Is “string theory world” in some trouble?

_{Denyse O'Leary

July 23, 2021

Cosmology, Intelligent Design, Physics}

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

Is Cool cosmology not getting results? Columbia mathematician Peter Woit, admittedly a critic, comments:

For quite a few years now, I’ve been mystified about what is going on in string theory, as the subject has become dominated by AdS/CFT inspired work which has nothing to do with either strings or any visible idea about a possible route to a unified fundamental theory. …
Peter Woit, “Deterioration of the World’s Thinking About the Deepest Stringy Ideas” at Not Even Wrong

The fun part is this quote:

This superficial approach – in which people reduced their understanding of string theory and its amazing properties to some mundane, constantly repetitive ideas about AdS/CFT, especially those that are just small superconstructions added on top of 4D quantum field theories – got even worse in the recent decade when the “quantum information” began to be treated as a part of “our field”. Quantum information is a legitimate set of ideas and laws but I think that in general, this field adds nothing to the fundamental physics so far which would go beyond the basic postulates of quantum mechanics…
Lubos Motl, “Evolution, deterioration of the world’s thinking about the deepest stringy ideas” at The Reference Frame (July 11, 2021)

And Woit adds,

According to Lubos, he’s not the only one who feels this way, with an “anonymous Princeton big shot” agreeing with him (hard to think of anyone else this could be other than Nima Arkani-Hamed)
Peter Woit, “Deterioration of the World’s Thinking About the Deepest Stringy Ideas” at Not Even Wrong

Nima Armani-Hamed has crossed our screen before.

Some of us think string theory only existed in order to give a bizarre twist to the fine-tuning of our universe and to create a basis for believing that there is an uncountable infinity of universes out there instead. Apart from that, it may be hard to see much point. We shall see.

Gossip is fun when it doesn’t hurt anyone.

Comments

BA77 - your responses throughout this thread are excellent. Put all together they're a masterful argument. Great resources for further study also - quotes right from the credentialed science. Thank you.Silver Asiatic_{July 31, 2021
July
07
Jul
31
31
2021
11:42 AM
11
11
42
AM
PDT}

News, well it was an interesting idea to see particles as tiny vibrating strings in m/n dimensions and where that takes you. Now, it may be approaching a pre-Copernican moment, or at least the young turks may be hoping for something new. KFkairosfocus_{July 30, 2021
July
07
Jul
30
30
2021
01:13 AM
1
01
13
AM
PDT}

Q, attn Jack [et al]: coming a full day on and nary a nibble on the fat juicy worm. One wonders why, but let's see. KFkairosfocus_{July 30, 2021
July
07
Jul
30
30
2021
01:04 AM
1
01
04
AM
PDT}

Heh. Sorry, just can't make myself do it, ZWeston. How about you? -QQuerius_{July 29, 2021
July
07
Jul
29
29
2021
09:13 PM
9
09
13
PM
PDT}

Q, why did you spoil the fun... should have went for it.zweston_{July 29, 2021
July
07
Jul
29
29
2021
07:23 PM
7
07
23
PM
PDT}

Thanks for your observations, Kairosfocus. ET, arguing from extreme ignorance is unfortunately not uncommon, just embarrassing. But as they say, "Two can play at this game." If I were as disingenuous as some of the sock puppets here, I could incarnate as an innocent victim of Darwinist indoctrination--a sort of Little Red Riding Hood in the dark forest of scientific controversy and a failed 19th century racist theory. It might start like this . . .
ClassOf2024 Hi, I'm a high school Sophomore taking Biology and I'm wondering why everybody doesn't believe in evolution. Our Biology teacher says that evolution is a fact and only religious people don't believe in it. I want to study environmental science in college, but I want to understand why some people are so anti science and anti-vax. Can anybody here tell me why they don't believe in science? Thanks, Kyra
Then, 81 comments later, "Kyra" responds with
ClassOf2024 But I don't understand why our Biology teacher always says that evolution is a proven fact.
Then, 114 comments later she writes
ClassOf2024 Ok, I can now see that there's a lot of new evidence and I should keep an open mind.
At this point, several sock puppets are acting like stark raving lunatics in their comments, but Little Red Riding Kyra is slowly moving forward toward Intelligent Design, apparently being convinced by the persuasive posts and insightful information presented . . . LOL -QQuerius_{July 29, 2021
July
07
Jul
29
29
2021
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT}

I was just pointing out that "Jack" argues from extreme ignorance.ET_{July 29, 2021
July
07
Jul
29
29
2021
08:13 AM
8
08
13
AM
PDT}

