Evolution

[Gladys]

Some of the more esoteric theories and biological notions have been subject to change, but the circumference of a circle has been pi*d forever. Hard science changes surprisingly little.

Scientific theories are confined to the empirical sciences, physical and social, whereas mathematics is essentially just a tool for modelling our scientific understanding. As Albert Einstein once said, "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

I'd argue that we actually understand the vast majority of the universe and its physics.

Even the physics of Earth is poorly understood: life; human health; animal, insect and arachnid biology; the oceans; global warming; volcanoes; tsunamis and earthquakes, to name just a few.

[The Atheist]

Scientific theories are confined to the empirical sciences, physical and social, whereas mathematics is essentially just a tool for modelling our scientific understanding. As Albert Einstein once said, "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

Ah, the old agnostic argument.

While Einstein was the smartest bloke who ever lived, he always let his tongue get into some strange formations. It's a German thing, I think. Like his comments on Spinoza's god and the wonder of the universe, old Albie was trying to please everyone all the time.

All science is mathematics. Any pretence that we don't live in "reality" is just a plea for agnosticism. As I said last week, it's all very well in high-school debates, but in the wider universe, it's just silliness.

Even the physics of Earth is poorly understood: life; human health; animal, insect and arachnid biology; the oceans; global warming; volcanoes; tsunamis and earthquakes, to name just a few.

Nope, I'm still disagreeing with you.

Our understanding of all the things you mention is as near to complete as makes sense at this stage. We can watch your brain think about a boat floating on a lake, we know everything we want to about arachnids and insects and their DNA and habits, we can cure or identify almost every disease humans can get, and we understand implicitly how volcanoes, tsunamis and earthquakes happen.

If we look at all science as a single book, I'd venture it would be 80-90% complete so far, with only a few odd blank pages and some blank sections, but largely accurate.

It's hard separating the facts from the fallacies, and global warming is a really good example. Well over 95% of climatologists are in broad agreement about what's going on, but lots of engineers, accountants, politicians and lawyers don't believe them.

As Richard Dawkins said - if there is disagreement on a subject, that doesn't mean that the truth is somewhere in the middle. It is possible for one side to be completely wrong.

I'd swap "possibly" for "usually".

[PeterL]

you.

If we look at all science as a single book, I'd venture it would be 80-90% complete so far, with only a few odd blank pages and some blank sections, but largely accurate.

I think that you are very over-optimistic bout that book. I think it would be sfe to say that while 80 to 90% of the pges are there, there are large sections where there re double sets of pages, because there is so much disagreement bout the matter.

Well over 95% of climatologists are in broad agreement about what's going on, but lots of engineers, accountants, politicians and lawyers don't believe them.

While about 90% of climatologists agree that there is climate change going on, they would also agree that there is no solid evidence that humans caused ny of that change, and that it is uncertain whether there has been significant warming. People who have not studied the climate have tended to go overboard in thinking that humans have caused warming.

[Gladys]

While Einstein was the smartest bloke who ever lived, he always let his tongue get into some strange formations.

Your evangelical fervour, Atheist, for the achievements of science is inspiring. The fanatical Richard Dawkins would applaud. Notwithstanding, I'm happy to side with the skeptical Einstein.

His quote had little to do with religious agnosticism or Spinosa, but expresses the inherent limitation of mathematics as a tool of science. Mathematics develops to describe empirical evidence relating to society and the physical universe, though occasionally a mathematical model foreshadows a significant empirical discovery. In a complex universe, mathematics only ever approximates to natural phenomena, though for engineering purposes approximations invariably suffice.

For those who venerate the material world, science has become their salvation. For myself, the material world and its mastery is of secondary importance. Christian or otherwise, 'Man shall not live by bread alone'!

If we look at all science as a single book, I'd venture it would be 80-90% complete so far

If I had to venture percentage completion, 0.000 000 001 % would be outrageously high. In respect of science, it may rightly be said of me, 'O ye of little faith'.

As for the theory of evolution: it explains empirical evidence and makes testable predictions much better than Creation Science and its successors.

[The Atheist]

I think that you are very over-optimistic bout that book. I think it would be sfe to say that while 80 to 90% of the pges are there, there are large sections where there re double sets of pages, because there is so much disagreement bout the matter.

