Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Illusion of Knowledge III

Barry Arrington
September 11, 2006
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

In Illusion of Knowledge I and II we discussed epistemological categories.  In particular, we analyzed what it means to “know” and whether there is a difference that makes a difference between scientific conclusions supported by “direct” observations and scientific conclusions based upon inference.  We also discussed how certain we have to be about a conclusion before we can say that we “know” it is true.  We used the Standard Model of cosmology (expanding universe, Big Bang, dark matter, dark energy) as the launching point for our discussion.

I have always been careful to say that it is not my purpose to disparage the Standard Model.  This is an exercise in epistemology (about which I have something to say), not cosmology (about which I must defer to others). 

Some may ask, why does Barry keep coming back to these questions about the nature of knowledge on a blog devoted to discussing ID?  The answer is these questions recur throughout all scientific inquiry, and it is important to know the difference between what we “know” and what we “think we know” based upon inferences.  In my opinion, much of the Neo-Darwinian edifice is constructed upon a foundation of inferences (inferences compelled by metaphysical, not scientific, commitments) masquerading as undisputed facts.  To assess NDE critically, we must be able to distinguish between facts and inferences.

Many commenters claimed that even though the Standard Model is based upon inferences and key elements of it (e.g., dark matter and dark energy) have not actually been directly observed, we nevertheless know that it is true as certainly as we can know anything is true. 

My question is, will these commenters still say that after reading New look at microwave background may cast doubts on big bang theory?

 

Comments
David I don't really agree with you on the flagellum experiment. A hypothesis is given that the only way for the first flagellum to come into being is through intelligent agency. The hypothesis may be falsified in principle by demonstrating a non-intelligent way in which it can be created. Failure to falsify does not, of course, prove ID because failure to find an unintelligent mechanism doesn't mean one does not exist, it only means one was not found. Fortunately this situation is not uncommon in scientific inquiry and it's why a means of falsification alone is sufficient to establish scientific validity of a hypothetical explanation. It is also one of the reasons why all conclusions in science are tentative in nature (some being more tentative than others). Thus the hypothesis that flagellar evolution requires intelligent agency at some point is indeed a valid scientific hypothesis.DaveScot
September 12, 2006
September
09
Sep
12
12
2006
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
ThePolynomial, since you're up to reading difficult papers, read this on Lorentzian relativity. Again, there are different interpretations, perhaps the more unorthodox more credible. There is in fact contrary evidence to the "standard" model of "expanding space". If any one here is qualified to respond to specifics, feel free. Again, perhaps "God" is not a mathematician. I don't see any thorough debunking of the dissidents; I see the same tone used to dismiss critics of Darwin. http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/gravity/LR.asp http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=9kpgc4td Tom Van Flandern responded to an earlier post by Dave Scott and on Einstein: DaveScot is correct in the context of the geometric interpretation of general relativity. The field interpretation, which uses a physical rather than mathematical basis, indicates this bending takes place by refraction in the light-carrying medium caused by a density gradient in that medium near masses. The only thing wrong with [his] comment is that light has neither a rest mass not a relativistic mass. Instead, light has momentum that is a function of frequency. As such, light waves are similar to water waves which do not have a definable mass either, but do carry momentum and can knock you down. Otherwise, [he] is technically correct that gravitational forces cannot affect light. Instead, light is bent by refraction as it passes through the gravitational potential field (another name for the light-carrying medium). Gravitational forces affect the density of that medium near masses, which in turn bends the path of light waves. Einstein himself said sensible things. He has been deified to justify the nonsense perpetrated by a few modern relativists, who have found it is easier to get published and funded under the guise of “confirming Einstein”. “Black holes” are a classic example. Einstein wrote a paper in 1939 proving that no such thing could exist in physical reality. But nobody today cites that paper. The whole geometric interpretation of GR (“curved spacetime”) is another example. It was just a quaint mathematical coincidence in Einstein’s day, but was developed by Misner, Thorne and Wheeler in the early 1970s, and has become today the exclusive understanding of GR taught in schools. Time is a measure of change. If there