Jack, I will be direct: 1: Kindly provide a single actually observed case where blind chance and/or mechanical necessity have caused functionally specific configuration based function beyond 500 - 1,000 bits of complexity: __________ 2: I confidently assert that you cannot do so, nor can any objector to the design inference, you will know that such were tried for years and failed consistently. 3: I further assert Newton's rule, if we cannot directly observe a causal factor and can only observe traces, then we have a right to insist that candidate causes be shown to have ability to generate the effects in question, in our observation. 4: Observe that cell based life has in it D/RNA technology, exhibiting digital code [4-state, GCAT/U], expressing complex algorithms, a technology central to life. 5: This is language, and algorithms. These have precisely one known and plausible cause, design. That is inteligently directed configuration. 6: We confidently infer, life, based on core technologies involved, is designed. 7: Needless distractions are utterly irrelevant and indeed trying to stir up distractive toxic quarrels simply shows that there is intent to evade and suppress a core point that is most inconvenient to a preferred agenda. KFkairosfocus_{July 29, 2021
July
07
Jul
29
29
2021
04:53 AM
4
04
53
AM
PDT}

Q, you are right. The general rhetorical strategy is to find red herring distractors, drag away from an inconvenient focus and lead away to strawman caricatures soaked in ad hominems. Set alight, to cloud, poison, polarise and confuse the issue, frustrating serious discussion. If you are getting heavy flak, you are over the target, aim and drop bombs, though that takes a real effort. KFkairosfocus_{July 29, 2021
July
07
Jul
29
29
2021
04:08 AM
4
04
08
AM
PDT}

ET, there is no need to entertain village atheist anti-bible rants. Those perplexed are advised to see Paul Copan and WL Craig etc. KFkairosfocus_{July 29, 2021
July
07
Jul
29
29
2021
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

Jack labels practically everyone here as "religious nut jobs' with a few 'rational posters'. And he gives WJM as an example of a 'rational poster'. :) How does he differentiate "religious nut jobs' from the few 'rational posters'? Well he holds that if you "think it’s sometimes ok for babies to be murdered as long as “God commanded it”, then you are a 'religious nut job'. And apparently he also believes that if you are given to some type of mystical New Age mumbo jumbo, like WJM is, where basically we become gods unto ourselves, then you are a 'rational poster'. I guess Shirley MacLaine, if she commented here, would be considered a 'rational poster' in Jack's book? :) And while, on the surface, (for anyone not familiar with the apologetics for exactly why God commanded some of these evil ancient cultures to be destroyed),,,
Moral Objections to the Old Testament? - Peter Williams - Cambridge - video https://youtu.be/e0rCsQixNIg?t=78 Dr. Peter Williams is the Warden and CEO of Tyndale House Cambridge and a lecturer on the Hebrew language at the University of Cambridge. He earned his M.A., M.Phil., and Ph.D. at Cambridge University studying ancient languages related to the Bible.
And while, on the surface, (for anyone not familiar with the apologetics), being against 'murdering babies' certainly seems like a very reasonable and sensible criteria for differentiating "religious nut jobs' from the few 'rational posters' here on UD, it seems to me, in Jack's rush to label God as a "Moral Monster" for destroying evil ancient cultures, that Jack is forgetting that we currently live in a 'evil' culture where 'murdering babies' is, practically speaking, conducted on an industrial scale.
At 1,200,000, Abortion is the leading cause of deaths each year in the USA - graph http://skepchick.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/10449486_10154444727070445_6800239725838679585_n-e1406834704889.jpg
Where is Jack's moral outrage for that industrial scale murdering of babies? It appears to be readily apparent that if Jack were to be consistent in his moral outrage, rather than just being selectively outraged at God for destroying evil ancient cultures, then Jack should be even more morally outraged at God for allowing the 'murdering of babies' on such an industrial scale, and demand that God destroy such evil cultures that practice the murdering of babies on such an industrial scale. But alas, that would defeat Jack's entire argument since God destroyed these evil ancient cultures for, among other evil deeds, widespread child sacrifice, i.e. exactly for 'murdering babies'.
Child Sacrifice in Ancient Israel - By Heath D. Dewrell Excerpt: for they even burn their sons and their daughters in the fire to their gods! (Deut 12:29–31) This is a warning to the Israelites not to imitate the depraved Canaanites by sacrificing Israelite children to Yahweh in the same way that Canaanites sacrificed their sons and daughters to their gods. https://www.asor.org/anetoday/2017/12/child-sacrifice-ancient-israel
Thus in short, God rendered judgment against these evil ancient cultures, and commanded that they be completely and utterly destroyed, for, (among other evil things), the very thing that Jack is morally outraged at God about, i.e. 'murdering babies'. Perhaps Jack should be a little less superficial and hypocritical in his assessment of God's nature and actions? Just a suggestion Jack. Verse:
Matthew 7:4-5 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while there is still a beam in your own eye? You hypocrite! First take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
bornagain77_{July 29, 2021
July
07
Jul
29
29
2021
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

