Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

American physicist Freeman Dyson (1923–2020)

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
Dyson in a jacket
Freeman Dyson (2005)/ioerror, CC BY-SA 2.0

Near Princeton, New Jersey:

A longtime advocate of exploration and colonization of the solar system and beyond, Dyson studied ways of searching for evidence of intelligent extraterrestrial life. In the 1950s he was a member of the Project Orion research team, which developed a working model of a spacecraft meant to carry humans to Mars. He wrote a number of books, including Weapons and Hope (1984), Origins of Life (1985), Infinite in All Directions (1988), Imagined Worlds (1998), and The Sun, the Genome, and the Internet (1999). Disturbing the Universe (1979) and the epistolary Maker of Patterns (2018) are autobiographies.

The Editors, “Freeman Dyson” at Britannica

Freeman Dyson is not afraid to go out on a cosmic limb. It would be wrong, however, to categorize him as a publicity-hungry peddler of headline-grabbing ideas. In his 60-year career as one of planet Earth’s most distinguished scientists, several things characterize Dyson more than anything else: compassion, caution and overwhelming humanism.

In addition to his work as a scientist, Dyson is a renowned and best-selling author. His most recent book, A Many-Colored Glass, tackles nothing less than biotechnology, religion and the role of life in the universe. He does not shy away from controversy: His recent critiques of the politics of the global warming debate have raised the hackles of some environmentalists. But far from wielding his conclusions like a bludgeon, Dyson wants younger generations of scientists to take away one thing from his work — the necessity to create heresies of their own.

TED Page

Freeman Dyson: Proud of not having a Phd “ I think the Ph.D. system is an abomination. It was invented as a system for educating German professors in the 19th century, and it works well under those conditions. It’s good for a very small number of people who are going to spend their lives being professors. But it has become now a kind of union card that you have to have in order to have a job, whether it’s being a professor or other things, and it’s quite inappropriate for that. It forces people to waste years and years of their lives sort of pretending to do research for which they’re not at all well-suited.”

Also:

Known iconoclast physicist Freeman Dyson can talk about scientists’ blunders, including Darwin’s

Freeman Dyson: ” … science is not a collection of truths. It is a continuing exploration of mysteries”

Freeman Dyson comments on ID: “My opinion is that most people believe in intelligent design as a reasonable explanation of the universe, and this belief is entirely compatible with science. So it is unwise for scientists to make a big fight against the idea of intelligent design.” (2007)

Comments
Historically, there have been a few atheists who have had some honest insights and have made some honest claims. For example, Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889-1951), said at the conclusion of his book, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus, ”What we cannot speak about we must pass over in silence.” Specifically Wittgenstein was referring to what philosophers, or really anyone, can say about metaphysics, morality and ethics-- not just very little but virtually nothing. Later he took back what he had said in Tractatus because he recognized that some of his claims were logically self-refuting. However, from what I have seen from our regular interlocutors he was basically right. World views like atheistic materialism can inform us very little about purpose and meaning, morality and ethics or epistemology and ontology. It would be better for them (indeed, they would make more sense logically) if they stayed silent and stayed away. Obviously, truly honest atheists do not show here because they know they’ve got nothing to say.john_a_designer
March 3, 2020
March
03
Mar
3
03
2020
05:18 PM
5
05
18
PM
PDT
Let me jump on this bandwagon. I have generally given up attempting to have a serious conversation with any of the regular interlocutors. Maybe if I'm feeling like I'd like to read some of my own writing on occasion. ;) Andrewasauber
March 3, 2020
March
03
Mar
3
03
2020
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
despite his user name he doesn’t understand the basics of logic. He is not alone. That’s true of virtually all of our regular interlocutors who dogmatically try to advance a materialistic world view.
Sad but true. Materialism divorced itself from reality long time ago. Its followers rely on faith and dogma. https://strangenotions.com/naturalisms-epistemological-nightmare/Truthfreedom
March 3, 2020
March
03
Mar
3
03
2020
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
How did “Critical Rationalist” end up back here again? The last time he was here I decided to ignore him because despite user name he doesn’t understand the basics of logic. He is not alone. That’s true of virtually all of our regular interlocutors who dogmatically try to advance a materialistic world view. For example, back in June 2018 I had this exchange with Seversky who I believe has been on this site In a response to an OP entitled, “As Astrology Goes Mainstream, Will Big Science Start To Accommodate It?” I wrote @ #1:
Atheistic naturalism/materialism provides no answers to mankind’s deepest spiritual and moral needs. It is a morally, spiritually and intellectually bankrupt world view, yet many people irrationally and absurdly cling to it. Why? They cannot give a rational explanation. They do not know but don’t even know they don’t know…
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/as-astrology-goes-mainstream-will-big-science-start-to-accommodate-it/#comment-660948 To which Seversky @ #2 replied, point by point: Me: Atheistic naturalism/materialism provides no answers to mankind’s deepest spiritual and moral needs. Seversky: “I agree. It can’t. But if you assume there is no God then we are forced to confront the reality that we are on our own, we are all we have so where do we go from here?” Me: It is a morally, spiritually and intellectually bankrupt world view, yet many people irrationally and absurdly cling to it. Seversky “If atheism, by definition, cannot provide moral and spiritual guidance then calling it bankrupt for not doing what it cannot do is unfair. That does not prevent us from constructing “worldviews” and moral codes that are atheist.” Me: Why? They cannot give a rational explanation. They do not know but don’t even know they don’t know… Seversky: “As I said, atheists can construct rational worldviews and moral codes. It’s just that they cannot appeal to the unquestionable authority of some deity to support them.” Notice, that Seversky basically concedes each of my points. Of course that brings up a number of other questions like: who is obligated to follow a moral code constructed by atheists? Does it apply to just them or everyone else (society)? Do any human constructed moral codes carry any kind of real morally binding obligations? It’s because of irrational nonsense like this that I have said here many time before, “If I were an atheistic materialist, I would leave other people alone.” Why? Because atheistic materialism has nothing to offer as a world view.john_a_designer
March 3, 2020
March
03
Mar
3
03
2020
09:24 AM
9
09
24
AM
PDT
Critical Rationalist's internet moniker doesn't reflect the content of it's posts. Andrewasauber
March 3, 2020
March
03
Mar
3
03
2020
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT
CR, calling the tail of a sheep a fifth leg neither gives it power to act as a leg nor allows those so duped to think clearly. Nothing in relevant context is non-being, a hypothetical quantum foam or the like is not non-being. KFkairosfocus
March 3, 2020
March
03
Mar
3
03
2020
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
The only “explanation” that the materialist has is an infinite regress of contingent causes… Exactly what does that explain? Of course, I suppose an infinite regress is possible. Okay, now how do you prove it?john_a_designer
March 3, 2020
March
03
Mar
3
03
2020
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
@14 Critical Rationalist:
as we could just as well ask “Why would there be nothing",
This is absolutely stupid. Sorry, I am being blunt, but I am tired of materialist non-sense. Nothing can simply not be, because it means non-existent. . Be is the property of what exists. Save yourself from embarrassment, please.Truthfreedom
March 3, 2020
March
03
Mar
3
03
2020
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
@14 Critical Rationalisr
Specifically, our conception of “nothing” has changed rather significantly.
Err, no... Materialism is trying to change its meaning to salvage itself. But you can not change reality, no matter how much you try. http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/07/fifty-shades-of-nothing.html?m=1 Islamist fundamentalism is less dogmatic than materialism.Truthfreedom
March 3, 2020
March
03
Mar
3
03
2020
06:49 AM
6
06
49
AM
PDT
@Groovamos Why anything exists isn't wasn't the problem I was referring to. Rather, I was referring to the appearance of design in the universe. However, if the question "why is there something other than nothing?" underlies your belief in God, this seems to be parochial (narrow in scope) as we could just as well ask "Why would there be nothing, instead of something." Specifically, our conception of "nothing" has changed rather significantly.critical rationalist
March 3, 2020
March
03
Mar
3
03
2020
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
"It’s unclear how adding a designer to the mix improves the problem." It's OK to be unclear. I'm not totally clear on why anything exists. That applies to my own existence as well. However as a former materialist myself (during two separate periods), I've had the benefit of a lifelong experiment, and trust me, a highly functioning life complete with quite an astounding series of synchronicities is better than the one before where the synchronicities were much more painful as well as can be said for personal relationships.groovamos
March 1, 2020
March
03
Mar
1
01
2020
08:26 AM
8
08
26
AM
PDT
@ 10 Truthfreedom If that were the only other option, then I wouldn’t really be frightened, as that would be an illusion as well. But, fortunately, we’re not limited to the dichotomy that you presented. For example, you seem to have excluded emergent phenomenon all together.critical rationalist
March 1, 2020
March
03
Mar
1
01
2020
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT
If the truth of the matter is “designed,” then by adding a designer to the mix one gets closer to the truth.
First, by moving the goalposts, you seem to be in agreement that adding a designer to the mix doesn’t improve the problem of a fine tuned universe, from an explanatory perspective. Second, on the other hand, if the truth of the matter is “not designed”, then adding a designer to the mix doesn’t get us closer to truth. It’s unclear what problem this solves either,critical rationalist
March 1, 2020
March
03
Mar
1
01
2020
07:20 AM
7
07
20
AM
PDT
@9 Critical Rationalist
It is a collection of truths handed down from on high by infallible sources, which can never improve. That’s a rather frightening proposition, don’t you think?
More frightening than being an illusory self and a meat puppet, the prisoner of a bunch of neurons and chemicals with no free will and no purpose? I do not think so.Truthfreedom
February 29, 2020
February
02
Feb
29
29
2020
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT
” … science is not a collection of truths. It is a continuing exploration of mysteries”
Problems lead to solutions. Which lead to better problems. Which lead to better solutions, etc. We're always just scratching the surface and will face problems we cannot even conceive of today. This is in contrast to theism, in which there can be no fundamentally new moral problems or solutions. It is a collection of truths handed down from on high by infallible sources, which can never improve. That's a rather frightening proposition, don't you think?
“My opinion is that most people believe in intelligent design as a reasonable explanation of the universe, and this belief is entirely compatible with science. So it is unwise for scientists to make a big fight against the idea of intelligent design.”
Intelligent design pushes the problem up a level without improving it. You're left with the very same problem you started out with, which has merely pushed into the designer. Specifically, the origin of the universe's features is the origin of the designer's features, for which there is no explanation. The designer "just was", complete with the ability to design universes, already present. However, we can can more efficiently state that the universe "just appeared" complete with those features already present. It's unclear how adding a designer to the mix improves the problem. UD: Let us clear that up for you. If the truth of the matter is "designed," then by adding a designer to the mix one gets closer to the truth. Why is that so hard to understand? critical rationalist
February 29, 2020
February
02
Feb
29
29
2020
05:30 PM
5
05
30
PM
PDT
seversky:
Perhaps someone could ask the Designer what was the thinking behind COVID-19?
Ask the Chinese. Duh. If they didn't design it then it evolved. Not all viruses are harmful.ET
February 29, 2020
February
02
Feb
29
29
2020
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT
@6 John_a_designer:
... effects of rising CO2 levels, regardless of whether or not the underlying cause of the rise is anthropogenic.
But if we are nothing more than 'chemicals buzzing', we are not any different than these creatures:
Primitive algae: Early in the history of the Earth, primitive algae created oxygen, using photosynthesis, and changed the Earth's atmosphere from one that was poisonous to one that is life-giving. https://www.ontariobeneathourfeet.com/oxygen
If we can not control anything because we do not have free will, then it is just 'natural' selection in action.Truthfreedom
February 29, 2020
February
02
Feb
29
29
2020
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
In addition to his work as a scientist, Dyson is a renowned and best-selling author. His most recent book, A Many-Colored Glass, tackles nothing less than biotechnology, religion and the role of life in the universe. He does not shy away from controversy: His recent critiques of the politics of the global warming debate have raised the hackles of some environmentalists.
Dyson was not alone with his skepticism about climate change. His friend and colleague at Princeton, William Happer, whose specialty is atmospheric physics is also a skeptic about the immanent negative effects of rising CO2 levels, regardless of whether or not the underlying cause of the rise is anthropogenic. Indeed, there are a number of climatologists, meteorologist and other scientists from top tier universities who share this view. Several of them including Happer have banded together to form the CO2 Coalition which states that its purpose is “to engage thought leaders, policy makers, and the public in an informed and dispassionate discussion about the important contribution made by carbon dioxide and fossil fuels. We seek to shift the debate from the unjustified criticism of CO2 and fossil fuels to one based on a solid scientific foundation. Any discussion of climate change needs to address the extent of our knowledge of the climate system, well-established uncertainties, the limitations of climate models, and the consequences of mandated reductions in CO2 emissions…” Here is an interview of its current director Dr. Caleb Rossiter. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=7&v=_QYird73c0k&feature=emb_logo
Climate statistician Caleb Stewart Rossiter is the executive director of the CO2 Coalition of 50 climate scientists and energy economists. He is also the director of the American Exceptionalism Media Project, an anti-imperialist website. Dr. Rossiter has worked in Washington's foreign policy and academic arenas since 1981. He was deputy director of the bipartisan congressional Arms Control and Foreign Policy Caucus and then counselor to the Democratic chair of a House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee… Professor Rossiter was originally part of the "consensus" that industrial carbon dioxide causes climate catastrophe, but began to change his conclusions in the mid-2000's while assessing his statistics students' papers on the studies and models cited by proponents of the consensus. Since then he has written and lectured widely on the weakness and uncertainty of climate claims and models.
http://co2coalition.org/members/caleb-rossiter-phd/ Notice that Rossiter is a Democrat who doesn’t toe the party line on climate change. (Which is why the “woke” or cool kids don’t like him.) So why did he change his views? The data does not support the claims of the alarmists.john_a_designer
February 29, 2020
February
02
Feb
29
29
2020
12:03 PM
12
12
03
PM
PDT
Sev
Perhaps someone could ask the Designer what was the thinking behind COVID-19?
It was obviously designed by the Democrats to make Trump look bad. :)Ed George
February 29, 2020
February
02
Feb
29
29
2020
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT
Perhaps someone could ask the Designer what was the thinking behind COVID-19?Seversky
February 29, 2020
February
02
Feb
29
29
2020
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT
Yes, Jim. The current wildlife evolved from the originally designed wildlife.ET
February 29, 2020
February
02
Feb
29
29
2020
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT
Dyson earlier this month: “To preserve our wildlife as nature evolved it, the machinery of biological evolution must be protected from the homogenizing effects of cultural evolution.”Jim Thibodeau
February 29, 2020
February
02
Feb
29
29
2020
08:49 AM
8
08
49
AM
PDT
R.I.P. Freeman Dyson.Truthfreedom
February 28, 2020
February
02
Feb
28
28
2020
02:52 PM
2
02
52
PM
PDT

Leave a Reply