In today’s Washington Post, there is an editorial entitled Dissing Darwin that is recommended reading. I’ll offer some commentary on the flipside.
The museum was naive or negligent not to recognize [the true motivations of the Discovery Institute], and more naive not to anticipate the backlash. When news of the film showing recently began circulating, one Web site that supports intelligent design asked enthusiastically whether this meant the Smithsonian was “warming up” to the theory of an intelligent creator. In a newspaper interview, Bruce Chapman, president of the Discovery Institute, also said how delighted he was that the Museum of Natural History would “co-sponsor” the event despite the fact that the evening was intended to be a private affair. This is precisely how the intelligent design movement has gotten as far as it has: by advocating outwardly inoffensive ideas in ever-more prestigious places, thereby giving the movement scientific validity.
The Discovery Institute certainly makes the short-list of influential anti-science collectives. Faxes and emails available on a Discovery Institute website seem to indicate communication with the Discovery Institute directly and not with surrogates. The conclusion that the Smithsonian failed to intercept a clear instantiation of The Wedge in action due to naivete or negligence is hard to miss. Thus, the editorial is spot-on.
But it’s easy to criticize others for negligence and not be vigilant yourself. A few days ago, word was spreading that the creationists were hoping to show Privileged Planet on PBS stations nationwide. PT confirmed this and asked science advocates to contact their local stations. Have you?
All this is to say, the editorial correctly accuses the Smithsonian Institution of negligence. Readers of the thumb who agree should exercise vigilance themselves and look in their own backyard.
BCH
205 Comments
PvM · 3 June 2005
Denyse on the latest Controversy caused by her endzone fumble...
neurode · 3 June 2005
A sadly amusing editorial. Those who don't understand why should ask themselves a pair of metaquestions (i.e., questions about questions):
(1) Is it possible to answer the question "does God exist" (yes, no or maybe) without involving religion?
(2) Is it possible to answer the question "are some parts of nature designed" without involving science?
The correct answer to metaquestion 1 is technically "yes"; the putative existence of God is a philosophical question independent of the specific doctrine of any particular religion. Moreover, since the G-word is not mentioned in the film, it would make no difference even if the answer were "no".
The answer to metaquestion 2 is "no", since science is the study of nature, and the question of whether or not nature exhibits design is potentially relevant to the study of nature. It follows that the editorial amounts to a call for the Smithsonian and other influential science-oriented institutions to summarily exclude certain potentially relevant questions from science.
Of course, any decent scientist knows that you can't really do that. Nobody gets to hang his or her pet restrictions on science. There is nothing in the scientific method that forbids high-level hypotheses involving the nature of nature, particularly in the absence of hard proof that the answers are scientifically irrelevant.
Unfortunately for the Washington Post, no such proof exists. The implication is clear: no matter which side of the controversy you're on, the Smithsonian was dead wrong to have changed its customary arrangement just because the film to be screened happens to smell like religion to somebody who doesn't know any better.
If a film does not make assertions regarding clearly-enunciated articles of faith or other items of religious observance, but instead reviews scientific data and asks logically-formulated questions about the causal factors possibly involved in their production, then in the absence of hard proof that the source cannot possibly leave an empirical signature, it is scientific enough.
No question about it, the Smithsonian should be ashamed of itself for abjectly caving in to bad argumentation. (At least they had the wit not to cancel the screening.)
Glen Davidson · 3 June 2005
Flint · 3 June 2005
neorode:
Unfortunately, both of the answers you supply to your own question are dubious, in that they rest on arguable definitions and assumptions. If the possibility of the existence of gods is a religious question by definition (and I submit that it is), then you can't address it without involving religion, anymore than you can address questions like how many angels can dance on a pin and whether the bear is Catholic.
As for whether some parts of nature are designed, we see people "answering" this question who couldn't begin to give a definition of science, nor do they need to. This has, all along, been the main problem with intelligent design: that it explains everything without the need to resort to any evidence whatsoever. Clearly, involving science is not required. In fact, all indications are that intelligent design is phrased in scientistical terms mostly to distract scientists into thinking science must somehow be involved when it is not.
The SI simply did not wish to associate themselves with an anti-science PR organization, especially through co-sponsorship of a film presenting positions antithetical to science. The SI, like the NY Times and Washington Post, have cottoned to the scheme. The goal was to engineer a situation whereby a respected scientific body could be misrepresented as agreeing with an anti-science production. Your babbling about "absence of hard proof that the answers are scientifically irrelevant" is exactly the sort of distraction the DI specializes in. They tried to pull a PR coup, and it backfired publicly.
Now, I suppose I should emulate Lenny Flank and ask YOU for an actual, testable hypothesis the DI could use to do actual science rather than pull stunts like this. But we both recognize he asks that question repeatedly as a means of illustrating that there is no science to be found at the DI. If you are lamenting the fact that responsible organizations got wise a bit too late, allowing them to be played for fools, then I agree. If you are lamenting that they got wise AT ALL, and should have continued playing the fool to support a dishonest agenda, shame on you.
a maine yankee · 3 June 2005
Since any advanced science might look like magic (miracles,) I am constantly disappointed that the ID crowd doesn't look for BEMs in 'white' coats making plasmids and superstrings in their "magic" labs. I think that one of the Wright Brothers said that 'Man would never fly.' Just give her some time and money, and we'll unravel complexity, and wouldn't it be wonderful if it turned out to be, well, complex but all so 'natural'.
neurode · 3 June 2005
Maybe you didn't understand my point. I wrote:
"If a film does not make assertions regarding clearly-enunciated articles of faith or other items of religious observance, but instead reviews scientific data and asks logically-formulated questions about the causal factors possibly involved in their production, then in the absence of hard proof that the source cannot possibly leave an empirical signature, it is scientific enough."
Now, that's a fact. You seem to be claiming that there is no evidence for the sort of efficient causation that would permit the infusion of design into nature. Please forgive me for expressing my sincere doubt that you know what you're talking about on that. In fact, I suspect from the tone and content of your response that questions formulated on that level of discourse may be considerably over your head.
In any case, it's hardly necessary to stoop to name calling. If you don't want to be called a quack - and I'm perfectly capable of calling you that or worse in return - then please refrain from further epithets.
Joseph O'Donnell · 3 June 2005
Grey Wolf · 3 June 2005
Neurode, I challenge you to provide an example of:
a) a review of scientific data which supports design and does not support evolution
b) an experiment which can determine if something that seems designed *is* designed
c) a scientific theory of ID
that have not been showed to be false, useless, based on lies or otherwise discredited either here or in talkorigins.org (or in some other venue).
Until you do, you have no business defending ID.
Sincerely, there have been many creationists that have come here with grand declarations of how ID was science. None have been able to back-up the claim. Lets see if you do better.
Hope that helps,
Grey Wolf, who certifies this post is ad hominem free
Glen Davidson · 3 June 2005
jmplavcan · 3 June 2005
Neurode is sadly typical of the confusion between science and propaganda deliberately generated by the DI, offering up a couple of red herrings in the guise of sound philosphy. True, science does not address metaphysical questions one way or the other. However, though it is also true that "any decent scientist" is free to muse and speculate to his/her heart's content about the metaphysical implications of various scientific results, most are intellectually honest enough to clearly distinguish between hypothesis testing, model building, interpretation of evidence, and metaphysical speculation. Where they are not, their piers (not "any decent scientist", but MANY decent scientists) are all too happy to make that distinction for them, either in private review or in published rebuttal. This is why ID and creationist papers so consistently fail to have any impact whatsoever on the scientific community.
Sadly, the DI knows all too well that the public has little knowledge of the practical and philosophical underpinnings of science. Hence their target audience is not us scientists, but rather the public. "Any decent scientist" recognizes their claptrap for what it is at a glance, and most understand all too clearly the distinction between propaganda and academic discourse. While it is fair to ask the question of whether apparent "design" is the product of a designer, there is no compelling evidence whatsoever that explanations based on a designer are better than (or even equal to) naturalistic explanations.
Granted I have not seen the film in question, However, I have read a tremendous amount of verbage produced by the DI and it is absolutely consistent. There is nothing the descriptions of the film offered by the DI to suggest that it represents anything different from what they have published elsewhere. Pending that this is the case, the film is what we in academia call propaganda. It's purpose is not to further scientific inquiry, or to advance understanding. Its purpose is to lay the foundation for the belief in a creator -- read God. The immediate stamentments made by DI and their supportors are absolutely consistent with the "wedge" strategy of gaining credibility for dogma that undermines the publics' support for science (oops, "humanistic, materialistic science") by associating such dogma with reputable sources, and by shear repetition, thereby gaining credibility for the suggestion that there is a "controversy" in science. The folks at the Smithsonian are busy (I was just working there last week), and it is easy for this type of stuff to get through the system. The Smithsonian has nothing to be ashamed of, and has handled a politically very difficult situation as best as can be expected.
Will · 3 June 2005
I wrote UNC-TV here in North Carolina and they wrote back saying they have "no plans to show the program in the immediate future." This could mean anything but I'm optimistic.
RBH · 3 June 2005
Grey Wolf · 3 June 2005
In an effort not to feed the creationist, let me try to steer the topic back to a semblance of the original in a lame attempt at humour.
Since $16000 is exactly the minimum contribution to get co-sponsored by the museum, had I been in charge I would've given the DI $1 back. That means they still pay almost as much as they wanted, freely and (according to them) unknowingly of the consequences but untangles the museum from any standing practices.
After all, the DI doesn't want co-sponsorship, don't They? they just want to give a museum a big bag of money so they can continue to do science in exchange for a private screening of a film that for all we know could have been the pictures of D*mbski's last holiday (damn you, PTers! I no longer remember which vowel goes there! 'u' seems so *natural* and *designed* to go there!).
Hope that helps,
Grey Wolf
steve · 3 June 2005
You know, Grey, I agree. The name "Dumbski" is full of so much Complex Awesome Information, that it couldn't be the result of a single, random, point-mutation. His name was clearly designed to enable that.
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 3 June 2005
Bayesian Bouffant, FCD · 3 June 2005
It must be asked: Is the bear Catholic?
neurode · 3 June 2005
RBH: "In fact, of course, nature is full of 'design' --- of structures and processes that are 'fitted', more or less well, to their functions in larger systems."
Well, there you go then. You've located a pattern which repeats on progressively larger scales. Such a progression to ever-larger systems ultimately leads to the entire cosmos, and your statement regarding systemic functionality can be refitted to scale. That is, one can say that the entire universe is ultimately well-fitted, more or less, to its function.
But of course, the universe, by definition including all that is observable or uniquely implied by observation, exists in no larger system. Therefore, its function is either undefined, or reflexively defined only with respect to the universe itself.
Now, if it is undefined, then the universe has no function; it is a fluke, a poof of smoke appearing, or perhaps not appearing, out of the void. But then (by causal and compositional transitivity) so is everything within the universe, regardless of the limited sense apparently being made of it. Causality terminates, and science along with it, at that level.
But then science per se has no say whatsoever regarding the correctness or empirical relevance of the question to which this answer has been given, and must defer to the philosophy of science.
On the other hand, say that the function of the cosmos is defined with respect to the universe itself. Then we have functional reflexivity, and that, I'm afraid, can be used as the basis for an appropriate kind of theology. So really, RBH, what we have here is a choice between primal acausality or (some naturalistic form of) theology.
So my question is this: what evidence have you either way? [I'll jump the gun a bit and assert that you have no evidence. Therefore, both hypotheses are in play, causally speaking. And since causality is the subject matter of science, both are in play, scientifically speaking. And that's what the Privileged Planet happens to be about.]
Now, one can of course deplore the "lack of evidence" regarding such matters, and tirelessly assert that science must confine itself only to matters on which evidence is clearly available. But the history of science tells us an interesting tale about that: a great deal of evidence for a great many hypotheses has been persistently neglected because researchers had no idea what they should be looking for, and/or because their models, methods and equipment were temporarily ill-suited to find it even if they had known. Yet some of these hypotheses survived, and because they continued to inspire research even while in-the-box minds continued to claim that the temporary methodological restrictions of science must forever restrict the content of science, they were vindicated in the end.
This should be telling us that science deserves a break from in-the-box circular reasoning. The sheer level of the questions addressed by The Privileged Planet places them in a different, but no less meaningful, category of science than more localized and easily investigated hypotheses, and science must grow to accommodate the questions it asks.
Science needs to recognize this and adjust its approach to such questions accordingly. The Smithsonian has failed to recognize the very real possibility that science can extend its arsenal of rational methods in that direction, that it is responsible to do so, and that it is in fact in the very process of meeting this responsibility.
This is a serious mistake on the part of the Smithsonian. But again, at least they have the wit to permit the screening after all.
[Incidentally, I have no affiliation whatsoever with the Discovery Institute, and I would naturally object to being categorized in that way. The DI and its frankly political agenda are totally irrelevant to my arguments.]
Glen Davidson · 3 June 2005
darwinfinch · 3 June 2005
"Maybe you didn't understand my point..."
It's much more likely that, in your three VERY long posts, the point was to obscure the very plain fact that you have an opinion which is unassailable by ANY combination of facts by any (other) theory, in either the common or scientific definition of the word.
If you're under thirty (or NOT a "Christian" of the sort that creates trouble because they lack any sense of wonder or curiosity. but especially modesty, in looking at the Universe) I can put up with this sort of self-aggrandizing argument, in person. After years of seeing it served up with shovels on the Net, however, my patience for your kind of should-know-better adults has soured.
I wish you the blessings of modesty. May you realize how wonderfully unique, and unimportant, and wrong every thought you will ever have is.
Steve Reuland · 3 June 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 3 June 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 3 June 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 3 June 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 3 June 2005
Piltdown Syndrome · 3 June 2005
Glen Davidson · 3 June 2005
neurode · 3 June 2005
Come on, now, Glen. Surely you can do better than that.
Let me spell it out for you. To make any pronouncement at all about "science", you need a metalanguage of the language of science. (No such metalanguage, no such pronouncement.) In purporting to be such a metalanguage, scientific phenomenology qualifies as metaphysics. This is true on logical grounds, and applies regardless of any disclaimer by anyone in particular, whether of a phenomenological persuasion or otherwise.
So if you don't like metaphysics, you don't like phenomenology either. And in that case, you and the scientific method are in a hole out of which you can never climb. Moreover, your statements regarding science are rendered null and void, your mouth having been zipped shut by logic.
Do you understand?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 3 June 2005
Piltdown Syndrome · 3 June 2005
Don · 3 June 2005
neurode · 3 June 2005
Amazing indeed, Don.
First you say:
"Neurode, I think part of the problem here is your metaphysical presumption that the universe HAS a function."
You then quote my explicit denial of such an assumption:
"Therefore, its function is either undefined, or reflexively defined only with respect to the universe itself."
Note that if the function of the universe is undefined, this means that the universe has no function. Therefore, the negative was duly considered.
I suggest that you try to remember to put on your thinking cap, no matter how old and dusty it might be, before hitting the "Post" button.
Piltdown Syndrome · 3 June 2005
What amazes me is that scientists have persuaded themselves that empirical verification/falsification is the only measure of truth. What, then, do you do with statements like '2 + 2 = 4', 'if p then q, and p, then q', 'a point in the visual field cannot be both red and green at the same time', etc., etc. Apparently, these are not trivial truths. Yet they are not empirical truths. What's a positivist to do?
RBH · 3 June 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 3 June 2005
Zarquon · 3 June 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 3 June 2005
neurode · 3 June 2005
RBH: "That sequence gives a whole new meaning to the phrase 'a flight of fancy'."
Then let me simplify it for you. If you deny that the universe has a function (in any larger system in which it may have been caused), then in effect you assert either
(1) an absence of first causation, and in fact of causation in general, on the cosmological level, or
(2) the self-causation of the universe.
If 1, then science has nothing to say, because in the absence of causation, it lacks the wherewithal formulate and apply "laws of science".
If 2, then everything hinges on a mathematical analysis of purely self-caused systems. This again leaves empirical science, i.e. the scientific method (as typically read), with nothing to say until the mathematical stage of scientific analysis is complete and ready for empirical application and refinement.
But a purely self-caused system is its own first cause, and this is clearly a theological attribute. So on this level of scientific discourse, the mathematical stage of scientific analysis has an unavoidable theological dimension.
To which part of this do you refer as a "flight of fancy"?
Piltdown Syndrome · 3 June 2005
RBH · 3 June 2005
Piltdown Syndrome · 3 June 2005
Let me make neurode's point in the idiom of Aquinas:
The causal series cannot go back ad infinitum (Zeno paradoxes are sufficient to establish this point). There must be a first cause of some sort, and that cause will either be (1) uncaused or (2) causa sui.
(1) has serious difficulties: even if sense can be made of an uncaused event, because the event in question is the first cause in the series of causes, that it is itself uncaused makes the whole series uncaused.
We are left then with a couple different versions of (2): the first cause is either a self-causing universe or an self-causing intelligence. Take your pick.
From the Thomistic perspective, however, this is not quite adequate. Self-cause is not sufficient because it is remains a contingent cause. What is required is a necessary first cause, an entity whose essence is existence, viz., 'God'.
neurode · 3 June 2005
RBH, the film under discussion in this thread is not primarily about evolution, or "understanding the evolution of biological stuff"; it's about cosmology.
Specifically, it's about cosmic fine-tuning, a recurrent topic in quantum cosmology. In quantum cosmology (aka the Standard Model), the metaphysical stage of scientific analysis is unavoidable.
It follows that if the deluge of complaints to the Smithsonian came from people concerned with the putative anti-Darwinian stance of the DI, the Smithsonian should not have acceded to their misplaced and irrelevant demands.
Which, of course, was my point to begin with.
Jim Harrison · 3 June 2005
One hardly has to be a positivist to find the classic proofs of the existence of God unimpressive. If you are already a believer in some sort of theism, you can use the proofs to explain your beliefs. If you aren't a believer, the proofs give you no reason to become one.
We don't really know if the alternatives suggested in the various proofs exhaust the possibilities. For example, it seems to us that the universe is either eternal or had a beginning, but on what basis can one claim that those are the only options? Intuition? And what exactly is the difference between an uncaused cause and a self-caused cause beside the fact that you heard about the second kind in Sunday school?
Zarquon · 3 June 2005
Hyperion · 3 June 2005
I believe that Schroedinger's Cat effectively demonstrated why philosophizing about science and physical laws is nothing more than pointless mental masturbation.
On the other hand, I'm sure Piltdown and Neurode would be glad to explain that it's perfectly normal for cats to be simultaneously dead and alive.
Hyperion · 4 June 2005
I believe that Schroedinger's Cat effectively demonstrated why philosophizing about science and physical laws is nothing more than pointless mental masturbation.
On the other hand, I'm sure Piltdown and Neurode would be glad to explain that it's perfectly normal for cats to be simultaneously dead and alive.
neurode · 4 June 2005
Good grief.
Let's go through it again. In order to formulate constraints on the origin and overall structure of the physical universe, one requires a metalanguage of the object language employed in the sciences to explain and predict physical phenomena, i.e., a metalanguage of physics. The metalanguage contains the definitive constraints of the interpretative mapping that carries the theoretical language called "physics" into the realm of observational data. No such metalanguage, no such constraints; no such constraints, no theoretical content.
Now, take a close look at the phrase "metalanguage of physics", and see what you get when you eliminate the words "language of".
That's right, you get "metaphysics".
In other words, no metaphysics, no cosmology.
Why the confusion? In some parts of academia, it has been forgotten that cosmology is technically one of the three branches of metaphysics (the other two are ontology and epistemology). Cosmology is now frequently passed off to those who study it, as well as to the public at large, as a "hard science".
This, of course, is idiotic. While cosmology involves numerous exact mathematical equations, these equations are associated with various models in which data are interpreted. As a rule, there is no unique choice for the association. The matching of particular data with particular models is therefore called "phenomenological". But as already noted, this comes down to metaphysics after all, and the more coherently the operation is executed, the more metaphysical it is in the technical sense.
In addition, there is more than a little confusion about where physics and cosmology meet. Some of what passes for cosmology these days is really just a more or less empirical kind of physics, e.g. particle physics or astrophysics, that has been dressed to impress. On the other hand, true cosmology, like the General Relativity and quantum mechanics at its core, is as metaphysical as it gets.
Of course, as relativity and quantum mechanics achieved empirical confirmation, they were increasingly classified as "science" rather than "metaphysics". This is a recurrent theme in the sciences; essentially metaphysical theories which initially appear quite bizarre to boxed-in minds turn out to work, at which point suspicion fades and they become universally recognized as "science". But if one looks at their fundamental principles, e.g. the GR principle of equivalence and the QM uncertainty principle, they are no less metaphysical than they were at their inceptions.
In other words, Zarquon, you're the one who clearly has no idea what he's talking about. So kindly keep your "bollocks", and your slurs, in your shorts where they belong.
Flint · 4 June 2005
Zarquon · 4 June 2005
neurode · 4 June 2005
Flint, in light of the fact that your analysis of my comments is incoherent, I won't bother to address it. However, you follow that analysis by questioning "what I'm up to". So let me tell you what that is.
As angry as some scientists get at religious people who abuse science, I get at least as angry at scientists who abuse logic. They mess up my once-idealized image of the scientific establishment by proving that they don't have a clue what science really is. Even when such scientists are successful in their research, their comments too often reveal that it was less a matter of deep understanding than of merely aping their mentors, including their college professors and the more capable scientists in whose thoughts and methods they were trained by more or less Pavlovian educational techniques.
I've always been proud of America's contributions to science, and I've always admired the Smithsonian Institute as a living symbol of those contributions. Thus, I was extremely disappointed when I learned that the Smithsonian had made a ridiculous error of judgment in changing its co-sponsorship policy regarding the screening of a certain film in its auditorium. This error, and the lame self-justification which followed, reeked of cynicism, cowardice, political opportunism, and confusion regarding the nature of science. It was the same kind of feeling I got when I first encountered an obviously biased anti-ID rant masquerading as an informative editorial in Scientific American...I was at once embarrassed for them, saddened by their loss of credibility, and angry at whomever had encouraged their self-mortification.
I strongly suspect that certain regulars here at the Panda's Thumb have intentionally contributed to such miscarriages of scientific justice. This suspicion has in no way been abated by the peculiar combination of ignorance and hostility with which my remedial contributions have thus far been repaid.
I hope that this lays to rest your rambling speculations regarding my motives.
SEF · 4 June 2005
Your motives are irrelevant to the observation that your statements are vacuous and false (eg completely missing the option of a non-functional cause such as a molecules of a gas deflecting another). However, because your lack of intelligent thought and novel contribution is so easy to detect and has already been described and dissected (many times before in the case of previous exhibits), the only thing of even remote interest left to discuss is your motives, neurode. You are an example of a recurrent disease rather than a remedy.
H. Humbert · 4 June 2005
H. Humbert · 4 June 2005
neurode · 4 June 2005
You seem to have a disease too, SEF. Specifically, you appear to suffer from a debilitating combination of pathological ignorance and degenerative stupidity complicated by uncontrollable, Tourette-like seizures of meaningless but nonetheless insolent babbling. Unfortunately, so many others share your disorder that it really isn't very interesting at all.
Here's something a bit more interesting: function and causation are semantically related. Concisely, the function of a cause is to produce an effect. This means that once something is implicated in causing an effect, one is always permitted to say that its "function", according to the laws of causality, is to cause that effect, and thereby to cause whatever systemic evolution might be entailed by that effect.
This has been an element of the discussion from the start, as was explicitly acknowledged by RBH:
"In fact, of course, nature is full of 'design' --- of structures and processes that are 'fitted', more or less well, to their functions in larger systems. We have lots of evidence from a slew of disciplines that that sort of 'design' can arise from what can only be called natural causes."
If you dispute the accuracy of this quote, why don't you see if you can uncross your rheumy eyes long enough to scan up the thread and verify it?
(What a crying waste of time.)
SEF · 4 June 2005
Bruce Beckman · 4 June 2005
Neurode wrote:
"...is always permitted to say that its "function", according to the laws of causality, is to cause that effect..."
Would you please elaborate and explain these "laws of causality"? I am specifically interested in how we can determine that these "laws of causality" hold and/or are true in the universe we see around us.
Thanks so much.
PaulP · 4 June 2005
SEF · 4 June 2005
The universe we can detect and analyse may be a one-off (certainly to the limits of our detection and analysis!) but it is still possible, from working out its rules of interaction (ie doing science and in particular physics), to predict what closely related universes might be/do. For example, some would be so short-lived that we would have no expectation of finding ourselves (or our equivalent) in them.
Which brings us back to the anthropic principle (and that puddle!) of course. We can tell that we would only be discussing these things if it were possible to be here discussing them and it doesn't mean that the universe (or some external cause of universes) in any way intended us to be discussing it. There's no evidence of an intelligently designed purpose to be deduced/inferred simply from observing cause and effect or, in the case of a necessarily self-contained universe, from just an effect without being able to see whatever cause might have existed).
Sometimes bubbles have a bubble-blower and sometimes they just form unwittingly through turbulence at a gas-liquid surface. Ocean spray. Cause and effect not intention and function.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 4 June 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 4 June 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 4 June 2005
Piltdown Syndrome · 4 June 2005
Basic metaphysical exercise: Start with whatever species you like, and move up to the genus. Continue on through the family, order, class and phylum (all higher-level genera in the logical sense) until you get to the highest categories of biology. Now keep going past biology. Will you reach an end, a highest category simpliciter[/]? What will it be?
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 4 June 2005
Zarquon · 4 June 2005
Flint · 4 June 2005
Flint: Evidence is what matters.
neurode: Your analysis is incoherent.
I think we have found the heart of the problem here.
Glen Davidson · 4 June 2005
Glen Davidson · 4 June 2005
neurode · 4 June 2005
PaulP, who is pretty much alone among today's respondents in being serious and polite enough to merit a response, wrote
"The problem with this argument is that it uses a meaning of 'function' that renders the whole creationism/evolution debate meaningless. Replace 'function' by 'intent' or 'intended purpose' at the appropriate places everywhere in the creation/evolution debate and then you will see what everyone is talking about."
However, that's not the argument. The argument as intially presented does not contain the term "function". That term was introduced by RBH, and I'm simply doing RBH the favor of clarifying the sense in which he evidently used it.
If you still can't divorce function from intent, then simply replace it with "cause". In other words, the universe is either uncaused or caused, and if it is caused, then it is necessarily self-caused. A self-caused universe is its own first cause, and again, this is a theological attribute. So the argument stands; there is no need to introduce the concept of intentionality, which was never explicitly mentioned by me or RBH.
"I think neurode is assuming a deterministic universe, which is a vey debatable question. In a non-deterministic universe a cause could have more than one effect and there is no way of predicting which will occur."
No, I am not assuming a deterministic universe. I don't have to, because if the universe were globally nondeterministic, then it would be uncaused (causality always involves some measure of determinacy). This possiblity was duly considered in the argument. Sometimes, following a philosophical argument requires that one locate and keep close track of the concepts on which it actually hinges.
"On the other hand I do have a problem with one aspect of cosmology, which comes from the problem of comparing predictions with reality."
This is a valid point, and it is why cosmology proper cannot be studied by empirical induction alone. Again, it's a branch of metaphysics, and can be studied only with heavy reliance on the analytical methods of logic and mathematics.
The "arguments", if we may call them that, presented by everyone else except Piltdown Syndrome - thanks for the rays of light, Piltdown - are simply egregious. The people who came up with them wouldn't last sixty seconds in any graduate-level course in philosophy or cosmology taught by anyone more evolved than a rhesus monkey.
Oh, yes...let's not forget Bruce Beckman, who facetiously requests that I catalog the laws of physics for him. Sorry, Bruce - I have other fish to fry. But obviously, we're talking about so-called laws of nature thus far identified up to varying levels of accuracy through a combination of empirical induction and mathematical modeling. You can start with classical mechanics, i.e. Newton's laws of motion in nonrelativistic contexts, and go from there.
Glen Davidson · 4 June 2005
Glen Davidson · 4 June 2005
Grey Wolf · 4 June 2005
Neurode,
Bottom line is that the video "priviledged planet" is not science, and thus does not belong in a science museum. You can speak all you wish about metaphysics, language and purpose of the universe, but that will not change the fact that there is no scientific theory that speaks of "design" or "purpose" in the universe. And trying to convince us otherwise is hand waving, unless you can give us such theory.
I repeat: the video contains no science. At most, it contains old discarded creationist cannards but certainly nothing that can be studied or considered as evidence.
Please cease spamming this board which your empty arguments.
Hope that helps,
Grey Wolf
neurode · 4 June 2005
In your case, Glen, I think that the point in question has been more than adequately proven. The subtle nuances, and in fact the major themes, of even moderately complex arguments are simply lost on you. Nothing survives your peculiar species of mental containment; it comes out strangely twisted, followed by various non sequiturs that leave even your partisans scratching their heads in befuddlement.
Of course, you could always try a little harder...
neurode · 4 June 2005
Grey Wolf: "Bottom line is that the video 'priviledged [sic] planet' is not science..."
Wrong as usual, Grey Wolf. The film is indeed about science.
Specifically, the topic of the film is cosmological fine-tuning. In case you don't know what this means, it is the idea that the current inhabitable state of the cosmos could have arisen only if certain initial conditions were tuned to precise values. Due to extreme sensitivity to initial conditions, even an infinitesimal deviation would have resulted in a physically unrecognizable and in fact unihabitable universe. Indeed, the cosmological mainstay of inflationary theory - ever hear of that? - was introduced to avoid this dire outcome (the inflationary stage of cosmic expansion effectively acts as a buffer against minute initial variations).
So there's really no doubt about it - the Smithsonian and those who tried successfully to intimidate it are wrong, and barring some kind of reversal, will be wrong until the end of time.
By the way, you have a very strange conception of "spam". This is a public list, and the public doesn't have to let any loosely-knit confederation of axe-grinding amateur sophists get away with foisting bad arguments on them. So please don't be offended when I do my duty as a citizen and correct some of the blatant nonsense in which you and your friends tend to reinforce each other so faithfully around here.
Good day.
Glen Davidson · 4 June 2005
Glen Davidson · 4 June 2005
Glen Davidson · 4 June 2005
Glen Davidson · 4 June 2005
PvM · 4 June 2005
Glen Davidson · 4 June 2005
Glen Davidson · 4 June 2005
Glen Davidson · 4 June 2005
Glen Davidson · 4 June 2005
Hyperion · 4 June 2005
Glen Davidson · 4 June 2005
Glen Davidson · 4 June 2005
neurode · 4 June 2005
The equation e=mc^2 came before the mushroom cloud, not after. It was mathematically deduced rather than empirically induced. Special Relativity (and by extension, General Relativity) was the outcome of a mathematical analysis of Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism. The underlying (and preexisting) mathematical structures of relativity were "phenomenologically" applied.
The Smithsonian did not challenge the scientific nature of "The Privileged Planet"; they merely objected to the "philosophical" wrap-up. The wrap-up alone cannot be sufficient to demolish the scientific content of the piece. And even if the piece were short on original scientific insight, it would make no difference; for example, a science paper can be a survey or review paper.
Come on, folks - give it a rest. You're descending in flames. Time to bail out.
PvM · 4 June 2005
neurode · 4 June 2005
PvM: "So we agree, the SI did not reject the 'science' but objected to the philosophical conclusions. Who who is descending in flames here? You may want to ask for time to revise your remarks."
Thanks, but I don't really need it. As you may recall, I've already made the point that science and philosophy cannot be neatly separated; in particular, cosmology contains an unavoidable metaphysical dimension. The philosophical content of the film is perfectly consistent with this, and the Smithsonian had no business making an issue of it.
Glen Davidson · 4 June 2005
I was too busy deriding Neurode's idiot argument regarding metaphysics ("Now, take a close look at the phrase "metalanguage of physics", and see what you get when you eliminate the words "language of". That's right, you get "metaphysics"") to think to mention the actual origin of the term, or at least the one that is claimed to be the source.
Aristotle wrote the Physics ("Physis" or "Phusis" comes closer to the Greek title) and the Metaphysics. At some point, "Physics" received its title, though it's unlikely that we'll know when. There is no solid indication that "Metaphysics" was assigned an actual title.
Aristotle's books were written on scrolls and existed in a number of volumes. Some of the volumes did have titles, like "Physics" did. The writings that came after Physics were labeled "Metaphysics", which in this case means "after "Physics"" (or probably more literally, "behind "Physics""). It may have been an ordering label, or a quasi-title (like the Beatles' "White Album") indicating that these are the writings that come after "Physics"--at least I don't know which it is, or indeed if it was not both.
The writings coming after the "Physics" were more the philosophy behind physics (of Aristotle's time), and it may have been that this is why it was taken to be a title. And having said all that, maybe it was a genuine title perhaps even given to it by the author Aristotle. But the numbering of the books, which has existed probably for at least a thousand years, at least suggests that the arrangements of Aristotle's books is a likely source for the term. After all, not everything in "Metaphysics" really deals with Physics.
Aristotle was a good thinker, and certainly a more open-minded one than the recent metaphysicians we've encountered. Nevertheless, I wouldn't go to him for either physics or philosophy. I mainly studied Aristotle and other metaphysicians in order to understand why and how we are still stuck with a lot of metaphysical nonsense in the West up to this day.
Glen Davidson · 4 June 2005
Hyperion · 4 June 2005
Glen Davidson · 4 June 2005
I think I'm quitting this "discussion". We have collectively shown that Neurode and Piltdown can't even understand straightforward English when it disagrees with their prejudices, are completely inept at science, and cannot post anything outside of the "truths" that they read in their books. That is worthwhile to do, but needn't go on forever.
I think it best to ignore those who can't engage in an intellectual discussion except by adhering to ancient prejudices regarding science and philosophy. Science and philosophy have moved on from such a blinkered existence, and we may as well too.
I'm going to quit soon, at least, even if I might yet make a post or two here. I have better things to do now that the uselessness of Neurode's criticisms have been not only recognized but demonstrated repeatedly.
PvM · 4 June 2005
neurode · 4 June 2005
Very amusing! But I'm afraid it doesn't change the outcome.
PvM · 4 June 2005
I am afraid it changes everything. There is still time to revise your comments and remarks...
Flint · 4 June 2005
The recent Smithsonian Magazine has an article about Einstein, explaining the inspiration for his special theory of relativity. It didn't come full-blown out of the ether, it came out of Galileo's view of relativity. In Galileo's explanation, a ship sails past a dock and a sailor at the top of a mast drops a rock onto the deck. The rock drops directly down the mast. From the sailor's frame of reference, it fell straight down. From the observer's perspective on the dock, the rock fell at an angle because the ship was moving.
Einstein asked, what if we use a beam of light instead of a rock? The speed of light is a constant, as Einstein knew from Maxwell's work. But nonetheless, from the sailor's view it went "straight down" yet from the dock observer's view, it traveled at an angle. In other words, the light from the dock observer's view traveled further. Since lightspeed is a constant, time itself must be moving more quickly on the dock than on the ship -- or at least, there is no possible way to have an "objective time".
Anyway, this thread seems to have devolved into mutual name-calling. Clearly, neurode wishes science to find neurode's god, whom neurode cannot accept might not exist. Eventually, because science has not and cannot find neurode's god, this leads him to misrepresent the nature of science. Which in turn leads him to dismiss all scientists as lacking any clue of "what science really is." Little wonder he finds the concept of evidence to be incoherent. He has none.
neurode · 4 June 2005
PvM: "I am afraid it changes everything. There is still time to revise your comments and remarks . . . "
By all means, feel free to expand. But please be careful, lest you and your arguments become lighter than air.
PvM · 4 June 2005
Let me revise them for you then. Your confusion is centered around a simple logical error namely that your 'argue' that since science (A) requires philosophy (B) that all philosophy (B) requires science (A). Your original posting shows similar confusion as to science and philosophy.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 4 June 2005
Why oh why why why do certain IDers want to yammer about "philosophy" instead of just giving us a scientific theory of ID that can be tested using the scientific method?
Ohhhhh . . .
Never mind.
qetzal · 4 June 2005
neurode · 4 June 2005
PvM: "Let me revise them for you then. Your confusion is centered around a simple logical error namely that your 'argue' that since science (A) requires philosophy (B) that all philosophy (B) requires science (A). Your original posting shows similar confusion as to science and philosophy."
PvM, I've stared at this for several minutes now and still can't figure out how you managed to extract it from anything I've said.
Although I did say that science intersects philosophy, I never said that "all philosophy requires science". I'm not obliged to defend arguments I haven't made, particularly when it's a complete mystery how they relate to the arguments I actually did make.
In any case, your statement has no bearing on the Smithsonian's policy change regarding "The Privileged Planet".
Henry J · 4 June 2005
Re "Yup, folks, an infinite wavelength (and therefore unfocusable) zero energy (and therefore zero channel capacity) information transmission channel. Sure thing."
Not to mention that with zero energy, even if it could be aimed it wouldn't be able to do any work, even to a subatomic particle.
Henry
PvM · 4 June 2005
Lurker · 4 June 2005
Anti-science is a philosophy. SI is within its rights to reject that philosophy.
neurode · 4 June 2005
PvM: "So your argument is that science and philosophy cannot be separated but that hardly means that the philosophical conclusions reached by PP are scientific now does it."
It is not up to the Smithsonian Institute to tell the producers of science-oriented films what philosophical conclusions should be drawn at the end, or to forbid the drawing of any philosophical conclusions whatsoever. Unless the film ends with something explcitly religious and totally unsupported by its scientific content (or illegal, antisocial, or explicitly antithetical to science), the Smithsonian is guilty of trying to cast a shadow on the free interpretation of scientific fact. Obviously, this exceeds its public mandate.
Incidentally, PvM, your insinuation that I've "insulted" anyone who didn't viciously insult me first is false and unwarranted. I made every attempt to be polite until it became clear that my posts and I were free game under the rules of the forum. When a forum permits its regulars to insult visitors without restraint, those visitors have every right to give back what they are given. Furthermore, they are unlikely to care who does or doesn't like it. (I certainly know that I don't care).
I do hope that you and others find this satisfactory. But if not, you probably shouldn't expect any concessions.
Henry J · 4 June 2005
About all the above references to uncaused events - IIRC, in quantum mechanics some types of individual particle events are generally regarded as uncaused. Unless that theory got changed while I wasn't looking.
Henry
qetzal · 4 June 2005
PvM · 5 June 2005
Hyperion · 5 June 2005
Of course, if the Smithsonian is not free to reject the philosophical conclusions of PP, and if they are not allowed to choose not to screen the film because they disagree with the conclusions, then I'll expect the Discovery Institute to allow me to use their facilities for a few private screenings of "Blue Planet" or "Cosmos." In fact, I expect that the DI will put the entire text of "On the Origin of Species" on their website, since it is available online at talkorigins.com
I mean, since apparently a "scientific" institution cannot reject a science oriented film based on its conclusions, and the DI does claim to be a "scientific institution."
Or am I just naive?
;)
Bruce Beckman · 5 June 2005
In comment #33562 Neurode invoked the "laws of causality" in an argument. In comment #33566 I asked him what the "laws of causality" are and what experimental support he could provide for these laws. In comment #33614 Neurode sent me on a search of the entire field of physics to answer my question (I think a simple statement "What I mean by the laws if casuality is .... would have been easy for neutrod).
Well, since it is the weekend I am limited to my personal library in this search. As a physicist I probably have more resources at home than most, perhaps 200 volumes. I'm sorry to report that I have failed to find either "Law of causality" or "Laws of causality" in the index of any of these texts.
Causality as a principle does come up often however. But it's usually in some technical area such as: Events A and B can on be in causual comminication if and only if there is a time-like interval between them. This seems more like a limitation rather than some positive "B must be caused by A" sort of thing.
PaulP · 5 June 2005
PaulP · 5 June 2005
As Denyse O'Leary blogged:
This is why metaphysics gets a bad name around here. All this philosophising just confuses people, so that even the reason why there is a debate is forgotten.
Zarquon · 5 June 2005
neurode · 5 June 2005
Very well, Bruce.
Take the law that is sometimes stated "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." The "action" is the cause; the "reaction" is the effect. Similarly, take a function describing the acceleration of an object in a conservative field of force. The force (or scalar potential of which force is the negative gradient) is the cause, while the acceleration of the object is the effect. Hence, these "laws of nature", if we may call them that, are statements of cause and effect, or if you will, "laws of causality". Other laws of nature can be reformulated analogously.
Of course, as a physicist, you may dispute the causal reformulations on terminological grounds, or even the existence of "laws of nature" (e.g., on grounds of inductive limitations on physical observation). But in that case, the misunderstanding is merely semantic.
quetzal disputes the scientific validity of "The Privileged Planet". According to quetzal himself, the film presents various facts bearing on such clearly scientific matters as the number of planets in the solar system, the life-promoting properties of H2O, and the impact of planetary location on the observation of solar eclipses. Obviously, the burden of proof clearly rests an anyone claiming that such facts are scientifically irrelevant (which, on the surface, they do not seem to be). Therefore, if quetzal wishes to maintain that the film is devoid of scientific content, he needs to get busy and make his case.
As he does so, quetzal should remember that the Smithsonian has now screened the film and does not dispute its scientific content; they only object to the "philosophical bent" of the wrap-up, which cannot retroactively gut the film of the scientific content previously included.
PvM asks "Why can the SI not reject the philosophical conclusions of PP as being inconsistent with their mission?" Answer: they are a public institution and therefore need to justify policy changes or extraordinary measures of any kind. In particular, when they publicly retract or change the terms of an agreement and thereby cast a shadow of doubt on the organization with which the agreement was made, thus potentially damaging its reputation, they need to render a full accounting. Similarly, if they feel that their mission would be compromised by co-sponsoring a film, they need to explain why, including all relevant details.
As it happens, the Smithsonian has not yet done this at the required level of detail. Therefore, it remains for them to do so. PvM and a small handful of others would apparently like to excuse them from this obligation, but many others do not agree with them. So it is really very unrealistic of PvM and his friends to pretend that the Smithsonian has satisfied its obligation to the public.
Wesley R. Elsberry · 5 June 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 5 June 2005
I've heard lots of pseudophilosophical mental mastrubation about "metaphysics", but I have yet to hear a single testible statemetn about the universe around us from the IDers.
Why is that, I wonder . . . .
PaulP · 5 June 2005
Jim Wynne · 5 June 2005
neurode wrote: Very well, Bruce.