F/N: Those not aware should realise that because UD is a leading ID blog, it is surrounded by a penumbra of often utterly vicious attack sites and at least one relatively good cop front site for such. Attacks have included cyber stalking and on the ground stalking, that is the sort of objection to design thought that gives rise to the steady drip of trolls seeking to derail and disrupt. Concern trolls pretending to be supporters and seeking to undermine through said "concerns" are now a known standard tactic. Multiple sock puppets acting in concert are another, and more. Because of the calculated slander that ID is a stalking horse for some imagined Christofascist, theocratic, "far-right" [read, Nazi . . . itself a gross error as the National socialist german worker's party clearly understood itself to be socialist*] tyrannical takeover of civilisation, there is often an attempt to pull UD off topic into debates over village atheist anti-Bible rants. A sign of this is insistence on such derailing even when the off-topic focus is pointed out and as a courtesy sites or links that actually address such concerns are given. meanwhile, as we have had a period in which someone who has been a significant contributor has advocated a personal worldview, that is used as a rhetorical wedge to try to create perceived discredit. On that, for cause we can stand on the point that while our senses and reasoning are prone to error, we have adequate means to think through and we can be confident in taking common sense seriously rather than resorting to views that invite or advocate what boils down to the absurdity that our picture of ourselves in our world is a plato's cave style shadow show, a grand delusion. To discuss rationally we cannot start by self-referentially discrediting rationality, a typical error of hyperskepticism. And of course it is increasingly clear that errors at this level are driving the errors we see in ever so many objections to the design inference on reliable signs. KF * Stalin saw himself as the centre of politics so everyone to his "right" was some sort of right wing fascist. That's a clue as to how useless the left vs right political spectrum now is. The right was originally traditionalist monarchy, which has not been a viable view for 100 years since four major empires collapsed through the catastrophic great war.kairosfocus_{July 29, 2021
July
07
Jul
29
29
2021
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT}

Jack, your remarks above are beyond the pale, actually suggestive of a concern troll. I suggest you walk back if you are interested in serious discussion. KFkairosfocus_{July 29, 2021
July
07
Jul
29
29
2021
02:27 AM
2
02
27
AM
PDT}

Jack @ 34: Well then, I guess this is the last time we will be hearing from you. A smart guy like you wouldn’t continue to visit and comment in a forum administered by nut jobs, would he? I sure wouldn’t waste my time commenting in a forum run by atheist nut jobs.Truth Will Set You Free_{July 28, 2021
July
07
Jul
28
28
2021
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT}

Wow. Nutjobs, like Jack, erect and attack straw men. Would it be OK to kill soulless demon babies? What about in Aliens? Would it be OK to kill the little alien babies or do you have to wait until it grows and wipes out 99% of the population?ET_{July 28, 2021
July
07
Jul
28
28
2021
07:59 PM
7
07
59
PM
PDT}

UD used to be a pretty good site back when DaveScot was the moderator. My my how things have changed since the nuts and kooks took over. Denise stays out of the fray, and Barry jumps in from time to time, but basically it's a bunch of extreme religious nutjobs, with a few rational posters (WJM) thrown in. Sad state of affairs. https://uncommondescent.com/philosophy/davescot-responds-to-barrya/ Now keep in mind, dear readers, there are those here that think it's sometimes ok for babies to be murdered as long as "God commanded it." That's the kind of nutjobs you're dealing with.Jack_{July 28, 2021
July
07
Jul
28
28
2021
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT}

Haha! Yeah, I noticed that, too. They always seem to start out neutral and polite. -QQuerius_{July 28, 2021
July
07
Jul
28
28
2021
05:16 PM
5
05
16
PM
PDT}

Querius, It is very telling that as soon as one sock is banned new people start showing up. It seems to always be evos posing as someone who accepts ID.ET_{July 28, 2021
July
07
Jul
28
28
2021
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

My suspicions as well, ET. When confronted with unsupported assertions, non sequiturs, and contradictions to statements in previous messages, these sorts of people make what I call "homework assignments" where we're asked to come up with proofs and references, none of which will be sufficient, of course. Then there are what I call "dictionary attacks" where you're supposed to define some common term such as:
What exactly is your definition of "time" in this case?
Self references from such people also typically take the plural form such as
We now know that . . .
I've never been certain whether the plural refers to their tapeworms or the voices in their heads. The final resort are ad hominem attacks, after which they abandon the thread and simply start over on a new one. Quote honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if some of these personages are simply chatbots (or more precisely trollbots) simply intended to waste everyone's time here. Something to consider if deciding whether to bother replying. -QQuerius_{July 28, 2021
July
07
Jul
28
28
2021
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT}

Well, Jack, I have read very few of your posts because you seem unhinged and mentally ill. You are not worthy of anyone's time.ET_{July 28, 2021
July
07
Jul
28
28
2021
06:12 AM
6
06
12
AM
PDT}

Right on the nose, BA.zweston_{July 28, 2021
July
07
Jul
28
28
2021
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

