Science is close-minded

[James Putnam]

Originally Posted by REASON

James,

First of all, electric charge is a name given to an effect, not a cause as you have so aptly noted. So to substitute the the term "God" in this instance would be improper based on your own argument. I'm not aware that there is a dogmatic scientific name applied to the cause of electric charge in subatomic particles. But suggesting that using the term "God" is as acceptable as any term, where there is no current explanation, is presumptuous in my estimation.

Electric charge is a name given to describe a property of some particles of matter. If the particle is isolated and not changing its velocity, then, there are no effects. The property of electric charge is defined as existing even in the absence of effects. It is the property that will cause effects, the effects being changes of velocity, should the particle have its own velocity changed. Electric charge is a 'given' fundamental cause of electromagnetic effects. There is no need to refer to God as the cause of electric charge. The point I am making is that electric charge is an assumed property. So long as it remains recognized as a fundamental property, it plays the role of an artificial, theoretical, stopping point. The problem, as I see it, is not only with electric charge. The problem is pervasive throughout theoretical physics. It starts at the beginning of theory.

What's interesting to me about your position is that it seems to become impossible to ever scientifically define a base cause for anything. As soon as someone attempts to so so, it is immediately classified as dogmatic or restrictive from your point of view and is dismissible. At least it appears that way to me. I conceed that I may either be reading too much or not enough into your statements.

It is true that I am saying no one knows what is cause. This lack of knowledge is not the immediate problem we face. We can go a very long way without ever knowing what is cause. The immediate problem is that cause has been artificially divided up into theoretical fundamental forces. In other words, disunity is adopted as the norm in fundamental physics theory. We do not know that this is really the case. It may be possible that theoretical physics can be developed with unity of cause right from the beginning of the fundamentals.

I think one of the important points that has been made relative to the idea of naming undefined aspects of nature is that using the term "God" carries with it a whole lot of historical baggage. While you may have a clear understanding of what you mean when you apply the word "God" to something, most people are going to think you are referring to something completely different that is more reminiscent of their dogmatic religious programming. Something you probably aren't intending. This only leads to a breakdown in communication. So if you feel it is inconsequential what terminology is used to convey undefined causation, why should anyone choose the term "God" with all of it's confusing implications?

I think you are correct. I do not have a compelling need to use the name God. However, theoretical physics offers us no way to move from mechancial type action to defining fundamentals for the properties of life and intelligence. So, I see the mechanical type facade of theoretical physics as an obstacle that is preventing us from moving forward and discovering the true natural properties of the universe.

No matter how far you go with defining root cause, stopping at God suggests an unwillingness seek further refinement in understanding. So from the stand point of science, it is simply impossible to arrive at the conclusion of God. This isn't being closed-minded, it's the nature of the method.

God can only exist as a concept. Is that not acceptable?

Your point is a good one. However, I am arguing that stopping at separate fundamental causes also blocks the oportunity for further refinement. In any case, somewhere in the definition of fundamental properties of the universe, the word intelligence should be included. Something causes it. If there is a single cause, then that cause will have the potential to produce all the results that we observe in the universe. I think it should not be considered unscientific to prefer the investigation of a fundamental potential for all properties over the limited investigation of patterns in changes of velocity.

James

[James Putnam]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

James, what is the point of your argument? Is it that you think god is the cause of everything or that you don't think science is the way to find anything out? Or is it that you think science makes claims it cannot back up?

I think that intelligence had a cause and that cause cannot be found in theory that defines the universe as being the product of mechanical type forces. I think science can be and should be the way to learn about the operation of the universe. However, more to your point, I do think science makes claims, in its theoretical analysis, that it cannot back up. I think there are many assumptions included in physics theory right from the start. A few years ago, I attempted to begin to show this in a message I wrote concerning the theoretical interpretation of f=ma. I see clear problems there and additional problems as theory is expanded. The subject of this thread is: Is science close minded? In the field of theoretical physics, I think that at times and in some important areas it may be challenged as being close minded. I think, with regard to science, close mindedness is a temporary condition. I do think in the end truth wins out. However, close mindedness can cause us to take a much longer time to learn the truth. Do you think that time dilation is a fact?

