Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
Claire Berlinski, Ed. ·
June 14, 2011 at 10:58pm
My father reflects upon the expectations he once held for scientific inquiry and what he imagined we would know in the year 2011. We find ourselves, he says, without the unifying, powerful theories he expected to see by now.
Instead, he suggests, we're in "slack-jawed perplexity."
- Comment (66)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
Aug '10
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
David Williamson
Actually, Stephen Hawking has recently talked about before the Big Bang (although, of course, there is no time before the Big Bang :). He claims that God is not necessary, as the elusive "theory of everything" explains everything...
The kicker on the article tells you pretty much all you need to know: "The Big Bang was the result of the inevitable laws of physics and did not need God to spark the creation of the Universe, Stephen Hawking has concluded."
Totally overlooking the fact that if God created everything, He created the inevitable laws of physics too.
I admire Stephen Hawking, but he has always had that metaphysical blind spot -- the inability to imagine that "inevitable physics" might not be inevitable in the metaphysical sense, but instead be contingent on a Creator.
Edited on June 15, 2011 at 6:38amMar '11
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
The kicker on the article tells you pretty much all you need to know: "The Big Bang was the result of the inevitable laws of physics and did not need God to spark the creation of the Universe, Stephen Hawking has concluded."
Totally overlooking the fact that if God created everything, He created the inevitable laws of physics too.
Well, if I may quote another part of the article:
"The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second. If you like, you can call the laws of science 'God', but it wouldn't be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions."
i.e. God = The Laws of Physics
That's a religion I can believe in - like Einstein believing in the God of Spinoza:
God = The Universe
For both Hawking and Einstein, it's only the personal God that is unnecessary.
May '10
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
Berlinski:
"The general view was that the scientific worldview would converge to a fundamental set of principles. In other words, physical, largely physical, and that everything woudl be explained ultimately in terms of very powerful theories. Unifying, simple theories. And boy, the world in 2011 just doesn't look like that. It really doesn't look like that at all."
How naive everyone was in the past!
Mar '11
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
"Slack Jawed Perplexity"
Like the phrase. I'm not particularly concerned by that fact. Wonder is the beginning of wisdom. The universe, it turns out, is vastly more complicated than has been supposed--that doesn't necessarily rule out the fact that there is unifying theory somewhere out there to scientifically explain it (waiting to be discovered). It does mean that teasing nature's secrets out doesn't happen overnight. Interestingly, it seems to presuppose a certain level of technological development in order to even observe some of these mysteries. Does it presuppose a level of moral enlightment?
"How naive was everyone in the past"
One of the sentiments that grates on me most.
Aug '10
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
David Williamson
"The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science?"
He misses a third option: that this universe was determined by a law of science, and this law of science is a contingent, created thing, created for reasons not knowable to physics.
David Williamson
i.e. God = The Laws of Physics
That's a religion I can believe in.
I'm happy this is a religion you can believe in. Certainly, there are far worse things than the laws of physics to call God.
Unnecessary. Sure, a God who is more than physical law may be unnecessary. But not logically impossible, nor, I think, unworthy.
From my perspective, the cosmos itself is unnecessary, a gift that did not have to be. (Even if its proximate cause is "inevitable physical laws", those laws are themselves part of the cosmos and a gift that did not have to be.) And I find the Giver of this gift (whoever or whatever it may be) worthy of personal gratitude and adoration.
May '10
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
Crow's Nest:
"How naive was everyone in the past"
One of the sentiments that grates on me most.
Don't worry, it was tongue in cheek. But I also don't like this sense that we've "disappointed" people by not meeting their expectations for advancement. How can we judge how realistic those expectations were?
Mar '11
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
From my perspective, the cosmos itself is unnecessary, a gift that did not have to be. (Even if its proximate cause is "inevitable physical laws", those laws are themselves part of the cosmos and a gift that did not have to be.) And I find the Giver of this gift (whoever or whatever it may be) worthy of personal gratitude and adoration. · Jun 14 at 10:59pm
Of course I respect such a perspective - maybe I wish I had it. My point of view is similar to the Hindu perspective of the Universe coming into existence only for the enjoyment of the creator, and for no other reason - it is all meaningless, in the best possible way. But in Hinduism, there is no personal God - only the dance of Shiva... which is what Physics is.
Aug '10
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
Mark Wilson
But I also don't like this sense that we've "disappointed" people by not meeting their expectations for advancement. How can we judge how realistic those expectations were?
I don't know, except by my own experience.
Which is that one of the things I found fascinating about science as a child is that for every fresh answer I grasped, I could think of a dozen more questions. So I never personally expected advancement in science to lead to anything but more "slack-jawed perplexity", or to put it in a more flattering light, awe and wonder.