were no matter, there could be no change and therefore nothing to measure. Space is a measure of distance. It must all be filled at some minute scale or it would not exist either. The Big Bang is a dead cosmology, having now 50 problems (at last count) and rising, several of them fatal to the theory. But a theory requiring a miracle at its origin was necessarily only a mathematical concept at best because miracles are not allowed in deep reality physics. In Le Sage “pushing gravity”, our current nest physical model for the origin and nature of gravitation, gravitons do not come from matter but have independent existence. Depending on definitions, gravitons could be considered matter too, but then gravitons are a type of matter that does not have gravity because they cannot attract themselves or one another. -|Tom|-P. Phillips
September 12, 2006
September
09
Sep
12
12
2006
09:01 AM
9
09
01
AM
PDT
DaveScot, I agree—and you may or may not know I have long called for biological ID to focus on abiogenesis rather than evolution. I fully support the Harvard research program with the expectation that it will lead to nowhere—but who knows? In the same way I support archeology in the Holy Land, even though in principle it could point to biblical error. What I disagree with is the notion that ID is in any sense an experimental science like cosmology. I agree that the more “real” science we do, the more it will strengthen the ID viewpoint. In cosmology, anti-IDers like Susskind have acknowledged that if things like the String Landscape theory don’t pan out, it will be very hard to answer the IDers. So in my own niche, cosmological ID, I feel the same way. We have no cosmological ID experiments, we have only the real science, which is cosmology, but the results of cosmology will either push us more into the ID camp or will tend to “falsify” it. Detection of another universe, with different physics, will completely falsify cosmological ID. I also see as nonsense the idea that papers against a certain theory constitute proof against the theory or, at the very least, are evidence that scientists conspire against attacks on the status quo. The microwave problem is being taken seriously, its publication bears that out—and it will either stand or fall on its merits, but it won’t be swept under the rug. People who think the scientific community simply refuses to acknowledge their wikipedia links because of sinister motives are deluded, and inasmuch as they may be spokesmen for the Christian community, I find them to be an embarassment. It grieves me when I read that things such as “go into the lab and show how a flagellum evolves” are consider by IDers as proof that ID is science. They aren’t—while at the same time lack of progress in verifying evolutionary pathways is support for an ID position, it is not experimental proof thereof, not even close. The way IDers talk about ID “experiments” reminds me of a Scientific American spoof many years ago, before the four-color theorem was proved. They printed a very complicated map with thousands of small, complicated shapes and said that it could not be colored with just four colors, and they dared the readers to try.David Heddle
September 12, 2006
September
09
Sep
12
12
2006
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
David Now that I think about it even experiments and observations in cosmology are relevant to biological ID. You see, it serves to establish bounds for abiogenesis. In the good old days when it was thought the universe was infinitely old and unchanging, impossible odds could be beaten by infinite timespans. Thanks to cosmology we now know that there are finite bounds on the time and space that abiogenesis hypothesis are constrained by. How familiar are you with astrobiology and the Galactic Habitable Zone? Taking infinite time and space away from abiogenesis wool-gatherers is probably the worst setback they ever had. Spontaneous generation is really in no better shape now than it was back when they thought mice spontaneously generated in grain bins and maggots spontaneously generated in rotting meat. :razz:DaveScot
September 12, 2006
September
09
Sep
12
12
2006
08:43 AM
8
08
43
AM
PDT
David I think you're being a bit unfair to ID. The data it relies on has already been gathered by observation and experiment and continues to be acquired by continuing observation and experiment. Just because the researchers involved are not specifically trying to test ID theory doesn't mean they are not doing just that. For instance, Harvard University launched a research program to understand how life emerged from a primordial soup. I consider abiogenesis the Mt. Everest of complex specified information. That kind of research has been going on a long time. Its success would be tantamount to falsification for biological ID. It's continued failure keeps ID a viable hypothesis. SETI is another research program with the potential to falsify or even verify ID. It's continued failure is also grist for the ID support mill as it serves as evidence weighing against Copernican Mediocrity. Every bit of data that contributes to the improbability of organic life in the universe weighs in favor of ID for it is only intelligent agency through teleological means which can routinely defeat almost impossible odds and bring about things that are physically possible but practically impossible without intelligent agency. Other research is exploration of the solar system where high instrumented spacecraft are sent to examine comets and Mars and moons in the solar system where it's thought life or its precursors might be able to form. The lack of success in finding those precursors also weighs in favor of ID. Just because the researchers are hoping for evidnece against ID doesn't mean it's not ID-relevant experimentation. And I'm here to tell you that said space exploration and SETI play no small role in my conviction that ID is the best current explanation for the molecular machinery of life. Intelligence is the ONLY demonstrated means whereby molecular machinery of the kind and complexity of ribosomes and DNA can be synthesized. There isn't a shred of evidence that this can happen ANY other way.DaveScot
September 12, 2006
September
09
Sep
12
12
2006
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT
Mentok writes: As far as I am concerned space does not move because there is nothing to move. Objects exist within space, but space itself is pure vacuum and therefore has no properties which can cause space to move anywhere. Space is everywhere. The concept of space expanding leaves us with the conundrum of where and what is space expanding toward? If we can go the edge of the expanding universe and move faster then the universe is expanding what will happen when we go past the edge of the universe? If space doesn’t exist outside of our universe bubble then what does? Mentok: The wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space may be of use to you. It's a little hard to understand (noooo kidding), but it may be a good place to begin to understand the mathematical concepts that lie behind the notion of an expanding universe. One thing that is important to note is that the universe is not expanding out from a single central point--all distances are changing, and the universe has no center. It also has no edge. The easiest way to think about this (although, admittedly, it is not really accurate) is being on the surface of a balloon. This is a 2-dimensional surface (you can only walk on the surface of the balloon, not move up from it), embedded in a 3-dimensional space. There is no edge to this surface, and if you blow up the balloon, points can expand away from each other without expanding towards an edge. This metaphor does give the impression of a "center," even though the center's not actually in the space we're talking about, so it's not really accurate, but it's a half-decent start. Yes, this way of thinking about the universe is very counterintuitive, but that doesn't mean it's contradictory.ThePolynomial
September 12, 2006
September
09
Sep
12
12
2006
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT
To clarify, by "their take", I mean Wikipedia's entries.P. Phillips
September 12, 2006
September
09
Sep
12
12
2006
07:56 AM
7
07
56
AM
PDT
Answer to BarryA you wrote: "Many commenters claimed that even though the Standard Model is based upon inferences and key elements of it (e.g., dark matter and dark energy) have not actually been directly observed, we nevertheless know that it is true as certainly as we can know anything is true. My question is, will these commenters still say that after reading New look at microwave background may cast doubts on big bang theory?" Answer: are you kidding? Of course they will! See David above. See Dave Scott's statement on Arp; yes, their take on ID and Bill Dembski is pretty accurate. You note that for black holes Wiki has no alternative views, and their Plasma Cosmology entry is disputed. Hubble himself had enough humility to point out the alternatives; see my earlier post on Carl Sagan's remarks on Arp. Sagan was an honorable scientist in that respect. Now, I don't think the concept of "random" adaptation of life, even bacteria, is verified. Resistant bacteria, as Spetner points out, *lose* information. Of course, will our lives change and people become any more civil or humane or compassioniate if Darwin is overthrown or Big Bang? Will Utopia result? Of course not; I think the common adversary that has made all our lives much more difficult is the neo-Marxist, materalistic ideology, and there must be an interfaith alliance, even of agnostics, to combat it. But I believe dissent must be allowed for good science. I haven't read credible challenges to Bill's or Behe's work; just hissing. http://www.amazon.com/Alternative-Science-Challenging-Scientific-Establishment/dp/0892816317/sr=1-2/qid=1158072537/ref=sr_1_2/103-7099181-1892659?ie=UTF8&s=books Please all of you buy Bill's THE DESIGN REVOLUTION. http://www.amazon.com/Design-Revolution-Answering-Questions-Intelligent/dp/0830823751 [You don't have to buy from Amazon; maybe Bill sells autographed copies!] The above books is: Revealing Look Into Subjectivity in Science, July 7, 2000 Reviewer: W. R. Buckley "college professor" (Indianapolis, IN USA) - See all my reviews (REAL NAME) Many readers are shocked to learn that there exists an orthodoxy within the scientific community that viciously attacks theories outside the mainstream, as well as those scientists daring to research "heretical" ideas. The objectivity inherent in the scientific method cannot control human biases and machinations, however. Science has its share of fanatical, dogmatic defenders of "accepted truth" whose inquisitorial skills are neatly disguised through technical jargon and reductionist logic. Richard Milton succinctly exposes this world and deflates the popular myth that all science is conducted objectively. This excellent book reveals how theories once summarily (and often cruelly) dismissed by the scientific establishment were later definitively proven through experimentation, demonstration, and replication (i.e., the scientific method). The author also presents many currently heretical theories that, despite repeated experimental validation, remain condemned by the scientific orthodoxy. Lovers of open-minded investigations will appreciate this book's reminder to search for ulterior motives when evaluating criticisms of someone's research. Fairness and objectivity, the author suggests, are essential in evaluating any theories. Be alert, though, when subjectivity taints the scientific ideal.P. Phillips
September 12, 2006
September
09
Sep
12
12
2006
07:51 AM
7
07
51
AM
PDT
No, David, the evidence is not overwhelming; it is lamentable: http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/BB-top-30.asp http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=stb9s0ye # # # # # # # # In the mid-1980's, astronomers discovered these four quasars, with redshifts about z = 1.7, buried deep in the heart of a galaxy with a low redshift of z = .04. (The central spot in this image is not the whole galaxy but only the brightest part of the galaxy's nucleus.) When first discovered, the high redshift quasar in the nucleus of a low redshift galaxy caused a panic. To save the redshift/distance conviction, gravitational lensing had to be invoked despite Fred Hoyle's calculation that the probability of such a lensing event was less than two chances in a million! A change in brightness of the quasars was observed over a period of three years. Arp's explanation is that the galaxy has ejected four quasars, which are growing brighter with age as they move farther from the nucleus. The lensing explanation is that the bending of the light varies when individual stars pass in front of the quasar. If the lensing explanation were correct, the quasars should brighten briefly and then fade as the star moves out of alignment. >> Hubble Space Telescope picture, in false color, of the Einstein Cross. At the wavelength of redshifted hydrogen Lyman alpha emission there is connecting material between the quasar D and the central galaxy core. With access to the primary data, Arp was able to show (above) that the high-redshift quasar was connected to the nucleus of the low redshift galaxy. The image shows trails of material from ejection and the tendency for orthogonal ejection from the parent galaxy. >> Theoretical calculations by Peter Schneider et al. of what gravitationally lensed quasars should look like. If resolved, the luminous isophotes should be extended by a factor of 4 or 5 to one along a circumference. Instead of being extended along the circumference, the well resolved quasars are extended toward the galactic nucleus. They are not gravitationally lensed images. Arp reports other professional scandals associated with the Einstein Cross. One is that the central galaxy would need so much mass concentrated in its central region that it should outshine by 2 magnitudes the supposedly brightest objects in the universe— conventional quasars. As an authority on galaxy classification, Arp points out that the central galaxy in the Einstein Cross is in fact a small, dwarf galaxy! There is no way it could satisfy the gravitational lens requirement. But perhaps the major scandal is the suppression, by peer review and editorial connivance, of papers that show flaws in accepted theories—and the consequent misuse of billions of dollars of public funds in ill-advised experiments and wasted telescope time. When the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) was being developed, Arp and a number of his colleagues were of the opinion that "what was needed was a wide field optical survey of the dark sky from above the earth's atmosphere (a space Schmidt). That would have revealed the crucial relationships of different kinds of objects to each other. We would not now be in a position of looking at exceedingly faint objects in a tiny spot in the sky without the faintest notion what they really are." The space Schmidt was estimated to cost between 10 and 20 million dollars. The HST cost between 3 to 5 billion dollars! # # # # # # # # # OK, you are scientist, if you would, feel free refute the above without using emotion or personal attacks. Use a sophisticated, mathematically based argument and I shall listen.P. Phillips
September 12, 2006
September
09
Sep
12
12
2006
06:56 AM
6
06
56
AM
PDT
Mentok: “From actual observation and actual data we find nothing to indicate that space is a substance which can expand or contract.” Except, that is, for the actual observations that we actually make and the data that we actually take. (Not to mention scripture: It is I who made the earth and created mankind upon it. My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts. (Is. 45:12) I am amazed at how common the theme on this blog is centered around what amounts to a conspiracy among scientists. I was a professional research scientist long before I was a believer, and we never had any meetings about how we would undermine Christianity. Of course, maybe that’s just another good argument for predestination. Maybe, even though I wasn’t yet saved, as part of the elect I had a cross or some other mark the other scientists could see, so they knew to stop conspiring when I was around, kind of like the toys in Toy Story. As for how many commenters will still believe the standard model after reading the paper you linked too, I surely do. The evidence for the big bang is overwhelming. It is not limited to the cosmic background, but if it were, I would still place in on ground that is as solid as many other cherished theories in physics. Does it still face challenges? It does—cosmology is a complicated field that, unlike ID, actually does experiments, which is the only reason there is a paper with a surprising result. Since we see no real experiments that, for example, set out to prove something is designed, or set out mathematically demonstrate that it is designed, it may be that a experiment with a contrary result should, to people in the ID mindset, cause an immediate paradigm shift. But that is because the ID community is only versed in playing science, not doing science. In real science, sometimes experiments present surprising and conflicting results. The same thing happens in General Relativity, particle physics, nuclear physics, etc. We don’t abandon successful theories because of a single result, at least not until the conflict is firmly established and alternatives are ruled out—and then we would first look to modifying the standard model to accommodate the new data. The Big Bang has survived many challenges—in some cases it was modified (inflation) and in some cases the experimental problems, such as a lack of super nova remnants, is demonstrated, over time, not to be a problem. What will happen with the missing microwave shadows? It is way too early to say. Of course, maybe cosmologists are meeting at this moment to plot how to save the big bang theory by any means possible so that the Christians can’t gloat.David Heddle
September 12, 2006
September
09
Sep
12
12
2006
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT
Jerry, I agree. It is, however, too much of a task to take on all of the evidence for NDE in a single post. We have to take it a piece at a time. In my recent post entitled “Homology and Homoplasy,” for example, you will find that I was careful (I hope) to give an overview of the standard NDE account that would not be objectionable to the most ardent Darwinist. Then I pointed out some of the problems with the theory.BarryA
September 12, 2006
September
09
Sep
12
12
2006
06:10 AM
6
06
10
AM
PDT
Orion, it depends on what you mean by “direct evidence.” I mean actually observing dark matter or dark energy. That has never happened. The researchers in the article you cite mean making inferences from observations of the interaction of the galaxy clusters. This is clear from the following sentence: “These observations provide the strongest evidence yet that most of the matter in the universe is dark.” If they had actually physically isolated and observed dark matter, they would have said, “we have physically isolated and observed dark matter.” They would not still be talking about “evidence,” strong or otherwise.BarryA
September 12, 2006
September
09
Sep
12
12
2006
06:00 AM
6
06
00
AM
PDT
This might not be the time to do it but since we are talking about how we know, it might be worthwhile delineating just what is the overwhelming evidence and inferences made for neo Darwinism. We cavalierly dismiss NDE but yet the biological community professes it intensely. Just what is their evidence and how much of their conclusions is based on inference as opposed to actual observation. Maybe we should take the Aquinas approach and make the strongest case for NDE we can before presenting what we think is a better explanation. I spent a couple weeks recently watching a Berkeley course on evolution (available as a webcast on their site) that they give as part of their introductory biology course. It was interesting, I learned a lot but it was also instructive that there was nothing concrete presented to support NDE after micro evolution. All the evidence that was presented was circumstantial but it was very persuasive information. It would be hard to argue against some natural mechanism causing the diversity of life after seeing the presentations but no concrete evidence of an actual mechanism was presented, only assumed. The current thread is focused on cosmology but it might be useful to devote some future threads to this topic.jerry
September 12, 2006
September
09
Sep
12
12
2006
05:38 AM
5
05
38
AM
PDT
Mentok is confused. It was Halton Arp who was proven wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halton_ArpDaveScot
September 12, 2006
September
09
Sep
12
12
2006
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT
Many commenters claimed that even though the Standard Model is based upon inferences and key elements of it (e.g., dark matter and dark energy) have not actually been directly observed, we nevertheless know that it is true as certainly as we can know anything is true.
