A scientific leap, but without the faith

Philadelhpia Inquirer ^ | Sun, Feb. 05, 2006 | Amanda Gefter

[TChris]

When we ask, "Why is the world the way it is?" it answers, "Because it was designed that way." The world is the way it is because it is that way. That might be the furthest from a useful, satisfactory explanation you can get.

But, what if that explanation is true? Because it is "unsatisfactory", boring, etc. to some scientists, should it, therefore, simply be rejected out of hand? Is there nothing to be learned if what is being studied was designed?

Can an art student learn nothing from a Renoir or a Van Gough because the paintings were the result of conscious action? Shall I stop studying the C++ source code of those with far more experience than I because "It is the way it is because that's the way the programmer intended it"?

The venemous anti-ID'ers seem to be saying that the principle of ID spoils all the fun in science, so it should be banished outright. I simply don't get the basis of the hatred.

[Paul Ross]

A theory is a framework to explain the facts. A theory is one level up from fact, so the mantra ought to go, "Evolution is not just a fact. It's a theory."

Clearly, this joker "author" is not a 'scientist'.

What a MAROON!

[unlearner]

This article makes one good point - that the demarcation standard of science is not as clear cut as some around here would have us believe.

My biggest complaint is that somehow science does not rely on faith. Yes it does. Faith, perhaps not a religious or spiritual kind, does play a large role in science. It is fundamental to it.

Consider trust. As children we do not need to understand the germ theory of medicine in order to follow our parents instructions about washing our hands before we eat. We do it on the basis of trust. (Either we trust that father knows best, or at least we trust that disobedience has consequences.) When we become adults we may continue to wash, not because we trust our parents, but we trust what we have learned about the benefits of cleanliness and disadvantages of its absence.

In science we use empirical evidence. However, empirical evidence does not mean that everyone who accepts data as accurate is an eye witness to a test. We use peer review. But this does not mean that every peer reviews. Nor does this method eliminate error or fraud entirely. Our understanding of the methodology of science causes us to trust the overall process to lead to beneficial results. We generally accept scientific findings as "true" or at least useful. Trust is an integral part of the process.

Some want to diminish the role of faith by confusing it with dogma. A belief that is unwilling to be tested becomes dogma. Unfortunately, many detractors of the role and value of faith are often the most guilty of being dogmatic.

[RunningWolf]

I always get your points and understand what you say unlearner. You say it very well, thats why I pinged you.

The circular circular circular nature of evos!

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for the ping!

I find this remark in the article most telling:

Case Western physicist Lawrence Krauss, whose latest book, Hiding in the Mirror, has stirred the controversy, feels that science's current struggle against political and religious agendas makes string theory a dangerous liability. As he writes in the journal Nature, the scientific status afforded to string theory "opens us up to otherwise avoidable attacks, particularly from those who would include religious ideas in high school science curricula."

But the real danger is not string theory's lack of experiments - it is the misrepresentation of what scientific theories are all about.

LOLOL! As we have observed on several threads - when one defends science with a worldview that reality is "matter in all its motions" - even mathematics gets wiped off the table as beyond natural for purposes of "methodological naturalism".

[betty boop]

LOLOL! As we have observed on several threads - when one defends science with a worldview that reality is "matter in all its motions" - even mathematics gets wiped off the table as beyond natural for purposes of "methodological naturalism".

Indeed, it's like seeing through a filter rather than directly. The upshot is ever a reduction of reality to the capability of the filter -- and the filter is expressly designed to exclude certain things altogether, on principle. But those things are still in the world nonetheless! They still substantially contribute to the constitution of reality! And so they don't just go away when you refuse to look at them.

If Krauss were to have his way, I guess string theory would make the list of "forbidden areas" where science is not supposed to go -- joining ID, and heaven knows probably the next really interesting scientific paradigm to emerge.

Or so it seems to me.

Thanks so much for the "chuckle" at Krauss' expense, dear sister. This guy seems to be quite worried about "attacks" on the "purity" of methodological naturalism. His defense seems to be the refusal to admit any possibility of scientific theoretical development according to any new theory that does not fit the Procrustean bed of that tiresome ontological monism, "matter in all its motions is all that there is." Sure. And science doesn't use mathematics everyday. People like this are walking self-contradictions!

Well, my two-cents' worth anyhoot....

[Dan(9698)]

Had the bending of starlight not been observed, the hypothesis would be junk.

The bending could have been explained by refraction.

The sun has atmosphere, any light passing near the sun would pass through the atmosphere. Light is bent by refraction when it passes through the atmosphere.

[Alamo-Girl]

The upshot is ever a reduction of reality to the capability of the filter -- and the filter is expressly designed to exclude certain things altogether, on principle. But those things are still in the world nonetheless! They still substantially contribute to the constitution of reality! And so they don't just go away when you refuse to look at them.

So very, very true! Thank you for your excellent post.

[spunkets]

" The bending could have been explained by refraction.

No. The calculation was exact. There were roughly 15 stars. The results are that the deflection of the stars is inversely proportional to the angular separation from the center of the sun. That doesn't happen with refraction. The refractive index is close to one(space), since the stars are well out of the way of the sun's atmosphere. If they weren't, the sun's atmosphere would absorb the light and no atar would be seen.