Oh man, I completely missed this post yesterday. I'll bet my response to you seemed rather odd. You must have posted it at the same time I posted my R thoughts. Oops
------------------------------------------------- I don't, either, but to claim complete emotional objectivity within science, to me, is folly. It is impossible to remove human perspective from the mix, yet science claims in many instances to be just that. ---------------------------------------------------
We have to differentiate whether the lack of emotional objectivity is within the scientists or SCIENCE. Yes, all scientists are biased. Having to write grants to support your research will do that. And therefore, the stuff on the frontier of science will have some bias to it. But science itself MUST NOT contain that bias, it must be weeded out. It is a process that takes time, but I do think that science has done a good job. Relativity is a great example. It violates common sense on so many levels. But the data cannot be ignored and eventually it was accepted.
BB is an example of frontier science (well parts of it are). So there could quite possibly be some bias there. But you also have to remember that the easiest way to make a career in science is to defeat old theories rather than come up with new ones, and there are a lot of scientists out there that take that approach. I can guarantee you that there are many scientists actively trying to defeat BB, RIGHT NOW. I know several personally.
My challenge to all the BB-naysayers out there is, what is your competing theory? Yes, BB has problems, but it also does a darn good job explaining a LOT of things. If an new theory comes along that explains all those things AND solves the problems with BB, then BB will eventually die. So far, that has NOT happened. Until it does, BB is what we have.
------------------------------------------ Hm. Sounds to me like we are now discussing the philosophy of science. ------------------------------------------
In a way, yes. But my statements make testable claims too. No scientific theory has ever remained unaltered through time, so saying that science doesn't seek truth seems reasonable. However, science has done an excellent job weeding out garbage theories, thus my statement that science seeks falsehood is also reasonable and predictable. By looking at available data we can make predictions on which scientific theories are more sound and which are less.
-------------------------------------------------- Uhm.... most, if not all of QM hypotheses and theories lack observational data. -------------------------------------------------
Examples please? I can cite many QM theories with much observational data. Take Quantum tunneling, which fits remarkably well the data on radioactive isotopes, and is used very effectively with the scanning microscope.
Other examples would be scattering coefficients for particle collisions which does an excellent job predicting observed scattering distributions and quantum chromodynamics which has done a very good job explaining the observed "speciation" of particles using quarks, as well as predicting masses and other properties of previously undiscovered particles.
---------------------------------------- this is just a good ole leap of faith. ----------------------------------------
Actually I won't dispute that in every case. String theory is a leap of faith, which is why I don't think it should be called a theory. If your "theory" has no data to support it, then it is just a leap of faith. The BB theory is unfortunately for this discussion a very complex model with many parts, some of which are well verified by data, and some which are not. But arguing that one part isn't supported does not necessarily mean that the other parts that are, are wrong.
---------------------------------------------- right now, QM, just like any social science, is based on 'aggregate' behavior. Law(?) of averages. And that just makes me chuckle, I'm sorry. ----------------------------------------------
Statistical physics is a very powerful branch of science and does an amazingly good job predicting themodynamic behavior (i.e. kinetic theory of gases). So I do not think that just because we are using aggregate behavior is necessarily a drawback. With the advent of super-computers we have been able to effectively test and compare aggregate models with their individual particle behavior with much success (i.e. galaxy collision models have been able to reproduce observed galactic structures). In the QM area, the use of particle wave functions does involve probablistic models, but again in the case of quantum tunneling and other models, the predictions match very well with the experimental data.
The difference with social science (and this holds true for the love argument, which was as reach ) is the "free will" factor. Human beings can choose to do the wrong thing. Human beings can do something a hundred times one way, and even if it is working, do it a different way the next time. This is consciousness or sentience. As far as we know, particles, gases, liquids, etc. do not possess these qualities based on their observed behavior. True, there are statistical fluctuations in physical data. But you won't see, for example a mass of radioactive material suddenly change its rate of radioactivity by a factor of 10. Things like that CAN happen when humans are involved.
------------------------------------------ though QM is beginning to run into that, and some suppositions now coming forward are very philosophical because there is no other way, currently, to explain the results they are seeing. ---------------------------------------------
Please give me examples. I don't want to sound like I am brow-beating you, but I see this a lot in ID and creation science discussions. Lots of statements such as "there are tons of problems with science theories" or "there are these new competing theories that kick science's butt" but never any elaboration. I would really like to hear which QM problems you are talking about.
--------------------------------------- No. I was talking about the fluctuations of a vaccum. I may not be saying this correctly... but if there is no vaccum, how can it fluctuate? -----------------------------------------
I'll admit that I am not very strong on understanding quantum fluctuations. I should be, but I'm not. So maybe you are saying it the right way. I'll try to read up on it next chance I get.
------------------------------------------ You lost me here. If there is no 'room' in which to move, how then do changes in coordinates take place? -------------------------------------------
What I am saying is that you can't even use the word move without already having space. I think we are just dancing around each other here. Do you like tango or waltz better?
--------------------------------------------------------- I appreciate your view... but you didn't answer my question. And I realize you probably can't... except at a philosophical level And that is my point entirely. To me, THIS is where creative thought enters the picture because you never know from what corner of the scientific/philosophical/theological realm inspiration will strike. In short, everybody is interested, at least from their perspective, in this question. It's the Big Kahona. ----------------------------------------------------
I disagree somewhat. To say that we currently don't know does not imply that only a philosophical answer will do. Unexplained is not inexplicable. We do not need to invoke a supernatural agency to explain something that we do not have the tools to explain at this time. To do so creates a danger that scientific investigation will cease because we have fallen back on a "God did it" mentality. If we don't understand something, then we should strive to figure it out, not say it is the incomprehensible work of an omnipotent creator. Maybe I am dancing too far afield of your point here though.
I agree completely with you that human creativity is the spark for scientific discovery. Therefore it acts at the hypothesis level. But at the theory level, we MUST strive to remove all bias, including those based on personal, untestable beliefs. Otherwise we run the risk of preventing ourselves from discovering new theories that run contrary to those beliefs.
I also agree that this is the big Kahoona. Everyone SHOULD be interested in this. If you aren't, you are wasting that huge hunk of grey matter that evolution has gone to such great pains to protect.
------------------------------------------ It is just my opinion, but to me, Eastern Mysticism has so far been the most consistent with cosmological research. Like I said earlier, the parallels are amazing. To me, it is worth exploration, that is all I am saying. To dismiss it out of hand I think is irresponsible. -----------------------------------------------
I agree, to dismiss anything out of hand is VERY irresponsible. But to accept something just because it seems right or rings true is also irresponsible. That is the beef I have with many religious practicioners. The Bible said it therefore it is true.
I have not had any chance to research Eastern mysticism, but I have heard several people state basically the same thing you did. It is on my list of life goals to one day start spending some time with it. I think it is right after "have hot sex" and right before "see Mt. Kilimanjaro"
--------------------------------------------- "Truth cannot be communicated; it can only be laid bare." - Wei Wu Wei
Meaning, one does not discover truth by proof of what is; one discovers truth through the understanding of what isn't.
Sounds pretty scientific to me -----------------------------------------------
Yes it does. You have definitely piqued my interest.
-------------------------------------------- amazing experiments that have been done on the power of prayer, the power of faith and the power of belief. ----------------------------------------------
I have heard anecdotally about these experiments. Can you provide links to their research methods an results?
Yes, the act of observation does disturb the thing being observed, from the smallest particle to human beings (despite all the trouble of double-blind experiments ). It is a troubling thing for predictibility, and necessitates the aggregate approach you mentioned earlier. But I think QM has a good handle on it based on current experiments. JMHO
I have serious philosophical and scientific problems with the anthropic principle and how it is applied. In my opinion it has been grossly misused in the intelligent design debate, as well as in the debate on the origin and nature of life. But that is another topic altogether.
Thanks so much for this dicussion Corri. I really enjoy/need/want this kind of thing in my life. Its nice to be able to do it here, because I have already gained a large measure of respect and admiration for you based on your relationship know-how. I've tried to go on boards devoted to BB, etc. but if there already isn't mutual respect, this discussion can very quickly devolve into a shouting match, which I refuse to participate in. Thanks again.
Waiting for your response with bated breath.
CHROM!
"Recollect me darlin, raise me to your lips, two undernourished egos, four rotating hips"
) is the "free will" factor. Human beings can choose to do the wrong thing. Human beings can do something a hundred times one way, and even if it is working, do it a different way the next time. This is consciousness or sentience. As far as we know, particles, gases, liquids, etc. do not possess these qualities based on their observed behavior. True, there are statistical fluctuations in physical data. But you won't see, for example a mass of radioactive material suddenly change its rate of radioactivity by a factor of 10. Things like that CAN happen when humans are involved.
). It is a troubling thing for predictibility, and necessitates the aggregate approach you mentioned earlier. But I think QM has a good handle on it based on current experiments. JMHO