1. Comment #90389 by BAEOZ on November 25, 2007 at 1:45 am

Paul Davies must hate science. He's saying that one (and only) assumption that science takes for granted. That has been backed by evidence is the same as religious faith which is backed by no evidence and is obviously the product of ignorance. Talk about equivocation on a grand scale. Sad.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

2. Comment #90393 by Duff on November 25, 2007 at 1:57 am

Yes, yes. We all know scientist's faith is just the same as the religionist's faith. Except that quantum uncertainty doesn't keep scientists from making incredible predictions and measurements. Lets see you make any kind of a prediction with your pathetic religious faith.
What a pathetic piece. But what does one expect from a scientist who has chosen to commit intellectual suicide because he can't throw of his childhood brainwashing.

Other Comments by Duff

3. Comment #90396 by Monosilabbiq on November 25, 2007 at 2:13 am

I wouldn't discard this article entirely as it's conclusions in the very last paragraph echo those to be found in TGD. The disappointing aspect of the article is the manner in which it flirts with "God" and "faith". A deeply religious (OK any religious) believer will read the article and think that it backs up the individual's right and rightness to believe. Actually at no time does the article specifically say that the author's take on science demonstrates a case for there being a god.

The curious use of the term "faith" will obviously also chime with the religiously inclined. My understanding of science and scientists is that any scientist would love to be able to disprove any of the "Laws" of science. To be able to do that in a way that could be peer reviewed and accepted would certainly lead to Nobel prizes and eternal fame. The "faith" that a scientist has in the Laws of physics is more of an acceptance of previous, accepted, work. Each new discovery does not require a scientist to start by justifying gravity. The strength of science in this respect is that it progresses. A world view that uses as it's foundation a book that was written centuries ago and was subsequently edited by political power brokers, is unlikely to progress.

Other Comments by Monosilabbiq

4. Comment #90399 by Bueller_007 on November 25, 2007 at 2:30 am

I'm surprised Dawkins doesn't have a personal rule against posting Templeton-Prize-winner's tripe on his website.

Other Comments by Bueller_007

5. Comment #90406 by PaulJ on November 25, 2007 at 3:38 am

In other words, the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research. But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.

I don't see this at all. How or where the laws of physics originated (if indeed that's a meaningful question) isn't relevant to actual research. The scientific evidence suggests that the laws operate in a particular way. It's okay to say we don't know why, and there's very little (if any) 'faith' involved.

Other Comments by PaulJ

6. Comment #90407 by alexmzk on November 25, 2007 at 3:42 am

Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith — namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too. For that reason, both monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of physical existence.

Science serves up a whole meal, minus the gravy. Alternatively, Religion brings some cheesy biscuits to the table. Clearly neither is going to fully satiate yr hunger, so they're both equally invalid.

Other Comments by alexmzk

7. Comment #90408 by stereoroid on November 25, 2007 at 3:59 am

Prof. Dawkins may have a chance to ask Prof. Davies about this, since he's scheduled to speak at the Beyond Institute on March 6 next year. Prof. Davies seems to be one of the good guys, which makes this a slightly odd article, then. It seem to confuse "not understanding something" with "inability to understand anything". If you don't have an answer to a question, and are happy to say "I don't know", where's the "faith" in that? We think the universe is ordered because it is seen to be behaving in an ordered way, at least at the macroscopic level - again, no "faith "required. If we're wrong about that... we'll handle that too.

Other Comments by stereoroid

8. Comment #90415 by Vinelectric on November 25, 2007 at 4:19 am

All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way

This is not factual and I hope Quantum physicists will write back to criticize this article. The building blocks of matter appear to interact with their environment in a way that is neither linear nor certain. There is no presumption that they will and that contrasts with theological belief systems.

Einstein rules when Newton fails and thus we accept that the models of material behaviour that we call the "Physical Laws" are but more like 'useful approximations' than set laws.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

9. Comment #90427 by JemyM on November 25, 2007 at 5:35 am

Whenever someone tells you that you should not trust verified science, the scientific way to verify claims, your own senses, or that you should avoid to read about/analyse/examine the validity of their claims, you are more than likely dealing with someone who are trying to fool you and have something to win by distorting the truth. When they want your money or tell you that you have to follow certain rules or certain authorities you have even more reason to avoid them.

Other Comments by JemyM

10. Comment #90428 by fragilex on November 25, 2007 at 5:43 am

Davies might have a point if scientists were actually treating the "multiverse" as an object of faith; however they are not. The existence of a multiverse violates no laws, it's consistent with current ideas in physics. Moreover, to argue that our universe is the only possible universe in existence would violate the principle of parsimony, since such an absolute exclusion would require extra explanation.

Most important, however, is the fact that scientists don't approach the concept of a multiverse with religious faith – they don't simply "believe in it" because they want to – it's a concept that's emerging from theories and explanations in physics, scientists are simply asserting that a multiverse is a reasonable possibility. Their strength of belief in a multiverse is in no way disproportional to the evidence emerging from inflationary theory.

