posted
Alright, not useful in any scientific way. What other ways it may be useful not applying to scientific theories.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not saying we should anthropomorphize animals. I'm saying that, IMO, science often oversteps its bounds when it tries to explain WHY. Yes, the birdsong might have the effect of attracting mates, finding other birds who sing back and warning others. Yes, it might have evolved that way because of those effects. But it might not be why the bird is singing.
I feel like you've mis-described this example. The scientific theory seems to explain why the bird wants to sing, and the bird's wanting to sing explains why it sings. But I would think that if A explains why B and B explains why C, then A explains why C. So in fact, the science does explain why.
I find it very strange when people say that science ignores "why" questions, because the boundary between the applicability of "why," as opposed to "how/when/where/etc," is much less precisely-defined than most scientific terms. Does gravitation explain "how" an apple falls, or does it explain "why" an apple falls? Seems like both words could apply equally well to the same scientific explanation.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm not saying we should anthropomorphize animals. I'm saying that, IMO, science often oversteps its bounds when it tries to explain WHY. Yes, the birdsong might have the effect of attracting mates, finding other birds who sing back and warning others. Yes, it might have evolved that way because of those effects. But it might not be why the bird is singing.
I feel like you've mis-described this example. The scientific theory seems to explain why the bird wants to sing, and the bird's wanting to sing explains why it sings. But I would think that if A explains why B and B explains why C, then A explains why C. So in fact, the science does explain why.
I disagree entirely. Science does not know why the bird "wants" to sing. It cannot ask the bird. We do not have a bird psychologist asking the bird, "Hmmm, yes. And how does that make you feel?" Science can only PRESUME that the bird wants to sing for the reasons it lists. Few scientists would be arrogant enough to say that we've even come up with all the possible effects of the birdsong.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I find it very strange when people say that science ignores "why" questions, because the boundary between the applicability of "why," as opposed to "how/when/where/etc," is much less precisely-defined than most scientific terms. Does gravitation explain "how" an apple falls, or does it explain "why" an apple falls? Seems like both words could apply equally well to the same scientific explanation.
"How" is the mechanism by which it falls. For example, we're not sure if gravitational waves exist and that is how it drags the apple toward the center of gravity. It is also the quality of the falling. Did it fall fast or slow? Did it accelerate at 9.81 m/s^2? How much wind and air resistance did it overcome?
"Why" can be either a philosophical, biological, or mechanical question, among others. Philosophical: it falls because fate/God/kharma decreed it. Biological: the tree wanted to produce offspring so its species would continue. Mechanical: according to the free body diagram model, the sum of the force vectors was directed toward the center of gravity and away from the branch that was holding the apple.
These are entirely different questions. I understand that in everyday use we sometimes mix them up (like when we say "how come..." instead of "why"), but they mean very different things.
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Alright, not useful in any scientific way. What other ways it may be useful not applying to scientific theories.
I readily admit I might have been reaching when I said that the idea of "God" as a placeholder for a mechanism can be very scientific. But I'll defend it anyway in this hand-wavy way:
If "God" is used as a placeholder, or used in the Einstein sense of "God" is just everything we do not know, then "God" is scientific. Scientists absolutely don't think they know everything, and want to understand what they do not know. Finding out what those placeholders are just brings us closer to "God". The confusion arises when we connect "God" to religion, to worship, to unquestioning faith. Those three things are not scientific, IMO. This may just be a semantics argument about what we define "God" as.
Sorry for disturbing you, Orincoro! (I always want to type Orinoco, like the Orinoco flow...)
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
That is not how Einstein thought about God. Einstein was, iirc, generally detested by a God of the Gaps (as that conception of God is called).
There's no reason to call God a placeholder for what's unknown or unknowable in science. It promotes confusion, and unfair denigration of religion ("we discovered something new! God just got smaller!").
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hum. I'd like to note that historically that has actually been true. Now, you are certainly welcome to say that a god of the gaps is not the right way to do it; but the fact remains, the place of gods in most people's lives is inversely proportional to the amount of technology their society has.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: That is not how Einstein thought about God. Einstein was, iirc, generally detested by a God of the Gaps (as that conception of God is called).
There's no reason to call God a placeholder for what's unknown or unknowable in science. It promotes confusion, and unfair denigration of religion ("we discovered something new! God just got smaller!").
I said:
quote:The confusion arises when we connect "God" to religion, to worship, to unquestioning faith.
There is no denigration of "God", in quotemarks mind you, if the placeholder is not connected to religion.
Einstein said, "God does not play dice with the universe." He clearly expressed that it was not a personal God (Source). [Note the irony of the source.] He said, "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." Looking back, I think I have twisted those quotes when I said an Einstein sense of "God" is that which we do not yet know (and how it fits into the order of things). I do not wish to put words in Einstein's mouth. I retract my statement that it was an Einstein sense. Let me know if you would like me to go back and edit.
I am not trying to link "God" as a placeholder to a God-of-the-Gaps. They are not the same. This is not support of ID or something like that. "God" as a placeholder may appear supernatural a lot, but is gradually debunked after examination and technological advancement. "God" as a placeholder is not evidence of a supernatural being. Obviously, there is some confusion and it may not be possible to separate "God" from religion, although historically "God" has been used as a placeholder before, as noted by KoM.
A reason for using "God" as a placeholder is similar to a reason for naming and categorizing anything. Namely(pun intended), to feel emotionally better about it and be able to reference it.
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM: that's not really what the term God of Gaps refers to.
JNSB: It still promotes it, regardless of any effort to separate the two; besides, its a silly idea. And the God of the Gaps notion has little to do with ID; plenty of people who adhere to sound scientific principles have adhered to a God of the Gaps conception. God as a placeholder for the unknown is almost exactly what God of the Gaps means, pretty much.
We have a perfectly good reference for unknowns. Unknowns. Heck, there are even classes of unknowns.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Einstein said, 'God does not play dice with the universe.'"
In fact this a famous misquoting. He never said the words "God does not play dice," but simply said (I paraphrase) that the idea that God lets the universe unfold randomly, and plays dice, was an idea he found difficulty accepting. Never in that did he make an unequivecable belief statement, he was in some uncertainty about it.
However I find this about as useful as the oft mis-represented fact that Darwin questioned his ideas about evolution because of the 'complexity of the human eye.' In fact he had legitimate scientific concerns about how an eye forms in an evolutionary way, but this had as much to do with the human eye as any other. Science has also done a great deal since that time to explain how an eye formed as part of a pre-cambrian body-type. (light sensing rods formed on the heads of trilobites).
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
About how and why: we distinguish *purpose* from *function*. The function of a bird's singing is that female birds come to him. We can't observe the bird's purpose, or God's purpose in setting this up.
But I don't think that saying "purpose" means we are anthopomorphizing anything -- unless we assume that wanting to attract a mate is a uniquely human quality, which is certainly hard to verify! It's just something not scientifically verifiable.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree WillB, and I don't think the "purpose" of such things concerns many scientists. Function can be determined, but if you discribe purpose that way, then there is no use trying to figure it out at all.
I don't think scientists try and do that, and I certainly don't think scientists try to "take away" from the power of whatever people believe in. That isn't what scientists do anyway, (ideally) they set out with an idea to disprove, not an agenda to pursue.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
The bird's "purpose" is presumably a state of its tiny mind: it desires to sing for a certain reason. States of the bird's mind are just arrangements of the nerve cells in the bird's little brain. So they can be studied by science, and the questions about the bird's purpose can be answered scientifically. End of story.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: "Einstein said, 'God does not play dice with the universe.'"
In fact this a famous misquoting. He never said the words "God does not play dice," but simply said (I paraphrase) that the idea that God lets the universe unfold randomly, and plays dice, was an idea he found difficulty accepting. Never in that did he make an unequivecable belief statement, he was in some uncertainty about it.
I have looked it up and I indeed misquoted. That Stephen Hawking has also misquoted him makes me feel a lot better. And you are wrong, he did make an unequivocal remark about it, and it is attributed to a letter to Max Born. "I, at any rate, am convinced He does not throw dice." See below.
quote:Einstein was very unhappy about this apparent randomness in nature. His views were summed up in his famous phrase, 'God does not play dice'.
quote:AUTHOR: Albert Einstein QUOTATION: God does not play dice [with the universe]. ATTRIBUTION: Quoted by Banesh Hoffman Albert Einstein New American Library 73
quote:Quantum mechanics is certainly imposing. But an inner voice tells me that it is not yet the real thing. The theory says a lot, but does not really bring us any closer to the secret of the Old One. I, at any rate, am convinced that He does not throw dice.
From: " * A letter to Max Born (12 December 1926); quoted in Einstein: The Life and Times ISBN 0-380-44123-3. This quote is commonly paraphrased as' “God does not play dice with the universe.” ], and other slight variants." Source: Wikiquote.
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:States of the bird's mind are just arrangements of the nerve cells in the bird's little brain.
That's certainly not something that has been proven scientifically (using "prove scientifically" to mean "supported by a sufficient level of scientific evidence to rely on."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I wouldn't be so quick to say I was wrong. The source I was using is a quote from "A Short History of Nearly Everything," and I paraphrased a section I remember from reading the book, which was from an interview, and not a letter.
Its certainly possible, in fact probable, that he said both these two things, and variations on them a thousand times, and different sources attribute the quote differently.
I am afraid that in such a specific question Wikipedia is really not an adequate source, since the contributors are working from the same varied 2nd or third source material. (remember that wikipedia is at best a third and ussually a 4th or 5th generation source, so it won't be clear always be clear on details such as these)
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:States of the bird's mind are just arrangements of the nerve cells in the bird's little brain.
That's certainly not something that has been proven scientifically (using "prove scientifically" to mean "supported by a sufficient level of scientific evidence to rely on."
What else could it possibly be? Until there is an alternative theory supported by even a scrap of evidence, this is going to be our best bet.
And there is, in fact, considerable evidence that the state of the brain is equivalent to the state of the mind, foremost being the fact that if you stir the brain cells about with a spoon, the mind ceases to exist. But we've also seen brain changes on NMR scans at the same time as reported mind changes, and brain damage to specific places causes specific kinds of mind damage. I think this is all pretty good evidence.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Never in that did he make an unequivecable belief statement, he was in some uncertainty about it.
Yet you said in just your last post that he could easily have said both statements. I think you just contradicted yourself.
Being that you have given one source with no link, and yours was a "paraphrasing", I am still comfortable calling you wrong on this count. I would call Wikiquote (not Wikipedia) certainly better than your memory of a passage you read, how long ago? And that you can't quote from memory? No hard feelings, though.
Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And you are wrong, he did make an unequivocal remark about it, and it is attributed to a letter to Max Born. "I, at any rate, am convinced He does not throw dice." See below. ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
(remember that wikipedia is at best a third and ussually a 4th or 5th generation source, so it won't be clear always be clear on details such as these)
