I keep having to remind myself that science is self-correcting …

_{Denyse O'Leary

May 20, 2009

Ethics}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I have often been wearied by legends in their own lunchroom huffing that science differs from other endeavours because it is “self-correcting.”

To which I reply: Aw come off it, fellas. Any system that does not go extinct is self-correcting – after it collapses on its hind end. This is true of governments, businesses, churches, and not-for-profit organizations. I’ve seen enough of life to know.

Here’s a classic: At The Scientist’s NewsBlog, Bob Grant reveals (May 7, 2009) that

Scientific publishing giant Elsevier put out a total of six publications between 2000 and 2005 that were sponsored by unnamed pharmaceutical companies and looked like peer reviewed medical journals, but did not disclose sponsorship, the company has admitted.

Elsevier is conducting an “internal review” of its publishing practices after allegations came to light that the company produced a pharmaceutical company-funded publication in the early 2000s without disclosing that the “journal” was corporate sponsored

[ … ]

The allegations involve the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine, a publication paid for by pharmaceutical company Merck that amounted to a compendium of reprinted scientific articles and one-source reviews, most of which presented data favorable to Merck’s products. The Scientist obtained two 2003 issues of the journal — which bore the imprint of Elsevier’s Excerpta Medica — neither of which carried a statement obviating Merck’s sponsorship of the publication.

The linked related stories and comments are most illuminating, and bear out my critique of “peer review” here. Let’s just say that peer review started out as a good idea, but …

(Note: There is no paywall, but you may need to register to view the story, .)

Also, today at Colliding Universes

Neutrinos: Sudbury Neutrino Observatory does the sun’s bookkeeping

Origin of life: The live cat vs. the dead cat

Cosmology: Wow. It takes guts to wage war with Stephen Hawking … he appeared in Star Trek

Universe: Arguments against flatness (plus exposing sloppy science writing)

Origin of life: Latest scenario gives RNA world a boost

Colliding Universes is my blog on competing theories about our universe.

Comments

----Diffaxial: "Humility in such matters is a good thing. Indeed, and throughout this thread several of us have underscored the provisional nature of all conclusions - even these metaconclusions vis causality." On the contrary, you have stated categorically that we cannot know self evident truths. Indeed, you insist that they don't even exist. Humility acknowledges truth and conforms to it; hubris rejects truth in the name of non-conformity. Science doesn't begin with observations. It begins with a recognition that [a] self evident truths will [b] illuminate observations, which will [c] lead to new truths. As a matter of principle, you reject {a] and [c], as if [b] alone could yield anything at all.StephenB_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
12:40 PM
12
12
40
PM
PDT}

----Diffaxial: "After all, science is self-correcting, and there may well be an error in the current formulation awaiting such a correction." You continue to avoid the issue. How does science correct itself without a reasonable standard for correction? Current conceptions of science displaced earlier conceptions of science on the strength of the principle that both concepts could not be true and false at the same time. Explain how the new replaces the old if, in some circumstances, both can be true? To submit that effects can occur without causes is to abandon causality altogether. If it can happen in one context, there is no reason to believe it may not happen in another context. Under the circumstances, there would be no way of knowing where or when those exceptions apply. Tell me by which standard you decide when effects can occur without causes and when they cannot. Please explain why, if this principle can be abandoned once it cannot be abandoned a second time or third time. Under those circumstnaces, what good is the principle at all?StephenB_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT}

Oh yes, DK: First, the existence of God can be warranted to best current explanation, but it -- along with a great many other things (including scientific results and other matters of fact) -- cannot be proved to an arbitrarily high [selectively hyperskeptically high] standard. But then, such selective hyperskepticism is its own refutation -- a double-standard of evidence: such a skeptic cannot live consistent with his or her standard of proof in cases s/he does not wish to accept. A better rule is: "extraordinary things require ~~extraordinary~~ [adequate] evidence." For that matter, mathematics cannot be proved beyond all dispute these days, post Godel: we do not know that axiomatic systems are complete or coherent. And, there are debates over alternative sets of axioms. relative to any coherent set there are undecidable but true claims -- mathematics is -- surprise -- irreducibly complex (in a different but related sense . . . ). As to the argument you wish to dismiss by labelling it in effect "creationist" -- an ad hominem by association fallacy -- it is not a proof of God, nor is it meant to be. It is a widely accepted and well supported axiom of reasoning about cause and effect. Have you ever seen something that began to exist -- and so is a contingent being -- that did not have a sufficient reason for that beginning, i.e. a cause? (And remember, that also means that [a] all causally necessary factors must be in place, and [b] sufficient factors must be in place. Show me a fire that came about without [a] fuel [i.e something capable of the chain reaction called burning under the prevailing circumstances . . . ], [b] oxidiser, and [c] heat, or a case where with the three necessary and jointly SUFFICIENT factors, no fire emerged.) This of course says nothing about the other category of being: a necessary being -- one that is existent in itself -- as opposed to self caused [which requires existing before one exists]. Some have proposed a wider cosmos for that being, others propose God. Bring forward evidence and then let's decide which makes better sense. But this is a bit afield . . . Can we take it as well shown that Mrs O'Leary is right: Science is not an epistemologically privileged domain, insofar as it is self-correcting. (And indeed,the principles by which scientific knowledge is warranted are philosophical principles. Going further, the older usage seems better: natural philosophy, leading to science -- knowledge -- on well-established (but correctable) findings. Just like other domains, it gets its wind knocked out every now and then, and has to eat some humble pie. (AKA the very first undeniable and self-evident truth is: error exists.) Welcome to the world of defeatable reasoning and provisional warrant to best current explanation. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
11:54 AM
11
11
54
AM
PDT}

----David Kellogg: "StephenB, recently rejected Texas education chair candidate and young-earth creationist Don McLeroy seems to be teaching your proof of God to fourth-graders:" [A] We are not discussing first causes on this thread. [B] I am not a young earth creationist, [C] The argument for first cause is independent of YEC vs. Intellent design. therefore, [D] Your attempt to argue on the bases of guilt by association is misguided. The issue on the table right now is whether one is to accept rationality by embracing reason's first principles or to embrace irrationality by renouncing them. You have already weighed in on that and have chosen the latter.StephenB_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
11:48 AM
11
11
48
AM
PDT}

Folks: Babysitting friend PC for a while . . . A few quick notes: 1 --> Error vs truth: truth hits the mark of accurately describing reality, error misses that mark -- something toddlers understand well enough so soon as they figure out how to fib. Aristotle said it very well, 2,300 years ago:
“To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true” [Metaphysics, 1011b]
2 --> So, let's get back to Josiah Royce: error exists -- true or false, deniable or undeniable, self-evident or not? Why? 3 --> Is one pinning the flag to a forlorn hope, that somehow Q-mech may be wrong? First, whether or not Q-mech is wrong has no bearing on whether observed phenomena have causes -- we already have seen that for alpha decay, beta decay, etc: save certain things are in place a given decay will not happen -- it is caused. (Whether or not we identify SUFFICIENT causes, or will ever be able to do so. And, if something happens -- and was not always there -- it has a sufficient cause that enabled it to happen.) 4 --> Is "what begins has a cause" an empty platitude? Not at all: there is a sufficient reason why something happens now and here, but not then and there -- and we may be able to identify things that will block it from happening, i.e necessary causal factors. [That is why I keep asking for a serious look at the fire example -- it has much to teach us about the logic of cause.] 5 --> Are human etc decisions and actions mere effects? Insofar as there are influences and constraints our decisions are in part effects. however, unless they are minded causes that transcend "[physical and genetic] nature plus nurture", we run into serious difficulties in grounding the credibility of mind. (As a result, evolutionary materialism is inescapably self referentially incoherent.) 6 --> So, back over to you: is reasoning more than Crick's nothing but electrochemical impulses in neural networks? That is, is there room for ground and consequent, rather than just physical cause-effect chains? 7 --> As to self evidence and truth: again Diff, kindly work your way through a given sample: error exists. then, we can discuss why I am perfectly willing to accept that a great many knowledge claims are defeatable [adn that ALL worldvews of consequence bristle with difficulties that should serve to humble us admirably . . . ], but some few key ones are self evident and undeniable, on pain of absurdity. 8 --> Again: error exists . . . true or false, deniable without absurdity or undeniably and self evidently true on pain of absurdity? Gotta go . . . GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
11:08 AM
11
11
08
AM
PDT}

KF:
To suggest that a person’s decision and action are not a cause or that such are equivalent to random stochastic behaviour are absurd; indeed, self-referentially absurd.
The far more interesting question is, "do you regard human decisions and actions as effects?"Diffaxial_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

KF:
Just because on current theory we can only determine up to a probability/ stochastic distribution does not mean that that distribution means that there is no deeper pattern at work [i.e. in the metaphysical sense, chaos -- no order]...That speaks of underlying stable processes of order [cosmos] that drive the distributions that we can see; processes we are blind to on current theory ...that we cannot trace cause within Q-mech beyond a certain distribution does not entail that we can have no future theory that supplies a deeper insight; nor, for that matter, that observers not constrained by our constraints may see the situation very differently. (In short, a wee bit of humility and provisionality are in order . . . after all this is science, not logic.)
Ultimately, your position hangs on the hope that the current quantum picture will prove mistaken, and hidden local factors accounting for quantum indeterminacy will be identified after all. Humility in such matters is a good thing. Indeed, and throughout this thread several of us have underscored the provisional nature of all conclusions - even these metaconclusions vis causality. However, your plea for humility rings hollow. Your position, as Stephen articulates it, displays the opposite attitude:
In other words, the principles of right reason will not permit you to posit causeless effect in any context at all. In other words, the door is closed on a causeless effect apriori.
In short, when the scientific and empirical consensus forces conclusions that are inconvenient to your rigid, tautological formulations, the plea for humility rings out. These findings are provisional, and there may be an underlying metaphysical order to which our current theory is blind! Have some humility! After all, science is self-correcting, and there may well be an error in the current formulation awaiting such a correction. Hence we have the irony that your dogmatism hangs on hoped-for future self-corrections of science - self-correction the opening post disdainfully dismisses. However, this newfound appreciation for the provisional, and the associated humility, is forgotten upon resuming your positions. Truths are again self-evident, conclusions are specified by definition, doors are closed a priori, there is nothing within our Self-Evident Truth to correct (because then it wouldn't be Truth), and those who disagree are, by definition, irrational. Rinse and repeat. So we end where we started, with science self-correcting and others...not.Diffaxial_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

StephenB, recently rejected Texas education chair candidate and young-earth creationist Don McLeroy seems to be teaching your proof of God to fourth-graders:
"Everything that had a beginning we can say had a cause," he tells his class of fourth-graders at Grace Bible Church. "And now science definitely says that the universe had a beginning. Therefore, the universe had to have a cause. And that cause is God."
David Kellogg_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

----kairosfocus writes, "It is ever more painfully and sadly clear that basic rationality itself is what is at stake in our civilisation." Sadly, you are right. To hate truth, which is the destination, is also to hate reason, which is the vehicle by which we arrive at the destination.StephenB_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT}

----Nakashima: "Since this is simply an assertion, should I take it that this is an axiom of your thought? (Or is the proof to large to fit in the margin? )" How can the LNC be of any use to us if we can't be sure when and where it applies? According to you, it does not apply at the subatomic level. How do you know that it even applies at the macroscopic level? Since the LNC cannot be proven, why accept it in any context? Why not just deny it outright and be done with it?StephenB_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
08:22 AM
8
08
22
AM
PDT}

----Nakashima: We have just been saying that LNC could be perfectly valid at a macroscopic level, while failing at a quantum level. To submit that effects can even sometimes occur without causes is to abandon causality. If it can happen in one context, there is no reason to believe it may not happen in another context. Under the circumstances, there would be no way of knowing where or when those exceptions apply. It is the same the the principles about the part/whole, non-contradiction, and something out of nothing. If there are any exceptions at all, there is no rationality.StephenB_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
08:11 AM
8
08
11
AM
PDT}

----Diffaxial: "No one is claiming that quantum mechanics requires the abandonment of all causality." To submit that effects can even sometimes occur without causes is to abandon causality. If it can happen in one context, there is no reason to believe it may not happen in another context. Under the circumstances, there would be no way of knowing where or when those exceptions apply. It is the same the the principles about the part/whole, non-contradiction, and something out of nothing. If there are any exceptions at all, there is no rationality.StephenB_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT}

Mr Kairosfocus, I am tempted to ask, "what is the definition of error" but I am afraid that the question would cause howls of protest! :) We have just been saying that LNC could be perfectly valid at a macroscopic level, while failing at a quantum level. Therefore, I have no problems with invoking it in a discussion of "error exists". of course, a quantum sized experimenter might have a very different experience of the concept of error. I don't have enough facility in quantum reasoning to say. But this is why I had a non-specious, non-humorous reason for asking what the definition of error was.Nakashima_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT}

KF, great points. If one does not believe truth to be findable and absolute then there is not much point to science.tribune7_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT}

Nakashima-San: Why not simply address the claim "error exists" as discussed above? Show us that it is not undeniably true and knowable, on pain of absurdity. And, in so doing, avoid implying of each claim you make, of each state of affairs that you describe, of each inference that you draw, that A is so as opposed to that NOT-A is also so, at the same time and in the same sense. (In short, I am also saying that the law of non-contradiction is undeniably true on pain of absurdity -- to try to deny it forces us to use it to say the state of he world is C; as opposed to NOT-C, this last being a world in which non-contradiction obtains.) That should make the sense of saying that such principles of right reason being undeniably true -- thus unrevisable -- guidestars for reasoning plain enough. GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

Diff: First, let us be clear: once there are necessary conditions at work, Q-mech processes are not acausal, however many may want to look at them. Just because on current theory we can only determine up to a probability/ stochastic distribution does not mean that that distribution means that there is no deeper pattern at work [i.e. in the metaphysical sense, chaos -- no order] -- just the opposite: e.g. there is a definite probability that a free neutron will decay, on average in about 15 minutes, with t1/2 ~ 10 minutes. That speaks of underlying stable processes of order [cosmos] that drive the distributions that we can see; processes we are blind to on current theory. [Yes, there is a statistical distribution that is all we can see to. but, its very stability and predictability under the constraints of say a free neutron, speak to an underlying order: stochasticity does not entail that beyond that, there is no underlying order that gives rise to the stochastic behaviour.] Here is wiki's in brief 101:
Quantum indeterminacy is the apparent necessary incompleteness in the description of a physical system, that has become one of the characteristics of the standard description of quantum physics. Prior to quantum physics, it was thought that (a) a physical system had a determinate state which uniquely determined all the values of its measurable properties, and conversely (b) the values of its measurable properties uniquely determined the state. Albert Einstein may have been the first person to carefully point out the radical effect the new quantum physics would have on our notion of physical state.[1] Quantum indeterminacy can be quantitatively characterized by a probability distribution on the set of outcomes of measurements of an observable. The distribution is uniquely determined by the system state, and moreover quantum mechanics provides a recipe for calculating this probability distribution.
I am well aware that in Q-mech, we have wave functions that are probability distributions [subject to a determination of modulus], locked away behind walls of further unobservability to us. That does not make them acausal, it makes them stochastic. Stochastic -- as the die example underscores by way of a counter-example (and, please: no, I am not thereby implying that Newtonian dynamics applies to quantum phenomena . . . ) -- does not imply acausal. For instance, that we cannot trace cause within Q-mech beyond a certain distribution does not entail that we can have no future theory that supplies a deeper insight; nor, for that matter, that observers not constrained by our constraints may see the situation very differently. (In short, a wee bit of humility and provisionality are in order . . . after all this is science, not logic.) Next, so soon as we can identify that there are necessary causal conditions and factors at work, causal conditions and factors are at work. We are not getting something from nothing, out of nowhere and no-one. (That we do not see sufficient causal conditions may lead to the situation that we see that we can determine things only up to a certain distribution, but that is not the same as establishing that there are no sufficient conditions, and/or that no sufficient cause is acting.) So, accepting that here is a statistical pattern in q-theory level nature, does not force abandonment of causality even in such phenomena, just a little humility about what we don't know and perhaps cannot know. As to the case of a person acting, raised by serendipity, we can determine that evidence of purpose and of functionally specific complex information etc point to intelligent cause: directed as opposed to stochastic contingency. (And I guess this is yet another point on why ID theory is so important and so hotly resisted by the materialism-dominated scientific establishment.) To suggest that a person's decision and action are not a cause or that such are equivalent to random stochastic behaviour are absurd; indeed, self-referentially absurd. (For instance, am I to infer that the post above that raised this terminates the physical causal chain that led to a message at UD on random noise up to some statistical distribution or other, or is there not plainly an intelligent intent -- as we are familiar with from our own minds and conscious mental lives, as well as from observing other similar creatures -- to send a given message? If the former, then apparent meaning reduces to noise . . . [cf. the discussion here.]) It is ever more painfully and sadly clear that basic rationality itself is what is at stake in our civilisation. GEM of TKI PS: Onlookers, please carefully observe that, still, the issues of truth and its knowability vs error, and of necessary and sufficiency of causal factors remain to be addressed specifically by objectors.kairosfocus_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
06:16 AM
6
06
16
AM
PDT}

Mr StephenB, If they are provisional or revisable, they are useless. Since this is simply an assertion, should I take it that this is an axiom of your thought? (Or is the proof to large to fit in the margin? ;) ) If some result had been arrived at using LNC, and then the experimenter heard that LNC was not applicable in their situation, they would have to go back and review the experiment to see if there was another line of evidence or reasoning that could confirm the same conclusion, or admit their conclusion needs to be revised. Then in the future, only apply LNC where applicable.Nakashima_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
06:05 AM
6
06
05
AM
PDT}

KF: Classical processes that also give rise to stochastic results have no bearing upon the fundamental indeterminacy of many quantum phemonena. Quantum indeterminacy is fundamentally incommensurate with those classical processes. If you don't get that, you don't get quantum theory. Similarly, no quantity of necessary conditions for and associated constraints upon quantum events can obscure the fundamental indeterminacy observed given those conditions and constraints. That neutrons bound within nuclei are stable has no bearing whatsoever on the quantum indeterminacy that characterizes the variability of the interval prior to free neutron decay. Neither does an appeal to the internal composition of particles that are capable of decay. No one is claiming that quantum mechanics requires the abandonment of all causality.Diffaxial_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
05:22 AM
5
05
22
AM
PDT}

PPS: those eqns look a lot better in preview than in the post. Hopefully this will be clean enough: n-0 --> p+ + e- + ~nu-0 p+ --> n-0 + e+ + nu-0 Notice that a necessary condition of an outcome is the starting particle. Similarly, outcomes are constrained to conserve energy, charge and various particle type numbers etc. E.g in both cases, you start with a particle and end with the same net charge. A particle on decaying if it gives rise to an antiparticle will also give rise to a "balancing" particle, etc. (And of course underneath this level, quarks are changing under weak force within nucleons -- composite and complex context.)kairosfocus_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT}

PS: Serendipity, Ra 222 is an alpha decaying atom. This case was examined by me at 325 - 6 above, with discussion of tunnelling and related stability of nucleus factors as well as the energy-time uncertainty and the sea of available energy in space itself. That is, we know there are many necessary causal factors at work, so the Ra 222 decay is not acausal; even down to a single atom. (That we do not -- and given uncertainty probably never will -- know the SUFFICIENT factors that trigger a particular alpha decay of a particular atom at a given time do es not imply that the resulting population level stochastic pattern is acausal. Indeed, statistical distributions are driven by underlying model dynamics factors that lead to the specific model, and not to another. Think, for instance, of the distribution pattern for two dice tossed at random: essentially Newtonian, and yet stochastic following a peaked distribution with 7 as total at the peak, because of distribution of relative weight of the 2, 3, 4 . . 12 states, even though each [fair] die may select any one face with flat probability of 1/6.)kairosfocus_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
03:36 AM
3
03
36
AM
PDT}