In my imagination, the scientist was Tennyson's Ulysses, and the scientist saw discovery as
"Slack-jawed perplexity". My expectations are not disappointed.
Aug '10
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
David Williamson
Of course I respect such a perspective
Thanks for your respect. I can never tell with strangers whether they've heard a perspective like mine before or not, so sometimes I just let 'er rip, hoping I won't be too preachy.
David Williamson
My point of view is similar to the Hindu perspective of the Universe coming into existence only for the enjoyment of the creator, and for no other reason- it is all meaningless, in the best possible way.
How wonderful! That's my perspective, too. I use the language that "God" created the "world" (cosmos) out of "love", but it amounts to the same thing.
David Williamson
But in Hinduism, there is no personal God - only the dance of Shiva... which is what Physics is.
I can picture that. Thanks.
Interestingly, Christian theology also has a dance-perspective, although it describes a personal (literally person-al, having persons) God. That perspective is perichoresis, meaning both "dancing around" and "indwelling".
As the Wiktionary puts it, "The relationship between the Persons of the Trinity was described, by early Christians, as an eternal Holy Dance of each Person in the Trinity around and within the Others."
Happy coincidences...
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
David Williamson
Tommy De Seno: Science has a grave fear of proving the existence of God; as big as the fear religion once held that science might prove the nonexistence of God.
The left once excoriated the Pope for holding that we shouldn't look further back than the Big Bang. Now that Stephen Hawking says the same thing, the search for truth may be stalled, awaiting the advances of braver people than us.
Actually, Stephen Hawking has recently talked about before the Big Bang (although, of course, there is no time before the Big Bang :). He claims that God is not necessary, as the elusive "theory of everything" explains everything. So, these things go in cycles, as do Universes... · Jun 14 at 9:10pm
Talking about it? You and I are talking about it. In his latest book, Hawking says don't bother studying before Plank Time in the Big Bang.
You are right the "Theory of Everything" is elusive - so much so that Hawking has stopped looking.
Pre-Plank Time is a supernatural event. Supernatural, although a scientific term, scares scientists like thunder scared ancient man. That's why Hawking now says "Let's not look there."
Edited on June 15, 2011 at 5:46pmNov '10
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
"He that sits in the heavens shall laugh. Adonay will have them in derision."
Maybe "slack-jawed perplexity" was the expected outcome.
Jun '10
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
Tommy De Seno
...Supernatural, although a scientific term, scares scientists like thunder scared ancient man. That's why Hawking now says "Let's not look there." · Jun 15 at 3:58am
Really? Many so-called supernatural phenomena have been disproved. We know with a high measure of certainty, for example, that plagues are not caused by divine retribution or works of the devil but by viruses and bacteria. Other so called supernatural events, like speaking in tongues can be explained as neurological episodes as indeed can many auditory or visual hallucinations.
I'm not sure where this notion of scientists fearing to deal with purported supernatural events or phenomena arises unless it's a reference to the previous torment or ostracization visited upon them when religions felt that they and they alone were the ultimate authority on how the natural world worked.
The challenge for science with refuting supernatural claims is that some of them tend to be unfalsifiable where the tools of measurement or analysis cannot be applied. I'm still waiting for an angel of the Lord to publicly debate Richard Dawkins on whether it exists or not but don't think that will happen anytime soon.
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
Brian Watt
Tommy De Seno
...Supernatural, although a scientific term, scares scientists like thunder scared ancient man. That's why Hawking now says "Let's not look there." · Jun 15 at 3:58am
I'm not sure where this notion of scientists fearing to deal with purported supernatural events or phenomena arises unless it's a reference to the previous torment or ostracization visited upon them when religions felt that they and they alone were the ultimate authority on how the natural world worked.
My reference is to pre-Plank time in the Big Bang. The laws of nature did not exist. The events that took place were, by scientific definition, supernatural.
Hawking now wants to stop the search at Plank time. Why? The left mocked the Pope when he said don't go back too far. Now that the sceintific result is a supernatural beginning pre-Plank time, Hawking calls off the search.
You'll have to educate me on when "religions felt that they and they alone were the ultimate authority on how the natural world worked."
As I recall history, the Catholic Church deferred to scientists on how the natural world worked.
Jun '10
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
Tommy De Seno
You'll have to educate me on when "religions felt that they and they alone were the ultimate authority on how the natural world worked."
The pronouncement of condemnation by Galileo's interrogators:
"We say, pronounce, sentence, and declare that you, the said Galileo, by reason of matters adduced in trial, and by you confessed as above, have rendered yourself in the judgement of this Holy Office vehemently suspected of heresy, namely of having believed and held the doctrine which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures—that the Sun is the centre of the world and does not move from east to west and that the Earth moves and is not the centre of the world."
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
Brian Watt
Tommy De Seno
You'll have to educate me on when "religions felt that they and they alone were the ultimate authority on how the natural world worked."
The pronouncement of condemnation by Galileo's interrogators:
You're missing the context of history. The Church followed science. It wasn't the Church who developed a geocentric solar system. It was a scientist - Ptolmy (and before him Aristotle).
The Church adopted what the scientists of their day told them.
1400 years later a Catholic cleric named Copernicus figured out the earth went around the sun. What did the Church do? Probably what you would want - told their own cleric to leave science to the scientists and rejected the Priest's theory.
About 200 years later Galileo tried to revive the Priest's heliocentrism. The Church again said leave science to the scientists (even though the scientist Ptolmy was wrong, and the Priest Copernicus was right).
Your assertion that it was religion that was thwarting good science is wrong. It was politically correct bad scientists.
Also, the Big Bang itself was the theory of another Catholic Priest. Science rebuffed it because he was a priest, until he was proved right.
May '10
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
Tommy De Seno
Brian Watt
The pronouncement of condemnation by Galileo's interrogators:
You're missing the context of history. The Church followed science.
How does that square with "namely of having believed and held the doctrine which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures"?
Scientifically, neither model was false. Since Newton didn't publish the Principia until 1687, nobody knew about classical dynamics and inertial reference frames, nor that Kepler's orbital laws could be derived from Newton's more fundamental dynamical laws.
Kinematically, heliocentrism and geocentrism are equally valid.
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
Mark Wilson
Tommy De Seno
Brian Watt
The pronouncement of condemnation by Galileo's interrogators:
You're missing the context of history. The Church followed science.
How does that square with "namely of having believed and held the doctrine which is false and contrary to the sacred and divine Scriptures"?
Scientifically, neither model was false. Since Newton didn't publish the Principia until 1687, nobody knew about classical dynamics and inertial reference frames, nor that Kepler's orbital laws could be derived from Newton's more fundamental dynamical laws.
Kinematically, heliocentrism and geocentrism are equally valid. · Jun 15 at 1:31pm
As to squaring the language, one bad Pope doesn't spoil the whole bunch. There are some references in Psalms I believe to an earth that does not move (True if you are talking about orbit). If some Popes want to take songs and poems literally, so be it. But most Popes as best as I can tell did not.
Long before that Pope, the Church accepted geocentricity because the scientists said so.
As to your second point, I guess you are rejecting Rand and accepting Hawking, as per our other conversation.
Jun '10
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
Tommy De Seno
Brian Watt
Tommy De Seno
You'll have to educate me on when "religions felt that they and they alone were the ultimate authority on how the natural world worked."
The pronouncement of condemnation by Galileo's interrogators:
You're missing the context of history.
No, context is not the issue. The text of the condemnation says what it says. The Church had decided what the truth of the natural world was and were compelling Galileo to agree with a claim that he knew to be false and what others in the Church knew to be false. It doesn't matter whether the Church came to this conclusion from careful deliberate examination of science, divine revelation or Bozo the Clown, the doctrine of Earth-centrism was not to be contradicted without inviting heresy. Galileo's methods, his snarkiness to the Pope, and other ancillary issues do not negate or nullify what the text of the condemnation clearly states.
May '10
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
Tommy De Seno
Mark Wilson
Kinematically, heliocentrism and geocentrism are equally valid.
I guess you are rejecting Rand and accepting Hawking, as per our other conversation.
No Tommy, I'm not rejecting objective reality. I never did reject Hawking; I think MDR is a useful principle.
You are misinterpreting the kinematical concept of reference frames to indicate the subjectivity of experience as it pertains to scientific models. Reference frames are objectively defined and are related by specific mathematical equations. They are not the subjective experience I think you are talking about.
Edited on June 16, 2011 at 12:14amJun '10
Re: Why Haven't Our Great Expectations of the Sciences Been Met?
Tommy De Seno
As to squaring the language, one bad Pope doesn't spoil the whole bunch. There are some references in Psalms I believe to an earth that does not move (True if you are talking about orbit). If some Popes want to take songs and poems literally, so be it. But most Popes as best as I can tell did not.
Long before that Pope, the Church accepted geocentricity because the scientists said so.
Not to butt in...but the Bible is riddled with problematic and contradictory passages that run counter to logic or our present understanding of the natural world from Genesis on. It has less to do with Popes and more to do with what were thought to be, or are still considered to be, true events and what is considered divine revelation. The last 100 years or so has seen the expansion of deep and penetrating non-ecclesiastical biblical scholarship and hermeneutic examination of the historical texts and sources as well as other concurrent mythologies and stories have rendered serious questions about the authenticity of Scripture as the revealed word of God.