Showing posts with label science and rationality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label science and rationality. Show all posts
Saturday, September 29, 2007
Ken Miller on Intelligent Design
This is a very long video (almost 2 hours) but quite worthwhile for anyone interested in understanding why intelligent design creationism is bad science. Especially interesting to me were the bits where Miller discusses evidence against irreducible complexity.
Miller is a Roman Catholic biology professor at Brown University, and he believes that faith and science are compatible. I disagree with him on this one point, but not in a strict sense. Miller's beliefs certainly don't make him any less a scientist.
Monday, September 24, 2007
Elegant Snaarsiverse
I bought Brian Greene's best-selling popular science novel, "The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory" today.
Hopefully, I'll have something both philosophical and irrelevant to say about string theory after reading the book. But first off, let me say that string theory is really a fool's quest, and here's why:
String theory is touted as the explain-everything model that will reconcile general relativity with quantum theory. For those who are unfamiliar, quantum mechanics is about the smallest things we know about in physics, and general relativity is about medium- and large-sized objects (like bugs, apples, cars, planets, and stars) on up to the ungeblievagly engormous things (like black holes and galaxies.) The theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity, taken together, explain just about everything observable about the physical universe, but they are mutually exclusive - they can't both be right.
String theory posits the existence of zero-point, one-dimensional structures called "strings," which vibrate through precisely eleven dimensions, and from which emerge matter and the forces familiar to modern physics: gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces.
String theory, so far (to my admittedly meager knowledge), doesn't predict anything that is observable - but it does seem to be able to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity.
If I were a professional philosopher of science, I might characterize string theory as a reductionist theory, meaning that it attempts to explain all phenomena by appealing to one, or a very few, fundamental phenomena, forces, particles, or kinds of things (the last phrase being deliberately vague.)
Anyway, let's cut to the chase, shall we? The truth is, string theory is bullshit when - huh, obviously - the universe is composed not of strings, but - DUH - little bitty snaarsisms, quivering their way through the universal ovoid, imbuing space itself with hyper-optional potentiality.
I can teach you all the Way of the snaars, by which you too can know the truth of these things.
Hopefully, I'll have something both philosophical and irrelevant to say about string theory after reading the book. But first off, let me say that string theory is really a fool's quest, and here's why:
String theory is touted as the explain-everything model that will reconcile general relativity with quantum theory. For those who are unfamiliar, quantum mechanics is about the smallest things we know about in physics, and general relativity is about medium- and large-sized objects (like bugs, apples, cars, planets, and stars) on up to the ungeblievagly engormous things (like black holes and galaxies.) The theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity, taken together, explain just about everything observable about the physical universe, but they are mutually exclusive - they can't both be right.
String theory posits the existence of zero-point, one-dimensional structures called "strings," which vibrate through precisely eleven dimensions, and from which emerge matter and the forces familiar to modern physics: gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces.
String theory, so far (to my admittedly meager knowledge), doesn't predict anything that is observable - but it does seem to be able to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity.
If I were a professional philosopher of science, I might characterize string theory as a reductionist theory, meaning that it attempts to explain all phenomena by appealing to one, or a very few, fundamental phenomena, forces, particles, or kinds of things (the last phrase being deliberately vague.)
Anyway, let's cut to the chase, shall we? The truth is, string theory is bullshit when - huh, obviously - the universe is composed not of strings, but - DUH - little bitty snaarsisms, quivering their way through the universal ovoid, imbuing space itself with hyper-optional potentiality.
I can teach you all the Way of the snaars, by which you too can know the truth of these things.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Creation/Evolution controversy explained
It's SO simple, really. Ken Ham, the protuberant creationist apologist, has a neatly packaged Answer-In-Genesis to the question of why Evolutionists "refuse" to believe.
Be you creationist or evolutionist, you may be surprised to find out that the controversy is not about the actual evidence for or against your position. No, we can never look to the evidence to decide the matter. The key, you see, is in the interpretation of the evidence, which is naturally based on our presuppositions (or axioms, which, Mr. Ham explains, are the same thing.)
One interpretation might seem to fit the evidence better, warns Ken, if we have not grasped the notion that what are at issue are the presuppositions which underlie.
You see, it's like this: no one really "knows" if we were created or evolved. Because no one was there to witness how we came to be. Because "We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present."
If there was a witness, then someone was already living. So, being alive, they can't have witnessed the creation of life. Therefore, no one witnessed the creation of life.
