Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Physics a “hastily erected shanty-town,” not “a shimmering cathedral” – says Princeton physicist

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email
File:CollageFisica.jpg

In “The problem with physics,” Princeton’s Tony Rothman writes, “Most physicists and students have lost sight of the fact that physics is not a Divine Truth” (ABC News, August 4, 2011):

Unfortunately, many of my colleagues — particularly those who write textbooks — present physics as a towering, seamless basilica, ignoring the gaps in our hodge-podge of skewed models. In fact, what is presented as a shimmering cathedral often more closely resembles a hastily erected shanty-town.

For example,

Newtonian mechanics is at the bottom of everything, then one should be able to derive the second law of thermodynamics from Newtonian physics. But this has never been accomplished satisfactorily: the incompatibility of the second law with the other fundamental laws is perhaps the greatest paradox in all of physics.

Remember “Darwinism is as sure as the law of gravity”, beloved of the Darwin in the schools lobbyist? Well,

Even something as fundamental as Newton’s law of gravity is ultimately an approximation. Textbook authors dutifully write down the famous law without remarking that it results in infinite forces when the two attracting objects get infinitely close together. Never mind that infinite forces are a sure sign that your theory has gone up in smoke: in the current crop of textbooks sitting on my desk, not one mentions the obvious pathology.

He cites several other paradoxes, commenting,

One can hardly challenge the predictive success of modern physics, but one should remember that one is describing nature, and not always understanding it.

A critical point, because if description is not understanding, it certainly isn’t prescription either.

Which makes you wonder why people like Hawking (and Mlodinow) pretend such certainty about such great things.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
OP is fair enough comment, indeed I remember discussing how a Newtonian point particle has infinite density. The answer was this is a model, and it works well enough to use, especially in gravitation where the spherical planet if symmetrical enough, is effectively a point particle. And there is a lot more like that out there.kairosfocus
August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT
Elizabeth, In US schools one need not invoke God as an explanation in order to suffer consequences. One need only show that for many the evidence posited for the theory is significantly lacking. As for "valid" criticism, well, that depends, right? What someone like fast-becoming-obsolete Richard Dawkins considers valid seems to be completely different from what Mike Behe does. How to decide?lpadron
August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
07:25 AM
7
07
25
AM
PDT
Yes, I've seen it, ba77. The claim was that you needed a court order to criticise Darwin. You don't. You can criticise Darwin as much as you want on the internet, in your publications, whatever. You can also publish criticisms of Darwin and Darwinism in peer-reviewed journals, as long as your criticism is sound (and even, sometimes, when it isn't). And if you run foul of peer-review you can publish books without a court order, and make a reasonable income from them, I would guess. There seems to be a market. As for Richard Sternberg's treatment, I agree that was wrong, and I am pleased that the investigation found in his favour.Elizabeth Liddle
August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
07:16 AM
7
07
16
AM
PDT
I strongly suspect that JunkDNAfor life was using hyperbole when referring to the need for a court order, but it looks like some people here don't get the concept. And Elizabeth, if you honestly think you can criticise darwinism with impunity you must occupy a different world to the one I do. Yes you can criticise limited aspects of darwinism if you are careful to do it in the context of making clear that your not challenging the fundamentals. Criticisng one aspect of evolutionary theory in favour of another is allowed, challenging evolutionary theory itself is usually not. "If you have a valid scientific criticism, then there is no bar to publication, as the many publication criticising various aspects of evolutionary theory attest." lol - was that intended to be ironic? I get the the impression you believe what you say, so without intending to be unkind, I can only say that what you describe is how it should work, but the reality is very different to the theory.Corax
August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PDT
Elizabeth perhaps you haven't seen this movie? EXPELLED - Starring Ben Stein - Part 1 of 10 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj8xyMsbkO4 or read this book? Slaughter of Dissidents - Book "If folks liked Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," they will be blown away by "Slaughter of the Dissidents." - Russ Miller http://www.amazon.com/Slaughter-Dissidents-Dr-Jerry-Bergman/dp/0981873405 Perhaps Gonzalez's ordeal escaped your notice? Guillermo Gonzalez & Stephen Meyer on Coral Ridge - video (Part 1) http://www.coralridge.org/medialibrary/default.aspx?mediaID=CRH1118_F Guillermo Gonzalez & Stephen Meyer on Coral Ridge - video (Part 2) http://www.coralridge.org/medialibrary/default.aspx?mediaID=CRH1119_F or perhaps you missed the Sternberg fiasco, which was such a gross practice of viewpoint discrimination by neo-Darwinists, that it reached to the point of triggering a Congressional investigation committee??? (Who found favorably for Sternberg by the way!) 'Subsequently, there were two federal investigations of my mistreatment, one by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel in 2005 , and the other by subcommittee staff of the U.S. House Committee on Government Reform in 2006. Both investigations unearthed clear evidence that my rights had been repeatedly violated.' http://www.richardsternberg.org/smithsonian.php ,,, But perhaps you are aware of these gestapo tactics that were used on Darwin doubters here in America, to silence them by neo-Darwinist, and you are merely completely detached from reality or shamelessly dishonest.bornagain77
August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
06:59 AM
6
06
59
AM
PDT
oops: "like"="luck"Elizabeth Liddle
August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
06:43 AM
6
06
43
AM
PDT
What may be true is that you can't invoke God as an explanation for phenomena in US schools. Also you won't have much like invoking ditto in a scientific paper. But that's not the same as criticising Darwin or even Darwinism. If you have a valid scientific criticism, then there is no bar to publication, as the many publication criticising various aspects of evolutionary theory attest.Elizabeth Liddle
August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
Well, just because someone says something in the Wall Street Journal doesn't make it true.Elizabeth Liddle
August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
06:39 AM
6
06
39
AM
PDT
You need to live in the US to appreciate this: "In China we can criticize Darwin but not the government. In America you can criticize the government, but not Darwin." Jun-Yuan Chen Research Professor Nanjing Institute of Geology and Palaeontology The Wall Street Journal August 16, 1999junkdnaforlife
August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT
Remember “Darwinism is as sure as the law of gravity”, beloved of the Darwin in the schools lobbyist?
I usually hear this said as something like "The theory of evolution is better supported by the evidence than is the theory gravity." So criticisms of gravity would seem to help, rather than damage, the claims of those who make that statement.Neil Rickert
August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT
Also, you can criticise Darwin in scientific papers. There are lots of scientific papers criticising Darwin's theory. That's how we know he was wrong about a great deal. He didn't know how inheritance worked, and he didn't know where the variance came from. We still don't know exactly where the variance came from and some of it seems not to be "random" in the sense that Darwin seems not to have envisaged it except when he considered Lamarckian mechanisms. And we know that in some senses Lamarck was right. We also know that drift is hugely important and that "selection" is merely a slight bias to drift, which may be hugely important in creating a pool of potentially useful near-neutral alleles. We also know about horizontal gene transfer, which makes the simple view of common descent much more complex - the tree is far bushier than Darwin knew. We know that speciation is a very specific process, a special case of adaptation -independent adaptation by a sub-population. We also discover that some phylogenies are probably wrong, and that a different phylogeny fits the data better. We find that most traits are polygeneic, and that subtle phenotypic effects can arise from gene-gene interactions and gene-environment interactions during development. We know that homologous recombination can be a source of new alleles. All these things are regularly published in peer-reviewed journals, as well as controversies about population-level selection, kin selection, epigenetics, error-correcting mechanisms, mutation rate selection, the role of the gene in evolution, all of which are criticisms not just of Darwinism, but of current evolutionary theory. And you don't need a court for any of them. Here's a lovely example of a non-court-ordered criticism of Dawkins view of the Selfish Gene: http://videolectures.net/eccs07_noble_psb/ It's really worth listening to! I keep posting it, but haven't had any feedback yet.Elizabeth Liddle
August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
06:14 AM
6
06
14
AM
PDT
You can criticize physics openly, but you need a court order to criticize Darwin.
If that were true then this website would require the courts permission to exist - show me the court order and I'll believe you ;)DrBot
August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT
You can criticize physics openly, but you need a court order to criticize Darwin.
No you don't.Elizabeth Liddle
August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
05:37 AM
5
05
37
AM
PDT
And physics rests in a much more reasonable mathematical framework than Darwinism. You can criticize physics openly, but you need a court order to criticize Darwin.
Unfortunately, many of my colleagues — particularly those who write textbooks — present physics Darwinism as a towering, seamless basilica, ignoring the gaps in our hodge-podge of skewed models. In fact, what is presented as a shimmering cathedral often more closely resembles a hastily erected shanty-town.
junkdnaforlife
August 8, 2011
August
08
Aug
8
08
2011
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply