Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 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:   Mlodinow & Hawking on Model-Dependent Realism
Stephen Push
Member (Idle past 4859 days)
Posts: 140
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 1 of 72 (588463)
10-25-2010 7:59 PM


In their new book, The Grand Design, and in the October issue of Scientific American, physicists Leonard Mlodinow and Stephen Hawking explain their philosophy of science:
[W]e shall adopt an approach that we call model-dependent realism. It is based on the idea that our brains interpret the input from our sensory organs by making a model of the world. When such a model is successful at explaining events, we tend to attribute to it, and to the elements and concepts that constitute it, the quality of reality or absolute truth. But there may be different ways in which one can model the same physical situation, with each employing different fundamental elements and concepts. If two such physical theories or models accurately predict the same events, one cannot be said to be more real than the other; rather, we are free to use whichever model is more convenient.
Based on this philosophy, Mlodinow and Hawking conclude that the big bang theory is more useful than the account given in Genesis because it explains the most about our present observations and thus is the best representation we have of the past. Still, they add, neither model can be said to be more real than the other.
What are your thoughts about this philosophy? Is it nave to believe that the Earth is really less than 6,000 years old and life really evolves?
Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Larni, posted 10-26-2010 8:45 AM Stephen Push has not replied
 Message 4 by ringo, posted 10-26-2010 12:51 PM Stephen Push has not replied
 Message 6 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-26-2010 1:44 PM Stephen Push has replied
 Message 10 by New Cat's Eye, posted 10-26-2010 4:09 PM Stephen Push has not replied

  
Stephen Push
Member (Idle past 4859 days)
Posts: 140
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 9 of 72 (588570)
10-26-2010 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Dr Adequate
10-26-2010 1:44 PM


quote:
The nicest thing I can think is that they're using "creationism" in a private and technical sense --- for example, if all they mean by it is the hypothesis that God made the Big Bang go bang.
No, they clearly state that they believe the big bang theory is no more real than the account of creation in Genesis. But as you point out, in the first quote they seem to say that two models must have equal predictive power to be equivalent. I've read the whole book, and I can't explain this disconnect.
The conclusion of the book asserts that M-theory, which they believe will be confirmed, is the long-sought Theory of Everything and that, they seem to claim, it literally creates our reality. Perhaps they believe both the big bang theory and Genesis are unimportant or uninteresting once you know the Theory of Everything.
Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-26-2010 1:44 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Dr Adequate, posted 10-26-2010 5:00 PM Stephen Push has not replied

  
Stephen Push
Member (Idle past 4859 days)
Posts: 140
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 16 of 72 (588694)
10-27-2010 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Straggler
10-27-2010 2:04 PM


Re: Competing Models
quote:
So how do you decide between competing models as to which one most accurately describes or reflects reality?
How about predictive ability? We can make any model explain existing observations by adding ad hoc assumptions. But when a model can be used to predict observations that are made later, the model is telling us something important about reality.
The BB theory predicted that we should find patterns in the cosmic microwave background radiation that were later found. The ToE predicted that we would find weakly electric fish that cannot stun prey but would have some other function for their electric organs, and these fish were found and the functions of their electric discharges were determined.
I'm not aware of any such confirmed predictions that have been made based on the Biblical account of creation.
Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.
Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.
Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.
Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Straggler, posted 10-27-2010 2:04 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Straggler, posted 10-28-2010 1:34 PM Stephen Push has not replied

  
Stephen Push
Member (Idle past 4859 days)
Posts: 140
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 10-08-2010


(1)
Message 39 of 72 (590983)
11-11-2010 5:07 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by 1.61803
11-10-2010 10:50 AM


Re: Science should be silent on matters concerning frogs
1.61803 writes:
My opinion is that the indigenous people of Rain god forest have faith. A scientist would be hard pressed to show through rigorous scientific research that frog gods do not exist.
I see several issues arising in this discussion. One involves the "is-ought problem." Another involves the difference between religion as a sourse of values and religion as an explanation of facts about the world.
Some people derive their moral values from their religious tradition. Science has something to say about how those values arise, how they are transmitted, what effects they have on society. But science cannot tell people what their values ought to be.
Your frog-god worshippers are not just looking to their god for values. They are using their god as an explanation of a fact about the world. While science cannot prove the frog god does not exist, it can show that the frog god is superfluous to a well-confirmed theory about the cause of changes in the frog population.
In fact, science has a distinct advantage over religion in the matter of predicting frog population changes. That is because, during a drought, science would suggest that people who want more frogs should dig irrigation ditches. I would venture to guess that irrigation ditches would be more likley to boost the frog population than praying to the frog god would.
It is true that faith exists in the absence of evidence -- even in the face of evidence to the contrary. But as Straggler has explained, science can productively study the phenomenon of faith. And ditch-digging heretics will probably explain that science has greater practical value when one wants to affect facts about the word, even though some of the ditch diggers many continue to pray to the frog god.
Edited by Stephen Push, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by 1.61803, posted 11-10-2010 10:50 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by 1.61803, posted 11-11-2010 10:37 AM Stephen Push has not replied

  
Stephen Push
Member (Idle past 4859 days)
Posts: 140
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 52 of 72 (591070)
11-11-2010 3:05 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by 1.61803
11-11-2010 2:08 PM


Re: Faith
1.61803 writes:
Precisely, and in such case science would have nothing to say about it.
I think the social sciences would have a lot to say about faith and religion. These phenomena are widespread throughout many cultures and persist even in modern, scientifically advanced societies. Did a predisposition for religious belief evolve in early humans? How and why are religious beliefs transmitted from generation to generation and from culture to culture? What factors account for the rises and declines in religious activitiy that have occurred from time to time? These all seem like valid scientific questions to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by 1.61803, posted 11-11-2010 2:08 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by 1.61803, posted 11-11-2010 3:26 PM Stephen Push has not replied

  
Stephen Push
Member (Idle past 4859 days)
Posts: 140
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 59 of 72 (591094)
11-11-2010 4:28 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by 1.61803
11-11-2010 2:58 PM


Re: Straggler can not be silent on matters concerning frogs
1.61803 writes:
But there no scientific fields of study that deal with faith in god. Why is that?
I'm not aware of any scientific field that deals exclusively with faith in god, but several scientific fields deal with it in a broader context. Anthropology deals with faith in god as part of its investigation of human cultures. Some sociologists study comparative religions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by 1.61803, posted 11-11-2010 2:58 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by 1.61803, posted 11-11-2010 4:49 PM Stephen Push has replied

  
Stephen Push
Member (Idle past 4859 days)
Posts: 140
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 10-08-2010


(1)
Message 62 of 72 (591119)
11-11-2010 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by 1.61803
11-11-2010 4:49 PM


Re: Straggler can not be silent on matters concerning frogs
1.61803 writes:
What I am interested in is how a model such as science that is based on falsifiable evidence can have anything to do with something as unfalsifiable as faith based assertions such as the existance of a god.
Science cannot make a categorical statement that God does not exist. If someone wants to believe in a supernatural being that does not intervene in any natural processes, I doubt that many scientists would object. Science and religion come into conflict when religions make assertions about how the world works. That’s why your frog god was a bad example: the frog-god worshippers were using their god to explain a natural phenomenon. Beliefs about the natural world are not privileged because they are based on blind faith. And just because some believers won’t accept well-confirmed scientific theories about certain natural phenomena, that doesn’t mean science has nothing to say about those phenomena or about the phenomenon of irrational belief.
Fortunately, many major religions have figured this out. They accept science’s explanations of the material world and focus their attention on their flocks’ immaterial souls.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by 1.61803, posted 11-11-2010 4:49 PM 1.61803 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