Southern Methodist University speaks out against Intelligent Design

[PeterMP]

We know that for our local star the peak wavelength for radiation in the visible part of the spectrum is 570 nanometers. You call that yellow?

My Belgian nephews call it jaune.

No, you know when you measure the wavelength emitted that is 570 nm, but what is the wavelength emitted when you are not measuring? How do you know the act of measuring the wavelength does not change the wavelength?

It is a basic principle in science. It is impossible to know that the act of observing/measuring what you are studying has not changed it. At best you can be minimially intrusive and measure/observe using a couple of different methods at different times. It is unlikely that different methods at different times will have the same affect on the measurement, but you can never say for 100%.

[Om]

I just can't imagine that we'll ever find the answers to those BIG questions. Though I would agree it's a hell of a lot of fun to try and find out.

Probably not us, or even our successors a hundred (thousand?) generations from now. Does seem unlikely.

But given the accelerating rate of scientific discovery, and the ravenous spritual and intellectual curiosity of our species, looking both outward and in ... who knows? Maybe we'll get lucky and won't either kill ourselves or be killed by the universe for long enough for our kind to get "out there" in a meaningful way and at least learn a bit more about the right questions to be asked.

Meantime, for us ... as we continue to learn, it seems to me there is SO much beauty and awe and reward and experience and joy and sadness and love and anticipation of the unknown to be had, right here and now, and without having to convince ourselves we "know" all the answers as to why that is, to live deep, wonderful fulfilling lives.

[Sisyphus]

No, you know when you measure the wavelength emitted that is 570 nm, but what is the wavelength emitted when you are not measuring? How do you know the act of measuring the wavelength does not change the wavelength?

It is a basic principle in science. It is impossible to know that the act of observing/measuring what you are studying has not changed it. At best you can be minimially intrusive and measure/observe using a couple of different methods at different times. It is unlikely that different methods at different times will have the same affect on the measurement, but you can never say for 100%.

Knowing something in science is never with 100.00000% certainty. But when every different measurement repeated thousands or many more times, and all the methods, both direct and indirect, give an identical result, arguing that you don't know the wavelength is really 570nm is in the realm of philosophy rather than science. But excuse my simple crassness, I was an experimental physicist, not a theoretician.

Of course, this is quite different from an argument about Heisenberg and the energy exchange that occurs in making an observation.:geek:

[PeterMP]

Not sure how this follows from what I said.

My point was that since neither science nor religion can provide definitive answers at this time to the really big questions I posed, only theories, it's fallacial thinking to make up answers just so we'll ... well, have some. Like doctrinaire religion does on one end of the spectrum, and like hard atheism on the other.

Doesn't mean I don't think we should keep studying. I'm a big proponent of our keeping studying. I'm just a voice generally speaking out against filling in the blanks before we HAVE definitive answers, for whatever reasons we choose to do so.

Well, you were talking about knowing things definitively, and non-science people always get in their mind that you can't prove evolution, but you really can't definitively prove most things. I can definitively prove that when I look at the sun it is yellow, but I can't definitvely prove the sun is yellow.

Part of studying is having people w/ different view points discussing their points of view. This points out the strength and weakness of each point of view and the logical points that flow from them, and then in science allows experiments to be done to test them. This is a little different because creationism and intelligent design have no real testable points, but I don't think the disagreement is bad.

[Sisyphus]

and at least learn a bit more about the right questions to be asked.

Not knowing is true knowing. One knows truly only when one has the wisdom of emptiness. Wisdom is then limitless. Not knowing is knowing the essential. :cool:

Can we get a buddhist monk/grasshopper icon?

[Zguy28]

Wow, I go to lunch and this thread turns into a veritable Areopagus of ideas.

[PeterMP]

Knowing something in science is never with 100.00000% certainty. But when every different measurement repeated thousands or many more times, and all the methods, both direct and indirect, give an identical result, arguing that you don't know the wavelength is really 570nm is in the realm of philosophy rather than science. But excuse my simple crassness, I was an experimental physicist, not a theoretician.

Of course, this is quite different from an argument about Heisenberg and the energy exchange that occurs in making an observation.:geek:

I don't disagree w/ most things you have said. You have essentially reiterated what I said (you can't prove it definitively, but making the measurement repeatedly and w/ different techniques and always getting the same answer is very good evidence). I'm a biochemist, and I've seen on several occasions (this tends to happen to molecular biologist) where people think they have "proven" something, but failed to take into account that their method of observing the system might in fact be changing the system, and in fact, they didn't prove what they thought they did, but missed something really interesting because they did not take into account issues w/ the effect of their method of observation. And so it has become one of my pet peeves, when people talk about well we have proven X and it something that I try to hammer into my students.

My example of the sun might have been a little over the top, but I wanted something basic that everybody could grasp.

[headexplode]

Meantime, for us ... as we continue to learn, it seems to me there is SO much beauty and awe and reward and experience and joy and sadness and love and anticipation of the unknown to be had, right here and now, and without having to convince ourselves we "know" all the answers as to why that is, to live deep, wonderful fulfilling lives.

Why do I get the feeling you're going to show me a video of a dancing plastic grocery bag?

There is a tyranny in "knowing" the answers, or in trying to know them, and certainly claiming to know them already. With knowledge comes great responsibility and with ultimate knowledge comes ultimate responsibility. My question is should we draw the line somewhere? And where would that line be? We're coming into a scientific age that not only tries to play god, but tries to supplant god. And I don't mean god in any theological way, but rather to suggest the natural order of things. More and more, though, we seem to be using science and technology to defy the natural processes of life and death, to create our own order, rather than trying to figure out more about the one that's already there.

[headexplode]

Not knowing is true knowing. One knows truly only when one has the wisdom of emptiness. Wisdom is then limitless. Not knowing is knowing the essential. :cool:

Can we get a buddhist monk/grasshopper icon?

I love the saying that if you meet the Buddha on the street, you should kill him.

[Om]

Well, you were talking about knowing things definitively, and non-science people always get in their mind that you can't prove evolution, but you really can't definitively prove most things. I can definitively prove that when I look at the sun it is yellow, but I can't definitvely prove the sun is yellow.

I talked about very specific "things:" where the universe came from, what it is, and where if anywhere it's headed. Seems to me that comparing those questions to a scientific look at how human vision processes and interprets light waves from the sun is not really on the same level or germane to what I was trying to say.

Part of studying is having people w/ different view points discussing their points of view. This points out the strength and weakness of each point of view and the logical points that flow from them, and then in science allows experiments to be done to test them. This is a little different because creationism and intelligent design have no real testable points, but I don't think the disagreement is bad.

No argument.

Scientific Method, good.

Discussion, good.

Dogma and/or assuming facts not in evidence, bad.

Not knowing is true knowing. One knows truly only when one has the wisdom of emptiness. Wisdom is then limitless. Not knowing is knowing the essential. :cool:

I know.

Oh wait ....

[Om]

Why do I get the feeling you're going to show me a video of a dancing plastic grocery bag?

Pretty good flick. But no, not one I was likely to conjure here.

There is a tyranny in "knowing" the answers, or in trying to know them, and certainly claiming to know them already.

Intriguing. Define your use of "tyranny" here?

With knowledge comes great responsibility and with ultimate knowledge comes ultimate responsibility.

Also intriguing. Under what authority, and against what standards, would you say these things are governed?

My question is should we draw the line somewhere? And where would that line be? We're coming into a scientific age that not only tries to play god, but tries to supplant god. And I don't mean god in any theological way, but rather to suggest the natural order of things. More and more, though, we seem to be using science and technology to defy the natural processes of life and death, to create our own order, rather than trying to figure out more about the one that's already there.

I'm not sure I follow this. When you say we're "defying the natural processes of life and death," for instance, are you questionning whether or not, until such time as we "figure out" all there is to know about life processes on Earth, we should be employing such artificial development as in-utero pre-natal care and vaccines against fatal diseases?

I assume by "the line" you're loosely referring to moral questions like cloning and abortion and the like. I agree those are hard questions. I'd like to think that as we mature (be it slowly) as a species, we'll continue getting better and better and finding the balance between rushing forward simply because we can and/or it's profitable, and shutting down the labs and turning off the telescopes and becoming static.

[Monte51Coleman]

Doesn't mean I don't think we should keep studying. I'm a big proponent of our keeping studying. I'm just a voice generally speaking out against filling in the blanks before we HAVE definitive answers, for whatever reasons we choose to do so.

Well then, could you please tell me what's so bad about nightlights?

Next thing you know my binky will be endangered!

[headexplode]

Pretty good flick. But no, not one I was likely to conjure here.

It is one of my favorite films.

Intriguing. Define your use of "tyranny" here?

Sometimes we miss out on life because we're constantly striving to figure it out. Or maybe we think we've got it all figured out and so we spend our times trying to show everyone the light, potentially missing out on the "beauty and awe and reward and experience and joy and sadness and love and anticipation of the unknown to be had." Even if we really could know what this damn thing is all about isn't it possible the weight of it all would crush our spirits? And if the answer isn't what we want to hear, would we even accept it? I believe there's such a thing as knowing too much. I believe there was a time before language and before "thought" as we know it existed. Before time as we know it existed. When just the mere fact of life or of being was enough to make you drop your jaw. This flower is blue and green and red. I don't care why or how I just know it is and it is amazing. I know I may sound like some sort of intellectual Luddite, and perhaps a part of me is, or wishes I was. But I'm not. I believe in science and the merits of science and that through the scientific method there are great things to be had and known. I also believe there's a part of life that is lost in the pursuit of ultimate knowledge, and maybe even knowlegde itself, and that sometimes, as the cliche goes, "ignorance is bliss." I don't think ignorance is always a bad thing. (I know I'll be crucified for this one.) A better explanation than I can provide might be found in The Doors of Perception, by Aldous Huxley, where this idea is elucidated further.

Also intriguing. Under what authority, and against what standards, would you say these things are governed?

This I can't answer. I don't know that there is any "authority" that governs anything. Well, obviously something governs the way the universe works but I have no idea what it might be. For all I know we're a fart in the wind. I know there is an order that existed before man ever showed up, and probably will go one existing after man is gone. I know that it's dangerous to mess too much with that order.

I'm not sure I follow this. When you say we're "defying the natural processes of life and death," for instance, are you questionning whether or not, until such time as we "figure out" all there is to know about life processes on Earth, we should be employing such artificial development as in-utero pre-natal care and vaccines against fatal diseases?

I assume by "the line" you're loosely referring to moral questions like cloning and abortion and the like. I agree those are hard questions. I'd like to think that as we mature (be it slowly) as a species, we'll continue getting better and better and finding the balance between rushing forward simply because we can and/or it's profitable, and shutting down the labs and turning off the telescopes and becoming static.

I was referring more to the latter paragraph. Sometimes we force life and death when maybe we shouldn't. The case of Terri Schiavo comes to mind, an instance where someone was kept alive for years after perhaps they were supposed to die. Or the possibility that one might be able to clone one's baby to whatever specifications one desires. Or the idea of us going into space to "conquer" it rather than explore it. Or even the drive for us to eradicate disease. Disease is a part of the whole shabang, death is a part of it, yet we seem to try to outrun it. I think this notion "tyrannizes" us to a certain degree.

Should we shut down the labs and turn off the telescopes? Absolutely not. There's nothing wrong with learning more about your environment and where it all comes from. Should we attempt to dominate the cosmos and beome, in essence, gods ourselves? If we do I'm afraid that spells the end for mankind. A balance must be struck between the desire to gain knowledge and the desire to conquer it.

[Sisyphus]

Not knowing is true knowing. One knows truly only when one has the wisdom of emptiness. Wisdom is then limitless. Not knowing is knowing the essential.

I know.

Oh wait ....

Of course, the wisdom of emptiness makes you a very slippery debater on a message board.

[PeterMP]

Should we shut down the labs and turn off the telescopes? Absolutely not. There's nothing wrong with learning more about your environment and where it all comes from. Should we attempt to dominate the cosmos and beome, in essence, gods ourselves? If we do I'm afraid that spells the end for mankind. A balance must be struck between the desire to gain knowledge and the desire to conquer it.

IMO, there is a difference between science and the uses of science/information, such as technology. There is nothing inheriently wrong w/ knowing or making an effort to know. What that information is used for is clearly a different thing, but even if the use of the information has likely bad consequences, I don't think that is a reason to stop the effort to know.

I will even add to what you said about keeping people alive, there is a great effort to cure diseases, essentially every disease. I was reading Peter King's column this week and he was asking why we can't cure cancer yet. On an individual basis, it would be good if we could cure cancer, but what does that really mean. Many people would live longer, but in the end everybody dies. People talk about cancer being an awful way to die, but the saddest way I've ever seen somebody die is essentially through old age.

Nobody wants to see their loved ones die, but is there really an advantage to delaying it indefinitely?

[Sisyphus]

Nobody wants to see their loved ones die, but is there really an advantage to delaying it indefinitely?

I think I appreciate technology the most when it shortens certain peoples' lives.

[headexplode]

I think I appreciate technology the most when it shortens certain peoples' lives.

How German of you.

[Om]

II will even add to what you said about keeping people alive, there is a great effort to cure diseases, essentially every disease. I was reading Peter King's column this week and he was asking why we can't cure cancer yet. On an individual basis, it would be good if we could cure cancer, but what does that really mean. Many people would live longer, but in the end everybody dies. People talk about cancer being an awful way to die, but the saddest way I've ever seen somebody die is essentially through old age.

Nobody wants to see their loved ones die, but is there really an advantage to delaying it indefinitely?

Great question.

Leads to questions of overpopulation, or alternatively underpopulation should it turn out indefinite life serves to quell man's innate desire to propagate to leave his mark upon the world.

But I say definitely yes ... in the hopes we would put that longevity to practical use in getting a seed population off the Earth and headed out into the solar system (and, eventually, beyond) to start the process of guarding against an apocalytic event--man made or natural--wiping out the species.

A.C. Clarke said "the stars are not for man," and he was right. They are not a Man who lives a brief spark of less than 100 terrestrial years. The scale is simply too vast. But a Man who could live a 1000, 2000, 5000 ... it changes the whole paradigm.

[PeterMP]

A.C. Clarke said "the stars are not for man," and he was right. They are not a Man who lives a brief spark of less than 100 terrestrial years. The scale is simply too vast. But a Man who could live a 1000, 2000, 5000 ... it changes the whole paradigm.

But this my point at least partly. Okay, you are never going to die of cancer, but you are still going to get old in the normal time scale, and have all the things associated w/ age happen to you. My wife's grandfather is approaching 100. He has no real health issues that are life threatening, and he is still pretty mentally sharp, his short term memory has diminshed some, but not that much, but just as part of aging, his body has weakened. His legs are getting to the point that they can't carry him, he has trouble opening cans, etc. If I could cure cancer tomorrow, I would just be committing that many more people to the same fate. Maybe in the future we can over come these things, but they have little to do w/ curing cancer.

[Prosperity]

you don't need certainty to be justified in thinking you have knowledge.

[dfitzo53]

Wow, I go to lunch and this thread turns into a veritable Areopagus of ideas.

I'm still interested to hear where you were going as far as cause and effect.

[Om]

But this my point at least partly. Okay, you are never going to die of cancer, but you are still going to get old in the normal time scale, and have all the things associated w/ age happen to you. My wife's grandfather is approaching 100. He has no real health issues that are life threatening, and he is still pretty mentally sharp, his short term memory has diminshed some, but not that much, but just as part of aging, his body has weakened. His legs are getting to the point that they can't carry him, he has trouble opening cans, etc. If I could cure cancer tomorrow, I would just be committing that many more people to the same fate. Maybe in the future we can over come these things, but they have little to do w/ curing cancer.

Sounds to me like you're talking about the here and now--or at least the near-future. Today's basic limitations on medicine, today's still slowly increasing expected lifespans, today's expected "quality of life" lifespans. In my post you quoted, though, I was talking more in terms of a several centuries or even millenia down the road. The question was is there a benefit to extending life indefinitely. I read that to mean useful, productive years of life.

Even today we're replacing limbs, joints ... hearts. It's not a big leap to imagine that in the relative short term we'll be able to replace any body part other than perhaps the brain with a more efficient and as necessary replaceable model. And I'd not rule out the brain, either. The parallel advances in study of the way the brain works and advances in computer technology suggest to me a not-too-distant future where memory and "thought" itself will be downloadable into permanent accessible storage capable of interfacing with the aformentioned replaceable parts. With guys like little old you and me at the controls.

The day of the Manchine is coming, my friend.

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - A. C. Clarke

[Zguy28]

I'm still interested to hear where you were going as far as cause and effect.

I thought the thread was going in a different direction, so...

Do you believe in the Big Bang Theory?

[dfitzo53]

I thought the thread was going in a different direction, so...

Do you believe in the Big Bang Theory?

Most threads go in multiple directions at once, and there's no harm in that as long as there's some kind of order. To answer your question, I'm not sure. I accepted it readily as a kid just as I accepted anything else I read in science books. Right now I don't know enough about the real scientific support for it to say either way.

[Sisyphus]

I thought the thread was going in a different direction, so...

Do you believe in the Big Bang Theory?

The evidence for a Big Bang is compelling.

Anticipating your next question ... no, a god isn't required to cause the Big Bang.

At the quantum level, the common sense rules of cause and effect we rely on are suspended. Quantum cosmology, and in particular the work of Hartle and Hawking, shows that the Universe coming from 'nothing' is perfectly within the laws of physics and consistent with other phenomena we observe. :geek:

That's probably not a very satisfactory answer for you, but I didn't make the natural world and can't be blamed for how bizarre it seems to our simple brains conditioned as they are to our earthly experiences.