Posted on 08/20/2005 5:45:53 PM PDT by Nicholas Conradin
By SEATTLE - When President Bush plunged into the debate over the teaching of evolution this month, saying, "both sides ought to be properly taught," he seemed to be reading from the playbook of the Discovery Institute, the conservative think tank here that is at the helm of this newly volatile frontier in the nation's culture wars.
After toiling in obscurity for nearly a decade, the institute's Center for Science and Culture has emerged in recent months as the ideological and strategic backbone behind the eruption of skirmishes over science in school districts and state capitals across the country. Pushing a "teach the controversy" approach to evolution, the institute has in many ways transformed the debate into an issue of academic freedom rather than a confrontation between biology and religion.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
US merged with Argosy in 2001, if that helps. I will report anything I find, regardless of whether it supports "my" side or yours.
I do believe someone has it wrong -- AIG or IRC, or both.
Is String Theory physics or metaphysics?
(Bonus Question: Do you believe that gravity is caused by a graviton or is it just curved space?)
Oops! I meant that for you, donh:
Is String Theory physics or metaphysics?
(Bonus Question: Do you believe that gravity is caused by a graviton or is it just curved space?)
I just finished telling you, complete with a concrete example (so to speak), that that is insufficient criteria for science to be hugely interested.
And also - Santa Clause exists ONLY in this universe as an IDEA that has an effect. All of Santa's effects can be traced to this universe. It is a false analogy.
Assuming, of course, that God really exists. Post Hoc, Ergo Propter hoc, anyone? Being served up now in 5 delicious flavors.
When the indisputable evidence for the tangible existent of God the Prime Mover mounts up to a substantial bit more than the tangible evidence for Santa Claus, science may begin to perk up an ear.
Until there is a potentially dis-confirming experiment to be performed, within an affordable budget, I feel pretty safe in calling it metaphysics. Your mileage may differ at different science institutions, but I think most would probably still agree with me--as is the case, for example, with SETI, cold fusion, and crop circle reasearch, whose parallels with the anthropic principle I recommend for your consideration. As with speciation, it's not so clear when the instant is that you now have another science. It creeps up on you. That is also insufficient reason to claim that any problem that tickles your fancy is, ipso facto, science.
(Bonus Question: Do you believe that gravity is caused by a graviton or is it just curved space?)
I have no idea, I'm not even convinced there's a distinction; when was the last time you saw a graviton in the flesh?
Is String Theory physics or metaphysics?
__________
"Until there is a potentially dis-confirming experiment to be performed, within an affordable budget, I feel pretty safe in calling it metaphysics."
____________
Would you then say that String Theory should not be taught or even seriously discussed in science courses at our educational institutions?
***
(Bonus Question: Do you believe that gravity is caused by a graviton or is it just curved space?)
_____________
"I have no idea, I'm not even convinced there's a distinction; when was the last time you saw a graviton in the flesh?"
___________
Actually, there is a distinction, from what I understand. It has to be one or the other. But apparently nobody knows yet which it is. I'm leaning towards an as-yet-unseen graviton.
But, since physicists don't know, does that put the cause of gravity - as far as you are concerned - into the realm of metaphysics as well? (I think it was you who stated much earlier that gravity is on "shaky ground" as it is, what with the dark matter/dark energy problems, the spaceships leaving the solar system discrepencies, the expanding universe problem, and other assorted whatnot.) The theories aren't holding up, as I understand it. Observation and experiment are dis-confirming our previously held beliefs regarding gravity, aren't they?
Just looking for the honest evolutionist who will admit it is a weakness in the theory that you can't observe the mechanism doing very much. You ain't that man I guess.
Found this on physicsforum and thought it pertinent:
The Fundamental Concepts of Physics Are All Based Upon Metaphysics:
The fundamental concepts of physics are all based upon metaphysics. The paradigms only "work" within contrived parameters.
The lack of a general understanding that the fundamental principals of physics are entirely dependent upon faith . . . that is: Metaphysics (that which requires much faith to understand the logic of its postulates) . . . is largely because:
The certainty of applied scientific method, concerning said fundamental principles, is strongly implied by academia . . . rather than, academia clearly stating that: The fundamental principles of physics result from theory that is derived from mysterious phenomena that is not currently understandable by any member of post-modern academia
Usually, these fundamental principles involve orthogonal space; cyclic and linear time; and four forces, sometimes fewer forces, sometimes more, depending upon which authority is being consulted . . . also, the Inverse Square Law should be included; and, unbelievably, often forgotten, the entire discipline of mathematics is also a fundamental principle of physics.
The fundamental forces that are most usually considered are: gravity, light, the strong atomic force, and the weak atomic force; occasionally, several of these forces are considered as one by some physicists; and, others sometimes include inertia; or, as it's often known: the cosmological constant, or more recently, either Cosmic inertia; or even, enigmatic "dark" energy that emanates from the void.
Thus, generally, the considered forces are between three and five; however, the general consensus is that there are four fundamental forces.
The cosmological constant is often considered as a force because of its inertia-like opposition to gravity. Because of recent observations of galactic recession and other cosmic motions, the cosmological constant has been resurrected from a long discarded conceptual contrivance of Einstein's. However, for post-modern observation and application, Einstein was wrong about the cosmological constant being constant; and, he, also, misplaced the source and direction of its action. Astronomers often refer to a form of this force as the mysterious, observed "Great Attractor."
The fundamental etiology and nature of all these concepts of orthogonal space, time, The Inverse Square Law, mathematics, and forces are little understood . . . if at all. Thus, an understanding of the "Why?" of these concepts, as professed by academia, requires much faith . . . a prerequisite for metaphysics.
The fundamental concepts of physics have been invented/contrived to explain observed, natural happenings. And, thus, their proof is often mistaken because the natural happenings, happen to happen. This proof is circular, at best; these fundamental concepts are not presently provable with any currently acceptable theory. In fact all fundamental physics is "theory" because none of it is provable . . . a prerequisite for metaphysics.
The current theories are little more than a form of symbolism that is useful for representing inexplicable, natural phenomena; and are thus, similar to the gods which were invented during early history to explain the stars, sun, thunder, lightning, life, consciousness, death, and so on. Quite likely, the ancients had a better natural understanding of god than the designing, anthropomorphic representations that modern religions now provide.
An ancient person of learning was a combination scientist, theologian, and philosopher; a combination seldom seen in the modern "scientific" era; these disciplines, Science, Theology, and Philosophy, have gone their separate ways in search of the same goal: understanding and explaining our natural environment so that we can, by design, better live our lives. Today, rhe argot so obfuscates, that their is little interdiscipline dialogue.
Space and time have been linked by Einstein's concept that has been labeled: space-time. Though there is much justification for such a linkage, it is still similar to linking the words "light-gravity" and their enigmatic connotations. The linkage of space and time, each a poorly understood concept, in itself, only creates confusion. Particularly, when space is no more than a relative illusion of our senses. And, time, two distinct concepts, is, both, confusingly, and often, circularly defined.
Space, more appropriately time, is not only a function of speed, but it does not actually exist as usually envisaged . . . it is relative; and an illusion. There is no such thing as "space" where "something" such as light waves can not be found. In fact, all matter, no matter how dense, is composed entirely of wave phenomena. It is our senses that are not sensitive enough to perceive certain "dark" matter, "particles," rays, and waves, which completely fill all "space." Our senses, thus, create the illusion of matter from the motion of energy and resonance such that the energy (light) is contained; and, subsequently, the illusion of voids, or "space," between matter, which consists of various wave phenomena.
Reality is without voids. Reality is causal and local; everything is in resonant contact with something . . . and everything . . . without concern for "time" . . . at some relative speed. The apparitions of Reality's non-local phenomena; such as tunneling, quantum teleportation, photon entanglement, universal gravitational and inertial action-at-a-distance, et cetera; are associated with Triquametric motion and speeds beyond that of light.
Time, fundamentally, is a mystery to physicists. The label "time" refers to several phenomena, which are usually, deceptively commingled. There is cyclical time, linear time, electromagnetic time, et cetera; as well as, directional and reversible time that must be considered. No one has been able to clearly define whether time is directional; nor, differentiate, clearly, the differing concepts of time; nor, explain the generative origins of these "times." Time as a function of, or a form of, speed is the most fundamental, and thus mysterious, of concepts which underlie Reality. Time, currently, certainly qualifies as being metaphysical.
No one can explain the "Why?" of gravity; only the "How?" is explainable. No one knows the speed of gravity, which must be near infinite otherwise the Cosmos would forsake "clockwork" for the action of billiard balls. However, infinite speed is not allowed by most interpretations of the theory of Special Relativity. But, then, if gravity's speed were as allowed by the usual interpretation of the theory of Special Relativity, gravitons and gravity "waves" should have been found by now. They have not been found; and, won't be; nor, has any other physical manifestation of the cause (Why?) of gravity's action-at-a-distance been observed or rationalized.
Gravity's attraction, or "action-at-a-distance," is an inexplicable mystery that has defied any interpretation.
(Newton)...hinted that Gravity was direct, divine action, as were all forces.... Thus, (for Newton) gravity was spiritual. --Anna Marie Roos, Ph.D. History.
Einstein considered action-at-a-distance as . . . "spooky."
Richard Feynman, also a renowned physicist, stated: "Gravitation is...not understandable in terms of other phenomena."
And, also: "The possibility exists...that gravity itself is a pseudo force." Feynman muses, "Is it not possible that perhaps gravitation is due simply to the fact that we do not have the right coordinate system?”
Gravity, as currently understood, can easily be said to belong to the realm of metaphysics. Actually, it will be found that the phenomenon of gravitational "attraction" is a form of both relative, hierarchic compression and confluent congruence. Confluent congruence is a universal phenomenon that effects all events and occurs near Infinity, well beyond the speed of light; but, not quite within the realm of metaphysics.
Light is understood even less than gravity, if that is possible. Sometimes, the phenomenon of light is explained as acting like a wave; and, at other times, light appears to act as a particle. The concepts of particle and wave are two concepts that cannot be more physically, or diametrically, opposed to one another; nor, when combined, as with the theory of light, more inexplicable without resorting to metaphysics.
Light as a force seems to defy one of aeveral definitions of force as mass times acceleration. Generally, Light is considered as without mass and moving at a constant speed. Possible reconciliation is that the definition of force is inadequate and Light is also improperly understood. I suggest there is even more at fault with the fundamental, Natural, physical definitions that are provided by the pomo (thsnk you E. M.) elite.
Also, of metaphysical interest, concerning light, is the current explanation of the speed of light as being relatively constant. This constant is unlike anything else known and defies all known logic. Again, a strong metaphysical faith is a requirement for understanding both light and its constant speed.
The atomic strong and weak forces have been fabricated, admittedly, by physicists to explain observed subatomic phenomena. No one has ever been able to explain "Why?" these subatomic forces "work." Or, for that matter, there are no answers to the related questions of: How did such a tremendous amount of energy, as is observed, get into an atom?; and, What is holding this energy within the atom? There is much metaphysical faith required concerning an understanding of atomic theory, and particularly, the atomic strong and weak forces.
And then, concerning inertia: there are very few physicists that will even acknowledge that there is an inertial force . . . despite many recent cosmic observations to the contrary. Newton incorrectly defined inertia as being straight and uniform. Inertia appears to act from the infinite, as opposed to gravity which appears to act from the infinitesimal. Thus, the source of inertia, being so far from the anthropic scale, appears to be without curvature or acceleration. Inertia's small force is quite apparent when applied to large cosmic bodies.
Inertia's close relative, the cosmological constant, can hardly qualify as a force until it is acknowledged that it is not a constant. By definition, a mechanical force cannot be constant; it must entail acceleration. Einstein resorted to the cosmological constant because of structural necessity; but, he soon realized it was a mistake; as he had interpreted it. Though, Einstein can hardly be faulted; as an understanding of the source and etiology of both gravity and inertia is still quite erroneous . . . if interpreted at all.
A form of a cosmological force that opposes gravity, and is, thus, structurally necessary, must be explainable if our environment is to be understood . . . and, most importantly, an inertial force, if it exists, and it does, can replace the considered necessity of the misleading Big Bang theory, and all of its absurdities, as the structural force, which opposes gravity. Such an inertial force is referred to as Cosmic Inertia, which together with gravity, its alter ego, is referred to as: Infinite Dynamics.
Gravity, inertia, and the atomic forces are all very closely related to the enigmatic and ubiquitous phenomenon which has been described as exotic "dark" matter. It is this unknown, and unfound, "dark" matter that is generally considered to constitute almost all of the mass of the Universe. The etiology and internal geometry of this "dark" matter can rationalize Reality.
The fantasy of science fiction pales when compared to modern theories of gravity and light.
The thoughtful, imaginative dialogue of alternative concepts are a mark of great minds.
Thanks for a starting point.
I will report anything I find, regardless of whether it supports "my" side or yours.
Ditto. I came accross this last night. It's a little voluminous and seems to have all kinds of info from the early nineties concerning the issue we're discussing. I haven't really gone through it, and forgot why I saved it, so i can't comment on what's useful and what's not.
I'm off on another line of iquiry for the time being.
I do believe someone has it wrong -- AIG or IRC, or both.
Actually, I'm as curious as you are. My first qualification though, is legitimate accreditation. What were the standards of the time, and did the university meet them, and by extension his EdD. If not, are there legitimate mitigating circumstances between that time and present, that would validate the EdD.
If no to all of the above, then game over as far as I'm concerned.
Just verified that, and two others in the merger:
Argosy University evolved in September 2001 through a merger of three long-standing higher education institutions – the American Schools of Professional Psychology, the University of Sarasota, and the Medical Institute of Minnesota.
I'm talking about evidence IN THIS UNIVERSE, MATERIAL EVIDENCE of (the universe) being a creation. That, you must agree, is within science's sphere, yes?
_____
"I just finished telling you, complete with a concrete example (so to speak), that that is insufficient criteria for science to be hugely interested."
_________
Maybe not hugely interested, but certainly "within science's sphere", yes? Material Evidence (special attributes) IN this universe, and the study of such would constitue "Science" as it is properly understood, yes?
test
I'm going to be busy off and on for the next few days js, but I'll do what I can. I'm open to the information at any time, so if this thread does happen to die quickly, just ping me. I'll still be interested. Or, you can ping me to another thread with the info if need be. Doesn't matter.
All paranoid delusions feature such moments of clarity.
Is that about right? Regardless of the evidence, all notions of intelligent intervention must be discounted because, well simply because you say so?
If you had the sort of overwhelming positive forensic evidence of God's creative handiwork, that could be verified by cynical, disbelieving, scientifically trained observers through experimentation or further field research, your Nobel prize would be in the bag. You don't get this prize, however, for running around shouting "science doesn't know everything--nya, nya, nya"--popular as that approach seems to be at the moment. I'm sorry science's disinterest in your problem is distressng for you, but science does not throw away it's current major paradigms every time a student lab goes astray.
There is no world-wide scientific conspiracy to hide the really, really good, compelling evidence for God's existence from prying eyes. Honest, I know it might seem like hundreds of thousands of evil, malign scientists are plotting to hide the truth from you, but that's not the actual case, that is what we call a paranoid delusion in medical clinics. If the evidence were there, some scientist somewhere would have defied Darwn Central, and glommed onto it in an instant, and published, and thereafter written his own plush academic career ticket, and received his Nobel and his chair at Oxford.
What does that mean? That light doesn't travel from one place to another?
Actually, direct observation of gravitational phenomena are not the main factor that is causing the belief that general relativity is not a complete theory, but rather the inherent conflict between general relativity and quantum mechanics. Direct observational problems can all be resolved without discarding the current theoretical framework.
The problem relates directly to the graviton, which is the quantum particle of spacetime curvature. The problem arises when a theory of quantum gravity is formulated. If this is done in analogy with the other forces of nature, then two massive objects interact by exchanging gravitons. However, nobody can make any sense out of a "quantum of spacetime curvature" and the calculations that result from such a formulation yield infinity as an answer.
That's where string theory comes into play. String theory works with one-dimensionally extended strings, rather than point particles. The advantage of working with strings is that the infinities go away. The primary disadvantage is that string theory is only consistent in 11 spacetime dimensions. Since we have never observed so many dimensions, this is problematic, but not insoluble. It is speculated that the "extra" dimensions are tightly curled up to such a small size that we haven't observed them, much as one looking at a tightrope from a distance might directly observe only one dimension.
Experiments with gravity over short distances might help shed some light on this. In our macroscopic world, with three spatial dimensions, gravity obeys and inverse square law. In a world with four spatial dimensions, it would obey an inverse cube law. The inverse power of the spatial separation in the formula for gravity will always be one less than the number of spatial dimensions. If there are tightly coiled dimensions, then if we look at small enough separations, we should see a different law for gravitational attractions. If string theory is correct we should see an inverse 9th power law (it requires 10 spatial dimensions and one time dimension). The trouble is that measurements of gravity at small distances are very difficult, and so far, IIRC we only have data down to something like 1/10 mm. We would have to measure gravity at much smaller distances than this to lend support to string theory.
It's remotely possible, but we have a pretty good early-warning system.
</feeding creationist paranoia mode>
Ignoring what people are saying and suggesting they get an education is not considered courteous where I come from.
I don't need to read a few basic articles. About 10 years ago I started reading material asking hard-core evolutionists the best stuff to read. I've read scores of Talk Origins articles and discussions, Dawkins, and several full books on evolutionary theory.
In all this time, I've come to believe the creationists and the evolutionists habitually engage in gross errors of reasoning. Hence both sides are totally unconvincing to me. My guess is that common descent is real but that the mechanism has not yet been identified and the arrogance of the evolutionary advocates is thus misplaced.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.