What can science tell us debate
The reason I thought it was so great had nothing to do with believing Wolport got squished in this one (his debate tactic seems to be limited to asking incredulous questions and emoting) but because I recently had a great back and forth with an old friend on the limitations of science and because Cowburn, whom I’ve never heard before, I think speaks very clearly on the issue.
I just heard Wolport for the first time last week on the Jan 2nd Episode of the ‘Unbelievable’ radio show (highly recommended show which has different perspectives discuss issues) debating William Dembski on Intelligent Design, and wasn’t very impressed with Wolport there either…It would be nice if he didn’t preface every second sentence with a condescending ‘I’m sorry but…’
Protected by danger
Yesterday I was standing on the platform waiting for the train with the frost on the ground and ‘breath smoke’ when I caught some movement out of the corner of my eye going across the tracks. I looked and saw a little tail sticking out under one rail and wiggling. A mouse. It eventually turned around poked it’s head out for a second before bolting over a tie and under the rail again to disappear. The little guy was an amusing start to my day.
I then saw the lights of a freight train in the distance. I find standing on the platform when a frieght train goes by exhilarating. They don’t slow down and they seem 10 times larger and more powerful than the commuter train as they hurtle past the platform blowing their horn and with the noise from the engines. To be that close to that much mass and power is amazing and it’s hard not to be nervous.
I saw the train coming and remembered the mouse – what was it going to do? I kept my eyes peeled at the general area to see if I could catch a glimpse of it retreating, but never saw anything as the towering machine hurtled past clattering, crashing, and shrieking as it went.
The rails seem to flex and move as the wheels pass over them and the thought of hundreds of tons rolling directly over the mouse, inches away from it’s tiny body intrigued me. Intrigued because I suspected the mouse was still there and that it was perfectly fine.
After the train and a minute passed a little nose poked out and the animal resumed amusing me for five minutes until more people started filling the platform as the West Coast Expresses arrival drew near. Despite the forces and physics above the mouse, ironically it was probably in the safest place it could be.
Not surprisingly It led to some contemplative thoughts on God and my relationship to Him.
We’re stinkin’ up the Science
I’m a few days late but this afternoon I caught on to the controversy when a hacker stole 10 years of email from a prominent climate change research center that seem to suggest that some climate change data was doctored or put in a context that made the global warming seem worse than it was among other things. Of course both sides of the issue are putting their spin on what happened but it was another thing to confirm for me that my skepticism on climate change seems to be well placed. The skepticism doesn’t stem from the fact that I think there is no global warming and want to be able to drive an SUV, but from other areas.
I’m still not sure why global warming (something that on the whole still has a lot of questions surrounding it and needs much more research) has to be tied to global stewardship …I think the stewardship part could and should be promoted and promulgated even if the climate temperature is in question (regardless of whether there is global warming or we are the cause of global warming we still need alternative renewable resources, recycling, taking care of our environment, and thinking about the future). My skepticism is also piqued when I walk into the store and see ‘green’ everything, (regardless of whether it is actually green or not) and realize the amount of money that many stand to lose if the fear of global change and the necessity of action in the form of consumerism isn’t hanging over our heads. My skepticism also stems generally from how politically hot the issue is, how so many people expect that warming is a given unquestioningly and many others for equally silly reasons (political leanings?) say it’s all bunk.
I don’t think that something like this scandal is the ‘a-ha’ proof that there really is no global warming, but just the unsurprising confirmation that scientists, like everyone else, will ‘interpret’ data in favour of whatever particular view they hold, and may feel inclined and even justified in ‘tweaking’ things when they don’t seem to be going their way.
“…we dont have a baloney detection device in our brain, so we have to do science. Science is the only and best tool we have for understanding true from false patterns, and for figuring out how the world really is.” – Michael Shermer
Michael Shermer’s a funny and brilliant guy but I’d have to disagree with his quote in as much as science being the ‘only and best tool’ we have for finding out how the world really is. I think this scandal is an example why I think it unbalanced to consider science the only and best. (Certainly philosophy would have many and varied things to say about it being the ‘only’ way of finding out how the world really is.) Science as a method, as an idea, may appear infallible, but the humans who carry out the enterprise certainly aren’t. It’s not just a matter of looking at numbers or evidence and not being able to argue as some suggest. Bias, belief, presupposition, and politics among other things, all play a part in science; in what is presented to us as evidence, all the time. Thankfully, for the most part scientific method works wonderfully despite human foibles but I believe science is working more optimally when it’s as free as possible from politics and the public hot button topics which is probably the main reason I’m more skeptical around issues like these.
Interesting post on Emergence and Potentiality
“Consider for instance an airplane. No one of its parts, singularly taken, can fly. The airplane, as a whole, can fly, that is shows the emergent property of flying. Where the potentiality of flying is hidden? It is neither in the single parts of the airplane nor in the totality of them when considered as mere set of elements. It is embodied in the cause or principle of the airplane, in its design, which gives organization to the set. This explains why the emergent properties are absent at the bottom level, the level of components: they arise thank to the cause/principle of the system and appear at the top level (the level of the fully assembled system). No wonder emergent properties are not reducible to properties of parts, the bottom level of the system: they don’t come from that direction, they come from the principle of the system. As A.K. Coomaraswamy wrote: “The principle of a thing is neither in one of its parts nor in the sum of its parts, rather where all parts are embedded in a unity without composition”.”
…
“Where are the proofs that: inorganic matter has the potentiality of life, brain has the potentiality of mind, a unique simple common ancestor has the potentiality of all species, the non human has the potentiality of the human, chance and physical-chemical laws have the potentiality of complex organization?”