6 replies to this topic

[Chad]

http://www.deseretne...d-particle.html

When the LHC atom smasher first fired up in March 2010, Physicist Michio Kaku told The Associated Press, "This is a huge step toward unraveling Genesis Chapter 1, Verse 1 — what happened in the beginning. ... This is a Genesis machine. It'll help to recreate the most glorious event in the history of the universe."

Reuters reported that the collider has been creating "billions of miniature versions of the Big Bang." But so far, there has been no sign of the God particle that would have explained how mass and energy were connected to matter in the original Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago.

And interestingly on page 2 ...

Kaku explained the importance of the God particle this way in a radio interview, "If we don't find the Higgs boson we are in deep trouble. We are in deep doo-doo. The reason is that the subatomic particles in the Standard Model are the basis, the foundation of everything we know about the Big Bang, everything we know about the universe, cosmic rays (and) black holes. So if that theory is wrong, then we are really in trouble. It means we have to throw out what is called the Standard Model — and even string theory would be in danger because string theory also has a Higgs boson. Steve Hawking, my colleague, said, "Well, if we don't find the Higgs boson things would be very interesting.' No. It will be a disaster if we don't find Higgs boson, because basically the entire edifice of modern physics depends upon it."

On August 22, CERN scientists announced that, in the energy ranges they have searched (145 to 466 billion electron volts) "the Higgs boson is excluded as a possibility with a 95 percent probability," Scientific American reported.

[Dave]

eh...well...a problem with theoretical physics, not physics as a whole. There's a big, big difference.

I'm not going to lump you in with this crowd, but I do suspect certain groups of people will point to stuff like this and say, "See? Science is false!" when that's not what this shows at all. This is exactly how science works: we postulate a theory, test it, test it again, draw conclusions, if the theory is wrong, make adjustments/start over and test, test, test. One of the beauties of the scientific method is that it includes the tools to show when the theories created through it are wrong/broken/in need of fixing.

[Chad]

Dave, on 03 September 2011 - 08:56 PM, said:

I'm not going to lump you in with this crowd, but I do suspect certain groups of people will point to stuff like this and say, "See? Science is false!"

That has been my least new favorite stereotype that I've been saddled with. A lot of people have called me out on this, asking if I still believe in evolution, what parts of scripture do I take literally, do I think the world is 5,000 years old, do I believe in a global flood scenario, but the thing is I had the same thought you did the minute I saw the article. All I could think was "the people who made the creationist museum with Jesus riding a dinosaur are going to eat this up."

I really haven't changed my view on the majority of those questions or ones like it. The evolution thing is always first up. Which I don't get. I mean BYU teaches the same evolution from the same books that Richard Dawkins uses. Or wrote. Science gets taught in science class. The end. It's a wonderful thing. I still loathe the extremists on each side of the issue, though. The crazies who demonize science and stand in the road preaching to cars or protest at funerals, then on the other side there's the overly-jaded militant atheist who's in therapy and cutting himself because they won't take "In God We Trust" off the dollar bill. He makes claims that evolution disproves everything in the Bible, stories that have nothing to do with the ancestral history of humanity are still "proven" false by evolution. Defending it with the same retarded zeal that the dino-riding-Jesus people have about dino-riding-Jesus.

I had an argument with my cousin recently where I had to explain to him what the theory of evolution is, and what it isn't. Then explain that the genesis of life on earth is not covered by evolution. I ended up arguing both sides of a debate that I wasn't on either side of, explained to my cousin what exactly he was arguing in favor of, how it had nothing to do with the idea he wanted to attack, and at the end of everything he looked at me and said "You have faith in God, I have faith in evolution." And I was speechless, legit mouth-half-open-but-words-can't-come-out, speechless. I give him full credit for that. He isn't dumb, he's finishing his masters in electrical engineering. And he will stand up and yell about how he "believes" in evolution and he literally has no idea what it is he's yelling about. It's incredible.

You talk about the people who will read this article and jump on the "science is false!" wagon, and I'm right there with you. They definitely aren't part of the solution. But the same horse shit goes on with the opposing side too, except they're scientists and held to a much different standard than the guy who preaches to cars driving down the road. There are situations now where politics trumps the 'search for truth' in the scientific community. Waging a crusade against all aspects of religion is trendy and popular. Some of the world's best and brightest consider the elimination of all religion part of their responsibility as a scientist. The front page of Dawkins website has a mission statement ...

MISSION: Support scientific education, critical thinking and evidence-based understanding of the natural world in the quest to overcome religious fundamentalism, superstition, intolerance and human suffering.

If you aren't on board then you're one of them, you're part of the dino-riding-Jesus club.

The people who line up to fight about this really believe that science will end religion or religion will beat out science, like my old hero Sam Harris. Takes his BA in philosophy and turns it into a PhD in neuroscience, graduates and spends more time writing his latest book than actually working in his new field, says that neuroscience is going to scientifically prove stuff that has nothing to do with neuroscience whatsoever. But his ideas about science, and especially the scope of his field, are crazier than anything coming from dino-riding-Jesus.

A few of the reviews of Sam's book ...

Quote

John Horgan, journalist for the Scientific American blog and author of The End of Science, expressed deep skepticism regarding Harris's claims, pointing out "the harm — historical and recent — wreaked by scientists supposedly concerned with humanity's well-being." Horgan continued:

Harris further shows his arrogance when he claims that neuroscience, his own field, is best positioned to help us achieve a universal morality. ... Neuroscience can't even tell me how I can know the big, black, hairy thing on my couch is my dog Merlin. And we're going to trust neuroscience to tell us how we should resolve debates over the morality of abortion, euthanasia and armed intervention in other nations' affairs?

Writing in Canada's National Post, Peter Foster wrote that "Harris’s assault on religion is vicious to the point of being deranged, while he simultaneously fails to register that the greatest horrors of the past century have all been perpetrated in the name of 'scientific' socialism...."

Cognitive scientist and anthropoligist Scott Atran writes "this work contains precious little science. There is, however, much playacting at science to justify a peculiar sort of Brave New World where atheism will help do away with female genital mutilation and lie detectors will preclude pleading the Fifth Amendment."

Reviews of Sam's book from advisory board members of his 'Project Reason' project ...

Quote

Sam Harris breathes intellectual fire into an ancient debate. Reading this thrilling, audacious book, you feel the ground shifting beneath your feet. Reason has never had a more passionate advocate.
— Ian McEwan, author of Atonement, winner of the Man Booker Prize for Amsterdam.


A lively, provocative, and timely new look at one of the deepest problems in the world of ideas. Harris makes a powerful case for a morality that is based on human flourishing and thoroughly enmeshed with science and rationality. It is a tremendously appealing vision, and one that no thinking person can afford to ignore.
— Steven Pinker, Professor of Psychology at Harvard University, author of How the Mind Works and The Blank Slate.


I was one of those who had unthinkingly bought into the hectoring myth that science can say nothing about morals. The Moral Landscape has changed all that for me. Moral philosophers, too, will find their world exhilaratingly turned upside down, as they discover a need to learn some neuroscience. As for religion, and the preposterous idea that we need God to be good, nobody wields a sharper bayonet than Sam Harris.
— Richard Dawkins, author of The Selfish Gene, The God Delusion, and The Greatest Show On Earth


Reading Sam Harris is like drinking water from a cool stream on a hot day. He has the rare ability to frame arguments that are not only stimulating, they are downright nourishing, even if you don’t always agree with him! In this new book he argues from a philosophical and a neurobiological perspective that science can and should determine morality. As was the case with Harris’ previous books, readers are bound to come away with previously firm convictions about the world challenged, and a vital new awareness about the nature and value of science and reason in our lives.
— Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist, Director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University, author of The Physics of Star Trek and Quantum Man: Richard Feynman’s Life in Science.

As his colleagues, it's hardly unexpected that they would be supportive of his book and there isn't anything really out of line there. But they each glaze over the main source of criticism that all the other reviews focus on, the science. He peddled a bunch of irreligious crap under the banner and protection of his new profession. Now you aren't arguing ethics you're arguing "science" and that lands you in the dino-riding-Jesus group. Read your description of science. Now tell me if this is in harmony with that .....

(More Dawkins quotes)

Quote

My argument will be that Darwinism is the only known theory that is in principle capable of explaining certain aspects of life. If I am right it means that, even if there were no actual evidence in favour of Darwinian theory we should still be justified in preferring it over all rival theories.

or

Quote

It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)

I've picked on Dawkins a lot. Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the Hayden Planetarium and recently a host for several PBS documentaries, said this ...

Quote

“I want to put on the table, not why 85% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences reject God, I want to know why 15% of the National Academy don’t. That’s really what we’ve got to address here … if you can’t convert our colleagues, why do you have any hope that you’re going to convert the public?”

The other side is no different though, there is still a huge group that thinks creationism should be taught in school alongside (or even worse) instead of evolution. They throw around the word "theory" like they have half an idea of what they're talking about. Fortunately, the court cases involving ID as "science" and equal to evolution have all ruled on the side of true science.

Dawkins and Tyson are the leading authorities in their respective fields. They also promote atheism. Dawkins said in one of his books ...

Quote

Evolution is a fact. Beyond reasonable doubt, beyond serious doubt, beyond sane, informed, intelligent doubt, beyond doubt evolution is a fact. The evidence for evolution is at least as strong as the evidence for the Holocaust, even allowing for eye witnesses to the Holocaust.

This is a pretty bold statement, that I personally think is absurd, but Dawkins is god in this arena, and claims like this aren't up to any level of scrutiny because he's Richard Dawkins. If anyone were to say that a claim like that might be overzealous, then they're in the club. You know which club too. The insane one with dino-Jesus. Does that seem right to you?

Dawkins and Tyson present their scientific work hand in hand with their views as atheists. The connection being made is that they are experts of the highest caliber in the scientific world, therefore their views on religion and beliefs (or non beliefs) as atheists are equally authoritative. There becomes an atmosphere of infallibility that gets attached to almost anything they say because they are the best in their field, and the fallacy follows right along. You're awesome at seeing fallacies, I'm connecting a lot of dots, I admit, but is what I'm saying inaccurate? There are countless videos on Youtube of Dawkins giving a presentation or lecture on biology and during the Q&A he is fielding questions about religion. There is no separation of church and state with these guys.

I don't not believe in science, I don't think evolution is "false" but I surely don't think it's reached the level of "untouchable" that we've been told it has. I do think it is viewed and treated as if it were holy scripture by the majority of the New Atheism movement, and there is an irony in that which is not lost on me.

[Dave]

Not that it justifies them, but I think the hardline atheists have sprung up to provide a rallying point for pro-science laypersons against fundamentalists. (Having written that, it seems odd to say 'pro-science' because I'm not sure it's possible to choose to be pro or anti science. Can you choose to abandon logic, for example? By saying something like, "Anti-logic is true and logic is false" you are presupposing the very rules you claim to abandon.)

Short thought experiment:
Suppose the following propositions in an imaginary world.
1. Every raven anyone has ever observed has been black.
2. Group A is the set of people who are extremist nutjobs who believe all ravens in all the universe are unquestionably black.
3. Group B is the set of people who are extremist nutjobs who believe there exists at least one raven in all the universe that is white.
4. Jane sees a raven.
What color is the raven?

1 and 4 inductively support the conclusion that the raven Jane sees is black. Notice that 2 and 3 have absolutely no impact on the conclusion. Is it metaphysically possible that the raven be white? Sure. But that conclusion is not supported at all by the propositions listed. Practically speaking, I don't think it's unfair in this situation to say, "All ravens are black," so long as the speaker understands the conditions under which this could be proven false, namely the observation of a white raven (emphasis on the italicized words cannot be overemphasized).

Meta-conclusion: nutjobs are nutjobs.

[Chad]

I also wrote all of that very late (or very early depending on how you look at it) last night/this morning and it seemed like it flowed better as I was writing it. I also want to be a bit more fair and point out that a lot of the quotes from Dawkins, Harris and Tyson were being said in some kind of response to someone trying to make the argument that creation is right and evolution is wrong. We know who they are.




I actually didn't even mean to write all that. I wanted to respond to stuff you said about the article. Now I am far and away from an advanced physics class in school right now, so I spent a good amount of time getting my dual degree of Google/Wikipedia to learn what is needed to be known to be able to talk about stuff in the article. So humor me, seriously, turns out it's hard to teach yourself physics over the internet in just a few hours.

Quote

eh...well...a problem with theoretical physics, not physics as a whole. There's a big, big difference.

This section of the article does not say this would only have an influence on theoretical physics, it says very much the opposite ...

Quote

"If we don't find the Higgs boson we are in deep trouble. We are in deep doo-doo. The reason is that the subatomic particles in the Standard Model are the basis, the foundation of everything we know about the Big Bang, everything we know about the universe, cosmic rays (and) black holes. So if that theory is wrong, then we are really in trouble. It means we have to throw out what is called the Standard Model — and even string theory would be in danger because string theory also has a Higgs boson. Steve Hawking, my colleague, said, "Well, if we don't find the Higgs boson things would be very interesting.' No. It will be a disaster if we don't find Higgs boson, because basically the entire edifice of modern physics depends upon it."

That seems pretty clear to me, is his point of view about this different for him than it would be for another physicist? Another specialty field within physics? (serious question) what am I missing in this?

Quote

I'm not going to lump you in with this crowd, but I do suspect certain groups of people will point to stuff like this and say, "See? Science is false!"

Already talked about. Astronomy is one of the many tools of the devil

Quote

when that's not what this shows at all. This is exactly how science works: we postulate a theory, test it, test it again, draw conclusions, if the theory is wrong, make adjustments/start over and test, test, test. One of the beauties of the scientific method is that it includes the tools to show when the theories created through it are wrong/broken/in need of fixing.

I stress again that I don't have a formal education in physics so I'm taking things at face value. For me (if I've connected the dots correctly) then what you talk about above is indeed great, but not what I see in this situation. I get there is a lot of theoretical stuff in particle physics, but the Higgs boson has yet to actually have been observed. It also, apparently, made some math work in the model that they couldn't make work without it. I'm on the outside looking in, though, so I'm okay with not "getting it" if that's where I end up.

What seems kind of ... off to me, is that all these models were done up for several different fields in physics, and apparently they all hinge on this theoretical particle. Maybe once you actually start learning physics, this stops seeming like a retarded way of doing things. I've always loved the ability of science to say "I don't know" when there isn't anymore data or evidence to evaluate. That's where I'm struggling here, some of puzzle pieces were found and the picture started to come together. Then we ran out of pieces. So we designed and fabricated our own pieces, gave them the exact qualities we determined to be necessary in order to fit, and congratulated ourselves at the end for it all coming together. That seems like a house of cards to me. And I think this quote from the article makes a little too much sense for me ...

Quote

Allen J. Epling, a blogger at the Christian Post, explained how important the particle is to scientists: "Scientists believe that the Higgs particle is necessary for everything in the universe to exist. Without it the universe would never have come into existence. Without it the planets would not orbit the sun. Without it time would be meaningless and there would be no purpose or meaning to anything in the universe. Scientists have long accepted the existence of the Higgs particle as being present in everything around us but cannot yet prove that it exists physically. The way matter behaves and interacts is proof enough of its existence. They accept its existence based on 'faith' that it exists."

Unless I'm getting this all wrong?

[Dave]

Higgs boson is pure theoretical physics. I don't have the brain power to completely understand it much less explain it. Michio Kaku is the guy to read in terms of writing about physics for laypeople.

Also remember: most journalism about science is very, very poor. There is a driving force to quote only the alarmists coupled with a general lack of understanding of the subject matter...coupled again with the motive to "keep it short; keep it punchy" even for complicated topics. In my opinion, this does a disservice to both the reader and the topic.

[Chad]

Oh. Well for what it's worth, Kaku is the guy I quoted from the article interview who said this is like the apocalypse for physics. I didn't think this was going to change our way of life or anything, but the "short and punchy" message I walked away with was that physicists are morons.