Other Comments by fragilex

11. Comment #90435 by notsobad on November 25, 2007 at 6:13 am

science is based on faith too, nada nada

boring

Other Comments by notsobad

12. Comment #90439 by Scott McMeekin on November 25, 2007 at 6:48 am

Another good example of a man railing against his own ignorance of complex subjects. "I don't understand science. I've met lots of scientists who weren't able to explain complex subjects in simple terms that I could understand. Scientists appear to exhibit "belief" that we will eventually understand the universe. Ergo, both are belief systems."

The way I see it, science works towards understanding the universe, and therefore contributes to humanity's quest to drag itself out of the dark. I've never met anyone in my entire life that was able to put the case that any religion does the same.

Thanks, but I'll stick with science for now.

Scott.

Other Comments by Scott McMeekin

13. Comment #90440 by MaxWeiss on November 25, 2007 at 6:56 am

I sent this to him. What do you all think??


Hello Prof. Davies!

Near the beginning of your recent Times article "Taking Science on Faith" you asserted that "All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way."

It is my understanding that something like gravity is taken to be true because while it cannot be proven true in all circumstances, it continually passes each series of tests thrown at it. And the Scientific Method is the singular tool used for all such tests. Similarly, the "laws" of nature and the "rational and intelligible" nature of the universe are considered as such because they are continually not disproved. In other words, if the laws hold over and over and over, it is very likely they will continue to do so, and if it appears that they are not, the problem likely lies in another area (though not necessarily).

I am therefore confused as to why you believe the assumption of the continual presence of the laws and order of nature is invalid. Certainly when what we believe to be true is proven false, the theories are amended or discarded altogether. Relativity, for example, amended the classical Newtonian "laws".

Whatever order or laws are assumed have been tested and observed to be true over and over, have they not??

Do you believe that gravity will continue to act in the manner that it has in the past? If so, then I am wholly confused as to why you take a different view about other laws of nature and the rational and intelligible order of the universe---after all, they are all tested and taken for granted in the same way are they not? And if not, why?

I'm not trying to be mean, and I am truly confused about your faith-in-science stance and the above statement.

Thanks for your time!


Other Comments by MaxWeiss

14. Comment #90442 by phasmagigas on November 25, 2007 at 7:05 am

Other Comments by phasmagigas

15. Comment #90446 by steve99 on November 25, 2007 at 7:15 am

Paul Davies must hate science. He's saying that one (and only) assumption that science takes for granted.

What a pathetic piece. But what does one expect from a scientist who has chosen to commit intellectual suicide because he can't throw of his childhood brainwashing.

its hard to know if this is a piss take or not.

the author is another bloody idiot

Whoah! Hold on there people. It does no good to over-react and misinterpret someone who is a very respected scientist; certainly not an idiot or science hater.

Paul Davis is NOT saying that faith is good, or that science is just like religion. In fact, he is very pro-science. What he is saying is we have to question even more than we are doing now - we have to be even more skeptical.

He is saying that many scientists assume some definite laws of nature that are external to the universe. His view (which is shared by some of the great minds of physics, such as John Wheeler) is that even the supposed 'laws of physics' may be mutable, especially when the universe was much, much younger and smaller. He is suggesting we need to be more flexibile in our thinking of what 'laws' of physics are.

So can I politely suggest a little more moderation and thought before posting? This sort of over-reaction does the site no favours.

Other Comments by steve99

16. Comment #90450 by phasmagigas on November 25, 2007 at 7:18 am

i dont really understand the authors point. accepting a framework of physical laws even if as yet their reason is unknown isnt faith, the laws are apparently there. To suggest this is somehow equivalent to faith in a universal ceator which may or not be there seems quite different even if this notion of god is way different from one that doesnt like people to work on sundays.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

17. Comment #90451 by phasmagigas on November 25, 2007 at 7:20 am

steve, yes i blundered, i thought the snippet was the entire piece!! then i read the whole lot and hey presto the authors meanings become realised.

edit, a case of my not looking before leaping and in my defence i deleted my post before i even saw steves wrist slap :)

Other Comments by phasmagigas

18. Comment #90453 by steve99 on November 25, 2007 at 7:23 am

i dont really understand the authors point. accepting a framework of physical laws even if as yet their reason is unknown isnt faith, the laws are apparently there. To suggest this is somehow equivalent to faith in a universal ceator which may or not be there seems quite different even if this notion of god is way different from one that doesnt like people to work on sundays.

True, but what Davies is saying is that some scientists are kind of assuming 'there are laws' in an axiomatic and unquestioning way, and this can in some senses be like the unquestioning way people assume God as axiomatic.

steve, yes i blundered, i thought the snippet was the entire piece!! then i read the whole lot and hey presto the authors meanings become realised.

It was a very clumsily pitched snippet....

Other Comments by steve99

19. Comment #90454 by phasmagigas on November 25, 2007 at 7:27 am

True, but what Davies is saying is that some scientists are kind of assuming 'there are laws' in an axiomatic and unquestioning way, and this can in some senses be like the unquestioning way people assume God as axiomatic.

i guess that those who can genuinely ponder the origins of the laws are perhaps waiting for the right time, once we (they) have a better idea of how and when the laws did/do/will operate then it will be easier to establish why. For sure scientists have to assume the laws are there (and in that sense it could be a type of very practical faith)but only in the same sense in that every time you take a step you assume that you will not fall down into the void.

i can see a slight danger that articles like this one could be hijacked by full on faithheads and pass on the science is a faith to others.

there is a difference here between 'faith' in universal laws being present (even if locally they vary) and faith in the traditional sense. if i throw a ball up, i know its going to come down, not through having faith in (local?) laws but by evidence, having seen balls only ever come down. traditional faith is a faith that god is there but also more importantly how he works and as we know once could pray to god all day that the ball stays up but it really just isnt going to do so.



