Science is close-minded

[James Putnam]

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.

If it is outside the realm of science, then I think that is because physics theory has artificially tightly restricted what is the realm of science. in other words, if all that can be tested is whether or not an object follows a certain pattern in its movement, then we have no chance of testing for purpose. Beyond this artificial restriction, it is not unscientific to recognize that the purpose of DNA is to build intelligent life.

James

[freeztar]

James,

I gather from reading your posts and some of your writing on your website that your fundamental problem here is..err...fundamentalism.

I understand what you're getting at. At first, philosophers spoke of an aether and then an atom. Science then started looking deeper and deeper into the microscopic world in search of the "essence" of matter. Science found that materials were made up of atoms, and furthermore that even smaller particles made up the atom itself. So deeper they looked still and found other particles, such as gluons. At a certain point, some of these particles were no longer reducible, like the electron. This is where science has drawn the line and labeled these things as fundamental particles. It does not mean that it is the end all be all for describing these particles, or others, but we've simply not found anything on a deeper level. Someday this may very well change, and so will science. Until then, we're stuck with what we know.

Theoretical physics is interesting science because it deals with abstract ideas. Because of this, some people, even some scientists, see it as something other than science. For example, string theory is hotly debated among some scientists on whether it is actually science or not. But ultimately, theoretical physicists seek to explore nature in new ways and push the boundaries of our understanding of the universe. Einstein used theoretical physics to create his theories, and today we have GPS.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by James Putnam

If it is outside the realm of science, then I think that is because physics theory has artificially tightly restricted what is the realm of science. in other words, if all that can be tested is whether or not an object follows a certain pattern in its movement, then we have no chance of testing for purpose.

So what do you suggest specifically? How should physics lift it's "artificially tightly restricted" views to allow for "testing for purpose"?

Beyond this artificial restriction, it is not unscientific to recognize that the purpose of DNA is to build intelligent life.

Hold on, I thought we were talking about physics?

So you are saying that DNA has an underlying purpose to build intelligent life. Implying that intelligent life arrived through a purpose begs the question, why? What is the purpose? How did this purpose come to be? These are all good things to ponder, but can we ever really know the answer to this? I doubt it. That the case, physics, or any other science, doesn't deal with purpose. Science leaves that to philosophy and theology.

Of course, your argument hinges on whether or not there *is* purpose. I don't see how you were able to move past this question and assume, or believe, that there is an underlying purpose to everything.

[James Putnam]

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.

Yes, scientific guesses must agree with experiment. However, this is not sufficient to demonstrate correctness. An incorrect theory can agree with experiment. I am certain that Feyman knew this, but I still think it needs to be pointed out here.

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

I agree with this. however, I would state it as: There is not justification for presenting any of the ideas of theoretical physics as clearly representing reality. It is vulnerable to correction. Perhaps, even extensive correction. Maybe even complete correction.

James

[James Putnam]

[quote]

Originally Posted by freeztar

James,

I gather from reading your posts and some of your writing on your website that your fundamental problem here is..err...fundamentalism.

I have to say that I do not know what you mean by fundamentalism.

I understand what you're getting at. At first, philosophers spoke of an aether and then an atom. Science then started looking deeper and deeper into the microscopic world in search of the "essence" of matter. Science found that materials were made up of atoms, and furthermore that even smaller particles made up the atom itself. So deeper they looked still and found other particles, such as gluons. At a certain point, some of these particles were no longer reducible, like the electron. This is where science has drawn the line and labeled these things as fundamental particles. It does not mean that it is the end all be all for describing these particles, or others, but we've simply not found anything on a deeper level. Someday this may very well change, and so will science. Until then, we're stuck with what we know.

Theoretical physics is interesting science because it deals with abstract ideas. Because of this, some people, even some scientists, see it as something other than science. For example, string theory is hotly debated among some scientists on whether it is actually science or not. But ultimately, theoretical physicists seek to explore nature in new ways and push the boundaries of our understanding of the universe. Einstein used theoretical physics to create his theories, and today we have GPS.

It is not the fundamental existence and behavior of particles that is being challenged. Empirical science will continue to enlighten us. The challenge is to refute claims by scientifically minded people that theory represents reality. Yes we have Einstein's theories. His theories were designed to agree with empirical evidence. Therefore, it is not necessarily surprising that GPS works. What is surprising is that the success of GPS is used to insist that Einstein's theories are therefore correct. Do you believe that time dilation is a fact? In the face of the supporting empirical evidence, would it be unscientific to challenge the theory of time dilation?

James

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by James Putnam

There is not justification for presenting any of the ideas of theoretical physics as clearly representing reality. It is vulnerable to correction. Perhaps, even extensive correction. Maybe even complete correction.

Science is amenable to change.

[InfiniteNow]

"Assertion: You are just as much of a fundamentalist as those you criticize.

Response:
No, please, it is all too easy to mistake passion that can change its mind for fundamentalism, which never will. Fundamentalist Christians are passionately opposed to evolution and I am passionately in favour of it. Passion for passion, we are evenly matched. And that, according to some, means we are equally fundamentalist. But, to borrow an aphorism whose source I am unable to pin down, when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal force, the truth does not necessarily lie midway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong. And that justifies passion on the other side.

Fundamentalists know what they believe and they know that nothing will change their minds. The quotation from Kurt Wise on page 323 says it all: "... if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand." It is impossible to overstress the difference between such a passionate commitment to biblical fundamentals and the true scientist's equally passionate commitment to evidence. The fundamentalist Kurt Wise proclaims that all the evidence in the universe would not change his mind. The true scientist, however passionately he may "believe" in evolution, knows exactly what it would take to change his mind: Evidence. As J.B.S. Haldane said when asked what evidence might contradict evolution, 'Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.' Let me coin my own opposite version of Kurt Wise's manifesto: 'If all the evidence in the universe turned in favour of creationism, I would be the first to admit it, and I would immediately change my mind. As things stand, however, all available evidence (and there is a vast amount of it) favours evolution. It is for this reason and this reason alone that I argue for evolution with a passion that matches the passion of those who argue against it. My passion is based on evidence. Theirs, flying in the face of evidence as it does, is truly fundamentalist.' "

~Richard Dawins, The God Delusion; Preface to the paperback edition; pp.18-19


That just struck me as relevant considering the recent turn of this thread.

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

"Assertion: You are just as much of a fundamentalist as those you criticize.

Response:
No, please, it is all too easy to mistake passion that can change its mind for fundamentalism, which never will. Fundamentalist Christians are passionately opposed to evolution and I am passionately in favour of it. Passion for passion, we are evenly matched. And that, according to some, means we are equally fundamentalist. But, to borrow an aphorism whose source I am unable to pin down, when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal force, the truth does not necessarily lie midway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong. And that justifies passion on the other side.

Fundamentalists know what they believe and they know that nothing will change their minds. The quotation from Kurt Wise on page 323 says it all: "... if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate. Here I must stand." It is impossible to overstress the difference between such a passionate commitment to biblical fundamentals and the true scientist's equally passionate commitment to evidence. The fundamentalist Kurt Wise proclaims that all the evidence in the universe would not change his mind. The true scientist, however passionately he may "believe" in evolution, knows exactly what it would take to change his mind: Evidence. As J.B.S. Haldane said when asked what evidence might contradict evolution, 'Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.' Let me coin my own opposite version of Kurt Wise's manifesto: 'If all the evidence in the universe turned in favour of creationism, I would be the first to admit it, and I would immediately change my mind. As things stand, however, all available evidence (and there is a vast amount of it) favours evolution. It is for this reason and this reason alone that I argue for evolution with a passion that matches the passion of those who argue against it. My passion is based on evidence. Theirs, flying in the face of evidence as it does, is truly fundamentalist.' "

~Richard Dawins, The God Delusion; Preface to the paperback edition; pp.18-19


That just struck me as relevant considering the recent turn of this thread.

I like Richard Dawkins allot, He is a class act.
Scientist like this are the keeper’s of science as the rational high ground by pointing out the difference between science and faith, but also by not directly attacking religions.

I think he would much rather discuss science than waste time arguing with creationist.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by James Putnam

I have to say that I do not know what you mean by fundamentalism.

When I wrote that, I paused and thought that it might be interpreted as the word "fundamentalism" is usually used. I should have changed it in hindsight. What I meant is that you seem to have issue with scientists labeling particles as fundamental.

It is not the fundamental existence and behavior of particles that is being challenged. Empirical science will continue to enlighten us. The challenge is to refute claims by scientifically minded people that theory represents reality. Yes we have Einstein's theories. His theories were designed to agree with empirical evidence. Therefore, it is not necessarily surprising that GPS works. What is surprising is that the success of GPS is used to insist that Einstein's theories are therefore correct.

I believe you've got it backwards, James.
When Einstein presented his theories, it was not a done deal. Many scientists did not agree with what he was presenting and asked for empirical proof. Scientists predicted that if his theory was right, we would observe light being 'bent' by gravity. And indeed it is. Many, many tests have been executed and all have failed to falsify the theories. Nonetheless, the theories of Einstein demand constant revision (the mass-density problem).

Do you believe that time dilation is a fact? In the face of the supporting empirical evidence, would it be unscientific to challenge the theory of time dilation?

(I've already provided an answer for your first question...several posts back)
In the face of supporting empirical evidence, it would be scientific to challenge the theory of time dilation. Such evidence does not exist, though. But yet, the Standard Model is at odds with Relativity, in regards to gravitation. The unification is currently being sought. These things take time. Science is not close-minded unreasonably dismissive because of time constraints. Baby steps...

[James Putnam]

Originally Posted by freeztar

So what do you suggest specifically? How should physics lift it's "artificially tightly restricted" views to allow for "testing for purpose"?

Good challenge! I have written elsewhere about my approach to this problem; however, I recognize that my opinion about that has nothing to do with whether or not science is close minded. All I can offer at this point is to suggest that the 'artificially tightly restricted' view presented by theoretical physics is a low level mechanical interpretation of the operation of the universe. It is useful for solving mechanical type problems. I see mechanical type action as being subservient to to a greater type of action that has the potential to produce intelligent life. Purpose is a part of intelligence. I think we need a different kind of thinking that seeks to find the properties that are capable of producing intelligence. Empirically, it cannot be tested for with equipment that can only make mechanical type measurements. It is going to require reasoning at a level that is freed from a materialistic belief system. I do not offer this idea as some sort of clear climatic conclusion to the discussion that has taken place in this thread. It can be ended simply with my contention that progress in this direction is currently hindered by the level of respect lauded upon theoretical physics as representing our most fundamental science.

Hold on, I thought we were talking about physics?

So you are saying that DNA has an underlying purpose to build intelligent life. Implying that intelligent life arrived through a purpose begs the question, why? What is the purpose? How did this purpose come to be? These are all good things to ponder, but can we ever really know the answer to this? I doubt it. That the case, physics, or any other science, doesn't deal with purpose. Science leaves that to philosophy and theology.

Again, I have written about this elsewhere, but I don't think it belongs in this thread. In any case, I wouldn't even try to accomplish such a thing in short form.

Of course, your argument hinges on whether or not there *is* purpose. I don't see how you were able to move past this question and assume, or believe, that there is an underlying purpose to everything.

You are correct. My interest in this thread had to do only with challenging any declared facts of theoretical physics and exposing scientific close mindedness about physics theory if it existed here. Once we move beyond (I would say become freed from) theoretical physics, then there are no tests about patterns in changes of velocity that I can use to explain purpose, intelligence, and life. It will require logic and understanding that goes beyond the fruits of mechanical apparatus and mathematical models.

James