David Harriman's Book

[George H. Smith]

In his massive Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas presents detailed arguments to show how the existence of God can be proved by reason alone. He also devotes considerable space to the argument that reason and Christian faith are entirely compatible. I assume you think that Aquinas was dead wrong. But how can you say this without having studied the evidence he presents? Have you read the Summa Theologica?

Why plow through all those volumes when scientific research has long since exposed the premises of the Christian faith as false? That's the beauty of science - you don't have to wade again through the plethora of religious errors committed in past ages.

Many Christians, including some scientists, have written books to show that "scientific research" has done no such thing. Have you read those books? Or do you read only one side of a debate?

And what specific "scientific research" has shown arguments for the existence of God to be invalid?

Lastly, given the plethora of scientific errors committed in past ages, don't you think it would be wise not to genuflect so readily before each new "scientific" claim that you stumble across?

Ghs

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....]

This is from the preview of Stephen Hawking's new book: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9160

We [s. Hawking and L. Mlodinow] question the conventional concept of reality, posing instead a "model-dependent" theory of reality. We discuss how the laws of our particular universe are extraordinarily finely tuned so as to allow for our existence, and show why quantum theory predicts the multiverse--the idea that ours is just one of many universes that appeared spontaneously out of nothing, each with different laws of nature. And we assess M-Theory, an explanation of the laws governing the multiverse, and the only viable candidate for a complete "theory of everything." As we promise in our opening chapter, unlike the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life given in the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, the answer we provide in The Grand Design is not, simply, '42.' "

A lot is claimed to be fact here. Again, when you approach this with the attitude "based on what Hawking and Mendelev believe to be true", there is no need to get upset.

It would make no sense to brush it all aside, before having studied the evidence they present, and claim that they are dead wrong.

Imo the less dogmatic a person is, the less this person will feel threatened by scientific models of reality not matching his/her own.

People, just re-issuing a warning I've (briefly) issued before:

You do not know, from anything "Stephen Hawking" is reported as thinking, what Stephen Hawking in fact thinks.

Stephen Hawking has been kept alive for years by extreme means, slowly -- incredibly slowly -- dying from a terrible disease.

He cannot get out of his wheelchair and walk, or even check, and maybe object to, page proofs of a book he's said to have co-authored.

Buyer beware.

Ellen

[william.scherk]

Stephen Hawking has been kept alive for years by extreme means

Which extreme means keep Hawking alive, to your knowledge?

[BaalChatzaf]

Stephen Hawking has been kept alive for years by extreme means

Which extreme means keep Hawking alive, to your knowledge?

Hawkings throat muscles are mostly paralyzed. He has to be aspirated frequently or he will drown in his own spit.

He must be assisted in eating and drinking since he cannot move his harms to feed himself.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

He must be assisted in eating and drinking since he cannot move his harms to feed himself.

Bob,

I get it about not moving his harms, but can he move his benefits?

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

He must be assisted in eating and drinking since he cannot move his harms to feed himself.

Bob,

I get it about not moving his harms, but can he move his benefits?

Michael

Picky, picky

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

I have to be picky if we want to keep an invalid out of harm's way.

(You can groan now... )

Michael

[Xray]

Hawking and Mendelev are free to believe whatever they like, just as Christians, Muslims, and Flat Earthers are free to believe whatever they like. People believe all kinds of silly things. Such things don't normally interest me, much less upset me.

Imo you are mentally pushing away a modern (and admittedly, quite revolutionary) scientific theory (the ideas of which you seem to reject) by labeling it as "silly".

What do you present as evidence of alleged 'silliness' of the Hawking/Mendelev theory?

And just curious: suppose that their theory turned out to be true: Would it shock you? If yes, what exactly would you find shocking?

People, just re-issuing a warning I've (briefly) issued before:

You do not know, from anything "Stephen Hawking" is reported as thinking, what Stephen Hawking in fact thinks.

Stephen Hawking has been kept alive for years by extreme means, slowly -- incredibly slowly -- dying from a terrible disease.

He cannot get out of his wheelchair and walk, or even check, and maybe object to, page proofs of a book he's said to have co-authored.

Buyer beware.

But how likely is it that Mendelev dared to brazenly lie by claiming that Hawking co-authored the book?

Many Christians, including some scientists have written books to show that "scientific research" has done no such thing. Have you read those books? Or do you read only one side of a debate?

If you think what those Christians, especially the scientists among them, offer in their books is convincing, feel free to recommend the books to me here. I'm really curious to see if any of them can make their case in "proving" that the earth is only 6000 years old, and that Evolution has it all wrong.

Edited October 1, 2010 by Xray

[Xray]

And what specific "scientific research" has shown arguments for the existence of God to be invalid?

Since scientific research can expose errors, every attempt to present alleged empirical evidcence indicating the existence of a god is basically falsifiable.

Man could not explain e. g. the existence of lightning and thunder and interpreted these phenoemena as evidence of an angry god. With thunder and lightning finally being explained by science as natural phenomena occurring under specific conditions, the notion of a thunder and lightning god became obsolete.

Human spiritual history can also be seen as a history of trying to fill with the god idea the mysteries which unexplaianable natural phenomena have posed for the human mind.

From metaphysical explanations to physical explanations, so to speak.

The famous physicist Lawrence Krauss wrote in an article that addresses Hawking's new book:

"... data like this coming in from our revolutionary new tools promise to turn much of what is now metaphysics into physics. Whether God survives is anyone's guess."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703946504575469653720549936.html?KEYWORDS=LAWRENCE+M+KRAUSS

Still, I'm an agnostic (leaning more toward the non-believer side) when it comes to the god question because I cannot claim to know there is no god. Can anyone?

Having no evidence of a god is not enough not make the case against a god's existence. For absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

Imo the best argument an atheist can bring up is one using Occam's razor: If the idea of a god is not necessary for the Big Bang to have occurred, then why introduce the god idea as a unnecessary element at all?

This is the main argument I would use today when discussing with theists. But I would never make the mistake of claiming to know there is no god, because then the theist could catch me in what I call the 'fish fallacy' by replying: "Sure. You are like the fish in the deep sea 'concluding': "Since I can see no evidence of life outside water, I know it doesn't exist."

Whether there is a god or not, the mystery of why there is something at all (instead of nothing) will preoccupy mankind as long as it exists.

Even Ba'al, one of the most matter-of-fact types I have ever come across on a forum used the term "miracle" for it ...

I just rewatched in the YouTube link posted on another thread, Lawrence Krauss's fascinating elaborations on "nothing".

See post # 15 on this thread:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9160&pid=110088&st=0entry110088

Edited October 2, 2010 by Xray

[Ellen Stuttle]

But how likely is it that Mendelev dared to brazenly lie by claiming that Hawking co-authored the book?

What evidence is there that Hawking could co-author a book? "Co-author" in what sense? How? What particulars are given of the details?

I'm not suggesting that Mendelev just up and wrote a book and put Hawking's name as "co-author." He'd have needed compliance and help from Hawking's caretakers/keepers. I'm claiming that there's no way anyone could know what Hawking really thinks of what's published in his name, if he even knows all of what that is -- and if he's even still capable of coherent consecutive thought. Do you believe that someone who, as Baal graphically described one of the details of Hawking's plight, "has to be aspirated frequently or he will drown in his own spit" would be capable of doing a whole lot of detailed mathematical analysis? I don't.

I hate seeing Hawking held accountable for stuff being passed off as worthwhile because of the connection with his name.

Ellen

[BaalChatzaf]

Whether there is a god or not, the mystery of why there is something at all (instead of nothing) will preoccupy mankind as long as it exists.

Even Ba'al, one of the most matter-of-fact types I have ever come across on a forum used the term "miracle" for it ...

I say that for the following reason - "The cosmos exists because X" can not be completed by plugging in something for X. The cosmos exists but why? Any substitution for X is begging the question. The Cosmos exists because the Cosmos exits? Nahh. that won't do. I give up. I can't think of anything to substitute for X. The Cosmos exists and that is all there is to it. I don't believe in magic and I know when I am stumped.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[william.scherk]

What evidence is there that Hawking could co-author a book? "Co-author" in what sense? How? What particulars are given of the details?

Are you suggesting that Hawking's disability prevents him from expressing himself, or that any production in print or on stage/video is suspect in some way? If yes, if as it seems you consider that the productions in his name are suspect, can you give us an idea of what you think happens between him and the apparatus he appears to use?

Have you ever watched Hawking in recent video, Ellen, seen or read of him in action answering questions from an interviewer or audience?

If you are wondering what story is told to explain his synthesized speech productions, and his abilities to use language, there is a page on his website, under the title "Prof Stephen Hawking's Disability Advice."

If you watch a recent video of Hawking 'speaking' through his voice synthesizer, you can see that the only thing that he moves on his body is his right cheek. I have also seen a video of him answering questions recently, which did not edit out the entire time it takes him to answer a question put to him. The video crew showed the screen that he watched. As far as I could tell, the synthesizer is no simple 'hunt and peck' device. In any case, there have been a few cases of folks who have been paralyzed by cerebral accident who have used computers to 'write' . . . I will try to find a reference for you if you like.

I am very interested in your reply. I wonder what kinds of material -- if anything -- might satisfy your skepticism that a production labeled "Stephen Hawking" is actually a production of the man himself.

There is a relatively recent (March 2010) report from BBC that should interest you. See the video of "Giving Stephen Hawking A Voice." There are some other enlightening stories on communication devices and strategies for disabled people on the same page.

PS -- see also an article in the Guardian in which the reporter claims to have interviewed Hawking. I give just a brief excerpt to entice readers who doubt the man can communicate/write/think in consecutive, coherent thought. Those not paralyzed by doubt, who are yet capable of coherent consecutive action, can use Google to find the whole dang thing . . .

"Behind his shoulder, his assistant nods. There will now

be some time for live questions. Stupidly, given that I

have read all about it, I fail to realise just how

arduous and time-consuming the process of live

communication is. If I did, I wouldn't squander the

time on asking a joke, warm-up question. I tell him I

have heard he has six different voices on his

synthesizer and that one is a woman's. Hawking lowers

his eyes and starts responding. After five minutes of

silence the nurse sitting beside me closes her eyes and

appears to go to sleep. I look around. On the

windowsill are framed photos stretching back through

Hawking's life. There are photos of one of his

daughters with her baby. I notice Hawking's hands are

thin and tapering. He is wearing black suede Kickers.

Another five minutes pass. There are pictures of

Marilyn Monroe on the wall, one of which has been

digitally manipulated to feature Hawking in the

foreground. I see a card printed with the slogan: "Yes,

I am the centre of the universe." I write it down and

turn the page in my notebook. It makes a tearing sound

and the nurse's eyes snap open. She goes over to

Hawking and, putting her hand on his head, says, "Now

then, Stephen," and gently wipes saliva from the side

of his mouth. Another five minutes pass. Then another.

Hawking's assistant, who sits behind him to see what is

going on on his screen, nods slightly. Here it comes:

"That was true of one speech synthesizer I had. But the

one I use normally has only one voice. It is 20 years

old, but I stick to it because I haven't found better

and because I'm known by it worldwide." That's it? The

fruit of 20 minutes' effort? This man is a Hercules."

NB -- the purported co-author is Mlodinow, not Mendelev.

Edited October 3, 2010 by william.scherk

[Brant Gaede]

Barbara Branden once said, "There is no first cause." I personally leave it at that.

--Brant

[MichaelPhilip]

Popper's objections to induction are the same as Hume's. He says he merely took Hume's objection more seriously than Hume did (although he disagrees with Hume's theory of knowledge). It seems pretty reasonable to consider Hume's objections "run of the mill" by now.

I feel weird saying this, but in some ways I give Popper more credit than you seem to do. It is a gross oversimplification to say that Popper's objections to induction were the same as Hume's.

Popper did more than reject Hume's epistemology; he rejected the theory of causation that was intimately linked to Hume's criticism of induction. As Popper wrote in "An Afterthought on Induction" (Objective Knowledge, p. 86):

This Humean argument of the invalidity of induction was, at the same time, the heart of his disproof of the existence of a causal link. But as such I found it neither very relevant nor valid.

Despite his various objections to Hume's approach, Popper claims to have found in Hume "a gem of priceless value for the theory of objective knowledge; a simple, straightforward, logical refutation of any claim that induction could be a valid argument, or a justifiable way of reasoning." Now, what was this priceless gem? Popper (p. 86) writes: "Induction, Hume had shown, was invalid because it led to an infinite regress."

The problem is that this was not Hume's argument. Hume contended that inductive reasoning involves circular reasoning, not an infinite regress. As he wrote in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding , when we argue from past experience to what will occur in the future, we do so on the supposition that "the future will resemble the past," and this "must be evidently going in a circle, and taking that for granted, which is the very point in question." (Selby-Bigge, 3rd ed., pp. 35-36.)

The difference here is substantial, because if it can be show that belief in the uniformity of nature can be justified independently of any particular inductive inference (as I believe it can), then Hume's argument lacks force. Not so if inductive reasoning involves an infinite regress, as Popper contends.

More needs to be said about this topic, obviously, but I want to do my best to avoid writing long and complex posts. In my experience people tend not to read such posts, or at least not read them very carefully.

Ghs

the infinite regress is pointed out by Hume as well, in his Treatise, Book 1, Part 3, Section 6.10):

"Shou’d it be said, that we have experience, that the same power continues united with the same object, and that like objects are endow’d with like powers, I wou’d renew my question, why from this experience we form any conclusion beyond those past instances, of which we have had experience. If you answer this question in the same manner as the preceding, your answer gives still occasion to a new question of the same kind, even in infinitum; which clearly proves, that the foregoing reasoning had no just foundation."

Popper tended to emphasize the infinite regress in his early writings; later the focus seemed to be more on circularity- circularity is the crux of the Popper-Miller theorem arguing against probabilistic induction for instance. But they're interchangeable in my humble opinion. Generally critical rationalists tend to lump the two together as horns of the Münchhausen trilemma.

[BaalChatzaf]

For all its limitations, we are stuck with Induction. It is the only way to get from experienced particulars to universally quantified general laws.

Wish as we may, there is no way to deduce the nature of the Cosmos a priori.

In addition, all learning is an exercise in induction. We do not deduce how to ride a bike. Nay, we get on the bike and wobble our way to success and skinned knees. Induction is almost an unconscious exercise as we implicitly hypothesize what moves work and what moves lead to sore elbows and skinned knees. Induction is how we learn. Induction is how we get to general hypotheses and laws. Induction and all its warts and incompleteness. It is our way of dealing with the world.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[MichaelPhilip]

even with the bike, what you're describing here is just a process of conjectures and refutations. Induction has nothing to do with it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

even with the bike, what you're describing here is just a process of conjectures and refutations. Induction has nothing to do with it.

Here we go.

You mean mathematical induction, Randian conceptual induction, inductive reasoning, electromagnetic induction or labor induction?

Man, I don't like know-it-all generalizations aimed at smug corrections of others.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

God I'm getting grumpy.

(A bigot is making me short-tempered on another thread.)

If I misread intentions, I apologize.

If I did not, it's better to get this crap out in the open in the beginning.

Snooty snobbishness wastes an awful lot of time and irritates the crap out of me (unless it's Daniel Barnes, who, for some damn reason, I like ).

Michael

[merjet]

even with the bike, what you're describing here is just a process of conjectures and refutations. Induction has nothing to do with it.

You mean mathematical induction, [snip]

I greatly doubt that. Mathematical induction is a very different thing. What he means is trial-and-error and probably to relentlessly downplay the successes, why they are successes, and accentuate the failures.

[BaalChatzaf]

even with the bike, what you're describing here is just a process of conjectures and refutations. Induction has nothing to do with it.

Here we go.

You mean mathematical induction, Randian conceptual induction, inductive reasoning, electromagnetic induction or labor induction?

Man, I don't like know-it-all generalizations aimed at smug corrections of others.

Michael

Puhlleeeeeeze. Do not conflate mathematical induction with empirical induction. They are totally distinct ideas which unfortunately use the same word "induction". Mathematical induction (as expressed in the Peano axioms for integer arithmatic) is an exercise in knocking over dominoes. Line up all the dominoes in such a way that if domino n falls it will knock over domino n+1. The induction axiom states given that the fall of domino n implies the fall of domino n+ 1 (for all n). Then if you knock over domino 1 eventually an domino you choose say domino N will fall over eventually.

This is different from inferring from a number of experiments that bodies dropped from a height such that their fall is not impeded measurably by air resistance fall the same way if they are dropped from the same height. On the Apollo 15 mission one of the astronauts dropped an eagle feather and a hammer from the same height. They hit the ground at the same time.

The inductive generalization is captured in Newton's Law of gravitation as a general mathematical proposition. Ignoring air resistance the acceleration of of all massive bodies dropped from the same height is the same.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Folks,

I was being sarcastic. Which is why I included electromagnetic induction, labor induction, etc.

I guess it fell flat.

I have an visceral aversion to statements like "induction has nothing to do with it" when spoken by someone new to learned people, especially when what they mean is "my own understanding (or my pet theory) of induction has nothing to do with that, so you are wrong."

Let's just say I find that imprecise.

I probably overreacted from my irritation with another matter here on OL.

So my apology to the new guy.

Michael

[merjet]

MSK,

The simplest kind of induction is often called enumerative induction, occasionally mistakenly called "mathematical induction."

[BaalChatzaf]

Barbara Branden once said, "There is no first cause." I personally leave it at that.

--Brant

Turtles all the way down.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

MSK,

The simplest kind of induction is often called enumerative induction, occasionally mistakenly called "mathematical induction."

Merlin,

That's an interesting summary. Thanks.

My biggest problem in discussions with critics of induction (or the "owners" of it ) is that they almost always boil down to 3 points:

1. Deduction is superior to induction.

2. Induction doesn't count because it is not deduction.

3. You have to read and navigate through a mountain of arcane literature before you can have any kind of understanding of the issue.

I'm more common-sense within the confines of my study right now. I hold that the human mind uses both induction and deduction (in basic terms, reasoning from the specific to the general, and from the general to the specific). It's not either-or. You cannot do one without the other. They are two parts of a larger whole, so to speak.

The trifecta experts seem to constantly disagree with this. After a while, once I detect the trifecta, I tend to lose interest.

Michael

[MichaelPhilip]

yes you're quite grumpy

No smugness on my part I assure you.

on induction, does it really matter which type? Induction as justifying propositional inferences was shot down quite nicely by Hume, induction as mere enumeration was called "puerile" by Francis Bacon, induction as creating good concepts and definitions is problematic . Most, if not all, theories about the logic of induction have been refuted. People can dilute the content of any claim about induction such that it includes so much that it's true but not of much merit. Not saying that this what Baal was implying but its a point worth making. This pleading for induction seems to me like a crying out for order in a universe that is disinterested.

I am pretty happy with guesswork. We encounter problems and apply our existent solutions which fail in detail and require modification or fresh guesses. Try as we may there is no way to be sure beforehand that our problem solving strategies will be effective. We hop on a bike for instance and the body and mind recalibrate their existing knowledge. Although we succeed in riding the bike there is no way we can avoid the possibility of a crash. Much of our learning from a priori knowledge is unconscious. Our way of dealing with the world is to guess (consciously or unconsciously) and test. There probably is room to talk about hierarchies in terms of how we guess:

http://faculty.education.illinois.edu/g-cziko/wm/09.html#Heading6


But Induction is just a fancy name for guesswork and offers no inkling of the underlying processes.