However, we do have direct evidence of dark matter see NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matterorion
September 12, 2006
September
09
Sep
12
12
2006
04:26 AM
4
04
26
AM
PDT
Proofs for expanding spacefrom thaat wikipedia article:
Edwin Hubble demonstrated that all galaxies and distant astronomical objects were moving away from us ("Hubble's law") as predicted by a universal expansion.[1] Using the redshift of their electromagnetic spectra to determine the distance and speed of remote objects in space, he showed that all objects are moving away from us, and that their speed is proportional to their distance, a feature of metric expansion. Further studies have since shown the expansion to be extremely isotropic and homogenous, that is, it does not seem to have a special point as a "center", but appears universal and independent of any fixed central point.
Halton Arp and others have proven the above false. Hubble actually had two theories on red shift. Arp proved that the one mentioned above is wrong and that the other one is correct i.e redshft is intrinsic to an object and not due to the distance and movement.
In studies of large-scale structure of the cosmos taken from redshift surveys a so-called "End of Greatness" was discovered at the largest scales of the universe. Until these scales were surveyed, the universe appeared "lumpy" with clumps of galaxy clusters and superclusters and filaments which were anything but isotropic and homogeneous. This lumpiness disappears into a smooth distribution of galaxies at the largest scales in much the same way a Jackson Pollock painting looks lumpy close-up, but more regular as a whole.
That is a purely speculative idea based on the above misinterpretation of redshift.
The isotropic distribution across the sky of distant gamma-ray bursts and supernovae is another confirmation of the Cosmological Principle.
Again the distance is based on erroneous redshift interpretation. And also from Eric Lerner: "The largest angular scale components of the fluctuations(anisotropy) of the CBR (cosmic background radiation) are not random, but have a strong preferred orientation in the sky. The quadrupole and octopole power is concentrated on a ring around the sky and are essentially zero along a preferred axis. The direction of this axis is identical with the direction toward the Virgo cluster and lies exactly along the axis of the Local Supercluster filament of which our Galaxy is a part. This observation completely contradicts the Big Bang assumption that the CBR originated far from the local Supercluster and is, on the largest scale, isotropic without a preferred direction in space. (Big Bang theorists have implausibly labeled the coincidence of the preferred CBR direction and the direction to Virgo to be mere accident and have scrambled to produce new ad-hoc assumptions, including that the universe is finite only in one spatial direction, an assumption that entirely contradicts the assumptions of the inflationary model of the Big Bang, the only model generally accepted by Big Bang supporters.)" For more on this from Lerner see http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm
The Copernican Principle was not truly tested on a cosmological scale until measurements of the effects of the cosmic microwave background radiation in the dynamics of distant astrophysical systems. As reported by a group of astronomers at the European Southern Observatory, the radiation that pervades the universe is demonstrably warmer at earlier times.[2] Uniform cooling of the cosmic microwave background over billions of years is explainable only if the universe is experiencing a metric expansion.
Bsed on erroneous redshift interpretation. Also see http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org/lernerpaper4.pdf So what we have is a theory which is based on no actual observation or experiment that space is a substance which can move or "expand". The expansion theory is almost completely based on interpretation of redshift as distance + velocity. This is why Arp is ignored. His proof (and others) showing that objects in space which are physically connected yet have vastly different redshifts prove that redshift cannot be used to determine distance nor movement. Yet because almost 100% of modern cosmology is based on redshift as distance + movement, and Arp's findings discredits pretty much all of it, he is ignored, fought against, and blackballed.mentok
September 12, 2006
September
09
Sep
12
12
2006
12:50 AM
12
12
50
AM
PDT
BarryA
Have the courage to address your opponents’ real position, not a caricature of it.
Someone on Slashdot brought up this point the other day and put it very well, I think:
Welcome to the wonderful world of the straw man argument, where answering people's points is too hard, so you just pretend they said something stupid instead and tell them how stupid they were to say it. Haeleth (414428) on Slashdot
I've seen plenty of this on both sides of this debate (and others). It's easier to pretend your opponent said something stupid than to try to understand and deal with the actual point they were trying to make. Or as Solomon said:
A fool finds no pleasure in understanding but delights in airing his own opinions.
sagebrush gardener
September 12, 2006
September
09
Sep
12
12
2006
12:31 AM
12
12
31
AM
PDT
In my opinion, much of the Neo-Darwinian edifice is constructed upon a foundation of inferences (inferences compelled by metaphysical, not scientific, commitments) masquerading as undisputed facts. I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you! :) Elsewhere, those sound like my words saying that the Standard Model is as true as anything we know is true. I'd like to point out that's not what I said. I said expansion of the universe is as true as anything we know is true. Expansion is based on direct observation. No inferences. Expansion is a prediction of the Standard Model not the Standard Model itself.DaveScot
September 11, 2006
September
09
Sep
11
11
2006
11:33 PM
11
11
33
PM
PDT
Lurker writes: “So we’re left with 1) appealing to some group of opinions for our knowledge/truth or 2) appealing to our personal opinion. I’m often told both are the wrong way to go about discovering knowledge because both are wrought with potential problems that can lead to error.” None of us can be an expert on every subject or even many subjects. There is so much to know that the proportion of total knowledge that any one person can master is infinitesimal. Therefore, we must usually be content to rely upon the expertise of others. Consider my recent discussion of cosmology. I had 8 hours of college astronomy 24 years ago, and since then I have read a considerable amount about the subject in popular treatments. As I hope I have made clear in my posts, however, this does not make me even remotely qualified to judge the merits of the controversy over the Big Bang. On the other hand, I am satisfied that a controversy does in fact exist, not on the basis of my personal investigation of the facts, but because cosmologists who are obviously highly qualified dissent from the Standard Model. You are right. The fact that these cosmologists are in the minority does not mean they are necessarily wrong. I never expected to have my views about the epistemological status of the Big Bang confirmed so quickly, but serendipitously a group of expert cosmologists using the very latest equipment especially designed to investigate the Big Bang chose this very week to announce findings that cannot at this time be fit within the theoretical framework of the Standard Model. Does this mean the Big Bang is doomed? Of course not; a place may yet be found for these anomalous findings. It clearly means, however, that it is too early to say the theory is confirmed. I don’t know that I can give you a fully satisfactory answer to your question, so I will just leave you with a few pointers: 1. Have the courage to address your opponents’ real position, not a caricature of it. In his magisterial work "Summa Theologiae" Thomas Aquinas started each section by expounding various objections to his position. Only then did he answer the objections and set forth his conclusion. Some have said that far from attacking a straw man caricature of his opponents’ objections, Aquinas presented his opponents’ own arguments more forcefully and eloquently than they could. Aquinas was not afraid of the truth. He let logic and evidence lead him whichever way it would. 2. Make up your own mind. Once when I was a teenager I decided to dispute the fifth point of Calvinism with my father. (I did not know enough to know that was what I was doing, but you’ll see what I mean). We were in the car and from the back seat I announced, “I no longer believe ‘once saved always saved.’” I was shocked when instead of telling me to shut up and believe what I was taught my father said, “Have you studied it through?” I said that I had (I thought I had but I really hadn’t), and he said, “Well, OK.” I said “aren’t you going to try to talk me out of it?” and I will never forget his reply. He said, “I want you to be a thinking man, and every thinking man has to make up his own mind. I can’t think for you and I won’t try. If you have a position and you can’t meet your opponent’s argument, you must work harder, and if you do that and still can’t meet your opponent’s argument you must change your mind.” In that moment my father simultaneously liberated me and placed a great burden on me. He liberated me from servitude to authority. He taught me that I am not bound by what he or anyone else believed or said. I have the freedom to make up my own mind. The burden is the flip side of the freedom. From that point on I could no longer rest on platitudes, prejudice and received wisdom. I had to think things through for myself. Yes, I frequently came to the same conclusion as the received wisdom (the fact that it is so often true is, of course, why it is “received”), but I had to think, and that’s hard work. By the way, when I really studied the issue, I concluded the Bible teaches the perseverance of the saints after all. 3. Be tolerant – but not too tolerant. “Fiddler on the Roof” is one of my favorite movies. In the movie Tevye, a very traditional Jew, is faced with three crises precipitated by his daughters’ choices for husbands. For the first two daughters he agonizes through the pros and cons and finally decides to support his daughters. But when the third one decides to marry outside his faith he says, no; he cannot bend that far. That is a true picture of tolerance. Love compels us to bend a long way, but the same love imposes a limit on how far we can bend. 4. You don’t have to have a position about everything. Our time and talent is a scarce resource. Judge carefully how you spend yours. Investigate the important things, and on everything else have the humility to say “I don’t know.”BarryA
September 11, 2006
September
09
Sep
11
11
2006
11:23 PM
11
11
23
PM
PDT
adding to my comment above... We only have individual opinions on any particular subject. Groups don't "know" anything. So we're left with 1) appealing to some group of opinions for our knowledge/truth or 2) appealing to our personal opinion. I'm often told both are the wrong way to go about discovering knowledge because both are wrought with potential problems that can lead to error. What do you say BarryA?Lurker
September 11, 2006
September
09
Sep
11
11
2006
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT
BarryA, I always hear people saying "science knows this or that" as if science is a person with a mind. No, science is a collection of individual 'expert' opinions. When I point out they are appealing to the majority, a logical fallacy, I get accused of playing games. I then ask how the person knows the minority opinion isn't actually correct. After all, Darwinism and BB Theory were minority opinions at one time. I don't get a satisfying answer to any of these questions really because everyone, including the 'experts', has their own subjective opinion about evidence, falsifiabilty, inference, etc.Lurker
September 11, 2006
September
09
Sep
11
11
2006
08:13 PM
8
08
13
PM
PDT
If they can ignore Halton Arp's findings then they can ignore anything. A major problem of big bang cosmology is the concept of space as a substance which can expand. It's counterintuitive and based purely on a mathematical construct alone. From actual observation and actual data we find nothing to indicate that space is a substance which can expand or contract. What is space? It is not matter so how do they believe that it is something which can move? As far as I am concerned space does not move because there is nothing to move. Objects exist within space, but space itself is pure vacuum and therefore has no properties which can cause space to move anywhere. Space is everywhere. The concept of space expanding leaves us with the conundrum of where and what is space expanding toward? If we can go the edge of the expanding universe and move faster then the universe is expanding what will happen when we go past the edge of the universe? If space doesn't exist outside of our universe bubble then what does? If the universe has an edge that means there has to be 2 sides to that edge. One side would be within the universe the other side would be outside the universe. But if there is no space outside of the universe then there can be no end to the universe because an end demands something exists outside of the universe i.e something which will be overtaken by the expanding universe. So the theory is a contradiction. Space cannot be expanding because there needs to be an area for space to expand onto. So since space is not a quantifiable substance and expanding space is self contradictory, why is the theory accepted as fact? The only logical theory of space is that it is infinite and pure vacuum, not a substance which can actually move.mentok
September 11, 2006
September
09
Sep
11
11
2006
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT
Sounds cool, too bad my speciality is biology, though ID and Astrophysics are the sciences I like to read for entertainment. Could someone explain the significance of this paper? Is it good enough not to be ignored or will it just be swept under the rug?jpark320
September 11, 2006
September
09
Sep
11
11
2006
06:26 PM
6
06
26
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply