Thank you for reminding me of Neil Tyson—great lecture with much truth. The Newton story is dramatic evidence that religious beliefs can hinder scientific development, even by the smartest guy whoever lived. (As irony, a Michael Hart book ranks him the 2nd most influential person who ever lived—after Muhammad.) Of course, before Tyson, Leibniz, Newton's friend, made fun of him for his religious beliefs
Sir Isaac Newton and his followers have also a very odd opinion concerning the work of God. According to their doctrine, God Almighty wants to wind up his watch from time to time: otherwise it would cease to move. He had not, it seems, sufficient foresight to make it a perpetual motion.
Like Leibniz and Myk, I find it strange that his religion would stop him at this particular juncture. It is ironic, however, that we are condemning the greatest scientist who ever lived for not doing enough. Would that we all had religion hamper us like Newton. But we don't need the Newton example to show us that religion can hinder scientific thought. We have thousands of creationists who confirm that every day. So, whether the Newton story is completely true or not, the lesson certainly is.
Therefore, if the question is, can religion stifle scientific inquiry; the answer must be "Yes." It is happening all the time. But, as Myk reminds us through Loren Eiseley, we could also ask the question, can rational thought stifle human knowledge and well-being? The answer is also "Yes" as told by the story of the deviser of Belsen or the atomic bomb or, less dramatically, by the thousands of people who justify harmful action through perfect rationality in their minds. Just as I would say to the creationists, these non-seekers of truth are not practicing religion, you would say these people, who are rational in their own minds, are not really practicing scientific thinking or rationality.
So we have the huge problem of what is religion and what is rational thought. For religion we have talked on this before, and Myk exquisitely provides a short answer through quotes from Bultmann, Armstrong and others. But Myk just touches on the nature and meaning of religion, there is so much more and we need to be constantly be reminded of what Myk is briefly saying. But let's move on to the side of rationality.
G. K. Chesterton said, while pointing to a padded wagon going to Bedlam, an asylum for the insane, "There goes a man who believes in himself." His point was that the insane are completely rational to themselves. A person needs a frame of reference outside of himself.
When you ask the questions, "do you think religion is a prerequisite for the pursuit of knowledge or science? and "if religion is not a prerequisite for human curiosity and scientific advancement, does it have a net positive force on them?" you are implicitly setting up science as the goal.
It is a worthy goal, though, perhaps not the only one. Let's examine what pure experimental science has taught us.
The double slit experiment tells us that a single particle shot one at a time through a screen with two parallel slits will act as if it is two particles going through both slits and interacting with itself to form a wave pattern. (Read that again slowly.) That is not all! Additionally, if a sentient being—as far as we know, only a member of the human race—observes the particle, even without disturbing it, the particle will stop interacting with itself and no longer be a probability. This is science. It is not rational. Scientists would have us believe in parallel universes, places which 'exist' but are out of our reach. It sounds suspiciously like Limbo or maybe Purgatory. I hope we don't have to bring Angelic wing motion back to explain the universe. (Humor)
Science isn't always rational. Hell, rationality isn't always rational. And this is the beauty of science. It has shown us time and time again that, what appears to be common sense, is not always understanding. Since science has revealed that our own observation affects the universe, perhaps we need to recognize that empirical science has limits. Science, not religion, is telling us that we need to use new ways of thinking. Perhaps the next leap in understanding the universe is not through the empirical methods of old 20th century science. Perhaps we need to go in much more imaginative directions. Meditation, drugs, pure mathematics? I don't know. But I do know this. I am not going to put all my eggs in the 20th-century-methods-of-empirical-science basket. My mind is more open than that.
Let's go back to your questions with a twist.
Do you think imagination is a prerequisite for the pursuit of knowledge or science? and does it have a net positive force on them?
Especially for James, do you think humor is prerequisite for the pursuit of knowledge or science? and does it have a net positive force on them?
Or love.
In all cases (religion, imagination, humor or love), I would say not only is it a prerequisite, but it is impossible to pursue knowledge without them. They are part of who we are whether we like it or not. Let's use them wisely.
9 comments:
Science isn't irrational, humans are. Humans aren't built to understand the universe. We are dumb apes. Our descendants will likely be designed to better understand the universe. Humans are not a prerequisite for science just intelligence (a stretched assertion but will be proven by our non human descendants). See my comment on tariq ramadan. Also your interpretation of the double slit experiment craziness is base on classical understanding, human brain likes it more, wave particle duality is no more crazy than newton's mechanics other than our ape brain understanding newton's mechanics easier. Our descendant will hopefully think in both model systems or create better models.
Intelligence is not the issue. Let's proceed to a point in time and space where there is a pure form of intelligence. Intelligent enough to understand completely the universe. It makes no difference how that 'intelligence' interprets the double slit experiment. If the 'intelligence' does not observe the particle, it will behave one way, if the 'intelligence' does observe the particle, it will behave another way. That is empirical. If we can't accept that we can't accept any empirical science results. The observation changes the universe.
But that is the least of your worries. There are volumes, nay, libraries written about this subject—from Epistemology to Ontology and Existentialism to Metaphysics. Myk gave a short critique under the second to the last comment in "The Mind's Eye Shortcoming", but the subject is too difficult for summary statements. So, I'm going to chicken out of a greater response in favor of asking you for any references you could give me so I can learn more about the idea of "how humans are not a prerequisite for science."
I hope this doesn't come across as negative in any way. I sincerely am interested in learning what others have said about that.
I never argued science doesn't need an observer, it just isn't a prerequisite that the observer must be human. Humans have enough cognitive ability to participate in very crude science as our animal brains will inevitable interject inaccuracy in the modeling of the universe. Humans fundamentally, being products of evolution, are bad scientists, maybe good scientists for our immediate macro environment but not so for the scope of the Universe from nano to giga.
I have no problem with the idea the observation changes the universe. The observer intertwined with the observed in understanding the laws governing the universe is not a catch-22, or a contradiction or a limit to science. For instance, quantum mechanics like every scientific model is completely deterministic. It is when someone brings in another measurement that the model becomes probabilistic. When we (we=any observer, need not be human)observe a particle- it is a particle, when we observe a wave- we observe a wave. When no observation is made the model system becomes probabilistic because we need to observe to determine. I am not sure what observing, testing, predicting the universe while effecting the universe is of any significance. Its like saying the limits of science are illustrated when asking the metaphysical question of what preceded the Big Bang. That has about as much relevance to science as God's shoe size. Since none of that can be observed it is not part of science, like asking the question what is the color of whiteblack? Its nonsensical and therefore not a limit on science. The period prior to an observation that has potentially multiple outcomes is not limiting intelligence and science because once the observation is made it eliminates the probability of multiple outcomes therefore there is no possibility of contradictions. A wave a wave, a flower a flower, a particle a particle.
I'm not sure how much light this casts on the discussion, but it reminds me of the short note once penned by a well-known physicist.
Dear Mrs. Chown, Ignore your son's attempts to teach you physics. Physics isn't the most important thing. Love is. Best wishes, Richard Feynman.
See, the human emotion of love is once again hindering the progress of science- (my lame attempt at a joke)
Pete, just a few things from you comments in the tariq ramadan blog I can't give you a pass on.
My post was hard of Catholicism but I think all human culture retards the practice of intelligence observing, testing, predicting.
It seems that you would prefer a bleak world where all human existence will be observing, testing and predicting, and art, music, literature, sports, movies, games, philosophy, religion, social gatherings -- all the things that make life worth living -- will be jettisoned. Culture doesn't inhibit science; culture enlivens it.
Science is the legacy we will leave to our descendants, human culture will belong in the history books.
Perhaps you don't agree, but I think that I've been left a fairly rich cultural legacy. Scientific advances allow us to live longer and use cool things like computers. But what's all that without a good book?
Because this is my area of expertise—after all I did write "The Death of Determinism" in the 70's—I want to clarify something that I'm sure doesn't need clarification, because you all know the double slit experiment. But sometimes language can hinder thinking.
When I said "If a sentient being…observes the particle…[it] will stop interacting with itself…" I implied observes the location (i.e. which slit) of the particle. Of course, observing the particle doesn't destroy the wave-particle duality, observing it's location does.
I don't think that is a problem, but I have to read and re-read your post so I can better understand it and respond. It may take a while. I'm not a quick thinker.
The reports of the Death of Determinism may have been greatly exaggerated. To my surprise, Peter is correct in saying that quantum mechanics does not necessarily contradict determinism. Determinists are a determined bunch. Seriously, I should have known better than to doubt Peter.
Since one can not trace the path of a photon (or similar particle) from photon gun as it apparently interferes with itself while passing through a slit (or both slits somehow?), it seems reasonable that we lose a deterministic series of events. However, Schrodinger calculated an equation that gives the first time derivative of the quantum mechanical state. That is, it explicitly and uniquely predicts the development of the wave function with time. So you could say that quantum mechanics is deterministic, provided that one accepts the wave function itself as reality (rather than as probability of classical coordinates). It is argued that the probabilities arise in the transition from quantum to classical descriptions, rather than within quantum mechanics itself.
There is also an interpretation of quantum mechanics by David Bohm which seeks to eliminate the indeterminism of other interpretations such as the Copenhagen Interpretation.
There is much more to learn here. Fortunately or unfortunately, further understanding of the nature of the universe is almost exclusively mathematical. Here is an example of what happens when the mathematics is removed. It is a current column by Stephen Hawking on the creation of the universe. Unfortunately, his concluding paragraphs are almost comical. Spontaneous Creation—I keep thinking of spontaneous generation. But, again, the problem is not Hawking necessarily, it is that the article is devoid of mathematics, which is the whole argument.
Post a Comment