|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
 Posted - 11/24/2007 : 07:04:49
|
Extremely relevant to certain topics discussed in depth in this folder recently, yet having a life of its' own, this is highly recommended reading for any folks here interested in this subject!
The author.....Paul Charles William Davies (born April 22, 1946) is a British-born, physicist, writer and broadcaster, who holds the position of College Professor at Arizona State University, as well as Director of BEYOND: Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science. He has held previous academic appointments at the University of Cambridge, University of London, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, University of Adelaide and Macquarie University. His research interests are in the fields of cosmology, quantum field theory, and astrobiology. He has proposed that a one-way trip to Mars could be a viable option.
In 2005, he took up the chair of the SETI: Post-Detection Science and Technology Taskgroup of the International Academy of Astronautics.
He was a speaker at the Beyond Belief symposium held on November 2006. |
.....certainly seems to possess the creds to speak to the subject.
This fresh from the New York Times this morning may stimulate new thinking on the conundrum of Science vs. Faith.
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/24/2007 : 17:56:32 [Permalink]
|
He may have lots of creds, but as soon as he starts spewing nonsense, he's spewing nonsense.
The laws of physics are what they are - as empirically determined - no matter what the reason they exist. That he was taught to not question their source simply means he was taught badly, not that science requires faith. And the fact that we may never know the "why" behind the laws of physics doesn't mean we have to accept them on faith, either. We can measure them, and see that the relationships they describe actually exist.
Paul Davies appeared in the ID "documentary" Privileged Planet, and he's doing nothing more in this op-ed piece than what that film attempts to do: get god into science by misrepresenting science.
The only reason to take anything scientific on faith is because you refuse to think about it. Davies apparently thinks that his refusal to think about the bases of science is justification for calling science "anti-rational" and "absurd." The only thing that's absurd is the idea that we should already have all the answers Davies wants. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2007 : 03:42:19 [Permalink]
|
Paul Davies is a very smart man but he does say some things that sound odd in that article. Concerning the laws of physics, he describes what he sees as self-imposed principals science uses.
He writes:
"…the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research. But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus."
It sounds like he's saying science has "faith" that it will someday offer testable theories for deciphering the modus operandi of the physical laws themselves rather than what such laws effect in nature, in other words a theory of the value of constants. Such a theory would likely unite the physics of the macro universe with and quantum realm, and that is something that science has already been working on for some time. There are concepts within String Theory for example that have conjectural elements which some have claimed are too safe from current test methods.
As for ID proponents using Davies' statements in their propaganda; Davies may be a scientist but ID is still not science. Its essence is a political movement because the broader aim of ID is ultimately to set up an unthinking acceptance of artificial authority within the subject of study, (an implication of an ultimate God.) Actual science at its core is falsifiable and thus ultimately questions all authority, a natural result of its continuous quest for new data. Davies might believe that science and religiousness are compatible but ID itself is still not a science.
The sinister ulterior aim of ID is political, directed toward mindless unthinking acceptance or an authority as a given. ID can be seen as a framework and a mindset intended to foster subservience to authority within higher education. Its aim is to apply such uncritical subservient thinking to other areas and to American society. Its superstition and authoritarian implications make it squarely favored by those seeking totalitarianism. That's why it is unacceptable as both science and religion.
. |
Diversity, independence, innovation and imagination are progressive concepts ultimately alien to the conservative mind.
"TAX AND SPEND" IS GOOD! (TAX: Wealthy corporations who won't go poor even after taxes. SPEND: On public works programs, education, the environment, improvements.) |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2007 : 09:25:30 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck, interesting how roughly 93% of your post deals with setting up an argument from authority. What's wrong with actually just presenting the arguments instead? You could have done something like the following:
The main points and problems with Davis' article is nicely summed up in two sentences that can be found on the first page:
| Therefore, to be a scientist, you had to have faith that the universe is governed by dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified origin. You've got to believe that these laws won't fail, that we won't wake up tomorrow to find heat flowing from cold to hot, or the speed of light changing by the hour. |
Davis' main argument seems to be the age-old philosophical problem of induction. While it is a problem, claiming that it requires faith in the same sense that the traditional meaning of the word faith does is absurd. Our everyday experiences tell each and everyone of us that induction works. For example, every day, the sun rises and sets (unless you live at certain latitides). You would be pretty sure that it would continue doing so even if you had no idea of why this happens. Believing that this pattern will, tomorrow for example, be replaced by a giant whale with a flowerpot on it's head appearing at 7 am will require a heck of a lot more faith. Induction seems to work even if we have no true rational reason for believing so.
The second problem with Davis' quote is that scientists have to believe that all laws are immutable. This is obviously wrong since scientists are questioning this assumption.
The third problem with Davis' quote is that scientists have to believe that the laws have to come from an unspecified origin. What absolute rubbish. To most of science, it doesn't matter one iota where these laws come from. To most scientists, such as biologists, chemists, environmentalists, engineers and physicists (the ones where the origin of these laws have no impact - which is most), the origin of these laws is totally irrelevant. It is, after all, possible to elucidate the structure of DNA without giving a rat's ass about the origin of these laws.
|
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2007 : 09:38:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Chippewa
It sounds like he's saying science has "faith" that it will someday offer testable theories for deciphering the modus operandi of the physical laws themselves rather than what such laws effect in nature, in other words a theory of the value of constants. |
Actually, he's saying quite clearly that anything for which science doesn't yet have an answer must be a matter of faith:But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus. This, of course, is a completely bogus dichotomy, even if one accepts the proffered premise of the Culture Wars (that the faithful are being attacked by the scientists). Science is okay with an answer like, "we don't know why the universal gravitation constant is what it is, but we can measure it and determine that it has the value that it does." There is no "appeal to external agency" in that answer, and no faith in it, either. And as we all know, research into gravity is attempting to find an answer. Davies would have none of that, because he's been taught that he simply cannot question the source of the constants, he's unwilling to learn something new, and equating science with faith is at the thin edge of the Wedge strategy for merging the two.
That said, the idea that we will find an answer to all such questions is an article of faith - the faith of "scientism." We know there are certain things that science cannot answer. Those who fall for scientism believe that science can answer everything put to it, given enough time. Will we find out why G has the value that it does? Scientism says "sure, with enough research." Reality says, "we hope so, but don't count on it." Davies also seems to think that every scientist (except himself) has fallen for scientism (once again, to instill the idea that science is little more than a religion). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Hawks
SFN Regular
Canada
1383 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2007 : 10:45:32 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
| But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus. |
This, of course, is a completely bogus dichotomy, even if one accepts the proffered premise of the Culture Wars (that the faithful are being attacked by the scientists). Science is okay with an answer like, "we don't know why the universal gravitation constant is what it is, but we can measure it and determine that it has the value that it does." |
Davis' article was obviouly going to turn up at uncommondescent (UcD). The quote DaveW gave above was highlighted as being of uttermost importance. To bad that anyone who has got any real insights is banned from commenting at UcD. |
METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL
It's a small, off-duty czechoslovakian traffic warden! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2007 : 14:02:58 [Permalink]
|
Good grief. soulcher contends that his elementary-school understanding of science is sound, and implies that ID has "careful, scientific" research to back it up. Gerry Rzeppa confuses the act of science with the motivation for doing science, which Leo has to correct him on. vjtorley is completely confused about the fact that ID has nothing to say about religion. jstanley01 posts the irrelevant but important "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False," and tries to get in some global warming denial, too. And nullasalus re-affirms the "science is faith" meme that Davies is trying to get across, but screws up even more than Davies by baldly asserting that there can be no evidence for irrationality in the universe.
I'm sure there will be more comments on UD on this subject later, but I doubt they'll get more reasonable. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2007 : 18:32:11 [Permalink]
|
Pharyngula picked this up. A choice comment from Blake Stacey (#4):It pains me to be so disparaging, but I have to call Paul Davies an excellent example of faith making a smart person say stupid things. And efp (comment #14) begins:I am a physicist, and I don't take it on faith that "nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way." It is manifestly otherwise. Jerry Coyne says:With Paul Davies' article, the New York Times continues its tradition of soft-headed op-ed pieces that criticize science and, either implicitly or explicitly, bolster religion. Janet D. Stemwedel says:Asking for explanations of the level which we currently hold as the bedrock -- the "fundamental" level as far as our understanding is concerned -- isn't a problem. Expecting that every level must yield further explanations in terms of another level underneath, else our science has failed and dissolved into absurdity, strikes me as unwarranted. (This over-strong demand, in fact, strikes me as a mockery of science.) Dave Bacon:Davies begins with a mantra yelled by theists ever since science began getting things right and removing the need for supernatural explanation... |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Chippewa
SFN Regular
USA
1496 Posts |
Posted - 11/25/2007 : 23:53:08 [Permalink]
|
| I have to agree with a lot of the Pharyngula folks. Like you said earlier, he may have the credentials but when Davies "starts spewing nonsense, he's spewing nonsense." |
Diversity, independence, innovation and imagination are progressive concepts ultimately alien to the conservative mind.
"TAX AND SPEND" IS GOOD! (TAX: Wealthy corporations who won't go poor even after taxes. SPEND: On public works programs, education, the environment, improvements.) |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2007 : 06:36:33 [Permalink]
|
| The responses on this thread are wonderful, keep up the good work. They are much better than those quotes posted. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2007 : 10:16:31 [Permalink]
|
Hawks.....
| bngbuck, interesting how roughly 93% of your post deals with setting up an argument from authority. What's wrong with actually just presenting the arguments instead? You could have done something like the following: |
Well, Hawks I really didn't have much interest in "setting up an argument"! Certainly not my argument! What's wrong in presenting what appeared to my poor intellect as an interesting, well expressed view on a subject that is actively discussed here in these forums? I felt it might be of interest to those that are passionate about this subject.
I don't recall expressing my agreement or disagreement with Dr. Davies views. Nor do I necessarily see him as an "authority" on the subject in question - only that he has credentials as a serious scientist, which I do not - mine is only a claim to some training in a pseudo medical practice better considered an art than a science! I stand in awe of scientists!
In any event I appreciate your correcting me in my choice of topic presentation. I haven't had the pleasure of reading many of your topic introductions recently, but I will study what I can find of yours to see if I can improve my fumbling efforts!
I can see already from the response here that very few have been attracted by my method of topic presentation! There seems to be no interest in taking on Dr. Davies controversial views! It looks like I misspoke regarding the stimulation of new thinking!
With respect to your 93% statistical analysis of my posts; if I was a critical thinker, I would ask you for corroboration of that statistic. However, I am merely a fumbling old fool attempting to compete with folks that are less than half my age and twice my acumen! Please have compassion for the aged! It is truly pathetic to see an old man attempting to swim in deep and dangerous waters! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2007 : 10:54:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
There seems to be no interest in taking on Dr. Davies controversial views! |
 If by "taking on" you mean "arguing in favor of" (taking on the mantle of one's mentor), then of course not. If by "taking on" you mean "arguing against" (taking on a competitor), then you need to re-read this thread.
Unless you were being sarcastic. But hey, you just spent a lot of effort upbraiding Hawks instead of "taking on" Davies' views yourself, so what do I know? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2007 : 15:28:31 [Permalink]
|
Dave, if you don't know sarcasm when you see it by now, I don't think I can be of any help! As to upbraiding, I have been in the presence of a Master, don't you think it is understandable that I would learn?
People like this Davies are of great interest to me, and I have little interest in rehashing the same, established arguments that have been well presented recently by you and others. As you must know by now, they are pretty much my views also!
However, well educated, intelligent people like Davies who apparently hold religious or quasi-religious views present a challenge of comprehension to me. I feel that there is a quantum difference in the way that these people, er, perceive the same basic data and data sources than the manner in which a person like yourself (or even myself and many menbers of your forum) perceive and proceed to interpret essentially the same source material. These differences in perception are a subject of great interest to me!
So I took the proactive step of contacting the good professor and quoting your comment of yesterday in its entireity to him. I did not identify you by name, nor mention the Forum, but as has been emphatically explained to me recently, your comments and mine here are a matter of public record, so I felt I was not violating any legalities or proprieties. It appears that Davies may not be an advocate of anything supernatural! The correspondence follows:----- Original Message -----
From: William Buck
To: deepthought@asu.edu
Cc: William Buck
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 1:06 AM
Subject: Taking Science on Faith
Dr. Davies:
I commented this morning and referred to your excellent op ed piece in today's (November 24) NY Times.
Among others, I received the comment below in response to your opinion piece. Do you have any response to this person's criticism of your article?
Where is this person missing your point?
"He may have lots of creds, but as soon as he starts spewing nonsense, he's spewing nonsense.
