Quote:
|
Originally Posted by James Putnam
That is what I think about theoretical physics. A lot of things are wrong. Primarily the interjection of ideas that are not empirical.
|
So you're basically saying that you object to anyone saying anything that cannot be empirically proved, but then you say that nothing can be proved. You really need to decide what you want to say because your theory is internally inconsistent. And moreover, "belief" is not empirical. Even the existentialists would not agree with this.
The scientific method places development of theories prior to empirical proof at the beginning of its process. Its called "formulating a hypothesis." Your attempt to claim that hypotheses should not be allowed is a round about mechanism for trying to redefine the Scientific Method to prove your unscientific beliefs.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by James Putnam
I believe that evolution occured by intelligent design.
|
Nice! Knew you'd get around to it. Now provide us with some empirical evidence for your unproven hypothesis. Oh wait, you don't allow unproven hypotheses. Oh well.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by James Putnam
What I point to is that intelligence is cause. Intelligence is empirical. We know it exists. We do not know that any of the mechanical causes of theoretical physics exist. Intelligence is our source for all interpretation of the operation of the universe. It is the cause for what we think we know.
|
You'll find no argument with the notion that intelligence causes things to happen. Unfortunately, in Formal Logic:
A implies B
is not equivalent to
B implies A
Which is the fundamental premise of "intelligent design": "Since intelligence causes things to happen, if things happen, there must be intelligence behind it." I know you "believe" this is true, but it does not pass formal logic which is a foundation of the scientific method. Sorry!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by James Putnam
We do not know that any of the mechanical causes of theoretical physics exist.
|
Wanted to repeat this because I want to repeat, this statement does not in any way show that the theories are invalid. The scientific method can invalidate theories, but it does not say that theories for which there no *current* empirical tests are invald.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by James Putnam
I claim that no empirical evidence exists for the mechanical causes put forward by theoretical physics. I claim they cannot be tested, because they only exist in the imaginations of physicists. Please tell me which ones you know to be real.
|
If you don't believe in them you're free to propose alternate theories. You cannot claim they are invalid unless you come up with an empirical test to disprove them (note this actually doesn't require you come up with an alternate theory, but you can't call a theory wrong unless you prove that it is incorrect with evidence).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by James Putnam
I only assumed that the sample theory was internally consistent. I do not claim that theories in general are internally consistent. Theories do not produce empirical results. They extrapolate possible results from equations that imitate patterns observed in empirical data. Success in making predictions is not sufficient to prove the validity of a theory. Good theory demonstrates unity and successful predictions.
|
Now what you seem to be doing here is the old canard of trying to redefine "theory" to mean "any idea that has not been proven" then segue into "so they're all unprovable, QED." This is not the accepted definition of the word "Theory" which is any set of statements that can be used to describe physical phenomena. A theory may or may not be testable, but that does not make it invalid or worthy of use. Now what's really silly about these statements is that you then say that "Good theory demonstrates unity and successful predictions" and we'd all agree with that with the exception of the word unity, which we don't really give a darn about. Now that being said, if you go around saying that no theories can be proven, there's lots of successful predictions from these theories that you either are unwilling to look up or accept. Oh well.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by James Putnam
Einstein proved nothing about time. He nor anyone else could perform experiments on 'time'. Time is not something that we can handle and observe. We observe motion of matter. If the motion of matter slows, then that proves only that the motion of matter slowed.
|
Did ya ever hear about that experiment where they put a bunch of atomic clocks up in an airplane and flew it around for a long time and when they landed and compared them to the stationary clocks, they were a few clicks different? Please tell us why this experiment, based on a testable hypothesis provided by Einstein was somehow wrong?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by James Putnam
Einstein offerred a theory. Theory is not empirical fact. His theory proves only that its equations accurately imitate patterns observed in the motion of matter up to a point. Where it fails mechanically, quantum theory is brought to the rescue. Where it fails on properties of the universe that cannot be described by mechanical theory, it remains not rescued. His theory, as well as all other mechanical theories, does not represent the natural properties of a universe that gave birth to life and intelligence.
|
Well I took care of the silly "a theory is not a fact" notion above, but the only point you appear to be making is because some of these theories do not have empirical evidence *yet* that there's gotta be an intelligent creator. This is not science. Science says we know what we can see and we can guess at what we can't see, and when we guess we'd better be prepared to have the guess be shown by experiment to be false.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by James Putnam
It is our lack of knowledge about cause that necessitates the invention of theory. Any theory that is mechanical fails right from the start to account for this universe.
|
No, it doesn't. Science is interested in causes only in so far as the theories about those causes produce testable hypotheses (not that we can actually perform those tests yet, but that they are testable given means not yet obtainable). If you want to find metaphysical "causes", that's fine, but its not Science.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by James Putnam
Mechanical materialism can even more easily be viewed as unnecssary and offensive. It has no relevance to the existence of intelligence. Please cite a mechanical material cause for anything and explain how you know it is true. Please cite the cause of intelligence.
|
Well as you said, intelligence exists. No argument there. I can go on for hours about the evolutionary usefulness of intelligence, but this is not the proper thread for this (you'll find lots of arguments elsewhere on this site). I don't have a problem with you feeling that mecahnical materialism is wrong, but that's a philosophical and metaphysical argument, not Science.
Welcome to Hypography!
Cheers,
Buffy
