Neither Science Nor Religion
by MikeGeneI have always maintained that ID is not science. Yet there is a flip-side to this coin: I have also maintained that ID is not religion. Ironically, while many on the ID side are uncomfortable with the "ID is not science" position and comfortable with the "ID is not religion" position, there appears to be perfect symmetry when it comes to the critics, who are uncomfortable with the "ID is not religion" position and comfortable with the "ID is not science" position. Just another example of yin-yang.
I have previously fleshed out different aspects of my views/approach:
To this, let's now add the relationship between theology/religion and The Design Matrix.
I am a theist and my theism allows me many options when it comes to the immensely ambiguous topic of the origin of life on this planet.
1. God did not use natural causes but instead brought life into existence in a way that we cannot comprehend.
2. God used other intelligent agents to design life.
3. God used natural laws/chance by front-loading the appearance of life with the creation of the Universe.
4. God used natural law/chance by bringing this Universe into existence among an infinite set of possible Universes.
My ID views do not stem from a theological viewpoint (for the record, my theological leaning is for option #4) or any sophisticated philosophical analysis. They stem from my raw experience and awareness:
1. I experience reality as both objective and subjective. While my subjective reality is mostly hidden from objective reality, it is not hidden from me "“ it is as real.
2. I know there are things that exist in the objective world only because I brought them into existence. I conceived them and then used my hands to translate a mental reality into a physical reality. Aspects of my subjective reality become part of the objective reality of others.
3. The objective reality around me also contains things that exist only because other fellow humans conceived them and then brought them into existence. Their subjective reality has become part of my objective reality.
Either human beings are the only beings who could possibly do this or they are not. Since it would seem rather arrogant to think we are the only beings who could possibly exist that can conceive and create, I favor the latter.
Building on this, I simply notice that the more we learn about the molecular world of life, the more it reminds us of our own advanced technology. Thus one wonders if the reason for this similarity is because life and our own advanced technology have similar causes. Perhaps life, at its core, is artificial "“ a true example of carbon-based nanotechnology. A multitude of clues beckon me.
Can I ever know this? Probably not. But this is not important because I am not on a quest for certainty nor does the answer impact on my metaphysics.
But those who have read The Design Matrix know that I ended by drawing lessons from OOL research. And one such lesson was:
First, Whitfield reports the opinion of evolutionary biologist Ford Doolittle of Dalhousie University, who observes that we will never have much solid information about the origin of life. But Doolittle also notes, "just because we'll never know why the Roman Empire fell doesn't mean it isn't worth talking about." Fair enough, but if life was designed, we would likewise probably be without much definite information. Just as standard origin-of-life accounts are still worth talking about, so too are notions of life's design. In fact, simply talking about life's design can lead to speculations of what this involves and this, in turn, can nurture a better understanding of life. Attempts to squelch discussions of design until we first extract a database of definite information (i.e., actual mechanisms, identity of designer, etc.) are seriously misguided and thwart the most useful way to brainstorm about an ambiguous topic.
June 8th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Mike:
And we have a subjective nature that strives to make itself known via the objective reality of all. What does it mean when we describe a process in these words: To Become Known? What is the single word verb that incorporates this concept most succinctly?
What verb defines succinctly the precursor concept - Seek To Know?
All of us, in all realms of life, seek to know things about our world, how to coexist with it and how to control/use it. This is an exercise in organization of the world, through a mental artifact we call syntax, with which we share knowledge gained (as defined entirely by us via semantics). Knowledge we earned, and in turn use in order to design and create.
The collection of attributes and activities we call "science" is chartered to discover, define and explain that which we seek to know. The knowledge is then put to use for our practical purposes.
You're on to something, Mike. Others have been catching on too, and many of them are scientists. The restrictions being imposed on the object of our quest have closed off whole avenues of knowledge we could gain from seeking. For naught but ideological [philosophical, metaphysical] reasons (plus fear of ambiguity). And that's a shame.
Comment by Joy — June 8, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Mike wrote:
But surely, as a thinking person, you'd like your theological views to be compatible with your ID views. Tolerance of ambiguity is one thing; of dissonance, quite another.
In the other thread, you quoted Charles Babbage approvingly:
I replied:
Your reply:
As I understand your position on front-loading, you don't rule out the possibility that the front-loader is God. You also hold God to be omnipotent, if I recall correctly. If so, and if you agree with Babbage's quote, then there seem to be two logical possibilities:
1. The front-loader is a natural entity of some kind — not God.
2. The front-loader is God, but the front-loading happened in the form of the natural laws bestowed upon the universe by God at the time of its creation — the deist position.
What would not be logical would be:
3. To hold with Babbage that an omnipotent God would not meddle with the universe after its creation, yet to insist that the front-loader might be God.
My impression from your earlier writings is that you are taking position #3, which is why I raise the issue of the apparent contradiction.
What am I missing?
Comment by robin — June 8, 2008 @ 2:07 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
^ Robin,
I see no apparent contradiction other than an argument by assertion. Explain why omnipotence logically excludes intervention after creation.
Comment by Jean — June 8, 2008 @ 2:58 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Jean writes:
Jean,
I don't necessarily believe that it does. However, Babbage does, and Mike indicates that he thinks Babbage "makes a good theological point" in saying so.
I am curious to know whether, and how, Mike resolves the apparent contradiction between this view and the possibility of God as an interventionist front-loader.
Comment by robin — June 8, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Hi Robin,
I'm not sure they are all that different, as dissonance could very well be a function of ambiguity or might better be thought of as tension. A slight shift in perspective or the addition of a single piece of information might cause the dissonance to quickly evaporate. So I have learned to take my time and practice patience with many of my beliefs, something that can be had as long as I don't embrace them with great conviction or try to force them on others.
Of course not. If one were to declare that it is impossible for the front-loader to be God, one should have an incredibly powerful argument. I don't and I have not seen one.
Theological option #2.
Theological option #3.
You are missing a couple of things.
First, I'm not holding with Babbage or agreeing with Babbage. I'm sharing my first impression after just reading the point. I like it and I think it is good. But that doesn't mean I am ready to absorb it and make it part of me.
Second, I have discovered that I have a rather unique ability "“ while most peoples' minds hear "God" when "ID" (or "front-loading") is written/spoken, mine does not (note the title of this thread). Since my thinking is not limited in this fashion, I more freely explore in accord with my raw experience and awareness (as explained in the OP).
