The first surprising thing was that I arrived at the room, PHYS 150, only to find the venue had been moved to MC 4020. You'd think the organizers would have updated their flyer, but no, today it still says the old room.
After walking to the new room, I was also surprised to see the number of people there for the lecture. By my estimate, there were about 120 people, including about 20 people standing.
The first lecture was entitled, "Doesn't science disprove Christianity?", by Prof. Robert Mann of the physics department. He is a good speaker, and his talk was frequently humorous and largely easy to follow (with the exception of his strange pronunciation of "analogous"), but didn't really address the question in much detail. I summarize below, with my comments in brackets.
He started by giving an example of the question "Why is the sky blue?" as something both science and religion could answer. A scientific answer might be something like "Rayleigh scattering". A religious answer might be "God made it that way", but he doesn't find that a useful answer.
Science is about "what is", Prof. Mann claimed. It is about how things work and constitutes public knowledge. It is objective, having nothing to do with emotions or political predilections. It is about measuring and quantifying things, and constitutes an "I-it" relationship with the universe.
Faith, Prof. Mann said, is about "what ought to be". How can things be different from what they are now? It is about "why" questions, not "how" questions. For example, "Why do I have feelings of awe when I stand in front of a mountain?" It constitutes private knowledge, is subjective, and is not concerned with measuring things. It is about quality vs. quantity. It is about an "I-Thou" relationship with the universe. All religions are concerned with, "What is of ultimate value?" and "What should be the rules of how we live our lives?"
[Here Prof. Mann contradicted himself right away. On the one hand, he claimed science could not answer "why" questions; on the other, he gave as his very first example the question "Why is the sky blue?", to which he then proceeded to give a scientific answer! Furthermore, one of the most famous Christian books is Francis Schaeffer's "How Should We Then Live?" -- a question that, despite its first word, presumably is intended to be religious and not scientific in nature. I sat in on a course Prof. Mann taught some time ago, where I pointed out that this "how/why" dichotomy is almost childishly simplistic and wrong, but he continues to use it.]
[Furthermore, I would contest the claim that faith represents "knowledge". It represents "belief", to be sure, but "knowledge" seems overstating the case. How exactly can such "knowledge" (claimed to be "private" and "subjective") be tested in any meaningful way? When it is tested, we find it is wrong. Christians frequently claim, for example, that intercessory prayer is effective; yet the tests of this claim return negative or inconsistent results.]
Science and theology, Prof. Mann claimed, are cousins. They are both concerned with rationality, contingency, novelty, and incompleteness.
Rationality: why is the world rationally transparent? [I know from previous experience that Prof. Mann finds the arguments of intelligent design creationist and physicist Guillermo Gonzalez intriguing. Gonzalez's thesis is that the universe is specially designed for scientific inquiry, and the Earth is in a privileged position to make scientific inquiry possible - hence god.]
[Personally, I don't think the world is "rationally transparent". If anything, it is largely "rationally opaque" or at least "rationally translucent". Here is one example from Prof. Mann's own field. One of the very simplest physical interactions we can think about is the problem of mutual gravitational attraction among three bodies. Yet there is no closed form known for the solution to the three-body problem! We do not even know whether the solar system is stable or unstable.]
[And here is another example. Suppose, at the beginning the lecture, I introduce a single molecle of Oxygen-18 at the very center. Dividing the lecture hall into four equal sized square sections, which section will the Oxygen-18 molecule be at the end of the lecture? What could be simpler? Yet we can't answer this very basic kind of question with any certainty, because there are just too many interactions. How does that make the universe - a far more complicated system - "rationally transparent"?]
Science, Prof. Mann said, is about "reason and experiment", but faith is about "reflection and revelation". Science is about "increasing complexity" as we dig deeper. Religion is about "increasing depth". The "universe appears to be structured for endless possibilities". [I find it odd for a physicist to claim that, when the heat death of the universe is one fate that might await us -- so much for "endless" possibilities.]
Religion is about novelties - why do little things "surprise us by joy?".
Wigner spoke about the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics". [I'm not convinced at all by this. It seems to me that physicists are trying to model the universe, and it is not very surprising that some models work better than others. If dance turned out to be better, we'd all be exclaiming about how wonderful it is that ballet is so effective at modelling the universe. And, as above, even in the most simple cases, we quickly find limits to our mathematical description of physical situations.]
Prof. Mann claimed that when scientists worked on nuclear weapons, "most did so without considering the consequences" because it was a good scientific problem. [Not really. For one thing, it was more an engineering problem than a science problem. I've read a number of books about the Manhattan Project, and his claim does not seem to be accurate. Oppenheimer, for example, had serious misgivings about the A-bomb.]
Prof. Mann claimed that "suicide bombers are not scientifically illiterate". [Actually, I'd bet they are. Most probably could not state, for example, any of the basic results in evolutionary biology. They might have some engineering knowledge, but engineering is not the same as science.]
[Prof. Mann spent a lot of time talking about the commonalities between religion and science. But to me, it is the differences that are starker and more important. One of them I can sum up in 7 words: "Science books have errata. Holy books don't." By this I mean the following: If, let's say, we discover an error in Newton's Principia, we don't go on teaching it as if nothing happened. We correct it. If errors occur in books or papers, we routinely admit them and correct them. But when has a Christian ever said, "Well, we used to believe x in the Bible, but now we realize the Bible was wrong about x?" I'd be curious to know if Prof. Mann can name a single thing in the Bible he thinks is simply wrong.]
[Here's another important difference between science and religion. Science has accomplishments. Not only that, but scientists are largely in agreement with what those accomplishments are. Ask any scientifically literate person about the great breakthroughs of the last 100 years, and you'll get largely the same list. In physics, relativity and quantum mechanics, for example. In biology, the structure of DNA and its role in genetics. In geology, the theory of plate tectonics, and so forth. But what are the great religious breakthroughs of the last 100 years? Can Prof. Mann name even one?]
Let's hope the remaining lectures are more serious.
36 comments:
We do not even know whether the solar system is stable or unstable.
Excuse me, Laplace showed some 200 years ago that the Solar System, as it currently exists, is stable, at least for the medium term.
I don't agree. The recent work of Laskar et al. gives scenarios where Mercury could collide with Venus. But of course "medium term" is ill-defined and perhaps that's where our disagreement lies.
http://intelligent-falling.blogspot.ca/2013/01/god-and-reason-part-1-doesnt-science.html is another blog post criticizing it.
I'm not going to worry much about something that might happen 3 - 5 billion years from now. I doubt that Laplace was thinking in those terms 200 years ago.
hpgross:
Yes, I already linked to it in my piece above. I guess you missed that.
SLC:
I never said it was something to worry about. I just said we don't know it is stable, which is correct.
BTW, about Laplace, Wikipedia says, "It is now generally regarded that Laplace's methods on their own, though vital to the development of the theory, are not sufficiently precise to demonstrate the stability of the Solar System, and indeed, the Solar System is now understood to be chaotic, although it actually appears to be fairly stable."
Interesting tidbit about the Mormon religion: they *do* have errata! Part of the brilliant stroke of genius of Joseph Smith (for your favorite definition of "brilliant" and "genius") was stating something to the effect that only a portion of the true holy book was translated.
So, of course, every once in a while the LDS decides that a new piece is translated, and, surprise! now non-whites can actually go to heaven or, surprise! turns out polygamy isn't actually allowed.
Normally I am very sympathetic to your viewpoint, but I think there is a weakness in your argument here. There are a number of Christian denominations which do say "the bible is wrong on X". For example, the United Church of Canada states that while the bible is important, it was written by people, inspired by their beliefs, in a certain time and place and, frankly, they were wrong about things (I am paraphrasing here).
So while I think calling out Christians who believe in the infallibility of the bible is fair game, I think it is also important to recognize that there are many people who consider themselves to be Christians, but hold a more nuanced view of holy texts.
This is not to say that there are not other holes in their reasoning, but the "errata argument" does not always work.
"unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics"
Love the weasel-term "unreasonable". How effective *should* we expect math to be? Do we have a control universe to compare ours to?
My take is that, if the universe did not contain some level of regularity, beings like us could not exist. Given that a regularity exists, you can find a mathematical schema that describes it. But if course we find all sorts of phenomena (like turbulence) where we struggle to come up with adequate mathematical descriptions. And I'm sure there are large swaths of abstract math that have no mapping onto any part of physical reality.
"Well, we used to believe x in the Bible, but now we realize the Bible was wrong about x?"
Well, the more liberal types do this w.r.t. issues like slavery, sex and gender issues, etc. They never make clear why God couldn't have just expressed himself more clearly in the first place. And of course, they generally aren't the ones giving public "courses" on their religion.
I think we should draw a distinction between "We now realize we interpreted the Bible wrongly about issue x" and "The Bible was wrong about issue x". I certainly concede we have examples of the former, but I have never seen an example of the latter. If someone can give me a statement from UCC admitting the Bible is actually wrong (not just interpreted wrongly), I'd appreciate it.
I also should have put an asterisk to avoid quibbles about whether my title was meant universally or not. It was not, nor is any pithy slogan in 7 words usually meant to apply in all cases. Certainly not every science book has errata, and certainly one can find examples of religions that have revised their doctrines. In fact, I even had the Mormons in mind, having read a lot about their history recently.
Two unrelated points.
1. I think you're being a little unfair about Wigner. It's that mathematics keeps on winning, again and again, to the point that everyone sensible expects mathematics to go on winning.
Suppose this time next year someone I've never heard of announces some theory, and it becomes generally agreed that that theory gives good explanations of several things that have bothered physicists in the past. Suppose she comes and gives a talk in my town, and I go along to find out what the crack is.
How would I feel if her main tool turns out to be mathematics? Well, I'll probably go in expecting to see lots of maths. If it involves some maths which has been unusual in physics up until now (graph theory? number theory? model theory?) I'll be pleased and probably very excited indeed, but it wouldn't leave me reeling in any fundamental way.
But if her main tool turns out to be ballet, I'd find it staggering, and I think it would completely change my approach to science.
2. It struck me that Mann's account of the role of religion looks rather weak compared to the role of art. Had someone given a very similar talk about science and poetry (for example) instead, it would have seemed much less controversial and parts would have made much more sense to me. And poetry has had breakthroughs in the last hundred years...
So maybe a smarter question is not "Is there anything that religion can do that science can't?" but "Is there anything that religion can do that the arts can't?"
Re Jeffrey Shallit
I haven't read the papers in question but I suspect that they are including 2nd order perturbation effects on the motion of Mercury.
The classical calculation of Laplace and the later correction due to relativistic effects were done to first order in perturbation theory. Both together predict that the orbit of Mercury can be described as an ellipse of fixed shape that precesses in space according to a fixed rate. Including 2nd order effects could well modify this prediction to include changes in the shape of the ellipse over long periods of time (2nd order effects are very small but the cumulative effect over long periods of time can be substantial).
James:
If I can be a little sarcastic here: who could possibly imagine that tools that proved useful in the past would prove useful again? I mean, that's really surprising!
Just the other idea, I used the claw of a hammer to help unclog a drain in the basement. How astonishing that a hammer would be so unreasonably effective!
A couple of things. When scientists ask "why" something happens, they are really asking "how". The sky is blue because of a *process* that we call Rayleigh scattering.
Religion does not ask questions, it begins with the answer and seeks to persuade the individual that this is THE ANSWER. William Paley's natural theology is an excellent example. The prescription is simple, assume that there is a Creator/Designer/Architect of the universe, and then find examples that agree with that assumption.
When scientists ask "why" something happens, they are really asking "how".
I'm afraid I don't agree. I think "why" is a perfectly good question that scientists answer:
Why is the flora/fauna on neighboring islands similar but not the same?
Why is the east coast of S. America such a good fit for the west coast of Africa?
Why does my piece of uranium fog my photographic film?
Well, sure, be as sarcastic as you want: it neither does any good nor any harm.
After repeated uses of a hammer to unblock a drain, you might start wondering what it is about a claw hammer that makes it so damn useful. (Maybe if you knew, you could get some insights into designing better claw hammers.).
It's a natural enough thought process, isn't it?
you might start wondering what it is about a claw hammer that makes it so damn useful.
But maybe what's more significant is just that we use whatever tools are available.
Well, but this is coming after many failed attempts to explain the universe in terms of which gods are angry with us and which are cool with us. Those tools are available too, but unfortunately they don't seem to work.
Similarly, for all I know you may have failed to unblock your drain a few times using tools you now know were ill-suited to the task. And after having a bit of success with a claw hammer, you might have been minded to enthuse a bit about how awesomely effective claw hammers are. I don't know if you were or not, but I wouldn't blame you for being so.
I see your point; certainly one needn't ponder why it's effective, particularly if one is having too much fun to care (which is very likely with maths and perhaps less so with unblocking drains). But I don't think it's silly to ponder it.
Re the Bible:
I think this is close to what you're looking for: http://www.united-church.ca/beliefs/overview#1 (best I can do in a brief search, anyways).
[I find it odd for a physicist to claim that, when the heat death of the universe is one fate that might await us -- so much for "endless" possibilities.]
I'm not sure why you find it odd, especially when you say that heat death is just one of the possibilities.
This link is not intended to argue against your point, Dr. Shallit. It's for entertainment purposes only:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_errata
Dr. Shallit, in your "why" questions dealing with flora, Africa, and film, they all point to the past. The "why"s of religion point to the future. They are asking, "for what purpose". (I'm surprised no one raised this clear distinction between the two meanings of "why".)
Instead of asking, "What are the great religious breakthroughs of the last 100 years?", why not ask "What are the great religious breakthroughs ever?"?
The "why"s of religion point to the future.
Not so, as even a moment's reflection will show. For example, "why is there pain in childbirth?" Some theists answer "because Eve sinned".
We built the A-Bomb because the Germans or Japanese might have developed it first.
Einstein's letter to FDR showed concern about the German interest in uranium.
http://www.dannen.com/ae-fdr.html
It strikes me that Mann's argument is just a rehash of one of the classical views of God as "those things we don't know". It used to be rain or thunder or up to more recently life.
As science has advanced there are less and less such all encompassing questions that remain open (though there is no shortage of medium sized ones) so the few ones he (and others) can find are God. Typically he mentions "Why do I have feelings of awe when I stand in front of a mountain?", but he could equally have added "what happens after we die?" and "do we have a purpose in life?".
"Not so, as even a moment's reflection will show. For example, "why is there pain in childbirth?" Some theists answer "because Eve sinned"."
Ahh, yes, you are right. So let me choose my words better. Instead of "the "why"s of religion point to the future", let me say "the "why"s of religion point not only to the past but also to the future."
I think it is more fair to say that religion tends to impose teleological explanations for events, while science, when teleology comes up, demands evidence for that teleology, instead of assuming it from the start.
The relative success of these two approaches to understanding the world should be evident. Yet religionists persist in their failed approach and threaten those who disagree with holy retribution.
Jeffrey Shallit wrote:
When scientists ask "why" something happens, they are really asking "how".
I'm afraid I don't agree. I think "why" is a perfectly good question that scientists answer:
Why is the flora/fauna on neighboring islands similar but not the same?
Why is the east coast of S. America such a good fit for the west coast of Africa?
Why does my piece of uranium fog my photographic film
Why to a theologian means "for what purpose". Again, I will point out that it you are using "Why" to mean "how". The scientist is not looking for entity identification, but processes.
You could replace the word "Why" in each of your examples "How is it that" and you would have clearer questions.
Would you confess to overgeneralizing in your last sentence?
Again, I will point out that it you are using "Why" to mean "how".
No, I'm using it to mean "why" in the ordinarily understood meaning of "why".
You could replace the word "Why" in each of your examples "How is it that" and you would have clearer questions.
That's because "why" and "how is it that" (or in my dialect, "how come") are synonyms, and yet another reason why the "why/how" dichotomy is silly.
Why to a theologian means "for what purpose".
I am not obligated to adopt the dialect of theologians.
Would you confess to overgeneralizing in your last sentence?
No. Would you confess to a reading comprehension problem?
Jeff,
OT: At Sandwalk, Larry Moran asserted that there is no answer to the question "What is Science?" and I disagreed.
I wanted to paste my definition of science here, because I wanted your opinion, because it's related in a vague way to Kolmogorov information.
DEFINITION OF SCIENCE:
Science is the use of the scientific method [see def'n below] to arrive at the best theories of general or universal applicability, where the scientific method which is a competition between theories based on the fit between observable quantities and the testable predictions that theories emit.
Here I am distinguishing between
1. the scientific method, used to obtain theories of universal applicability, and
2. induction, or application of the theories thus found, often via analogy.
Example of 1. Observe positions of some planets, input them to Newton's theory of gravity, make testable predictions, compare them to observations. See if Newton's theory beats, e.g., Aristotelian model.
Example of 2. Apply Newton's theory of gravity to solve for angle theta at which cannon should be tilted so that cannonballs fired from cannon will fall on enemy troops.
Science makes induction or application of general laws possible, and the investigative process often requires using induction and other techniques, but induction by itself is not science.
Engineering consists entirely of 2, induction/application. No scientific method, no competition between theories that model universal laws.
The practice of medicine consists of applying 2. induction, and also 1, scientific method, particularly while diagnosing the cause of diseases. However, the practice of medicine is generally NOT science because: it does apply the scientific method to competing hypotheses of causes of diseases, but the hypotheses describe specific instances of disease, not general/ universal principles.
Ditto plumbing: applies 2, induction, and uses 1, scientific method, but still NOT science. Plumbers may apply the scientific method to competing hypotheses of the source of a water leak, but again, the hypotheses describe specific instances of water leaks, not general/ universal principles of hydrology etc.
DEFINITION OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD:
A competition between theories which are EXPRESSED AS ALGORITHMS that input observable quantities [X] and output predictions [Y] that can be compared to other observable quantities [Y’].
(Note: X and Y’ must be independent; if not, you get circular logic and patholocial science.)
The winner of the competition between theories is judged by two criteria.
1. Predictive power: fit between testable predictions and observable quantities.
2. Simplicity of theory / Kolmogorov-Chaitin complexity of algorithm / Minimal Description Length (MDL). [Occam's Razor goes here].
A complication: Predictive power is judged by three criteria.
1a. Accuracy: distance between prediction and observation.
1b. Specificity of prediction. [Does theory accommodate all conceivable data? Or does it exclude some?]
1c. Precision of observed data. [Are observed data known with great experimental precision or crappy and approximate?]
1a, 1b, and 1c are competing interests, and one might argue that the trade-off between them will be forever subjective. However, I disagree, for reasons I explain below.
Continuing:
1a, 1b, and 1c are competing interests, and one might argue that the trade-off between them will be forever subjective. However, I disagree.
I believe that improvements in statistical theory will make this trade-off totally objective in the future, especially if we apply Kolmogorov information theory to scientific theories expressed as ALGORITHMS.
Here is an example of an OBJECTIVE method of deciding between the competing interests of 1a, 1b, and 1c: the chi-squared statistical test, which is used to discriminate between different polynomial models of varying complexity: for example, consider fitting predictions Yi given some observed inputs Xi, where the predictions Yi should match observed values Y'i.
Here we could float various polynomial models:
Constant: Yi = A
Linear: Yi = A + BXi
Quadratic: Yi = A + BXi + CXi^2
Cubic: Yi = A + BXi + CXi^2 + DXi^3
etc., you get the idea. An infinite number of models is conceivable. Obviously, more complex models will produce a better fit between predictions and data. However, Occam's razor demands that we don't want an over-complex theory; they're not robust. You have competing interests between model simplicity and accuracy of predictions.
So you do a chi-squared test, which objectively compromises between the competing interests of model simplicity and predictive accuracy.
Since this is possible in the case of the chi-squared test, I conclude that in the future, statistical theory and Kolmogorov information theory will resolve the competing interests of simplicity and predictive power.
It strikes me that these "for what purpose" questions are apparently meaningless. I only understand what a purpose is when it relates to the activities and intentions of a person or a group of people.
I cannot ascribe meaning to "for what purpose" questions in any other context: at least, no more than I can ascribe meaning to such questions as "what colour is multiplication?" or "who is the summit of Mount Everest?"
Concerning defining "why" as "for what purpose," I really like Jeffrey's answer (at 5:04) of "I think it is more fair to say that religion tends to impose teleological explanations for events, while science, when teleology comes up, demands evidence for that teleology, instead of assuming it from the start."
That pretty much says it all, but maybe in too condensed a form.
James hit on it (at 9:48) too with, "It strikes me that these 'for what purpose' questions are apparently meaningless."
So in my own words: once one understands a bit about the physical world it becomes very clear that there is no purpose or intent weaved into the fabric of nature — certainly all of the superstitious beliefs of our ignorant ancient ancestors have been ruled out completely. Sufficient awareness of basic results in computer science, neuroscience, evolution, etc., swiftly smothers all alternate hypotheses concerning the mind and body, consciousness, and death. (Spoiler: no afterlife.) And scientific investigations haven't left room for any spiritual or new age woo either.
It reminds me of a quote attributed to Bertrand Russell (that I've never been able to verify), "Electricity is not a thing like St. Paul's Cathedral—it is a way in which things behave. When we have told how things behave when they are electrified, and under what circumstances they are electrified, we have told all there is to tell."
For some reason many people won't accept that there is no greater purpose, like they won't even hear it. Maybe they don't realize there is still plenty of room for us to define our own personal purpose(s), and that when we define our own purpose it can transcend anything nature ever invented or our ancestors ever dreamed.
Post a Comment