Page 1 of 2 [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

14 Aug 2014, 8:07 pm

It has always been the case that people and groups who do not like the result of scientific findings try to falsify the findings, heck this is part of the scientific method itself. Groups and individuals who cannot falsify the results often take to ridicule in an attempt to discredit the findings. Then of course we have pseudoscience eg Intellegent Design

Recently I have noticed an increase in an attempt to use science to destroy scientific credibility across the board. By this I mean people removing chunks of actual scientific theory and using these chunks out of context to attack the actual theory. Lovenothate and AngelRho are particularly adept at trying this on. For example LNH will try and use relativity to discredit mathematics and Rho often accuses the Scientific Method of being invalid as it cannot falsifiy itself (I think he equates the SM as a theory rather than a tool that is useful in garnering and validating knowledge).
I am wondering how widespread this is and is it creeping into education. To me it seems like a desperate attempt to keep the bible alive, a bit like a star in its death throes using ever more complicated methods to keep shining and delay the on set of white dwarfdom or the creation of a black hole.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


NobodyKnows
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Jun 2011
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 635

14 Aug 2014, 8:47 pm

Well, I'm an atheist and I don't think that you could bastardize science any more than the academic world has already bastardized it. A lot of psychiatry violates Occam's Razor and fails to distinguish between finding an answer and finding the answer.

Peer review was supposed to catch stuff like that, but it hasn't.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

14 Aug 2014, 9:16 pm

DentArthurDent wrote:
Then of course we have pseudoscience eg Intellegent Design


I quoted these guys with regards to "fine tuning" ...

Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ?fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

What makes you think these physicists are practicing pseudo-science ?

DentArthurDent wrote:

Recently I have noticed an increase in an attempt to use science to destroy scientific credibility across the board.


I suspect you have a lot preconceptions and it is painful for you to have those preconceptions challenged.

DentArthurDent wrote:

For example LNH will try and use relativity to discredit mathematics


I never discredited mathematics. I pointed out that the objectivity of mathematics is debated. It can be reasonably argued that 1 + 1 =2 means nothing objectively without a story. The philosophical disagreement is whether there is an unspecified inherent, definite meaning in the math notations (symbols, and numbers) or not, because I think both sides agree with this statement ...

"Objectivity in mathematics is established when meaning has been specified for mathematical propositions, including existential propositions ∃xF(x)".
http://home.uchicago.edu/~wwtx/objectivity.pdf "Beyond the axioms: The question of objectivity in mathematics"

From a law perspective, I don't believe that math can rely on an unspecified inherent meaning AND expect different humans to interpret the math notations the same. As I explained on the other thread, when connecting two rods together; 1 rod + 1 rod = 1 rod for some in the real world, and 1 rod + 1 rod = 2 rods for others. My opinion is that the math notation does not give us "context" to let us say that 1 + 1 = 2 has objective meaning. Different interpretations mean subjective meaning.

However, as I said, it is debated.

sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy ... ctionalism
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ficti ... thematics/ (Stanford University)



beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 39
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

14 Aug 2014, 11:07 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
DentArthurDent wrote:
Then of course we have pseudoscience eg Intellegent Design


I quoted these guys with regards to "fine tuning" ...

Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ?fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

What makes you think these physicists are practicing pseudo-science ?


I don't think he is, because they're not pseudoscientists.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


simon_says
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jan 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,075

15 Aug 2014, 12:56 am

Stephen Hawking and Paul Davies don't support Intelligent Design. :lol: Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.

Fine Tuning versus the Anthropic Principle is more of a philosophical argument at the moment. Then add in the simple fact that we don't know if our form of life is the only life possible. Pretty heady stuff to expect to solve on August 15th, 2014.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

15 Aug 2014, 5:29 am

LNH have you no shame, on a thread about cherry picking from actual science you use Stephen Hawking to validate Intelligent Design. This kind of gross intellectual dishonesty is exactly what this thread is all about.

To my mind only 4 types of people would claim hypotheses and research by the likes of Stephen Hawking (I have not read Paul Daives so unlike you I will not do a quick self deluding wikipedia search) in any way support ID

1. The grossly intellectually dishonest
2. Someone who searches for paragraphs from books, wikipedia, studies ect which fit their particular bias (see 1, above)
3. An intellectual simpleton
4. Some who believes what they are told by the example above (see 3. above)


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

15 Aug 2014, 8:39 am

simon_says wrote:
Stephen Hawking and Paul Davies don't support Intelligent Design. :lol: Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory.


I never said they did. I never said 'intelligent design' is scientific theory.

Stephen Hawking and Paul Davies both point out very strong evidence of that our universe was "fine tuned" for life. Thus, providing supporting evidence for the Teleological argument.

However ...

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature?s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/na ... avies.html

Physicist Stephen Hawking, writes in his book ?A Brief History of Time?:
It is a bit like the well-known horde of monkeys hammering away on typewriters?most of what they write will be garbage, but very occasionally by pure chance they will type out one of Shakespeare?s sonnets. Similarly, in the case of the universe, could it be that we are living in a region that just happens by chance to be smooth and uniform?
http://www.simpletoremember.com/article ... -argument/

It seems very clear that they see fine tuning, because the math is just so astronomically improbable.

DentArthurDent wrote:
LNH have you no shame, on a thread about cherry picking from actual science you use Stephen Hawking to validate Intelligent Design. This kind of gross intellectual dishonesty is exactly what this thread is all about.

To my mind only 4 types of people would claim hypotheses and research by the likes of Stephen Hawking (I have not read Paul Daives so unlike you I will not do a quick self deluding wikipedia search) in any way support ID

1. The grossly intellectually dishonest
2. Someone who searches for paragraphs from books, wikipedia, studies ect which fit their particular bias (see 1, above)
3. An intellectual simpleton
4. Some who believes what they are told by the example above (see 3. above)


Someone on that thread stated that there is no evidence of creationism, and I showed the strongest evidence of the Teleological argument. It is brought up in many debates. It is such strong evidence that atheists like Richard Dawkins and many others resort to the conjecture of the "multiverse" (as I showed in the video).

Name calling is desperation. If what I quote in wikipedia is wrong, then explain how.

You don't seem to understand the Cosmological argument or Teleological argument.



sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

15 Aug 2014, 9:40 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
Physicist Stephen Hawking, writes in his book ?A Brief History of Time?:
It is a bit like the well-known horde of monkeys hammering away on typewriters?most of what they write will be garbage, but very occasionally by pure chance they will type out one of Shakespeare?s sonnets. Similarly, in the case of the universe, could it be that we are living in a region that just happens by chance to be smooth and uniform?

It seems very clear that they see fine tuning because the math is just so astronomically improbable.


You seem to be looking at things in a sort of a backwards manner. It isn't that the universe is designed for us, it is that we developed to fit this universe. The universe was here long before we were. Even Hawking comes this precise conclusion (and not the intelligent designstyle arguments you are making) in the very book you are using as a reference. This very example is part of an argument that there are many different universes and the one we happen to live in is one that is stable enough to support us.

The math is only astronomically improbable (and even then, not impossible) if you believe that there is only one single universe and no others. If you look at it from the more scientifically sound point of view that the number of universes is essentially infinite, we were bound to end up with one (or more likely, many) like this one.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


Humanaut
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jul 2014
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,390
Location: Norway

15 Aug 2014, 9:53 am

sonofghandi wrote:
It isn't that the universe is designed for us, it is that we developed to fit this universe.

Exactly. Life emerged and evolved based on metaphysical circumstances in accordance with the law of causality. No tuner needed.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

15 Aug 2014, 10:04 am

sonofghandi wrote:

You seem to be looking at things in a sort of a backwards manner. It isn't that the universe is designed for us, it is that we developed to fit this universe. The universe was here long before we were. Even Hawking comes this precise conclusion (and not the intelligent designstyle arguments you are making) in the very book you are using as a reference. This very example is part of an argument that there are many different universes and the one we happen to live in is one that is stable enough to support us.


I am not making intelligent design arguments. I am point out that the prevailing theory in physics and cosmology appears to be "fine tuning". As I quoted above, Stephen Hawking points out that constants in the universe are such that that the universe is fined tuned for life, not as you suggest that life is fined tuned for the universe. That is not what these phyicists are saying.

Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron [and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,789
Location: London

15 Aug 2014, 10:16 am

I have read Paul Davies, but not that book. He does not support creationism or the teleological argument. Worth noting that the book in question is titled "The Accidental Universe".

LoveNotHate wrote:
Stephen Hawking and Paul Davies both point out very strong evidence of that our universe was "fine tuned" for life. Thus, providing supporting evidence for the Teleological argument.

No, they do not point out very strong evidence that our universe was fine tuned for life. In fact, both actively disagree. Hawking has been quite outspoken on this matter, insisting vehemently that he does not believe any supernatural influence in the universe has been necessary, so don't cite him if you want to be intellectually rigourous. Davies is a bit more fuzzy, but said this (I encourage you to read the full article so you know I am not cherry picking):

Quote:
The laws explain the universe even as the universe explains the laws. If there is an ultimate meaning to existence, as I believe is the case, the answer is to be found within nature, not beyond it. The universe might indeed be a fix, but if so, it has fixed itself.


If the universe is fine tuned for life, then why is so much of the universe completely hostile to any form of life?

Quote:
However ...

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature?s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/na ... avies.html

Physicist Stephen Hawking, writes in his book ?A Brief History of Time?:
It is a bit like the well-known horde of monkeys hammering away on typewriters?most of what they write will be garbage, but very occasionally by pure chance they will type out one of Shakespeare?s sonnets. Similarly, in the case of the universe, could it be that we are living in a region that just happens by chance to be smooth and uniform?
http://www.simpletoremember.com/article ... -argument/

It seems very clear that they see fine tuning, because the math is just so astronomically improbable.

I have adjusted your emphasis.

Hawking is saying the exact opposite to you. And just because something seems one way does not mean it is that way.

Quote:
Someone on that thread stated that there is no evidence of creationism, and I showed the strongest evidence of the Teleological argument. It is brought up in many debates. It is such strong evidence that atheists like Richard Dawkins and many others resort to the conjecture of the "multiverse" (as I showed in the video).

Why is the multiverse conjecture, but a designer is not?


Quote:
You don't seem to understand the Cosmological argument or Teleological argument.

You have said nothing that is relevant to the cosmological argument; science has disproven the teleological argument.



sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

15 Aug 2014, 10:20 am

LoveNotHate wrote:
Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron [and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe


You are still taking his words out of context, as he most certainly does not believe that some sort of outside force acted to create a universe just for us. Your concept of the prevailing theory among physicists is quite skewed to a completely inaacurate representation. Your use of a Wikipedia page is about as useful to this argument as using the one below would be to "proving" that the sun revolves around the Earth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geocentric_model

And your quote mining in support of your argument is about as useful as the way the following website quote mines scientists to "prove" that the sun revolved around the Earth (and who also misuses Hawking's words to try to prove the opposite of what Hawking was trying to say):

http://geocentrism.com/possible.htm


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

15 Aug 2014, 11:12 am

The_Walrus wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Stephen Hawking and Paul Davies both point out very strong evidence of that our universe was "fine tuned" for life. Thus, providing supporting evidence for the Teleological argument.

No, they do not point out very strong evidence that our universe was fine tuned for life. In fact, both actively disagree. Hawking has been quite outspoken on this matter, insisting vehemently that he does not believe any supernatural influence in the universe has been necessary, so don't cite him if you want to be intellectually rigourous. Davies is a bit more fuzzy, but said this (I encourage you to read the full article so you know I am not cherry picking):


You don't appear to understand the difference between fine-tuning and supernatural influence. Fine-tuning does not mean super-natural influence. I quote the guy explicitly from wikipedia, and somehow you think he means something else. Are you saying, the wikipedia quote is false ? Does he not know what he is saying?

Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ?fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

The_Walrus wrote:
If the universe is fine tuned for life, then why is so much of the universe completely hostile to any form of life?


You can disagree with these scientists if you want. I am just showing that there is evidence to support the Teleological argument.

The_Walrus wrote:
Hawking is saying the exact opposite to you. And just because something seems one way does not mean it is that way.


I quoted the guy directly, and he is very clear that the universe appears fined-tuned. He cannot believe the opposite, because it is him I quoted. You are saying he believes the opposite of what he believes.

The_Walrus wrote:
Quote:
You don't seem to understand the Cosmological argument or Teleological argument.

You have said nothing that is relevant to the cosmological argument; science has disproven the teleological argument.


Science has not "disproven" the Teleological argument. Rather, as I stated, Richard Dawkins for example, uses the no evidence, conjecture of the "multiverse" to argue against the scientific evidence of "fine tuning" used to support the Teleological argument.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

15 Aug 2014, 11:40 am

sonofghandi wrote:
You are still taking his words out of context, as he most certainly does not believe that some sort of outside force acted to create a universe just for us.


I did not quote him "out of context". I quoted right from the intro parapgraph of the "fine tuning" Wikipedia and in full context. I cannot quote the whole Wikipage.

sonofghandi wrote:
Your concept of the prevailing theory among physicists is quite skewed to a completely inaacurate representation. Your use of a Wikipedia page is about as useful to this argument as using the one below would be to "proving" that the sun revolves around the Earth:


I never said I proved anything. I repeatedly stated that "fine tuning" evidence is evidence for the Teleological argument.

This should be self-evident, since as I showed in the video on the other thread, Richard Dawkins resorts to the multiverse hypothesis to explain away the "fine tuning" evidence.

sonofghandi wrote:
And your quote mining in support of your argument is about as useful as the way the following website quote mines scientists to "prove" that the sun revolved around the Earth (and who also misuses Hawking's words to try to prove the opposite of what Hawking was trying to say):


*sigh* , once again, I never said I proved anything. I repeatedly stated that "fine tuning" evidence is evidence for the Teleological argument.

Also, Hawking does not try to prove the opposite. He admits that the universe appears fined tuned.



sonofghandi
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Apr 2007
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,540
Location: Cleveland, OH (and not the nice part)

15 Aug 2014, 12:16 pm

If you actually read the works of Hawking, you'd realize that he does not believe the universe was designed for us, but did believe that the conditions in this universe are just right in a way that allowed US to fit into IT perfectly.

Quote:
I believe the simplest explanation is, there is no God. No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization that there probably is no heaven and no afterlife either.


Quote:
The role played by time at the beginning of the universe is, I believe, the final key to removing the need for a Grand Designer, and revealing how the universe created itself.


Quote:
So when people ask me if a god created the universe, I tell them the question itself makes no sense. Time didn?t exist before the Big Bang, so there is no time for God to make the universe in. It?s like asking for directions to the edge of the Earth. The Earth is a sphere. It does not have an edge, so looking for it is a futile exercise.


Quote:
But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?


Quote:
One of the basic rules of the universe is that nothing is perfect. Perfection simply doesn't exist.....Without imperfection, neither you nor I would exist


Quote:
We are each free to believe what we want, and it?s my view that the simplest explanation is; there is no god. No one created our universe,and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization; There is probably no heaven, and no afterlife either.


Quote:
The universe doesn't allow perfection


Quote:
IF you remember every word in this book, your memory will have recorded about two million pieces of information: the order in your brain will have increased by about two million units. However, while you have been reading the book, you will have converted at least a thousand calories of ordered energy, in the form of food, into disordered energy, in the form of heat that you lose to the air around you by convection and sweat. This will increase the disorder of the universe by about twenty million million million million units - or about ten million million million times the increase in order in your brain - and that's if you remember everything in this book


Quote:
The increase of disorder or entropy is what distinguishes the past from the future, giving a direction to time


Quote:
We believe human begins have existed for only a small fraction of cosmic history, because human race has been improving so rapidly in knowledge and technology that if people had been around for millions of years, the human race would be much further along in it's mastery


Quote:
philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge


Quote:
??only in the few universes that are like ours would intelligent beings develop and ask the question: ?Why is the universe the way we see it?? The answer is then simple: If it had been any different, we would not be here


Quote:
So look carefully at the map of the microwave sky. It is the blueprint for all the structure in the universe. We are the product of quantum fluctuations in the very early universe.


And the best one:
Quote:
The human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet, orbiting around a very average star in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. We are so insignificant that I can't believe the whole universe exists for our benefit. That would be like saying that you would disappear if I closed my eyes.


_________________
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently" -Nietzsche


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

15 Aug 2014, 12:49 pm

sonofghandi wrote:
If you actually read the works of Hawking, you'd realize that he does not believe the universe was designed for us, but did believe that the conditions in this universe are just right in a way that allowed US to fit into IT perfectly.


Fine tuning as I have cited it, has to do with the universe being fined tuned to permit life. It is not about GODs, humans, human significance, so your quotations are not relevant.

For you to keep arguing that he does not believe in fine-tuning ,because he does not believe in a GOD, shows me that you don't understand the concept of "fine tuning" as was quoted originally, and as the physicist Paul Davies is quoted as saying is broadly accepted among physicists and cosmologists.

The multiverse theory that Hawking believes in does support the outcome of fine-tuning. This is the counter argument to the Teleological argument. The principal of the multiverse is to say that within the infinite number of universes we will see randomness, thus we will see universes that are fined-tuned for life, and others that are not.

Stephen Hawking:
"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life". "For example," Hawking writes, "if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty."
http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48937152.html

From his book, "The Grand Design" .. ( the multiverse)
"The authors explain, in a manner consistent with M-theory, that as the Earth is only one of several planets in our solar system, and as our Milky Way galaxy is only one of many galaxies, the same may apply to our universe itself: that is, our universe may be one of a huge number of universes".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Design_(book)