So let's rephrase 3. to better match my thinking:
Babbage makes a good point about an omnipotent God not meddling with the universe after its creation, but I would not go so far as to insist it is impossible that God could be the front-loader. Nevertheless, my front-loading speculations are not theological expressions, but instead are a working hypothesis derived from the suspicion that life was designed and the data that render front-loading increasingly plausible (as explained in The Design Matrix).
Comment by MikeGene — June 8, 2008 @ 6:58 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Hi Mike,
Allow me to attempt to lighten up the thread while being topical.
Think of being an interstellar cop that comes upon Earth. It is contaminated with life.
Was the contamination intentional or did it happen by accident?
These kinds of questions have been posed by science fiction authors before (see World of the Ptavs, Larry Niven). It is neither science nor religion.
OOL researchers are beginning to question whether there was enough time to go from nothing to the first cell on Earth based on the fossil evidence we have. Contamination from space is becoming a serious possibility.
Something to think about and maybe discuss.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 8, 2008 @ 7:12 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Ironically, if ID is religion then it is also science, or at least that's how Richard Dawkins seems to see things. In The God Delusion he insists that the question of God and the reality of miracles are scientific questions. Thus, if ID is about God, as its critics maintain, then a case can be made that it's religious, and, if we are to heed the words of the Michael Simonyi Chair of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, it is also science.
None of this NOMA crap for Professor Dawkins. ID is both science and religion.
Comment by Dick — June 8, 2008 @ 7:26 pm
June 8th, 2008 at 9:24 pm
You're not alone, Dick! Here's Discovery C
RSC Fellow Jack Collins:Comment by olegt — June 8, 2008 @ 9:24 pm
June 9th, 2008 at 5:10 pm
Traditional science can only explain that for which has a reason for its being, but that old science is very narrow in its outlook and is unable to explain that which is stark. That science hobbles itself, and finds itself unable to make truth claims in the broader context offered by philosophy. That science is limited to the applied, which provides a very valuable service as far as it goes. Fortunately, that which is stark does not require an explanation; starkness just is and merely requires recognition. And so truth claims are permitted with a meta-science that is able to embrace science's own self critical nature (if only to negate the over extensions of traditional science). It does little good to look to the creationists and their evil ways, the work needed is on the inside and pertains to the struggle for self recognition.
Comment by Stephen — June 9, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
June 10th, 2008 at 10:31 am
Stephen
Dawkins, I think, believes that the question of God is a question that science can approach. That does not imply that every attemp to answer the question is necessarily scientific. Science is about how you go about answering a question.
olegt (quoting someone)
Theology is not the same as religion (an atheist could be a theologist). ID could indeed by good theology, and indeed, if it was done as a scientific investigation, I would say that that would be theology too. It is certainly used as apologetics…
Comment by The Pixie — June 10, 2008 @ 10:31 am
June 10th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Hi Pixie
As far as I can tell, the giver of truth claims is not science, but something else that is starker. If "science" is defined as something that discovers truth, then even science is not "science" because actual science is only a tool that helps a stark consciousness discover truth. Or another way of saying it is that science is provisional and limited to the applied, unless it finds itself united with philosophy and at which point it transforms into a meta-science (big enough to include the issues of ID, the likes of complementary medicine, and integral and transpersonal psychology). Unless science is to remain as an applied application with disclosed limits, scientific evidence that points to a broader truth will be open to multiple interpretations; in my view, the truth claim that is closer to the mark comes from a transformed science that find itself emotionally balanced; and Dawkins does not offer us this emotionally balanced view in scientific materialism, we need to look elsewhere. And when we look science finds itself transforming into a better meta-science.
P.S. The blocks you quoted were not mine.
Comment by Stephen — June 10, 2008 @ 12:02 pm
June 11th, 2008 at 5:26 am
Apologies to Dick for misattributing his words.
Stephen
Not sure I get that. Are you saying science does not fulfil that defintion because it only helps conscious discover the truth, rather than discovering the truth itself? I would disagree; science is a process that involves "a stark consciousness". An analogy: A hammer is a tool used by "a stark consciousness, carpentry is a process that involves "a stark consciousness".
By the way, Wiki offers perhaps a better definition: Science is the effort to discover, understand, or to understand better, how the physical world works, with observable physical evidence as the basis of that understanding.
Science is certainly provision. What do you by "limited to the applied"
Science is already big enough to include ID, complementary medicine, and integral and transpersonal psychology. All it takes is for proponents of these ideas to approach them using the scientific method and show how they are thus supported (I think that might already be the case for transpersonal psychology and some complementary medicines).
The disclosed limits of science are that science can only be applied to the physical world - which means anything that can be studied by the scientific method. If it can be studied by science, and that study supports it, it is science. If not, iit is not.
That is an interesting approach. Let me see if I have the logic right here.
(1) We can judge the likiness of a truth claim by its emotional balance
(2) One advocate of scientific materialism does not offer an emotionally balanced view
(3) Therefore we should reject scientific materialism
What exactly is "scientific materialism" by the way? Again from Wiki:
Better in that it will more readily support the claims you have already decided are true, perhaps?
Comment by The Pixie — June 11, 2008 @ 5:26 am
June 11th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Hi Pixie, if you go to my June 8, 5:17 pm, posting on "Ambiguity Tolerance," you will find a very good definition of "scientific materialism" that is not the strawman definition presented by Wiki. The challenge remains that defenders of scientific materialism carry the burden to define their meaning of "science," if they don't agree with Wallace. Otherwise, pointing to the conflation of creationists does not provide a working definition.
Incidently, a mere hammar cannot make truth claims!
Comment by Stephen — June 11, 2008 @ 10:49 am
June 11th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Stephen
I will repeat here for the benefit of others:
Closure principle: Would Wallace say a wavefunction was physical, or a magnetic field? If so, then it sounds like this is pretty much what I said before: The disclosed limits of science are that science can only be applied to the physical world - which means anything that can be studied by the scientific method. If it can be studied by science, and that study supports it, it is science. If not, iit is not.
Do you have a problem with the closure principle? Perhaps you think science should include that which science cannot study?
Metaphysical realism, Objectivism and Universalism: These are assumptions that science has to make for practical reasons. Sure, we should be aware of that, but is there any problem with those assumptions for science?
Physical reductionism: This one I reject. reductionism is a useful technique in science, and the technique relies on the stated assumption, but science does not. Look up emergent properties for counter-examples.
Have read that, it would seem that "scientific materialism" is like science, except that it assumes physical reductionism. What makes you think Dawkins advocates "scientific materialism" I have not heard him discussing reductionism (though I do not read much of what he says).
Anyway, it seems I reject "scientific materialism" too - though not for its problems of emotional balance!
Always supposing anyone actually does suppprt "scientific materialism".
Nor can a mass spectrometer! However the process of carpentry can produce furniture, and the process of science can produce truth claims.
Comment by The Pixie — June 11, 2008 @ 1:39 pm
June 11th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
How people define science, or even scientific materialism, is less of an issue with me. What is really important if for folks to volunteer their full disclosures on what they mean. The fact that so many are unwilling to disclose their assumptions points to an emotional issue noted below.
Moreover, science is a tool that helps us discover truth, but the tool cannot reveal truth when it is disconnected from the sentient being that uses the tool; no more than a hammer can build a house without the carpenter. For science to function there must be error recognition, and there are three levels to error recognition.
Karl Popper offered his falsification principle as an implicit definition of science. A close review of Popper's science will reveal that Popper was a deductivist that sought error recognition for wayward inductive thinking. Popper forgot about Thomas Khan's science that involved paradigm sifts, and Popper missed the importance of error recognition for deduction. A review of Kuhn reveals the alternative science favoring inductive thinking, as marriage to a particular paradigm is affirmation of the accepted induction.
There is required error recognition for induction (as Popper advised), for deduction (something Khun would favor), and there is required error recognition for the sentient being that uses science as a tool. The third level of error recognition has to do with a balancing of emotions, where errors can only be revealed by full disclosure. Hence, Dawkins (as an example) has the responsibility to reveal his prior assumptions that go into his usage of said science.
Comment by Stephen — June 11, 2008 @ 2:19 pm
June 11th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Stephen
Oh. You brought up this "scientific materialism" business. I just wondered if you could say what you were talking about.
Ah, so you are not so bother what they mean, only that they volunteer their full disclosures on it. Odd.
Amen to that.
Science is analogous to carpentry. It is a precess that necesrsary involves a scientist or a carpenter, using tools like reductionism, mass spectrometers and hammers.
And indeed there is!
That would be great. I wonder when the DI will indulge in full disclosure? I wonder how many IDists reveal their prior assumptions? A lot of IDists (not all, I know) reject common descent, for example, Dembski; I have never heard any reason that even makes vague sense for that; I am quite sure the only reason anyone rejects common descent is because of their prior assumption, i.e., their religious convictions. Strangely, they never seem to mention that as a reason. So much for full disclosure.
I think full disclosure might include telling us what you mean by a certain term. I think you have a responsibility to reveal what you mean when you say "scientific materialism", when you try to push this position on other people. But that is just my opinion.
Comment by The Pixie — June 11, 2008 @ 4:02 pm
June 11th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Pixie, I believe if you check you will see "scientific materialism" disclosed above, definitions that Wallace provided, whereas Wiki avoided providing a definition other than referring to a straw man.
The straw man argument is a nice way to divert attention away from the responsibility to fully disclose; and this is required in advance of error recognition.
Note also you are calling for others (IDist) to provide full disclosure, this is good but there is almost never a one-sided disclosure. The disclosure must be fully two-sided to pick up on both deduction and induction, and this is in advance of the emotionality issue that comes into play that permits disclosed revelation.
Incidently, you are having a hard time with the concept of science, noting that even skilled carpenters can make serious blunders when they apply their trade beyond the narrow application of carpentry. The same weakness applies to a science that is making truth claims beyond the applied study. But this can all be avoided by noting that science is really only a tool that helps in truth discovery; and the tool does not relieve the scientists from error recognition, and so full disclosure is still strongly required at three levels. Otherwise, you are now disclosing that science does not require the fuller error recognition that bares on the decisions of scientists as people. I think you can do better than this disclosure by being active in your disclosures, rather than passive.
Comment by Stephen — June 11, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
June 11th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
Stephen
Right, so are going with the Wallace definition. When you said "The challenge remains that defenders of scientific materialism carry the burden to define their meaning of "science," if they don't agree with Wallace." I got the impression that that was only Wallace's personal definition, rather than one we should all use.
You mention straw man. Perhaps at this point you should disclose who actually sbscribes to the "scientific materialism" defined by Wallace above (in particular, the "Physical reductionism"). Otherwise some cynical people might imagine you have been building a straw man.
Right, so we need to get this straight. What makes you believe Dawkins assumes the Physical reductionism principle?
I also note that you are calling for "scientific materialism" advocates to provide full disclosure, which is good (assuming they really exist), but as you point out there is almost never a one-sided disclosure.
What? Where do you get the idea that I am haing a hard time with the concept of science?
Carpenters and scientists make mistakes when they stick to their narrow field too.
I agree entirely. The rules of science are quite clear. Any claims not arising out of that methodology is just not science.
Very noble. See if you can persuade Dembski of that on Uncommon descent. I suspect you will find yourself banned very quickly.
Why do you think Dawkins is an atheist, by the way (I have never read any of his books, so I have no idea)?
Comment by The Pixie — June 11, 2008 @ 6:20 pm
June 11th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
The point is that Dawkins carries the burden to disclose his assumptions in an active sense. In fact, Dawkins does not volunteer his assumptions as disclosures, and so others find a need to nominate them. And as soon as they do we hear the passive complaint of "straw man"; meanwhile Dawkins gets off not disclosing anything, even as he makes truth claims well beyond science. Dawkins claims that the "watchmaker is blind," and this he figures follows from natural selection, but he fails to disclose his assumptions.
The "rules of science" require their full disclosure; otherwise error recognition cannot proceed, and we are still waiting for something more proactive, and other than the passive denial that has become your disclosure, Pixie.
Comment by Stephen — June 11, 2008 @ 8:10 pm
June 12th, 2008 at 3:34 am
Stephen
So in fact you have no evidence that Dawkins subscribes to "scientific materialism", and yet your whole argument is founded on that claim. My guess is that Dawkins does not subscribe to "scientific materialism", that it is just another straw man (quite possibly one built by someone else that you have adopted).
Sounds just like Dembski and numerous other prominent IDists. Is that different if they are on your side?
No, they do not. Science has its own assumptions (sharing four with Wallace's list), but as long as you observe the rules of science (hypothesis - prediction - testing) your own metaphysics are irrelevant. Scientists come in all stripes, across numerous religious and atheists too.
Dawkins goes beyond science in his claims (and he is far from the first, plenty of christians claim scienmce supports their claims). But that is not a fault with science.
Comment by The Pixie — June 12, 2008 @ 3:34 am
June 12th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Pixie, you have disclosed the passive declaration; little is volunteered, and disclosures are revealed as in pulling teeth; but thanking you any way, for what you revealed.
I can disclose more about logic in a proactive sense, as it leads to the scientific method and beyond. Deduction is a logic system that flows from the general to the particular, from prepositions to conclusion. Here is an example: all men are mortal; Socrates was a man; therefore, Socrates was mortal.
The alternative logic system is induction, and it flows from particular to general. Here is an example: the sunrises every morning; therefore, the sun will rise tomorrow. Induction also finds itself friendly with statistical thinking, including Bayesian methods.
Popper's falsification principle provides for error recognition in wayward inductive thinking. Therefore, the falsification principle is friendly to deductive thinking where scientists deduce predictions that may conflict with inductive expectations. The falsification principle is usually cornerstone of the scientific method, but I will show that this cornerstone is very incomplete.
Pure deduction fails because it cannot stand by itself. Moreover, induction cannot be reduced by deduction. Both Hume and Popper were skeptical of inductive logic, but their skepticism grew out of faulty deductions that were unable to declare the inductive starting prepositions (see Stove's "Anything goes"). In other words, Popper's falsification principle catches inductive error recognition while it misses deductive error recognition. Inductive skepticism is such a failed deduction.
Both induction and deduction requires error recognition. But because the two logics cannot be reduced into one, the two logics must stand in conflict. The two logics can be brought into harmony, however, where induction gives its support to deduction's prepositions. However, this harmony involves an ambiguity that may show itself again. The ambiguity must be tolerated, and this requires a third level of error recognition at the emotional level to permit full discloser of pre-given assumptions. By bringing out the pre-given assumptions, both induction and deduction will fall into harmony again.
Dawkins ascerts that the watchmaker is blind, as he merely points to natural selection. However, Dawkins is unwilling to declare his prepositions; they come as teeth are pulled, which is why he finds himself caricatured as "scientific materialist." All Dawkins need do is declare his starting point, and the conflict will fall back into harmony. It is that natural selection is context dependent, and the following declaration cries out for full disclosure: that natural selection is context dependent, but despite this dependency Dawkins prefers seeing the watchmaker blind.
Comment by Stephen — June 12, 2008 @ 11:50 am
June 12th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Stephen
Hey, no problem.
Bad example; that has the general going to the particular. But I get what you mean.
I think that misses much of the scientific process. The generating of a hypothesis is not (or at least not merely) an inductive process (more a creative process really). Einstein did not determine relativity by induction, but by imagination.
No, that is wrong. The falsification principle is friendly to any claims - however arrived at - that potentially conflict with observation. Relativity fits what we observe; that is the important point.
Looking forward to that.
Can you talk me through how inductive skepticism slips through the falsification net. I am not following this. In fact I am not sure inductive skepticism is a scientific hypothesis anyway.
Again, I am not following you. Could you give an example of how this would work perhaps? I really do not get why we need to worry about how the scientific hypothesis is arrived at. It does not matter if it was inductive reasoning, inspiration from God or a bad acid trip. Somehow we have a hypothesis, we apply the falsification principle to it.
You keep on about this "scientific materialist", without any evidence that Dawkins actually subscribes to it. At least you now admit this is merely a caricature.
Have you read the Blind Watchmaker? I have not, so I cannot say much about it. The natural selection hypothesis makes some predictions, predictions that can be tested in the laboratory or just in animal husbandry. Evolution makes further predictions, for example about the distribution of fossils. The theory of evolution does not invoke an intelligent, purposeful agency, so could be described as a "blind watchmaker". And the theory passes the falsification principle, so is science (but not necessarily Truth, of course). I am unsure why you need full disclosure for any of that.
Comment by The Pixie — June 12, 2008 @ 3:43 pm
June 12th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Pixie, said imagination held by Einstein and others leads to the said hypothesis; C. S. Pierce calls the process "abduction," and it is different to deduction and induction noted above. The creative process is such that by disclosing our pre-given assumptions we find deduction finding harmony with its induction, but from this stark realignment we discover Pierce's abduction as the spark of creativity.
And yes I read "The Blind Watchmaker," cover to cover, and I read sections out of the "Selfish Gene," and so your requested disclosure has been fulfilled without the said pulling of teeth. But I must say, that in my view, Wallace's shoes fit the slippery feet of Dawkins, even as Dawkins pulls away in passive denial.
Comment by Stephen — June 12, 2008 @ 4:35 pm
June 12th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
Stephen
Actually I am saying it can happen any number of ways, and that how it happens does not matter.
Cool. Then quote Dawkins where he indicates that he subscribes to the principle of "scientific materialism" stating that nature can be reduced to physical entities and their function, each isolated from the rest, having no connections save the patterns imposed by the laws of nature. Because getting you to support this claim that Dawkins advocates "scientific materialism" certainly is like pulling teeth, and the process is reinforcing the idea that it is just another straw man.
Oh, and I am still waiting to see why inductive skepticism is a problem for falsification, and indeed why you think it is a science (or why it is relevant if not).
Also waiting for some example of error recognition at the emotional level, giving full disclosure of pre-given assumptions, leading to both induction and deduction falling into harmony.
Looking forward to your full disclosure on all these questions…
Comment by The Pixie — June 12, 2008 @ 6:56 pm
June 12th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Pixie, passive denial by itself does not lead to error recognition. Passive denial only protects its pre-given assumptions by concealing them, without ever taking a risk to offer a caricature through the active process of revelation. But to make a prediction is to present a caricature, and this is the only way the caricature can be falsified in the face of stubborn passive denials.
Dawkins carries the burden to actively offer his pre-given assumptions. But I predict that he will withdraw from Wallace's caricature of "scientific materialism," without offering us disclosures and while claiming that he is a scientists that follows the scientific method. That's my prediction of what Dawkins will do, but this predicted behavior comes off as deceptive. If Dawkins was on the list we could test my scientific prediction, otherwise the exercise is only a thought experiment.
Regarding his prior book, I already noted that Dawkins claims that the watchmaker is blind, even as he fails to disclose that natural selection is only context dependent. Dawkins leaps to his conclusion, and only Dawkins can tell us his pre-given assumptions that permitted such a leap. At least Wallace was willing to volunteer five tenets that would permit such a leap, but don't expect any help from passive denials.
Comment by Stephen — June 12, 2008 @ 8:56 pm
June 13th, 2008 at 5:07 am
Stephen
I have no idea what this relates to.
What does that mean? Science revolves around the idea of making predictions. Relativity, for example, can be used to predict the orbit of Mercury. In what way is such a prediction a caricature? I really have no idea what you are talking about. Do you?
As does Dembski, Behe, Gene, et al.
Is your prediction a ccaricature?
Or is it a joke? You make the claim that Dawkins subscribes to "scientific materialism", but the only definition of this term you consider to be a caricature (do you not know what the word means, perhaps), and you offer absolutely nothing to support your claim that Dawkins subscribes to "scientific materialism", despite my asking repeatedly. Now you boldly predict that Dawkins will withdraw from this straw man position!
That will be because your prediction is a caricature, I expect…
Your demands for full disclosure sound hollow when you repeated refuse to explain and support what your own claim. If you wish to withdraw the claims, have the honesty to say. If you canot explain or support, have the honesty to admit it. That is what full disclosure is about. Or do you only demand full disclosure from your opponents?
* Why is inductive skepticism is a problem for falsification?
* Why do you think inductive skepticism is a science (or why it is relevant if not)?
* Are you able to give some example of error recognition at the emotional level, giving full disclosure of pre-given assumptions, leading to both induction and deduction falling into harmony?
Comment by The Pixie — June 13, 2008 @ 5:07 am
June 13th, 2008 at 5:33 am
Stephen wrote:
And later:
The Pixie replied:
Pixie — you've found a kernel of truth in the unlikeliest of places!
Comment by robin — June 13, 2008 @ 5:33 am
June 13th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Pixie, I really don't understand where your beef is. You looked at Wallace's five tenets, and seem to be okay with four of them. But on reductionism you write:
"……… Physical reductionism: This one I reject. reductionism is a useful technique in science, and the technique relies on the stated assumption, but science does not. Look up emergent properties for counter-examples."
Now this is only telling me that reductionism still requires some vetting to nail down a pre-given assumption. Perhaps what you are looking for is "soft reductionism," but even Stuart Kauffman rejects reductionism to the point where "emergence" is not defined by laws and chance.
In any regard, I see no reason why you and others are unwilling to disclose four of five tenets that Wallace presents, while noting that one of the tenets requires more work. The same challenge will go to Dawkins.
I call for the "rules of science to be fully disclosed," and your reaction is:
"………… No, they do not. Science has its own assumptions (sharing four with Wallace's list), but as long as you observe the rules of science (hypothesis - prediction - testing) your own metaphysics are irrelevant."
And you see Pixie, this does not look like a disclosure to me, but it remains true that your disclosure continues to be the passive denial.
It is true that Behe, Dembski, and others can be called to make disclosures too, but this activity agrees with what I have been saying all along. It does not seem that science is a stand alone that stays out of politics/religion, and as soon as someone has a question do we get disclosure? No! What we find are calls for the "other side" to put forward their disclosers and a pretence of a pure science is presented that need only follow the "rules of science" having no disclosure. This is telling me that the pure science does not exists. This is telling me that Thomas Kuhn was partly right with his debate with Popper, that science is not pure because scientists are not perfect and require a level of error recognition that is beyond the falsification principle.
Comment by Stephen — June 13, 2008 @ 11:28 am
June 13th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Stephen
It is with the fact that you are shrieking for "full disclosure" and so reluctant and to provide it yourself except in specific areas.
It is with the fact that you saddle Dawkins with this "scientific materialism" label, a term for which you can only offer a caricature of a definition, you can offer no support that Dawkins believes this "scientific materialism" and you have the nerve to accuse me of straw men!
What it should tell you is that Dawkins does not subscribe to "scientific materialism." Instead, you seem to want to massage your definition to fit what Dawkins believes. Why would that be?
For most scientists, reduction is merely a tool for studying a system. As a philosophy I reject it completely.
How about because we reject the fifth outright. Yes, that seems a perfectly good reason why I and others would not do that.
And I call for you to support your nonsensical claims. I guess we are both going to be disappointed.
And I stand by it!
Can you give an example an example of this from outside the evolution-creation debate? I am sure you cannot. I am only guessing, but I suspect you are so indignant about full disclosure and the involvement of politics or religion because the prevailing theory happens to disagree with your own faith-based beliefs.
The rules of science are well known. See for example here, here or here. We already have full disclosure on them. As for the assumptuions of science, Wallace listed four of them. Here and here are fair lists of them too (note that Wallace's reductionist principle is absent from both).
Going out on a limb here, but perhaps you had already decided that and you are now trying to find the evidence to support that. And unfortunately I will keep asking you to support your ridiculous claims. Looking, here I go again:
* Why is inductive skepticism is a problem for falsification?
* Why do you think inductive skepticism is a science (or why it is relevant if not)?
* Are you able to give some example of error recognition at the emotional level, giving full disclosure of pre-given assumptions, leading to both induction and deduction falling into harmony?
It is telling that you do not have the honest to face these question, even as you demand full disclosure from your opponents.
Comment by The Pixie — June 13, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
June 13th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Pixie, I don't understand the beef that you carry. Clearly, you agree with four of five of Wallace's tenets, and therefore, you carry a burden to disclose these four. The issue of reductionism remains open, but even this issue can be vetted further.
The issue with inductive skepticism is that this belief does not follow from deduction, as noted by Stove in "Anything Goes." Inductive skepticism came to us by way of Hume and points to a failed deduction, a failure that cannot be picked up with Popper's falsification principle (which relates to inductive error recognition). And the very emotions that you express, the said beef that carries an unwillingness to simply disclose four of five tenets presented by Wallace, the failed disclosures of Dawkins and Dembski, of Dennett and Behe, of Stenger and Johnson, and the mere cruifixtion that I am given simply by noting the lack of disclosure, all of these things are pointing rather strongly to an emotional error recognition that gets forgotten.
I note that emotional error recognition proceeds by way of disclosure. And what do I find? Calls that I must disclose the said pre-givens, which again proves my point; even as I am challenged to disclose my assumptions, and this also proves my point.
Where's the beef?
Comment by Stephen — June 13, 2008 @ 2:16 pm
June 13th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Stephen
When you say "beef" are you asking what it is I am taking issue with, or are you asking about where the substance of my argument is? I thought the former at first, but now I suspect the latter.
They are well known already. There is no need for me to disclose them, they are an established part of science, and have been since before I was born. When I talk about science, they are implicit in that. Most people are happy to accept that.
Sure, it remains open because you are unable to support your claim that Dawkins subscribes to reductionist and do not have the honesty to admit it. Once we get full disclosure from you on this, the issue will be closed.
As I understand Hume's inductive skepticism, he argued (deductively) that any inductive argument must itself reply on indiction, i.e., it is ultimately a circular argument and so should be rejected. However, this is a philosphical claim, not a scientific claim. How can I know that? Well precisely because it fails Popper's falsification principle. There is no conceivable experimental (or philosophical) result that would prove Hume wrong.
One down, and two to go:
* Why do you think inductive skepticism is a science (or why it is relevant if not)?
* Are you able to give some example of error recognition at the emotional level, giving full disclosure of pre-given assumptions, leading to both induction and deduction falling into harmony?
That last one would seem to be vital to you progressing your argument
Comment by The Pixie — June 13, 2008 @ 4:38 pm
June 13th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
I have no doubt you feel something that is found radiating off of the said beef; it is only that I find your articulation unclear, and it remains unclear and ambiguous. Putting what is felt to words is not an easy challenge.
And what we find are now calls for additional rounds of disclosure, now directed at myself. And what I have said about Dawkins is repeated below.
(1) Dawkins does not offer us this emotionally balanced view in scientific materialism.
(2) Dawkins carries the burden to disclose his assumptions in an active sense. In fact, Dawkins does not volunteer his assumptions as disclosures, and so others find a need to nominate them.
(3) Dawkins is unwilling to declare his prepositions; they come as teeth are pulled, which is why he finds himself caricatured as "scientific materialist."
(4) Wallace's shoes fit the slippery feet of Dawkins, even as Dawkins pulls away in passive denial.
(5) I predict that he will withdraw from Wallace's caricature of "scientific materialism," without offering us disclosures and while claiming that he is a scientists that follows the scientific method.
Yet what I have articulated is different to what you are saying.
Oddly, you find yourself fragmenting my words, removing the context, and losing track of the meaning which is repeated above. It is very strange that those that say they reject reductionism find themselves employing it in meaning retrieval. But there must be a better way!
Hume's demand that induction prove itself by deduction is a failure in deductive thought. That inductive logic is real is just stark; hence deductive logic and Popper's falsification principle provide an incomplete methodology for error recognition.
I note that what is needed is a two-sided disclosure that is broad enough to reveal both the wayward deduction and its wayward induction. Because what holds the two sides together is an admitted ambiguity, and the pieces fall into place with enough tolerance to understand that the said heated beef sources our own emotions (otherwise there would be no ambiguity to fool Hume and Popper).
Your additional calls for disclosure directed at me, Pixie, are confirming my observation that error recognition is required at the level of emotion. You find yourself agreeing with me, almost like magic.
Pixie, here is a song that holds the feeling of said ambiguity, it could be no other way with a two-sided ambiguity that slips away from both deduction and induction:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Comment by Stephen — June 13, 2008 @ 5:32 pm
June 13th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Stephen
If you have any difficulty with what I say, just quote the part that is problematic and I will explain it. This general accusation of ambiguity and poor articulation has a rather hollow ring.
For example, I found your use of "beef" to be ambiguous, and so quoted you and asked you to clarify. Hmm, odd that you did not. Such a simple question too. It is almost as though you evade by force of habit.
Oh come on! Surely we have moved beyond this "scientific materialism" nonsense. We have no reason to suppose Dawkins offers us "scientific materialism" is any form. Your whole argument is based on this assertion. If you cannot support it, have the honesty to admit it.
I really cannot see the point of addressing points 2 to 5 until you can substantiate this one.
I have never been that sure there was any meaning.
You keep saying that. What does it mean?
Do you believe that Hume's inductive skepticism is falsifiable, and if so, how? I have put that n bold because it is fundamental to your claim above, and yet I guarantee you will not answer the question. To do so will highlight the nonsense of your argument. If inductive skepticism is not falsifiable, then it fails Popper's falsification principle, and your argument is shown to be wrong. But you know and I know that there is no way you will be able to say how it might be falsified.
Comment by The Pixie — June 13, 2008 @ 7:33 pm
June 13th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Pixie, Stove showed that Hume and Popper's inductive skepticism is just a metaphysical belief. It is not even a deduction. But inductive skepticism leads to the over use of deduction, as Stove demonstrates.
Comment by Stephen — June 13, 2008 @ 9:27 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 3:33 am
As predicted you could not answer the question. Here it is again.
Do you believe that Hume's inductive skepticism is falsifiable, and if so, how?
I am intrigued to see how you evade this time!
Comment by The Pixie — June 14, 2008 @ 3:33 am
June 14th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Pixie, neither deduction or induction is a stand alone: pure deduction fails because it can never justify its prepositions, accept for the help of induction; pure induction fails because the logician can only offer a faith that the inductive hypothesis will hold in the future.
It is true, however, that deduction and induction are starkly given to us. In a practical sense, I don't believe we can reason well without using both deduction and its induction. Deduction and induction are found helping each other.
Hume's inductive skepticism is the strong disbelief in ALL inductions. Attempts to reduce induction to deduction are not reason based. Attempts to deduce inductive skepticism is not reason based, as Stove notes. The belief of inductive skepticism is only a metaphysical assumption that led to Popper's falsification criterion, but inductive skepticism, as a belief, is not open to empiricism. We note that inductive skepticism is different from the weaker position that merely looks to test induction, say by attempting falsification.
So if inductive skepticism is not falsifiable in Popper's sense, what do we do? Answer - we note the ambiguity that exists between induction and deduction, and we re-discover it in our pre-given assumptions. Therefore, we disclose our pre-given assumptions; say the four of five tenets of scientific materialism. Once we discover the ambiguity we may leave it be, otherwise trying to reduce the two-sided ambiguity into a one-sided view will only lead to more ambiguity. Revealing our pre-given assumptions involves our emotions and this exorcize requires tolerance, as noted.
Comment by Stephen — June 14, 2008 @ 11:14 am
June 14th, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Stephen
I think you do not know what you are talking about, and I think the above is a perfect example of how you spout nonsense without a clue about what it actually means. I have more than once asked: Do you believe that Hume's inductive skepticism is falsifiable, and if so, how? Let us see how you rise to the challenge…
Let us cut through the chafe to here:
So you seem to be of the opinion that Hume's inductive skepticism is not falsifiable (I am too, by the way; let us strive for full disclosure). What this means for science, is that inductive skepticism is therefore rejected. Popper's falsification principle has done its job. Contrary to your previous claim.
Comment by The Pixie — June 14, 2008 @ 4:54 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Pixie, you find yourself equivocating between rejecting from Popper's science, versus rejecting as in knowing that something is discovered false. The two meanings are not the same! The error recognition that is needed is still beyond Popper's criterion.
We reject Hume's inductive skepticism, as Stove noted, by showing that inductive skepticism cannot be deduced; and this is despite Stove's claim that Popper also endorsed inductive skepticism. It is true that inductive skepticism finds itself rejected from Popper's science, but according to Stove we also find Popper's science depending on inductive skepticism. Popper's science is found carrying an internal contradiction.
The view that inductive skepticism follows from deduction points to Hume's failed deduction; something we did not learn by Popper's falsification principle that limits itself to inductive error recognition (given predictions that are deduced); we learned of Hume's failure by way of deductive error recognition. But the question does not end here, as there must also be some justification for inductive thinking in the positive sense. Inductive thinking is valid by its starkness; moreover, deductive prepositions come from inductive nominations and without induction there will be no deduction. Developments in Bayesian statistics provide justification for inductive thinking in the positive sense.
Comment by Stephen — June 14, 2008 @ 6:45 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Stephen,
One of the things that I have noted about you is your focus on getting rid of "internal contradiction". You even use it as justification for your Trinitarian tendencies.
Sure, trying to force logical consistency is a laudable goal when dealing with objective Magisteria like science, but metaphysical Magisteria have totally different rules (which is why Gould coined the NOMA idea and terms).
When it comes to philosophy, I suggest that nothing has changed in the 2400 years since the First Western Philosopher made this clear.
It is the wise man who knows he doesn't know the Truth.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 14, 2008 @ 7:35 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
TP, you are right to note that (in my perspective) internal conflicts are strangley felt, and hence disclosure of assumptions leads to resolution of felt tension, and leads to error recognition at the 3rd level of emotionality. This is also the basis of complementary medicine, in my view.
Comment by Stephen — June 14, 2008 @ 8:55 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 10:16 pm
Stephen,
Trying to treat both the Yin and the Yang simultaneously?
My business partner is a control freak too. He would choose to try to control the laws of physics if he could. Fortunately for him (and he recognizes it) I am more of a go-with-the-flow kind of thinker. I'm pretty good at figuring out the big pictures, be they political, financial or technical. While the business finances can tolerate being tightly controlled, the other two can not. Over-controlling technical or political situations tend to make them worse instead of better.
In technical situations, it is like how Michelangelo said he created sculptures. The work of art is there, all that is needed is to allow it to be. In this way, engineering is like art. I see the Yin/Yang of conflicting physical properties and look for what the invention or product wants to be. Occasionally, I verbalise this by saying something like "that's the right way". This often raises the hackels of my cost/schedule conscious partner because it sometimes sounds too risky to him. However, I'm in the habit of bringing in projects under budget and within schedule (even if it means over-working myself) so he goes with my decisions.
Allow me to expand this disclosure into my thought processes to an even larger picture, the universe.
If the universe only consisted of two objects orbiting each other, it would be deterministic. We could calculate the state of the universe for any time past, present or future. Two, simple and counteracting forces make for perfect balance. It follows algorithmic equations. It is predicable. It makes sense.
If you add a third object to the universe, it suddenly because signficantly less deterministic. There is no algorithmic solution. While you might be able to inaccurately model it in a computer, its predicability is limited. It no longer makes sense.
Stephen, this is generally how I view your (and other's) appeal to Trinitarian solutions. It is suggested that there must be three forces, because two is too stable. But why stop at three? Why not four, five, six or more?
If I were a materialist and believed in tangable particles (which I don't) then there would be an almost infinite number of objects in the observable universe making it very unpredicable and senseless.
Yes, we can approximate predictions and attempt to make sense out of something without sense, but it is only an approximation. Like ignoring the moon when calculating the motion of the Earth around the Sun.
And it turns out that the universe is far more interesting (i.e. less simplistic) than that. It includes both space and time, with time being a component of the universe instead of the other way around. Quantum Mechanics directly shows that quantum effect are directly linked in both space and time. There is no such thing as particles, only interconnected quantum effects. The universe is one great big interconnected masterpiece.
If there is a God can you see why I would view him/her/it as an Ultimate Engineer?
Can you also see how an Ultimate Engineer wouldn't stoop to controlling his/her/its Ultimate Invention or even mar it with a tell-tale signature?
It wouldn't be "the right way" to do it.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 14, 2008 @ 10:16 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
Nice grass you're smoking, TP.
Comment by olegt — June 14, 2008 @ 10:21 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
Hi Oleg,
I am a Baby Boomer after all.
It's going to be interesting to see what happens to your generation if an Obama Camelot effect takes hold.
And please don't make me cry by not knowing that during the Kennedy administration it was known as Camelot.
Don't ask "why?", ask "why not?"
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 14, 2008 @ 10:32 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Hi TP,
I hope you're not offended by my casual remark. Particles do exist, quantum mechanics did not outlaw them. Particle physics is still alive: in a few months a spanking-new particle accelerator at CERN will come online. Electrons are still orbiting nuclei. All is well.
Comment by olegt — June 14, 2008 @ 10:41 pm
June 14th, 2008 at 11:54 pm
Hi Oleg,
I'm not at all offended by what you said concerning smoking grass.
Chances are I might be a little more experienced than you concerning parties where playing Iron Butterfly's In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida over and over made sense.
The terms "particle" and "electrons" still exist but they were coined during a time when science was in search of the indivisible "atom". The search for the basic element or elements that combine to make all matter.
We might argue semantics, but the existence of the CERN accelerator supports the idea that indivisable particles don't exist. At best, it is all energy. I like to suggest melodramatically that nothing exists but gravity (i.e. gravitational energy).
Since I know you lean towards the Copenhagen Interpretation, our arguments wouldn't even be academic. We agree too much. We just don't argee on how far we should extrapolate.
This isn't my field. I can extrapolate to my heart's content.
Even if at the risk of being accused of taking mind expanding drugs.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 14, 2008 @ 11:54 pm
June 15th, 2008 at 12:09 am
TP, yes, we thought once that atoms were indivisible. Boy, were we wrong! Atoms do have internal parts and can be taken apart.
But that doesn't make the concept of an atom obsolete. To the contrary, chemists find it quite useful to think about molecules in terms of atoms. Physicists conduct experiments with individual atoms and their nano-assemblies. Granted, when atoms are packed closely in a crystal they share their external electrons and one can't tell where one atom ends and another one begins. But even in that case we describe the solid as a collection of ions with inner electrons with the outer electrons floating more or less freely among them. So the atom is alive and well, we just know more about its innards than we previously did.
Same with particles. Yes, we are aware that a proton consists of three quarks held together by gluons. Yet, for most practical purposes a proton is a point-like particle with a fixed charge, mass, and spin. It's a highly useful concept, TP. It would be silly to declare that, because a proton is a composite particle, we must always treat it as such. We'd never be able to calculate anything.
Comment by olegt — June 15, 2008 @ 12:09 am
June 15th, 2008 at 9:44 am
Hi Oleg,
It is also easier to think of the Sun rising in ths East and setting in the West every day. That doesn't mean the Sun is orbiting the Earth.
As I indicated things like that are semantics.
However, I have noticed how flexible your concept of reality appears to be. Sometimes, you are on the verge of suggesting that differing objective realities can be had simply by looking at the problem in different ways.
I agree more than disagree with you on this. It is part of the "I don't know the Truth" philosophy.
I thought I would point out your apparent flexibility to the listening audience.
Meanwhile, I noticed you avoided commenting on my declaration that "At best, it is all energy. I like to suggest melodramatically that nothing exists but gravity (i.e. gravitational energy)."
Could it be that you would find it difficult to suggest that this view is incorrect?
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 15, 2008 @ 9:44 am
June 15th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Thought Provoker wrote:
Hmmm, I don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about, TP. Maybe you can point out a particular example of my fuzzy thinking and we can discuss it.
It was getting late last night and I did not have time to address that issue. I don't have much time now, either, but here's a condensed version.
The claim "nothing exists but gravity" is as misguided as the previous one about elementary particles and atoms. You don't seem to appreciate that scientific revolutions don't always send the old theories to the dustbin of history. Classical non-relativistic mechanics is still with us despite the advent of relativity and quantum mechanics. It would be totally impractical to stop using classical physics and design, say, bridges using equations of quantum electrodynamics. I find it astonishing that someone with an engineering background would think along those lines. Science is much more down-to-Earth, TP.
Today we don't have an answer to the question "what are elementary particles—quarks, leptons, and various gauge bosons—are made of?" String theory offers a plausible recipe that different particles, including even the graviton, are simply different vibration modes of yet more elementary objects—strings. This answer is pretty much along the lines of "nothing exists but gravity," except that gravity is replaced by strings. But even if string theory gets that right and at extremely short distances and high energies elementary particles are vibrating strings, the words electron and quark won't vanish from the scientific lexicon. They will survive just like proton and atom did.
There's yet another reason not to engage in the kind of reductionism you advocate. Take sound waves in a crystal. At the end of the day, a sound wave is nothing but collective movements of atoms. Would it be a sensible thing to say "sound doesn't exist, it's all atoms?" I think not: many important properties of sound waves become much more transparent when one abstracts from the microscopic details and approximates the crystal as a continuous medium.
Or take fluid mechanics. You can say "fluid is nothing but a bunch of atoms." But would physics be better of without Navier-Stokes equations? Would it be more productive to simulate aerodynamics at the level of atoms? Think about it.
Comment by olegt — June 15, 2008 @ 10:38 am
June 15th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Hi Oleg,
You suggested…
…in a comment filled with examples of exactly what I am talking about.
I meant it as a compliment.
You are not an inflexible, dogmatic "Darwinist".
Yes, you have to maintain a professional deference to established science (after all, you are a professional). Therefore, you have to deny having "fuzzy thinking" by using proper terminology and established concepts (even if they are outdated).
I am a professional too. I have to use the proper terms to say things like "a solid copper buss bar that is 0.5" by 1.0" is capable of conducting a 200 amps" even if I know that matter isn't solid and our convention of showing current flowing from positive to negative terminals doesn't make sense when you consider electrons have a negative electrical charge.
I even have to show deference to the outdated concepts like analog filters in a digital world. Saying that we are simulating a six pole Bessel filter digitally doesn't make sense, but that is what we say.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 15, 2008 @ 11:09 am
June 15th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
That's pretty funny, TP. I don't just play lip service to established science, I use it in my own work. What you deem "fuzzy thinking" is anything but. It's state-of-the-art science. We don't treat crystals as continuous media or as assemblies of atoms on a whim. The coexistence of radically different approaches reflects the complex nature of reality and the limited analytical and computational resources we have.
If we had infinite computational abilities, I suppose we could start with the Schroedinger equation (or QED, or the Standard Model) and derive the flow of air around an airplane wing. But we don't have such abilities and so we have to simplify things and use models that don't start from scratch. But guess what, TP, these models aren't arbitrary! The different descriptions we use agree in the domains of their overlap. That's a pretty strong constraint. Scientific knowledge is a gigantic quilt. There is no fundamental theory of everything and there never will be. There is a patchwork of theories that are consistent with one another where both are applicable, so you can go from the Standard Model to QED to the atomic theory and chemistry, but you don't use the Standard Model to describe airplanes. We don't use a laser to hammer a nail. That's all.
Comment by olegt — June 15, 2008 @ 12:46 pm
June 15th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Hi Oleg,
You brought in the phrase "fuzzy thinking", not me.
It isn't easy to deal with the multiple levels of definitions along with keeping things consistent with historical precedence.
It takes a sharp mind to understand the different ways of looking at things.
At this point I am making a positive suggestion that you accomplish something I strive for, accepting that we can't know the Truth yet actively search for useful knowledge.
Comment by