51. Comment #90540 by Bonzai on November 25, 2007 at 1:06 pm

Pete_C

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.

He is wrong if that is what he thinks.

Other Comments by Bonzai

52. Comment #90541 by Diacanu on November 25, 2007 at 1:06 pm

Sorry, Steve, it needed to be done.
*smirk*
;)

Other Comments by Diacanu

53. Comment #90544 by steve99 on November 25, 2007 at 1:27 pm

Diacanu: As I don't know the correct emoticon, you will just have to imagine a raised eyebrow, and a smirk, along with a feeling that I have been taking myself (and discussions) too seriously again..

Other Comments by steve99

54. Comment #90545 by Bonzai on November 25, 2007 at 1:31 pm

I do agree that the wordings of Davies were very problematic. As peter_C and others pointed out he could have made his points about science, rightly or wrongly, without deliberately juxtaposing science and religion in the way he did. It seems that he was deliberately setting things up to create the impression that there is some moral equivalence between science and religion even if not in his actual arguments. I do feel that he was knowingly pushing some hot buttons. I don't want to attribute any motive but I would say it is very likely that he would have expected the kind of angry responses from atheists like some on this site.

Other Comments by Bonzai

55. Comment #90555 by Jack Rawlinson on November 25, 2007 at 1:51 pm

steve99 writes:

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

Yes. Please don't assume I'm being knee-jerk in my dismissiveness.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

56. Comment #90556 by steve99 on November 25, 2007 at 1:56 pm

Yes. Please don't assume I'm being knee-jerk in my dismissiveness.

In that case, I apologise.

Other Comments by steve99

57. Comment #90558 by Duff on November 25, 2007 at 2:08 pm

I'm not a physicist, a scientist, or even particularly well educated and I immediately read Davies as a godly apologist. Trying for the Templeton??? Who would be surprised?

Other Comments by Duff

58. Comment #90560 by jeepyjay on November 25, 2007 at 2:13 pm

I agree with No 23. Comment #90465 by Tea Q that Davies is clearly equating science and religion, but I doubt if it is because he is not very good with writing English (even if he is Australian). Far more likely is that he is trying to put up the backs of the new atheists to earn points from his Templeton colleagues.

On the other hand I do think there is mileage in the idea that laws of the universe might have evolved in some way, though I find his suggestion that life in some way influenced the laws rather baffling, seeing that life hasn't been around all that long (or is he implying that it has but not on earth - the panspermia hypothesis - he hasn't made this clear). The most likely way that laws could have evolved is in Smolin's idea of an evolving series of universes (if it is still a viable theory).

Other Templeton writers argue, for theological reasons, that we can understand the universe because it was created to be understandable. But I prefer the explanation that we can understand it (to the degree that we do) because we have evolved within it.

Finally I would question whether the universe is really so rationally designed and mathematically precise as some mathematical physicists like to think. Looking at many photos from the Hubble telescope shows much more chaos than regularity. Perhaps such laws as exist are all only of a statistical nature, deriving from an underlying total chaos.

Other Comments by jeepyjay

59. Comment #90561 by BAEOZ on November 25, 2007 at 2:15 pm

Steve99, I understand what you're saying about Davies. But as you point out yourself, he's blundered with his words. Any theist will grab this and run with it and say science is as faith based as religion. He knows this, unless he's a hermit who's never come across an apologist before. So to do this, in my opinion, is similar to how Dawkin's describes scientists who foolishly attribute laws or science to "god", even though they mean god is nature, not the Abrahamic god. It had to have been done deliberately.
You may not have liked my "Davies must hate science " comment. But for the life of me, why would an intelligent man, give "manna" to the theists when he could have put it any other way? Now we await more trolls who'll use statements like this to prove science is faith......

Other Comments by BAEOZ

60. Comment #90562 by steve99 on November 25, 2007 at 2:21 pm

You may not have liked my "Davies must hate science " comment.

Oh dear. It seems I am going to have to apologise to someone else as well. I believe I misinterpreted what you were saying, as I agree with everything you say here.

I assumed you meant something along the lines of 'Davies really hates science in general' where as what I now believe you meant was that 'Davies must hate science because of the way he seems to be provoking attacks on science by the religious'...

Other Comments by steve99

61. Comment #90563 by jeepyjay on November 25, 2007 at 2:21 pm

Duff, you're obviously not aware that Davies has already won the Templeton Prize, in 1995. But he may indeed be after another!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Templeton_Prize#Prize_winners

Sorry he is not Australian, as I said, but he was out there for some time I believe.

Other Comments by jeepyjay

62. Comment #90564 by Bonzai on November 25, 2007 at 2:24 pm

Davies may not be necessarily trying to prop up religion by juxtaposing it with science. But rather, it may be an attention grabbing device to sell his own pet theory. It is like saying, you guys are no different from religionists by thinking that the law of of physics as something existing outside the universe but I have a way around it.. It is possible that he genuinely feels that the scientific community is suffering from dogmatism and as a result hasn't given his idea the attentions he think it deserves.

I happen to think the question "where the laws of physics comes from" is not a scientific question because we have no way to formulate it in a testable way in the moment(or embed it in a testable theory, since not every part of a scientific theory has to be testable, it just has to have some key testable consequences, so say multiverses may be necessitated by some theories that have testable consequences even though they are not observable), there may be some clever ways to formulate some restricted versions of this question in the future that admits some kind of scientific attack, I don't know. But right now it belongs to the realm of speculative metaphysics.

Other Comments by Bonzai

63. Comment #90565 by Dr Benway on November 25, 2007 at 2:25 pm

Propositions can be accepted without evidence provided they are necessary for communication and rational investigation. Examples:

1. Words have meanings.
2. By studying a few examples of a thing, we can discover general principles about those things.

Religious propositions accepted on faith generally fail tests of necessity and therefore ought to be rejected. Example:

3. Jesus was born of a virgin.

Other Comments by Dr Benway

64. Comment #90566 by BAEOZ on November 25, 2007 at 2:52 pm

Steve99, Don't apologize.
I'm pretty terse, flippant and at times silly with my comments and don't mind having a dig. I was tired last night and pissed off at reading the article from a guy, who should know better, give religion a free pass at the expense of science. (If you only read the opening spiel, not the whole article, as quote miners are apt to do.) I dread that there are now scientists who'll have to challenge this furphy instead of doing science. I hope I'm wrong about that and that we'll never see Danielos MKII quote mining this article and similars to support their woo woo ideas about religion giving knowledge while science is dogmatic faith. :)

Other Comments by BAEOZ

65. Comment #90567 by Corylus on November 25, 2007 at 2:58 pm

Jeepyjay

But he may indeed be after another!

Not an unreasonable aim – tis indeed a great deal of pennies :)

Generally,I think the thing that I dislike most about whole Templeton prize business is how the amount won is 'adjusted to be more than the Nobel prize'.

This IMHO seems to be a crass and vulgar assumption that:

a) People will want to win because of the monetary value alone and

b) Advances in "divinity" are more intrinsically (and maybe objectively?) valuable than those in medicine, physics etc.

A strange mixture of intellectual snobbery and self-interest.

If I were a religious person winning this prize (pretty unlikely, I admit, but I like to think of myself in different roles :) then I believe I would feel quite insulted by the assumption that I could be entirely motivated; or even partly swayed; by filthy lucre.

In response I would calculate the amount that it exceeds the Nobel prize, add one pound and very publicly give this amount of money to the first needy person I met.

I would accept the rest of the money though. My overactive superego causes me to do peculiar things at times, but I am not a complete idiot :P

Other Comments by Corylus

66. Comment #90568 by Monosilabbiq on November 25, 2007 at 3:03 pm

Having just read through the posts I find that I haven't changed my mind one iota from my post numero 3. The geezer doesn't like it but he agrees that there isn't any scope for a supernatural whatever or any need to look for one.

He also clearly shows that he wishes that this wasn't so by smoke and mirrors. If he can persuade enough people that if anything can be brought together under the heading "faith" then it must all be the same thing.

A reputation is something that takes a long time to develop. It is hard fought for and often well deserved. It usually takes far less time to demolish that reputation. If the author has a reputation, I am surprised he puts it on the line with such a shallow article.

Other Comments by Monosilabbiq

67. Comment #90569 by Goldy on November 25, 2007 at 3:06 pm

I read the piece. I think he mistakes scientific dogma for faith, not for what it really is...someone's brilliant idea that somehow got altered in the harsh light of scrutiny. And he can't understand the way scientists say "I dunno"

Over the years I have often asked my physicist colleagues why the laws of physics are what they are. The answers vary from "that's not a scientific question" to "nobody knows." The favorite reply is, "There is no reason they are what they are — they just are."

To me, this quotation just takes the humanity out of scientists. We are people!!! This is what i tell my daughter and my wife when I don't know something :-) Ahh well...
Science, though, can be very dogmatic. No, sorry - scientists can be very dogmatic. Try changing pre-held ideas on certain topics and see how hard they are to change sometimes (sometimes they change with incredible alacrity! Should have seen the Stryer Biochem textbook i had at Uni - by the 2nd year it was extensively revised by my hand when new information came to me) - especially if the originator (generally highly regarded) of said theories refuses to accept other, more recent, ideas and theories. Look at the evolution of man theories we have. The Out of Africa is currently ahead by a neck, but I think the regional evolutionists are still putting in a good fight. No one likes to be told they are wrong, especially some of the oversized egos that flit in the corridors of academia.
I had the feeling, reading Paul Davies' article, that he mistook ego-fueled dogma as religious is quality.
Trouble is, his words are there in print and mine aren't. And if I deign to speak against his hypothesis, I will be shot down as I don't have the standing he has, either in the scientific community or the religious one.

Other Comments by Goldy

68. Comment #90571 by BAEOZ on November 25, 2007 at 3:09 pm

And if I deign to speak against his hypothesis, I will be shot down as I don't have the standing he has, either in the scientific community or the religious one.

Damn tootin' I'll shoot you down 'cause it's fun. Let's go for a kiwi shoot!

Sorry, I had a deliverance moment there. The coffee has kicked in!

Other Comments by BAEOZ

69. Comment #90574 by Goldy on November 25, 2007 at 3:29 pm

I may look like a pig and eat like one, but it's been a while since a squealed like one ;-)
Coffee - good idea, I need one too. Right after a process this blood sample for DNA...

Other Comments by Goldy

70. Comment #90576 by steve99 on November 25, 2007 at 3:39 pm

If the author has a reputation.

Wikipedia, Google, and in Davies' case even scanning the books in the science section of bookshops and libraries are helpful in settling such a question :)

Other Comments by steve99

71. Comment #90582 by Arcturus on November 25, 2007 at 4:14 pm

Every human endeavor has it's share of "faith", inference, guess, hunches etc. I find it disturbing to read such things from a physicist. Especially the very last phrase.

What is he trying to prove? That science is similar to religion? Is he trying to live up to his Templeton prize?

I am profoundly disappointed that a fellow physicist thinks this way.

edit: check out the responses of various great guys: http://www.edge.org./discourse/science_faith.html

I'm mostly impressed with Lee Smolin's.

Other Comments by Arcturus

72. Comment #90585 by Rational_G on November 25, 2007 at 4:38 pm

"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 find Davies' piece in the NYTimes disturbing. I am familiar with Davies, as I have read some of his books. Science is not based on faith - indeed some scientists are trying to figure out why the laws of the universe are the way they are. Science is based on evidence.

But to equate religious faith with some scientific "faith" does a disservice to the methods of science. This article can only serve religious people who can now say - "see, science is based on faith, too!" How sad. I agree that Davies knows what he is doing and his agenda is a "religious one". I think some of you are nieve if you think this article is not damaging or a distortion of the scientific method. Of couse, science makes assumptions. That is the only way you can isolate a problem for analysis. But these assumptions are not set in stone (unlike religious ones) and can and will be changed once more knowledge is gained.

A sad article. I think Davies just likes being a contrarian. And he is in bed with the Templeton crowd.

Other Comments by Rational_G

73. Comment #90586 by Rational_G on November 25, 2007 at 4:48 pm

Arcturus:

Right on!

I encourage all readers of this thread to read the responses to Davies artice at the edge web site.

See what top scientists have to say about Davies' lame article!!

Other Comments by Rational_G

74. Comment #90588 by BAEOZ on November 25, 2007 at 5:04 pm

Alas, Davies also brings up the anthropic principle, that tiresome exercise in metaphysical masturbation that always flounders somewhere in the repellent ditch between narcissism and solipsism. When someone says that life would not exist if the laws of physics were just a little bit different, I have to wonder…how do they know?

I love PZ's turn of phrase.

Other Comments by BAEOZ

75. Comment #90592 by steve99 on November 25, 2007 at 5:19 pm

I love PZ's turn of phrase.

Perhaps, but I believe his understanding of the issues involved with possible changes in the laws of physics and the existence of life are mistaken. For even small changes in the laws, the universe is unlikely to have any stable physical structures, let alone anything like atoms which could exist.

When someone says that life would not exist if the laws of physics were just a bit different, they know this because detailed models of different cosmoses have been set up, and life (let alone atoms) is unlikely in to exist in situations such as within black holes or in areas of continuous spatial inflation.

Imagine a cosmic shower thermostat, where you have have to set the temperature control to within 1 part in 10 to the power 50 (to give a rough indication) in order to get something other than absolute zero and heart-of-atomic-explosion temperature, and you get the idea.

I agree that it is difficult to know what the anthropic principle actually means, but it is entirely reasonable to ask why a universe with what looks like (at this stage) extremely unlikely values of parameters exists.

Other Comments by steve99

76. Comment #90595 by BAEOZ on November 25, 2007 at 5:33 pm

Imagine a cosmic shower thermostat, where you have have to set the temperature control to within 1 part in 10 to the power 50 (to give a rough indication) in order to get something other than absolute zero and heart-of-atomic-explosion temperature, and you get the idea.

I remember (probably incorrectly) that Victor Stenger said most of the finely tuned constants weren't finely tuned any more than saying if a basketballer was only 1 meter shorter he'd not be the world's best......That probably didn't make sense. The ones that seem finely tuned are only because of broken symmetry....

But anyway, I have no desire to argue with you Steve. Not least of all because you're far more knowledgeable in these topics and I find you a reasonable, interesting poster with whom I have no desire to argue. Peace. :)

Other Comments by BAEOZ

77. Comment #90596 by BMMcArdle on November 25, 2007 at 5:34 pm

The link to rebuttal of Davies' article:
http://www.edge.org./discourse/science_faith.html

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

78. Comment #90601 by burn0gas on November 25, 2007 at 6:08 pm

faith = belief without evidence
trust = belief with evidence or good reason

The faith this article talks about is NOT "faith", it's trust. Completely different! I might say I have faith in my surgeon before surgery, but I really mean I have trust in him/her.

This screwing with the word faith is as bad as when the creationists screw with the word "theory".

Other Comments by burn0gas

79. Comment #90604 by Jack Rawlinson on November 25, 2007 at 6:20 pm

BMMcArdle: thanks for that. I was thinking about linking PZ Myers response, which broadly covers most (not all) of my objections to Davies' tired old nonsense, but I see it's included on your link.

As I implied in my initial response on this thread, after many years of doing so I now lack the energy to keep debunking Davies's transparently needy and weak-minded attempts to dignify religious belief. I'm glad others still have that energy.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

80. Comment #90608 by thelogogryph on November 25, 2007 at 6:43 pm

Steve99

A lot of your arguments seem to be that we are misrepresenting what Davies actually means about physical laws and how we accept them. Davies may have a more nuanced version in his other works, at least some of which you seem to have read. However, he doesn't present that in this article. He argues repeatedly that our faith in physical laws – and that is the word he uses, without clarifying that he means it to be defined in some idiosyncratic way – is a problem, one that is 'anti-rational', 'theological' and 'makes a mockery of science.' If he meant something different than that, he didn't say it very well.

I think a good number of the comments posted here (excluding the insults tacked on to them) do a fairly good job of analysing what the article actually says. We aren't all familiar with Davies' body of work, and that may be a problem in comprehending the article, but it's one likely to face many readers, especially when the argument is not clearly presented. To quote Daniel Dennett, "We need to recognize that our words might be misunderstood, and that we are to some degree just as responsible for likely misunderstandings of what we say as we are for the 'proper' effects of our words."

If you have further resources we can explore that better encapsulate Davies' arguments, please provide some links; I'm sure many here would be interested. I'm sure on this particular issue it must feel you like against the cavalry, so it would be nice to get a better idea what everyone means.

Other Comments by thelogogryph

81. Comment #90610 by gr8hands on November 25, 2007 at 7:01 pm

Davies is wrong that scientists assume an ordered universe -- but they learn to accept the results of countless experiments from their earliest science education as children that point to this result.

No faith required when you're conducting independent experiments, and validating them against others, with the same results and conclusions. If they didn't come to the same results, science would have rejected those hypotheses in light of the new evidence.

Evidence, based on repeatable tests, not faith. And most scientists spend a large part of their careers looking for where the "laws" fail, are in error, or are incomplete. Hardly likely if they kept them as inviolate presumptions.

I automatically distrust the science of anyone who is affiliated in any way with the Templeton prize -- because as theists, their logic and rationality are in question. I would give several extra layers of scrutiny to their work, and always make certain that there was a statement that "these results were arrived at by a person with irrational religious beliefs, so should be viewed skeptically."

steve99, I believe you may be in error when you state:

When someone says that life would not exist if the laws of physics were just a bit different, they know this because detailed models of different cosmoses have been set up, and life (let alone atoms) is unlikely in to exist in situations such as within black holes or in areas of continuous spatial inflation.

I have seen models done where many aspects have been changed dramatically, and the possibility of life as we know it was possible, let alone a different kind of life. (Not every scenario, or even most, came up with an overabundance of black holes, nor continuous spatial inflation.)

Davies clearly has chosen his words to further the theocratic cause. He takes every opportunity to put religion on equal footing with science. He has NEVER stated that any religious belief is in error because scientific evidence proves it to be wrong. He is an affront to the scientific community -- but, in that wonderful way Science has of self-correcting, he will eventually be banished to the rubbish bin as a crackpot who happened to get some bits of science right, but was still a crackpot.

Janus and others have been astute in their critiques. I, too, have read Davies' previous work, am unimpressed, and feel that the sooner he is consigned to oblivion, the better.

Other Comments by gr8hands

82. Comment #90612 by gr8hands on November 25, 2007 at 7:53 pm

One more small point: either the universe is ordered, or it is not. It cannot be both at the same time, and they are mutually exclusive. It could be that it is not knowable.

The fact we all wake up to apparent order (sun 'rising' in the East, gravity working exactly the same as yesterday, etc.) points towards order. It could also point to a few billion years of order in an infinity of chaos, but we would never be able to know that, so it is of little use.

If Davies has a problem with physicists saying "the laws just are", then he should equally have a problem with people who say "God created everything, but nobody created God, God always was." Thus far, he's not pointed out how that is illogical. Any guess why not?

Other Comments by gr8hands

83. Comment #90614 by Rational_G on November 25, 2007 at 8:10 pm

The "anthropic principle" explains nothing. It is totally underwhelming. "Gee, if the constants of the universe were different, we wouldn't be here!" Well, no shit, Sherlock. They are what they are and we are here. I guess someone must have rigged the numbers! Oh yeah, there's a rational start for explaining the cosmos. Can we please get over the conceit that the Universe was designed for homo sapiens in mind? Has the last 500 years of science taught us anything?

Other Comments by Rational_G

84. Comment #90616 by BAEOZ on November 25, 2007 at 8:16 pm

Have you ever noticed large urban populations generally are in the vicinity of a permanent supply of water? Gee, someone must've put the rivers and lakes there so that the cities could develop. Oh wait, the cities developed where the water supplies were, where people could reliable access an essential component.
Just like humans developed where they could. Not the other way around........

Other Comments by BAEOZ

85. Comment #90620 by Diacanu on November 25, 2007 at 9:02 pm

The female ass was constructed to please my eye just like a car was!
See the brilliant logic?
I'm a philosopher!
Put me in print, baby!
I'm ready for the big time!

Other Comments by Diacanu

86. Comment #90621 by Bonzai on November 25, 2007 at 9:23 pm

The female ass was constructed to please my eye just like a car was!

You must be quite an aficionado for she-donkeys. :)

Other Comments by Bonzai

87. Comment #90623 by BAEOZ on November 25, 2007 at 9:27 pm

You must be quite an aficionado for she-donkeys. :)

I missed that one. Great catch Bonzai!
Dicanu likes burritas. :)

Other Comments by BAEOZ

88. Comment #90639 by steve99 on November 26, 2007 at 1:20 am

gr8hands:

(Not every scenario, or even most, came up with an overabundance of black holes, nor continuous spatial inflation.)

It obviously depends which constants you fiddle with. There is disagreement about which constants can change, but if you assume the cosmological constant can change, then it requires considerable fine tuning in order to produce a universe with complexity. There is also the issue of the initial entropy of the universe.

Of course, it may turn out that these are not the problems we think they are... but we are in no position to claim that yet.

If Davies has a problem with physicists saying "the laws just are", then he should equally have a problem with people who say "God created everything, but nobody created God, God always was." Thus far, he's not pointed out how that is illogical. Any guess why not?

He has pointed out precisely that. In fact, the whole point of what he is looking into is to avoid any "always was" assumptions. He finds the "laws just are and always were" just as unsatisfying as "God just is and always was". That was the theme of his recent book "The Goldilocks Engima", and his talk last year at "Beyond Belief".

Other Comments by steve99

89. Comment #90644 by Quine on November 26, 2007 at 1:46 am

Any day, I expect to read that some former Theology-Physics double major has opened the First Church of the Holy Fine Tuning, and is gleefully fleecing the flock at the collection plate. This piece by Paul Davies is going to make more of this kind of trouble because it is placed as op ed where a big audience of people will be mislead. Others have gone after its deficiencies here and at edge.org, so I will not bother to go further, but I do wish to say a few things about what happens when scientists and other technical workers neglect the impact of language.

Fortunately, no one has tried to start the "Temple of Einstein's God" or the "Theological Institute of 'It Is Just a Theory'" or "Pascal's Mathematical Magisterium" but we have had to wait out popular misunderstandings. In politics, expert consultants run words and phrases past focus groups long before any candidate is allowed to use them in any speech or handout. Look ahead is essential to try to find how what you are about to say can be "spun" to make you look like you are advocating sticking pitchforks into babies. This is not the practice in science. No one came to Einstein before he wrote his personal letters and suggested to him that mentioning "God" would be a big help to religion in later years (should be worth a posthumous Templeton), nor did anyone suggest what would become of Pascal's unpublished musings after his death. And certainly, no one at the time of Darwin thought there should be a conference to come up with an alternate word for "theory" so that future generations would know this did not mean "wild ass guess."

This brings us to the word "law" as used by Davies. Not a simple subject. Over the last 500 years science has developed into a profession and in the process terminology has been adapted from ordinary language. However, as often happens with jargon of trade, "law" in science is nothing like "law" in common language, but gives the opportunity for some to "spin" it to imply the existence of a "Law Giver." (I was heartened to see Lee Smolin quote Charles Sanders Pierce, and I also recommend his 1878 writing: How to Make Our Ideas Clear.)

In fact, there is no existence proof for laws in Nature. These so called "laws" are actually just rules or heuristics that we have found useful in our models of Nature (the map is not the territory). We get very excited about them because they allow us to make predictions about what will happen in Nature under specific conditions, such as when we fire a rocket to take a probe to Jupiter, or when we build a bridge that is supposed to withstand the weight of a train. However, Nature does not care what we put in our models, it just does what it does.

As time has gone on, and we have made more measurements of what happens in Nature, we have come to depend on a few constants in our models that are now known to very high precision. This has come about by a process that looks at the difference between the predictions of the model and the observed results of measurement, and adjusts the values of the constants to minimize this difference. At any time someone may come up with a better model that reduces the number of constants, or replaces them with totally different concepts. The idea that the constants represent "knobs" somewhere that can be "fine tuned" is completely backwards. It can be entertained as science fiction, but is not a falsifiable proposition we can test. Riding this into a religious philosophy is just speculation. As for me, "Show me the knobs."

The piece by Davies muddies the water for the general public. That water will become clearer with time, only to be muddied by someone else, from time to time. I take some hope that the reaction to Davies in the scientific world will be to take more care to state what we know in more clear and unambiguous terms.




Other Comments by Quine

90. Comment #90646 by steve99 on November 26, 2007 at 2:11 am

The idea that the constants represent "knobs" somewhere that can be "fine tuned" is completely backwards.

I guess this is a problem with word use, as you say. The use of the word 'constant' in physics is somewhat flexible, as in relatively recent talk about 'changes in the fine structure constant'.

However, many ideas about fundamental physics do indeed have constants that are like "knobs" that can be changed. One example of such an idea is string theory. The types of particles and the nature of the forces that act between them are determined by the properties of the Calabi-Yau spaces. Well, there are many, many different spaces, and each space represents, in some sense, a different position of the "knobs".

Other Comments by steve99

91. Comment #90647 by phil rimmer on November 26, 2007 at 2:19 am

gr8hands:If Davies has a problem with physicists saying "the laws just are", then he should equally have a problem with people who say "God created everything, but nobody created God, God always was." Thus far, he's not pointed out how that is illogical. Any guess why not?

Davies from NYtimes article: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.

[EDIT]To illustrate Steve's point.

In fact, the more I look at what his intentions might have been in writing the article, the more I see it is an anti-faith polemic. His target is a certain set of (what he sees as) lazy thinking scientists. His tone and language have been set to "rankle".

Other Comments by phil rimmer

92. Comment #90652 by phil rimmer on November 26, 2007 at 3:17 am

Davies' article is almost entirely self-serving. By way of damage limitation, I say we should embrace it as an anti-faith piece, pointing out that it is only the side of the scientist that has the tradition, the methodology, and the desire to make progress in the matter.

Is there ever a time to stop asking why?

Religite: "When we've found God."
Scientist: "Never!"

Not only are there known unknowns and unknown unknowns, but our future ability to comprehend is unknown.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

93. Comment #90660 by stephenray on November 26, 2007 at 3:55 am

Ahh, this old chestnut.

"Science is no better than religion because it needs faith, and that faith is that the universe can be explained."

It does not require faith to believe that the universe follows laws.

This is because it is an inescapable observation that the universe is ordered. If it were not ordered, then we could not exist to observe it, since it would be random. Examples of its order are everywhere, from the fact that things never fall upward through to the fact that people never die, live life in reverse and are subsequently born.

It is a simple, first-order deduction of no difficulty whatsoever to say that the order of an ordered universe can be investigated and explained.

Not the faintest scintilla of faith is required.

Other Comments by stephenray

94. Comment #90662 by stephenray on November 26, 2007 at 4:02 am

From steve99

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.

That may be what he is talking about but what he is asserting is that "scientists proceed on faith".
If you are correct steve99, he is, to say the least, over-stating his case.

Other Comments by stephenray

95. Comment #90673 by steve99 on November 26, 2007 at 5:23 am

It does not require faith to believe that the universe follows laws.

He is not saying that the universe does not follow laws. What he is arguing about is where those laws come from. He is attempting to point out that it is flawed to assume as given that those laws come from outside of the universe.

Other Comments by steve99

96. Comment #90682 by phil rimmer on November 26, 2007 at 5:49 am

That may be what he is talking about but what he is asserting is that "scientists proceed on faith".

His language is loose and deliberately provocative. burn0gas provides a better formulation substituting Trust for Faith.

Davies' description of how science is done completely fails to show that, in order to work at all, scientists must take certain things on trust to be able to test related ideas. Nor can they work at all levels at once, particularly where opportunities for evidence currently don't exist.

We must be careful, however, to tease out from his work what is valuable to us. That he is able to (legitimately!) tar some scientists with the same brush as religites is a warning that we should be on our guard against lazy thinking. We should be clear, our various "faiths" are empirical, contingent and most likely transient stepping stones to greater knowledge. He actually urges us on.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

97. Comment #90724 by sane1 on November 26, 2007 at 8:03 am

check out davies at session 5 at Beyond Belief:

http://thesciencenetwork.org/BeyondBelief/watch/

Other Comments by sane1

98. Comment #90727 by notsobad on November 26, 2007 at 8:05 am

So does this guy always calculate Pi when he works with it, or does he have faith that it didn't change?

Other Comments by notsobad

99. Comment #90731 by steve99 on November 26, 2007 at 8:18 am

So does this guy always calculate Pi when he works with it, or does he have faith that it didn't change?

That is NOT what he is talking about. He is discussing things like the dimensionality of space, the numbers and types of particles and so on.

Other Comments by steve99

100. Comment #90759 by garhung on November 26, 2007 at 9:26 am

I'm really tired of steve99's post starting with "He (Paul Davies) is not saying..."

It does not require faith to believe that the universe follows laws.

He is not saying that the universe does not follow laws. What he is arguing about is where those laws come from. He is attempting to point out that it is flawed to assume as given that those laws come from outside of the universe.

I know Paul Davies is not saying that the universe does not follow laws. What we are asking is that (as you seem to be an expert on what he says and what he does not say) does Paul Davies say "it requires faith to believe" that the universe follow laws, if we don't know where those laws come from?

Other Comments by garhung