The Illusion of Knowledge II
| September 8, 2006 | Posted by Barry Arrington under Intelligent Design |
In Illusion of Knowledge I, I discussed dark matter and dark energy. Even though neither has ever been observed (i.e., confirmed by experience), the Standard Model of cosmology posits that 21% of the universe is comprised of the former and a whopping 75% of the universe is comprised of the latter. I quoted skeptical cosmologist Mike Disney: “The greatest obstacle to progress in science is the illusion of knowledge, the illusion that we know what’s going on when we really don’t.â€ÂÂÂ
Some people took the point of my post to be a criticism of big bang cosmology. That was not my purpose. As I said before, I have absolutely no qualifications to judge the merits of the Standard Model. But I do know a thing or two about epistemology – the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature of knowledge and knowing.  ÂÂ
The point of my post was that cosmologists who accept the Standard Model are a lot like biologists who accept the Neo-Darwinian Model. Both theories are based in large part on inferences that are in turn based upon assumptions that may – or may not – be true. To say that we “know†the universe is made up of 21% dark matter and 75% dark energy is just silly. We know no such thing. Scientists infer the existence of dark matter and dark energy because they are both necessary if their assumption about an expanding universe is true. Scientists infer dark matter and dark energy for the same reason scientists 100 years ago inferred the existence of the ether – their theory needed it.ÂÂ
But as David Berlinski points out in his article about the Big Bang (thank you Salvador for the link), there have been a number of observations that tend to disconfirm the assumption of an expanding universe. These anomalies may ultimately be accounted for, and the universe may actually be as the cosmologists assume it to be. But this is not NECESSARILY the case. Next month new discoveries may compel cosmologists to reject their current assumptions about an expanding universe, and 100 years from now physics students may chuckle about the quaint 21st century notion of dark energy and dark matter the way physics students today chuckle about the quaint 19th century idea of the ether. Or next month that guy who has spent the last 20 years trying to detect dark matter in a mine in England may actually catch some, thus confirming the theory by direct observation.ÂÂ
My point is that it is a species of hubris for cosmologists to say we “know†that dark matter and dark energy exist even though the existence of neither has been confirmed by experience. They are blurring the distinction between directly observed fact and inferences compelled by their pet theory.ÂÂ
In the same article Berlinski says this: “Until recently, the great physicists have been scrupulous about honoring the terms of their contract [to provide a true account of the physical world]. They have attempted with dignity to respect the distinction between what is known and what is not . . . This scrupulousness has lately been compromised. The result has been the calculated or careless erasure of the line separating disciplined physical inquiry from speculative metaphysics. Contemporary cosmologists feel free to say anything that pops into their heads.â€Â ÂÂ
Similarly, the Neo-Darwinian model is based upon inferences that are in turn based upon a key assumption. That assumption is that blind physical forces are the only forces available to do the work of imbuing living things with the staggering complexity and diversity we observe. If this assumption is true, something like NDE simply must have occurred. The problem is that while the assumption may be true, it is not necessarily true. Nevertheless, Darwinists treat the assumption as if it were necessarily true, and it is no longer considered critically (if it is even considered at all). It has become part of the intellectual landscape. This makes Darwinists blind to two things. It makes them blind to disconfirming data. If NDE or something like it MUST be true, disconfirming data, by definition, cannot exist. It also makes them blind to alternate explanations that the disconfirming data, if they could see it, would suggest. This blindness is the price they must pay for their hubris.
40 Responses to The Illusion of Knowledge II
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BarryA,
In regards to: “This makes Darwinists blind to two things. It makes them blind to disconfirming data. If NDE or something like it MUST be true, disconfirming data, by definition, cannot exist.”
Hawks writes: “Disconfirming data does not has to be anything remotely to do with the opposite of “blind physical forcesâ€Â
If you will translate this sentence into English I will try to respond.
—————————————-
Seems I misunderstood what you were trying to say. You seem to be saying that disconfirming data has to be data disconfirming the existence of purely “blind physical forces”. I understood it to say that nothing could possibly disconfirm “Darwinism”. My sentence was in English, it was just difficult to follow.
Again, I think that Dave Scott, with no offense, sounds like Panda’s Thumb on I.D. He totally ignores contrary evidence, observations, and opinions, even from Hubble himself and Carl Sagan.
Allow me to quote from this essay from Thunderbolts.info Picture of the Day Essay:
Public relations in the sciences did not always work this way. A quarter-century ago, when America’s favorite astronomer, Carl Sagan, published his book, Cosmos, he addressed the redshift question:
“There is nevertheless a nagging suspicion among some astronomers, that all may not be right with the deduction, from the redshift of galaxies via the Doppler effect, that the universe is expanding. The astronomer Halton Arp has found enigmatic and disturbing cases where a galaxy and a quasar, or a pair of galaxies, that are in apparent physical association have very different redshifts….”
Sagan’s acknowledgment here showed a candor rarely found in standard treatments of astronomy today. He continued, “If Arp is right, the exotic mechanisms proposed to explain the energy source of distant quasarsâ€â€supernova chain reactions, supermassive black holes and the like â€â€would prove unnecessary. Quasars need not then be very distant. But some other exotic mechanism will be required to explain the redshift. In either case, something very strange is going on in the depths of space.”
It is astonishing to realize that, for a quarter century after Sagan wrote these words, an ideological interpretation became increasingly entrenched in astronomy, even in the face of growing evidence to the contrary.
# # # # # # # # # #
Again, even the Bullet Cluster “evidence” can be interpreted differently. Again, from Thunderbolts:
Optical and x-ray images of the galaxy cluster named 1E0657-56 have provided direct proof that these clumps of disturbed galaxies are small, faint, and nearby. These and many similar observations directly contradict the foundational assumptions of the Big Bang, which place the objects far away.
What we have stated in the headline and abstract above is, of course, an interpretation, not a fact. But the distinction between interpretation and fact has become so muddled in the sciences that we felt obliged to underscore the point rhetorically. Unbending theoretical assumptions have wrought havoc on popular astronomy, which could not recognize our interpretation of the Bullet Cluster based on the known electrical behavior of plasma.
According to the authors of the Chandra X-Ray Observatory website, the galactic cluster imaged above “was formed after the collision of two large clusters of galaxies, the most energetic event known in the universe since the Big Bang.” Though the announcement by the Chandra team never uses the words “theory,” “hypothesis,” or “interpretation,” its every sentence rests on a jumble of assumptions, from supposed galactic “collisions” to wildly conjectural “gravitational lensing,” all wrapped around the discredited notion that redshift is a reliable measure of velocity and distance. The capper is the announcement appearing in numerous scientific media that the image “proves the existence of dark matter.”
In electrical terms, the Hubble optical image shows the many distorted galaxies and filaments of plasma that have been identified by the astronomer Halton Arp as the fragments of a quasar (QSO, or quasi-stellar object) after it has moved through an evolving, highly redshifted and unstable “BL Lac” phase. The BL Lac transition breaks up the increasingly massive plasma of the quasar as it progresses toward becoming a companion galaxy.
From an electrical vantage point, the Chandra x-ray image (pink) clearly shows the bell-shaped terminus and following arc of a plasma discharge “jet.†. The strong magnetic field of the current causes electrons to emit the x-ray synchrotron (non-thermal) radiation captured in the image. Synchrotron radiation is a normal electrical discharge effect.
But popular astronomy, oblivious to electrical phenomena, sees only “hot gases colliding.”
See here for Big Bang problems:
http://www.metaresearch.org/co.....top-30.asp
Link to Thunderbolts essay: http://www.thunderbolts.info/t.....luster.htm
Links on alternative interpretation, and on Hubble’s own position:
http://home.pacbell.net/skeptica/edwinhubble.html
Excerpt:
Big Bang critic, and radio astronomy pioneer Grote Reber desires to make it known that Hubble expressed “grave doubts about red shifts being caused by relative motion.†Reber asks us to see pages 2, 21, 26, 31, 43, 44, 54, 63 and 66 of Hubble’s 1937 book The Observational Approach to Cosmology. This book is excellent in showing Hubble’s doubts about redshifts being due to the Doppler effect. In a 1934 lecture with the title “Red-Shifts in the Spectra of Nebulae,” Hubble writes:
The field is new, but it offers rather definite prospects not only of testing the form of the velocity-distance relation beyond the reach of the spectrograph, but even of critically testing the very interpretation of red-shifts as due to motion. With this possibility in view, the cautious observer refrains from committing himself to the present interpretation and prefers the colourless term “apparent velocity.†(4)
The field was still young, but not so new by the time Hubble died in 1953, so perhaps Hubble dropped his doubts by then. Yet even in 1953, in his last lecture before he died, Hubble still treated the linear velocity-distance relation as an apparent velocity-distance relation. In his George Darwin Lecture of 1953 with the title “The Law of Red-Shifts,†a graph is provided showing a linear relation of several galaxy groups. On the bottom corner of the graph are the words “NO RECESSION FACTOR.” In other words, if the dimming factor for recession of the galaxies is not used, the relation between redshift (usually expressed as velocity) and apparent magnitude will be linear.
Oh, and as the Politically Incorrect Guide to Science makes good points about dogma and science, so too (even if you find some of the views untenable) is KICKING THE SACRED COW by Hogan. He credits Dr. Dembski; the entire chapter on Darwin is here:
And Spetner, not using Darwin, gives his him a good kick too!
http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp
So, let me conclude that Barry A makes excellent points.
Scientists are Only Human
â€â€and Not Immune to Dogma.
A New York Times Bestselling Writer Examines the Facts in the Most Profound Controversies in Modern Science.
Galileo may have been forced to deny that the Earth moves around the Sun; but in the end, science triumphed. Nowadays science fearlessly pursues truth, shining the pure light of reason on the mysteries of the universe. Or does it? As bestselling author James P. Hogan demonstrates in this fact-filled and thoroughly documented study, science has its own roster of hidebound pronouncements which are Not to be Questioned. Among the dogma-laden subjects he examines are Darwinism, global warming, the big bang, problems with relativity, radon and radiation, holes in the ozone layer, the cause of AIDS, and the controversy over Velikovsky. Hogan explains the basics of each controversy with his clear, informative style, in a book that will be fascinating for anyone with an interest in the frontiers of modern science.
http://www.baen.com/chapters/W......htm?blurb
Introduction
Engineering and the Truth Fairies
Science really doesn’t exist. Scientific beliefs are either proved wrong, or else they quickly become engineering. Everything else is untested speculation. â€â€JPH
http://www.baen.com/chapters/W.....88___2.htm (On Darwin, Humanistic Religion)
Oh, and as the Politically Incorrect Guide to Science makes good points about dogma and science, so too (even if you find some of the views untenable) is KICKING THE SACRED COW by Hogan. He credits Dr. Dembski; the entire chapter on Darwin is here:
And Spetner, not using ID, gives his Darwin a good kick too!
http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp
So, let me conclude that Barry A makes excellent points.
Scientists are Only Human
â€â€and Not Immune to Dogma.
A New York Times Bestselling Writer Examines the Facts in the Most Profound Controversies in Modern Science.
Galileo may have been forced to deny that the Earth moves around the Sun; but in the end, science triumphed. Nowadays science fearlessly pursues truth, shining the pure light of reason on the mysteries of the universe. Or does it? As bestselling author James P. Hogan demonstrates in this fact-filled and thoroughly documented study, science has its own roster of hidebound pronouncements which are Not to be Questioned. Among the dogma-laden subjects he examines are Darwinism, global warming, the big bang, problems with relativity, radon and radiation, holes in the ozone layer, the cause of AIDS, and the controversy over Velikovsky. Hogan explains the basics of each controversy with his clear, informative style, in a book that will be fascinating for anyone with an interest in the frontiers of modern science.
http://www.baen.com/chapters/W......htm?blurb
Introduction
Engineering and the Truth Fairies
Science really doesn’t exist. Scientific beliefs are either proved wrong, or else they quickly become engineering. Everything else is untested speculation. â€â€JPH
http://www.baen.com/chapters/W.....88___2.htm (On Darwin, Humanistic Religion)
The Higgs field theory is popular amongst physicists today, it’s little different then aether theories.
Sorry for the duplicate posting. Going back to the original article by Berlinski, I think his conclusion is brilliant. He writes about science and myth; I find that I like/respect the writing of such dissidents, including Wallace Thornhill, whom I cited about, and talks about emotional intelligence. Each man shows a totally suitable humility about human concepts and the extent of our knowledge.
The thrust of my argument: I do not believe the evidence shows what Dave Scott wrote: “It’s more than assumption that the universe is expanding. It’s direct observation. Light decreases in frequency if the source is moving away from the observer just like the sound of a train whistle decreases as it moves away from you. This is directly measurable.”
Thus, if I.D. scientists do in fact obtain evidence that contradicts Darwinina dogma, do not be surprised by the denials and alternate interpretations.
I think it takes a lack of insight and humility to believe we can observe “creation”; nor do I understand the appeal of the Big Bang.
Berlinski writes:
# # # # # # # # #
This scrupulousness has lately been compromised.
The result has been the calculated or careless
erasure of the line separating disciplined physical inquiry
from speculative metaphysics. Contemporary
cosmologists feel free to say anything that pops into
their heads. Unhappy examples are everywhere: absurd
schemes to model time on the basis of the complex
numbers, as in Stephen Hawking’s A Brief History
of Time; bizarre and ugly contraptions for cosmic
inflation; universes multiplying beyond the
reach of observation; white holes, black holes, worm
holes, and naked singularities; theories of every
stripe and variety, all of them uncorrected by any
criticism beyond the trivial.
The physicists carry on endlessly because they
can. Just recently, for example, Lee Smolin, a cosmologist
at the University of Pennsylvania, has offered
a Darwinian interpretation of cosmology, a
theory of “cosmological natural selection.” On
Smolin’s view, the Big Bang happened within a
black hole; new universes are bubbling up all the
time, each emerging from its own black hole and
each provided with its own set of physical laws, so
that the very concept of a law of nature is shown to
be a part of the mutability of things.
There is, needless to say, no evidence whatsoever
in favor of this preposterous theory. The universes
that are bubbling up are unobservable. So,
too, are the universes that have bubbled up and
those that will bubble up in the future. Smolin’s
theories cannot be confirmed by experience. Or by
anything else. What law of nature could reveal that
the laws of nature are contingent? Yet the fact that
when Smolin’s theory is self-applied it self-destructs
has not prevented physicists like Alan Guth,
Roger Penrose, and Martin Rees from circumspectly
applauding the effort nonetheless.
A scientific crisis has historically been the excuse
to which scientists have appealed for the exculpation
of damaged doctrines. Smolin is no exception. “We
are living,” he writes, “through a period of scientific
crisis.” Ordinary men and women may well scruple
at the idea that cosmology is in crisis because
cosmologists, deep down, have run out of interesting
things to say, but in his general suspicions
Smolin is no doubt correct. What we are discovering
is that many areas of the universe are apparently
protected from our scrutiny, like sensitive files sealed
from view by powerful encryption codes. However
painful, the discovery should hardly be unexpected.
Beyond every act of understanding, there is an abyss.
Like Darwin’s theory of evolution, Big Bang cosmology
has undergone that curious social process in
which a scientific theory is promoted to a secular
myth. The two theories serve as points of certainty
in an intellectual culture that is otherwise disposed
to give the benefit of the doubt to doubt itself. It is
within the mirror of these myths that we have come
to see ourselves. But if the promotion of theory into
myth satisfies one human agenda, it violates another.
Myths are quite typically false, and science is concerned
with truth. Human beings, it would seem,
may make scientific theories or they may make
myths, but with respect to the same aspects of experience,
they cannot quite do both.
I really didn’t want the “last word” on this thread, but here’s the latest on discoveries that contradict the “Big Bang”:
http://www.thunderbolts.info/w.....erglow.htm
EXCERPT:
Big Bang’s Afterglow Fails an Intergalactic Shadow Test
Press Release
In a finding sure to cause controversy, scientists at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) found a lack of evidence of shadows from “nearby” clusters of galaxies using new, highly accurate measurements of the cosmic microwave background.
A team of UAH scientists led by Dr. Richard Lieu, a professor of physics, used data from NASA’s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) to scan the cosmic microwave background for shadows caused by 31 clusters of galaxies.
“These shadows are a well-known thing that has been predicted for years,” said Lieu. “This is the only direct method of determining the distance to the origin of the cosmic microwave background. Up to now, all the evidence that it originated from as far back in time as the Big Bang fireball has been circumstantial.
“If you see a shadow, however, it means the radiation comes from behind the cluster. If you don’t see a shadow, then you have something of a problem. Among the 31 clusters that we studied, some show a shadow effect and others do not.”
Other groups have previously reported seeing this type of shadows in the microwave background. Those studies, however, did not use data from WMAP, which was designed and built specifically to study the cosmic microwave background.
If the standard Big Bang theory of the universe is accurate and the background microwave radiation came to Earth from the furthest edges of the universe, then massive X-ray emitting clusters of galaxies nearest our own Milky Way galaxy should all cast shadows on the microwave background.
These findings are scheduled to be published in the Sept. 1, 2006, edition of the Astrophysical Journal.
Taken together, the data shows a shadow effect about one-fourth of what was predicted – an amount roughly equal in strength to natural variations previously seen in the microwave background across the entire sky.
“Either it (the microwave background) isn’t coming from behind the clusters, which means the Big Bang is blown away, or … there is something else going on,” said Lieu. “One possibility is to say the clusters themselves are microwave emitting sources, either from an embedded point source or from a halo of microwave-emitting material that is part of the cluster environment.
“Based on all that we know about radiation sources and halos around clusters, however, you wouldn’t expect to see this kind of emission. And it would be implausible to suggest that several clusters could all emit microwaves at just the right frequency and intensity to match the cosmic background radiation.”
This last, from an e-mail response of Wallace Thornhill, regarding Berlinski’s statement on myths; he wrote me:
“However, the problem with his view of myths, which is almost universal, is that they do have common truthful elements. We view them collectively as false because they relate to cosmic electrical events in the past that are totally outside our experience.
“It requires a scientific approach to myth to uncover the truth. Only then will we recover our real history and that of the Earth. meanwhile geology and astronomy remain a modern fairy story (not a myth, because there is no truth in it). The era of myth-making occurred once and once only at the dawn of civilization. Civilization sprang up, ‘like a thunderclap’ on the ruins of a battered Earth.”
Wal