Scientific theories per se don't give birth to philosophies. They are appropriated by philosophies.

Insext,

Xris is referring to the Big Bang theory. It is one of Xris' favorite punching bags to beat up with straw man arguments. That and particle theory physics. He's stubborn, so I no longer try to get him to consider otherwise, but I do get annoyed whenever he misrepresents science to the forum, so I like to stand by and correct his misinformation from time to time.

Wooden Shoe's example of teaching a mechanic about electrons for understanding electrical current says it all to me.
We still teach the so-called planetary model of the atom to children because it is such an easy way to illustrate all of an atom's chemical (electrochemical) properties. I remember being able to score well on chemistry tests in grade-school because I understood about "electron shells" and their "valence numbers" and could draw them.

If instead I had been shown Feynman diagrams, electron cloud configurations and the Schroedinger wave functions that describe them in n-dimensional Hilbert space, would I have understood basic chemistry any better? In practical terms, I would have understood it less, I am certain.

Which is the bad philosophy here? Is an easy-to-understand concept like "valences" bad because it isn't as "true" as teaching a kid the more technical Pauli Exclusion Principle and associated quantum attribute value ranges? Ultimately both approaches are just models, so neither of them are true descriptions of electron behavior. So in the name of "good" philsophy, perhaps we should teach our children nothing, eh? At least that way, the next generation of chemists and electricians don't have to labor under the false assumption that they know the truth of what they're doing.

Who is suggesting that telling the truth will destroy our students education? Is it me? I have never heard that telling the truth will cause potential engineers or chemists to fail and our academic system will collapse.

And what is to constitute this "truth" to replace particles and Big Bang? Bill Gaede's ropes perhaps? Intelligent design? Scientific theory may have no authority to call itself "truth" but I shudder to imagine what we might replace it with.

You want me to accept the BB as a fact and pander to deceptive description then think again.

Incorrect. I want you to acknowledge the BB as a mere model whose description currently correlates more empirical data together with greater internal consistency than anything else available. As to what you want to call the facts of reality, that's your business, not mine.

The truth should be placed in open debate not meekly accepted by us simple folk.

Correct. Simple folk shouldn't accept truth meekly...which has nothing to do with science, although it does have a lot to do with education, including science education.

Your implication that I would introduce unsupported science or faith driven dogma to replace these false concepts is simply slanderous.

Save the victim routine, Xris, I'm not interested. You already know as well as I do that without science it is precisely faith, dogma and pseudo-science that fills the role of science in the minds of those who decry science. So if you know of something else that constitutes Truth to stand in place of those fallacies, name it.

I could understand your opposition if I was fundamentally wrong but all you do is want me to accept the crazy notion that science is beyond my ken so I should shut up and be grateful.

Incorrect. I want you to stop acting as though science is beyond your ken and instead approach it with a responsible attitude instead of your knee-jerk reactionism fueled by your fears.

Poster you were inferring I would prefer pseudoscience and magic to science. I find that insulting and distortion of my views.

Incorrect. I am inferring that you would prefer metaphysical foundations for science. Your determination to invoke determinist causation for productive scientific theory, where causation is not in evidence, yields no other conclusion. I know that you don't recognize this. Exogen already tried to get you to see how your position is metaphysical and you did not see it his way. Metaphysics does not imply pseudoscience and magic (although it does support them) and I don't believe you consciously want pseudoscience in place of science. But if you are going to support Bill Gaede's ropes as a scientific theory, then it suggests you are unable to distinguish between science and pseudoscience.

Part of my reasoning was because many faith driven posters use the false concept of the BB to support their beliefs.

But you are blaming science for this when you should be looking at those faith driven posters who have misappropriated science to their own ends.

You can not allow false concepts in science to influence or become part of education system.

Then follow your own advice, Xris, and stop looking to the Bill Gaedes of the world for the alternative.

You are now advocating the BB be taught to our children and used as reference. A concept that as you well know has been questioned by many eminent scientists.

You're right, but you're not seeing the significance of your own words, so I'll add the proper emphasis and supplementary clarification: I advocate the Big Bang be taught to our children and used AS A REFERENCE for the CURRENT state of cosmological theory. I even advocate teaching those same children that the Big Bang has encountered significant problems as we have learned more about cosmology since its inception, and in time it will have to be replaced by a more comprehensive model.

Why is it that I who want honesty in science and the truth be explained, no matter what the consequence, is being accused of fear mongering and classed as a trouble maker?

You're dogmatic, Xris. You have an agenda to protect determinism which flies in the face of particle physics, so you attack the integrity of particle physics on this forum in a manner that presents itself as protecting the integrity of science when in fact you are unwittingly attempting to compromise scientific epistemology with metaphysical arguments. Exogen already tried valiantly to show you this, but he failed, and I know I can't do any better. You have every right to try to introduce metaphysics into scientific epistemology, and I have every right to try to expose it.

I am aware that from your point of view, I am the one being dogmatic, and it looks to you like I have a blind allegiance to science. I am actually quite critical of the institution of science, but I do believe that scientific epistemology is a very valuable creation which needs to be understood and appreciated on its terms, not in terms of predetermined metaphysical assumptions.

Useful fictions. Can we tolerate fiction when it dictates so much more than idle chatter.

What do you want to erect in their place? Gaede is pseudoscience so you don't want that. Intelligent Design is religion so you don't want that. Determinism is metaphysics...is that what you want? What do you want in place of these "fictions?"

You speak of science "as it should be."

The only way I can make sense of what you mean (given what you say you DON'T mean) is that you want science to present an image of Objective Reality, where things are presented with the "honesty" of Objective Truth, not metaphors given misleading names like "particle" and "wave."

But Objective Truth is a matter for metaphysics, and metaphysics is not the business of science. Science as it should be must (ideally) rigorously uphold scientific epistemology above all other considerations.

You also don't want theory taught as fact. I have stated numerous times in other threads that I (more-or-less) agree with you. But for some reason that I cannot get to the bottom of, you are convinced that this is the fault of science, not the fault of science education. You who claim to want to uphold the honesty of science then speak as fact of a scientific priesthood bent on keeping "the plebes" in ignorance...and you have the audacity to feel insulted when your purposely-provocative OP is challenged on its own terms?

Steve3007 says

There is a slightly deeper point which is often made about the apparent fine-tuning of the physical constants of the Universe. If Planck’s constant, or the universal gravitational constant were slightly different then the physics of the Universe would be such that life would not be possible. The conclusion drawn by many is that an intelligent creature must have decided that it wanted life to exist so setup the Universe in such a way that it would evolve.

Steve3007, if you didn't see it already, the November book-of-the-month in this forum tackled this very issue of fine-tuning with physicist Victor Stenger's The Fallacy of Fine Tuning. Stenger takes the approach that the "fine tuning" is an artifact of the very mathematics humans have created to interpret the world, so it is another manifestation of the anthropic principle. My review may be of interest to you.

By the way, my favorite anecdote on the anthropic principle is from Richard Feynman, which I'll paraphrase here: "As I was driving home last night, I noticed the license plate of the car in front of me was ARW 327. Can you believe it? Of all the millions of cars in the state, to think that that specific license number should be right in front of me. Amazing!"

How can you imagine such stupid remarks count as evidence?

Because the evidence for the anthropic principle lies preciscely within those who believe in it. So it becomes easy to see the type of person who needs to believe in it...and the type of person who would categorically proclaim Feynman's remarks to be stupid.

No one can conclusively prove anything in life, science or nature friend.

Agreed.

BUT it deserves respect and not silly childish remarks.

Agreed. Since Feynman's remarks are neither childish nor silly, but in fact are a witty use of understatement to profound efect, I question your evaluative skills regarding wit, understatement, and profundity.

I see you defend particles and the BB but you can no more prove them than discount a determined universe.

Since my defense of particles and the Big Bang are specifically a defense of their scientific credibility, "proving" them is merely an evaluation of their current viability as models. In contrast, your standard of proof lies outside science and does not interest me in the context of this forum.


And because we are in a philosophy of science forum, I do indeed discount determinism in that context for the simple reason that it is no longer scientifically viable.

All you do is simply tell me they are a concept for us simpletons.

Show me where in this forum where I said any such thing. Can't find it?

When debate looses respect then arguments begin, so bring it on.

Arguing with dogmatists is pointless. My purpose is to the forum at large: to expose what you're trying to accomplish for what it is rather than what you claim it to be.

Thank you Steve3007, and you are of course correct that the bickering brings more heat than light. I am gratified that the poster who knows most about physics on this forum, yourself, should also prove to be its best example of a gentleman. In respect for your objectivity and keen sense of tact, I will defer from further engagement of this issue. I see that it is not productive.