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

Am debating a creationist who has thrown back at me some standard tropes namely "scientific theories are just theories" "you can't know anything" etc etc

However one of the theories he has chosen to name was string theory.

"show me evidence of string theory - you can't."

So before I upbraid him for the rest of his nonsense, I just wanted to touch base with the SEx Crew: what is the current status of string theory?

Last I'd heard: "nice idea, lets hope the LRC doesn't break down again before we get some experimental data back."


Is that still the case or has anything else happened that tips the balance one way or the other?

This should put them straight:

http://xkcd.com/171/

Yes I am familiar with that cartoon. One of my favourites in fact.

But I'm wondering if that's accurate.

As far as I'm aware, string theory is still just a handy mathematical model. The fact that scientists are still in disagreement about whether it should even count as a scientific theory (ie can it ever be disproved) suggests to me, unfortunately, that your god-bothering friend is on fairly solid ground. But one still unsettled bit of outre physics is no basis for saying that all of science is ultimately unknowable. As I'm sure you know. I just think you're on a hiding to nothing if you try and argue strings. There are some who think that the LHC may give some answers, but I'm pretty sure there is nothing at the moment with which you could make a case.

Hmmm.


So pretty much as I remember then.

At least I've got the correlation of the mathematics and the consistency of the models but absent empirical evidence it's just a rather neat model, so almost incorrect to call it a theory then.

Ask him to prove God exists. Religion is just a theory, but one they refuse to advance on. At least science makes sense.

Just my opinion.

Isn't he just playing the old trick of using a definition of the word "theory" that is not what scientists mean when they use the word?

In everyday speech "theory" means an idea, or a proposition which may or may not be true. For string "theory", the word seems to be used in the everyday sense more than the scientific sense (in which 'theory' means a *proven* proposition).

I've not actually replied to this guy yet. I got diverted into dismantling Irreducible Complexity instead.


However this is the post copied over - decide for yourself rather than me reporting on snippets.

The enumerated parts in quotes are words of mine that he is replying to from a previous exchange.




1. "Show me some evidence or give me a good reason or sound argument and I'll change my mind."

Show me evidence, physical evidence for black matter or black energy--it is based on theories, and supposed solid science--yet I can not touch, see, or have any physical evidence it is there. Do I think there is black matter or energy--certainly. Do we know what it is? No. Taking every argument and every doubt of somebody concerning black energy and the lack of absolute positive proof could lead one to say then it does not exist.

Or show me evidence of string theory--can't. I think this has some good merits to it. However with no solid provable evidence does that make it right or wrong? or does this just make it non-existent. I always like fractals--disregarded in the 1960's as a bunch of crap it took a computer age to rather add credence to it. Does that mean that until the computer age it did not exist? Some very good scientists now are not to convinced that Einstein's Theory of Relativity holds together as good as once thought, or that at least parts might be wrong. Does that mean it is all junk--never existed?

So there is no solid evidence to the argument of God or soul. I can not show you that as it is only a belief, a feeling, an unproven theory--and not scientific. The bigger problem you have to use the concept of the bible or religion to prove it. Then, not only that, but you have to believe there is a soul, a spirit that can exist outside of the body. Then to get the whole idea you then have to use other internal theories in it for the understanding of the whole. Then there are parts that require pure faith with no evidence or explanation--just have to accept it. No doubt it is a difficult task and certainly an unscientific one. So I do understand why some reject it, and yet can also see why some accept it. As we agree the existence of God can not be unproven or proven--it is and always will be--a belief and a faith.

2. "creating plants before stars was a bit silly as plants need light to photosynthesis."

You in your response even say day one created light--that then leaves the ability of photosynthesis to exist and take place from day one So I do not see a problem there in regards to photosynthesis. Your argument is the sun is a star therefore can not be made until the 4th day. That we consider our star separate I really do not have a problem here---light was provided first. Although, the 4th day seems to have problems in a very technical sense--no doubt no argument--but again interpretation may be that it is the alignment or the setting in place that is taking place not the actual making of it. Again a personal interpretation--that it is an interpretation-- leads to fact it could be incorrect. But part of the original point was to Tony is that religion has less of a reason to argue with evolution and cosmos development than what they stand on. The two are not so far off if religion uses a broader spectrum. If you will only take it at a actual face value it falls apart, and very quickly. Not just from this one point but from many--again that is a person's choice. If they want to see it as being concrete rather than from a more figurative and interpretive way, well I will agree that it has little merit. It becomes a personal decision for everyone to make from his or her own belief system.

3. "Science is about finding proximate and simple and accurate explanations for observations. The bible by your own admission is about providing answers without proximate explanations.So it's explanatory value is nil or have I misunderstood your point?"

No you have not, I think you understand--it is limited to personal interpretation for a belief system--has limited use as a historical document.

4. "Re: the idea of religion is typically spiritual not physical--a different dimension."

"I have no conception of what that means. Claims to supernatural knowledge are frankly beyond my capacity to reasonably understand."

This would be the concept of soul, if no belief in it then it would not be understandable. But the concept of religion is the idea of soul existence--otherwise, religion would not exist.

6. "Appeals to the bible's vagueness as a defence isn't a good reason for me to take up your belief."

Unlike many others I say then don't; I am certainly not trying to convert here. The concept comes down to the point that religion is something you have to believe--no one else. As well that no one can believe for you. You can search for the answers and in any bias you wish. I think no less or no more of a person based on their religion or lack of. Just as I do not love one of my parents more for their differences in religion. It in someways actually makes me appreciate them more.

This just in.


Science changes it's mind a lot. Maybe it will change it's mind about gods....

----------------------------


My point being science has to be flexible, because what may seem incorrect to them now, all of a sudden can be so very helpful the next day (period of time not literal). Sometimes science has not been flexible and has been proven wrong (. There are also cases were they are just plain wrong--and have had to back track to come up to some other theory. This does not discredit science, but I think the point has to be taken they are not always correct. They make mistakes and that they are not infallible. The scientist that wants to stand on a ground that this ________ (idea, theory, science, mathematics, etc.) is absolute, may one day have realize he was wrong.

The same is true of many things in science they have theories, hypothesis's, and sometimes absolute fact. But they have to remain flexible. Yet in any many arguments of atheist to the bible they do not allow flexibility. It has to be taken literally--no exception. That is rather like reading a poem and saying it can only mean the literal words--there can be no such thing as a figurative meaning, or be referring to something totally different than those actual words.

There are many scientists who do believe in God and have made it known. They are flexible in thought because sometimes science and religion do not always on the surface go hand in hand. Yet I tend to think they are not meant to replace one or the other. They have a different roles to perform. And by the way some things neither prove or disprove the existence of God--pretty to look at but like a sunset does not prove God. But on the same sense it can add credence to God if you wish to be so, and it can just be nothing more than light passing through an atmosphere--It is your decision which way you choose to look at it.

Jack of Kent now has now blogged on the subject:
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2010/07/simon-harwood-ian-tomlinson-and.html

Oops. Wrong tab...

Jack just demonstrated one of the principles of thread theory:

As you open more tabs or windows, the probability of posting to the wrong thread increases.

Hi Clive,

Looks like you've managed to find a better class of Creationist than we've had on this board for a while.

Your interlocutor seems to be bordering on what Stephen Law calls 'Going Nuclear':
http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/search/label/going%20nuclear
Rather than argue that the commonly accepted ideas of evidence and reason support his case, he is instead arguing that evidence and reason are not ways of understanding the universe.

It's worth also pointing out that there is a slight stretch in the analogy here on several points:

1) Science may 'change its mind', but it does not do so at random. Each set of theories is closer to 'the truth' than the last. Einstein's version of gravity was objectively more accurate than Newton's, and won't be displaced unless we find something more accurate still. Religion either cannot change, or changes at random. There is no way of telling whether any specific religious idea is more accurate than any other, so religion is not 'homing in on' objective truth in the way science is.

2) String theory is a bad example because it is often not called a theory for exactly the reason given, that it cannot make unique testable predictions. Nor can religion. Relativity can.

3) There is solid evidence *against* the idea of God, at least as Christians conceive of it (e.g. the Problem of Evil; here's Stephen Law again: http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2008/09/could-it-be-pretty-obvious-theres-no.html). There is no evidence either way in string theory.

4) And of course there's Occam's Razor - the argument in favour of string theory is that it is (at least according to its proponents) the simplest way of explaining a mass of complex results. Citing the existence of God explains nothing that is not equally well explained by citing the non-existence of God.

And the stuff he's written about dark energy and fractals is, of course, simply junk as far as I can tell.

Gif

Thanks Gif, acceptance is by application followed by interview.

I actually ended up not talking about string theory in the end becuase in the time elapsed the thread had moved on quite quickly and it seemed off to pluck this out of the backlog with an "oh and one more thing..." vibe.

Thanks for all the tips.