Other Comments by phasmagigas

20. Comment #90459 by Janus on November 25, 2007 at 7:51 am

is that science has its own faith-based belief system. All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn't be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. When physicists probe to a deeper level of subatomic structure, or astronomers extend the reach of their instruments, they expect to encounter additional elegant mathematical order.

*sigh* Davies pisses me off. Yes, I understand that he's explaining the necessity of methodological naturalism. But why is he sucking up to the anti-science crowd by saying science has its own "faith-based belief system"? It doesn't. A scientist could be agnostic about whether the universe is "rational", or even believe that it's irrational, and he would still be able to find the wonderful order that scientists have found thus far in our universe. It's just that making the methodological assumption that a phenomenon can be understood speeds up the process, because you can't test whether it's irrational anyway. It's like saying, "The universe might be rational, or it might be irrational, but regardless I'm going to see if I can figure out how it works. If it is irrational, well, I'll have wasted my time. If it is rational, I'll have discovered something new about the universe."
What's faith-based about that?

The multiverse theory is increasingly popular, but it doesn't so much explain the laws of physics as dodge the whole issue. There has to be a physical mechanism to make all those universes and bestow bylaws on them. This process will require its own laws, or meta-laws. Where do they come from? The problem has simply been shifted up a level from the laws of the universe to the meta-laws of the multiverse.

Hard to believe that Davies could make such a huge philosophical blunder. He's conflating two different questions about the laws of the universe, of which the multiverse hypothesis is only supposed to explain one.

The two questions are these:
1) Why is the universe complex and/or orderly rather than simple and/or chaotic?
2) Given that the universe is orderly, why is its order what it is rather than something else?

In other words, (1) Why are there laws? and (2) Why are the laws what they are and not something else?

Criticizing the multiverse hypothesis for shifting up the problem of why there are laws one level is silly, because the multiverse was never meant to solve that problem. The only question that the multiverse is meant to answer is (2), not (1).

And the multiverse does solve (2), in the same way that the existence of an incredibly large number of planets explains the amazing coincidence that the Earth is perfect to support the existence of life (which of course isn't an amazing coincidence at all, precisely because there are so many planets). The existence of many planets doesn't explain why there are planets in the first place, however, but no one says it does, just like no one says the multiverse explains why there are universes in the first place.

Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith — namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too. For that reason, both monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of physical existence.

You just can't keep yourself from putting religion and science on an equal footing, can you Davies? What is this, more of Mooney's "framing"? Are you afraid you'd kill your chances of getting another Templeton prize if you said that orthodox science fails to provide a complete account of physical existence, while religion doesn't explain a damn thing?

It seems to me there is no hope of ever explaining why the physical universe is as it is so long as we are fixated on immutable laws or meta-laws that exist reasonlessly or are imposed by divine providence. The alternative is to regard the laws of physics and the universe they govern as part and parcel of a unitary system, and to be incorporated together within a common explanatory scheme.

Oh, so this is where this article leads to. Of course!
Doctor Davies' pet theory is that physical laws exist because they were shaped by the intelligent beings who live in the universe that these laws govern. The intelligent beings can exist in this universe because the laws are _just right_ to permit their existence, while the laws exist because the intelligent beings have modified them to make them _just right_.

And Davies thinks that's a more rational explanation than a set of physical laws that just exist.

No wonder he didn't mention his theory in this article. If he had, he'd be perceived as a crackpot by everyone who reads it.

But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.

Some scientists may be taking it on faith that the laws of the universe "just exist", but that's not a failing of science. Science is free of faith.

Other Comments by Janus

21. Comment #90461 by Tea Q on November 25, 2007 at 8:17 am

Great comment, Janus. You're very good at articulating my own thoughts, I must say ;)

What I took the guy to be saying, in short, is this: if you believe that you're not a brain in a vat despite your inability to prove so, then you should also believe in tooth fairy.

Other Comments by Tea Q

22. Comment #90462 by steve99 on November 25, 2007 at 8:17 am

A scientist could be agnostic about whether the universe is "rational", or even believe that it's irrational, and he would still be able to find the wonderful order that scientists have found thus far in our universe.

Yes, but his claim is that most scientists aren't agnostic about this. They take the rationality of the universe as a given. I think it is a fair claim.

Criticizing the multiverse hypothesis for shifting up the problem of why there are laws one level is silly, because the multiverse was never meant to solve that problem. The only question that the multiverse is meant to answer is (2), not (1).

Depends entirely which multiverse model you choose. Some are certainly attempting to solve problem (1), like that of Tegmark.

You just can't keep yourself from putting religion and science on an equal footing, can you Davies?

He isn't.

Doctor Davies' pet theory is that physical laws exist because they were shaped by the intelligent beings who live in the universe that these laws govern. The intelligent beings can exist in this universe because the laws are _just right_ to permit their existence, while the laws exist because the intelligent beings have modified them to make them _just right_.

No wonder he didn't mention his theory in this article. If he had, he'd be perceived as a crackpot by everyone who reads it.

Actually no. Some modern thinking about physics IS this weird. This is not crackpot thinking at all. It is part of the thinking of John Wheeler, mentor of Feynman, Kip Thorn, and Everett; one of the most significant physicists of the last century.

I am a little concerned about some of the responses to what Davies has written. We complain justifiably when critics respond to what they think Dawkins writes (as in TGD), and not what he actually writes. We should be careful about falling into that trap. I agree that Davies does not help in this matter, as he is not (in my view) so skilled a writer as Dawkins, but even so...

Other Comments by steve99

23. Comment #90465 by Tea Q on November 25, 2007 at 8:24 am

Davies says:

"Clearly, then, both religion and science are founded on faith — namely, on belief in the existence of something outside the universe, like an unexplained God or an unexplained set of physical laws, maybe even a huge ensemble of unseen universes, too."

"This shared failing is no surprise, because the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm."

"And just as Christians claim that the world depends utterly on God for its existence, while the converse is not the case, so physicists declare a similar asymmetry: the universe is governed by eternal laws (or meta-laws), but the laws are completely impervious to what happens in the universe."

If Davies is not trying to put religion and science on equal footing, he should learn how to articulate his thoughts better.

Other Comments by Tea Q

24. Comment #90470 by Paine on November 25, 2007 at 8:42 am

Who is this guy and what is his claim to fame?

I cant believe he has made such a sophomoric error. Scientists dont need to have faith that the world is rational. They just realise that universe can only be understood in terms of rational ideas. In other words, the 'rationality' of the universe is only our means of making sense of it all.

And he fails to mention, the 'rational' approach has worked pretty well so far. How much 'faith' does Davies say we need to work a TV set?

Other Comments by Paine

25. Comment #90473 by Jack Rawlinson on November 25, 2007 at 8:52 am

Argh, not Davies again. I don't need to read more than the title to know what this piece will say.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

26. Comment #90476 by GSP on November 25, 2007 at 9:04 am

I would just like someone's opinion because I feel I am somewhat unschooled in the matter. What of the argument that science is merely a way for us to understand the world we can observe. Is this true? It seems to me it would be necessarily so. But I am not sure.

Science as an activity gives us knowledge. This knowledge is what comes to us through our senses. But surely we wouldn't claim that our senses give us "true" knowledge about the universe, only knowledge that we can comprehend.

It seems to me that Davies piece would be better if focused on the epistemological considerations of a philosophy of science.

I don't know, just thinking aloud.

Other Comments by GSP

27. Comment #90480 by steve99 on November 25, 2007 at 9:18 am

I would just like someone's opinion because I feel I am somewhat unschooled in the matter.

What Davies is talking about is the the assumption that there are fixed laws of physics that exist outside the universe. For example, string theorists would probably claim that string theory is a fundamental law, and which universes exist are determined by it. Davies worries that such claims are too inflexible. Instead we need to consider the possibility that laws of physics and universes could evolve together, perhaps through some sort of 'negotiation' through time. This is not outrageous... the implications of some interpretations of Quantum Mechanics allow for such negotiations. Where Davies' ideas get a little fuzzy (as even he will probably admit) is the role of observers (conscious or otherwise) in that process. The basic idea is that there aren't really any fixed laws external to universes. Universes start with flexibility and end up with laws that allow observers. The system is self-determining, and there is no need to explain fine tuning or underlying physical laws.

Other Comments by steve99

28. Comment #90485 by lbq on November 25, 2007 at 9:48 am

Of course science is ultimately based on certain assumptions about the universe being at least largely understandable by reason, etc. But this is not 'faith', but something like a working hypothesis. The fact that you can have working, heuristic and even applicable science on this basis, is very good evidence that the hypothesis is a good one.

Faith on the other hand does not lead to anything even remotely like rational understanding, and the only application coming out of it seems to be fundamentalistic mayhem. This is why there are no separate but equal 'magisteria' for science and religion, as Gould thought. Religion is not a magisterium. It won't be able to tell us anything without acquiring some rational credibility first.

Other Comments by lbq

29. Comment #90487 by Nick Good on November 25, 2007 at 9:55 am

This is an equivocation fallacy. The author is conflating the use of the word 'faith' in it's religious sense with 'faith', in the scientific sense, or in the sense that I have 'faith' that the Sun will rise in the morning.

It's like drawing an equivalence with a the 'trials' conducted by well run, modern judicial system with the Salem witch 'trials'.

What utter tosh!

Other Comments by Nick Good

30. Comment #90491 by steve99 on November 25, 2007 at 10:17 am

The author is conflating the use of the word 'faith' in it's religious sense with 'faith', in the scientific sense, or in the sense that I have 'faith' that the Sun will rise in the morning.

No, I don't believe that is what he is doing. He is saying that some scientists have an unquestioning belief in certain principles that they haven't even considered challenging.

Other Comments by steve99

31. Comment #90500 by Bonzai on November 25, 2007 at 11:02 am

steve,

What Davies is talking about is the the assumption that there are fixed laws of physics that exist outside the universe. For example, string theorists would probably claim that string theory is a fundamental law, and which universes exist are determined by it. Davies worries that such claims are too inflexible. Instead we need to consider the possibility that laws of physics and universes could evolve together, perhaps through some sort of 'negotiation' through time.

This is an interesting idea. But if such "negotiation" happens, would it also be governed by some "meta" law? How can we understand this negotiation process without some assumption that it can be understood?

I think it is necessary for science to assume the universe is "rational" in the sense that it is governed by laws and that we can discover these laws, to some extent. Now of course the possibility does exist that at some level things just happens without any rhythm or reason,--as in the case of wave function collapse if quantum mechanics is indeed the "ultimate" theory for the micro world,--in that case we reach the limit of understanding and it is meaningless to say anything beyond an honest "I don't know".

The "faith" in a rational world spurs scientists to look for answers. It seems to me that what Davies describes as "faith" is no more than a working assumption that answers do exist and can be discovered through rational methods. It is possible that in the end there is really no answer. If it turns out that laws really don't exist after certain point we can move on to look at other problems, but until we try we'll never know and we may find explanations in the future for things that may appear unanswerable now. For example we may actually understand what happens when wave functions collapse if it turn out that QM is not the ultimate theory and some extensions of it provide the additional insights. This is an idea shared by some very distinguished physicists and foundation of QM is still a legitimate field of research even though it doesn't have the high profile,--and the level of fundings,-- of say string theory or quantum computation.

There is nothing dogmatic about the scientific process. Science is an open ended process, what Davies calls "faith" is merely the assumption that this process of searching and seeking can be sustained and justified.

On the other hand, religious faith of the "God did it" kind stops us from searching. That is the big difference. I don't know if Davies commits the conceptual fallacy of mixing up the two kinds of "faith", but to my mind he is definitely guilty of poor use of words.

Other Comments by Bonzai

32. Comment #90502 by garhung on November 25, 2007 at 11:04 am

I'm new here.

steve99 keeps saying people here are misrepresenting Paul Davies, but I think he is actually the one doing the mispresentation:

No, I don't believe that is what he is doing. He is saying that some scientists have an unquestioning belief in certain principles that they haven't even considered challenging.

But at the end of Paul Davies' article he says:

But until SCIENCE comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, ITS claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus.

So how could "Science" as an institution become "some scientists"?

Other Comments by garhung

33. Comment #90505 by Machinus on November 25, 2007 at 11:21 am

Steve99, you're reading into the article way too much.

Davies states that the naturalistic assumption is equivalent to theological epistemology because neither can be proven.

This is ridiculous, and he knows it. Scientists take naturalism seriously because when we assume it, we get the entirety of scientific discovery, and that is as verifiable as anything gets.

There is NO faith here. As soon as someone finds a part of the universe that doesn't work naturalistically, science will change. It has never happened, and the RATIONAL scientist has no reason to suspect that it ever will.

Other Comments by Machinus

34. Comment #90506 by steve99 on November 25, 2007 at 11:23 am

This is an interesting idea. But if such "negotiation" happens, would it also be governed by some "meta" law? How can we understand this negotiation process without some assumption that it can be understood?

I honestly don't know.

If it turns out that laws really don't exist after certain point we can move on to look at other problems

That really isn't what he is saying, as I understand it. It is that most scientists seem to assume certain laws are absolute and objective in a platonic sense.

but to my mind he is definitely guilty of poor use of words.

Oh I certainly agree with that!

steve99 keeps saying people here are misrepresenting Paul Davies, but I think he is actually the one doing the mispresentation:

I really don't think I am, and as others have claimed, I am not reading too much into the article. The article is just one short summary of ideas that he and others have been putting forward for years.

I am not his greatest fan by any means, but I am astonished by the knee-jerk reactions I have read here.

So how could "Science" as an institution become "some scientists"?

Well, he is saying that the existence of universal law is an assumption of most scientists. And science as an institution, rather than as a principle, consists of what most scientists believe and what they do.

Other Comments by steve99

35. Comment #90507 by steve99 on November 25, 2007 at 11:28 am

Argh, not Davies again. I don't need to read more than the title to know what this piece will say.

I find this a rather disturbing attitude on what is supposed to be a site of rationality and clear thinking.

Do you know any detail of Davies' thoughts and how they fit with the mutable law ideas of John Wheeler?

I have to say that some of what has been posted in this thread has really unsettled me. This is not supposed to be what science is about... knee-jerk reactions and ad-hominem attacks.

Other Comments by steve99

36. Comment #90509 by Janus on November 25, 2007 at 11:38 am

steve99:

First, as garhung and Machinus and several other people have said, we're not misrepresenting Davies, you're the one misrepresenting him. What you wish he would say is not what he has said.

Yes, but his claim is that most scientists aren't agnostic about this. They take the rationality of the universe as a given. I think it is a fair claim.

Thank you, you've revealed another mistake of Davies': He conflates two different meanings of "the universe is rational."

If by that phrase he means "the entire universe can be understood by the human mind", then he's right that we should be agnostic about this claim, but he's wrong that most scientists believe this.
If by that phrase he means that "the entire universe must be in principle describable by mathematics, even if we humans aren't actually able to do it", then he might be right that most scientists believe this, but obviously wrong that we should be agnostic about this claim.

Depends entirely which multiverse model you choose. Some are certainly attempting to solve problem (1), like that of Tegmark.

No, you're confusing two different aspects of Tegmark's theory. Tegmark is saying two things:
- Our universe is a mathematical structure, there's no distinction between the "laws" of the universe and the universe itself, they are one and the same.
- Every possible mathematical structure exists, i.e. the level IV multiverse exists.

The first aspect solves problem (1) (why are there laws?), the second aspect solves problem (2) (why these laws?).

That's not to say that a theory that solves (1) and (2) simultaneously isn't possible, and you could argue that Tegmark's is one such theory, but it doesn't change the fact that, right now, as far as we know, they're two different problems, and conflating them as Davies does is a mistake.

He isn't. [saying that religion and science are on an equal footing]

Of course he is, read Tea Q's comment #90465.

If you mean that he doesn't actually believe that religion and science are on an equal footing, you're probably right, but that's what's he's saying nonetheless. I don't think Davies is stupid, I think he's dishonest. As I said, he's sucking up to the "spiritual" crowd (and I don't mean "spiritual" in the Sam Harris sense), and probably hoping to get another Templeton prize and/or sell more books by doing this.

Actually no. Some modern thinking about physics IS this weird. This is not crackpot thinking at all. It is part of the thinking of John Wheeler, mentor of Feynman, Kip Thorn, and Everett; one of the most significant physicists of the last century.

I said it would be perceived as crackpot thinking.

But since you mention it I'll address his idea itself. I don't know enough physics or mathematics to say if it's a valid theory in that sense, of course, so I won't even try. However, I can look at it from a purely logical point of view and see if it suffers from the same failings that he claims the "physical laws are the fundamental reality" hypothesis does, from an explanatory point of view. And Davies' hypothesis does have the same failings, it just hides it a bit better.

If saying that a certain level of complexity, such as the laws of physics, is fundamental, "just exists", and doesn't need an explanation, then how is it better to explain these laws by saying they were designed by beings that could only have evolved if these laws already existed? And even if that was possible, these beings could only have designed the laws if these same laws made it possible for the beings to modify them. How did these laws become such that they could be modified? Well obviously, they were modified to that they could be modified by these beings (who, remember, only exist in the first place because these modifiable laws were modified by those very beings).

I mean, c'mon. Perhaps mathematics allows for this kind of silly infinite regress, I don't know, as I said I won't even try to guess, but one thing is obvious: This hypothesis has no more explanatory power than, "It's turtles all the way down", or, "The laws of the universe just exist." It's not even a slight improvement.

No, I don't believe that is what he is doing. He is saying that some scientists have an unquestioning belief in certain principles that they haven't even considered challenging.

Maybe that's what he believes, but it's not what he's saying in this particular article (or in many others I've read). Is it because he's an idiot, a bad writer, or a dishonest SOB? I think the last possibility is the correct one, but hey, who knows?

Other Comments by Janus

37. Comment #90514 by steve99 on November 25, 2007 at 11:57 am

- Our universe is a mathematical structure, there's no distinction between the "laws" of the universe and the universe itself, they are one and the same.

No, that is not what Tegmark's model is about at all. It is about removal of laws by claiming that all mathematical structures represent real universes.

I mean, c'mon. Perhaps mathematics allows for this kind of silly infinite regress, I don't know, as I said I won't even try to guess, but one thing is obvious: This hypothesis has no more explanatory power than, "It's turtles all the way down", or, "The laws of the universe just exist." It's not even a slight improvement.

You should research Davies' work further. It is precisely this kind of regress that he seeks to avoid.

Maybe that's what he believes, but it's not what he's saying in this particular article (or in many others I've read). Is it because he's an idiot, a bad writer, or a dishonest SOB? I think it's last possibility is the correct one, but hey, who knows?

I think I have finally had it with this site.

I mean, to be honest, what is the point? Rather than discussing ideas, threads seem increasingly to be filled with political ranting, religious trolls, and now (the last straw for me), a series of frankly outrageous attacks on a scientist who has world-wide respect, and that (I would hope) will shock many who read this site.

Other Comments by steve99

38. Comment #90517 by kaiserkriss on November 25, 2007 at 12:15 pm

Steve99
While I Do understand your frustration with this site, and some of the contributors, your comments on many other threads, including this one are appreciated by myself, even if I don't always agree with you.

It would indeed be a loss to this site if individuals such as yourself feel intimidated by individuals who get their rocks off by obviously agitating for the sake of agitating.

Having the last word in a debate is not a life and death issue. You have made your arguments, and if others don't accept them, do as I do, MOVE on to another thread that interests you... jcw

Other Comments by kaiserkriss

39. Comment #90520 by phasmagigas on November 25, 2007 at 12:17 pm

steve99

I think I have finally had it with this site.

I mean, to be honest, what is the point? Rather than discussing ideas, threads seem increasingly to be filled with political ranting, religious trolls, and now (the last straw for me), a series of frankly outrageous attacks on a scientist who has world-wide respect, and that (I would hope) will shock many who read this site.

steve, i hope you dont actually sign off for good, you are one of those who make excellent contributions. I actually spent this morning with my initial 'bloody idiot' comment in my head and felt quite foolish in 1) not reading the intro paragraphs carefully and 2)failing to see the article continued.

Paul for sure is a respected writer (i only read fifth miracle so far). FRom my skim this morning of the first paragraphs i assumed a religious apoligist who was basically saying science is equivalent to faith and no matter how deep we delve we still see this faith stand up, i read it to mean 'it still stands only on faith no matter what we learn' whicg of course could push a few buttons.

Even if people eventually find that 'laws' do evolve then these will be incorporated into physics too.

anyway i digress a fraction. stay put steve, nobody is perfect, not even the disbeleivers :)

Other Comments by phasmagigas

40. Comment #90521 by Machinus on November 25, 2007 at 12:20 pm

Davies' work serves little else but as apologetics for theology. I'm a physicist and I appreciate good scientists in my own field, but he knows exactly the effect he is having and he does it anyway.

There is no sensible comparison between faith and science, and at this point just comparing the two makes it harder for society to be free. Writing an article for the NY times about how scientists have "faith" in their work is a blatant attack on naturalism.

Other Comments by Machinus

41. Comment #90523 by delta2echo on November 25, 2007 at 12:22 pm

These kinds of articals realy upset me. Scientist dont ASSUME the universe has order. Scientist LOOK for order. They arent supposing it, they are trying to discover it. The type of order scientist are looking for are Laws, causality, etc.
Or I think it would be better to say that scientist are looking for ways to predict phenomena, because the ability to predict implys objective order, and order manifests its self through laws and causal relationships.
It would be more accurate to say Scientist (The person) HOPE to discover order. Instead of saying Scientist have faith that order exsists.
We KNOW order exsits because we have discovered it. But that doesnt mean we would have, or that we assume order exsist DESPITE contrary evidence (which is the hallmark of faith.)

Other Comments by delta2echo

42. Comment #90525 by Bonzai on November 25, 2007 at 12:24 pm

Steve

That really isn't what he is saying, as I understand it. It is that most scientists seem to assume certain laws are absolute and objective in a platonic sense.

I am sure some theoretical physicists do, like Penrose and Dirac. But this is a philosophical reflection rather than a scientific principle. One may even be able to make a persuasive case for it like Penrose did. But even for its strongest proponent this idea has never been accorded the status of a scientific principle and invoked as a dogma to explain anything, it is still a kind of first person metaphysical musing. I think Davies is taking these musings more literally and seriously than even the "Platonists" themselves do,

The only impact of this "Platonic" conviction,--if I can call it that,--on scientific practice is to spur scientists to seek for mathematical laws. This process so far has been enormously fruitful at least in physics(though probably not so much in biology)

So if Davies insists on calling that "faith", so be it. At least the scientists' "mathematical God" does answer prayers!

I admit I never read Davies except through excerpts and interviews so I don't want to give the impression that I am attacking the man. Just as an impression from my non systematic reading I find him putting too much emphasis on the metaphysical implications of science. To me that is never very important or interesting.

My view is that science is a work in progress and all our knowledge is subjected to revisions. The picture is always tentative and incomplete thus it seems kind of silly and futile to try to build some overarching "ontology" out of the scientific picture, to use Dianelos' dreaded word. It is as though some people try to restore the certainty that science has denied them through the back door of metaphysics. I think Davies makes the mistake in thinking most scientists are as committed to some "philosophical big picture" as he does and sets up a strawman. I think most scientists are actually more sympathetic to Feynman's pragmatic view on science.

Other Comments by Bonzai

43. Comment #90526 by Janus on November 25, 2007 at 12:24 pm

No, that is not what Tegmark's model is about at all. It is about removal of laws by claiming that all mathematical structures represent real universes.

How do you proceed when reading a post? Do you, like, see a sentence you disagree with, immediately write your reply, then skip the next few sentences?

What you've said is pretty much exactly what I've said if you combine the sentence you've quoted with the one directly under it. I even made sure (or so I thought) you wouldn't misunderstand me by adding that even if you didn't separate Tegmark's theory into its two aspects, it wouldn't affect my original point. And yet you still managed to ignore all that (as well as my original point)!

You should research Davies' work further. It is precisely this kind of regress that he seeks to avoid.

His work? His work?! I'm sure Davies does useful research, but this particular idea of his doesn't qualify as science. There's no evidence, of course, but more than that, there's no mathematical model, there's not even a vague mechanism. It's science-fiction that may have a remote likelihood of being true in some form, one day.

If Davies wanted to avoid regress, he's failed. You didn't protest the first time I gave a short summary of his hypothesis, and now that you are protesting, all you can say is "research his work further"?

I think I have finally had it with this site.

I mean, to be honest, what is the point? Rather than discussing ideas, threads seem increasingly to be filled with political ranting, religious trolls, and now (the last straw for me), a series of frankly outrageous attacks on a scientist who has world-wide respect, and that (I would hope) will shock many who read this site.

If my attacks are so outrageous, why don't you demolish them with ease? Why do you only reply to a tiny fraction of my posts? Why did you ignore the posts of many people who replied to you in this thread? Why do you resort to selective quoting? Why do you misrepresent Davies' own words in the very article we're discussing?

And most importantly, why does the sole cause of your outrage seem to be that other people are attacking "a scientist who has world-wide respect"? Why does it matter that he has world-wide respect? Max Planck was and is much more respected that Davies ever will be, and yet he was a die-hard Christian. Should we therefore refrain from ridiculing Christianity?

Other Comments by Janus

44. Comment #90528 by steve99 on November 25, 2007 at 12:28 pm

I actually spent this morning with my initial 'bloody idiot' comment in my head and felt quite foolish

You made an honest mistake, and changed your mind, and said so. That is a decent way to behave.

However, I am sort of mentally reeling from some of the posts here. Davies has been clumsy with words, and I personally think (for what it is worth), that some of his ideas are a bit weird, but he in no way deserves some of the attacks posted here. I mean honestly ... 'idiot'... 'dishonest SOB'? (just to pick from one post).

Attacking ideas is one thing (and it seems few have bothered to read Davies'/Wheeler's ideas in any detail before doing this), but such ad-hominems shame this site, in my opinion.

Having the last word in a debate is not a life and death issue.

That is not the issue. I don't care about people slagging me off... it is the knee-jerk and insulting responses to the article that I find rather disturbing.

Ah well.. enjoy the thread. I'll wait until something a little calmer appears..


Other Comments by steve99

45. Comment #90529 by phil rimmer on November 25, 2007 at 12:29 pm

My only concern with Paul Davies' article was this-

For that reason, both monotheistic religion and orthodox science fail to provide a complete account of physical existence.

This is a disingenuous comment even if his thesis is that some scientists need to loosen up a bit as it were. The magnitudes of the failures are not equal, nor the rate at which those magnitudes are changing. Further, I would have thought that growing numbers of physicists, at least, were "loosening up".

The shock though is that contributors here have been shocked at these ideas (of mutable laws).

Steve. Don't go. Rationality will lose.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

46. Comment #90530 by phasmagigas on November 25, 2007 at 12:30 pm

There is no sensible comparison between faith and science, and at this point just comparing the two makes it harder for society to be free. Writing an article for the NY times about how scientists have "faith" in their work is a blatant attack on naturalism

as i mentioned earlier, articles like this can be used in a very unspohisticated way to undermine evolution for example, questions in 'deep' physics are one thing but relatively observable phenomena like evolution do not need to be weakened. Weve seen the results of quote mining and down right lies that creationist will pedel and when this potentially hits education there is some concern. Im not saying this article will do that but in the same way that i initially misread it some could deliberately misuse it on a scientifically illiterate audience.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

47. Comment #90531 by Pete_C on November 25, 2007 at 12:33 pm

steve99, welcome to the Internet. =) You may be unsettled, but the last thing you should be is surprised.

I have noticed too that things often go like this: an article comes up for discussion. Some people quickly scan the article and make up their minds if it's from "our side", in which case the article and author are given lavish praise, or from "the other side", in which case derision follows. Some people want to discuss it in-depth, or try to turn down the noise, and are in turn attacked from all sides because they do not treat it as an us-against-them matter. But who cares? Just skip the bad comments. Or consider them an anthropological study.

As for the article, I think Davies happens to be right that lots of scientists haven't thought about the problem of induction, and do simply think that laws are laws. But to call that "faith" on a par with beliving in, say, the Virgin Birth, is really missing the point. And it's not as if those scientists who have thought about induction, and "lost their faith" as it were, are now out of a job.
I also understand the cynicism that attributes articles like this to his association with Templeton. I think he could have made all his points about science and his views on what physical laws are, without using the words "faith" and "god"; that he did use these words to me hints at an agenda. But I'm willing to hear otherwise...

Other Comments by Pete_C

48. Comment #90534 by phasmagigas on November 25, 2007 at 12:38 pm

You made an honest mistake, and changed your mind, and said so. That is a decent way to behave.

:) funnily enough when i first read the article I was going to reply with a simple 'and...' as it seemed to say so little other than science is faith, and just how many times have we heard that without any type of elaboration, little more than your BS is no better than my BS.

when i read a couple of posts i saw the name davies and then thought 'the scientist?' then on going back i saw that the article continued, then read quickly then realised i had to zap my post as it was inappropriate by which time id seen your post and then i thought 'jees, i sound like a bloody caveman' a bit like reading only 'i love eating beef' and missing the whole sentence 'i love eating beef textured soy burgers as im a strict vegan'.



Other Comments by phasmagigas

49. Comment #90535 by steve99 on November 25, 2007 at 12:45 pm

steve99, welcome to the Internet. =) You may be unsettled, but the last thing you should be is surprised.

Just thought I should point out, I have been using the internet for a very, very long time. Little surprises me. But this is different. I would have thought that supporters of someone as respected and decent as Richard Dawkins would at least have a bit more style and dignity in the way they insult people :)

Other Comments by steve99

50. Comment #90537 by Diacanu on November 25, 2007 at 1:01 pm

science has its own faith-based belief system

FIIIIIILLLLTHY AAAAAANIMAAAAAAAL!!!!!!
*Screams with face mashed up against screen*
OOOOOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*Sprays screen sticky with drool*

Hah! Psyche!! Psyche!!

:P

Other Comments by Diacanu