Unsatisfactory Scientific Explanations?

[Michael]

FYI, I also listened to some of Sean's "God is not a good theory" video, and I found it rather ironic frankly. In terms of his explanation of the universe, he basically "assumes" that the cause of photon redshift is *necessarily* "space expansion" without a single empirical experiment to support that *assumption*. In fact, his entire argument is predicated upon that single unsupported assumption. This requires him to "hold faith" in at least four unique new forms of matter/energy/processes that do not show up at LHC, rather than simply holding faith in *one* potential empirical explanation for God, specifically that the universe which we live in *is* God, and the real cause of photon redshift in space is the same as the real cause of photon redshift in plasma here on Earth, namely inelastic scattering, and/or object movement, not "space expansion".

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

"As anyone familiar with anti-religious polemics knows, a recurring atheist criticism of religious belief is that it is infantile - a childish delusion which ought to have disappeared as humanity reached its maturity. Throughout his career, Dawkins has developed a similar criticism, drawing on a long-standing atheist analogy. In earlier works, he emphasised that belief in God is just like believing in the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus. These are childish beliefs that are abandoned as soon as we are capable of evidence based thinking. And so is God. It's obvious, isn't it?
Hmmm. Like many of Dawkins' analogies, this has been constructed with a specific agenda in mind - in this case the ridiculing of religion. Yet this analogy is obviously flawed. How many people do you know who began to believe in Santa Claus in adulthood? Or who found belief in the Tooth Fairy consoling in old age? I believed in Santa Claus until I was about five (though, not unaware of the benefits it brought, I allowed my parents to think I took it seriously until rather later)." (Alister McGrath in a riposte to the God Delusion)

I quite agree. There are a number of plausible arguments for why superstitious or 'magical' thinking, and the tendency to attribute sentient agency as the source of unexplained phenomena, etc., might have evolved. It's also clear that the more recent evolutionary development of higher level cognition, conscious rational thought, doesn't eliminate such thinking, but generally engages as a secondary, and slower, overriding mechanism. Literally an evolutionary afterthought

The difficulty that many atheists (e.g. Dawkins) seem to have, is that if you've never had such a belief, or only to the same extent that you believed in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, the more distant you are from it, the more it seems fundamentally indistinguishable from those types of belief. It takes considerable empathy or a good memory (for an ex-believer) to recognise or remember what it was or might be like to have such a belief as a basis of your worldview. Santa Claus & the Tooth Fairy were never like that.

Having said that, I suspect Dawkins, as an atheist activist, deliberately overemphasises these comparisons; I'm sure he's well aware of the likely evolutionary origins of religious beliefs that make them significantly different.

 

[Michael]

How many adults believe in ghosts?

Probably still a minority. I'd assume it's a more common held belief among those who believe in a soul, and life after death. Atheists would tend to dismiss the concept out of hand.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So how is the claim "space expansion is the cause of photon redshift" not also simply a "human invention", an imaginary process of the human mind?

Ditto for the phrase "gravity is caused by gravitons"?

They are both human inventions, conceptual abstractions hypothesised to account for observed phenomena within the constraints of an existing model that works. Both are, as far as I'm aware, open to falsification, or (as always) provisional acceptance by the accumulation of evidence consistent with their existence.

FYI, in GR theory, gravity isn't really a 'force', it's more of a "geometric feature" of mass which wouldn't necessarily require any sort of carrier particle/field.

Well quite; that's a major problem in reconciling QFT with GR.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Atheists would tend to dismiss the concept out of hand.

It doesn't follow - I know atheists that believe in ghosts or spirits of an animistic type. It takes all sorts...

 

[Michael]

It doesn't follow - I know atheists that believe in ghosts or spirits of an animistic type. It takes all sorts...

Ok, sure, there's an exception to every rule. I did actually use the term "tend".

 

[Michael]

They are both human inventions, conceptual abstractions hypothesised to account for observed phenomena within the constraints of an existing model that works.

Actually they're human inventions, human abstractions to account for why the existing model *doesn't work* without supernatural agents! Oy Vey! In fact, ninety five percent of the existing model is gap filler, a supernatural series of agents all related to *one* specific concept of cosmology. There are actually *many* to choose from, many with far less supernatural gap filler to fix an otherwise broken concept. The "space expansion" claims alone hide three human inventions that defy empirical verification, inflation, dark energy, in addition to the "space expansion" claim itself! There are several different types of inelastic scattering to choose from, all of which can be verified in the lab to empirically *cause* photon redshift in a dusty/plasma environment. In addition, object motion also is a known empirical cause of photon redshift. Why would I "put faith" in three forms of supernaturalism rather than just embrace ordinary plasma physics and ordinary (lab demonstrated) explanations for photon redshift?

Both are, as far as I'm aware, open to falsification, or (as always) provisional acceptance by the accumulation of evidence consistent with their existence.

Well, if they were open to falsification, the various failures of "dark matter" theory, and there dubious claims about SN1A events being "standard candles" that turned out to not be so standard after all would have falsified Lambda-CDM a long time ago. I'm afraid that supernatural preferences are alive and doing well inside of the so called "scientific" community. They'll embrace an unseen (in the lab) cause, just as long as you don't mention the term "God" to them.

Well quite; that's a major problem in reconciling QFT with GR.

Yep. Your friend is betting the farm on QFT replacing GR as an explanation for gravity, in which case the rise of aether theory (in the form of gravitons) will begin.

It's really impossible for Sean to rule out various "possible" extensions to the standard model, and gravity theory demonstrates that his statement about whatever particle we find being impossible to have an effect on humans on Earth is demonstrably untrue. He's *assuming* that for his own personal reasons apparently, but his own arguments related to gravitons actually disproves his own assumption.

 

[Michael]

Double post

 

[Willis Gravning]

I quite agree. There are a number of plausible arguments for why superstitious or 'magical' thinking, and the tendency to attribute sentient agency as the source of unexplained phenomena, etc., might have evolved. It's also clear that the more recent evolutionary development of higher level cognition, conscious rational thought, doesn't eliminate such thinking, but generally engages as a secondary, and slower, overriding mechanism. Literally an evolutionary afterthought

The difficulty that many atheists (e.g. Dawkins) seem to have, is that if you've never had such a belief, or only to the same extent that you believed in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, the more distant you are from it, the more it seems fundamentally indistinguishable from those types of belief. It takes considerable empathy or a good memory (for an ex-believer) to recognise or remember what it was or might be like to have such a belief as a basis of your worldview. Santa Claus & the Tooth Fairy were never like that.

Having said that, I suspect Dawkins, as an atheist activist, deliberately overemphasises these comparisons; I'm sure he's well aware of the likely evolutionary origins of religious beliefs that make them significantly different.

I think it is called a false equivalence logical fallacy.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It's really impossible for Sean to rule out various "possible" extensions to the standard model, and gravity theory demonstrates that his statement about whatever particle we find being impossible to have an effect on humans on Earth is demonstrably untrue.

He is explicit that he can't rule out extensions to the standard model; his point is that such extensions (novel fields, forces, particles, etc.) will not be relevant to human-scale interactions, being too short range or too weak. The energy range for human-scale interactions has been thoroughly explored, and no such novel forces, fields, or particles have been seen, either by interaction or production - which means if they exist, they're not relevant to interactions at those energies & scales.

Gravity is a known force, not a novel one, and if it is (as assumed) a quantum field, its particle is expected to exist; but it is also in the 'too weak' range - you need planetary amounts of matter to have a significant effect on a human; it isn't relevant to everyday human-scale interactions (unless you can manipulate degenerate matter), and if its particle is detected it will be at very high energy levels.

I see a rough analogy with classical (Newtonian) mechanics - for practical everyday purposes at human scales and speeds, it's a good working model - from roller-coasters to planetary probes. The fact that we discovered that it's a limited domain approximation that breaks down at relativistic speeds, doesn't mean that we can therefore claim that it might do something entirely novel at everyday human scales and speeds. Any significant effects in that regime have already been noticed and included.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think it is called a false equivalence logical fallacy.

Done for rhetorical effect.

 

[Michael]

He is explicit that he can't rule out extensions to the standard model; his point is that such extensions (novel fields, forces, particles, etc.) will not be relevant to human-scale interactions, being too short range or too weak. The energy range for human-scale interactions has been thoroughly explored, and no such novel forces, fields, or particles have been seen, either by interaction or production - which means if they exist, they're not relevant to interactions at those energies & scales.

Gravity is a known force, not a novel one, and if it is (as assumed) a quantum field, its particle is expected to exist; but it is also in the 'too weak' range - you need planetary amounts of matter to have a significant effect on a human; it isn't relevant to everyday human-scale interactions (unless you can manipulate degenerate matter), and if its particle is detected it will be at very high energy levels.

But that's the problem. There are planetary amounts of matter in the universe, and gravity *absolutely does* have a tangible effect on humans, in fact without it, we wouldn't even exist at all. To then suggest that any particle/field we find will *necessarily* have no physical effect on humans is demonstrably *false*, as gravity/gravitons demonstrate. Gravitons have never been seen in the lab to date, and if they are found, they certainly can and do influence humans on Earth. In fact they cause humans to stick to the Earth, along with the atmosphere around the planet. His assumption about there being no influence from anything new we might find is absolutely false. At human scales, gravity may be "weak" compared to EM fields for instance, but it's physical influence on human beings is undeniable.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...To then suggest that any particle/field we find will *necessarily* have no physical effect on humans is demonstrably *false*, as gravity/gravitons demonstrate. ... At human scales, gravity may be "weak" compared to EM fields for instance, but it's physical influence on human beings is undeniable.

That's not the suggestion being made. The point being made is that they are not relevant to, or significant for, everyday human scale interactions - the scale of interactions that are implied by dualism, paranormal & supernatural phenomena, consciousness or life after bodily death, etc. Of course gravity has an influence on people, but it isn't relevant to those interactions - it's a exceptionally weak force that affects all matter in exactly the same way; if or when the graviton is detected, it won't change that.

 

[Michael]

That's not the suggestion being made. The point being made is that they are not relevant to, or significant for, everyday human scale interactions -

Humans experience gravity do they not? Gravity has a tangible, real and important influence on your life doesn't it?

the scale of interactions that are implied by dualism, paranormal & supernatural phenomena, consciousness or life after bodily death, etc.

What scale is that exactly? As the whole gravity debate demonstrates, just because an effect might be small, it's not zero. With enough concentration, the real effect on humans can be quite significant.

Of course gravity has an influence on people, but it isn't relevant to those interactions - it's a exceptionally weak force that affects all matter in exactly the same way; if or when the graviton is detected, it won't change that.

This IMO is purely wishful thinking. If gravitons haven't been seen yet, and gravity is a very weak force, and it *still* has a tangible effect on human beings, then you cannot claim newly discovered particles cannot in any way have any net effect on a human in any scenario. His own argument becomes self conflicted and self falsifying the very moment we look at quantum gravity theory.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Humans experience gravity do they not? Gravity has a tangible, real and important influence on your life doesn't it?

Yes, and Carroll doesn't argue otherwise.

What scale is that exactly? As the whole gravity debate demonstrates, just because an effect might be small, it's not zero. With enough concentration, the real effect on humans can be quite significant.

For scale, I'd say from intra-cellular to a few tens of metres perhaps. Nobody's denying the effect of gravity; maybe you can suggest some way it might be relevant to dualism, paranormal & supernatural phenomena, and so-on? Electromagnetism can have a variety of significant effects at the individual human scale, but they require an energetic source, they're fairly readily detectable, I've not heard of any such detection (i.e. beyond the conventional expectations of human biology) nor any plausible hypothesis for their involvement in such claimed phenomena.

This IMO is purely wishful thinking. If gravitons haven't been seen yet, and gravity is a very weak force, and it *still* has a tangible effect on human beings, then you cannot claim newly discovered particles cannot in any way have any net effect on a human in any scenario. His own argument becomes self conflicted and self falsifying the very moment we look at quantum gravity theory.

Gravity is a recognised influence on matter - we know how it behaves (locally, at least). Discovering gravitons won't change its behaviour any more than discovering the Higgs boson changed the Higgs field, or discovering the photon changed the electromagnetic field.

And the argument is not that, 'newly discovered particles cannot in any way have any net effect on a human in any scenario' - Carroll goes out of his way to make this clear.

 

[Michael]

Yes, and Carroll doesn't argue otherwise.

Yes, ultimately he does. He's claiming that we've already found anything and everything capable of having a direct influence on humans on Earth. Unfortunately for him, his own argument falls apart with respect to gravity, and his "faith" in gravitons. If there were no undiscovered particles that could or might have an influence on humans, we would have found gravitons by now. That hasn't happened, so either he's wrong about gravity being a QM oriented process, or his claims about undiscovered particles being incapable of influencing humans on Earth is simply not true. He can't have it both ways.

For scale, I'd say from intra-cellular to a few tens of metres perhaps. Nobody's denying the effect of gravity; maybe you can suggest some way it might be relevant to dualism, paranormal & supernatural phenomena, and so-on?

I don't really have to, nor is it relevant.

Electromagnetism can have a variety of significant effects at the individual human scale, but they require an energetic source, they're fairly readily detectable, I've not heard of any such detection (i.e. beyond the conventional expectations of human biology) nor any plausible hypothesis for their involvement in such claimed phenomena.

This is where Orch-OR theory does come into play by the way.

Gravity is a recognised influence on matter - we know how it behaves (locally, at least). Discovering gravitons won't change its behaviour any more than discovering the Higgs boson changed the Higgs field, or discovering the photon changed the electromagnetic field.

That's true, but then it falsifies his claim that everything that can have any influence on humans has already been found.

And the argument is not that, 'newly discovered particles cannot in any way have any net effect on a human in any scenario' - Carroll goes out of his way to make this clear.

What he fails to make clear however is the fact that it's nothing more than his personal "statement of faith", and his own belief in gravitons as the carrier particle of gravity demonstrates this point. There is no way for him to *eliminate* any potential influence of various potential particles and how them may or may not influence human beings. It's really nothing more than a "personal statement of faith", it's certainly not a scientific "truth" as he seems to suggest, and gravity demonstrates that point clearly.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... He's claiming that we've already found anything and everything capable of having a direct influence on humans on Earth.
... That's true, but then it falsifies his claim that everything that can have any influence on humans has already been found.

His careful qualifications and caveats make it explicit that isn't his claim.

What he fails to make clear however is the fact that it's nothing more than his personal "statement of faith", and his own belief in gravitons as the carrier particle of gravity demonstrates this point. There is no way for him to *eliminate* any potential influence of various potential particles and how them may or may not influence human beings. It's really nothing more than a "personal statement of faith", it's certainly not a scientific "truth" as he seems to suggest, and gravity demonstrates that point clearly.

He's a scientist - gravity as a quantum field is his default hypothesis - in the absence of evidence, he's assuming it's like the other forces. If evidence shows otherwise, he'll revise his opinion. Strictly speaking, there are no scientific 'truths', and until some contrary evidence is discovered, it's the hypothesis he prefers. If gravitons are discovered, gravity as a QF will become part of the main theory.

We seem to have reached an impasse; perhaps we should move on...

 

[PsychoSarah]

Probably still a minority. I'd assume it's a more common held belief among those who believe in a soul, and life after death. Atheists would tend to dismiss the concept out of hand.

I used to believe in ghosts. Embarrassingly, because of the show Ghost Hunters. I was in a vulnerable state of mind. I grew up enough to recognize that the show was more for views than actual investigation.

 

[Michael]

His careful qualifications and caveats make it explicit that isn't his claim.

Yes he did. At one point in one of the two videos, he explicitly makes up a name for a field and claimed that it cannot possibly have any influence on human thought. That's simply not a tenable scientific claim on his part. It's more akin to an "act of faith" on his part.

He's a scientist - gravity as a quantum field is his default hypothesis - in the absence of evidence, he's assuming it's like the other forces. If evidence shows otherwise, he'll revise his opinion. Strictly speaking, there are no scientific 'truths', and until some contrary evidence is discovered, it's the hypothesis he prefers. If gravitons are discovered, gravity as a QF will become part of the main theory.

We seem to have reached an impasse; perhaps we should move on...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/12/151221071624.htm

Ya, eventually we're going to just have to agree to disagree.

Keep in mind that we really don't have a great explanation for awareness and intelligence, and new fields and influences that *could* have an effect on human thought and behaviors may in fact be found. Even he ultimately crosses the line between his beloved graviton and empirical physics. GR theory works without a quantum aether, and there's technically no guarantee that gravitons exist or will ever be found. As your refrence demonstrates, 'Scientists', even with an atheistic agenda are more than happy to "put faith" in the "unseen" (in the lab), so long as it does not pertain to the topic of God.

 

[Michael]

I used to believe in ghosts. Embarrassingly, because of the show Ghost Hunters. I was in a vulnerable state of mind. I grew up enough to recognize that the show was more for views than actual investigation.

Interesting. Then again, I've watched an embarrassing number "Ancient Alien" episodes, while feigning skeptical indignation. It often does have that "scientific train wreck" feel about it, and I just can turn the channel sometimes.