tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6965073194684424505.post5461994688093159802..comments2023-03-20T06:30:08.977-07:00Comments on Professor Brian Blais' Blog: Faith and Sciencebblaishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03856943924761781091noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6965073194684424505.post-49167736033655991112010-04-21T03:35:54.883-07:002010-04-21T03:35:54.883-07:00Just to be clear, I am not denying reality, nor am...Just to be clear, I am not denying reality, nor am I saying that science doesn't say important things about reality. :) All I am saying is that there can be components of a model that are not necessarily directly observable, even in theory (ie. the wavefunction) and thus one would be hard pressed to refer to them as "real".bblaishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03856943924761781091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6965073194684424505.post-3360493428627306302010-04-21T03:23:26.591-07:002010-04-21T03:23:26.591-07:00Welcome to the blog, Fred!
I've not read Ste...Welcome to the blog, Fred! <br /><br />I've not read Steven Weinberg's book, but I tend to lean more toward Leon Cooper's perspectives, like http://www.physics.brown.edu/physics/researchpages/ibns/Cooper%20Pubs/076_SourceandLimits_84.pdf<br /><br /><em>"knowable" is more in line with a statement like "there is a Truth about the universe and Science leads us (more or less) inexorably toward it". And I think it might not be far off the mark to call that a statement of faith, as it's rather mysterious how we might go about proving it</em><br /><br />I have heard a similar argument which says that inductive reasoning is unfounded, because you could only prove it works by inductive reasoning. I tell my students that proof only exists in math and philosophy. In science the best we can do is evidence, stronger or weaker. If it works, you're more confident in it. If it doesn't, you're less confident in it or more confident that it is wrong. You're right that people have assumed that the universe is knowable long before they took predictablility as a metric, but when they *didn't* use predictability as a metric they weren't as successful!<br /><br />Perhaps there are other metrics, but I can't think of any others that are consistent. Certainly if you know something, then you can predict it. If something, like science, moves you more towards the "Truth", then you must be able to predict more about the universe. There may be other things you can do, but prediction I think is a necessary consequence of knowledge, and it is nice as a check to see if you actually have knowledge.<br /><br />Some people say they know God, does that mean that they can predict God? Yes, to some degree. They will admit that they don't know God's whole plan, but they will state that prayer will lead to improvements (on average) and other things like that. Of course, all of these things that are claimed are either shown to be false (e.g. efficacy of prayer) or are content free (e.g. not a real prediction) and are untestable.<br /><br />Finally, I've never been swayed by the realist perspective for the simple reason that there are many different models for the same thing in physics, with different important quantities. Which are "real"? For a ball falling do down we have forces (Newton's Laws), energy (principle of least action), space-time geometry, gravitons and strings. Are any of these real? QM and General Rel make no reference to forces, quantum gravity makes no reference to geometry.<br /><br />Is there even a measurement of what is "real"? Is it even a testable question?bblaishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03856943924761781091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6965073194684424505.post-70494782793750576812010-04-19T19:03:52.782-07:002010-04-19T19:03:52.782-07:00Hi Dr. Blais...
First time reader (following The ...Hi Dr. Blais...<br /><br />First time reader (following The Google from your PyMC post). Interesting post...some quick comments:<br /><br /><i>After 1900, with the advent of quantum mechanics, physical models were evaluated based on their predictive value: those models that predicted well were good models. It was not believed that there was necessarily a correspondence between the model components and the real components in nature.</i><br /><br />I've always read Steven Weinberg's (1992) <i>Dreams of a Final Theory</i> as explicitly taking a realist stance about the entities posited by theoretical physicists.<br /><br />In any case, I think it might be a mistake to equate "knowable/understandable" with "predictable". Certainly scientists have assumed the universe was knowable long before we were taking predictability as our metric of success. It seems to me that this usage of "knowable" is more in line with a statement like "there is a Truth about the universe and Science leads us (more or less) inexorably toward it". And I think it might not be far off the mark to call that a statement of faith, as it's rather mysterious how we might go about proving it (of course, that's likely to just be a failure of imagination on my part).Fred Mailhothttp://chat.carleton.ca/~fmailhotnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6965073194684424505.post-81908913055594305742010-02-09T11:03:26.962-08:002010-02-09T11:03:26.962-08:00I have been reading your blog but just couldn'...I have been reading your blog but just couldn't find a minute to respond.<br /><br />In short, I really like this post.<br /><br />As you may or may not know, I'm a double major in Environmental Science and Global Studies (aka International Affairs/Relations). Though people generally argue, or are at least confused about, my choice to double major, the more I study, the more I find they have in common. <br /><br />In this particularly post, I think the two majors are easily intertwined. Currently, I'm taking a class on International Ethics. Still in the process of laying the stage for the rest of the semester, we've been discussing morality, primarily: where it comes from, how do we judge ethical action, and is international politics an arena for ethics? We've delved into a debate on whether morals come from circumstance or from universal truth, and who should have that say.<br /><br />On that note, I now consider your post on religion and science. I believe everyone has the right to make well-informed decisions. Providing students with science (truths or at least an educated attempt to find the truth) is essential to lead a well-informed life. However, is my belief based on my circumstances or my inner knowledge of universal truths? If the former, then do I have the right or authority to impose this idea on others? Even if I am successful in imposing my idea and people are informed, I can't force people to MAKE informed decisions without jeopardizing other liberties.<br /><br />I forget where I was going with this... I've literally been writing this post for days because (as I said earlier) I haven't had the chance to sit down. I'll add more to this when I have a second chanceAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com