Take a look at
http://www.commonsensescience.org
you tell me, 'cause I’m lost for words. All of 20th century science is wrong. Not because of all the evidence that is right, but because a bunch of fairy tales, most of which have been translated from Yiddish to Greek to Latin and then to English.
I mean come on…
After gazing around the site (I suggest the “guided tour”), I found the following right off the bat under the heading Problems With the New Scientific Theories:
[quote]
From the start there were problems and inconsistencies with the new theories:
[ol]
[li]Mathematics equations replaced physical models of matter.[/li][li]Postulates that violated known laws of electrodynamics were adopted.[/li][li]Cause and effect relationships were replaced with random chance events.[/li][li]New force laws were required and invented to make the new theories of matter work.[/ol][/li][/quote]
Now, one has to first assume if the above premise is correct. I think it’s not on several levels, but I’ll leave that to the scientists here.
And while my knowledge of the particulars of quantum theory are rudimentary at best, I’ll bet some people will be able to poke hoiles in what they say is wrong with the idea. It looks like some errors are made there.
Some epecific things that didn’t make sense to me:
[ul]
[li]Atomism and Quantum Mechanics[/li][li]Physical Reality[/li][li]Contradictions in Modern Physics[/li][/ul]
I also find it amusing how often it mentions supposed “contradictions with the Judeo-Christian and Muslim worldview,” as if those three groups have a long history of agreement on anything.
My layman’s guess: Reminded me of when the LBMB’s Ghoti posted his dissertation on what was called “Intelligent Design” or ID in that it mixed up philosophy with science so much, it wound up botching both ideas quite badly.
Colin Wilkinson writes:
> most of which have been translated from Yiddish to Greek
> to Latin and then to English.
As long as you’re going to insist that they get their science right, I think that you should get your linguistics right. Hebrew is not Yiddish. They’re not even closely related. To be even pickier, the text of the modern-day English bible (or, to be specific, of the Old Testament) is not translated from the Latin translations of the Greek translations of the original Hebrew. It’s directly translated from the Hebrew.
And for completeness’ sake, the New Testament is translated from its original Greek. (However, all the places where the New Testament quotes the Old Testament use the Septuagint, the most popular Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament available at the time the New Testament was written.)
My first thought on looking through the site was “how the hell does one deny all the consistent and experimentally confirmed work in physics that’s gone on in the last fifty years?”
Then I found this article. Good read.
Two things:
Not all fundamentalist Christians are bad. Not all of them are like this. Many are good people that are not “in your face”, they don’t want to get you or anything. They don’t think science is the bringing about the destruction of God’s world. The problem is, they’re quiet, decent people, so you never hear about them. You only see the people that are loud, pushy, in your face, bastards.
Don’t try to debunk this. It only lends it credence, and you can’t succeed. The people that espouse this either believe it for reasons OTHER than scientifically verifiable facts (ie. an iron-clad faith that hates science), or they’re pushing it without believing it. Either way, you can’t win. Try convincing others, the people that aren’t loud. The decent folk that aren’t sure.
(I know, I only said 2) Don’t attack fundamentalists with an open insult. It only makes it look like you’re as much of an asshole as you think they are.
[Moderator Hat: ON]
As some have already noted, the subject of this thread is rather insulting. Thus, after discussing it with Mr. Wilkinson, we have decided to move this thread to the Pit.
David B, SDMB Great Debates Moderator
[Moderator Hat: Handed Off to Lynn & Alpha]
I scanned that article. Without indepth study, I wouldn’t actually support any views, but I do agree that the scientific world, (for all it’s supposed dedication to the truth) tends to get locked into it’s established views.
I think we know only a small fraction of the actual truth. Electron theory, for example only goes so far.
If I get more time, I’m going to go over that site again. It actually seemed pretty damn interesting and perhaps a few of the concepts deserve closer study.
Still unclear what this page has to do with ‘fundamental’ Christianity. I’ve lived with fundamentalists (for a short while in my teens) and I tell ya, I never heard anything like this:
No fundamental Christian that I’ve ever met has even referred to anything like that in my presence before.
Probably 'cus most fundamentalists have never heard of Bohr.
OK, look, folks these ARE real scientists. No-where does it say they “disagree with science because it disagrees with the Bible”. What these folks have a problem with is quantum mechanics and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Both are still not entirely accepted even by the top scientists. And, some of the assumptions that these two principles make DO seem to fly in the face of common sense. Of course, that does not make them wrong, as they have been verified by experiments, but those experiments have left a lot of questions unanswered. And 'all of 20th century science" is not shown or thought to be wrong, just some of the more arcane views of modern physics.
And scoff tho you will, I doubt if there is one amoung you* that truly understands both principles, and their interaction. In fact, there are supposedly only about 5 men in the entire world that really have a strong grasp on these, and some of those have doubts about the other 4. 
Now, these scientists are not willing to take these 5 men at their word that all this REALLY makes sense, and they are confused, as these principles do seem sometimes to make no sense. Well, maybe these Christians scientists ARE right, nad maybe those other 5 guys are right. Now, those 5 scientists do have the mass of other scientists behind them, as they are able to explain enuf of part of the interaction to enough of the other experts so they buy in. Based on that, they are probably MORE right than those “fuddy-duddy” Christian scientists. But I will bet that 10 years from now, we will see even more advances, and those five guys will be left behind by younger, more radical guys. And then THEY will be the “fuddy-duddies”.
*cecil excepted, of course.
Danielinthewolvesden writes:
> In fact, there are supposedly only about 5 men in the
> entire world that really have a strong grasp on these,
> and some of those have doubts about the other 4.
No. This is a variant on a legend that’s many decades old, which goes “There are only X people in the world who understand the Theory of Relativity,” where X is a single-digit or small two-digit number. There are certainly hundreds, and more likely thousands of physicists in the world who thoroughly understand the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. There are also probably thousands of physicists who could refute the assertions on this website. These are not completely incoherent theories (and whoever created this website is a pretty good writer), but the theories are wrong, althought it would take quite some time to explain why.
Well, there may well be more than 5, but not a lot more. And those who truly understand both QM, and HUP, and SAP, all have Nobel prizes in physics, which I sincerely doubt any of us have. Yes, those Christian scientists are very likely “fuddy-duddies”, by which I mean they understand the physics of their youth, but not the most modern stuff. And even Einstein said he did not understand both QM & the HUP, and he was a genius of the 1st order, but even geniuses become fuddy-duddies, someday. Altho- I believe I remember that Einstein did not claim it was wrong, just something he could not wholly understand or accept. Hey, Newtonian Physics is "wrong’, but that does not mean Newton was any less a genius.
But what are these fuddy-duddies saying? That QM & the HUP do not make “common sense”- and on that the experts agree also. These guys are not “stupid” by any means, just behind the times, and at the rate Physics is changing, that is no insult. Unless you can explain QM & the HUP, and truly understand it, don’t point your finger at these guys & laugh; they may be behind the times, but they probably still know more about physics than you do. I know they know more than I do, and I took Upper Div Physics classes, and even did a paper on Bohr. (Yes, it was a Bohring paper, OK? )
But I will admit- usually the Fuddy-duddies are wrong.
One minor point:
The quote in their about the “moon definitly not being there when we aren’t looking” is such an egregious misquote that I have to think it is deliberate. I can’t remember the exact quote, but it was a much more subtle quip on the nature of physical reality.
Daniel.
No real physicist rejects QM or the uncertainty equation. QM is now taught at the undergrad level, and presumably more than 5 physics undergrads have passed their finals.
It is true that the implications of QM for the nature of reality are poorly understood. Most physicists avoid thinking about this because it’s not neccesary for doing physics. (In Feynmans lectures on physics he urges his students to avoid thinking about what it means if they can help it.)However a number of books have been written on this subject, which involves metaphysics and philosophy as much as physics. An execellent intro is John Casti’s paradigms lost which is a great book despite the awful title. It has just been updated and reprinted as (groan) paradigms regained.
Its true that Einstein was deeply troubled on a presonal level by the implications of QM, especially the randomness and acausality it introduced to the universe. We all know he said “God doesn’t play dice with the universe.” However this certainly doesn’t mean he didn’t understand it. In fact he helped create it with his 1905 paper (the other 1905 paper) on the photoelectric effect.
You are of course correct, as are the “common sense science” site, that QM doesn’t make sense. But ask yourself this: Why is the universe obliged to conform to limited human ideas of “common sense?” It seems to me that the cosmos is whatever it is, and if it doesn’t coincide with “common sense” so much for common sense.
Full disclosure,
I’m not a physicist, don’t even play one on TV. I took a few physics courses, and some grad philosophy courses which dealt tangentialy with the implications of QM, and I’ve read a few books on the subject.
Also, Daniel, I’m interested in what your Bohr paper was on, If you can recall.
One more question, are we sure these people are fundies in the standard sense? It seems to me they are just crank pseudoscientists who occaisionaly use the Bible in their ravings
Daniel said:
Excuse me? I’m sure you’ll be backing that up any second now, right?
Incidentally, the problem with the theories on the “Common Sense Science” website is not that they were created by “fuddy-duddies,” whatever that means. That is, the problem is not that they are old-fashioned, nor that they haven’t studied recent science, nor that they don’t dress in a hip style, nor that that they are prudish, nor that there’s something wrong with their moral, philosophical, or religious views. The problem is that their scientific theories are demonstrably wrong.
Picky, picky, picky.
david: what I said it that both are not ENTIRELY accepted by all the top scientists. Yes, QM is, at least most of it, and yes, the HUP is also, but exactly how they interrelate, and how they effect the very nature of reality is not always accepted. Einstein himself, altho accepting both, did not agree with some of the theories of how they affect reality, ie “did not entirely accept”.
Larry: QM may be tought at the undergrad level, and I was taught it too, but that does not mean that many understand QM’s deeper implications re reality. Whenever they went into that, my mind wanted to shut down. (Bohr paper was mostly a bio, and a history of his discoveries.) It also does not seem these “Christian scientists” actually reject all of QM or the HUP, just primarily the philosophical impications, which, as you pointed out, even Einstein had problems with. I do not think these guys are "fundies’ or carnks or psuedo-scientists, at all. I think they are just having Einsteins problems with the randomness & the philsophical implication, ie “God does not play dice with the Universe”, and taking it a step further. Einstein did not concur with some of the philosophical implications of both, but he did not reject them, these guys have just taken it one step further, as they are not as brilliant as Einstein ( no shame there).
OK, Wendell, refute them.
Brilliant. Take a web page made by wackos, and use it as a representative for an entire group of people. Look for the weird ones, point them out for all to see, and snicker, safe in your superiority.
I’m not at a loss for words, but since you didn’t originally post this masterpiece in the 'Pit, I’ll refrain from using them.
Surgoshan wrote:
What a great post. Surg, you make me happy. I wish everyone was as rational as you are (including me).
DavidB wrote:
I shall, for a moment, ignore the presence of the winking smiley, and attack you for that statement. It’s so much more fun that way.
Forget fundamentalists, just how many typical Americans have heard of him? Go out and ask the average person who he was. Science education in this country is pathetically neglected.
For the record, I, a fundamentalist, have heard of Bohr. When I was 14-17, I wanted to be a theoretical physicist when I grew up. Feynman and Hawking were my heroes, though. I didn’t spend too much time on 'ol Niels. I still love physics, but my focus is now on molecular biology.
::sigh:: Too much incredibly interesting science; too little time.
Now I’m going to go downtown to see the fireworks. Happy fourth, everyone!
Daniel,
You are right in that no one, including physicists, understands the deep implications of QM for the nature of reality. Wienberg and Feynmann have counseled their students just to get the physics right and not worry about the implications, as this leads to metaphysical ponderings to tangled to escape. I believe it was Bohr who said “anyone who claims to understand QM doesn’t” or words to that effect. I forget who it was who said “Not only is the world stranger than we suppose it is stranger than we can suppose.”
However, as you are no doubt aware, QM works. QM was borne from empirical observations like the photoelectric effect and the double slit experiment. The fact is there is no “common sense” explanation for the double slit experiment. One simply has to face the fact that that’s the way electrons behave. Qm works even in the practical world. The physics of transistors is based on QM. I believe that QM tunneling is the basis for hydrogen fusion in the sun. (Hopefully a real physicist will elaborate)
Sure QM opens up a host of philosophical questions about the nature of reality, which for a non-physicist like myself is its most interesting aspect. And, sure these implications state that our “common sense” is wrong at a fundamental level. But, as I said, Why is the universe obliged to follow the dictates of our common sense? Our common sense is based on the world of everyday experience. When we deal with phenomena far removed from ordinary experience, we should not expect it to obey the same rules of space, time, or causality. Otherwise we are just being arrogant, which is how the “common sense scientists” strike me.
Although my guess is that the CS scientists are not according to hoyle xian fundamentalists, they commit the same errors of arrogance in assuming the world must obey their petty limited human imaginations. They attack straw men, misinterpret (deliberately) their opponents, and give no clue as to what alternative theory would explain things like the double slit experiment or transistors.