[_] HP Labs Bristol Science Lecture
Tom Gidden
tom at gidden.net
Fri Sep 1 13:43:11 BST 2006
On 1 Sep 2006, at 12:34, s'unya wrote:
> fair enough. I was thinking of a hypothetical situation in which an ID
> protagonist and a scientist were placed on oath and asked whether
> their
> ontology was the 'truth', one should say yes and one should say no.
Interesting idea, although both should really say "I don't know", if
they practice what they preach. From what I can tell, ID'ers claim
that their view is "just another theory (read: hypothesis)", although
we all know they're just saying that and they actually mean "yes".
Also, a good scientist should really say that evolution by natural
selection is merely a model with currently the best fit for the
observations made, along with the concept that a scientific theory is
just what we currently accept as the next best thing to objective
truth, for want of something better.
Although I say that evolution by natural selection is the correct
explanation, it's really just shorthand for "what seems to be the
most correct at the moment, and I'll happily drop it if something
that's a better fit comes along."
Evolution can be observed directly, in the same way that Newtonian
Mechanics can be observed directly. That doesn't necessarily mean
it's the whole truth, though. As far as I can remember, Newton's
theories aren't *wrong* per se... they're just not (and nowhere near)
complete. They're simplistic but useful models that require
additional stipulations to be considered more correct.
Faith, be it religious or scientific in origin, should never stop
someone from accepting the possibility that they might be wrong, or
at least not completely right.
> Why you programmer you ;p...Could I suggest that
> omnipotent/omnipresent/omniscient makes the idea of labour and
> micromanagement into nothing (ie god is everything and is self-
> aware)....
> that is the point with absolutes, they render everything meaningless.
Yep.. totally. I'm just embracing the idea that simple is beautiful
(Ockham's Razor, I guess).
What I do dispute is that there's any justification for
scientifically believing an immensely complex "man behind the
curtain" model with no evidence.
As a result, it shouldn't be taught in public schools in a country
that has the Establishment clause in the supreme law of the land.
That doesn't mean it's wrong.. just inappropriate for science class.
What I think is best is to teach the actual definitions of scientific
conjecture, hypothesis, theory, physical law, model, belief, etc.,
and then teach evolution as what it is: theory,
> Hmm, I disagree. [snip]
Thing is, I don't think we necessarily do :) I don't disagree with
anything you said in the snipped block, but I just don't see it as a
necessarily religious matter.
For the moment, let's just focus on the theology/cosmology bit of it,
and detach religiously-sourced morals and ethics. They're not that
relevant, as I see it. As a result, we can nobble the whole stem
cell debate and other similar science -v- religion smackdowns.
Anyway, my point is that any cosmological model described (vortices,
etc.) can be attributed to God's mechanism for doing stuff. If we go
completely deterministic, then every event that occurs was determined
at the birth of the universe. With this, we can merely say that
rather than God poking a bigass ghostly finger and moving an atom, He
just set up the initial conditions in such a way that that atom was
destined to move anyway.
Physics has never really tried to attack the issue of what's "above"
the universe. Even if we start considering multiverse stuff, what's
"above" those? That's where God could do his stuff.
So, that's in terms of a monotheistic religion. A buddhist could
describe the same concepts in completely different terms, resulting
in a far more holistic (and superficially incompatible) definition.
We can also use maths to describe the same thing, coming up with a
different interpretation yet again.
Same shit, different language. In the same way that a (collective
noun) of artists can each paint the same object in a hundred
different ways, but still come up with equally valid interpretations.
There's no real reason why one can't accept physics as is, and accept
Christianity as is, without denying either.
I'm pretty cynical and skeptical about both science and religion,
myself.
Tom
--
Tom Gidden
http://gidden.net/tom/
> fair enough. I was thinking of a hypothetical situation in which an ID
> protagonist and a scientist were placed on oath and asked whether
> their
> ontology was the 'truth', one should say yes and one should say no.
Interesting idea, although both should really say "I don't know", if
they practice what they preach. From what I can tell, ID'ers claim
that their view is "just another theory (read: hypothesis)", although
we all know they're just saying that and they actually mean "yes".
Also, a good scientist should really say that evolution by natural
selection is merely a model with currently the best fit for the
observations made, along with the concept that a scientific theory is
just what we currently accept as the next best thing to objective
truth, for want of something better.
Although I say that evolution by natural selection is the correct
explanation, it's really just shorthand for "what seems to be the
most correct at the moment, and I'll happily drop it if something
that's a better fit comes along."
Evolution can be observed directly, in the same way that Newtonian
Mechanics can be observed directly. That doesn't necessarily mean
it's the whole truth, though. As far as I can remember, Newton's
theories aren't *wrong* per se... they're just not (and nowhere near)
complete. They're simplistic but useful models that require
additional stipulations to be considered more correct.
Faith, be it religious or scientific in origin, should never stop
someone from accepting the possibility that they might be wrong, or
at least not completely right.
> Why you programmer you ;p...Could I suggest that
> omnipotent/omnipresent/omniscient makes the idea of labour and
> micromanagement into nothing (ie god is everything and is self-
> aware)....
> that is the point with absolutes, they render everything meaningless.
Yep.. totally. I'm just embracing the idea that simple is beautiful
(Ockham's Razor, I guess).
What I do dispute is that there's any justification for
scientifically believing an immensely complex "man behind the
curtain" model with no evidence.
As a result, it shouldn't be taught in public schools in a country
that has the Establishment clause in the supreme law of the land.
That doesn't mean it's wrong.. just inappropriate for science class.
What I think is best is to teach the actual definitions of scientific
conjecture, hypothesis, theory, physical law, model, belief, etc.,
and then teach evolution as what it is: theory,
> Hmm, I disagree. [snip]
Thing is, I don't think we necessarily do :) I don't disagree with
anything you said in the snipped block, but I just don't see it as a
necessarily religious matter.
For the moment, let's just focus on the theology/cosmology bit of it,
and detach religiously-sourced morals and ethics. They're not that
relevant, as I see it. As a result, we can nobble the whole stem
cell debate and other similar science -v- religion smackdowns.
Anyway, my point is that any cosmological model described (vortices,
etc.) can be attributed to God's mechanism for doing stuff. If we go
completely deterministic, then every event that occurs was determined
at the birth of the universe. With this, we can merely say that
rather than God poking a bigass ghostly finger and moving an atom, He
just set up the initial conditions in such a way that that atom was
destined to move anyway.
Physics has never really tried to attack the issue of what's "above"
the universe. Even if we start considering multiverse stuff, what's
"above" those? That's where God could do his stuff.
So, that's in terms of a monotheistic religion. A buddhist could
describe the same concepts in completely different terms, resulting
in a far more holistic (and superficially incompatible) definition.
We can also use maths to describe the same thing, coming up with a
different interpretation yet again.
Same shit, different language. In the same way that a (collective
noun) of artists can each paint the same object in a hundred
different ways, but still come up with equally valid interpretations.
There's no real reason why one can't accept physics as is, and accept
Christianity as is, without denying either.
I'm pretty cynical and skeptical about both science and religion,
myself.
Tom
--
Tom Gidden
http://gidden.net/tom/