h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

You were looking for some basic data on the Anthropic Principle.

That particular flawed argument is weel described on the following web site [URL removed by moderator]

Hopefully that will survive for you to see.

I watched the original deconstruction of Josh's creationist article, and even felt sorry for the poor lad, however misguided he may be. I'm glad that this subject may now get the treatment it deserves.

Shame the URl was removed. Could you post it to your site or email me the link (an email link is on my page). I'd appreciate it. If you're interested, there's a pretty good discussion of the bible and science between myself and Josh at http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/F78168?thread=160012&skip=0&show=20. It starts off as a debate on racial profiling, but is currently an excercise in mutual understanding (I personally wanted to understand why Josh believes what he does, and I think I'm making progress). All the best, Ste

an interesting debate you two have going.

He makes a serious mistake in his miss-understanding of science and the age of the earth however.

Ignoring radio-carbon dating, you can use some quite simple methods to push the age he specifies well back into pre-history.

first, you have dendro-chronology. This takes data from trees that have seasonal growth cycles, and thus produce rings. This tree ring data forms an unbroken chain going back 8000+ years.

This can be used with weather data to produce dendro-climatology which tells us what the climate was during those years.

You can take the dendro-climatology data and apply it to ice cores, and it gives you what the gas make-up was with that climate.

This ice core data can be extended by using deep drilled cores and the methods of dendro-chronology to produce an unbroken record of what the atmosphere was like dating back over 500,000 years.

During all that time, you still don't get significant change from the current atmosphere. Yet we know from other data that such a change has occured.

It is this process of using data from multiple fields to verify and to contradict other data, until you have a theory which covers all your current data which typifies science, and is a good example of what the creationists don't do.

regarding the anthropic principle, a quick search on google shows there to be two ideas wearing that name.

1,We occupy a special place in the universe. ie our planet, galaxy, etc are somehow special. this has been shown repeatedly not to apply on many different scales.

2,We are in this universe so tuned to life because if the tuning of some critical cosmological numbers were different, we wouldn't be there to see it. This is still a "we are a special case" type arguament, but it is based upon the idea that we are not special, only the curcumstances under wihich we are here to observe make us special, and they are not unique.

I hope this helps.

Yeah, that's basically what I'm finding too.

The first point is just silly IMHO, but also a matter of faith. "anthropic" also seems to not focus on life as a whole, but human life, and I presume human intelligence.

The second is just plain bizarre. If the universe was not condusive to life, then we wouldn't be here debating it. But it was, so get over it. During 17 billion years of history a reaction (or series of reactions) happened at least once that created self-perpetuating things. You don't need a PhD in statistics to realise that that is not too unlikely.

I don't think it is too tough to get life happening, seeing as it's only made up of like four basic components down 'ere on Earth.

Anyway, I'm digressing. And sounding like Dawkins a bit, dammit.

The anthropic principle is a convenient logic loop invented to be all scientific about God. Which is dumb in the first place.

Ste

I've put the link on the bottom of my home page.

I first came across Josh before his Creation article appeared in Peer Review. I made a couple of corrections to some faulty arguments that were being used in a discussion on the Big Bang.

I rapidly came to the conclusion that if I continued I would end up breaking the house rules (perhaps as Hoovooloo did?).

Anyway I look forward to reading your debate on racial profiling.

I was the first to reply to Josh's insulting opening remarks in the "creation vs evolution" thread. It all got too overheated in there, with about 20 people bombarding him at once, so it wasn't too constructive. What I wanted to discuss there I'm managing to discuss with him in the above thread that I started.

link to Josh's opening comments on that thread: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/FFM19585?thread=85699&skip=300&show=20#p1448250

My opinions on the subject are now well know, so I won't go over them, they're summarised in this article: A671717. I'm also doing another entry for the Uni Project on the subject at A673319 .

I'm currently waiting for Josh's reply on the current debate I'm having with him. I've noticed that when he realises the battle is lost he just doesn't mention it further... see what you think

All the best, and thanks for the link, interesting stuff. Albeit flawed, vien and frankly bizarre...

Ste

I like both articles and can see that both Hooloovoo and you are giving this entire subject area a really thorough going over. I've also read through your ongoing "discussion" with Josh.

I think one big problem is Josh's understanding of science and the role of scientific peer review. Josh seems to respond like this is like writing a book or film review, loaded with personal opinion.

My own understanding and I guess yours too is that scientific peer review is something very much more than this. Maybe you should try to explain this to Josh. See if he accepts something like this.

Let me see...

Scienctific Method

Observation > Hypothesis > Experiment > Peer Review

An initial observation of a phenomena, results in the synthesis of a hypothesis based on the current body of knowledge and the observation. Reason, logic and deduction are applied in the derivation of the hypothesis.

On the basis of the hypothesis, experimental tests are devised which attempt to isolate the observed phenomena and therefore prove or disprove the hypothesis. Experimental results are compared to predictions based on hypothesis. Correlation between the experimental results and the predictions leads to confirmation of the hypothesis.

Confirmation of the hypothesis is then based on a body of data which leads science to accept the hypothesis as an accurate model. Some experimental data will have errors and therefore there maybe a question of accuracy (as with Newton's Law of Mechanics), however this may not be proven until more accurate observations are made (as with Einstein's Relativity).

