Another reality nail in the progressive "science" coffin

[ifrtbttrflys]

Determinism: Science Commits Suicide

Explanatory gaps in the Grand Narrative of Science, such as neuroscience not being able to explain consciousness solely in terms of brain function, can be tolerated; scientific hope, even if blind, can keep the Grand Narrative on life support, seemingly forever. Logical contradiction, however, destroys any theory; for it cannot be quarantined to a tiny domain. If we admit that A and not A are simultaneously true, then the abandonment of logical contradiction bores wormholes throughout the entire theoretical structure—B and not B can also be true, for any B—and the theoretical structure collapses. Such a logical disaster is traditionally called ex falso quodlibet (from the false anything follows). Everything is equally true and false at the same time.

If we are free as doing science demands and not free as the Grand Narrative of Science proclaims, then every decision is the result of mechanical processes and every decision is not the result of mechanical processes; then materialism is true and materialism is not true; then everything arises from matter and not everything arises from matter. The Grand Narrative collapses into in the worst kind of theoretical failure, a jumble of contradictory nonsense. Consequently, the grand pronouncements of science — “the human race is just a chemical scum on a moderate-sized planet;”[19] Homo sapiens is “a more-or-less farcical outcome of a chain of accidents;”[20] “human beings are lumbering robots manipulated by genes;”[21] “evil and good, are built into our brains by millennia of Darwinian evolution;”[22] and, “when we die, we die and that is the end of us”[23] — have no credibility.

Only a young child, an inveterate drunk, or a one-eyed scientist can believe in the Grand Narrative of Science that simultaneously declares that a person is free and not free, that truth is possible and not possible. The great hope of modern science to prove through the experimental method that matter is the ultimate source of everything terminated in nonsense.

George Stanciu has a Ph.D. from the University of Michigan. He is the Academic Dean Emeritus at Northeast Catholic College in Warner, New Hampshire, and he is the co-author of The New Biology and The New Story of Science.

http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2016/06/determinism-science-commits-suicide.html

 

[KingOrfeo]

Explanatory gaps in the Grand Narrative of Science, such as neuroscience not being able to explain consciousness solely in terms of brain function . . .

That ain't actually a gap. Nor even a thing.

 

[Hypoxia]

A scientific theory is a workable, testable model supported by the preponderance of data. Spiritual horseshit and free-floating misunderstandings ain't science. Come back when you have a preponderance of verified data, okay?

 

[Ms_Ann]

He could have just said: red is better then blue...na..na..na..nana.

 

[JoanneA]

"NOVA"

 

[Hard_Rom]

The determinism that is a basic aspect of the Newtonian Cosmos is false, for two reasons—quantum physics and chaos theory. In the twentieth century, physicists discovered individual events on the atomic level are not predictable. Consider uranium 238, a commonly occurring radioactive substance. A gram of uranium 238 contains approximately 2.5×1021 identical uranium nuclei; about 12,000 of those uranium nuclei decay every second into an alpha particle and a thorium 234 nucleus. Quantum physics can predict the probability that a given uranium 238 nucleus will decay but not when it will. The exact moment of decay is intrinsically unknowable. Unpredictability thus is an integral part of nature.

*At the atomic level there is some degree of unpredictability. But the inevitable decay is well determined*

On the macroscopic scale, chaos theory killed determinism. The basic element of chaos theory first appeared in the astronomical investigations of French mathematician Henri Poincaré at the end of the nineteen century, but only in the latter part of the twentieth century with the advent of computers did physicists and mathematicians see the full significance of his work. While investigating a system of three gravitating bodies, such as the Earth, Moon, and Sun, the so-called “three body problem,” Poincaré discovered that unpredictable behavior occurs in deterministic systems, a fact that has startling implications for the mathematical modeling of physical systems. Before his revolutionary work, physicists and mathematicians assumed that small errors in the initial conditions of any dynamical system produced only small errors in the mathematical prediction of the future state of the system. Poincaré’s analysis of the three-body problem is brilliant and highly technical; yet, the basic result can be easily stated, as Poincaré himself did in his popular book Science and Method: “It may happen that small differences in the initial conditions [of a mechanical system] produce very great ones in the final phenomena. A small error in the former will produce an enormous error in the latter. Prediction becomes impossible, and we have the fortuitous phenomenon.”

*This is due to errors in plotting the initial conditions. Correctly plot the initial conditions and the end result can be determined.*

 

[OldJourno]

I was halfway through the second paragraph when it hit me: Why am I bothering to read this?
That's my contribution.

 

[GeraltOfRivia]

The determinism that is a basic aspect of the Newtonian Cosmos is false, for two reasons—quantum physics and chaos theory.

Absolutely on the point. (I can approve that, having been a research student on both the theories.)

Determinism: Science Commits Suicide

http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2016/06/determinism-science-commits-suicide.html

I guess this guy just can't wrap his head around the above concepts. He's stuck in the mind of a 19th century philosopher who has been fed just the superficial facts of the theories he doesn't grasp.

 

[about_average]

What is "progressive" science?

Is this the new way to mock science?

 

[oggbashan]

What is "progressive" science?

Is this the new way to mock science?

It's a new term for use by people peddling the same old bullshit.

They have a fundamental misconception of scientific theory. They don't understand that a theory is testable and fits the known facts BUT can be replaced at any time by another theory that fits the facts better.

Einstein would have been delighted if his theory could be replaced by another theory that built on his work.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Why are people with unpronounceable user names always scrotes?

 

[oggbashan]

Why are people with unpronounceable user names always scrotes?

Perhaps because they have been banned too many times with user names people can say?

 

[Ishmael]

And there are some real world laws that apply.

Murphy's corollary on action;

"Anything worth doing is worth overdoing."

Sub-corollary to the 'action' corollary;

"Anything overdone wasn't worth the extra effort."

Ishmael

 

[Conager]

Why are people with unpronounceable user names always scrotes?

I just pronounce it King Oreo.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

A scientific theory is a workable, testable model supported by the preponderance of data. Spiritual horseshit and free-floating misunderstandings ain't science. Come back when you have a preponderance of verified data, okay?

Which is why climate change is horse shit too...

 

[Ishmael]

Which is why climate change is horse shit too...

You might want to qualify that with the phrase, "as proselytized by the left." The climate is always changing.

Ishmael

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You might want to qualify that with the phrase, "as proselytized by the left." The climate is always changing.

Ishmael

Exactly. It's a chaotic system...

I saw a headline, the earth is slowing down (not that that is new news) and I immediately wondered, "How long before the drag of man-made CO2 is identified as the cause..."

 

[Encased]

Which is why climate change is horse shit too...

No data on the climate change?
I think you will find that that, in turn, is horseshit.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

I think that the NASA is above posting questionable and politically influenced statistics and is therefore a credible source.
While a sort of jittering of the climate in trendlines is perfectly normal, it pretty much did a ninety degree turn with squealing tires over the last 50 years. So no, this is for real. The question is, are you willing to do anything about it? Because as a brit, all you will see is an increase in temperature to a tropical level over the next hundred or so years.
It's ironic, really. The Third World stands to lose the most, while the societies that caused it will just get nicer weather and a rise of the sea level. I for one won't mind having a boat in front of my house.

But I'd also like to see the polar bear survive.

 

[water505]

Exactly. It's a chaotic system...

I saw a headline, the earth is slowing down (not that that is new news) and I immediately wondered, "How long before the drag of man-made CO2 is identified as the cause..."

Breathing will be the death of the planet!

 

[Ishmael]

Exactly. It's a chaotic system...

I saw a headline, the earth is slowing down (not that that is new news) and I immediately wondered, "How long before the drag of man-made CO2 is identified as the cause..."

Sure as hell couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the Moon is moving further away, could it?

Ishmael

 

[water505]

No data on the climate change?
I think you will find that that, in turn, is horseshit.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

I think that the NASA is above posting questionable and politically influenced statistics and is therefore a credible source.
While a sort of jittering of the climate in trendlines is perfectly normal, it pretty much did a ninety degree turn with squealing tires over the last 50 years. So no, this is for real. The question is, are you willing to do anything about it? Because as a brit, all you will see is an increase in temperature to a tropical level over the next hundred or so years.
It's ironic, really. The Third World stands to lose the most, while the societies that caused it will just get nicer weather and a rise of the sea level. I for one won't mind having a boat in front of my house.

But I'd also like to see the polar bear survive.

What will effectively stop it?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

No data on the climate change?
I think you will find that that, in turn, is horseshit.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

I think that the NASA is above posting questionable and politically influenced statistics and is therefore a credible source.
While a sort of jittering of the climate in trendlines is perfectly normal, it pretty much did a ninety degree turn with squealing tires over the last 50 years. So no, this is for real. The question is, are you willing to do anything about it? Because as a brit, all you will see is an increase in temperature to a tropical level over the next hundred or so years.
It's ironic, really. The Third World stands to lose the most, while the societies that caused it will just get nicer weather and a rise of the sea level. I for one won't mind having a boat in front of my house.

But I'd also like to see the polar bear survive.

NASA has a known problem with "fixing" the data to fit expected norms.

No it hasn't, that is pure propaganda.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Sure as hell couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the Moon is moving further away, could it?

Ishmael

CO2 is a well-known repellant.

 

[Ishmael]

No data on the climate change?
I think you will find that that, in turn, is horseshit.

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

I think that the NASA is above posting questionable and politically influenced statistics and is therefore a credible source.
While a sort of jittering of the climate in trendlines is perfectly normal, it pretty much did a ninety degree turn with squealing tires over the last 50 years. So no, this is for real. The question is, are you willing to do anything about it? Because as a brit, all you will see is an increase in temperature to a tropical level over the next hundred or so years.
It's ironic, really. The Third World stands to lose the most, while the societies that caused it will just get nicer weather and a rise of the sea level. I for one won't mind having a boat in front of my house.

But I'd also like to see the polar bear survive.

Since von Braun's death NASA has been a political organization primarily interested in maintaining its funding. Any research can be pursued unidirectionally and that's precisely what NASA has done.

Ishmael

 

[coati]

What is "progressive" science?

Is this the new way to mock science?

The attack on or denial of science is one of the biggest challenges faced in our society. I was struck by the comment of Karl Rove when he was speaking about the successful Presidential campaign he engineered for G.W.Bush. He said that they did not conform to reality-- they created reality.

One of the easiest ways to move a large population is to appeal to the most primitive portion of the human brain, the part that takes over all aspects of your mind when you are in imminent danger, like, "those other people want to destroy you". Remember those nuclear bomb parts from deepest darkest Africa that Saddam was going to use to raise a mushroom cloud over good and decent people?

Later on, members of the Bush administration made an attempt to require climate scientists submit their data to officials of the federal government for "review" of conclusions reached in published articles. The president of the University where I worked politely but assertively informed the government that scientific articles are peer reviewed by scientists, not by individuals who have a political agenda. The term "progressive" science assumes that certain branches of science have a political agenda. It's way to convince people that inconvenient scientific conclusions are simply a conspiracy by "others".

In almost every society, there are people who think that facts, scientific principles. and prevailing theories are whatever you want them to be. To them, science has no more functional value in promoting objective analysis than a religion or than the untested mental constructs of an individual. If you don't like the conclusion of a peer reviewed article, you simply find an individual with a few letters tacked onto the back of their name and have them search for any anomaly in the underlying data, or just have them publicly contradict the conclusion without any pretense of data analysis.

In America, it appears that we are entering another era of science denial.