The laws of physics are what they are - as empirically determined - no matter what the reason they exist. That he was taught to not question their source simply means he was taught badly, not that science requires faith. And the fact that we may never know the "why" behind the laws of physics doesn't mean we have to accept them on faith, either. We can measure them, and see that the relationships they describe actually exist.
Paul Davies appeared in the ID "documentary" Privileged Planet, and he's doing nothing more in this op-ed piece than what that film attempts to do: get god into science by misrepresenting science.
The only reason to take anything scientific on faith is because you refuse to think about it. Davies apparently thinks that his refusal to think about the bases of science is justification for calling science "anti-rational" and "absurd." The only thing that's absurd is the idea that we should already have all the answers Davies wants."
I would appreciate your own view on this comment, prior to my answering it. What you have said makes a good deal of sense to me, and I certainly don't see you as "spewing nonsense" on the age-old question of the relationship between science and faith. Your view does not appear to me to be a religious statement.
Thank you for a few moments of your time!
William Buck
Coeur D'Alene , Idaho
bngbuck@roadrunner.com |
I received this response this morning.
I think this person is attributing the exact opposite views to me than those I hold. To get the full picture of where I am coming from on this subject, you need to read my book, on which the article is based. It is "Cosmic Jackpot: Why our universe is just right for life" and it is published by Houghton Mifflin. I argue that we can do better than accept the laws of physics on faith - this is just a legacy of monotheism. I want to abolish appeal to transcendent entities accepted on faith (gods, unexplained laws, unseen universes).
Dr. Paul Davies
Director
Beyond: Center for Fundamental Concepts in Science
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85287-6505
Ph: 480-965-3240 Fax: 480-727-6700
Websites:
Beyond Center: http://beyond.asu.edu/
Paul Davies: http://cosmos.asu.edu/ |
I have ordered his book this morning as it is not available on line.
I will be prepared to discuss his position, once I understand it! |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2007 : 15:52:51 [Permalink]
|
He says "buy my book!" and you did? Geez, I've got tons of stuff I can sell you. I'll get a price list together later on.
Davies claims that unexplained physical laws are "accepted on faith," but he has utterly failed to make his case. He has "accepted on faith" that any other scientists accept things on faith, making his position rather ironic and sad. The philosophy that underlies all of science is not one of faith, but one of methodological pragmatism, and it appears that Davies simply doesn't understand this. One can be a brilliant scientist without a clue as to the bases for science, but then one needs faith.
Perhaps this is all about Davies himself trying to crawl out of his epistemological cocoon, and he's just trying to share his journey of self-discovery, but is communicating it very poorly in the short op-ed piece (I'm obviously not the only one to come away with the "exact opposite" impression of what he claims to be trying to say). McGrath has read the book, and it does seem to say otherwise. Did I miss all reference to the book in the op-ed? Well, at the bottom of both pages it says,Paul Davies is the director of Beyond, a research center at Arizona State University, and the author of “Cosmic Jackpot: Why Our Universe Is Just Right for Life.” but I don't see that Davies says anywhere "these ideas are more fully fleshed-out in my book." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2007 : 17:06:37 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
| He says "buy my book!" and you did? Geez, I've got tons of stuff I can sell you. I'll get a price list together later on. |
If you have "The God Delusion" in pristine shape, I'm a buyer. Unfortunately, Dawkins said "buy my book" and I did. Then my copy went out on loan and, as always, became a gift. I understand that it has had good reviews!
My suggestion is you submit an under 600 word piece to Op Ed at the Times, summarizing your criticisms, and if they accept it you can duel with this pathetic opponent on his own turf! And it is a slightly larger audience!
In any event, for current lack of anything better, I will take the man at his word, read his book, and report in a week or so on what I feel he may or may not be saying! Kind of like getting references?
I never quote Scripture verse without reading at least the Chapter! It would be, well, unCritical!
Oh, and I'd like another copy of "Letter to a Christian Nation" if you have it in unwanted inventory! Christmas is coming! |
|
|
|
Cuneiformist
The Imperfectionist
USA
4955 Posts |
Posted - 11/26/2007 : 18:14:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Unfortunately, Dawkins said "buy my book" and I did. Then my copy went out on loan and, as always, became a gift. I understand that it has had good reviews! |
Not all reviews were so glowing! |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Taking Science on Faith