No one, that is, except God (good thing HE's not alive, right?)!
Until we have a time machine, we'll never know how it really happened.
Luckily, our Christian brethren actually do have a time machine, in the form of the Bible. Hooray!
If we will only presuppose (and what right-thinker wouldn't?) that the Bible is the revealed Word of our Lord, then all the evidence will fall naturally into place. What a relief!
Ken Ham says he's glad he learned this distinction between facts and presuppositions, because then he was able to inoculate his students against the factual interpretations of other (evolutionist) teachers. Then the shoe was on the other foot for a change!
Despite God's every effort to be fair and give us all an even shake, however, some folks just won't believe, for their own indiscoverable, spiritually corrupt and immoral reasons. As long as they remain obstinate, nothing can prevent them from forming their own radicallly dangerous scientific interpretations of the evidence.
Be you creationist or evolutionist, you may be surprised to find out that the controversy is not about the actual evidence for or against your position. No, we can never look to the evidence to decide the matter. The key, you see, is in the interpretation of the evidence, which is naturally based on our presuppositions (or axioms, which, Mr. Ham explains, are the same thing.)
One interpretation might seem to fit the evidence better, warns Ken, if we have not grasped the notion that what are at issue are the presuppositions which underlie.
You see, it's like this: no one really "knows" if we were created or evolved. Because no one was there to witness how we came to be. Because "We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present."
If there was a witness, then someone was already living. So, being alive, they can't have witnessed the creation of life. Therefore, no one witnessed the creation of life.
No one, that is, except God (good thing HE's not alive, right?)!
Until we have a time machine, we'll never know how it really happened.
Luckily, our Christian brethren actually do have a time machine, in the form of the Bible. Hooray!
If we will only presuppose (and what right-thinker wouldn't?) that the Bible is the revealed Word of our Lord, then all the evidence will fall naturally into place. What a relief!
Ken Ham says he's glad he learned this distinction between facts and presuppositions, because then he was able to inoculate his students against the factual interpretations of other (evolutionist) teachers. Then the shoe was on the other foot for a change!
Despite God's every effort to be fair and give us all an even shake, however, some folks just won't believe, for their own indiscoverable, spiritually corrupt and immoral reasons. As long as they remain obstinate, nothing can prevent them from forming their own radicallly dangerous scientific interpretations of the evidence.
Monday, September 17, 2007
Snaars Times
Here's a brief update for my online friends. Sorry I haven't been in touch the last few months. I've been working two jobs. When I am home I spend a lot of time with the snaars spouse and snaars kids.
It's hard to believe Saadia turned one year old last month - but it's true. Simcha is in kindergarten and Havilah is in the second grade. They are, each of them, fantastic kids. Every day there's something I want to write about. They provide me with enough material that I could write a full-length post every day, if I had the time and energy.
Yesterday Havilah told me she loves science, but she doesn't like math, and she wants to be a figure skater when she grows up. Lately, her favorite game to play as a family has been "20 questions."
Today I watched from our apartment balcony as Simcha nervously crossed the street all by herself on her way to the neighborhood playground. While Simcha participates in "20 questions," she much prefers "I spy with my little eye," which is basically the same, only easier.
Saadia has a glowing personality, and is working hard at breaking in tooth number eight and tooth number nine. While I was comfortably seated on the balcony watching Havilah and Simcha in the playground across the street, Saadia discovered the unique and satisfying sound an orange makes when it is dropped from the third story to the concrete below.
I would like to draw your attention to the new scarlet letter "A" in the sidebar. This is the official symbol of Richard Dawkins's atheist OUT Campaign. Since I came out as an atheist about two years ago, and because this very website was instrumental in that regard, I felt it was appropriate to add the A here.
This blog's address has been added to the OUT Campaign's blogroll, but it took some doing. Initially, the OUT Campaign's site administrator thought that my site had been hacked by Christians! I thought: "Oh my, that administrator didn't take much time to read it, did he?" I supposed that my spiritualized theme had caused confusion! In fact, there was a typo in my submission. The administrator was looking at snaars.blogpot.com. (Blogpot, you see?)
Anyway, it's all fixed now. I plan to peruse some of the other sites on the blogroll, maybe make some more friends.
Perhaps I'll provide some details on my employment situation next time.
It's hard to believe Saadia turned one year old last month - but it's true. Simcha is in kindergarten and Havilah is in the second grade. They are, each of them, fantastic kids. Every day there's something I want to write about. They provide me with enough material that I could write a full-length post every day, if I had the time and energy.
Yesterday Havilah told me she loves science, but she doesn't like math, and she wants to be a figure skater when she grows up. Lately, her favorite game to play as a family has been "20 questions."
Today I watched from our apartment balcony as Simcha nervously crossed the street all by herself on her way to the neighborhood playground. While Simcha participates in "20 questions," she much prefers "I spy with my little eye," which is basically the same, only easier.
Saadia has a glowing personality, and is working hard at breaking in tooth number eight and tooth number nine. While I was comfortably seated on the balcony watching Havilah and Simcha in the playground across the street, Saadia discovered the unique and satisfying sound an orange makes when it is dropped from the third story to the concrete below.
I would like to draw your attention to the new scarlet letter "A" in the sidebar. This is the official symbol of Richard Dawkins's atheist OUT Campaign. Since I came out as an atheist about two years ago, and because this very website was instrumental in that regard, I felt it was appropriate to add the A here.
This blog's address has been added to the OUT Campaign's blogroll, but it took some doing. Initially, the OUT Campaign's site administrator thought that my site had been hacked by Christians! I thought: "Oh my, that administrator didn't take much time to read it, did he?" I supposed that my spiritualized theme had caused confusion! In fact, there was a typo in my submission. The administrator was looking at snaars.blogpot.com. (Blogpot, you see?)
Anyway, it's all fixed now. I plan to peruse some of the other sites on the blogroll, maybe make some more friends.
Perhaps I'll provide some details on my employment situation next time.
Sunday, March 26, 2006
scientism
"Scientism" is an irrational belief that only that which can be observed and measured through the technique of "Scientific Method" is real, and everything else is unreal. It has become a popular epithet among creationists, who have latched on to the term and use it as a prejorative, designed to cast doubt indiscriminately on conclusions drawn by the scientific method - and "scientistic" is a term designating those who have confidence in said conclusions.
I performed a google search on the words "scientistic evolution" and found this web site, self-proclaimed as the "only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual conservatism". (Apparently it's "intellectually conservative" to attack a distorted and over-simplified view of science and rationality, and to dismiss hundreds of years of valid, rational, scientific progress as mere "scientism". I offer the link merely as an example of anti-science rhetoric that is readily available and gaining widespread acceptance today.)
Can no one see the difference between science and scientism? Scientism is an irrational belief in the conclusions of science. Those who study the methods of science, understand that science is based on rationality, and therefore (provisionally) accept the conclusions of science as being the best possible ones are not scientistic, because we are being completely and utterly rational. People who do not understand the rules of good reasoning, including the rational basis for science, and who accept scientific conclusions on the basis of faith, these are the scientistic ones.
Creationists want to portray scientists, philosophers, and all others who understand and accept good principles of scientific reasoning as being scientistic materialists. They do this in order to present science and religion as being on equal footing, both matters of "blind faith". Nothing could be further from the truth.
It is completely rational to believe and understand that there are limits to what science can tell us, while accepting the perfectly valid and reasonable conclusions that science has to offer.
That's my opinion, briefly stated. What's yours?
I performed a google search on the words "scientistic evolution" and found this web site, self-proclaimed as the "only site on the web devoted exclusively to intellectual conservatism". (Apparently it's "intellectually conservative" to attack a distorted and over-simplified view of science and rationality, and to dismiss hundreds of years of valid, rational, scientific progress as mere "scientism". I offer the link merely as an example of anti-science rhetoric that is readily available and gaining widespread acceptance today.)
Can no one see the difference between science and scientism? Scientism is an irrational belief in the conclusions of science. Those who study the methods of science, understand that science is based on rationality, and therefore (provisionally) accept the conclusions of science as being the best possible ones are not scientistic, because we are being completely and utterly rational. People who do not understand the rules of good reasoning, including the rational basis for science, and who accept scientific conclusions on the basis of faith, these are the scientistic ones.
Creationists want to portray scientists, philosophers, and all others who understand and accept good principles of scientific reasoning as being scientistic materialists. They do this in order to present science and religion as being on equal footing, both matters of "blind faith". Nothing could be further from the truth.
It is completely rational to believe and understand that there are limits to what science can tell us, while accepting the perfectly valid and reasonable conclusions that science has to offer.
That's my opinion, briefly stated. What's yours?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
