Faith in science vs. faith in religion.

[dmmesdale]

The difference is this.

Science can be tested. Religion can not.

If science can be tested then evolution assumptions cannot, and is not science. Untested assumptions include, not limited to, unknown theoretical extinct nonhuman creatures referenced as a common ancestor. All life here from nonlife and all sexual reproduction from asexual reproduction.

If you can propose a way to test religion, I will be happy to do so, and if it passes that test, then I will become a member of said religion.

It sounds like double standards and stacked decks since all is demonstrated here is faith based on atheistic assumptions about the history of life here.

 

[Kylie]

If science can be tested then evolution assumptions cannot, and is not science. Untested assumptions include, not limited to, unknown theoretical extinct nonhuman creatures referenced as a common ancestor. All life here from nonlife and all sexual reproduction from asexual reproduction.

It sounds like double standards and stacked decks since all is demonstrated here is faith based on atheistic assumptions about the history of life here.

Evolution can been tested, has been tested, and has passed those tests. Evolution happens, whether you like it or not.

 

[dmmesdale]

Evolution can been tested, has been tested, and has passed those tests.

They cannot go back in time and test their inferences against what actually happened and I would like to see a so-called test for sexual reproduction from asexual or living from nonliving. No matter how hard they try, they cannot repeat test nonexistent mystery creatures. None of it can be done absent intelligent intervention in state of the art labs run by top trained scientists. All they are doing is feeding their data into their contrived paradigm made up in the 19th century. The data does not drive the conclusions. The paradigm dictates their conclusion and that is how the data is interpreted. To their conclusion. It is the exact opposite of how a detached investigation is to be done to get to the truth. To the point where anything which contradicts is ignored. It is a story. If Homo Sapiens have been around for 300 K years, why did it take them 290 K years to invent the wheel, domesticate animals, or use seed? If around that long why is it now sneaking up on 2018?

[Staff edit].

 

[Michael]

The standard particle model correctly predicted the energy state of the Higgs whereas non standard models made other predictions about its energy state and they were proven to be wrong.

 

[sjastro]

Since SUSY has been brought up in this thread with respect to the serious problem in the SM (Standard Model) of fine tuning the Higgs boson mass; it is worthwhile exploring this in greater detail.

Before proceeding we need to define mass from a Quantum Field Theory perspective.
First there is the concept of bare mass of a particle such as an electron which is simply its mass stripped of its electric field.
The bare mass is not a constant; it can be zero or even a negative value depending on the energy of the surrounding field(s).

When a particle such as electron and its field interact with fields of other particles, things get complicated as the measured electron mass turns out to being a combination of the electron’s bare mass and the interaction of the fields.

This interaction of the fields results in mass correction terms.
The mass of an electron is the bare mass plus mass correction terms.
It is found that for electromagnetic interactions the mass correction term is a logarithmic function and therefore the electron mass is of the general form:

(The expanded mathematics leading to the general form is horrendously more complicated).

m is the bare mass of the electron, klog(Λ) is the mass correction term where k is a constant that can be positive or negative and depends on the field and Λ is the energy scale.
Note that even if the energy scale Λ is large the logarithm of a large number is still small hence the mass correction term for the electron will remain small.
The smaller the mass correction term the easier it is to perform renormalization as discussed in a previous post.

Now let’s look at the Higgs boson.
Unlike an electron which is a half spin fermion, the Higgs is a zero spin scalar boson.
A property of zero spin scalars is their mass correction terms are particularly sensitive to high energy scales.

In this case the mass of the Higgs boson is of the general form:

Here μ is the bare mass of the Higgs boson.
Note there is no longer a logarithmic term defining the mass correction term.
Λ can be of the order of up to 10¹⁹ GeV which is the Planck mass, hence the mass correction term alone can be extremely large.
Given that the predicted mass range of the Higgs boson was in the region of 1-2000 GeV which was settled at 125 GeV at the time of its discovery, the mass correction term could be far greater than the Higgs mass.

There are two possible arguments in solving this dilemma.
The first is the Higgs cannot interact at high energy scales, which is admitting the SM is wrong and new physics is required.
The second is to preserve the SM by claiming that whatever the mass correction term is, the bare mass term will always be at a value such that the difference between the terms equals the mass of the Higgs boson.
This is the fine tuning argument.

An obvious objection to this argument is that it comes across as the case of adjusting the theory to get the desired result you are looking for.
Fine tuning is well known in Cosmology and particle physicists can take a leaf from the Cosmology handbook by invoking the Anthropic principle.

There is a third possibility by proposing the existence of SUSY (Supersymmetry).
In this case for every fermion there exists a corresponding boson and vice versa.
The mass correction terms for fermion/bosons are equal in magnitude but of opposite signs and therefore cancel out.

For the simplest and most ideal version of SUSY where supersymmetry isn’t broken, the Higgs boson mass and bare mass are the same, and the problem of fine tuning vanishes.

Unfortunately SUSY isn’t that simple.
Supersymmetry isn’t perfect and it is believed at higher energy scales the symmetry is broken as the fermion/ boson counterparts will have unequal masses.

In this case the general equation takes the form.

In this case the mass correction term is still small and fine tuning is therefore minimized.
In fact there are a number of SUSY models in existence such as MSSM and NMSSM but none of the theorized fermions/bosons have been detected.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

[Staff edit].

​

There are several different methods for estimating the Higgs mass in SUSY, a wide range of possible SUSY masses (energies), and a raft of additional parameters to be assumed. Taken together, these only give the likely upper and lower mass limits for the Higgs - which turned out to be within those limits.

See Higgs-mass predictions in SUSY (esp. pages 22-30).

 

[Michael]

Since SUSY has been brought up in this thread with respect to the serious problem in the SM (Standard Model) of fine tuning the Higgs boson mass; it is worthwhile exploring this in greater detail......

.....
An obvious objection to this argument is that it comes across as the case of adjusting the theory to get the desired result you are looking for.
......

There is a third possibility by proposing the existence of SUSY (Supersymmetry).

.......

Unfortunately SUSY isn’t that simple.
Supersymmetry isn’t perfect and it is believed at higher energy scales the symmetry is broken as the fermion/ boson counterparts will have unequal masses.

So you're fine tuning the sysmmetry breaking process to try to overcome another fine tuning problem? Essentially your argument is something like:

"The standard particle physics model is 'perfect' in terms of it's predictive ability in every test we've ever put it to, but I personally don't think it's "pretty" enough to suit me. It also doesn't give me the results that I want, therefore I reject it."

Talk about adjusting the theory on a whim with the express intent of getting what you "need" (exotic stable matter).

Even if we do find additional particles somehow, what makes you think any of them will live long enough, or have any of the other attributes that you need to save your otherwise dead cosmology theory (invisibility)?

Talk about "faith" in the "unseen", in the lab. That's not only having 'faith' that standard model is wrong, and it's also blind 'faith' that the model is wrong, but it's also wrong in very specific way that somehow results in a miracle which saves one otherwise falsified cosmology theory from certain disaster. It's a two-for-one statement of faith in the unseen (in the lab).

Not only don't you have any empirical laboratory evidence to support your assertion that the standard particle physics model is wrong, you have no empirical evidence that long lived, otherwise invisible particles will also be found.

How is that *not* a statement of faith in the unseen, in the lab on your part? What was you objection to the concept of God again?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So you're fine tuning the sysmmetry breaking process to try to overcome another fine tuning problem? Essentially your argument is something like:

"The standard particle physics model is 'perfect' in terms of it's predictive ability in every test we've ever put it to, but I personally don't think it's "pretty" enough to suit me. It also doesn't give me the results that I want, therefore I reject it."

Talk about adjusting the theory on a whim with the express intent of getting what you "need" (exotic stable matter).

Even if we do find additional particles somehow, what makes you think any of them will live long enough, or have any of the other attributes that you need to save your otherwise dead cosmology theory (invisibility)?

Talk about "faith" in the "unseen", in the lab. That's not only having 'faith' that standard model is wrong, and it's also blind 'faith' that the model is wrong, but it's also wrong in very specific way that somehow results in a miracle which saves one otherwise falsified cosmology theory from certain disaster. It's a two-for-one statement of faith in the unseen (in the lab).

Not only don't you have any empirical laboratory evidence to support your assertion that the standard particle physics model is wrong, you have no empirical evidence that long lived, otherwise invisible particles will also be found.

How is that *not* a statement of faith in the unseen, in the lab on your part? What was you objection to the concept of God again?

This is a classic example of the kind of basic misunderstanding of the practice of science mentioned previously, not to mention a lack of knowledge of the Standard Model.

I recommend Lawrence Krauss' 'The Greatest Story ever Told... So Far' for a readable introduction to how particle physics progresses and some basics on the development of the Standard Model.

 

[Michael]

This is a classic example of the kind of basic misunderstanding of the practice of science mentioned previously, not to mention a lack of knowledge of the Standard Model.

I recommend Lawrence Krauss' 'The Greatest Story ever Told... So Far' for a readable introduction to how particle physics progresses and some basics on the development of the Standard Model.

Oh please! You actually have the audacity to suggest that I waste my time reading the work of a publicly militant atheist who believes in five or six times more invisible hypothetical entities than I do? Really? Krauss even runs around claiming that the net energy state of the whole universe is *zero*! Give me a break.

What I do know about the standard particle physics model is that it has passed every conceivable test that could have been done for the money that was spent "testing" it, and we're talking probably tens of billions of dollars by now.

What I do know about exotic matter models is that they are *completely unsupported* by the laboratory evidence and by all the proposed "tests" of those non-standard models.

The "exotic matter of the gaps" argument just isn't working for me. Why? Only to save one otherwise falsified cosmology model that has a bad hypothetical drug habit, with or without it's insatiable need for exotic hypothetical forms of matter?

I simply prefer a cosmology model that is congruent with the incredibly successful standard particle physics model. For my (our) apparent "sins", the LCDM proponents come out of the woodwork to attack us *personally*. IMO that's just a sign of pure desperation on their part.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Oh please! You actually have the audacity to suggest that I waste my time reading the work of a publicly militant atheist who believes in five or six times more invisible hypothetical entities than I do? Really?

No, I was suggesting you read an approachable description of how the Standard Model was developed by an insider who knew and/or worked with many of the people involved. Your response is telling.

What I do know about the standard particle physics model is that it has passed every conceivable test that could have been done for the money that was spent "testing" it, and we're talking probably tens of billions of dollars by now.

What I do know about exotic matter models is that they are *completely unsupported* by the laboratory evidence and by all the proposed "tests" of those non-standard models.

Almost all the particles in the Standard Model were unknown 'exotic' matter hypotheses before they were discovered.

 

[Michael]

No, I was suggesting you read an approachable description of how the Standard Model was developed by an insider who knew and/or worked with many of the people involved. Your response is telling.

I've already read other authors who's opinions I respect a lot more. IMO his cosmology beliefs, and his militant atheism place him far outside of anything remotely like 'fair and balanced', particularly when it comes to pure particle physics.

Almost all the particles in the Standard Model were unknown 'exotic' matter hypotheses before they were discovered.

Yes, but they were discovered, methodically, one by one, and the mathematical models match up extremely well with the theory.

Compare and contrast that with SUSY theory and it's mythical collection of sparticles. There's supposedly a lot more than one of them, yet not a single mathematical prediction from SUSY theory has born empirical sparticle fruit. It's time to prune the dead vine.

Even *if* another hypothetical particle is eventually found some day, what makes you think it's going to have any of the necessary attributes like longevity and invisibility to save LCDM? The wishful thinking and special pleading never seems to end with LCDM proponents.

 

[DogmaHunter]

A couple of recent posts by Kylie got me wondering about the actual empirical difference between "faith" in science as it is often practiced by atheists and faith in religion as practiced by theists.

Nukes explode, cars drive, planes fly, drones land on Mars, pc's boot, meds cure.

No faith required.
Science: it works.

As I pointed out in that thread, the reverse can also be true too. Scientists attempt to sweep their mistakes under the rug and engage in denial as well as any theist over religious ideas. The dark matter hypothesis is one such example.

The fact is that not a single scientist or organization has anything to gain by upholding false ideas masquarading as science. Because the very merrit of science is to be usefull in creating technology etc.

[Staff edit].

That doesn't mean that thousands of scientists can't be wrong. Clearly they can. It's the idea that they actually KNOW that an idea is wrong and then actively try to "hide" that in some conspiratory nonsense idea from the public.

It's ridiculous. Especially if you then also add that some random guy on some random forum on the internet apparantly knows all about it.

From the perspective of empirical lab tested physics, what's the physical empirical difference between faith in a scientifically popular theory like the LCDM model and faith in God or faith in the expertise of a religious clergy?

The difference is that scientific theories aren't taken as dogma or even just as "correct".
Rather, it is more something like "likely correct".
And the acceptance of a theory also isn't presented by threat of hell or what-have-you.

And, off course, the fact that scientific theories are testable and based on evidence rather then "visions" or "dreams" or "revelations" or what-not. No matter what you say.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If science can be tested then evolution assumptions cannot, and is not science. Untested assumptions include, not limited to, unknown theoretical extinct nonhuman creatures referenced as a common ancestor.

Let's review.

Suppose we have 2 humans in their 40s. They are brother and sister.
They don't know eachother and they don't know they are siblings.
Their parents are unknown. Perhaps they died in some fire or something and completely burned up.

Now, do we have to "assume" that they are siblings? Do we have to "assume" that they share the same ancestors? Do we have to assume that these parents actually existed?

Or could we KNOW in some way that they share the same parents - eventhough the parents are unknown and long dead and their bodies lost?

It sounds like double standards and stacked decks since all is demonstrated here is faith based on atheistic assumptions about the history of life here.

No. It sounds like you not knowing what you are talking about.

 

[DogmaHunter]

They cannot go back in time and test their inferences against what actually happened

Neither can geologists, but they can still tell from the evidence of the present when a certain volcano erupted.

Neither can arsony detectives, but they can still tell from the evidence of the present how, where and when a fire got started.

Neither can forensics detectives, but they can still solve a murder from the evidence of the present without having any video recordings of the murder.

The idea that events of the past can't be known in the present, is quite a dumb idea.

The data does not drive the conclusions. The paradigm dictates their conclusion and that is how the data is interpreted. To their conclusion. It is the exact opposite of how a detached investigation is to be done to get to the truth. To the point where anything which contradicts is ignored. It is a story.

Projection. That is, in fact, what creationism is all about.

If Homo Sapiens have been around for 300 K years, why did it take them 290 K years to invent the wheel, domesticate animals, or use seed?

Because homo sapiens was a nomadic species during most of its existance. It's actually the "discovery" of agriculture / domestication of plants and animals, that triggered the exponential rise of technology and culture.

Not the way atheists believe it does or did

How about the way the Pope or devout christians like Francis Collins accepts it did?

[Staff edit].

 

[Michael]

Nukes explode, cars drive, planes fly, drones land on Mars, pc's boot, meds cure.

No faith required.
Science: it works.

Those are all examples of *empirical physics*, and I agree that empirical physics works. That's why I prefer to stick with the standard model of particle physic in fact. Empirical physics works, but not all types of 'science' works, particularly hypothetical science, as the LHC, LUX, PandaX and Xenon-1T results demonstrated.

The fact is that not a single scientist or organization has anything to gain by upholding false ideas masquarading as science.

Other than gainful employment, continued funding and professional reputation you mean? Who would find it easy to admit that their professional career chasing exotic matter models has been a total waste of time? There are lots of reasons why the mainstream might get stuck in a rut, and many examples of it occurring at different times throughout history too.

Because the very merrit of science is to be usefull in creating technology etc.

Sure, as long as that was *all* that it did, I'd agree with you. It's also useful at creating whacked out ideas that don't pan out over the long haul however. Just look at the whole epicycle fiasco. It looked good on paper, and the math "looked" ok, but in reality the solar system didn't experience epicycles.

[Staff edit].

That doesn't mean that thousands of scientists can't be wrong. Clearly they can. It's the idea that they actually KNOW that an idea is wrong and then actively try to "hide" that in some conspiratory nonsense idea from the public.

I never suggested it was a conspiracy. If this is a "conspiracy" is the worst conspiracy in the history of physics because the mainstream keeps shooting their own claims in the foot. It's more like they're just wrong and they have a tough time accepting it, or admitting it. It's easier to simply fund the next round of dark matter experiments, regardless of all the past failures.

It's ridiculous. Especially if you then also add that some random guy on some random forum on the internet apparantly knows all about it.

I've never suggested it was a 'conspiracy' however. IMO it's just a really bad case of confirmation bias.

The difference is that scientific theories aren't taken as dogma or even just as "correct".

Yet I keep hearing astronomers claiming to 'know' that a big bang took place, or "know" that dark matter exists, or claim to "know" that dark energy exists without even being able to name a source of the stuff or explain how it retained constant density over multiple exponential increases in volume.

Rather, it is more something like "likely correct".

How does one objectively determine 'likelihood' when a model includes four different hypothetical entities as is the case with LCDM?

And the acceptance of a theory also isn't presented by threat of hell or what-have-you.

It is however difficult to get a job if you don't toe the party line. Just ask Halton Arp what the penalty is for "lacking belief" in the mainstream dogma. They took all his telescope time away.

And, off course, the fact that scientific theories are testable and based on evidence rather then "visions" or "dreams" or "revelations" or what-not. No matter what you say.

Ok, I'll bite. What actual "evidence" from all those billions of dollars worth of lab tests demonstrates the value of a non standard particle physics model? LCDM proponents seem to have "visions" of dark stuff in telescope and satellite images based on the *assumption* that their models and their baryonic mass estimates are perfect, but they offer me no practical lab results to support that concept. I'm more inclined to believe that their models are flawed.

 

[dmmesdale]

Neither can geologists, but they can still tell from the evidence of the present when a certain volcano erupted.

They can tell by ash layers since a volcano eruption would be the only known cause. When is another story since they have built-in assumptions. Far from exacting.

Neither can arsony detectives, but they can still tell from the evidence of the present how, where and when a fire got started.

For the most part. It depends on the circumstances. A forest fire may be more difficult to determine exact cause and circumstance, whether it is human caused or not.

Neither can forensics detectives, but they can still solve a murder from the evidence of the present without having any video recordings of the murder.

Murder has to be established as the cause of death in the first place. That means present circumstances have to rule out other possible causes of death including natural, suicide, or accident. None of it is exact science. Certainly not the exacting which goes into other technologies which can be repeat tested in the present. Like water boiling at 100 degrees centigrade at sea level. They can repeat the test that all day. None of that can be done with history which only happens once. It's not empirical. It is inference.

The idea that events of the past can't be known in the present, is quite a dumb idea.

Not exacting since they cannot repeat test. For example, they assume dino extinction was caused by meteors. They can show dino extinction and they can show meteor impacts but they cannot show the latter caused the former. It is the best guess.

[Staff edit].

 

[Christie insb]

A couple of recent posts by Kylie got me wondering about the actual empirical difference between "faith" in science as it is often practiced by atheists and faith in religion as practiced by theists.

My favorite argument for the existence of God



In this post Kylie was responding to a post from AV who was pointing out all the scientific mistakes of the past. She was noting that religious belief can change over time, but that seems like a very logical process and a logical response all things considered.

As I pointed out in that thread, the reverse can also be true too. Scientists attempt to sweep their mistakes under the rug and engage in denial as well as any theist over religious ideas. The dark matter hypothesis is one such example.

The other interesting comment she made was this response from a different thread:

EU/PC - Electric Universe/Plasma Cosmology theory.



FYI, I didn't suggest that she was obligated to "prove me wrong" per se, I was simply noting that her 'faith' in metaphysics, and hypothetical constructs was no empirically different from 'faith' in a supernatural definition of God.

The interesting observation from my perspective is that her 'faith' in the scientific establishment seems to be virtually identical to a theists faith in one's pastor, or faith in the clergy of a religion, and the corresponding beliefs that they espouse.

Kylie is assuming that their position is correct and that I'm somehow obligated to "prove them wrong" to their (and her) satisfaction, otherwise she simply intends to "hold faith" in their metaphysical claims, irrespective of the fact that none of their hypothetical constructs can be demonstrated in a lab in controlled experiments.

From the perspective of empirical lab tested physics, what's the physical empirical difference between faith in a scientifically popular theory like the LCDM model and faith in God or faith in the expertise of a religious clergy?

Well I am not a scientist but I took more than the average number of science classes in college. I was taking a class in chemistry and having trouble. I told my professor that I could not believe that electrons could exist in two places at once. He told me, "Don't believe in it. Use the idea as a tool until another one which explains the data better comes along." I have never heard anyone suggest I use spiritual ideas as tools and be prepared to use a different idea when another one which explained the data better came along. I personally don't think we really have the whole story about God now either, but we will not really fully understand it in this lifetime

 

[Michael]

Well I am not a scientist but I took more than the average number of science classes in college. I was taking a class in chemistry and having trouble. I told my professor that I could not believe that electrons could exist in two places at once. He told me, "Don't believe in it. Use the idea as a tool until another one which explains the data better comes along." I have never heard anyone suggest I use spiritual ideas as tools and be prepared to use a different idea when another one which explained the data better came along. I personally don't think we really have the whole story about God now either, but we will not really fully understand it in this lifetime

I've experienced changes in both my scientific beliefs and beliefs that are associated with religion in my life. Lots of different Christian sects have been developed over the past couple thousand years. Religious concepts of morality like 'an eye for an eye' were once useful tools of civilization prior to a 'better' (love your enemy) concept of morality emerging from religion. I don't see either religion or science as being "set in stone". They can both change over time.

 

[DogmaHunter]

They can tell by ash layers since a volcano eruption would be the only known cause. When is another story since they have built-in assumptions. Far from exacting. For the most part. It depends on the circumstances. A forest fire may be more difficult to determine exact cause and circumstance, whether it is human caused or not.
Murder has to be established as the cause of death in the first place. That means present circumstances have to rule out other possible causes of death including natural, suicide, or accident. None of it is exact science. Certainly not the exacting which goes into other technologies which can be repeat tested in the present. Like water boiling at 100 degrees centigrade at sea level. They can repeat the test that all day. None of that can be done with history which only happens once. It's not empirical. It is inference.

The point is that we can reconstruct / unravel events of the past by simply examining the evidence in the present that those events left behind.

To suggest otherwise is just ridiculous.

Not exacting since they cannot repeat test. For example, they assume dino extinction was caused by meteors. They can show dino extinction and they can show meteor impacts but they cannot show the latter caused the former. It is the best guess.

Obviously there are degrees of probability here and likely no past event can be completely unraveled with 100% accuracy. But some things can.

We now for a fact that dino's went extinct.
We now for a fact that a large meteor struck in that same geological timeframe.

It is likely that both are connected.

As for evolution, we know that life shares ancestry. It's a genetic fact.
Just like we can know that you and your sister are closely related, while me and you aren't.
Through DNA, we can establish kinship and levels of relatedness.


[Staff edit].

 

[Michael]

[Staff edit].

I think *everyone* walks around with their own particular shade of rose colored glasses in terms of our worldview. Why would I be any different?

If the universe is polarized it is polarized between empirical lab tested physics, and hypothetical entities.

As I said to Selfsim earlier in this thread, I can embrace the standard scientific particle physics model and describe various events in space quite well, certainly well enough to suit myself.

Some folks embrace supernatural definitions of God and hypothetical entities galore. I'm less inclined to do so. From my perspective, "real" explanations tend to work in the lab, whereas 'hypothetical' explanations only look good on paper. The whole epicycle fiasco of the past demonstrates that "science", particularly astronomy, is not immune from making *massive* mistakes and yet being quite certain of the validity of those mistakes based exclusively upon mathematical hypotheses.

I prefer explanations that physically work in the lab in controlled experimentation. Guilty as charged. That bias has brought me into conflict with one, and only one specific "mainstream" hypothesis.

My empirical preferences are entirely congruent with the *standard* particle physics model, the single most "tested" and successful physics model in the history of particle physics. My beliefs are entirely congruent with the theory of evolution and an ancient Earth. They are entirely congruent with electromagnetic theory, plasma physics, biology, you name it. My preferences for empirical physical explanations don't even come into conflict with my personal faith in God.

The only multi-hypothesis mainstream model that my preference for empirical physics comes into conflict is *one specific* cosmology hypothesis that is mostly composed of placeholder terms for human ignorance.

I believe that I can do a *far* better job than 5 percent in terms of explaining observations from space using pure empirical laboratory tested physics. That issue alone makes *any* other empirical cosmology model a "better" option IMO.

Faith, belief, hypothesis, whatever you call it, we all seem to have some emotional/scientific attachment to unseen entities.