Commitment to atheism results in bad science - The Victor Stenger Example

Hi DesignTheorist,I read AdminNosy's rejection before reading your opening post, and I was surprised that such brevity followed such length, but then I read your opening post and understood. The characteristics that are raising concerns among moderators in your other thread are shared by this proposal.I found your interpretation of the Stenger quote from pages 23-24 to be most puzzling, as if we were not interpreting English the same way, and this problem is also plaguing your Can science say anything about a Creator God? thread: How is Stenger's statement about current models "obvious hyperbole"? You're interpreting a statement of simple fact as being fraught with information about motivational factors, such as the need to defeat theism. Before I could promote this thread we'd have to reach a common understanding on what simple statements like this one from Stenger mean. I interpreted Stenger as saying the opposite but that he wasn't going to rely on it. Again, before I could promote this thread we'd have to reach a common understanding of what the simple English means. We want to avoid having threads where people end up discussing the meaning of English. People have been attempting to explain to you that gravity is just the shape of space-time as modified by mass and that there is no gravitational field in GR, but you have ignored this and are ignoring it again here. People aren't saying there's no such thing as the phenomenon we call gravity, and sometimes you seem to understand this and sometimes you don't, and this is very confusing. I can't promote a thread that just continues the confusion. I need to see something clear and consistent. For example, you say this: Which is wrong. GR physicists do not talk of the "gravitational field." And then what follows isn't consistent with what you just said: You're correct about the bending of space-time by mass, but saying that there's no attraction but there is a force is not something I can make sense of, and none of this supports your claim that GR recognizes a gravitational field. This is just too contradictory and confusing. I can't promote a thread where I can't even figure out how to interpret you're description of your position.You can advocate any position you like here, the more controversial the better. It's great when the site has lots of messages and traffic. But from the very beginning I've said that we won't have nonsense threads here at EvC Forum, and it's one reason we have the thread proposal process. If you can propose a thread that I can understand, not agree with, just understand, and that isn't nonsense, then I will promote it.AbE: I'm being told I'm conflating force and field myself, so to be more clear I'm simply attempting to follow what Son Goku said in his Message 364: Edited by Admin, : AbE.

But the models *do* strongly suggest a multiverse. You said Stenger had left the realm of science, yet this seems an accurate statement, and it's certainly not hyperbole. Stenger explains (in words that you quoted) that many object to the multiverse as being unscientific, and so he will not use it even though he believes it "more scientific and parsimonious than hypothesizing an unobservable creating spirit and a single universe," since if he uses it in his arguments some people, such as yourself, will simply dismiss them as equally unscientific. Stenger is in effect saying that the argument against design is so strong that he doesn't even need the multiverse argument.But more importantly, you said "he has to admit that the multiverse is not really science," and if you think the passage you quoted says this then one of us doesn't understand simple English.About the gravitational field, I'm just trying to follow Son Goku who explained that there is "no gravitational potential field acting on an object and causing it to accelerate, unlike an electric field or a strong nuclear field." That's not to say that there's no such thing as a gravitational field, but rather than being something like an electric field which is mediated by photons it is just something with vector values at every point in space (i.e., a field), the values falling out of the Einstein field equations.Your seem to have two main objections to Stenger. One is his claim that gravity is fictitious, but this seems a pretty common view within physics. The other is his claim that there doesn't have to be a gravitational field. Can you elaborate on this view? All we have so far is just the statement you quoted and no context or any of the explanation.

I've focused primarily on a couple specific claims you make regarding Stenger, but there's an overarching issue, and though I have mentioned it I think it's time to make it the primary focus.Every time you quote Stenger and offer an interpretation, it seems to me a misinterpretation of simple English. So when you interpret Stenger without quoting him I suspect the same problem is at work, especially when I specifically ask for context and don't get it. I won't promote a thread that would just be an argument about what a scientist really thinks, or what his words really mean.If you'd like to have a thread that takes the position that we shouldn't listen much to scientists whose views are largely out of step with the mainstream, that would be okay. Or if you'd like to discuss multiverse theories, I could promote that thread.But if you want me to promote this thread then you'd have to actually quote Stenger advocating the positions you're attributing to him, such as rejecting the physics in physics textbooks. You're making points about what Stenger believes with little tidbits like this: But your reluctance to provide a fuller context is not reassuring, and when we do take a peak it leaves us with no confidence at all in your claims. Here's some of the fuller context around that quote: Now, no doubt we disagree about what this simple English means. It would not surprise me if, for example, you claimed that this really is an argument that the gravitational field does not exist rather than stage setting prior to delving into a deeper discussion of the nature of reality. But as I said, we're not going to have a discussion about what simple English means.Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

This is an example of my concern that promoting this thread would just lead to long and senseless discussions of what some simple passages in English mean. Your request for an explanation of how I believe you're misinterpreting Stenger is reasonable, and I would fulfill this request had I the time or inclination, but since I have neither I can only repeat that because your interpretations of simple English tend to be so at variance with everyone else's that I cannot promote this thread. I provided the surrounding context of your quote about the gravitational field, perhaps you could provide the surrounding context for this one, which would be all of the very short section 7.2. Then please explain how his analysis is a rejection of physics textbooks rather than just a more detailed and nuanced perspective. Pay particular attention to when he says, "The gravitational force depends on the masses and charges of the particles. N₁ is only the ratio of the two forces for a system made of a proton and an electron, as in the hydrogen atom. It is not the relative strength of the gravitational and electrical forces in all cases. In fact, there is no universal way we can describe the strength of the gravitational force." You can edit your post and fix the link. No, you're being asked to demonstrate that your interpretation of Stenger is based on things he's actually said rather than misinterpretations. So far you haven't given me any confidence that promoting this thread wouldn't result in one long argument about what Stenger's writings in his Fine Tuning book really mean.

Hi DesignTheorist,I think I briefly mentioned that I have limited time. I made the time to familiarize myself with the arguments from your opening post, and I will make more time to work with you if you'd like respond to the lines of inquiry I was pursuing.But if you're going to go off in new directions then I can't really justify making that much time available to familiarize myself with yet more technical issues. Please stay focused on your original thread proposal and attempt to address the issues I raised.About this from Message 13: There is no personal animosity against you in this thread. The problem is that the views you attribute to Stenger are not expressed in the quotes you provided, and a thread with that kind of fundamental problem will not be promoted.

As far as the issues I raised questions about, yes, you are going off in new directions. Instead of addressing my concerns you sent two messages raising new issues.I raised two concerns. Your interpretation of Stenger's comment about the gravity field seemed like a clear misreading to me, but your replies said nothing about this. And I asked you to supply the section where he calls the gravitational force fictional and explain how your interpretation is consistent with his actual words, and this you also did not do.Instead you moved on to other issues.The intention here is not a pre-discussion of the thread. You submitted a topic proposal, and I provided you feedback about my concerns about the content of that specific proposal. If you satisfy those concerns then I will promote your thread.

The onus is on you to convince me of your interpretation, not the other way around. I'm just interpreting English the same way I always do. When I see you interpreting Stenger it looks like you're misinterpreting him.You seem to take an opposite view of things, that the onus is on me to convince you, and as long as you maintain that perspective I see little chance of progress. My only goal is an externally accurate and internally consistent thread proposal. When I get one I'll promote the thread.Why don't you try a new thread proposal that makes just a couple simple claims about Stenger's position that derive unambiguously from things he's actually said so that the thread can begin with a firm foundation. Or perhaps you could propose a thread to discuss whether gravity is a fictitious force, and then once you've won that debate (which would be quite an achievement given that gravity as a fictitious force underlies general relativity) you could come back to this thread proposal.Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

You're misinterpreting simple English again. If gravity is indistinguishable from a fictitious force then there are no circumstances under which you could distinguish it from a fictitious force, therefore you could never be wrong in thinking of gravity as a fictitious force. You seem to be plotting your course via Barnes. While his website conveys the impression of accomplishment and knowledge, his enthusiasm seems to be leading him into misinterpretations that you then follow. Maybe you should invite Barnes here and let him defend his views in person rather than by proxy.