So Jack was shown to be wrong in his claim that Christian presuppositions were not necessary for the rise of modern science. . Then, Instead of honestly admitting that he was wrong in trying to distance Christian presuppositions from modern science, as he should of done, he instead issues an ad hominem against me personally, i.e. "you seem to me to be a bit unhinged and mentally ill"? First it is funny that Jack has denied being an atheist, but that he is now resorting to an ad hominem attack against me personally when his arguments fails. ,,,, As most regulars here on UD know, resorting to ad hominem as a last resort is a typical debating style of atheists. Secondly, and Ironically, the disingenuous, even 'sinful', nature of Jack's debating style against me buttresses the claim that Bacon championed “Baconian induction", (as Jack's own link called it), because the fallen human mind, tainted by sin as it were, "could not be trusted to generate knowledge that was in any way free from bias", Jack, thanks for so clearly proving my point, (in real time), about Christian presuppositions about human fallibility. and bias, were, and are, necessary for the rise, and continued practice, of modern empirical science. You are a real sport. :)bornagain77_{July 28, 2021
July
07
Jul
28
28
2021
02:22 AM
2
02
22
AM
PDT}

Well, BA77, I've read a lot of your posts, and listened to some of your Youtube videos, and you seem to me to be a bit unhinged and mentally ill. You're just not worthy of my time. I'm not interested in dialog with you. Peace and JoyJack_{July 27, 2021
July
07
Jul
27
27
2021
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

ZW, actually, uncreated or uncaused is the back way around. Through logic of being and linked possible worlds, recognising that to be rational we must be free and so responsible starting with first duties of reason [to truth, right reason, prudence [including warrant] etc], we can find a positive framing of the idea of God. God is the inherently good, utterly wise, creator, a NECESSARY and maximally great being, worthy of our loyalty and of the reasonable, responsible service of doing the good that accords with our evident nature. Necessary being implies present in any actual world, framework to such a world being possible or actualised, similar to how we cannot have any distinct world without two-ness in it: 2 neither began, nor can it cease -- cf here on how that leads to pervasiveness and power of mathematics in possible worlds. That is, God among other attributes is inherently the eternal creator whose being is utterly reasonable, inherently and maximally good and wise etc. KF PS: To profess atheism is to implicitly claim that God is impossible of being or not a serious candidate necessary being. No atheist has ever shown either of those things. The problem of evils route was shattered nearly 50 years ago by Plantinga's free will defence [as opposed to theodicy], which shows that God as described is logically consistent with a world in which creatures [through freedom, which enables moral powers and virtues opening up higher orders of goodness if only we do duty] can and do abuse freedom, i.e. act to do evil.kairosfocus_{July 27, 2021
July
07
Jul
27
27
2021
03:14 AM
3
03
14
AM
PDT}

From what I can tell in my dealings with him, Jack acts just like an atheist, and then he finds it bizarre that he keeps getting confused with atheists here on UD? Now I find it bizarre that he would find it bizarre,,,, but such is par for the course,,, for atheists! :) Jack tries to distance Bacon from the inductive, i.e. scientific, method, and states, "Bacon didn’t invent it (the inductive method), and no need for the idea of “original sin” was required to ground it. First I never said that Bacon 'invented it' so that is a false claim right off the bat from Jack. I said that Bacon 'championed it'. Specifically I stated that,
Francis Bacon, (via his championing of the inductive form of reasoning over and above the deductive form of reasoning that had been the dominate form of reasoning that had been around since the times of the ancient Greeks), was the devout Christian who brought forth the scientific method.
Moreover, in Jack's very own citation, which he himself linked to, we find that,
The History of Induction Excerpt: The philosopher most responsible for making Socratic mainstream was Francis Bacon. His Novum Organum book II (1626) became what Aristotle’s Topics book V was in antiquity, viz., the main handbook on how to perform a good induction, that is, on how to identify a formal cause (or “Form,” in Bacon’s term). Baconian induction dominated experimental science for the next two hundred years. It was the scientific method that produced countless laws in mechanics, chemistry, electromechanics, even economics, from Hooke and Boyle to Darwin, (corrective note, Darwin was castigated for forsaking the inductive method), and Say. https://www.johnmccaskey.com/history-of-induction/
So Jack's very own link readily admits that Bacon made the inductive form of reasoning mainstream and 'even stated "Baconian induction dominated experimental science for the next two hundred years." That is hardly contrary to what I claimed. In fact, it is perfectly consistent to what I had claimed about Bacon 'championing inductive reasoning'. Jack also claimed that,,, "no need for the idea of “original sin” was required to ground it" Well, for crying out loud, You just can't make this stuff up,,, I NEVER said that original sin was required to 'ground it' (the inductive method). I said that original sin was Bacon's motivation for championing the inductive method! PERIOD! And as to the idea of 'original sin' being one of the primary motivations for Bacon championing the inductive method over and above the deductive form of reasoning that had been the dominate form of reasoning up until that time, Jack's very own link doesn't even mention what Bacon's exact motivations were in championing the inductive method, (so Jack is apparently now just throwing stuff at the wall to see if it will stick). But anyways, as I already referenced, (and Jack apparently did not even bother to read), Bacon's primary motivation for championing the inductive method over and above the deductive method was that, "It was the rather low regard for the fallen human mind, besieged as it were by sin, that drove Francis Bacon, the “Father” of the Scientific Method, to formulate a new epistemology in his Great Instauration."
Bacon’s “Enchanted Glass” – Emily Morales – December 2019 Excerpt: It was the rather low regard for the fallen human mind, besieged as it were by sin, that drove Francis Bacon, the “Father” of the Scientific Method, to formulate a new epistemology in his Great Instauration. In this brilliant man of faith’s view, the Adamic fall left an indelible mark on the human intellect, such that in its total depravity and persistent infirmity it could not be trusted to generate knowledge that was in any way free from bias, wrong presuppositions, or contradictions.,,, Recognizing then, the limitations of the human mind for revealing truth by mere logic and deductive reasoning, Bacon posited an altogether different means for knowledge acquisition: experimentation3—repeated experimentation—within the context of a scientific community (natural philosophers in his day). Bacon’s inductive methodology facilitated an explosion in knowledge of the natural world and accompanying technological advancement: https://salvomag.com/post/bacons-enchanted-glass 3. Harrison, P. (2007). The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science. Cambridge University Press.
And to go even further, and via Morales' citation of the Cambridge University Press book, "The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science" - Peter Harrison - 2007, we find this,,,
The Fall of Man and the Foundations of Science Description: Peter Harrison provides an account of the religious foundations of scientific knowledge. He shows how the approaches to the study of nature that emerged in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries were directly informed by theological discussions about the Fall of Man and the extent to which the mind and the senses had been damaged by that primeval event. Scientific methods, he suggests, were originally devised as techniques for ameliorating the cognitive damage wrought by human sin. At its inception, modern science was conceptualized as a means of recapturing the knowledge of nature that Adam had once possessed. Contrary to a widespread view that sees science emerging in conflict with religion, Harrison argues that theological considerations were of vital importance in the framing of the scientific method. https://www.amazon.com/Fall-Man-Foundations-Science/dp/0521117291
And if Jack thinks that Peter Harrison is just making all that up about Bacon's motivations, (to try to sell a few books to a few Christians), well here are a few of Peter's credentials:
Peter Harrison is a former Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at the University of Oxford and is presently Research Professor and Director of the Institute for Advanced Studies in the Humanities at the University of Queensland. He was the 2011 Gifford Lecturer at the University of Edinburgh and holds a Senior Research Fellowship in the Ian Ramsey Centre at Oxford https://www.amazon.com/Peter-Harrison/e/B001HPRCAI/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1
Not too shabby! Not too shabby at all for credentials! Nor is it in the least bit helpful for Jack who is apparently disingenuously trying to distance modern science from its essential Christian roots, no matter how badly he has to distort and mangle words and concepts, in order to try to do it..bornagain77_{July 26, 2021
July
07
Jul
26
26
2021
12:17 PM
12
12
17
PM
PDT}

BA77: Yes, I’ve seen you claim that before. But then again, why do you keep getting confused with atheists? Could it be, “Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, maybe it is a duck???” A bizarre statement. As for induction, for a move from particular to universal, Aristotle in the 300s BCE used the Greek word epagogé, which Cicero translated into the Latin word inductio. The concept has have modifications down through the centuries, but Bacon didn't invent it, and no need for the idea of "original sin" was required to ground it. https://www.johnmccaskey.com/history-of-induction/Jack_{July 26, 2021
July
07
Jul
26
26
2021
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT}

Jack claims, "I’m not an atheist.",,, Yes, I've seen you claim that before. But then again, why do you keep getting confused with atheists? Could it be, "Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, maybe it is a duck???" But anyways, whatever Jack is or whatever he claims to be, Jack then reiterates his false claim that science was essentially an outgrowth of Greek philosophy. Yet, as I have now shown in post 19, the deductive logic of the ancient Greeks actually impeded the rise of modern science in that they "pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.”
“The emergence of modern science was associated with a disdain for the rationalism of Greek philosophers who pronounced on how the world should behave, with insufficient attention to how the world in fact did behave.” – Henry F. Schaefer III – Making Sense of Faith and Science – 23:30 minute mark https://youtu.be/C7Py_qeFW4s?t=1415
,,, It was only when Francis Bacon set forth 'inductive reasoning', over and above the 'deductive reasoning' of the ancient Greeks, a form of reasoning where repeated experimentation played a central role in ones reasoning to a general truth, (instead of 'deductively' reasoning down from a presupposed truth), that the scientific method was born. (See post 19) Jack, apparently did not bother to read anything of what I had written, and simply reiterated his false claim. Jack himself even admitted that he did not bother to read my post(s) before he restated his false claim when he stated this,, 'I asked,“to what “presuppositions” do you refer?” I saw a lot of words in your replies but no answer to that question. Maybe I missed it. My eyes ain’t so good." Yet in post 21 I specifically said,,,, And exactly what Christian presupposition drove Bacon to champion inductive reasoning over and above the deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks? Well, it was none other than ‘original sin’, i.e. human fallibility!
Bacon’s “Enchanted Glass” – Emily Morales – December 2019 Excerpt: It was the rather low regard for the fallen human mind, besieged as it were by sin, that drove Francis Bacon, the “Father” of the Scientific Method, to formulate a new epistemology in his Great Instauration. In this brilliant man of faith’s view, the Adamic fall left an indelible mark on the human intellect, such that in its total depravity and persistent infirmity it could not be trusted to generate knowledge that was in any way free from bias, wrong presuppositions, or contradictions.,,, Recognizing then, the limitations of the human mind for revealing truth by mere logic and deductive reasoning, Bacon posited an altogether different means for knowledge acquisition: experimentation3—repeated experimentation—within the context of a scientific community (natural philosophers in his day). Bacon’s inductive methodology facilitated an explosion in knowledge of the natural world and accompanying technological advancement: https://salvomag.com/post/bacons-enchanted-glass
Further note as to the essential Christian Presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science: Via Stephen Meyer’s new book “Return of the God hypothesis”, here are the three necessary Christian presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science in Medieval Christian Europe.
“Science in its modern form arose in the Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world”, because only the Christian West possessed the necessary “intellectual presuppositions”. – Ian Barbour Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature “In 1277, the Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, writing with support of Pope John XXI, condemned “necessarian theology” and 219 separate theses influenced by Greek philosophy about what God could and couldn’t do.”,, “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.” Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism), “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts” – Johannes Kepler Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.” – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA April 2021: Defense of all 3 presuppositions 1 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/brian-keating-on-the-problem-with-follow-the-science/#comment-727893 2 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/brian-keating-on-the-problem-with-follow-the-science/#comment-727959 3 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/brian-keating-on-the-problem-with-follow-the-science/#comment-727980
And please note that the preceding clip on the necessary Judeo-Christian presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science is taken from directly above Jack's post at 22 claiming that I did not list the necessary presuppositions. I can't force Jack, or anyone else, to be reasonable, but it certainly looks very bad for Jack when he denies I wrote something directly and immediately after I had written it. Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good.
bornagain77_{July 26, 2021
July
07
Jul
26
26
2021
02:52 AM
2
02
52
AM
PDT}

