Physicists Are Philosophers, Too?

[Adrift]

What would you consider to be an example of "certain people's best guess interpretations [risen] to the level of knowledge?"

If I had to guess, probably things like Luminiferous Aether, Eugenics, the Static Universe, the theory that stress/spicy food causes ulcers, the Food Pyramid.

Which men? What underlying assumptions?

Again, guessing here, but probably highly regarded academic types...you know, professors whose biases supercede their objectivity in the classroom, and underpin their teaching material. As secularism grows in the West, scientists and academic types are now considered the new high priests, with their own set of dogmas. I'm no anti-intellectualist, but I don't think it's hard to see. Even a number of scientists and philosophers have begun to take notice (Rupert Sheldrake, Thomas Nagel, Raymond Tallis and the like). There's a danger, I think, in going too far in one direction or the other. Thinking that our best scientific minds have (or will have) all of the answers or that they have none of the answers.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Call it paranoia, but I get a little antsy that certain people's best guess interpretations rise to the level of knowledge.

What would you consider to be an example of "certain people's best guess interpretations [risen] to the level of knowledge?"

It concerns me that some men now reside in positions to where their underlying assumptions bear on and create what is considered knowledge and what is not and that often this goes beyond what we can prove.

Which men? What underlying assumptions?

[Jude]

For my part, my concern is less about the particular issue of evolution, and more about teaching children that it is okay to ignore scientific conclusions which are opposed to your preconceived beliefs. That sort of thing filters out into all areas of life. I have a favorite quote from Isaac Asimov along these lines:

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'

Understood. I am concerned that we be sure we are sure of a thing before we elevate it to the level of "knowledge". Not to imply evolution is not. The word evolution can carry different meanings (wow, here we go again with definitions) and what is really knowledge and not philosophy can be hard to separate sometimes for people like me who aren't educated in the proper fields. Call it paranoia, but I get a little antsy that certain people's best guess interpretations rise to the level of knowledge. It reminds me of the days when the church held sway politically and only certain men could officially tell the masses what interpretations were acceptable. It concerns me that some men now reside in positions to where their underlying assumptions bear on and create what is considered knowledge and what is not and that often this goes beyond what we can prove. They in effect become modern culture's high priests and only their interpretations have any merit. I hope SD thinks this is on topic as I do. It speaks to an intersection of science/philosophy. At least I think it does.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Our culture is awash in misinformation about practically everything but I understand your concerns. I don't expect any legislation to be forthcoming that in any way threatens evolution unless it really is worthy. What specific job titles outside a career in science education do you think one's position on evolution would interfere with? Not trying to invalidate your concerns, just curious.

For my part, my concern is less about the particular issue of evolution, and more about teaching children that it is okay to ignore scientific conclusions which are opposed to your preconceived beliefs. That sort of thing filters out into all areas of life. I have a favorite quote from Isaac Asimov along these lines:

There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'

[Jude]

We're not concerned about a group of Christians "pulling down the edifice of evolution." We're concerned about people spreading misinformation and creating legislation based on that information which can affect the quality of children's education.

Our culture is awash in misinformation about practically everything but I understand your concerns. I don't expect any legislation to be forthcoming that in any way threatens evolution unless it really is worthy. What specific job titles outside a career in science education do you think one's position on evolution would interfere with? Not trying to invalidate your concerns, just curious.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

No, you also said, "that was not how we were utilizing the word 'philosophy' when critiquing Hawking," which I disagree with for the reasons I gave.

It doesn't matter if you disagree. Your opinion has no bearing on the intention behind the statements which Jude and I made. I have clarified, specifically, that when Jude and I were critiquing Hawking's philosophy, we were not critiquing his worldview, but were rather critiquing his ability to consistently articulate a proposition.

If you really want to insist on ignoring that clarification in order to knock down a Straw Man, I'm simply going to ignore any further points you make on the subject.

Interesting story there with Galileo. Of course not just the church but the whole of science was in the Aristotelian camp.

Well, certainly not "the whole of science." Galileo was far from being the only Copernican, at his time. However, it is safe to say that the general consensus was Aristotelian.

As for evolution, I feel that Christianity is well suited to follow scientific evidence wherever it leads but as Plantinga says it's the only game in town for naturalism. I think that if you are concerned about a group of Christians pulling down the edifice of evolution then your own paranoia is showing

We're not concerned about a group of Christians "pulling down the edifice of evolution." We're concerned about people spreading misinformation and creating legislation based on that information which can affect the quality of children's education.

And I think that the word law points towards a lawgiver.

It doesn't.

This catechism I should add, is not a parody of quantum cosmology.

He's right: it's not a parody of quantum cosmology. It is a Straw Man of quantum cosmology.

[Jude]

FYI Heading off for a weeks vacation tomorrow evening and won't be checking in. Have the last word please. I will catch it but not reply. Hate trying to use phone.
Would like to part with one last Berlinski quote that I think appropriate and funny:

The argument that Hawking has offered may be conveyed by question and answer, as in the Catholic catechism.
A Catechism of Quantum Cosmology

Q. From what did our universe evolve?
A. Our universe evolved from a much smaller much emptier universe. You may think of it as an egg.

Q. What was the smaller emptier universe like?
A. It was a four dimensional sphere with nothing inside it. You may think of that as weird.

Q. How can a sphere have four dimensions?
A. A sphere may have four dimensions if it has one more dimension than a three dimensional sphere. You may think of that as obvious.

Q. Does the smaller, emptier universe have a name?
A. The smaller, emptier universe is called a de Sitter universe. You may think of that as about time someone paid attention to de Sitter.

Q. Is there anything else I should know about the smaller, emptier universe?
A. Yes. It represents a solution to Einstein's field equations. You may think of that as a good thing.

Q. Where was that smaller, emptier universe or egg?
A. It was in the place where space as we know it did not exist. You may think of it as a sac.

Q. When was it there?
A. It was there at the time when time as we know it did not exist. You may think of it as a mystery.

Q. Where did the egg come from?
A. The egg did not actually come from anywhere. You may think of it as astonishing.

Q. If the egg did not come from anywhere how did it get there?
A. The egg got there because the wave function of the universe said it was probable. You may think of that as a done deal.

Q. How did our universe evolve from the egg?
A. It evolved by inflating itself up from its sac to become the universe in which we now find ourselves. You may think of that as just one of those things.

This catechism I should add, is not a parody of quantum cosmology. It is quantum cosmology.



Happy Memorial Day weekend. Be safe.

[Jude]

Confusing to say the least.

My apologies. I thought my responses were clear enough but I haven't posted a lot. It is probably the case that I should expand on my thoughts to be more clear, that I assume too much. I will make a conscious effort to be more complete in what I try to say.
Is there any particular bit that you would like me to try to clear up?

If the watchmaker is blind, we will have no watches.

I certainly agree

Actually, the theological view is better described as Cosmogony. The difference has been apparent since the pagans and the philosophy of Lucretius.

Well they both speak to origins and that was where I was coming from but I know that you say:
Cosmogony is the philosophical and the theological epistemology dealing with the origins of our physical existence based on religious beliefs.
But I find no other definition of cosmogony that is so rigid though I certainly haven't done exhaustive research. I believe that both disciplines are rife with metaphysics concerning origins.

So is yours.

See above reply to The Pixie

When I cleared off my comments that you copied on top I accidently deleted your request for citation. I don't know exactly what you want? Every thing I have read (again not exhaustive) says that even at ground state/zero NRG there are still fluctuations that are not "philosophically" nothing. Even though they are tiny and can cancel each other out. That there is always a certain amount of uncertainty and for there to ever be truly nothing that uncertainty would have to reduce to zero. Hey I know my limitations. That's just the what I read from various sources.

[Jude]

So you think "Let there be light" does not refer to the Big Bang, then, given it occurs after the creation of heaven and earth?

I believe the first ten words that I recorded. Beyond that I don't attempt to turn the Bible into a science book. However, I don't see where science has shown the Bible to be false on any issue.

Further, your first 10 words say nothing (pun unintended) on what was there before hand.

Well we just disagree here. It explicitly says, "In the beginning..1) God 2) created 3) heaven and earth

I asked last time if you had a better word for it, and you ignored the question. Seems to me that while "nothing" may not be ideal, it is the best word we have. Unless you have a better one?

I agree with BP that vacuum seems interchangeable with your concept of nothing.

Consider this for the open-minded then.

Christianity has set itself up against science. not all Christianity, but enough to give itself a bad name for scientists. We all know how the church handled Galileo. We all know a lot of Christians reject evolution - and will pervert science to promote their own creationism as it suits them.

Interesting story there with Galileo. Of course not just the church but the whole of science was in the Aristotelian camp. I can't deny that there was church pressure to stay true to their pet Biblical interpretation of fixed Earth. It was a lesson learned that we should never forget but the argument was not wholly church driven.
As for evolution, I feel that Christianity is well suited to follow scientific evidence wherever it leads but as Plantinga says it's the only game in town for naturalism. I think that if you are concerned about a group of Christians pulling down the edifice of evolution then your own paranoia is showing

However, that does not mean scientists are doing science to defeat Christianity. By-and-large, scientists do science for the sake of science. Papers that get published in scientific journals do so because of the evidence, not because they undermine religion.

I don't paint with such a broad brush. Of course I would largely agree with you but when Krauss has Dawkins write the forward for his book because his first choice Christopher Hitchens was too sick, well, I don't exactly get the warm fuzzies that Krauss has no ideological ax to grind.
I love this quote by Berlinski in The Devil's Delusion:
Did you imagine that science was a disinterested pursuit of the truth? Well you were wrong.

So maybe I'm paranoid or you're naïve.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "accident". I think the planets keep to their orbit because they follow natural laws and not because there is an intelligent agent keeping them on track.

You're right of course. I should have learned my lesson with the word nothing.
And I think that the word law points towards a lawgiver.

Sure, go for it. What do you hope to prove by doing so?

The point that I thought was obvious but obviously is not as SD has replied that I am engaging in philosophy too is just this: This comment was in response to your observation that as we continue to search for answers it will be science and not philosophy that provides them. That statement is itself philosophical and if we make sense of what our science tells us it will be by using philosophy to do so. We can't NOT use philosophy. That is part of what I said earlier about Hawking announcing the death of philosophy and then going on to use philosophy in at least half of his book. Can you acknowledge this?

[shunyadragon]

I explicitly stated that "philosophy" can be synonymous with "worldview." You have once again stated that you disagree with something I've said, immediately prior to restating exactly what I've said.

No, you also said,

that was not how we were utilizing the word "philosophy" when critiquing Hawking. Rather, we were discussing "philosophy" as referring to his ability to form consistent and logically sound propositions.

, which I disagree with for the reasons I gave. See below highlighted.

Once again, I was not critiquing Hawking's worldview. That would be fairly silly, since I share Hawking's worldview. I was critiquing his ability to articulate his position.

I believe if you are willing to read more of Hawking's writings, instead of tunnel focusing on one sound bite, you will find that he does articulate his position. I cited one reference that he clearly described his position.

[Boxing Pythagoras]

I disagree, I believe a person's philosophy can very well be equivalent to a person's world view.

I explicitly stated that "philosophy" can be synonymous with "worldview." You have once again stated that you disagree with something I've said, immediately prior to restating exactly what I've said.

I believe this is the case here.

Then your belief is in error.

I disagree that Hawking's use of the phrase amounts to 'poor philosophy.' You may accuse him of awkwardly wording of his 'philosophy...'

Hawking is not a philosopher, but it is not hard to understand his philosophy and world view as I described in various posts.

Once again, I was not critiquing Hawking's worldview. That would be fairly silly, since I share Hawking's worldview. I was critiquing his ability to articulate his position.

[shunyadragon]

Alright, there's been a lot posted since my last bit of participation, so I'm going to reply to a smattering of things which I found either interesting or poignant. Please forgive me if I've omitted anything important.

Yes, when I say that his philosophy is poor, I am saying his philosophy is poor. That's a rather meaningless tautology. The claim that a person's philosophy is poor is not a claim that his conclusions on cosmogony are false. You are conflating "philosophy" for "worldview." While the former can sometimes be used synonymously with the latter, that was not how we were utilizing the word "philosophy" when critiquing Hawking. Rather, we were discussing "philosophy" as referring to his ability to form consistent and logically sound propositions.

When Hawking says, "...the universe can and will create itself..." he does not actually mean that the universe can create itself. He is using a phrase which means precisely the opposite of his intention. That is poor philosophy.

I disagree, I believe a person's philosophy can very well be equivalent to a person's world view. I believe this is the case here.

I disagree that Hawking's use of the phrase amounts to 'poor philosophy.' You may accuse him of awkwardly wording of his 'philosophy.'

To attempt to label the quantum vacuum as "nothing" is to invite equivocation fallacies. Questions of universal origin are inherently philosophical, and naturally align themselves with philosophical terminology. Generally, when answering such a philosophical question with the term "nothing," it is natural to assume that one is referring to the philosophical concept of "nothing." To attempt to supplant that concept with some other concept is a surefire way to introduce confusion into the conversation.

I have mentioned in a previous post, I did not approve of the use, but nonetheless it is simple matter to make an effort to understand the meaning of the term "nothing" in the citation. It is also a problem to take one awkward citation out of context of Hawking's writings, and center your objections on that one citation. Hawking is not a philosopher, but it is not hard to understand his philosophy and world view as I described in various posts.

It is obvious that both Jude and you are making too much of this citation and did not make an effort to understand Hawking's philosophy, and discuss his actual philosophy. You can't necessarily require someone who is not a philosopher to be articulate in the terms of philosophy to suit you personally. 'Thou dost protest too much.'

[Boxing Pythagoras]

Alright, there's been a lot posted since my last bit of participation, so I'm going to reply to a smattering of things which I found either interesting or poignant. Please forgive me if I've omitted anything important.

Your moving the goal posts. When you say his philosophy is poor, you are saying his philosophy is poor. It is absurd to judge his philosophical discourse(?) based on one citation in a layman's publication without citing and understanding his more serious scientific work, which would be relevant to his philosophy.

Yes, when I say that his philosophy is poor, I am saying his philosophy is poor. That's a rather meaningless tautology. The claim that a person's philosophy is poor is not a claim that his conclusions on cosmogony are false. You are conflating "philosophy" for "worldview." While the former can sometimes be used synonymously with the latter, that was not how we were utilizing the word "philosophy" when critiquing Hawking. Rather, we were discussing "philosophy" as referring to his ability to form consistent and logically sound propositions.

When Hawking says, "...the universe can and will create itself..." he does not actually mean that the universe can create itself. He is using a phrase which means precisely the opposite of his intention. That is poor philosophy.

Quantum foam is not physical matter... Hawking and theology both posit something non-physical prior to the universe.

The quantum foam is not matter, but it is most certainly physical. Hawking does not, in fact, posit that there was something non-physical prior to the universe. Hawking actually asserts that there's no such thing as "prior to the universe." That is an incoherent phrase, in his estimation.

I already believe that.

I wonder what it would take for you to believe that science does not say we are just accidents.

I'll certainly second this sentiment.

I asked last time if you had a better word for it, and you ignored the question. Seems to me that while "nothing" may not be ideal, it is the best word we have. Unless you have a better one?

Well, sure. "Quantum vacuum" is a much better word for what some cosmologists have posited as existing prior to the Big Bang. "Nothing" is not the best word, in the least.

Let's say that someone asked me, "What exists north of the North Pole on the Earth?" and I responded, "Nothing exists north of the North Pole." I am not saying that, north of the North Pole, there exists some entity called "nothing." I am saying that the description "north of the North Pole" is nonsensical. Similarly, when someone asks, "What existed prior to the universe?" and I respond, "Nothing existed prior to the universe," I am not saying that, prior to the universe, there existed some entity called "nothing." Rather, I am saying that the description "prior to the universe" is nonsensical.

To attempt to label the quantum vacuum as "nothing" is to invite equivocation fallacies. Questions of universal origin are inherently philosophical, and naturally align themselves with philosophical terminology. Generally, when answering such a philosophical question with the term "nothing," it is natural to assume that one is referring to the philosophical concept of "nothing." To attempt to supplant that concept with some other concept is a surefire way to introduce confusion into the conversation.

[shunyadragon]

From what I have read there is no state of the QW in which there is what I guess we must now refer to as philosophical nothing. The thing is that what cosmologists say is there depends on which ones you ask and which of the several interpretations of QM you use.

If believe this is true I need references.

I was referring to interpretations of QM.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth......first 10 words.

No. I find that God is the best explanation for this and you already know why. You want to answer this by saying that there never was nothing but want to call it nothing anyway.

C'mon. Must we drag out the old divine foot and smacks of creation quotes? It is well documented that some scientists hate the implication and I find this nothing business to be related to that disdain. You won't convince me I'm wrong.

Confusing to say the least.

Did the QW know that you were coming? Is the watchmaker blind or not?

If the watchmaker is blind, we will have no watches.

Cosmology is a single discipline.

True, The science of cosmology.

We now have two competing explanations of cosmic beginnings using the same word in a different way to describe the same state of affairs.

Actually, the theological view is better described as Cosmogony. The difference has been apparent since the pagans and the philosophy of Lucretius.

Might I point out that your statement is a philosophical one?

So is yours.

[The Pixie]

Yes we have agreed from the start on two meanings. Where we have disagreed is you drawing an imaginary line between physicists and philosophers as if there are no physicists who disagree with it or philosophers who don't. I have already noted that this discussion has been ongoing among scientists. I have further stated my personal take that to use the same word as a description of pre Big Bang cosmology is confusing. Reviews of Krauss' book, coupled with his admitting that he purposely took advantage of the confusion to sell books is all the proof I need.

I am not sure what your point is. I am not saying all physicists agree on Hawking's definition, I am saying he is up-front about what he means by it. I think that that is enough.

From what I have read there is no state of the QW in which there is what I guess we must now refer to as philosophical nothing. The thing is that what cosmologists say is there depends on which ones you ask and which of the several interpretations of QM you use.

I agree. So what?

I was referring to interpretations of QM.

Ah, I see. I prefer objective collapse theory.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth......first 10 words.

So you think "Let there be light" does not refer to the Big Bang, then, given it occurs after the creation of heaven and earth?

Further, your first 10 words say nothing (pun unintended) on what was there before hand.

No. I find that God is the best explanation for this and you already know why. You want to answer this by saying that there never was nothing but want to call it nothing anyway.

I asked last time if you had a better word for it, and you ignored the question. Seems to me that while "nothing" may not be ideal, it is the best word we have. Unless you have a better one?

Written down in a book before Aristotle said that nothing is what rocks dream about. THAT is what some scientist do not like about the word nothing and is exactly why they would attempt to hijack it and obfuscate it's meaning. If that is the path you wish to follow then you have the free will to choose it.

C'mon. Must we drag out the old divine foot and smacks of creation quotes? It is well documented that some scientists hate the implication and I find this nothing business to be related to that disdain. You won't convince me I'm wrong.

Consider this for the open-minded then.

Christianity has set itself up against science. not all Christianity, but enough to give itself a bad name for scientists. We all know how the church handled Galileo. We all know a lot of Christians reject evolution - and will pervert science to promote their own creationism as it suits them.

However, that does not mean scientists are doing science to defeat Christianity. By-and-large, scientists do science for the sake of science. Papers that get published in scientific journals do so because of the evidence, not because they undermine religion.

Jude's opinion that this "nothing" business is related to science trying to destroy Christian is religious paranoia and nothing more.

Did the QW know that you were coming? Is the watchmaker blind or not?

I guess it depends on what you mean by "accident". I think the planets keep to their orbit because they follow natural laws and not because there is an intelligent agent keeping them on track.

Cosmology is a single discipline. We now have two competing explanations of cosmic beginnings using the same word in a different way to describe the same state of affairs.

It happens. As long as individuals are up-front about what they mean, we get by.

Might I point out that your statement is a philosophical one?

Sure, go for it. What do you hope to prove by doing so?