[Phys-L] Re: god friendly science

[Marc Kossover <zeke_kossover@YAHOO.COM>]

--- Gary Turner <turner@MORNINGSIDE.EDU> wrote:

> OK, let me give an example.  Suppose I want to
> figure out why the wind
> blows, and develop a model in which some enormous
> bird just over the horizon
> causes the wind by flapping its wings.  That is a
> natural explanation, but
> is no more scientific than having a supernatural
> being blowing the air around.

Structurally both are good models. The truth of a
model, though, is determined by its ability to have
the predictions it makes turn out to be reflected by
reality.

So, we go look over the horizon, perhaps working with
many people so that we can be looking over several
horizons at once, at see if the bird is there. If it
is not there when the wind is blowing, then we might
not want to use that model to predict when the wind
will blow.

On the other hand, if we notice that the wind blows
when every there is a pressure differential between
two regions, then we might have a good model that
pressure differences are at least the proximate cause
of winds.

> I'm trying to point out that "natural" and
> "scientific" are not synonymous,
> hoping to raise the question of whether natural
> explanations should
> automatically receive more credibility than
> supernatural explanations

Regularity is the important part. The problem with the
supernatural is that is inherently unpredictable. If
it were predictable, then it wouldn't be supernatural.
Any supernatural entity or event sufficiently
explained is indistinguishable from science.

Science presupposes -- takes on faith -- that the
world is repeatable and predictable. So far so good.
But if the world really is governed by the
supernatural and is not predictable, then the game is
over.


> Let's compare three statements -
>
> 1. Creatures evolve by survival of the fittest,
> allowing them to adapt to
> their surroundings.  Small changes occur randomly,
> with the large changes
> between species being the result of an accumulation
> of small changes.
>
> 2. Creatures evolve by survival of the fittest,
> allowing them to adapt to
> their surroundings.  Small changes are directed by
> an intelligent being,
> with the large changes between species being the
> result of an accumulation
> of small changes.
>
> 3. Creatures evolve according to their suroundings
> following a
> pre-determined path layed out by a divine creator.
> Small changes are
> directed by this divine creator, with the large
> changes between species
> being the result of an accumulation of small
> changes.
>
> Clearly, #1 and #3 are very different, but where is
> the difference?

If the divine creator never intervenes in a way
different than natural selection would have occurred
otherwise, then 1 and 3 are the same for the purposes
of science. Good scientists would argue that, for the
purposes of science, 1 and 3 are in fact the same
theory.

Really? Yep. 1 and 3 are the philosophically question
of Descartes that asks, "How do we know that we are
not just brains in a vat being fed perfect sensory
information?" The answer is that we don't know. If,
however, we are being fed such perfect information
that we cannot tell any difference then it doesn't
matter that we are brains in a vat.


> Is it
> in the nature of the pre-determined path (whether
> there is or is not such a
> path is not scientifically testable without the
> ability to reverse time -
> and even that could be a part of the path)?  Is it
> in the nature of the
> cause being either random or guided

This is the same as the philosophical question of free
will, also an unsolved puzzle.

I will bolder, though. It is possible to believe that
a divine being coordinates everything, or at least
lots of things. However, if the coordinating entity
behaves exactly like my model of evolution by natural
selection then the model that evolution by natural
selection is STILL true. The causes of models are in
fact outside the realm of science.



Marc "Zeke" Kossover
The Jewish Community High School of the Bay
San Francisco, CA 94121
<http://tochnit.jchsofthebay.org/~zkossover>



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball.
http://baseball.fantasysports.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
Phys-L mailing list
Phys-L@electron.physics.buffalo.edu
https://www.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l