Take the law that is sometimes stated "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." The "action" is the cause; the "reaction" is the effect. Similarly, take a function describing the acceleration of an object in a conservative field of force. The force (or scalar potential of which force is the negative gradient) is the cause, while the acceleration of the object is the effect. Hence, these "laws of nature", if we may call them that, are statements of cause and effect, or if you will, "laws of causality". Other laws of nature can be reformulated analogously.
Of course, as a physicist, you may dispute the causal reformulations on terminological grounds, or even the existence of "laws of nature" (e.g., on grounds of inductive limitations on physical observation). But in that case, the misunderstanding is merely semantic.
quetzal disputes the scientific validity of "The Privileged Planet". According to quetzal himself, the film presents various facts bearing on such clearly scientific matters as the number of planets in the solar system, the life-promoting properties of H2O, and the impact of planetary location on the observation of solar eclipses. Obviously, the burden of proof clearly rests ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ........
neurode · 5 June 2005
Wesley R. Elsberry: "Public institutions are guided by sets of written rules and regulations...particular statutes or regulatory codes..."
Spoken like a true bureaucrat.
While the rules, regulations, and statutes posited by Wesley may in fact exist, they are not the only consideration in this case. Institutions like the Smithsonian subsist on fees, donations and grants ultimately provided by the public; hence, they have an obligation to explain themselves to the public.
Attempting to dismiss this obligation by hiding behind unnamed rules is neither in the spirit of the Smithsonian's mission - that is, to inform the public - nor justifiable within any sound ethical framework applicable to such entities.
Of course, if Wesley would like to enumerate the rules whose existence he asserts, nobody is stopping him.
SEF · 5 June 2005
Neurode, the sort of "law" you outline is not some legislation laid down by nature. Instead these things are mathematical descriptions formulated by humans according to what they observe. Many of them are averaged statistical laws and don't apply outside the normal range of observation, eg Newton's law of gravity, various cooling "laws", Hooke's law etc. In particular, the gradient ones, including curvature of space, are very much derived the reverse way round - ie the construction of a cause (a gradient) being made up to account for the effect (the behaviour of objects in the imagined gradient).
The maths works (most of the time) so it makes sense to do things that way. However, that doesn't make the human simplification into a law which is binding on nature nor is it necessarily an accurate description or explanation of the way in which nature arranges to behave in a certain observed manner. That becomes very apparent at large and small scale extremes, eg quantum physics.
If anything, a "law" in physics is about the most breakable thing there is. Theories tend to be much more robust because they are detailed explanations rather than handy quick-reference mathematical tricks.
Flint · 5 June 2005
The different ways that "natural law" is viewed is entirely understandable. For the scientist, these are simply sets of phenomena for which there are no known exceptions within the limited range of their scope -- or in some cases, there are a few exceptions but these can be isolated well enough to make the "law" useful enough to retain.
To the Believer, who seeks and needs absolutes, a "law" is (and must be) an example of such an absolute. Neurode's philosophy seems to be built on this principle. The "law of cause and effect" implies the universe must have had a "first cause" not so much as a logical conclusion, but because his god must be hiding in there somewhere and that seems like a good place. Of course, at the quantum level this "law" doesn't apply, and it's at least conceivable that the universe arose through quantum fluctuations.
The search for answers to the question "what's going on here?" is not the same as a search for one god or another. From all this discussion, it seems that PP presents a lot of information, but uses it to find a god rather than an explanation. And that's not the mission of the SI.
Lurker · 5 June 2005
As a matter of fact, in retracting its cosponsorship and the 16K, the SI was acting in the public's interest, in an ethical manner... specifically, by rejecting pseudoscience, and fringe anti-science groups. Failure to do so would have have been a misapplication of the public's trust.
Wesley R. Elsberry · 5 June 2005
neurode · 5 June 2005
I think you two (SEF and Flint) need to understand who it is with whom you're really arguing, namely, Isaac Newton and those who routinely apply his "laws", including the virtual entirety of the physics and engineering communities on planet earth, as well as those scientists whose theories, mechanisms and worldviews come to rest on a mechanical view of reality (in the classical and quantum senses). If you doubt that such laws have been successfully put to work in many and wonderful ways, then you need to come out and say so.
As far as my own arguments are concerned, it is sufficient to note that nature exhibits certain regularities - they are in fact the basis of science as we know it - and that these regularities include causal regularities, i.e., observable regularities in the relationship between physical states and the states which immediately follow them. If you dispute the existence of these regularities, considered independently of any more or less approximate formulation thereof, you can do the world no favor by concealing your insights.
neurode · 5 June 2005
Wesley: "And they have 'explained themselves', in several publicly released statements and in communication with the press. That these don't meet with the approval of neurode is not their problem."
Perhaps, in my zeal to argue with the world-class authorities and geniuses here at Panda's thumb, I've managed to miss those statements by the Smithsonian that explain the precise content of the philosophical assertions to which they object, and the precise nature of their objections. If Wesley would provide, or at least summarize, those statements, it would certainly not impair rational discourse on the topic.
Wesley: "I wasn't the guy with the positive claim to be substantiated. That would be neurode."
That's not quite correct, now is it, Wesley? You asserted the existence of rules and regulations behind the letter of which the Smithsonian can hide. You now need to either enumerate those rules, or clam up about them.
Enough · 5 June 2005
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/001078.html
Check out the other thread where this is being discussed to death neurode.
steve · 5 June 2005
Ooo, Intelligent Design Legal Theory:
Every local, state, and federal law we know was designed
Nature has "laws"
Nature was designed!
The hits keep coming from these guys.
qetzal · 5 June 2005
PvM · 5 June 2005
SEF · 5 June 2005
It's their inner clown. They can't help it. The cognitive dissonance has to find some way to escape. It's like a cry for help really. They do so want things to be sensible and orderly but they just keep creating this nightmare tangle of contradictions and absurdities in which to trap themselves.
PvM · 5 June 2005
SEF · 5 June 2005
Hmm... Once upon a time #33760 was a reply to #33756 (with nothing in between) but it seems the delay on posts appearing is getting worse.
Wesley R. Elsberry · 5 June 2005
neurode · 5 June 2005
quetzal: "You have a severe problem with either reading comprehension or intellectual honesty. I was not trying to make the case that PP is unscientific. I made it quite clear that I have not seen the film. My comments in that regard were simply that PP sounds quite unscientific based on the description provided by the film's producers."
Then surely you understand that I dispute your comments to that effect, and that if you think that all of the items in the list included in the producers' description are unscientific, you need to explain yourself. Until you do, I see no reason not to regard you and your viewpoint with the same suspicion that you attach to me and mine.
You also seem to deny that cosmic fine-tuning has anything to do with these topics, thus in effect denying that initial conditions needed to have extremely precise and highly improbable values from the perspective of scientific observers, these values being "finely tuned", in the cosmological idiom, with respect to the production of physical conditions favoring scientific observation here on earth. Similarly, I dispute this claim.
I hope that you can discern the honesty here. I've frankly and honestly given you two claims that you have made on which I disagree with you. So kindly justify your assertions.
neurode · 5 June 2005
Astonishing. First, Wesley disputes the accuracy of my statement to the effect that he had "asserted the existence of rules and regulations behind the letter of which the Smithsonian can hide."
Immediately afterward, Wesley asserts the existence of rules and regulations behind the letter of which the Smithsonian can hide, giving the numbers of statutes that may or may not provide the Smithsonian with adequate cover.
What do I mean by "adequate cover"? As Wesley will recall, I said that
"While the rules, regulations, and statutes posited by Wesley may in fact exist, they are not the only consideration in this case. Institutions like the Smithsonian subsist on fees, donations and grants ultimately provided by the public; hence, they have an obligation to explain themselves to the public. Attempting to dismiss this obligation by hiding behind unnamed rules is neither in the spirit of the Smithsonian's mission - that is, to inform the public - nor justifiable within any sound ethical framework applicable to such entities."
Forgive me when I express my virtual certainty that the statutes to which Wesley refers do not shield the Smithsonian from its ethical obligation to properly inform the public about decisions affecting the reputations and ideas of authors and film producers, particularly as those ideas impact the meaning and conduct of science.
Make no mistake, I give Wesley due credit for running over to FindLaw and fishing up some numbers. However, it seems quite obvious that they can't possibly do the trick he expects them to do: shield the Smithsonian from its ethical obligations.
(Incidentally, Wesley, we're still waiting for those detailed statements you mentioned.)
PvM · 5 June 2005
PvM · 5 June 2005
neurode · 5 June 2005
PvM: "Neurode now argues that the SI has an ethical obligation."
Actually, I've been arguing that from the start. It was Wesley who asserted that the Smithsonian has a stack of rules and regulations behind which it can take cover.
Evidently, PvM and Wesley both feel that the Smithsonian has no ethical obligation of the kind to which I've been referring.
This, of course, is very interesting from what some might call a sociopathological standpoint. But I daresay that many of those familiar with the views typically espoused here at the Panda's Thumb would find it merely par for the course.
Enough · 5 June 2005
I think they have an ethical obligation to not show the movie since they are being used like whores for the name association by the discovery institue, as evidenced by the other thread I told you to go read. They decided not to sell their souls for $16,000.
qetzal · 5 June 2005
neurode · 5 June 2005
quetzal: "It may possibly be scientific. I am very skeptical of this, but I don't rule it out, mainly because I haven't seen the film. As I have already said. Repeatedly. Do you claim that it is scientific? If so, please provide your justification. Otherwise, we are both just expressing opinions, and we can leave it at that."
Please read carefully now. What I claim is this: the Smithsonian has screened the film and does not dispute its scientific nature. It is a non-issue; the film is acknowledged to have scientific content, despite your poor opinion thereof. The problem, as stated by the Smithsonian, is the "philosophical bent" of the wrap-up. This is not a sufficient reason to withdraw a co-sponsorship agreement once it has been offered and accepted.
quetzal: "I did not deny cosmological fine-tuning can be related to the points listed on the PP web site. (...) I don't see any indication that the film is about cosmological fine-tuning. Sure, you could argue a connection between the above topics and cosmological fine-tuning if you're so inclined, but the makers and promoters of the video give no such indication on-line."
They don't have to give such an indication, because to anyone familiar with fine-tuning arguments, it's as plain as the nose on your face. It is not a mere interpretation; I heard Richards and Gonzalez speak on their book before it was published, and I know that fine-tuning arguments are involved. They subsequently confirmed this in a personal discussion at which I was present.
Of course, you can argue to your heart's content. But I really don't have time to bother with any contrary hypothesis when I've heard it ruled out by the authors of the book on which the film is based.
In general, whenever you hear an astronomer, astrophysicist, cosmologist, etc. talking about the theoretical conditions under which present conditions within the universe could have arisen, fine tuning is implicit. It's understood.
I hope that this saves us a little time.
qetzal · 5 June 2005
neurode · 5 June 2005
Maybe you'd better have a look at the statements thus far issued by the Smithsonian. Until you do, don't bother arguing; I won't take it seriously.
Joseph O'Donnell · 5 June 2005
Flint · 5 June 2005
What I would consider a sort of common-sense reading of what happened (perhaps someone has information to the contrary) sounds like the following sequence occurred:
1) The SI has a policy of co-sponsoring certain presentations, for a price. This is a standard SI practice, more or less routine.
2) The DI has a presentation whose thrust is clearly contrary to position of the scientific establishment, and probably without stating its nature (or not representing it as a scientist would), managed to pay the SI's fee and thus purchase the co-sponsorship.
3) The DI proceeded to represent the SI's screening of this material as an implicit endorsement of it's content. The PR materials I've seem basically say "The SI is sponsoring and showing material congenial to our doctrine."
4) This publicity caused the SI to look more deeply into what had heretofore been a routine, rubber-stamp process. They didn't have to look any too long to realize that they had been gulled into underwriting (lending their considerable reputation to) material antithetical to their scientific goals.
OK, at this point, what is the ethical thing for the SI to do (beyond tightening up the co-sponsorship procedures so as to exercise a bit more oversight)? Is lending their official aegis to anti-science an ethical requirement, after having accepted the donation? Yet having sold the screening, can it be ethical to renege? The SI was clearly trapped: To go forward is to be misrepresented as endorsing unacceptable material (and there is no doubt the entire goal of the excercise was to find some way of attaching the SI's name to the DI's material. To go backwards sends the message that the SI's policies are unreliable.
I personally think the SI did the most responsible thing they could have done under these circumstances: returned the money, went ahead with the screening, issued a statement that the SI in no way supports or endorses the philosophy or conclusions the DI's material draws.
Neurode raises the question: Once the SI realized it had been tricked and was being used as a pawn in a PR game very much against all it stands for, should the SI stay tricked and hope to recover its reputation in the future, or should it pull the plug and cut its losses as much as possible immediately?
But perhaps a better question might be, what is the ethical position of the Discovery Institute? They were willing to damage the image and reputation of the Smithsonian and acted in bad faith to abuse a program set up in good faith. There is absolutely no doubt they knew exactly what they were doing. But Neurode very carefully avoids any mention of the DI's ethics. Perhaps Neurode can cite the philosophy that holds that the end only justifes the means when he agrees with the end?
neurode · 5 June 2005
I've carefully avoided any mention of the DI's ethics because they are irrelevant. They have no bearing on the content of the film to which the Smithsonian objects.
The film, like any statement of or about science, must be allowed to speak for itself. Surely you can see this - as soon as science and its implications are decided by association, they become little more than a popularity contest. That's not what science is about.
You may be right that the Smithsonian, despite its responsibility as a pillar of the scientific establishment, has managed to fall into that trap. If so, then what a terrible shame, and what a blot on the record of a venerable institution.
qetzal · 5 June 2005
neurode · 5 June 2005
quetzal, follow these directions.
(1) Back out of this thread to the Panda's Thumb home page.
(2) Go up one (1) entry up from this one.
(3) Read the entry.
qetzal · 5 June 2005
Wow. Thanks, nurode. Was it so hard to respond to a direct question, that I had to ask that many times?
Anyway, yes. You were right. I was wrong. A museum spokesman DID list the philosophical bent of the film as their main concern.
shiva · 5 June 2005
Neurode,
"I've carefully avoided any mention of the DI's ethics because they are irrelevant." And where science is concerned maybe non-existent as well? Let's shift this back to science since your metaphysics has been blown out of the water - OK we all learn don't we?
The involvement of non-scientists with puff-pieces like PP and the entire IDoC literature given the 'talent' at the disposal of pseduoscientists is understandable. Where practising scientists enter the picture - like Bradley, Behe, Schaeffer one would look into their scietific work to trace back their pronouncements to the source. In all cases we draw a blank. Nothing that these scientists work on has led them to their "theories" on design; intelligence; fine tuning etc. Similarly in the case of G. Gonzalez. When I checked his ISU homepage a year ago I found no publications listed. Searching led me to some papers of his. None of them have to do with the sort of questions PP pretends to 'discuss'. Since Neurode is such a seeker for science may I suggest he check out the video web archives of the Kavli CERCA Conference at Case that happened in Fall 2003. One of the sessions was about the Anthropic Principle and IIRC was moderated by Weinberg. It is long and tedious - sorry not a dog and pony show like the DI, CRS, AiG and assorted outfits put up - and will take a few viewings to grasp. I won't hold it against Gonzalez for not presenting his theory at that gathering (arguably the largest gathering of the current cream of cosmologists in the last 10 years). We all have our limitations. You may have been there - who knows?
Investigations of the changes of the fine structure constant 1/137 is a thriving area of cosmology. Scientists are alive to the possibility of change over time. Check out this article for more info. You could write to the persons concerned or maybe put G.Gonzalez in touch with them. There lies a great idea for a film.
http://sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=0005BFE6-2965-128A-A96583414B7F0000
SciAm June 2005
Now there you are Neurode. That's a lot of useful work for you to do. Quit this metaphysics business. Because in addition to being refuted you are likely to be left feeling silly. In science it is OK to be wrong and revise your work - in fact if nobody is attacking your theories it indicates a lack of interest. If otherwise you get conference invites, and get to wear your well worn tweeds (with leather elbow patches) and scuffed shoes and meet the scientific elite over wine, port, cheese and crackers.
neurode · 5 June 2005
Apology accepted, qetzal.
The problem, I think, was that nobody could believe that you hadn't already seen that entry. Some may have thought that your ignorance was feigned as a rhetorical device. After all, the amount of work you seem to put into your posts encourages the assumption that you've exercised due diligence.
Anyhow, take it easy.
PvM · 5 June 2005
PaulP · 6 June 2005
I previously posted:
"As Denyse O'Leary blogged:
'Jonathan Witt, a screenwriter for The Privileged Planet, points out,
".. note that The Privileged Planet's suggestion of purpose and design at the cosmic level is not directly equivalent to Sagan's creedal statement at the beginning of Cosmos. "'"
I go away for a while and come back to find neurode defending a movie that was never made. To repeat: this movie is not simply a film about a part of scientific research, rather it is an attempt to justify the insertion of a particular theology into science . And just as we are given a nudge and a wink to encourage us to jump to incorrect comclusions about the science, we were similarly supposed to jump to conclusions about the theology from the fact that the Smithsonian was showing his movie.
neurode · 6 June 2005
Reality check: A "suggestion of purpose and design at the cosmic level" is not equivalent to "DI terrorizes movie audience with quotations from scripture".
The terms "purpose" and "design" are philosophical, religiously neutral terms that naturally arise in any evenhanded consideration of the question "Why is the cosmos fine-tuned in a way promoting scientific observation?" That much should be obvious to anyone without his own religious axe to grind.
But let's see what would happen if these terms were summarily excluded from the interpretation of scientific fact, e.g. the inarguable scientific fact of observation-friendly cosmological fine-tuning. Obviously, this would amount to not just an explanatory restriction, but an a priori ban against an entire class of potential explanations which neither advocate nor even mention religion.
This sort of thing is not permitted in science. One cannot ban the use of terms not connected with the doctrine or ritual of any particular religion from scientific hypotheses or interpretations, unless one can prove beyond a shadow of doubt that they cannot possibly have scientific relevance.
Can PaulP prove that the concepts labeled "purpose" and "design" cannot possibly have scientific relevance? I think not. In fact, I daresay that PaulP is no closer to such a proof than anyone else. Therefore, Witt's comment sheds no new light on the situation, or anybody's comments thereon.
By the way, if somebody wants to produce a science documentary ending with philosophical speculation on the "undesigned purposeless" of its scientific content, then as long as it stops short of explicitly advocating atheism or making definite assertions in its favor, I won't complain if the Smithsonian co-sponsors it.
...unless, of course, the Smithsonian has failed to reverse the ethical blunder to which many members of the public currently object.
After all, the rules are for everybody.
PvM · 6 June 2005
Purpose and design can have legitimate purposes. But as used by the ID movement they are based on an appeal from ignorance. When used based upon the flawed arguments of PP, combined with the wedge strategy, it is clear that it is all about religion and little about science.
If Neurode wants to explain how to detect purpose and design in a scientific manner, please let him speak out. One will quickly come to the realization that real science detects purpose and design not based on an appeal from ignorance but rather based on such concepts as motive, means, opportunities. One can indeed and should 'ban' God of the Gaps explanations as substitutes for our ignorance from science.
I am not sure why Neurode pretends to be speaking form many members of the public other than to hide his ever sliding argument as to what the Smithsonian need to do in HIS opinion. Indeed, the rules are for everybody and Neurode has yet to show us what these rules are. When asked by Wesley, Neurode responded using avoidance and accusations. None of them seemed to address the real issues.
Jim Wynne · 6 June 2005
thereof) can't be explained from a non-fine-tuning perspective? Wouldn't any conceivable universe give the appearance of fine tuning? The argument, as it stands, is nothing more than, "It appears to have been purposefully designed (uh, "fine-tuned") therefore it must have been." What about explanations that advocate religion without mentioning it? If you deny this is the case in the present situation, you're a stinkin' liar. Another dumb attempt to sneak Jesus in the back door is recognized and at least partially thrwarted, and you have to prevaricate to defend it. Hint: Jesus in an ill-fitting lab coat still looks like Jesus.neurode · 6 June 2005
PvM: "If Neurode wants to explain how to detect purpose and design in a scientific manner, please let him speak out."
There's no need for that here.
PvM evidently fails to comprehend the distinction between the discovery and the interpretation of scientific fact. For others who are unclear on this distinction, consider the scientifically factual theory known as quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics has a number of interpretations, some even predicating consciousness as a decisive factor in natural causation. Discussions of these interpretations, and judgments in favor of one or another, have appeared in more science papers than PvM can shake a stick at. Yet, nobody has succeeded in experimentally distinguishing them (which, of course, is why they're called "interpretations").
Pehaps PvM disputes this, but no matter how hard he tries, he can't change it. And in view of this fact, I don't think that anyone in the know will be accusing him of espousing a valid position.
Aureola Nominee, FCD · 6 June 2005
Jim Wynne · 6 June 2005
neurode · 6 June 2005
Wrong, Aureola.
Fine-tuning refers to a fact: in the Standard Model, a small variation in the initial conditions of the cosmos would have resulted in an uninhabitable universe. This is a matter of calculation, not interpretation.
Therefore, if you claim to have the slightest idea what you're talking about - and you obviously do not - then you're disputing the Standard Model. And in that case, many eminent scientists would not even give you credit for having decapitated yourself; they would instead conjecture that you've been headless from birth.
(This is my own personal opinion of you as well.)
Aureola Nominee, FCD · 6 June 2005
As I said, neurode, you are unable to understand what this is all about. Try going to those scientist and double-check your fantasy of what they mean, and then come back and apologize abjectly.
Repeat with me: "The appearance of fine-tuning doesn't say anything about the presence of fine-tuning..."
Flint · 6 June 2005
Jim Wynne · 6 June 2005
neurode · 6 June 2005
Alright then, PvM.
I think that the level of scientific sophistication of certain Panda's Thumb participants has now become quite clear; they include the type of person who disputes the factuality of quantum mechanics and calculations premised on the Standard Model.
That's very special, but I have neither the time nor the desire to mix it up with a small handful of cloudy thinkers who wouldn't know the first thing about science if it grabbed them by the scruffs of their necks, trimmed their ears, and bobbed their tails.
However, if you like, you (personally) can still expand on the distinction between scientific discovery and interpretation, taking care to explain why, in the absence of distinguishing experiments, the latter is not "scientific".
neurode · 6 June 2005
Alright then, PvM.
I think that the level of scientific sophistication of certain Panda's Thumb participants has now become quite clear; they include the type of person who disputes the factuality of quantum mechanics and calculations premised on the Standard Model.
That's very special, but I have neither the time nor the desire to mix it up with a small handful of cloudy thinkers who wouldn't know the first thing about the distinction in question if it grabbed them by the scruffs of their necks, trimmed their ears, and bobbed their tails.
However, if you like, you (personally) can still expand on the distinction between scientific discovery and interpretation, taking care to explain why, in the absence of distinguishing experiments, the latter is not "scientific".
neurode · 6 June 2005
(Pardon me for posting twice, but the first time, I received a "cool off" message. Accordingly, I assumed that my post had not been registered.)
Aureola Nominee, FCD · 6 June 2005
No, neurode; PT's readership includes people who actually understand the science behind your misrepresentations.
Try getting any decent cosmologist to assert what your idiotic posts imply (i.e. that the "peculiarly favourable" conditions of the Standard Model aren't the only possible conditions) and you'll rapidly discover why you're not even a credible sparring partner for the average reader of PT.
Hint: we don't know whether those "peculiarly fine-tuned" constants could be any different. So we don't know whether this universe is contingent or necessary. Stop bluffing about a knowledge you don't possess!
literatelurker · 6 June 2005
Earlier, from neurode:
Take the law that is sometimes stated "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." The "action" is the cause; the "reaction" is the effect.
**************
Bull.
The action and reaction forces occur simultaneously, and designating one force as the "action" and the other as the "reaction" is arbitrary. In other words - you've bastardized Newton's Third Law of motion by trying to use it as an example of a cause/effect relationship.
Don't believe it? Go read a middle-school physical science textbook.
neurode · 6 June 2005
Aureola: "...you're not even a credible sparring partner for the average reader of PT. Hint: we don't know whether those "peculiarly fine-tuned" constants could be any different. So we don't know whether this universe is contingent or necessary. Stop bluffing about a knowledge you don't possess!"
Aureola, if you had taken the trouble to scroll up the thread, you'd have found that the argument originally presented (by me) duly considers both of these possibilities (where necessity is causal or deterministic, and contingency is acausal or nondeterministic).
If one were to go on this example alone, one would be driven to the conclusion that the average Panda's Thumb reader, far from being a heavyweight dangerous to his sparring partners, is an inveterate couch potato who injudiciously pops off at the mouth without even bothering to read the arguments into which he or she is belatedly inserting his or her two cents.
The jury is still out, but this might well constitute a grievous injustice to other readers of The Panda's Thumb. Therefore, it would probably be better for all concerned if you were simply to stop talking.
In return, I'll give you a hint of your very own: any judgment on the contingency or necessity of the values comprising the initial conditions of cosmic evolution would be a metaphysical judgment, and inserting such a judgment into the original discussion would merely affirm the cosmological bearing of metaphysics (a major point in my favor).
On the other hand, any statement to the effect that such a judgment is impossible is also formulated on a metaphysical level of discourse.
If you want to talk metaphysics, fine, but you should understand the impact of that choice on the actual, original discussion.
literatelurker: "The action and reaction forces occur simultaneously, and designating one force as the 'action' and the other as the 'reaction' is arbitrary. In other words - you've bastardized Newton's Third Law of motion by trying to use it as an example of a cause/effect relationship. Don't believe it? Go read a middle-school physical science textbook."
I'll certainly admit that somebody has bastardized something here, but in all honesty, I think that literatelurker needs to lurk around in front of his bathroom mirror until he succeeds in locating the large and embarrassing holes in his scientific literacy.
Concisely, in a collision event described by a mathematical function relating the states of physical objects to their subsequent states, the action corresponds to the states of the arguments of the function before the event, while the reaction corresponds to the states of the arguments after the event (through which energy-momentum has been conserved given closure of the system).
Obviously, the prior states of the objects, associated with the mutual "action" of the objects on each other, comprise the cause, while the states which follow, associated with their mutual reaction, comprise the effect. Even at the point of state transition, and even under time reversal, they are not "simultaneous"; no decoherent object can have two states at once. Any idiot can see this with no more than a moment's reflection.
Please don't waste my time with any more of this nonsense. You're boring me, and nobody's paying me to educate you (as if that would even be possible).
Hyperion · 6 June 2005
Neurode, you make one major fallacy from which I believe all other flaws in your argument extend.
In Philosophy, it acceptable to agree that one person's assertion is no more or less valid than another person's assertion. Now, what you seem to be failing to grasp is a major point that separates science from philosophy: In science, not all assertions are equal.
For instance, Newton hypothesized that gravity was an attractive force between massive objects. This fit all the observed phenomena at the time, but imperfections began to show up in this model over time. Einstein later hypothesized that gravity was caused because massive objects bend 4-dimensional space-time. Well, it turns out, based upon careful observation over the past century, that Einstein's assertion is in fact more valid than Newton's assertion.
Now, the point that I am trying to make is that in science, just because you have a hypothesis, and I have a hypothesis, this does not mean that your hypothesis is equally valid. It's not enough to simply say "I assert this, therefore it is as valid as your assertion and must be given equal status." This may be acceptable in philosophy, but not in science. In science, you actually have to show why your hypothesis is better than mine. You have to show how your hypothesis makes predictions which are confirmed by observation, and how your hypothesis corrects for errors in my hypothesis.
Just because you assert something does not make it valid with regards to science. Perhaps you ought to do some reading into the "scientific method," although I cannot for the life of me imagine how someone can go through the American public school system without being taught the very basics of the scientific method.
Aureola Nominee, FCD · 6 June 2005
Neurode, you are a colossal waste of time. You don't understand the first bit of what people have been repeatedly telling you.
You apparently don't know what "contingent" and "necessary" mean in this context, or (way more likely) you know what they mean but hope that by raising the ante nobody will call your bluff.
Please come back when you have devised a way to detect one or more universes with different cosmological constants.
Until you do, ours is all we have.
Huffing and puffing and claiming that since we don't know then our universe is "fortunate" or "unfortunate", "likely" or "unlikely", i.e. somehow contingent, will only show your poor reasoning skills.
***
I'll stop feeding this particular troll now.
neurode · 6 June 2005
Hyperion: "In science, not all assertions are equal."
How true.
Unfortunately, Hyperion has shown no indication that he is the one to decide which of any two conflicting assertions is more valid than the other, either scientifically or philosophically, or even whether a given assertion is scientifically relevant.
In fact, I see no sign that Hyperion even understands the assertions on which this discussion comes to rest. (No, it's not a case of evolution versus ID.)
steve · 6 June 2005
roger tang · 6 June 2005
"Unfortunately, Hyperion has shown no indication that he is the one to decide which of any two conflicting assertions is more valid than the other, either scientifically or philosophically, or even whether a given assertion is scientifically relevant."
Well, actually, he has, but you're too busy blowing hot air to understand it.
And you've shown no understanding of the methodology of science, which is distinct from the philosophy of the matter.
neurode · 6 June 2005
Maybe you'd better scroll up and smell the coffee, Steve. You're in danger of being confused with literatelurker.
literatelurker · 6 June 2005
Here we go, in little tiny words for neurod's benefit:
Newton's Third Law postulates that for every action, there exists an equal and opposite reaction.
Thus, no force exists on its own, but as part of an action-reaction pair.
As you stand on this planet . . . the earth pulls down on your body with an equal force and in the opposite direction of your body pulling on the earth.
It doesn't matter which is labeled the action, and which is called the reaction: you-pulling-on-the-earth, or the earth-pulling-on-you.
A bug hits the windshield just as hard as the windshield hits the bug. If you're having trouble understanding why the bug gets hurt and the windshield just gets yucky, remember that the bug has considerably less mass than the windshield/car that hit it . . . so by Newton's 2nd law, f=ma, they'll experience greatly different accelerations.
Both the action, and the reaction, do indeed occur simultaneously. Oops, sorry neurode, that means at the same time, in the Newtonian sense.
Go find that middle school textbook and get busy.
steve · 6 June 2005
Oh, you're so witty, neuron. The fact remains. Anyone confusing cause/effect with action/reaction, when talking about physics (and not just making an analogy or something), has no business lecturing others on QM and cosmology.
But you do help people understand the average level of understanding held by evolution-deniers.
Hyperion · 6 June 2005
neurode · 6 June 2005
Unbelievable.
In a vectorspace representation of a collision, action and reaction forces are arrows connected head-to-head, reflecting the fact that they are oppositely directed. The heads of the arrows do not overlap, they meet at a point (the event); nowhere is one arrow superimposed on the other.
Mathematically, the action and reaction forces are separate. In the words of the third law, they are "equal and opposite." Because they are opposite, they are not the same. While they are paired by convention, they are not mathematically conflated. Cause and effect remain separate.
If you persist, this can only get worse for you. Why not use your head about this, and desist?
Enough · 6 June 2005
Wasn't he pointing out that you can differentiate between cause and effect when it comes to forces. There is no "cause" and no "effect". there are just two forces at work.
Glen Davidson · 6 June 2005
I was going to stay off this thread now. But it may be that some learning can happen (by any and sundry), so why not just link to a reasonable source on the internet that tells of how Newton's laws are not cause/effect laws? (Of course I'm supposed to be doing something else at the computer as well, so naturally I'm posting instead.)
So here goes:
http://www.cs.ucsd.edu/users/goguen/courses/275f00/s3.html
Good source, probably not telling anything to the regulars at PT. It's what all of us who actually took physics learned.
Of course the heads of the vectors of forces do not overlap in our simplifications, which is why we have forces, fields, and quantum mechanics to tell us how overlap does in fact occur when two objects meet. The electrical fields around the electrons begin to interact at short distances and repel each other in an interactive manner that cannot be meaningfully separated into cause/effect relationships.
In the human sense it is convenient to designate the body moving relative to a frame of reference (surface of the earth, usually) as the cause, the relatively stationary body as having its subsequent motion "effected" by the cause. It's a perfectly good interpretation, it just doesn't have much to do with physics at its most basic.
One problem we have here is that "cause" is an ancient word that has been adapted to science. In ancient days a "cause" was ultimately located in some being, the storm god or whatever. It was a kind of command and control sort of "causation" originally, and was ultimately located in God in the henotheistic peoples (and henotheistic philosophies like Plato's).
Aquinas and other scholastic metaphysicians naturally followed the venerable Aristotle and the ancients. The introduction of much more of Aristotle's works no doubt vastly improved the chances of science happening in the West. Nevertheless, a great deal of baggage came with Aristotle, including the ancient "causation" beliefs.
The old ideas of cause and effect are in tatters in science, of course, as has been pointed out innumerable times here. Some people, however, only learn the metaphysical version of "cause" and "effect", and thus think that those who deviate from these fine truths must be wrong in some unfathomable manner.
Well, this was my attempt at suggesting another way, at least to any possible lurkers.
steve · 6 June 2005
neo-anti-luddite · 6 June 2005
So, neurode, which force is the "cause" and which the "effect" when two cars going 60 mph hit each other head on?
Jim Wynne · 6 June 2005
What we have to constantly remind ourselves is that people like neurode are used to spewing their specious polysyllabic nonsense in the direction of very ignorant and gullible people who want very much for a seemingly intelligent person to be on their side. It works great on people utterly lacking the intellectual capacity to process it, so apparently these creationist blatherers think the same will work with people who know better. Go figure.
neurode · 6 June 2005
Pardon me for the wait, folks, but I'm just getting over a sudden attack of ROTFLMAO brought on by your delightful, insightful posts!
Yes, the luminaries here at Panda's Thumb have finally succeeded in teaching me, and thousands of lurkers out there, a profound lesson. With the illustrious help of the author of a blast of postmodernist wisdom entitled "Social Aspects of Technology and Science", they have determined that there really isn't any such thing as causality at all (at least, "in the physical sciences")!
No longer need we worry about (classical or wave) functions causally connecting the prior states of objects, once absurdly referred to as "causes", with their subsequent, dependent states, formerly mislabeled as "effects". No, indeed! The world, destined always for chaos, has at last become a vast, amorphous blob of Social Text, reflecting the light of reason with all the scientific, philosophical and mathematical fidelity of the glistening coat of mucous on the hide of a giant, pulsating garden slug!
What a world you've created for yourselves over here. It's not very friendly to science, which of course required the antiquated notion that future states could to some extent be predicted from past states, but it's a metaphysical paradise for those who hate being pinned down in an argument.
[PS - neo-anti-luddite: "So, neurode, which force is the 'cause' and which the 'effect' when two cars going 60 mph hit each other head on?"
Both cars are implicated in the cause AND the effect, genius! Their relative momenta cause an event, the collision, and are thereby conservatively transferred into an effect, i.e. their momenta following the collision. It seems that you and your friends may have a bit of confusion regarding the distinction between cause and effect, as it relates to the distinction between the objects involved in the event marking the transition from one to the other.
But on second thought, why don't you ask your fellow 'thumbers? I'm sure one of them will have an answer more to your liking, and it will probably be funny as hell to boot!]
neurode · 6 June 2005
Pardon me for the wait, folks, but I'm just getting over a sudden attack of ROTFLMAO brought on by your delightful, insightful posts!
Yes, the luminaries here at Panda's Thumb have finally succeeded in teaching me, and thousands of lurkers out there, a profound lesson. With the illustrious help of the author of a blast of postmodernist wisdom entitled "Social Aspects of Technology and Science", they have determined that there really isn't any such thing as causality at all (at least, "in the physical sciences")!
No longer need we worry about (classical or wave) functions causally connecting the prior states of objects, once absurdly referred to as "causes", with their subsequent, dependent states, formerly mislabeled as "effects". No, indeed! The world, destined always for chaos, has at last become a vast, amorphous blob of Social Text, reflecting the light of reason with all the scientific, philosophical and mathematical fidelity of the glistening coat of mucous on the hide of a giant, pulsating garden slug!
What a world you've created for yourselves over here. It's not very friendly to science, which of course required the antiquated notion that future states could to some extent be predicted from past states, but it's a metaphysical paradise for those who hate being pinned down in an argument.
[PS - neo-anti-luddite: "So, neurode, which force is the 'cause' and which the 'effect' when two cars going 60 mph hit each other head on?"
Both cars are implicated in the cause AND the effect, genius! Their relative momenta cause an event, the collision, and are thereby conservatively transferred into an effect, i.e. their momenta following the collision. It seems that you and your friends may have a bit of confusion regarding the distinction between cause and effect, as it relates to the distinction between the objects involved in the event marking the transition from one to the other.
But on second thought, why don't you ask your fellow 'thumbers? I'm sure one of them will have an answer more to your liking, and it will probably be funny as hell to boot!]
neurode · 6 June 2005
(Whoops - same deal again. Got a no-go message the first time around.)
Glen Davidson · 6 June 2005
SEF · 6 June 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 6 June 2005
Hey Neurode,
What causes a radioactive atom to decay when it does?
Thanks.
shiva · 6 June 2005
OK Neurode,
I am certain that you aren't Lawrence Krauss or Glenn Starkman in disguise. They are incapable of being so wrong ven if they tried. OK maybe you are Bill D getting ready for your summer nonsense on IDoC. Happily for yourself you have stopped spouting metaphysics after having been fisked thoroughly yesterday. Following my advice you have decided to "science" instead today. But you don't seem to be getting very far.
This could be because of not merely ignorance but avidya or agnana. Buddhist thought usually puts not ignorance across from knowledge but avidya or the wrong learning. Similarly in classical Vedanta the opposite of knowledge is the immature incapability to learn. This results in hilarious thinking that the propounder doesn't realise is about him.
What those bows and arrows mean on paper is way beyond your comprehension. An object is always in the state of the third law of motion. There is no "cause" or "effect" here. Take a good Physics textbook and read thru it. any doubts? There are 100s here to help you.
You seem to be getting close to Bill D's style of argument take a simple idea and spin it out of shape using some clever hooks to get the gullible tangled - you've read Sal Cordova out here, so you know what IDoC does to otherwise keen minds - turns their thinking into kludge.
Keep going. You will soon have enough to produce another Jack Chick or John Woodmorappe tract. Another great place for funny science is http://www.commonsensescience.org/. They must be on the lookout for faculty. Check them out some time.
PaulP · 7 June 2005
neurode · 7 June 2005
Again, I'm amused. However, since you persist in your jabbering, you should know that I can no longer take it seriously.
After all, you contribute nothing new. Your arguments range from absurdity to irrelevance, your debate tactics are unformly tawdry and transparent, your collective understanding of even the most basic science and philosophy is too impoverished to merit a listening...not just by me, but by anybody with a brain cell. This whole website is obviously a mere show of presence, an electronic chatterbox run for that sector of the body politic with certain minority philosophical leanings, but insufficient mental capacity to see through the degenerate "reasoning" of its major participants.
The rationale is clear enough: those who see through it all can't be reached in any case (so it matters not what they think), while those who get suckered in, while being unable to contribute intellectually to "the cause" (apparently a hodgepodge including elements of atheism, materialism, and religio-scientific separatism united against the ID movement) can be used as a zombie army of letter-writers, hecklers, and troublemakers by the self-styled "brains of the operation", such as they may be. Hence, the successful campaign of letters and calls to the Smithsonian, which was thereby intimidated into besmirching its own record of public education and support for science.
Of course, you should all feel intense shame for letting yourselves be used in this manner. But sadly, you appear to fall short of the required level of ethical awareness. Therefore, you will no doubt continue to jabber, your culpability will increase, and your cacophonous idiocy will reverberate along the corridors of time like the sounds which emanate from a burning zoo...enraging some, enticing others, and boring the rest to sleep.
Those of you who can still extricate yourselves should do so. To the remainder, good day.
Aureola Nominee, FCD · 7 June 2005
How many of us truly think that this ignorant, projective troll will really leave the grownups alone?
Flint · 7 June 2005
Hopefully, he's telling the truth (!). He has assumed his conclusions, ignored or dismissed what everyone has said, discovered that his conclusions match his assumptions just as he knew all along, and doubtless feels imperviously superior. If he's happy with this performance, it's a win-win for everyone. I love happy endings.
steve · 7 June 2005
neo-anti-luddite · 7 June 2005
I'm guessing that neurode got beat up a lot as a kid; it seems to be the most common source of such misplaced arrogance.
My question about which force was the "cause" and which the "effect," neurode, was a basic one. As SEF noted, I didn't ask about which car was the cause, but rather which 60 mph of the 120 mph "force of impact" was the "cause" and which the "effect." As far as I can tell, under your view of Newton's laws, inertia is an "effect" rather than a property. If you can assign a "causality" to inertia, then by all means show me where the force of one of the cars' velocity ends and the force of that car's inertia begins. Differentiate the two. It shouldn't be too hard, considering that one's an "effect" and one's a "cause," right?
I love Lit majors!
Glen Davidson · 7 June 2005
neo-anti-luddite · 7 June 2005
C'mon, Glen, you know that you can't assign relative postiions in beatingspace....
neo-anti-luddite · 7 June 2005
Oops. On the off-chance that neurode comes back, I should note that I meant to say "If you can assign a "causality" to inertia, then by all means show me where the force of one of the cars' velocity ends and the force of the other car's inertia begins."
My bad....
Glen Davidson · 7 June 2005
I'm sure I'll have to wait for the final authority's word on that, though. Because as we know, he has theology and metaphysics on his side.
Gav · 7 June 2005
Neurode - please don't go. Never mind these nasty people. You were going to tell us about the Laws of Causality ........
frank schmidt · 7 June 2005
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 7 June 2005
Hey Neurode,
What causes a radioactive nucleus to decay when it does?
Thanks.
H. Humbert · 7 June 2005
Wow, so after all that philosophical obfuscating, Neurode's argument boils down to standard creationist rhetoric. Scientists are nothing more than a political body who hold "certain minority philosophical leanings," (re: godlessness). See, Neurode feels, if most people are religious, then science should make room in the laboratory for religious questions, whether science is capable of answering them or not. Any resistence to religious inquiry masquerading as scientific inquiry is instigated by "elements of atheism, materialism, and religio-scientific separatism," whatever that last movement is.
Interesting how the boob chose to reveal his true colors at last, if any doubt remained.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 7 June 2005