James

[James Putnam]

[quote] [quote]
Originally Posted by James Putnam
We see that life evolved. The question with real merit is: What is there about the molecules in DNA that gives them the purpose and means to build intelligent life? Or, expanding the question: What are the properties of the universe, tracing them back to its earliest time, that led to the evolution of intelligent life.

Originally Posted by freeztar

The question with real merit is: what does this have to do with the topic of this thread?

Look. If you don't want this to go on, that is fine. I can end it immediately. Apparently I see the meaning of the topic of this thread differently than do you. I think there is close mindedness. What am I supposed to do? Am I just supposed to say that single sentence? Is it improper to attempt to demonstrate it? Or, is it that you really do not think there is merit in challenging physics theory? Do you think the universe really is the product of four fundamental forces that cause changes of velocity? Do you wonder how molecules acquire purpose that goes far beyond their own mechanical style properties? Is this question out of line? Is it unscientific? Has science already explained this phenomenon? Is my use of the word 'purpose' unscientific?

James

[modest]

It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is; If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.

-Richard Feynman

I think science is very close minded in a way that demonstrates the quote above. It's a good thing - it protects the purity of the discipline. This doesn't mean science is closed to new ideas, that's a different ball of wax. Science is open to new ideas because it never assumes it has revealed some final truth (in a way that demonstrates the quote below):

If you thought before that science was certain - well, that is just an error on your part.

-Feynman

[James Putnam]

Originally Posted by alexander

Good to hear that, though i don't think you should get defensive on this, i only have a hand full of words to judge your mood on the subject, no emotion, or mental state observation can be made of that, and it seemed that your words were put in that kind of a mood.... As for me being depressed, i've come to a conclusion that my lack of will to attempt to live a normal life, is driven by deep frustrations about the way that our society works, and generally, human nature as a whole. I've lost faith in people, though came to an equilibrium, not depressed or suicidal, never really angry, or maniacal, never really excited, outgoing, but only to those who deserve it, shit, i need to stop boring you. On, to catch up with other replies...

Hi Alexander,

If I may be so bold as to offer advice, this is off topic, but: Life is good. I say that in spite of having experienced tragedy that hurts a lot and never goes away even after many years. I say that in spite of the horrors that take place. The world is a place for each of us to play a role. You can make a good difference and so can I. It is only a matter of deciding that that is the role we choose. Make things better for others to the degree that you can. Advance knowledge to the degree that you can. Cherish freedom even though freedom requires each of us to remain vulnerable. Use freedom to make the kind of difference that lives after you. The world is not a completely terrible place because there are a great many people that use their time here to make it better. Join with them. They are worth knowing and so are you. I do not think you are boring; I think rather that I did not take the time to get to know you.

james

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by James Putnam

Look. If you don't want this to go on, that is fine. I can end it immediately. Apparently I see the meaning of the topic of this thread differently than do you. I think there is close mindedness. What am I supposed to do? Am I just supposed to say that single sentence? Is it improper to attempt to demonstrate it?

It seems I upset you, James. I apologize for that as it was not my intention. I simply wish for the topic to stay focused so we can continue to debate it. I certainly hope you don't drop it because I feel that you have something to offer the discussion. I'd like to find out what that is. (I read some of your essays on your website btw)

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by James Putnam

is it that you really do not think there is merit in challenging physics theory?

Quite the opposite. I think we should always challenge theories.

Do you think the universe really is the product of four fundamental forces that cause changes of velocity?

Yes, but I'll drop that view in a heartbeat if shown otherwise.

Do you wonder how molecules acquire purpose that goes far beyond their own mechanical style properties? Is this question out of line?

It's not out of line. It is interesting to think about such things, but without a way to test for "purpose", it is outside the realm of science.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by modest

I think science is very close minded in a way that demonstrates the quote above. It's a good thing - it protects the purity of the discipline. This doesn't mean science is closed to new ideas, that's a different ball of wax. Science is open to new ideas because it never assumes it has revealed some final truth (in a way that demonstrates the quote below):

That's insightful Modest. I have definitely been using the second definition you gave (not open to new ideas), but I like this different interpretation. I'll have to think about this a bit.

[modest]

I think the difference is largely between personal truth and scientific truth.

There are many philosophies and ideas that can deliver personal truth to someone. I’m a fan of this. I’m a fan of eastern philosophy in particular. But, the personal truth that comes from a Zen story or a Confucius saying is not a scientific truth.

It’s amazing how many people confuse the two. They find a personal truth and bring it to science. They expect some kind of validation or scientific recognition. But, this is doomed to failure. The usefulness of science is to predict the outcome of experiments involving nature which is fundamentally different from a personal truth or insight. When people are rejected they claim science is close minded. I’m not sure “close minded” is the right phrase, but I do think it is appropriate whatever we call it.

Just because something has personal value doesn’t mean it should have scientific value.

[James Putnam]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

You are asking why the electron has a charge? the best I can tell you is if it didn't you wouldn't be here to ask the question. The universe is put together with certain knowable laws. The interaction of these laws results in the universe we see and live in. The cause is the fundamental laws of the universe. No one knows why the universe has the laws we have, all we know for sure is if they were different in even a small way we wouldn't be here to question them. For me that is a very unsatisfying answer but it's all we got at this time. I'm not sure if "why we have these laws" is a knowable thing.

No I am not asking why the electron has a charge? I am asking what is it that physicists know that prompts them to say that there is such a thing as charge. I don't think they have the justification for insisting that electric charge is a fundamental property. I would be here whether or not theoretical physics is correct. I agree that we have what we have. What I dispute is that we have what theoreticdal physicists say we have. This does not mean that I prefer unscientific answers. It means that I think the basis of many conclusions presented to us by theoretical physics are unscientific. I have pointed to what I see as the problem in an earlier message. I said something like this: We see the damage done by theoretical physics in disunity, indefinable properties, and arbitrarily assigned units of measurement. Perhaps it would be helpful to give more specific examples. The arbitrary units of measurement that I speak of include all units except those of distance and time. The indefinable properties are mass, electric charge, and temperature. The disunity is seen in separate fundamental forces, and multiple theories instead of one general theory.

I have never heard any one claim to know the cause, what's your point?

Electric charge is a cause. Mass is a cause. I am not speaking about the cause for either one. There does not have to be one. They are the cause, supposedly. I think they are both very vulnerable to challenge as representing causes.

Can you prove there is a reason other than it's the way the laws of the universe cause the basic parts of matter to behave? Does there need to be a more basic cause of the charge?

I accept the way empirical evidence demonstrates that the universe operates. What I challenge is that we know anything at all about why or how it does what it does. The invented ideas of theoretical physics are too limited and too questionable to be trusted as representing the truth about the nature of the operation of the universe.

First of all DNA has no direction or purpose. On top of that DNA or evolution or what ever has no purpose or direction to form intelligent life. Chemicals when exposed to excess energy will push toward complexity. Some molecules can be pushed to more complex forms than others. Carbon and it's compounds can be pushed by energy to complexities that allow reproduction. Reproduction doesn't mean DNA or even RNA but they are the end result of energy building ever more complex molecules. No purpose, no ultimate goal. You are asking the wrong questions from an assumption that is not valid. Read Peter D. Wards really great book "Life Not As WE Know It" for a very detailed explanation of the chemical processes involved. If you do you will realize you are assuming a question that is totally invalid and makes no sense at all.

This quote of yours is an example of declarations that represent a philosophy that you prefer, but clearly cannot be substantiated scientifically. You use the word energy as if it is the magical substance that can produce all these magnificent results including intelligent life. What is energy? What is the empirical evidence that there is a substance that you refer to as energy. What is it about building more complex molecules that gives rise to intelligent life? Do the molecules begin to think? Do the molecules change from lifeless to life giving? We know by observation that these molecules produce intelligent life. It makes a great deal of sense to wonder what are the properties of the molecules that produce such magnificent results. It makes a great deal of sense to doubt that the mechanical properties put forward by theoretical physics lead to this result. It makes more sense to doubt that theoretical physics has anything at all to do with learning why this occurs. It makes the most sense to look for different fundamental properties that demonstrate a logical connection to intelligence and life. That is what I think.

James