The peer review process involves the publishing of one's work and the independent verification of the hypothesis, by independent experimentation. This leads to an increasingly large body of data and may involve refinement of the hypothesis, redefinition of the boundary limits and increasing information on the accuracy of the hypothesis.

The peer review process can also involve logic, reason and deduction but at no time and in no way can these tools be considered to replace independent experimentation.

The problem with creationism is that although it purports to be science, none of the hypotheses on which it is founded can be verified by independent experimentation. Therefore science cannot actually peer review creationism.

It is important to note however that at no time would a modern day scientist claim that the current state of science accurately describes or models every observable phenomena perfectly. Any true scientist fully acknowledges that a better hypothesis or a new hypothesis may be just around the corner.



What do you think, would Joh read something like this and, more importantly, would it sink in?

I like you description of science a great deal. However, I think the current body of knowledge (i.e., the literature) has more do to with hypothesis forming than observation. You can place observation in the place of experimentation and still have a valid scientific process, e.g. ethology. You form your hypothesis on what you currently know.

I think some mention on the cyclic, self-perpetuating nature of science and you'd have yourself a guide entry

I think you should gently butt into the thread, saying we don't think it is fair that we were discussing Josh without his knowledge, and present this to him like that...



Ste

Thanks for your input Madent. I think it has helped Josh understand (or at least start to understand) why people are so critical of creation-science.

Do you think it has sunk in at all? Are we making a difference? I think I understand him better, I wonder if it is the case the other way round.

Ste

It's difficult to say what sort of headway we have made, Ste.

I think Josh is very certain of his personal beliefs, which is no bad thing in itself and not a criticism. I wish there were more people with the strength of character Josh displays.

I do think that Josh has started to realise that science is very much more than he originally considered. I wonder if he fell in to a bit of a trap in his thinking, particularly about the process of peer review. It's an easy trap to fall into, particularly in the Bible belt.

I think he is also now realising that science is not a threat to his belief.

I don't think he is ready to abandon belief in the literal interpretation of Genesis.

Hopefully Josh will consider what he has learned and benefit from it.

You should be pleased with the progress of the debate. You argue well Ste, picking up on a lot of things that I would otherwise miss. I am glad I have been able to make even a small contribution.

Yeah, I have no problem with his beliefs, I quite admire his strength of faith, but as always I am baffled by it at the same time .

Well, I might have led him into that trap a teeny bit, but I hope I'm not being too rude or anything. I just wanted to know what he thought "science" to be. Because it was obvious that it was different to mine (and your for that matter). After I found out he equated "science" with just "logic" his beliefs made a lot more sense. I think it's just a matter of nomenclature. "Creation-science" is a very poor name for a faith-driven belief.

I will never understand, however, why these people feel the need to "scientifically" justify their beliefs. I thought that was what faith was all about. Or is it a desire to feel that their "theories" (i.e., Genesis) are just as plausible as other scientific theories? I'm unsure.

"I think he is also now realising that science is not a threat to his belief."
I hope so, because it really isn't. Josh has shown many times to think that scientists (note it's never "science", but "scientists") are hell-bent on destroying God. Which is frankly incorrect (apart from Dawkins, as I've said before).

Thanks for the compliment . I attempted to engage in this type of discussion when Josh first appeared on the Creationsism vs Evolution thread. But the backlash was so fierce that no intelligent debate was possible. I'm happy the way it has gone, and I'm learning stuff as well as Josh (I hope).

Feel free to pop in to the conversation when you feel like it, your contributions are most valuable.

Ste

Hi! I'm back. I took a look at the weather report for the UK on Feb 1st, booked the week off and I've spent the last ten days windsurfing in some of the best conditions I've ever known. This is why I am (a) completely shattered and (b) very much behind on doing something with the project. I'll be aiming to pull it into shape this week. Sorry for the delay, but when the wind does blow, away I go...

H.

Sounds pretty cool (read: cold) H. Where did you go?

If it's any consolation I've done nearly bugger all with the evolution entry since last time you were here. It's at the brink of being finished and I can't muster up that last final push dammit.

I'll try and get on with it now...

Ste

Bala Lake, mostly. Went and had a look at the sea, but it was STUPIDLY rough so we headed back inland. Bala practically had surf on it, anyway. I bought a new board last year for £49 (i.e. incredibly cheap) but you need at least a force 5 to get going on it or it sinks. Fortunately it's been like that for most of the week across most of the UK, so I've had a new experience. Makes my old board (which I used to think was pretty nippy) feel like it's towing a bucket. Of course there's a price to be paid, and it's in maneuverability. Like the man said... "Looks like a fish, moves like a fish, steers like a cow". Good for I would guess 40mph plus in a straight line, but you'd need to be a LOT better than me to get it to go round a corner.

I'm aware I'm blathering now, but you'll have to forgive me, I'm still buzzing a bit. Last Sunday in particular feels like it was yesterday... my first run on the Sputnik, in a wind so strong I was scared.

I'm going to stop now, otherwise I'll write about another ten pages of stuff about it!



H.

You might be interested to know that there is a similar type of debate to what you and josh are having over on http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/F58051?thread=132635 in this thread about a "proof" for the existance of god with our old friend "playboy reporter", or as he now prefers to be know "clay toy".

Thanks xyroth, I'll check it out...