Folks: The onward developments show just how sadly broken our culture now is, when it comes to basic reason. before I try to address specific points, I will pause and ask some basic things once again: Case A: The reality of truth and error Let us go back to the Error Exists example -- notice, onlookers, how this has been studiously passed over in silence. Let's excerpt from 325:
g –> For even more telling instance, following Josiah Royce, try out: error exists. (Let’s call it E for short.) Almost all of us would immediately assent per our experience of the world as minded creatures [even relativists are trying to "correct" those "ignorant absolutists" out there . . . ], but more lurks here than is obvious. i –> That is, if we try to deny this claim, i.e. assert NOT-E, then we see that we are immediately implying that E is . . . an error. j –> So, to try to deny E only ends up showing that it is correct. E is UNDENIABLY TRUE, once we consult our experience and understanding of the world as minded creatures.
We plainly have a case where a knowable undeniable -- on pain of absurdity -- truth exists, so truth and knowledge of truth exist. Also, such truth exists by way of a contrast between what accurately corresponds to reality [truth] and what does not [error]. Without such basic, we simply cannot think straight. Case B: the fire triangle This is a second exercise in basics of rational thought. here, consider a fire, and observe that it has three necessary causal conditions: unless we have [a] fuel, [b] heat and [c] oxidiser, no fire is possible. Also, so soon as we have a, b and c jointly acting, we have a fire, i.e a, b and c are each CAUSALLY necessary and are jointly CAUSALLY sufficient for a fire to begin and be sustained. In short, cause-effect bonds are real, and that which begins credibly has a cause; that which is contingent and is sustained in existence, has a causal foundation for that ongoing existence. [Put simply: to extinguish the fire under the pot, turn off the gas. Or, dash it out with water. Or, smother it with CO2.] All of this should be simple enough. The fact that it plainly is not, is a wake-up call for our civilisation. C: Now, a few remarks on follow-up points: 1 --> Diff, I cited the case of a die to underscore the point that stochastically distributed outcomes may happen even in cases where classical determinism may be presumed to be as good a model of the dynamics as anything else. (Dice -- thanks to 12 edges and 8 corners -- are sensitively dependent on initial and intervening conditions, so they are in practice unpredictable as to specific outcome, but nicely fit the random distribution mathematical model.) 2 --> As a consequence, just because we see a stochastic distribution cannot logically imply that the actual outcomes are not influenced by necessary and even sufficient causes. (That the initial and intervening situations, parameters, boundary conditions and dynamics may be in principle or in practice hidden to us, is besides the point.) 3 --> In the case of quantum phenomena, we already know that there are many necessary factors at work, so we have no good grounds to infer from stochastic distributions of outcomes to absence of cause. For, a necessary cause is just that: a cause. 4 --> As well, Baryons are composite particles, so the objection to alpha decay as similarly [though quantitatively moreso] complex is a bit question-begging. That protons and neutrons are in effect states of a common nucleon, with slight shifts, so that [citing wiki for convenience] we may see a decay path n --> p [and the inverse path . . . ] as follows:
Because the neutron consists of three quarks, the only possible decay mode without a change of baryon number requires the flavour changing of one of the quarks via the weak nuclear force. The neutron consists of two down quarks with charge -1/3 and one up quark with charge +2/3, and the decay of one of the down quarks into a lighter up quark can be achieved by the emission of a W boson. By this means the neutron decays into a proton (which contains one down and two up quarks), an electron, and an electron antineutrino (antineutrino). Outside the nucleus, free neutrons are unstable and have a mean lifetime of 885.7±0.8 s (about 15 minutes), decaying by emission of a negative electron and antineutrino to become a proton:[6] n0 ? p+ + e? + ?e This decay mode, known as beta decay, can also transform the character of neutrons within unstable nuclei. Bound inside a nucleus, protons can also transform via inverse beta decay into neutrons. In this case, the transformation occurs by emission of a positron (antielectron) and a neutrino (instead of an antineutrino): p+ ? n0 + e+ + ?e
5 --> Observe the many causal constraints that impose certain necessities on outcomes [e.g. the neutrons inside a non RA atomic nucleus are more or less stable . . . ], and the resulting decay curve that yields a half-life for free neutron decay of ~ 10.3 minutes, which yields average lifespan ~ 15 minutes or about 900 s; which is a reasonable "typical number". In short, the neutron decay process is not radically different from the alpha nuclear decay process, just that we have now stepped up to quarks and gluons, and have shifted over to weak force changes in quarks to get the decay. 6 --> And, just as similarly, there is no good reason to say that just because we see a stochastic process and a following of a random decay law, we have acausal behaviour. 7 --> As to the notion of "limited acausality," this ignores the fact that we have already identified that there are certain necessary conditions that have causal force. For instance, neurons inside most atomic nuclei are stable, thank you. 8 --> As to the God's-eye view, the problem here is that we seem to be thinking in a box: on relevant worldviews, God is not temporally or spatially bound: in him, we live and move and have our being. So, the outcomes are immediately accessible to him, i.e, the question is irrelevant. 9 --> Similarly, unless you know God's purpose, you cannot legitimately object to his "failure" to provide evidence that meets your arbitrarily -- and selectively hyperskeptical -- high standard of demand for "proof." (And in fact the same relevant traditions hold that his life is a test: we have sufficient information to test our thoughts and intents, and to be responsible for what we do know or should know. [Just one instance: every cell in our bodies with a nucleus contains a small embedded, molecular nanotech digital computer to process DNA information. Is it credible that a computer created itself out of molecular noise, in light of our experience of what noise and random walks can do to get us TO first functionality in the sea of available configurations, and what intelligent designers can do? (Until you have first function, you cannot cumulatively select for superior differential function by whatever performance filter strikes your fancy.)]) GEM of TKIkairosfocus_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
03:23 AM
3
03
23
AM
PDT}