Where if you are interested, the debate did end up heading was into how compatible science and faith are, he did not perceive there was any issue, we got the 'there are scientists with faith' trope, and then just to make things especially confusing advocating a old-earth creationism (day means geological epoch) and advanced the novel argument that Genesis 1 gives the indefinite article of 'man' so "adam" need not necessarily have been the first or only human created, after that we got into a kind of theistic evolution argument about yes the evidence show x happens - that's how god does it.

So I began using a favoured example of evolution in action the specification of the fish in the congo river, how the genetic data correlates with the physical hydrology, theory prediction, hypothesis test observatino etc...

And asking if you think god created and creates still - what is going on here? What does 'god does it mean' in this specific context, what does it add to our understanding?

Entirely predictably, I never did get an answer just a reaffirmation.

There was an amusing side note discussing mutation, which apparently are all fatal - and this is why evolution is "a theory with problems" (despite saying previously he accepted the evidence for it.

Gah!

Ordinarily I'd despite the perverse fascination I have for the illogical I'd probably have wandered off before now, but this is a debate in a thread someone else started wanting to hear both sides so there was some value, I thought in trying to pursue it.

I've always been of the understanding that a theory is an idea/explanation that has some sort of testable way of showing it fits in within observable ummm...observations...with String Theory I beleive wacky maths shows it does explain lot of quantum theory etc. The thing is even the most vociferous of proponents of the theory would change their minds if a better idea proved to fit the observations better.

An hypothesis is an idea which has not been tested and shown to fit with the observable phenomena...i.e. gods.

Also, the god *hypothesis* has over 2800 variations. UNfortunatley, people do not go through and learn the hypothesis of each of the gods before deciding on the one they they think is true...they just pluimp for one or change their minds when they come in contact with another.

So, the question to ask your creationist friend is why they have dismissed all the other 2800+ deities before deciding Yahweh is the one true god...and the reply because all the others are wrong is not an answer.

The other thing about theories to explain phenomena is there are usually only a few floating around not 1000's becuase the previous theories once shown to have been incorrect or not accurate enough are left behind...not so with gods because believers of previous version just carry on unless the whole society dies out.

There is a 0.035% chance that Yahweh exists..if you propose that a god has to exist based on current numbers of gods that have been record.

Also, you need to ask what they think of theory of gravity or do they think we stick to the Earth with velcro and the planets revolve around suns using bits of string?

Or the theory of relativity? That has been physically proved by using atomic clocks being flown around the Earth.

Or of course, you could just not bother discussing stuff with a creationist because it really is not worth it.

One of the features I emphasise when asked to define a theory and which I think is what sets a theory apart is the ability to generate *new* testable hypotheses so it is more than just a summing up of other tested hypotheses and confirmed facts it lets you say 'ah-ha perhaps we should be looking here for "x" '

So - an oldie but goodie - the theory of evolution predicts a common ancestor, and this can now be tested and confirmed via molecular genetics (a science all it's own in good standing) and you can count - literally count - the changes in the letter of the genetic code between related species. And the distance between those two is a hundred years at least. But it's why Evolution is a theory - and something like Intelligent Design isn't.

Hi Clive

You might like to listen to the Scientific American Science Talk podcasts for 27 and 28 July entitled Arguing with Non-Skeptics which might give you some techniques to debate successfully.
( http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/podcasts.cfm?id=science-talk )

t.

Thanks Turvey.

What got me about this guy was his absolutely compatibilist approach.

Anything science could explain wasn't a problem because that's how god did it, but push for an explanation of what that means and none was forthcoming.

I cited Ratzinger's position* about how at some point in the evolution of homo habilis or homo erectus, they spoke the name of god, and thus were granted souls and asked if this was more or less what they thought. Still nothing. He just insisted if one reads genesis literally it doesn't work (something we agreed about) but it required interpretation. Hence how we get to the story of Adam and eve, Adam being just one of several create men, since the Hebrew word used permits the plural and omits to enforce the singular.

ARRGH

Why they cant just ditch that sodding book and accept what we can test, I'll not know, but anyway....



*(If you haven't read that - it's a scream:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_and_evolution
Word search "clay" to find the relevant paragraph.)


I've just settled down for my lunch - and was looking for something to listen to and a sceptics podcast sounds like just the thing!



P.S As much as this thread was about arguing with a creationists - I remain interested in any discussion about string theory itself.

7:30secs into the Scientific American Science Talk podcast (part 1) make my point about 'debating' with creationists.