I think you (and Gladys) are guilty of underestimating what science actually is.

Which areas of science do you feel there's disagreement about?

I look at it that the areas of disgreement, when viewed against the totality of science, are extremely small, so I'm interested to see what you think the problems are. The 80+% of the book which is filled in covers all of the everyday laws of science we have around us.

While about 90% of climatologists agree that there is climate change going on, they would also agree that there is no solid evidence that humans caused ny of that change, and that it is uncertain whether there has been significant warming. People who have not studied the climate have tended to go overboard in thinking that humans have caused warming.

I'm not about to get into a climate debate, but the climate debate isn't about lack of knowledge, it's about lack of data. We're trying to compile a model based on estimations. Our climate records extend back for a miserly couple of hundred years on a time scale in millions. Climate science isn't a knowledge gap, it's a lack of empirical data from the ~4 billion years prior to recordings being made. History, not science, is the problem.

Your evangelical fervour, Atheist, for the achievements of science is inspiring. The fanatical Richard Dawkins would applaud. Notwithstanding, I'm happy to side with the skeptical Einstein.

Evangelical fervour?

Interesting take on it.

There are two options with dealing with reality - either accept it or not. I choose to accept that what we see is what it is. The only arguments against reality are philosophical ones - there isn't even a working hypothesis of what reality is if it isn't what we see - so I find it very easy to dismiss as naive nonsense.

Keanu Reeves or Douglas Adams.... hmmm.

As to Einstein's alleged scepticism, I love it that he is held by theists, deists and agnostics alike as a paragon of "what might be". He was a master of the middle ground, which I'd say came from his inherent Jewishness in the early 20th century, but he clearly let his true feelings run loose in personal letters. In that vein, we see Einstein not so much as a lover of silliness, but someone who calls it for childish nonsense it is.

His quote had little to do with religious agnosticism or Spinosa, but expresses the inherent limitation of mathematics as a tool of science. His quote had little to do with religious agnosticism or Spinosa, but expresses the inherent limitation of mathematics as a tool of science.

Mathematics develops to describe empirical evidence relating to society and the physical universe, though occasionally a mathematical model foreshadows a significant empirical discovery. In a complex universe, mathematics only ever approximates to natural phenomena, though for engineering purposes approximations invariably suffice.

No, I think you're making another category error.

There are two reasons maths doesn't appear to work in the "real world". The old argument goes that two apples can never be identical to the last electron, so maths doesn't truly work.

Unfortunately, this is a fallacy - the maths is completely workable, but it would probably take more computing power than Google has to work it out to the last electron. Along with that, the enormous expense of a pointless exercise is totally unjustifiable and nobody's ever going to do it.

Given enough computing power and data, an accurate model of the entire universe is possible. You'd probably need a computer the size of Jupiter to work it out though.

Engineering uses approximations because it's easier.

For those who venerate the material world, science has become their salvation. For myself, the material world and its mastery is of secondary importance. Christian or otherwise, 'Man shall not live by bread alone'!

Yes. I'd always hoped that people would see that phrase as referring to love, fun, laughter, imagination, dreams and wonder, but alas, most people see it as an excuse to want fairies at the bottom of the garden.

If I had to venture percentage completion, 0.000 000 001 % would be outrageously high. In respect of science, it may rightly be said of me, 'O ye of little faith'.

And you type that sitting at a computer thousands of kilometres away from me, using technology which would have astounded people from only a century ago. 100 years ago, the only means by which you could have communicated with me is by letter on a ship. (The paper, pen, envelope, seal and ship all brought to you by science as well)

Today, you tap a keyboard, uploading it to the largest machine ever built on earth, from where I access it at the speed of light. (Apart from the speed of light, all brought to you by science!)

As for the theory of evolution: it explains empirical evidence and makes testable predictions much better than Creation Science and its successors.

Can't disagree with that!

[PeterL]

I think you (and Gladys) are guilty of underestimating what science actually is.

I suspect that I know at least as much about what science is than you do.

Which areas of science do you feel there's disagreement about?

Almost everywhere, but worse are the places where actual fact differs from orthodoxy. Some specific examples of areas where large disagreements exist include: Evolutionary Anthropology is full of disagreement; In physics there is a major problem with underlying theory, Relativity is based on false assumptions and doesn't agree with all observations.

I look at it that the areas of disagreement, when viewed against the totality of science, are extremely small, so I'm interested to see what you think the problems are. The 80+% of the book which is filled in covers all of the everyday laws of science we have around us.

Many of the details of science are empirical, based purely on observation, and those matters are often correct. Sometimes scientists have allowed their prejudices to overrule the observations. The Michelson-Morley Experiment is an excellent example of that. The theory predicted that aether affected light speed to one amount; the actual effect was much lower; Michelson and Morley did not look for problems with the theory. Since then people have simply assumed that there was no aether, even though the results show that there is aether. There are similar problem with Relativity.

I'm not about to get into a climate debate, but the climate debate isn't about lack of knowledge, it's about lack of data. We're trying to compile a model based on estimations. Our climate records extend back for a miserly couple of hundred years on a time scale in millions. Climate science isn't a knowledge gap, it's a lack of empirical data from the ~4 billion years prior to recordings being made. History, not science, is the problem.

I don't disagree that a lack data is a problem, but there is an adequate amount of evidence for the last couple of millennia.

[The Atheist]

I suspect that I know at least as much about what science is than you do.

Going by posts of yours I've seen, I agree, which is why I'm wondering where the mistake is.

Almost everywhere, but worse are the places where actual fact differs from orthodoxy. Some specific examples of areas where large disagreements exist include: Evolutionary Anthropology is full of disagreement; In physics there is a major problem with underlying theory, Relativity is based on false assumptions and doesn't agree with all observations.

But these are the tiny areas I've been talking about. Compared to the vast amount of scientific knowledge we have, these things are drops in the bucket. Fine-tuning.

Many of the details of science are empirical, based purely on observation, and those matters are often correct. Sometimes scientists have allowed their prejudices to overrule the observarions. The Michelson-Morley Experiiment is an excellent example of that. The theory predicted that aether affected light speed to one amount; the actual effect was much lower; Michelson and Morley did not look for problems with the theory. Since then people have simply assumed that there was no aether, even though the results show that there is aether. There are similar problem with Relativity.

I'd never argue that scientists aren't able to be convinced by their own biases; I have ongoing battles with several due to that exact problem.

That isn't "science" however. Ideas and hypotheses become science when they have been published and peer-reviewed. In many cases, and Michelson & Morley are a classic example, what at first appears to be science is not. It is published, then found to be flawed. That makes it an error by scientists, rather than false science. It's the very strength of science that the rubbish is weeded out this way.

I don't disagree that a lack data is a problem, but there is an adequate amount of evidece for the last couple of millennia.

Not really, no. We don't know what the La Nina/El Nino patterns were in individual years, we don't have accurate weather statistics and we don't know what the size of polar ice caps were. What we're doing with climate science is trying to make a wheel using pi as "about 3 and a sixth".

[Gladys]

Which areas of science do you feel there's disagreement about?

A little more than a century ago, radio, air travel and motor cars were unimaginable. Fifty years on, so were antibiotics, A-bombs, Moon travel, TV, PCs and portable music players. Today, are we 80-90 %, or even 0.000 000 001 %, towards the endpoint of scientific progress? I think not.

Given enough computing power and data, an accurate model of the entire universe is possible.

We know so little of the physics of our world and next to nothing of the physics of the universe. For instance, much of the mass of the universe exists in Black Holes, for which all our physics is probably irrelevant. Humility befits ignorance.

[blazeofglory]

A little more than a century ago, radio, air travel and motor cars were unimaginable. Fifty years on, so were antibiotics, A-bombs, Moon travel, TV, PCs and portable music players. Today, are we 80-90 %, or even 0.000 000 001 %, towards the endpoint of scientific progress? I think not.



We know so little of the physics of our world and next to nothing of the physics of the universe. For instance, much of the mass of the universe exists in Black Holes, for which all our physics is probably irrelevant. Humility befits ignorance.

Of course there is no development of science to that extent, ans science is still at its premature stage in so far as the universe is concerned. What we know of science is a few theories.

Man cannot be hooked to sets of theories and want to break through new domains of knowledge.

[The Atheist]

A little more than a century ago, radio, air travel and motor cars were unimaginable. Fifty years on, so were antibiotics, A-bombs, Moon travel, TV, PCs and portable music players. Today, are we 80-90 %, or even 0.000 000 001 %, towards the endpoint of scientific progress? I think not.

Well, since we just disagree, let's agree to check it out in 20 years and see what progress we've made in that time.

We know so little of the physics of our world and next to nothing of the physics of the universe. For instance, much of the mass of the universe exists in Black Holes, for which all our physics is probably irrelevant. Humility befits ignorance.

Goodness me; as a woman, I'd surprised you think size matters!

That the vast majority of matter resides in black holes and that the vast majority of "stuff" in the universe is actually dark energy/matter just doesn't..... matter! Inside black holes and dark energy/matter, whatever it is will almost certainly each conform to one simple set of physical rules. I'd take a good bet that no life, and especially no sentient life exists inside of any of the above, that nothing actually happens "in" them at all. Accordingly, while we might not know what happens to/in 99% of the mass and energy in the unverse, if they only have tidal effects on the rest of the universe - which seems to be the case - the gap that the lack of knowledge about them causes is fairly small from where I see it.

[PeterL]

But these are the tiny areas I've been talking about. Compared to the vast amount of scientific knowledge we have, these things are drops in the bucket. Fine-tuning.

I think it may be a matter of judgement as to importance. I consider the problems with Relativity to be major, while you seem to think that it simply requires fine-tuning for one.
If one were to remove the false assumptions, then the theory would no longer exist; but removing a few sentences from the statement of a theory is, by some measures, a small change.

Evolutionary anthropologists operate with different sets of definitions; what some call different species others call variations.
This might be fine-tuning, but regardless of what would be tuned, a large amount of literaature would be discarded.

[The Atheist]

I think it may be a matter of judgement as to importance. I consider the problems with Relativity to be major, while you seem to think that it simply requires fine-tuning for one.
If one were to remove the false assumptions, then the theory would no longer exist; but removing a few sentences from the statement of a theory is, by some measures, a small change.

You hit the nail right on the head. I really don't think changes to the ToR will be earth-shattering. I am yet to be convinced that it matters beyond the almost-esoteric level anyway - I just wish they'd hurry up and get the hadron collider working. (again)

Evolutionary anthropologists operate with different sets of definitions; what some call different species others call variations.
This might be fine-tuning, but regardless of what would be tuned, a large amount of literaature would be discarded.

With evolution, it's a lot more clear-cut. Yes, large amounts might yet be changed completely, but those large amounts are a tiny fraction of the whole of knowledge we have. We've probably still only discovered 1% of species which ever existed, but even discovery of the other 99% in some amazing fossil pit wouldn't change the ToE in any great way at all. Like climate, it's only missing data and wouldn't - I don't think - cause any kind of wider re-appraisal of the whole theory.

[Gladys]

With evolution, it's a lot more clear-cut. Yes, large amounts might yet be changed completely, but those large amounts are a tiny fraction of the whole of knowledge we have.

Even small changes in knowledge can have staggering consequences, and lead to unimaginable increases in knowledge. For instance, while little changed in nuclear physics between 1926 and 1946, following the A-bomb, our knowledge of space and submarine travel, warfare, power generation and medicine has expanded massively. Similarly with the discovery of the transistor. Will the future be different?

[Nick Capozzoli]

All science is mathematics.

This is an interesting and arguable statement. It may be
true or it may not be. It needs discussion.

Mathematicians will tell you that mathematics is a kind of
mental game based on what is called "logical thinking" and
other basic concepts of "number," "counting," and "spatial
and time dimensions."

Mathematics certainly depends on the way the human mind
works. Whether or not the human mind works has anything to
do with the way the physical world works is arguable.

What I think is not arguable is that the only way we have to
understand the physical world is to use our minds to make sense
of it. Mathematics has been very effective so far in this
endeavor.

I forget who it was who said "The Universe may not be stranger
than we think; it may be stranger than we can think." I don't
believe it was Einstein, but another cosmologist.

Nick

[The Atheist]

This is an interesting and arguable statement. It may be
true or it may not be. It needs discussion.

Only if you can find something which doesn't conform to an algorithm.