Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
A Scientist Bellyaches in the New York Times–and David Berlinski Replies
Last Wednesday, physicist Adam Frank published a column in the New York Times entitled “Welcome to the Age of Denial.” Frank’s complaint? That since the middle of the last century, science has lost ground in American life. “In that era..,” Frank writes, “politicians were expected to support science financially but otherwise leave it alone….”
Over the weekend, I found myself discussing Frank’s article with the philosopher and mathematician David Berlinski, the author of many works, including Infinite Ascent: A Short History of Mathematics. (Here at Ricochet, David will also be known as Claire’s father.) “I read…[Frank’s column],” David wrote, “with a sense of fascinated contempt.”
David’s thoughts on the piece proved so fascinating–and so wonderfully provocative–that I asked his permission to post them. Note that I asked David how a layman should think about science:
How should a layman think about science? The question carries with it a suggestion that whatever thinking we laymen are doing, we are not doing it well. We need to do better if we are to appreciate science and various scientists more. Why we should appreciate them at all is a point never mentioned and a question never raised.
The New York Times op-ed to which you linked is almost a paradigm case in which complaints of this sort are aired, and aired always with a sense of self-pitying grievance. I read it with a sense of fascinated contempt. Can you imagine a distinguished attorney, one specializing in contracts & torts, say, making this sort of argument in print? Yet the law is, I dare say, far more important to human happiness and well-being than astrophysics, Frank’s speciality.
The age of denial indeed! What is so striking about all this is the absolute refusal of the scientific community ever — not even once — to examine its own behavior and especially the tendency of the scientific community both to an extravagant boastfulness and to a barely concealed eagerness to help itself to an ever larger portion of the national wealth. These people have become the robber barons of the 21st century and when they are not asking for more money they are busy annoying the rest of us with any number of absurd and inflated and very commonly deceitful claims about what they are doing.
Climate denial? Who knows? Not me, for sure. But what I do know is that a great many people have read and studied the East Anglia e-mails, and that as a result they do know, and know with certainty, that climate science is and has been in the hands of intellectual mediocrities and pious charlatans. Evolution denial? More of the same. Even as we are flogged by various loathsome propaganda organs toward an ever more perfect admiration for Darwinian theory, now said to explain everything from the painting of the Mona Lisa to the formation of the universe, anyone reading the research literature, which is neither inaccessible nor more intellectually challenging than Parcheesi, knows perfectly well that virtually nothing remains of that gaseous old theory and that almost everything in biology is unclear and so open to question, Darwin’s theory answering about as many questions as old-fashioned astrology, which is to say, no questions whatsoever.
The scientific establishment, “eager to help itself to an ever-larger portion of the national wealth,” and whining all the way to the bank. No one combines sheer intellectual command with a willingness to talk back like David Berlinski.
Published in General
In what sense is a finite universe, considered as a whole, an open system?
– but please consider what it is that you’re admitting: I posit that the universe is the creation of the Intergalactic Federation, whose CEO is the Warlord Xenu.
This is just as unverifiable as your claim of God and has the inconvenient problem that any fool can make the same claim.
I would gladly engage in a debate pitting my God against your warlord Xenu. I think you’d find that the fact of allowing such debate would not result in quite the slippery slope that you suggest. Please keep in mind, though, that you are conflating universes… I am aware of no warlord Xenu among the Intergalactic Federation of Planets.
Oh, Brian… and that could go round and round and round. He may well be a good Catholic person, but if he is an evolutionist of note, he is not likely a good Catholic theologian. So let’s counter, then, with a strong theologian of note. You won’t listen to him, though, because he took an oath of God and not Hippocrates…. At some point, we may need some sort of moderator to determine whose opinions actually count, and who is to be discounted – as you’ve already done – as too cooky. I suppose that moderator will be you?
Funny thing, though, is that this is the very point Peter was making, and the whole phenomenon that Berlinski is dissecting.
Well, so long as the hand of god is on the tiller of the ship of species and we can’t detect god then benighted scientists and engineers are doomed to seek fruitless materialist solutions to these troublesome questions.
I’m not so sure that it needs to be an either/or between mysticism and materialism. There was a time when the Church rejected both extremes (actually, most continue to do so) and wasn’t seen as unreasonable. Theoretical science – if not wholly useless – is almost a branch of philosophy, but poor philosophy. You are an engineer. You set out to solve a problem. How do I cool Ryan’s homebrew in 100 degree weather without starting a fire on his solid-state-relay. I trust you to answer that question, and it wouldn’t make a lick of difference to me whether you believed man evolved from apes or not. Most scientists have specified areas of knowledge in that same manner, and most don’t rely in any way even on their being an answer to those theoretical issues. Yet, they all demand that we accept their chosen answer if we are to be taken seriously.
Oh, Brian… and that could go round and round and round. He may well be a good Catholic person, but if he is an evolutionist of note, he is not likely a good Catholic theologian. So let’s counter, then, with a strong theologian of note.
Catholic Theology to my understanding doesn’t find anything controversial about evolution. The strong dislike of evolution is mostly an evangelical phenomenon deriving from their insistence on a literal interpretation of Biblical texts. Thus in my opinion a lot of the brouhaha over accepting evolution comes from bad theology.
Oh, Brian… and that could go round and round and round. He may well be a good Catholic person, but if he is an evolutionist of note, he is not likely a good Catholic theologian. So let’s counter, then, with a strong theologian of note.
Catholic Theology to my understanding doesn’t find anything controversial about evolution. The strong dislike of evolution is mostly an evangelical phenomenon deriving from their insistence on a literal interpretation of Biblical texts. Thus in my opinion a lot of the brouhaha over accepting evolution comes from bad theology.
I do not think this is even remotely accurate, unless Catholic theology has made some drastic changes over the past several years. What you do have, however, is a strong liberal strand of Catholicism – the Pelosi/Biden/Kennedy branch. They also accept abortion, so yes, I am being discriminating in my definition of “Catholic theology.”
It might be better to have an actual Catholic chime in, but I’ll second Valiuth: the Catholic Church’s official teachings on this matter are that God created the Universe and that He has a covenantial relationship with man that goes back to a historical Adam & Eve, the only being created in his image; whether this means they were the descended from australopithecines or created from earth and rib is interesting, but not important.
Young Earth Creationism is therefore theologically acceptable to Catholics, as is any theory of evolution that allows for (or positively asserts) a roll for God. Therefore, ID is okay, as is theistic evolution of the Francis Collins variety.
Berlinski summarizes his doubts about evolution theory here. His writing is unnecessarily flamboyant, but after reading carefully I was able to follow his arguments, and they are compelling. For example, regarding huge gaps in the fossil record:
Questions Berlinski raises can be explained away, but at some point the accumulated (and contrary) explanations begin to sound like the over-complicated explanations necessary to maintain an earth-centered universe. Evolution theory has an intuitive appeal that seems elegantly simple, just as the theory of an earth-centered universe had intuitive appeal that seemed elegantly simple–until you carefully compare it to observed reality.
I would say that the difference between us is that I have been explicitly trained in the physical sciences while you were specifically trained in law.
I would defer to your judgment as a lawyer about the law inasmuch as I understand that you interpret the law through your biases but also your experiences in doing your job, also realizing that Erwin Chemerinsky might reach vastly different conclusions about it than you might.
The difference being that in the end, the law is highly malleable in the hands of an appropriately gifted orator, but science is not. There are conjectures and theories and then there are data that either confirm or deny those conjectures and theories.
I think you should engage your powers of observation as if you had been dropped on this planet without any of your preexisting or societally implanted biases but in full command of your faculties and see where your powers of observation lead you.
Amen to Valiuth’s, Astonishing’s, and Rachel Lu’s last comments.
Yep to all that.
I agree, David Stove is fantastic. And a hat tip for the phrase: “tipping of scared cows of science”. I am going to shamelessly steal that. :)
For a similar feeling of joy at the tipping of sacred cows of science, I recommend David Stove’s, Darwinian Fairytales: Selfish Genes, Errors of Heredity and Other Fables of Evolution.
It’s so good, I predict an editor posting on the book within a week of this comment. ·2 hours ago
Edited 2 hours ago
Tim H.
Speaking as a fellow astrophysicist, here are my thoughts: “This is not a world the scientists I trained with would recognize.”
Did a bit of review of the philosophy of science (it’s been quite awhile) and ran across an article listing some ideas that have made their way into the mainstream, together with “who’s who” in the philosophy of science. Listed with Aristotle, Bacon and Descartes (among others) was
Paul Feyerabend (1924-1994) – “A rebel within the philosophy of science. He argued that there is no scientific method or, in his words, “anything goes.” Without regard to rational guidelines, scientists do whatever they need to in order to come up with new ideas and persuade others to accept them.”
Al Gore’s (and for that matter, the EPA’s, etc.) kinda’ guy…
Question for Fred and Majestyk (and Peter also):
Is there a culture/religion/scientific inconsistency in his discussion of ‘climate denial’ and ‘evolution denial’?
You both, especially Majestyk, comment about these sorts of things regularly. Dr. Berlinski’s contrast of the two is interesting. What are your thoughts?
I would gladly engage in a debate pitting my God against your warlord Xenu. I think you’d find that the fact of allowing such debate would not result in quite the slippery slope that you suggest. Please keep in mind, though, that you are conflating universes… I am aware of no warlord Xenu among the Intergalactic Federation of Planets. ·3 hours ago
I’ll refer you to Tom Cruise’s agent. He can arrange the necessary tutelage re: Warlord Xenu… for the right price.
Young Earth Creationism is therefore theologically acceptable to Catholics, as is any theory of evolution that allows for (or positively asserts) a roll for God. Therefore, ID is okay, as is theistic evolution of the Francis Collins variety.
Again, I have to disagree with a few of your statements (though not your comment in its entirety). I think it is hugely important, rather than simply interesting, especially on a philosophical level, and Catholicism is massively philosophical.
I would gladly engage in a debate pitting my God against your warlord Xenu. I think you’d find that the fact of allowing such debate would not result in quite the slippery slope that you suggest. Please keep in mind, though, that you are conflating universes… I am aware of no warlord Xenu among the Intergalactic Federation of Planets. ·3 hours ago
I’ll refer you to Tom Cruise’s agent. He can arrange the necessary tutelage re: Warlord Xenu… for the right price. ·2 hours ago
I’m afraid my pockets are not nearly deep enough!
The difference being that in the end, the law is highly malleable in the hands of an appropriately gifted orator, but science is not. There are conjectures and theories and then there are data that either confirm or deny those conjectures and theories.
I think you should engage your powers of observation as if you had been dropped on this planet without any of your preexisting or societally implanted biases but in full command of your faculties and see where your powers of observation lead you.
You miss my point, at least partially. Not for nothing, but I do also have education in the physical sciences… that aside, we are both perfectly capable of observation, and my having a chemistry degree would give me no better insight into the larger theory of evolution than would my having a literature degree. In fact, a person with an eye for the aesthetic might be far better qualified to see God than a person with an eye for gravity…. The scientist, it seems, claims gravity as a law, while denying the equally real philosophy, emotion, etc… as anything more than mere electrical impulses and mysticism.
In what sense is a finite universe, considered as a whole, an open system?
We can increase the order in a place (the Earth) because we are powered by the Sun, whose increase in entropy is far larger than the amount of order life introduces. ·5 hours ago
Evolution does not explain a godless universe. But many assert that it does just the same.
Please note that my critique is with evolutionary cosmology and not an argument against evolution’s explanatory power for in scope observations.
As for thermodynamics: The solar system is not the universe. As best we can discern, our finite universe came into being suddenly in the Big Bang. No science, including evolutionary theory, can today explain why established physical laws, including the second law of thermodynamics, failed to apply at the moment of creation.
Oh, Brian… and that could go round and round and round. He may well be a good Catholic person, but if he is an evolutionist of note, he is not likely a good Catholic theologian. So let’s counter, then, with a strong theologian of note. You won’t listen to him, though, because he took an oath of God and not Hippocrates…. At some point, we may need some sort of moderator to determine whose opinions actually count, and who is to be discounted – as you’ve already done – as too cooky. I suppose that moderator will be you?
Funny thing, though, is that this is the very point Peter was making, and the whole phenomenon that Berlinski is dissecting. ·8 hours ago
I would refer you to the Papal encyclical on evolution of John Paul II here.
I can only assume Berlinski was endorsing Hawking? [/sarcasm]
Oh, Brian… and that could go round and round and round. He may well be a good Catholic person, but if he is an evolutionist of note, he is not likely a good Catholic theologian. So let’s counter, then, with a strong theologian of note. You won’t listen to him, though, because he took an oath of God and not Hippocrates…. At some point, we may need some sort of moderator to determine whose opinions actually count, and who is to be discounted – as you’ve already done – as too cooky. I suppose that moderator will be you?
Funny thing, though, is that this is the very point Peter was making, and the whole phenomenon that Berlinski is dissecting.
I would refer you to the Papal encyclical on evolution of John Paul II here.
Thanks for the link, Brian. I’ve got it open in another tab, and I will check it out when I get a chance.
Evolution does not explain a godless universe. But many assert that it does just the same.
Please note that my critique is with evolutionary cosmology and not an argument against evolution’s explanatory power for in scope observations.
As for thermodynamics: The solar system is not the universe. As best we can discern, our finite universe came into being suddenly in the Big Bang. No science, including evolutionary theory, can today explain why established physical laws, including the second law of thermodynamics, failed to apply at the moment of creation.
You have it backwards – The Bible does a poor job of explaining the universe as we observe it – incredibly so, as it asserts that the earth existed before light in Genesis, and any number of other absurdities.
It isn’t the fault of science that it fails to confirm the narrative laid out in the Bible and as a result of that casts doubt on some of the more fantastical elements contained therein.
I have already conceded metaphysics at Universe T=0, although I would point out that any number of solutions to that question are acceptable but almost non of them resemble the Christian God.
Another aspect of this is that it has been demonstrated that vacuum has its own energy which manifests as the spontaneous generation of particles. This is one of the reasons that people have posited these undetectable other universes or dimensions might exist. We can’t detect them, but they have a real effect nonetheless.
Thus, it’s possible that the universe as we know it might have come into existence outside of the influence of the supernatural and without violating any laws of thermodynamics (as we understand them in this universe.)
EDIT: I should point out that one of the reasons I am so resistant to religious explanations is this: it is the ultimate argument from ignorance. You look at the universe at T=0 and say “We can’t understand this! It’s too complex and our models can’t account for singularity! I don’t know, therefore: God.”
Anybody can make that sort of argument, and it’s fundamentally unsatisfying to me. It lacks oomph. The fact that it is the first cousin of Giorgio Tsoukalos (of Ancient Aliens fame) saying “I don’t know, therefore: Aliens” doesn’t help either.
You have it backwards – The Bible does a poor job of explaining the universe as we observe it – incredibly so, as it asserts that the earth existed before light in Genesis, and any number of other absurdities.
It isn’t the fault of science that it fails to confirm the narrative laid out in the Bible and as a result of that casts doubt on some of the more fantastical elements contained therein.
A quote from David Berlinski -“Given the account of creation offered in Genesis and the account offered in A Brief History of Time, I know of no sane man who would hesitate between the two.”
So there…
(no, that is not from The Onion; it’s an actual quote from the man).
http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-scientific-embrace-of-atheism/
You have it backwards – The Bible does a poor job of explaining the universe as we observe it – incredibly so, as it asserts that the earth existed before light in Genesis, and any number of other absurdities.
Umm…wrong, as usual: http://www.reasons.org/blogs/take-two/interpreting-the-creation-days-literally
For those who want more David Berlinski
Water AND earth. Before light. Gobbledygook.
Plants appear before sea creatures. And Birds appear – Simultaneously! They forgot Dinosaurs, the precursor to birds.
I’m sorry, you can’t play the “Mistranslation!” game on this – it’s simply a load of manure.
EDIT: I should point out that one of the reasons I am so resistant to religious explanations is this: it is the ultimate argument from ignorance. You look at the universe at T=0 and say “We can’t understand this! It’s too complex and our models can’t account for singularity! I don’t know, therefore: God.”
Anybody can make that sort of argument, and it’s fundamentally unsatisfying to me. It lacks oomph.
What does “oomph” mean? The natural argument for God seems rather logical to me. He represents the necessary cause. All things in the universe are contingent upon prior events, yet if the universe is finite there must be a necessary cause that exists without contingency. The concept of God fits that description. Perhaps something else fits that description too, I am not an expert in this field I don’t know. Either way God seems like a fine hypothesis to me. Especially considering the lack of testibility of any theories about T=0. Furthermore the God hypothesis offers other useful explanatory powers in non-scientific realms.
In what sense is a finite universe, considered as a whole, an open system?
For the purposes of discussing the Postulate of Evolution (PoE) the only system that really matters is our solar system. In order for the Second law argument to be true one would have to neglect the fact that the only meaningful input of energy to this planet comes from the sun. The entropy of the sun has increased since its birth while the Entropy of the earth has (arguably) also gone up but the net amount of energy on the earth has increased far more than the Entropy as a result of the sun’s influence.
Entropy is simply a measure of heat that can’t be employed for useful work. We are able to refrigerate things because we move heat from one place to another, increasing the order in one place while decreasing it someplace else to a greater extent than the decrease in order in the other.
We can increase the order in a place (the Earth) because we are powered by the Sun, whose increase in entropy is far larger than the amount of order life introduces.
As mentioned before the sticking point with respect to evolution and God is one of chaos vs. purpose. Evolutionist like to pretend that Evolution is driven solely by chance and randomness. Yet, we know that the mechanisms of evolution need not work on chance alone, that will can and has guided it. We see it in the myriad of species man has engineered through the last 9,000 years of guided evolution. The process of guided evolution and unguided evolution rely on the same mechanical underpinnings, and I don’t think they could be distinguished between in the physical evidence (ie. fossils or DNA). One does not even have to pick between natural selection and guided selection, both can be active in the world.