StephenB, First I'll note that since effects are defined as the result of causes, your "principle of right reason" holding that "all effects have causes" is equivalent to stating that "all things that have causes have causes." True enough, but does this really qualify for special mention as a "principle of right reason"? If so, there are an awful lot of principles of right reason, including "all frilly shirts are frilly shirts." Perhaps it would be better to have a general principle that "all things that are X are X" and leave it at that. As for the connection between free will and causality, read the question I pose to kairosfocus here, and then imagine that instead of watching a radon atom you are watching a living human being who has been instructed, over the next four hours, to write an X on a piece of paper whenever she wants to, or not at all. Suppose that after 1 hour and 27 minutes, she writes an X on the paper. As in the radon experiment, the question is: why did it happen then, and not at some other time? Was her choice causally determined or not?serendipity_{May 30, 2009
May
05
May
30
30
2009
01:17 AM
1
01
17
AM
PDT}

----serendipity: "It seems odd to me that you are uncomfortable with the idea of limited acausality, for as theists you seem comfortable with the idea of God as an uncaused cause and with the notion that both God and humans can make free choices which are themselves uncaused." In all honesty, I don't understand the connection you are making. The principles of right reason apply to the rationality of the universe, one aspect of which is the fact that all effects have causes. What does all of that have to do with free will, which refers to God and man's capacity to BE causal agents?StephenB_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
10:54 PM
10
10
54
PM
PDT}

----Nakashima: "I wouldn’t so much use the word negotiable as revisable. To the extent that the PRR (sorry for the abbreviation) are connected to the real world and not just logical procedures, they are provisional." If they are provisional or revisable, they are useless. We begin with the principles of right reason to illumniate our research, we do not use our research to illumniate the principles of right reason. The order cannot be reversed.StephenB_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
09:36 PM
9
09
36
PM
PDT}

----Nakashima: "BTW, just to make sure I understand the terminology correctly, the PRR being discussed now are the same PRR that you told me about on the Shermer thread?" Nothing has been revised, but I have zeroed in on the three that should be the most obvious, mamely, that something cannot come from nothing, an effect cannot exist without a cause, and that a thing cannot be and not be. There is no reason to go into the more subtle foundations if my adversaries are going to deny even the ones that should be clear.StephenB_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
09:27 PM
9
09
27
PM
PDT}

"Quite the contrary, in fact. The conclusion of limited acausality in quantum mechanics is a consequence of the strict application of logic to the results of quantum experiments. It depends on logic and does not undermine it." Well I can think of nothing that would undermine logic more than claiming that we know that things can exist before they exist, that A can be A and non A at he same time in the same relationship or that something can come from nothing can you? Secondly the uncertainty principle is not the NON determined principle. Indeterminacy does not mean NON determinacy. Why is QM called the indeterminacy principle rather than the NON determinacy principle? "It seems odd to me that you are uncomfortable with the idea of limited acausality, for as theists you seem comfortable with the idea of God as an uncaused cause..." Because there is nothing illogical about a being that is aseitic. It is only anything that begins to exist that requires a cause. To postulate that something that begins to exist requires no cause requires that existence to exist before it exists. To paraphrase William Lane Craig "To assert that something can come from nothing is worse than magic. At least with magic you have a magician!! and you have a hat!!! If you want to believe in magic have at it.What I find interesting is that it is the "irrational" theists defending rational thought and the atheists "escaping from reason" The so called "irrational" theists are the rational ones and the atheists embracing and being irrational? "and with the notion that both God and humans can make free choices which are themselves uncaused." Well I cant speak for every theist but this theist does not think either Gods or humans choices free choices are uncaused. Thats absurd!! Vividvividbleau_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
09:11 PM
9
09
11
PM
PDT}

Mr StephenB, Again, I remind you that quantum mechanics could not correct pre-quantum conceptions of physics if the principles of right reason were negotiable. I wouldn't so much use the word negotiable as revisable. To the extent that the PRR (sorry for the abbreviation) are connected to the real world and not just logical procedures, they are provisional. The parallel postulate was a provisional part of the geometric system which has not proved effective on the surface of the Earth, near heavy stars, and might not apply to the universe as a whole. LNC, the same. The point is that when the need to revise these provisional understandings occurs, we don't assume the world is all chaos and cats and dogs will be living together. The revision to the PRR is like the revision to our understanding of the laws of physics - at the edges, in circumstances we haven't encountered before. I'm fine with the idea that LNC can be violated by small particles but not by statistically larger ensembles of particles, such as macroscopic entities. BTW, just to make sure I understand the terminology correctly, the PRR being discussed now are the same PRR that you told me about on the Shermer thread? Your personal, non-axiomatic private list of logical rules which might not agree with the universe but that is ok? I just want to make sure no revision of what PRR means had taken place between threads.Nakashima_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT}

370 should read, "I am not disputing the scientific conclusions of quantum physics, which would, in itself, be an [irrational] response to facts in evidence."StephenB_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
08:19 PM
8
08
19
PM
PDT}

kairosfocus, StephenB and vividbleau, My impression is that all of you share the misconception that to entertain the notion of limited acausality in specific quantum situations is tantamount to abandoning logic altogether. Not so. Quite the contrary, in fact. The conclusion of limited acausality in quantum mechanics is a consequence of the strict application of logic to the results of quantum experiments. It depends on logic and does not undermine it. It seems odd to me that you are uncomfortable with the idea of limited acausality, for as theists you seem comfortable with the idea of God as an uncaused cause and with the notion that both God and humans can make free choices which are themselves uncaused.serendipity_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT}

----Diffaxial: "The only assertion at hand is the irreducibly indeterminate nature of events within extremely specific contexts - those within which quantum description departs from that of classical physics. No one is making an assertion about “any context.” By "any context" I mean any conceivable context. In other words, the principles of right reason will not permit you to posit causeless effect in any context at all. In other words, the door is closed on a causeless effect apriori. Again, I remind you that quantum mechanics could not correct pre-quantum conceptions of physics if the principles of right reason were negotiable. I went into more detail on that matter in an earlier post, but everyone conveniently ignored the point.StephenB_{May 29, 2009
May
05
May
29
29
2009
08:11 PM
8
08
11
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 17 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply