Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Global Evolution as fact

1) Thank you Brian B. I think that this analogy is very good, when the topic is discussed with those who already know about at least several "experimental facts" which are explained by "atomic theories." But to ancient greek philosophers, who invented the word "atom" the concept was nothing more than "just a theory." Much later the word atom started to be also used for real physical objects rather than to a product of imagination.

2) Controversies resulting from not distinguishing facts and theories are very common among social scientists, politicians and theologians. Here the situations are sometimes much worse than in physical sciences. How can one discuss rationally when certain words mean different things to different people? I am tempted to give examples but this would probably not be appropriate on the list. In some situations one word covers several different theories and several different sets of experimental facts. That is why people should agree on what they mean by essential words before using them in debates. Sometimes it might be useful to invent new words, or phrases.

3) And how can I miss an opportunity of mentioning the term "cold fusion"? Most of you know the story; if not then consult my website

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf

it is a diary reflecting my thinking about the ongoing controversy. Here is a very short summary:

a) Nuclear physics (both facts and theories), developed after 1911, became very successful. It gave as nuclear electricity and atomic bombs, carbon dating, cancer treatments, etc, etc. It also helped us in understanding of astronomy.

b) The term nuclear fusion was developed in the context thermonuclear reactions involving hydrogen isotopes. (Independent light nuclei, in hot plasma, fuse and thermal energy is generated. The process is consistent with Q.M., and with the E=m*c^2--a tiny amount of "fuel" produces a lot thermal energy.)

c) In 1989, Fleischmann and Pons (F&P) announced a discovery of a new fact--generation of thermal energy during electrolysis. They were chemists and they had no difficulties in convincing themselves that the amount of energy released was orders of magnitude larger than what could possibly be attributed to chemical substances present in the cell. (It was again a lot of thermal energy from a tiny amount of unrecognized fuel.) The process was given the unfortunate name-cold fusion (CF). The F stands for "fusion of atomic nuclei," as in thermonuclear reactions, while C stands for "cold," to emphasize that temperatures are not astronomically high.

Justified criticism of such interpretation--fusion at low temperatures is impossible due to electric repulsion of atomic nuclei--was taken seriously. Those who have continued studying new kind of nuclear processes, including those who replicated experimental results of F&P, do not think that
released energy results from collisions of individual nuclei, as in very hot plasma. But the term CF is still widely used. How can one discuss the subject when the term "cold fusion" means different things to different people. Some still think the CF involves collisions between individual atoms while other think that the process involves crystal structures (on metallic surfaces) made of millions of atoms. Instead of performing experiments, which should be essential at this stage, opponents keep speculating. If it was up to me I would name the field CMNS (Condensed Matter Nuclear Science), rather than CF. The importance of the "condensed matter," and of still unrecognized catalysts, was recently reemphasized (on a dedicated private website) by two of the leading CMNS researchers.

Ludwik
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =


On Jan 9, 2011, at 7:18 AM, Brian Blais wrote:

On Jan 9, 2011, at 12:53 AM, William Robertson wrote:

And no statement by others is so uncontroversial that one cannot
answer it with arrogant condescension, I suppose. I can always count
on that from certain people in this forum. Intellect and a solid grasp
of the concepts of physics are valuable gifts to offer in a forum like
this (and you definitely have those gifts), but they are not so rare
that people should suffer pomposity to have access to them.

Bill,

Perhaps you'd understand the reason for responses to you with an analogy which might appeal to your physics knowledge. Imagine that there was a group of people who would make statements like, "Atomic theory is just a theory not a fact", "You may have seen a couple of atoms in the lab, but you've never showed that a table is made of atoms", and "there is no way that things as different as wood, people, air, and water could simply be made up of atoms from a few 'elements".

You respond, well, atomic theory is the mathematical description of how atoms interact, and it is separate from the fact that atoms exist (theory and facts are different), and to say that it is a "theory not a fact" implies that the theory is somehow less than fact (rather than being different) and implies that atomic theory should not be believed, and that there is no atomic fact. You could have several different atomic theories, differing in details, but agreeing on the facts of atoms. You'd demonstrate various parts of chemistry, possibly the results of statistical mechanics, etc... You'd probably show that you can't see the atoms of "wood", although you could in principle show some of the individual pieces that make up wood.

After a good effort on your part, you find that the person you spoke to is still unconvinced and is still saying "Atomic theory is just a theory not a fact", ...., and you keep hearing these arguments from others.

You correct them again, using the best examples you can, simplifying it, etc... Then again. Then you realize that this group is trying to push a description of the world that doesn't include atoms, and in the process violates many laws of physics. You correct them again. Then you find that, despite the scientific evidence against their description, they are trying to teach children this! They are trying to get it taught in the schools with your kids! You start to get really annoyed. You realize that the only conclusions you can come to is the people in this are either unable to understand the basic physics or is unwilling to.

How would you respond if, for the hundredth time, someone in a *scientific* forum that you're on tries to say "Atomic theory is just a theory, not a fact"? After all of the frustration, one can easily understand that some negative language might come into the response. You certainly would take a "put up or shut up" attitude with the person.

If one still claims that evolution is a theory not a fact, one has either not looked at the data or, having looked at the data, are unable or unwilling to accept the facts. Evolution theory and evolution fact are both at the confidence level that we have for atomic theory and atomic fact. I'd suggest the works of Ken Miller here, who does a very good job of describing the case for evolution, and the problems with all of the ideas about life on this planet that don't include evolution (special creation, intelligent design, etc...).


Brian Blais
--
Brian Blais
bblais@bryant.edu
http://web.bryant.edu/~bblais
http://bblais.blogspot.com/



_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

Ludwik

http://csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/life/intro.html