Philosophy

From theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder at her blog Back(reaction): On the one hand, I understand the concerns about breaking with centuries of tradition. We used to followed up each hypothesis with experimental test, and the longer the delay between hypothesis and test, the easier for pseudoscience to take foothold. On the other hand, I agree that speculation is a necessary part of science and new problems sometimes require new methods. Insisting on ideals of the past might mean getting stuck, maybe forever. Even more important, I think it’s a grave mistake to let anyone define what we mean by doing science. Because who gets to decide what’s the right thing to do? Should we listen to Helge Kragh? Peter Woit? Read More ›

The question is knottier than it might at first appear. Ken Francis, journalist and author of The Little Book of God, Mind, Cosmos and Truth, writes at New English Review: The beginning of the universe was a supernatural event, as only something that transcends time, space and matter could cause it to happen. Secondly, if the supernatural is real, then the existence of disembodied spirits is possible. If we are not our physical bodies, then a spiritual realm is more probable than improbable. And it’s more likely this realm filled with spiritual entities would be created by an Intelligent Designer sans/universe and before the creation of earthly creatures. As human beings, despite our many follies, we are also extremely intelligent creatures. Our Read More ›

According to Alex Berezow at American Council on Science and Health: “How do we know what we claim to know?” is quite easily the most important question in science. In fact, the scientific method is designed precisely to answer that question. Through a process of careful observation, hypothesizing, and tightly controlled experimentation, scientists have been able to explain why they know what they claim to know for hundreds of years. Rigorously following this procedure is what separates science from all other disciplines. We’re fine with that but naturalism entails a different approach: Consciousness is an illusion and evidence is an outdated concept where cosmology is concerned. Now here is where the wheels came off: Most aspects of our lives cannot Read More ›

Hmmm. In practice, that depends in part on what people would consider evidence and whether or not they would be convinced by the evidence offered. Here: Planet Earth formed around 4.5 billion years ago. The first primitive forms of life appeared about 4 billion years ago. Natural selection did the rest, giving rise to species increasingly better adapted to their environment. Evidence, as they say, is overwhelming. Or is it? Imagine planet Earth began its existence a mere 10,000 years ago, with all fossil records in place and carbon-14 well into decaying. From there on, however, evolution proceeded as scientists tell us. How’d you prove this story wrong? You can’t. I know it hurts. But hang on there, band aid follows Read More ›

Jerry Fodor was one of the Altenberg 16* and author of What Darwin Got Wrong (2010). Correction: Jerry Fodor was interviewed in the book “The Altenberg 16” by Suzan Mazur  (Chapter 3)  but is not one of the 16 scientists that met at Altenberg in 2008. Pos-Darwinista writes to say that Fodor’s page at Rutgers University doesn’t mention What Darwin Got Wrong, co-authored with Massimo Piattelli Palmarini. There is, however, a link to the pdf of a paper, “Against Darwinism,” identified as forthcoming: This started out to be a paper about why I am so down on Evolutionary Psychology (EP), a topic I’ve addressed in print before.  But, as I went along, it began to seem that really the paper was Read More ›

  From Michael Chaberek, OP, in Aquinas and Evolution: When a scientist discovers the material or the efficient cause while not finding any other, it does not follow that no other causes exist. It simply means that the scientific explanation does not include those other causes. This is not reductionism, because drawing more abstract and general conclusions about living beings as separate substances (or nature as a whole) is outside of science. Reductionism begins not when scientists speak about material and efficient causes alone, but when they (or anyone else) claim that scientific knowledge is the only possible type of knowledge, or that science explains everything, including the mystery of life. And this is not what the proponents of intelligent Read More ›

Sometimes, exchanges at UD come down to truly basic (and hard) issues. This is one such time, where Origenes has challenged prolific objector Critical Rationalist in the Personal Incredulity thread: >>100 Origenes November 25, 2017 at 7:01 pm  CR What is your definition of valid knowledge?>> I have thought this worthy of responding to and of headlining: KF, 106: >> Origines, Generally, I would argue that “knowledge” is used in a weak form sense: warranted, credibly true (and reliable) belief. Drawing out, slightly: Warranted — there is an available account (as opposed to internal to the given knower, who may simply accept a message from reliable sources . . . ) that, properly understood, would justify accepting or treating belief Read More ›

David Snoke has announced a meeting on “natural evil” organized by the Christian Scientific Society at Biola U, January 26-27: On Friday night, we will have a debate between David Snoke (me) and Mike Keas on “Are predatory animals a result of the Fall?” (Mike: yes; David: no). Saturday afternoon, we will have four speakers addressing issues on the general topic of natural evil: 1:00 PM. Non-Empirical Influences on Evolutionary Theory and the Principle of Plenitude.” Dr. Cornelius Hunter, author of Darwin’s God: Evolution and the Problem of Evil; Darwin’s Proof, and Science’s Blind Spot. 2:00 PM. “The Human Genome: ENCODED by Design.” Dr. Fazale Rana, Vice President of Research and Apologetics, Reasons to Believe 3:00 PM. “The Tragic History Read More ›

From Robert Arvay at American Thinker: Many scientists no longer regard us as having any special place. We are no longer regarded as having a spiritual dimension, but only a physical one. We are seen to be products of a cold, uncaring universe, indeed, not even a product, but only a mere byproduct, an accident, an unlikely outcome of events that had no plan, no purpose, no meaning. Indeed. Nearly 50% Americans now think humans are not special. The inevitable extension of this purely physical view of humanity is technological barbarism. If we are mere atoms, biological machines, then by what right can we expect to be treated as anything more than that? Indeed, there would be no rights at all, Read More ›

From Philip Ball at New Scientist: The idea that we create reality seems absurd. But an audacious new take on quantum theory suggests the fundamental laws of nature emerge from our own experiences That woo-woo has been around forever, or at least since the last remnants of the Stone Age. It was one of the things people had to fight, to get science off the ground. Now some are contemplating a mind-boggling alternative: that a coherent description of reality, with all its quantum quirks, can arise from nothing more than random subjective experiences. It looks like the “perspective of a madman”, says the author of this bold new theory, because it compels us to abandon any notion of fundamental physical Read More ›

At his blog: Recently I was interviewed by Matt Fradd for his Pints with Aquinas podcast. We talk a bit about Five Proofs of the Existence of God, but our main topic is Richard Dawkins’s critique of Aquinas’s Five Ways in The God Delusion. We work through each of the objections Dawkins raises and discuss where they go wrong. Matt is posting the interview in two parts, and the first part has now been posted. (podcast) If you think that anyone born after the invention of the Bomb must be smarter than the Angelic Doctor (Aquinas,1225–1274), fetch a mug and sit down and listen. Note: Aquinas points to ponder. See also: How naturalism rots science from the head down

David Bentley Hart at The New Atlantis. “The Illusionist” is a longish essay, reviewing Daniel Dennett’s Bacteria to Bach and Back. Read it all but here are some highlights: In a sense, the entire logic of From Bacteria to Bach and Back (though not, of course, all the repetitious details) could be predicted simply from Dennett’s implicit admission on page 364 that no philosopher of mind before Descartes is of any consequence to his thinking. The whole pre-modern tradition of speculation on the matter — Aristotle, Plotinus, the Schoolmen, Ficino, and so on — scarcely qualifies as prologue. And this means that, no matter how many times he sets out, all his journeys can traverse only the same small stretch of Read More ›

From Sabine Hossenfelder at Backreaction: Popper is dead. Has been dead since 1994 to be precise. But also his philosophy, that a scientific idea needs to be falsifiable, is dead. And luckily so, because it was utterly impractical. In practice, scientists can’t falsify theories. That’s because any theory can be amended in hindsight so that it fits new data. Don’t roll your eyes – updating your knowledge in response to new information is scientifically entirely sound procedure. But she qualifies: Even in his worst moments Popper never said a theory is scientific just because it’s falsifiable. That’s Popper upside-down and clearly nonsense. Unfortunately, upside-down Popper now drives theory-development, both in cosmology and in high energy physics. It’s not hard to Read More ›

From Global News: “And we are still debating and still questioning whether life was a divine intervention or whether it was coming out of a natural process let alone, oh my goodness, a random process.” … Payette was trained as a computer engineer and later became an astronaut and licensed pilot and in 1999 was the first Canadian to board the International Space Station. … She urged her former colleagues in the room to be “vigilant” and aim to make science a topic so well known and understood it is a subject of conversation at cocktail parties in the same way people now talk about the weather or the latest hockey scores. More. If Payette’s former colleagues follow her lead Read More ›

From Emily Thomas at The Conversation: Over the last few decades, a new way of arguing for atheism has emerged. Philosophers of religion such as Michael Martin and Nicholas Everitt have asked us to consider the kind of universe we would expect the Christian God to have created, and compare it with the universe we actually live in. They argue there is a mismatch. Everitt focuses on how big the universe is, and argues this gives us reason to believe the God of classical Christianity doesn’t exist. … The weight of galaxies, and the press of years, seem to sweep us towards atheism. More. The size of the universe would only “sweep us towards atheism” if we wanted to go Read More ›