“There is no controversy”

_{William Dembski

May 22, 2008

Evolution}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

“There is no controversy.” “There should be no controversy.” “It’s okay to expel those who pretend that there is a controversy.” “Academic freedom does not apply where the scientific consensus says there is no controversy.” …

The Washington Post has a ridiculous editorial that elevates evolutionary theory to the same status as gravitational theory and the truths of mathematics (go here).

Meanwhile, the Altenberg meeting coming up this summer brings together biologists who see the contemporary state of evolutionary theory as in upheaval (go here). Yes, the field is in disarray, but there is NO CONTROVERSY. What, are we living in a Kafka novel?

Comments

ba77 Davescot, In glue, screws, and other fasteners it is fairly easy to see that a mechanical bond is formed, thus no work that should draw our attention is preformed. Something must hold the atoms of the screw together in its characteristic shape otherwise there would be no mechanical bond -the screw would simply break apart (which they do anyway if enough force is applied). The same force attracting a magnet to iron attracts atoms of the screw to each other - the electromagnetic force. You obviously have very little understanding of it. I strongly suggest you learn more before writing on this subject again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_force DaveScot_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
08:39 AM
8
08
39
AM
PDT}

Yet I ask you why is the Theistic Philosophy so blatantly ignored as a valid framework in science to make somewhat accurate predictions for what we will find, when the materialistic philosphy has failed so miserably in its predictive power for science before (see post 46)?
I've read your "things that materialistic philosphy does not predict" post.
3. Materialism did not predict the fact that time, as we understand it, comes to a complete stop at the speed of light, as revealed by Einstein’s special theory of relativity. Yet Theism always said that God exists in a timeless eternity.
It appears to me your understanding of "time" is based upon the materialistic philosphy and it's way of understanding time. I.E special relativity. So materialism provides the explanation that you then use to say that materialism does not predict that explanation that only materialism can give? Have I got you right? So, If time comes to a stop at the speed of light BornAgain, does the photon during it's lifetime percieve any time passing at all? In addition, when the photon is passing thru a medium where the local speed of light is lower then the speed of light in empty space does time pass for it then? Does Theism predict the answer to that? I just don't see any possible pratical use in any of your "predictions" you see, not any way that any pratical (or even "pure" science) science can come of them. Shrug and move on.
Yet Theism always said that God exists in a timeless eternity.
And?Mavis Riley_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

Mavis, No I don't, for pure reason dictates that there must be an ultimate source (an uncaused cause; God) for everything in this universe. And though there may be a hidden mechanism between that ultimate uncaused cause (God) and the effect we are studying, I have not a shadow of a doubt in God's ultimate reality nor have I a shadow of a doubt for the ability of pure science to give compelling inference to God through the Theistic philosophy. You asked me what if some unknown (material) thing is discovered that solves this magnetic mystery? Yet I ask you why is the Theistic Philosophy so blatantly ignored as a valid framework in science to make somewhat accurate predictions for what we will find, when the materialistic philosphy has failed so miserably in its predictive power for science before (see post 46)? Materialism should rightly be regulated to a subservient (purifying) role to Theism as far as science is concerned. Indeed there comes a time (long past due) when one must admit that the materialistic emperor has no clothes!bornagain77_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
08:17 AM
8
08
17
AM
PDT}

dmso74, I'm beginning to think that you really don't know what you're talking about since you just recently spouted some nonsense about how Newtonian physics and relativity both "postulate entirely different things for the nature of gravity," Which Sir Roger Penrose has corrected in the quote I have provided in my last comment. Yes, it was an argument from authority (albeit one of the most respected -- by both sides -- and knowledgeable authorities on the matter), yet I did first incorporate my own brief explanation of the matter. Then, to make matters worse for yourself, you state: "my point is that the exact same type of wild speculation that you condemn in evolution goes on in every science." You seem to not realize that evolutionary theorizing speculates on a whole host of complex issues (such as how caveman behaved in the past effects our phsychology today) that can not be tested in the present, do not necessarily flow from the math underlying present data, and so far is not yet built upon a Law. However, in physics the models are at least built upon consistent mathematical descriptions, attempt to explain a Law, and at least have potential testability in the present. Furthermore, wild speculation that is not testable (such as the case may be with string theory -- which still has ground over some aspects of evolutionary speculating since it at least is consistent mathematically) is decried by many physicists as *un-scientific.* You then state: "and “intelligent and open debate” is as much a part of evolution as cosmology, unless you mean “debate including the possibility of intelligent design”, which does not go on in either field." And again, your ignorance of the topic shines brightly. Please provide at least a brief explanation of the information theoretic foundations of intelligence design, then explain how computational evolutionary simulations increase their information content. Then explain how the two do or do not fit together. The same is true when it comes to the extreme fine tuning of physical quantities such as the cosmological constant. And, in physics, you aren't considered a heretic if you ever discuss the possibility that a "super-intellect has monkeyed with physics." Many cosmologists see this as a real issue. So again, you continue to assert mis-information as if you knew what you were talking about. I could understand if you didn't really understand the issue and then asked for clarification. But to blatantly spread mis-information ... that's a whole 'nother bag of worms. And finally you state: "gravitational theory has this same arrogant assumption [that methodological naturalism is the only admitted premise].." ... Which is perfectly fine since the Law of gravity can be described in terms of mathematical relationships. But, even then, if there is a fundamental non-computable aspect of reality, both materialism and methodological naturalism may go out of the window. I, myself, for the moment am a methodological naturalist albeit not a materialist. I do think that at least some physicists believe that materialism has been overthrown by modern physics. However, as I've stated earlier, "Essentially, since an evolutionary process is the “production” of information at consistently better than chance performance, when there is discovered a law of evolution, it will have to take into account laws of the flow of information. Thus, before a law of evolution can be postulated, a complete 4th law of thermodynamics (a conservation of information) will most likely need to be in place." Once there is a conservation of information theorem formally described, then the informational input necessary to arrive at CSI and even more importantly, intelligence, will need to be explained. The only recourse may be a deeper system of intelligence.CJYman_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

I would presuppose the Theistic philosophy to ultimately hold the correct answer for this mystery
They why don't you make a start on working out the answer? If everbody else has missed the fact that "Theistic philosophy" is required to solve this one then the field is wide open for an unknown to solve one of the greatest mysteries since man discovered mangetism. OK, your maths might not currently be up to the required standard but what are you doing for the next 20 or so years?
According to Heisenberg, carbon should not be magnetic, and of course the ordinary stuff isn’t.
The problem here that I see for you is if this "mystery" is solved and "Theistic philosophy" was not required to solve it then does that not cause you to think again about all the other things that you are currently convinced require "Theistic philosophy" to solve?Mavis Riley_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT}

Mavis Riley, As my math is pitiful, I would not hazard a guess as to the exact amount of time, but I would presuppose it to be a very long time since the total amount of energy locked into the atoms is tremendous, as demonstrated by Einstein and Atomic weapons. Yet your question where is the energy coming from? Jesus? is, though seemingly nonsense at first glance, revelent to this topic, for we know by personal experience that clinging to the side of something takes energy. Indeed a man clinging to a mountain would wither fairly quickly from the energy he expended. Yet, mysteriously, the magnet clings and withers not. How much energy would a 10 ton magnet require to suspend, from a massive steel plate, with wooden spacers in between to ensure no mechanical bond, indefinitely? Yet the ten ton magnet suspended from the plate will lose no weight and the steel plate will lose no weight save from entropy. How can this paradox be? Indeed I can ask you the same question you asked me, Where is the energy coming from? Jesus? I may be missing something simple in all this but I find the question very interesting and very mysterious. As for my own personal bias in finding a solution, I would presuppose the Theistic philosophy to ultimately hold the correct answer for this mystery since the Theistic philosophy has consistently been correct over the materialistic philosophy numerous times before (see post 46) I also find this following article interesting to the topic of mysterious magnetism: More Magnets, Please http://discovermagazine.com/2002/dec/featmagnet excerpt: One thing is certain: Neither Heisenberg's theory nor anyone else's for the moment can explain Tatiana Makarova's magnets. According to Heisenberg, carbon should not be magnetic, and of course the ordinary stuff isn't.bornagain77_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
07:40 AM
7
07
40
AM
PDT}

