

 

[Melendwyr]

I wonder if this debate actually will reach the Supreme Court, and whether they'll bother to hear it.

 

[Art Vandelay]

The reason for thinking that they're acausal, at least with the ordinary view of causality as something going forward in time, is that if they weren't, then it should be possible to send a signal faster than light, which according to Special Relativity is impossible.

No, that's not true.

 

[Beth]

That god exists at all is an assumption for which there doesn't seem to be any evidence.

I don't think the existance of god is an assumption. It's an axiom. The flip side is science, which takes as an axiom that god does not exist.

 

[rwguinn]

I don't think the existance of god is an assumption. It's an axiom. The flip side is science, which takes as an axiom that god does not exist.

References, please?
Science is totqally neutral on the existence of god. It can't be proven that he does, and can't proven that he doesn't

 

[Beth]

References, please?
Science is totqally neutral on the existence of god. It can't be proven that he does, and can't proven that he doesn't

I wouldn't say science is totally neutral on the existance of god, but I agree that the existance of god(s) cannot be proven. That's what I mean by saying it's an axiom, not an assumption. Axioms are starting precepts, taken as true without proof. Everything in a logical system is built on the foundation of it's starting axioms.

Science has, as a starting axiom, that god either does not exist or does not interfere in our world in any way. Science then endeavors to explain all observations based on this assumption - that everything we observe is due to a series of natural processes, not divine intervention.

At least, that's how I see it. Others, I'm sure, will disagree.

 

[Melendwyr]

Science has, as a starting axiom, that god either does not exist or does not interfere in our world in any way. Science then endeavors to explain all observations based on this assumption - that everything we observe is due to a series of natural processes, not divine intervention.

No, it does not. Science accepts as a working axiom that the universe operates according to principles that can be determined through reason and experimentation.

 

[Beth]

No, it does not. Science accepts as a working axiom that the universe operates according to principles that can be determined through reason and experimentation.

Okay, how is that different from my statement of the axiom "that god either does not exist or does not interfere in our world in any way"? To me, they are the same. Obviously, they are not to you. Could you expound upon what you perceive as the difference?

 

[Melendwyr]

Asserting that the universe can be understood does not rule out the existence of gods.

If you don't understand why, it would be pointless for me to try to explain.

 

[AmateurScientist]

42