BA77: "Jack, if you have not noticed, I do not tailor my comments to please the whims of atheists. " I'm not an atheist. "As to Jack’s (false) claim that the “Greeks locked down the essentials of logic and reasoning upon which everything later stands”, Jack could not be more wrong in his belief." Apparently you've never heard of Aristotle, Chrysippus and the Stoics. Are you of the opininion that they they did not make a substantial and essential contribution to science? At any rate, you said: "BA77: “Science was born out of and is still dependent on presuppositions that find their root in the Judeo-Christian worldview.” I asked, "to what “presuppositions” do you refer?" I saw a lot of words in your replies but no answer to that question. Maybe I missed it. My eyes ain't so good. By the way, why wouldn't it be more proper and fair to refer to the "Hebrew worldview." "Judeo/Christian" worldview is actually the Hebrew worldview. Both Christianity and Islam depend on the Hebrew worldview for their worldviews.Jack_{July 25, 2021
July
07
Jul
25
25
2021
07:57 PM
7
07
57
PM
PDT}

Francis Bacon, the father of the scientific method, in his book “Novum Organum”, stated that the best way to tell if a philosophy is true or not is by the ‘fruits produced’. Specifically he stated that, “Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy.”
Is Biology Approaching the Threshold of Design Acceptance? – January 8, 2019 Excerpt: Simultaneously, biomimetics fulfills one of the goals of Francis Bacon (1561-1626), the champion of systematic, methodical investigation into the natural world. In Aphorism 73 of Novum Organum, Bacon told how best to judge good natural philosophy, what we call science: “Of all signs there is none more certain or worthy than that of the fruits produced: for the fruits and effects are the sureties and vouchers, as it were, for the truth of philosophy.” Good fruits are pouring forth from the cornucopia of biologically inspired design. What has Darwinism done for the world lately? https://evolutionnews.org/2019/01/is-biology-approaching-the-threshold-of-design-acceptance/
And 150 years after Darwinian evolution burst onto the scene, and in regards to the ‘fruits produced’ by Darwinism, we can now accurately surmise that, scientifically and politically speaking, Darwinism has been, to repeat myself, a complete, horrific, disaster that has had unimaginably horrid consequences for man.
Matthew 7:18-20 A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
Of supplemental note And exactly what Christian presupposition drove Bacon to champion inductive reasoning over and above the deductive reasoning of the ancient Greeks? Well, it was none other than 'original sin', i.e. human fallibility!
Bacon's "Enchanted Glass" - Emily Morales - December 2019 Excerpt: It was the rather low regard for the fallen human mind, besieged as it were by sin, that drove Francis Bacon, the "Father" of the Scientific Method, to formulate a new epistemology in his Great Instauration. In this brilliant man of faith's view, the Adamic fall left an indelible mark on the human intellect, such that in its total depravity and persistent infirmity it could not be trusted to generate knowledge that was in any way free from bias, wrong presuppositions, or contradictions.,,, Recognizing then, the limitations of the human mind for revealing truth by mere logic and deductive reasoning, Bacon posited an altogether different means for knowledge acquisition: experimentation3—repeated experimentation—within the context of a scientific community (natural philosophers in his day). Bacon's inductive methodology facilitated an explosion in knowledge of the natural world and accompanying technological advancement: https://salvomag.com/post/bacons-enchanted-glass
Further note as to the essential Christian Presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science: Via Stephen Meyer’s new book “Return of the God hypothesis”, here are the three necessary Christian presuppositions that lay at the founding of modern science in Medieval Christian Europe.
“Science in its modern form arose in the Western civilization alone, among all the cultures of the world”, because only the Christian West possessed the necessary “intellectual presuppositions”. – Ian Barbour Presupposition 1: The contingency of nature “In 1277, the Etienne Tempier, the bishop of Paris, writing with support of Pope John XXI, condemned “necessarian theology” and 219 separate theses influenced by Greek philosophy about what God could and couldn’t do.”,, “The order in nature could have been otherwise (therefore) the job of the natural philosopher, (i.e. scientist), was not to ask what God must have done but (to ask) what God actually did.” Presupposition 2: The intelligibility of nature “Modern science was inspired by the conviction that the universe is the product of a rational mind who designed it to be understood and who (also) designed the human mind to understand it.” (i.e. human exceptionalism), “God created us in his own image so that we could share in his own thoughts” – Johannes Kepler Presupposition 3: Human Fallibility “Humans are vulnerable to self-deception, flights of fancy, and jumping to conclusions.”, (i.e. original sin), Scientists must therefore employ “systematic experimental methods.” – Stephen Meyer on Intelligent Design and The Return of the God Hypothesis – Hoover Institution https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_8PPO-cAlA April 2021: Defense of all 3 presuppositions 1 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/brian-keating-on-the-problem-with-follow-the-science/#comment-727893 2 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/brian-keating-on-the-problem-with-follow-the-science/#comment-727959 3 https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/brian-keating-on-the-problem-with-follow-the-science/#comment-727980
bornagain77_{July 25, 2021
July
07
Jul
25
25
2021
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