Who determines who is part of the “scientific community”?
I'll attempt some answers! I would say that anybody who has something that produces results is a scientist and part of the scentific community. So, a backyard inventor is a scentist if they invent useful new things. A researcher in a lab is part of the scientific community just as much as the backyard inventor. They both produce results. They are therefore both part of the scientific community.
What were Darwin’s “scientific” credentials? How do they compare to Dembski’s or Behe’s?
Again, look at the results. I'm not so familiar with Dembski's or Behe's work outside of their populist science books. Darwin appeared to revolutionalise his field. Do you mean did Darwin have a degree?
How about those fellows at the Wister Symposium who broached criticism of neo-Darwinism way back in 1966?
My understand of that event is that people outside of biology attempted to critique biology, with predicatable results.
Any similar ever happen with regard to gravity? I don’t think so even when gravitational theory was new much less a century after it was proposed.
There have been immumerable theorys of gravity proposed. I suggest you brush up on your history of science.
And when a group takes over an authoritative body then treats dissenters in ways that violate the the body’s traditional standards (or claimed standards) what are we supposed to think?
What body are you refering to here? And what normally happens in such situations is that the people who disagree split off and form their own body. Happens in politics, religion, sports, everything. It's just what people do.Mavis Riley_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT}

dmso74
gravitational theory has this same arrogant assumption..
You obviously have strong opinions on this. Pray tell, how could research into gravitational theory be improved? What other premise then methodological naturalism should be considered when performing research into gravitational theory? And what benefits (and there would have to be some) would each new premise bring to the table?Mavis Riley_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
07:24 AM
7
07
24
AM
PDT}

the dfference, and i think this is a major source of confusion, is that evolution has come under a lot of scrutiny from outside of the scientific community. Who determines who is part of the "scientific community"? What were Darwin's "scientific" credentials? How do they compare to Dembski's or Behe's? How about those fellows at the Wister Symposium who broached criticism of neo-Darwinism way back in 1966? Any similar ever happen with regard to gravity? I don't think so even when gravitational theory was new much less a century after it was proposed. And when a group takes over an authoritative body then treats dissenters in ways that violate the the body's traditional standards (or claimed standards) what are we supposed to think?tribune7_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
07:23 AM
7
07
23
AM
PDT}

"You are certainly entitled to you personal opinion about gravitational theories. I certainly don’t agree with you, and I am probably in very good company, both quantitavely and qualitatively. But certainly, I will not make here an argument from authority…" So what we both have are personal opinions, which in the grand scheme of science don't count for much. The only way the "goodness" or "badness" of a theory can really be determined is how well it stands up to scrutiny within the scientific community. and both gravity and evolution have stood up to years of scrutiny within thw scientific community. the dfference, and i think this is a major source of confusion, is that evolution has come under a lot of scrutiny from outside of the scientific community. gravity has not. so when you are constant public and legal attack, you tend to harden your position a bit and say evolution is a fact, etc. I suspect that if physicists came under the same sort of contant attacks, they would say similar things. of course evoution is unsatisfactory and incomplete on some levels, but when you have a steady stream of legal cases, political figures saying you're wrong, etc. you tend to batten down the hatches a bit. but you can not confuse the public face of evolution (Dawkins, etc.) with what really goes on in the scientific community. we are merciless with each other when it comes to scientific rigor. go to an evolution meeting sometime and listen to the questions following a seminar. you'll see what i mean. "Your comments about dark matter are really epistemological nonsense. What do you think of dark energy, then? If your point is that cosmological models are still extremely abstract, and most certainly grossly wrong, you are just affirming what everybody knows. That does not mean that they are useless, as long as they are sincere attempts at the best explanation of what is known, and as long as there is intelligent and open debate about them." my point is that the exact same type of wild speculation that you condemn in evolution goes on in every science. and "intelligent and open debate" is as much a part of evolution as cosmology, unless you mean "debate including the possibility of intelligent design", which does not go on in either field. "The philosophical context of darwinian evolution is definitely arrogant: for instance, the assumption that methodological naturalism is the only admitted premise.." gravitational theory has this same arrogant assumption..dmso74_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT}

Bornagain, How much energy would be used by a magnet 1 gram in weight clinging to the side of a fridge? In a hour? A week? A year? If "materialism" were true how quickly would that 1 gram magnet be turned into pure energy and vanish?
Yet materialism is steadfast in insisting that electromagnetism (as well as gravity) arises from a purely material/energy basis and as such. If this materialistic presuposition were true a small but noticable conversion of matter to energy should be noted for the length of time that the magnet defies gravity and performs this “work” of clinging to the refrigerator with no mechanical bond.
I don't see how the second sentence follows from the first. Can you clarify? As such a conversion is not taking place, where are you saying the energy is coming from? Jesus?Mavis Riley_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
06:23 AM
6
06
23
AM
PDT}

I think this following story is telling to this "magnetic" mystery: http://www.johnshepler.com/articles/einstein.html Einstein's Compass This gift may have launched the genius of Albert Einstein When he was 5 years old and sick in bed, Hermann Einstein brought Albert a device that did stir his intellect. It was the first time he had seen a magnetic compass. He lay there shaking and twisting the odd contraption, certain he could fool it into pointing off in a new direction. But try as he might, the compass needle would always find its way back to pointing in the direction of magnetic north. "A wonder," he thought. The invisible force that guided the compass needle was evidence to Albert that there was more to our world that meets the eye. There was "something behind things, something deeply hidden."bornagain77_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT}

Davescot, In glue, screws, and other fasteners it is fairly easy to see that a mechanical bond is formed, thus no work that should draw our attention is preformed. Yet in electo-magnetism the magnet preforms the "work" of defying gravity, by "clinging" on the refrigerators side with no apparent mechanical bond and no expendature of energy/material. If undisturbed, the magnet will cling to the refrigerator without losing strength, until entropic processes dissolve either the refrigerator, the magnet, or both. Yet materialism is steadfast in insisting that electromagnetism (as well as gravity) arises from a purely material/energy basis and as such. If this materialistic presuposition were true a small but noticable conversion of matter to energy should be noted for the length of time that the magnet defies gravity and performs this "work" of clinging to the refrigerator with no mechanical bond. As I stated in my post I excerpted this from the mentioned site, yet it sounds very reasonable to me that we should expect a drain of a power source with no mechanical bond. If I am wrong in this matter and have somehow misinterpreted something, please show me where I have misinterpreted what I read and cited.bornagain77_{May 25, 2008
May
05
May
25
25
2008
04:21 AM
4
04
21
AM
PDT}

BA77 I'm tempted to ban you for posting that something strange is going on with refrigerator magnets. Do you suppose something strange is happening with glue, screws, and other fasteners too? Be VERY careful how you reply.DaveScot_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
10:51 PM
10
10
51
PM
PDT}

dmso74 (#157): You are certainly entitled to you personal opinion about gravitational theories. I certainly don't agree with you, and I am probably in very good company, both quantitavely and qualitatively. But certainly, I will not make here an argument from authority... In my personal opinion, then, both Newton's and Einstein's theory of gravitation (to cite the two main historical theories on the subject) have been very good theories, and have helped greatly our scientific progress, both with what they have explained and with what they have not explained. Both theories have certainly been the best theoretical synthesis about that argument at the time they were formulated. Both are deep, creative, accurate, at least at some degree. Both are incomplete and unsatisfactory: gravitation is still a big mystery, and neither Newton nor Einstein have ever tried to deny that. Your comments about dark matter are really epistemological nonsense. What do you think of dark energy, then? If your point is that cosmological models are still extremely abstract, and most certainly grossly wrong, you are just affirming what everybody knows. That does not mean that they are useless, as long as they are sincere attempts at the best explanation of what is known, and as long as there is intelligent and open debate about them. Philosophical arrogance has really very much to do with a theory's validity. As I have tried to point out, any scientific theory is made up of both philosophical and methodological assumptions, and logico-mathematical structures (laws). They are not the same thing. The general context of a theory, and especially of a general theory like darwinian evolution, and its methodological assumptions, are indeed philosophical choices, and as such they should be judged. The philosophical context of darwinian evolution is definitely arrogant: for instance, the assumption that methodological naturalism is the only admitted premise, the constant need to pass arbitrary descriptions for explanations, the frequent denial that credible causal mechanisms have to be found, the fear to compare with alternative explanations like ID, the absurd necessity to "explain" all and the contrary of all (just look at evolutionary psychology!), all these are evident marks of philosophical arrogance. That arrogance is matched only by the related cognitive triviality of darwinian evolution, which has nothing to do, as you suggest, with the concept that "the more complicated the equations are or the more difficult something is to understand, the better the science? ". Darwinian evolution is trivial because it never attempts to build a causal model which is really credible, it never verifies the mathemathical and statistical resources of its model (a model, let's remind it, which is vastly based on statistical considerations), it never considers alternative explanations of facts, not even for a moment, it constantly creates cognitive biases (like passing evidence for common descent as evidence for causal mechanism), it boldly denies any serious epistemology (like constantly promoting theories as facts), and so on. All of that is trivial at best. Serious science is made by people who are aware of the mysteries they are dealing with, while trying to explain them. The apparent acceleration of the expansion of the universe is at present one of the biggest observational mysteries we know of. Dark energy theories (indeed, they still cannot even be called theories) are a painful and initial attempt to understand that, but nobody is denying the magnitude of the mystery. Biology has been facing for decades an observational mystery whose magnitude is even greater: the astounding information in living beings, whose complexity and quality have increasingly been understood, and are being understood with each passing day. The general attitude of darwinian evolution has been to deny that, to stick to explanations which don't explain anything. Any new attempt at reviewing the fundamental model (puctuated equilibrium, evo devo, and so on) is unfortunately flawed in the same way: it does not try to build a credible causal model for what it pretends to explain. Indeed, as I have often pointed out, the new variants of evolutionary theory, with their forced awareness of the limits of the basic model of RV + NS, are even less powerful at the level of causal explanation. So, when I wrote of philosophical arrogance and cognitive triviality, I was not joking: I really meant it.gpuccio_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
10:29 PM
10
10
29
PM
PDT}

*EDIT* my apologies, in my last post ... "[as theoretical physicist Lee Smolin puts it]" ... should not be at the end of the second last paragraph. It should come after ... "Which is why, in accordance with the subject of this post, there *is* controversy and a potentially necessary revamping of some foundational assumptions in order to “make everything actually work at a fundamental level.”"CJYman_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
09:34 PM
9
09
34
PM
PDT}

dmso74: "so they are both true, even though they use entirely different principles (force vs spacetime curvature) and postulate entirely different things for the nature of gravity?" Yah ... ummmm .... you might want to check into what you're saying here before you go spreading some major mis-information. Einstein did *not* negate Newton's work. The math still describes observation ... just not at every scale. That is why Einstein's work provided additional precision, so to speak. Einstein did not create a whole separate law of gravity ... it was an extension. I now quote Sir Roger Penrose: "Current physics ideas will survive as limiting behavior, in the same sense that Newtonian mechanics survives relativity. Relativity modifies Newtonian mechanics, but it doesn't really supplant it. Newtonian mechanics is still there as a limit. In the same sense, quantum theory, as we now use it, and classical physics, which includes Einstein's general theory, are limits of some theory we don't yet have." http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/v-Ch.14.html dmso74: "and does your definition of a “Law” mean something is universally true?" "my" definition? Yes, among other things (such as mathematical description of observation), a Law is universally true. Mavis Riley: "What is the best “theory of gravity” that you are aware of?" There is as of yet no complete theory of gravity which has been tested. I do personally believe that a quantum theory may come out on top since at least there are some tests that have been designed that may not be too far away and may be quite practical within the next ten years. However, the only point that I am making right now is the one that is consistent with the topic of this thread ... and I quote myself from above: "That is about the only equivalence between gravitational and evolutionary theory. Which is why, in accordance with the subject of this post, there *is* controversy and a potentially necessary revamping of some foundational assumptions in order to “make everything actually work at a fundamental level.” However, that’s about where the similarities end. Evolutionary theory is not near as well founded as gravitational theory, since as I’ve briefly stated earlier, unlike with gravity, there isn’t yet a law of evolution. Essentially, since an evolutionary process is the “production” of information at consistently better than chance performance, when there is discovered a law of evolution, it will have to take into account laws of the flow of information. Thus, before a law of evolution can be postulated, a complete 4th law of thermodynamics (a conservation of information) will most likely need to be in place [as theoretical physicist Lee Smolin puts it]." Thus, as the topic of this post puts it ... of course there's no controversy CJYman_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT}

This site really has some nuggets: http://www.thefinaltheory.com/scienceflaws.html He mentions that many problems arise when we realize that gravity has no "material/energy" power source: excerpt: 1) Gravitational Perpetual Motion: As we all know, perpetual motion machines are impossible, and claims of such devices are a clear sign of bad science. No device (or natural phenomenon) can expend energy without draining a power source, and certainly cannot operate with no power source at all. Yet our science states that an object dropped into a tunnel cut through the Earth would be accelerated to the center by gravity, then decelerated as it approached the other end, only to be accelerated down again, over and over – endlessly. Even our most elementary physics states that it takes energy expenditure from a known power source to accelerate and decelerate objects, yet there is no power source in site here, let alone a draining one. Despite detailed atomic theories and even having split the atom, science has never identified a gravitational power source. This describes an actively operating mechanism that never ends and never drains a power source – an impossible perpetual motion scenario, according to today’s physics. as well as this: Q: How can a fridge magnet cling against gravity endlessly without draining a power source? A: It can't ... fridge magnets are impossible according to today's science. It certainly takes tremendous energy to cling to the side of a cliff, supporting our own weight against gravity, and before long we would tire and fall. Yet a fridge magnet clings endlessly to the fridge by magnetic energy. And, as both our science and our experience tell us, such an expenditure of energy requires that a power source be drawn upon to support such effort. Yet a permanent magnet not only maintains its strength indefinitely (no theory or text- book shows the power drain characteristics of a permanent magnet as it clings against the pull of gravity), but there isn’t even a power source in sight! Endless magnetic energy apparently emanates from permanent magnets without any explanation in our science. The only explanation that any physicist will give for this mystery is that there is no mystery since the magnet isn't moving, which gives a zero result if you plug this into the Work equation – a severely flawed diversionary tactic that was exposed above. No physicist will acknowledge the error of applying the Work equation to deny the ongoing magnetic energy expenditure, nor agree that a power source is required to cling energetically against gravity. This excerpt from an article on magnetism in Discover Magazine, Dec. 2002, further makes this point: Thus what is the rational for presupposing that Gravity and Electro-magnetism have a material/energy basis when that inference is not warranted. Dark matter is not warranted and is only added because of undue allegiance to materialism.bornagain77_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
05:17 PM
5
05
17
PM
PDT}

Bornagain, no disrespect intended but if theism had some, any, relation to higher dimensions would maths and physics classes not be full of converts to *some* religion or other? I could persuasively argue that they are already full of religious converts of some persuasion or other if I were to count materialism as a religion. Which I rightly think is proper in the grand scheme of metaphysical presumptions.bornagain77_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

"I thought that was what they were supposed to do? I guess it’s a useful idea at some practical level? Even if it’s not the right solution in the end maybe it will help get us a little closer?"
Yes but we obviously are primarily debating about truth and facts. Gravity whatever it is exists not only as a mathematically constructed representation of things but also empirically as a mysterious mover that we know by its effects. It is much like design and intelligence in this way. Dark matter however unlike gravity by necessity does not start off empirically detectible at all. It is first synthesized through physics and then speculated into a working theory about "invisible" matter. Everyone has a right to be skeptical about that theory. And it is still JUST a theory. Alternatives to it I might add speculate that we have in insufficient understanding of gravity and that should account for the inferred missing matter. I find this concept far more realistic and appealing. Nonetheless I give dark matter a fair shake. It could be true. But what annoys me about it is that it is becoming one of the sacred cows of science that no one is allowed to question. It is very questionable and should be questioned at every turn just like every other scientific theory and no “consensus” is a reason good enough to change that. A consensus exists only when people stop questioning. If they stop questioning because it's not popular to or because there is no interest in the subject then sceince suffers but if the questioning stops because there are no new questions to ask then you can feel fairly content that the current theory is correct. Dark matter is far from this point.Frost122585_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
04:28 PM
4
04
28
PM
PDT}

For example, I think “dark matter” is just something physicists made up
I thought that was what they were supposed to do? I guess it's a useful idea at some pratical level? Even if it's not the right solution in the end maybe it will help get us a little closer? I like the idea that gravity behaves differently on very large scales to how it behaves on smaller scales.Mavis Riley_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

I'm afraid I personally cannot abide this talk of higher dimensions holding the solution. What if they get discarded in sciences next reshuffle? Where does that leave you ? Bornagain, no disrespect intended but if theism had some, any, relation to higher dimensions would maths and physics classes not be full of converts to *some* religion or other? When I'm painting or walking, maybe near a lake, that is more important then "higher dimensions".Mavis Riley_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

gpuccio: I think gravitational theory is a bad theory. THere are numerous flaws in it, places where it is inconsistent, areas that have never been empirically verified or even tested, rampant speculation, etc. For example, I think "dark matter" is just something physicists made up when it looked like some observations of the speed of stars would contradict their precious ToG. It has never been observed and can't even be measured. I'll ignore "philosophical arrogance" (what does this have to do with a theory's validity) and "cognitive triviality" (so the more complicated the equations are or the more difficult something is to understand, the better the science? I would say the opposite is true).dmso74_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT}

Disagree if you want, but I maintain that it is not a logical disagreement of yours that has come through your reasoning but a gut reaction emotional responce. As for myself I'm betting on the philosophical horse that has won every race it has faced in foundational science. That philosophical horse is Theism (see post 46)bornagain77_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
03:28 PM
3
03
28
PM
PDT}

bornagain, That was interesting. And while I disagree with your conclusion about theism being the solution, I think we can both agree that it is perfectly fair to say that evolution is as well-settled as gravity; that is to say, not very settled.dmso74_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
03:06 PM
3
03
06
PM
PDT}

dmso74: Laws are logico-mathemathical formulations which, in the context of a specific theory, try to explain known facts in terms of necessity, and if possible to predict new observable facts. There is no relationship between the concept of law and the concept of truth, universal or not. A law is defined in the context of a scientific theory. A scientific theory is a complex product of the human mind, and it may include laws, assumptions, general interpretations of reality, and a lot of other things. In general, however, asicnetific theory should have some consistent logico-mathemathical structure to be interesting, and laws are part of that structure. That has nothing to do with the concept of truth. A scientific theory is never universally true. In a sense, it can never be true at all. A scientific theory is a good theory if it gives a good, consistent and credible explanation of known facts, or at least the best explanation available, or at least one of the best. Better still if it is supported by new facts, which were predicted by the theory. However, any scientific theory, however good, can always be falsified at some time by new facts, or by better theories. Therefore, no scientific theory is ultimately true. That's not really a limit of scientific theories: indeed, it is a remarkable quality of the same. The existing theories of gravity, with their inherent laws, may certainly be in a state of flux. But they have been, and still are, good theories. They are good theories in a state of flux. Darwinian evolution, instead, is certainly in a state of flux, but the difference is that it is, and ever has been, a very bad theory: inconsistent, empirically unsupported, philosophically arrogant, cognitively trivial. That's why comparing the theories of gravitation with the theory of darwinian evolution is, at best, ridiculous: it's like comparing Shakespeare to some mediocre commercial writer of our times (I will make no names, to respect anyione's sensibility or taste). It's not a question of flux: it's a question of quality and value.gpuccio_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT}

I found this comment interesting: http://www.thefinaltheory.com/scienceflaws.html Q: What is gravity? A: The answer cannot be found in today's theories. Newton only claimed that gravity was an attracting force between all objects because that's the way things appear -- objects fall to the Earth or approach each other when floating in outer space. So Newton understandably claimed that it must be some type of attracting force emanating from objects, but he gave no scientific explanation for this force. Why does it attract and not repel? How does it cause falling objects and orbiting planets without drawing on any known power source? Einstein was so dissatisfied with our lack of understanding about gravity even two centuries after Newton that he invented an entirely new theory of gravity, known as General Relativity. Yet this theory doesn’t solve these problems either, adding that since everything in 3-dimensional space takes time to occur we must include our time measurement as a literal 4th physical dimension of our universe’s structure -- hence "4-D space-time", which somehow warps 4-dimensionally in the presence of matter for still-unexplained reasons, presumably explaining gravity. In addition to the increase in unanswered questions with General Relativity, it has been found to completely fail even to explain the motion of stars in galaxies. This has led to the further invention of exotic "Dark Matter", said to invisibly fill galaxies, rather than questioning Einstein’s theory and the often-repeated claim that it has been tested to extreme accuracy. Add to this the fact that there are still a half-dozen theories of gravity officially under consideration at the moment, all with different physical description of gravity, and it is no wonder many are still asking: "What is gravity?" From "Nailing Down Gravity", Discover Magazine, Oct 2003: For Michael Martin Nieto, a theoretical physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, the mystery involves much more than a few hunks of spacefaring hardware; it reveals that there might be something wrong with our understanding of gravity, the most pervasive force in the universe. "We don't know anything," he says. "Everything about gravity is mysterious" As for my two cents, I feel that Gravity will defy explaination until the proper Theistic (higher dimension) approach is used in solving it. This position I hold is reasonable because, Just like every other discovery, of major signifigance in science, (see post #46) the most satisfactory solution for explaining gravity will not come from the materialistic philosophy but from the Theistic philosophy.bornagain77_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
02:51 PM
2
02
51
PM
PDT}

dmso74 - What is your definition of a law? CJYman - What is the best "theory of gravity" that you are aware of?Mavis Riley_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
02:03 PM
2
02
03
PM
PDT}

so they are both true, even though they use entirely different principles (force vs spacetime curvature) and postulate entirely different things for the nature of gravity? and does your definition of a "Law" mean something is universally true?dmso74_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

... or "refined" it.CJYman_{May 24, 2008
May
05
May
24
24
2008
01:04 PM
1
01
04
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 … 8 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply