Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Commitment to atheism results in bad science - The Victor Stenger Example
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 16 of 21 (696226)
04-13-2013 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Admin
04-13-2013 3:43 PM


Re: Hello Percy
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.
I am not going off on new directions. The title of this debate is "Commitment to atheism results in bad science -The Victor Stenger Example." The two issues I posted on quoting Barnes directly apply to this topic. These are just two of a host of problems identified by Barnes.
There is no personal animosity against you in this thread.
It is true that you have not expressed any personal animosity. But a great deal of personal animosity has been directed at me on other threads on this site. I can't help but wonder about some of the messages those individuals are messaging to you in private. And I can't help wondering what you are feeling when you make claims like the one below.
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.
I problem is that the views I attribute to Stenger are exactly what he wrote. I am directly quoting hm. Greater context does not help Stenger, it only makes it worse for him. He contradicts himself repeatedly.
The bigger problem is that Barnes agrees with me that Stenger's views are not in line with physics textbooks. Heck, even Stenger admitted that. There are plenty more criticisms in Barnes's paper that we have not gotten to yet. And we have not even started to look at the Robin Collins's criticisms of Stenger yet. There is no shortage of debate material here, if we can find someone who is willing to take Stenger's side in this. Cave Diver is probably the most knowledgable on general relativity, but I doubt he would even attempt to support Stenger's bizarre views.
Regarding your time, don't feel I'm rushing you. Take your time. But on the other hand, I don't think we should stop looking at the criticisms against Stenger. The more criticisms we get out on the table, the more likely we can find something you are willing to allow debate on.
It's one thing to say that I misunderstand Stenger, but you cannot think all the criticism against Stenger are unwarranted. Why shouldn't we get the major issues out on the table?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Admin, posted 04-13-2013 3:43 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Admin, posted 04-13-2013 6:10 PM designtheorist has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 17 of 21 (696231)
04-13-2013 6:10 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by designtheorist
04-13-2013 5:02 PM


Re: Hello Percy
designtheorist writes:
I am not going off on new directions.
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.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by designtheorist, posted 04-13-2013 5:02 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by designtheorist, posted 04-13-2013 7:38 PM Admin has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 18 of 21 (696237)
04-13-2013 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Admin
04-13-2013 6:10 PM


Re: Hello Percy
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.
You have not explained how it is possible to interpret Stenger's words in a way other than I have and still be consistent with his goal of explaining "The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning." If you try to interpret Stenger in line with traditional physics, then you are stuck with a fine-tuned universe.
However, you want to interpret Stenger the way he intends - that fine-tuning is a fallacy - then you eventually have to get to this statement:
"In short, the strength of gravity is an arbitrary number and is clearly not fine-tuned. It can be anything we want it to be." p. 152.
I believe Stenger intends to convey exactly what he wrote. That sentence is his goal. Stenger has to be able to say gravity is not fine-tuned. So, how does he get there? Let's work backwards.
Earlier he writes: "Recall that the gravitational force is fictional, like the centrifugal force. No one compares the value of centrifugal force with other forces."
The second sentence is true. But what does it mean? Stenger is upset that physicists are comparing the strength of gravity to other forces. Stenger claims not to have any problem with the fine-tuning literature but every physicist compares the ratio of the strength of gravity to other forces. . . Rees, Penrose, Hawking, Tegmark, Weinberg, all of them. Why do they do it? Because while gravitational force can be fictitious at times, at other times it is not.
The truly fictitious forces, like the centrifugal force, are always fictitious. In Message 13 I quote Barnes talking about the gravitational force saying:
"In this respect, gravity is not a fictional force in the same sense that the centrifugal force is. We can always remove the centrifugal force everywhere by transforming to an inertial frame. This cannot be done for gravity.
Message 13 was a direct response to your comment. I was showing that I was not the only one who interprets Stenger as trivializing gravity so he can say it is not fine-tuned. Barnes agrees with me.
My second post was not directly related to your comment but is directly related to the topic of this debate. And, as I said, there are lots more examples of bad science in Stenger's book to talk about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Admin, posted 04-13-2013 6:10 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Admin, posted 04-14-2013 8:38 AM designtheorist has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 19 of 21 (696300)
04-14-2013 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by designtheorist
04-13-2013 7:38 PM


Re: Hello Percy
designtheorist writes:
You have not explained how it is possible to interpret Stenger's words in a way other than I have and still be consistent with his goal of explaining "The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning."
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.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by designtheorist, posted 04-13-2013 7:38 PM designtheorist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by designtheorist, posted 04-14-2013 10:02 AM Admin has replied

  
designtheorist
Member (Idle past 3833 days)
Posts: 390
From: Irvine, CA, United States
Joined: 09-15-2011


Message 20 of 21 (696302)
04-14-2013 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by Admin
04-14-2013 8:38 AM


Re: Hello Percy
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.
I realize that the onus is upon me. Perhaps it seems odd to you but by challenging you to think of an interpretation that is different from mine and yet consistent with Stenger's goal, I was hoping to show you that no such competing interpretation is possible.
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 the gravity as a fictitious force underlies general relativity) you could come back to this thread proposal.
Unfortunately, it is very difficult to find a short description of gravity from a trusted source online. The Barnes paper I linked talked about the fact gravity can be fictitious or not depending on the situation. I did find a short article by a Nobel Prize winner titled What is a "fictitious force?" In the article, David Politzer states:
"With general relativity, Einstein managed to blur forever the distinction between real and fictitious forces. General relativity is his theory of gravity, and gravity is certainly the paradigmatic example of a "real" force. The cornerstone of Einstein's theory, however, is the proposition that gravity is itself a fictitious force (or, rather, that it is indistinguishable from a fictitious force). Now, some 90 years later, we have innumerable and daily confirmations that his theory appears to be correct."
So, you see, it is wrong to think of gravity as always being a fictitious force.
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.
This is a good idea. I will do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Admin, posted 04-14-2013 8:38 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Admin, posted 04-14-2013 2:58 PM designtheorist has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 21 of 21 (696323)
04-14-2013 2:58 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by designtheorist
04-14-2013 10:02 AM


Re: Hello Percy
designtheorist writes:
"With general relativity, Einstein managed to blur forever the distinction between real and fictitious forces. General relativity is his theory of gravity, and gravity is certainly the paradigmatic example of a "real" force. The cornerstone of Einstein's theory, however, is the proposition that gravity is itself a fictitious force (or, rather, that it is indistinguishable from a fictitious force). Now, some 90 years later, we have innumerable and daily confirmations that his theory appears to be correct."
So, you see, it is wrong to think of gravity as always being a fictitious force.
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.
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.
This is a good idea. I will do so.
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.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by designtheorist, posted 04-14-2013 10:02 AM designtheorist has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024