And it is exactly in the failure of Darwinists to use inductive reasoning of Francis Bacon, over and above deductive reasoning of the Ancient Greeks, where Darwinian evolution has gone off the rails as a scientific theory. Dr. Richard Nelson, in his book Darwin, Then and Now, has noted that Charles Darwin, in his book ‘Origin of Species’, “selected the deductive method of reasoning – and abandoned the inductive method of reasoning.”
Darwin Dilemma by Dr. Richard William Nelson The theory of biological evolution Charles Darwin argued for in the Origin of Species now presents a litany of problems for twenty-first-century evolution scientists – known as the Darwin Dilemma. The dilemma stems from the method of reasoning Darwin selected. Dilemma Origins: For investigating the laws of nature, Charles Darwin selected the deductive method of reasoning – and abandoned the inductive method of reasoning. The method of reasoning is critical when investigating the secrets of nature. Unlike deductive reasoning, inductive reasoning minimizes the dogma and bias of the investigator. Inductive reasoning is the defining element of what has become known as the scientific method. Details of Darwin’s reasoning method are discussed in Darwin, Then and Now. https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/darwin-dilemma/
In fact, Richard Owen, in a review of Charles Darwin’s book shortly after it was published, had found that Charles Darwin, as far as inductive methodology itself was concerned, had failed to produce “inductive original research which might issue in throwing light on ‘that mystery of mysteries.’.
Darwin on the Origin of Species (1860) Reviewed by Richard Owen for Edinburg Review Excerpt: The scientific world has looked forward with great interest to the facts which Mr. Darwin might finally deem adequate to the support of his theory on this supreme question in biology, and to the course of inductive original research which might issue in throwing light on ‘that mystery of mysteries.’ But having now cited the chief, if not the whole, of the original observations adduced by its author in the volume now before us, our disappointment may be conceived. http://www.victorianweb.org/science/science_texts/owen_review_of_origin.html
In other words, Darwin had failed to produce any original experimental research that might support his theory for the “Origin of Species”. And on top of Richard Owen’s rather mild rebuke of Darwin for failing to use inductive methodology, Adam Sedgwick was nothing less than scathing of Darwin for deserting, “after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth – the true method of induction, and started us in machinery as wild, I think, as Bishop Wilkins’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the moon.” Adam Sedgwick also called Darwin out for being deceptive in exactly what form of reasoning he was using in his book. Specifically Sedgwick scolded Darwin that “Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved, why then express them in the language and arrangement of philosophical induction?”
From Adam Sedgwick – 24 November 1859 Cambridge My dear Darwin, Excerpt: I have read your book with more pain than pleasure. Parts of it I admired greatly, parts I laughed at till my sides were almost sore; other parts I read with absolute sorrow, because I think them utterly false and grievously mischievous. You have deserted – after a start in that tram-road of all solid physical truth – the true method of induction, and started us in machinery as wild, I think, as Bishop Wilkins’s locomotive that was to sail with us to the moon. Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved, why then express them in the language and arrangement of philosophical induction?- As to your grand principle – natural selection – what is it but a secondary consequence of supposed, or known, primary facts. Development is a better word because more close to the cause of the fact.”,,, ,,, (your conclusions are not) “ever likely to be found any where but in the fertile womb of man’s imagination.” Adam Sedgwick (1785-1873) – one of the founders of modern geology. – The Spectator, 1860 https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2548.xml
And it was not as if Darwin was ignorant of the fact that he had failed to follow Bacon’s inductive methodology when he wrote his book. Charles Darwin himself, two years prior to the publication of his book, confessed to a friend that “What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.”
Charles Darwin to Asa Gray – 29 November 1857 My dear Gray, ,,, What you hint at generally is very very true, that my work will be grievously hypothetical & large parts by no means worthy of being called inductive; my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts. https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2176.xml
In fact, just two weeks before Darwin’s book was to be published, Darwin’s brother, Erasmus, told Darwin, “In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts [evidence] won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling.”
Scientific Method Excerpt: Darwin was concerned about the effect of abandoning the scientific method. To console Darwin, just two weeks before the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, Erasmus Darwin, his brother wrote: “In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts [evidence] won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling.” https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/darwin-dilemma/scientific-method/
In short, when Darwin published his book, and in regards to inductive reasoning itself, Darwin did not do, or have, any original experimental research that would actually establish his theory as being scientifically true. i.e. Darwin had failed to use the scientific method! And now, over a century and a half later, the situation still has not changed for Darwinists who proclaim ‘I believe in science”. To this day, Darwinists still have no experimental research that would establish Darwin’s theory as being scientifically true, As Dr Richard Nelson noted in his book’ Darwin, Then and Now’, “After 150 years of research,,, the scientific evidence is clear: there are no “successive, slight” changes in the fossil record, embryology, molecular biology, or genetics to support Darwinism or neo-Darwinism.”
Darwin, Then and Now – by Dr. Richard William Nelson – Book Preview Excerpt: as a theology graduate from Christ’s College, Darwin set out on a mission to discover the natural laws of evolution with a passion. Darwin Then and Now reveals how the emerging nineteenth century philosophies influenced Darwin to eventually abandon the Scientific Method. Darwin conceded that The Origin of Species was just “one long argument from the beginning to the end”—not a scientific treatise. DARWIN, THEN AND NOW highlights Darwin’s top 15 contradictions in arguing for natural selection. Just two years before the publication of The Origin of Species, in writing to a friend, Darwin confided, “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” With more than 300 quotations from Darwin, DARWIN, THEN AND NOW is an exposé on what Darwin actually said concerning his “point of view” on the origin of species. After 150 years of research with more than 700 references from scientists, DARWIN, THEN AND NOW chronicles how the scientific evidence is clear: there are no “successive, slight” changes in the fossil record, embryology, molecular biology, or genetics to support Darwinism or neo-Darwinism. Even the popular twentieth-century Central Dogma theoretical mechanism of evolution has been abandoned. Today, a cohesive mechanism of evolution and evidence of a Tree of Life continues to remain as elusive as Darwin infamous drawing – “I Think.” – ibid
Moreover, Darwinian evolution, (besides not having any real time empirical evidence establishing that it is true, or even that it is feasible), is simply not needed in as a guiding principle, and/or as a heuristic, in biology. As Adam Wilkins noted, “”While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.”
“While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.” Adam S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to “Evolutionary Processes” – (2000).
And as Marc Kirschner of Harvard stated, “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”?
“In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”? Marc Kirschner, founding chair of the Department of Systems Biology at Harvard Medical School, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005?
In fact, is so far as Darwinian evolution has been used as a guiding principle in science it had grossly misled scientists into blind alleys, such as its false prediction of junk DNA, vestigial organs, eugenics, etc.. etc… In society at large, the consequences of Darwinian evolution have been far worse than they have been for the biological sciences.
In fact, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Marx, and Lenin were all directly influenced in their political philosophy by Darwinian ideology. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-egnor-on-the-relationship-between-darwinism-and-totalitarianism/#comment-707831
The scale of horror these men unleashed on the world is truly unimaginable. Here’s is a conservative estimate of the deaths that were inflicted upon mankind by these Godless men when they took control of their respective countries:
“169,202,000 Murdered: Summary and Conclusions [20th Century Democide] I BACKGROUND 2. The New Concept of Democide [Definition of Democide] 3. Over 133,147,000 Murdered: Pre-Twentieth Century Democide II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS 4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State 5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill 6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State 7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS 8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military 9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State 10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges 11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State 12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing 13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State 14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse IV 4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS 15. 1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea 16. 1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico 17. 1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia” http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM
This is, in reality, probably just a drop in the bucket. Who knows how many undocumented murders there actually were. It also doesn’t count all the millions of abortions from around the world that are conducted annually.
At 1,200,000, Abortion is the leading cause of deaths each year in the USA – graph http://skepchick.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/10449486_10154444727070445_6800239725838679585_n-e1406834704889.jpg
As a scientific and political philosophy, Darwinian evolution has simply been a complete, horrific, disaster.bornagain77_{July 25, 2021
July
07
Jul
25
25
2021
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT}

1 2 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply