[_ Old Earth _] Reliable Science? A daunting 45 minutes

[Pizza]

This is part 10 of a 10 part TV series produced in the mid 1980s. It encompasses a lot of thought on science, religion and the human condition. But it also touches on "Reliable Science", he takes some shots at science, even tho he is an atheist/agnostic. I find all of what he says to be profound.

When you get 45 minutes to watch it - please do, and see what you get from it.

 

[Barbarian]

I was surprised that Burke thought Newton mentioned the fall of an apple in his epiphany of gravity. No record of that, it turns out. But I don't have 45 min to watch. What do you think Burke's best argument is?

I wonder if maybe not being a scientist makes it harder to understand what it's about.

 

[Pizza]

His best argument? Oh, that's a tough one. He gets a lot of stuff wrong, but he gets far more right.
I'll think about that a day or so and get back to you!

 

[Pizza]

What do you think Burke's best argument is?
.

Easy - the whole premise of that series "The Day the Universe Changed". It is very well explained in the first one minute and 24 seconds of the series, here, see what I mean...

(Watch 90 seconds of the intro and read what I type below)

His premise is that we all hold beliefs (either religious or scientific) so strongly, that, in our minds, those beliefs are not just beliefs, but are truths. That is, our universe, the WHOLE universe, for us, is based on those beliefs.

And when new information comes to us such that we cannot deny it, for us, the universe has changed. He takes this so far as to drive home the point that, many times in the past, the new universe we 'live in' is irreconcilable with the 'old one'.

Examples:
1) (From episode 5) When Copernicus/Galileo/Kepler took the earth from the center of all, and moved it, trading places with the sun. Suddenly, the earth went around the sun after centuries (?) of the sun going around the earth.

2) (From episode ten) When the crazy idea that the continents had once been together and it was realized that they HAVE, indeed, drifted apart into their current positions.

In both cases, the new paradigm did not build upon the old, but replaced it.

I cannot type enough words to emphasize the impact this has had on me, my faith and my love of and caution with, science.

 

[Sinthesis]

I may still have that series on tape somewhere.

 

[Pizza]

I have six episodes on DVD, not sure what happened to the other four.

He got some stuff wrong, but he got SO MUCH right. And he certainly got me to think. I think I learned more researching the stuff he said that I thought was wrong (and some was, IMO) than just watching him.

In any event, he SURE knows how to put a TV series together. Recently, he spoke of how he thinks higher education must change and how it's awful cost is simply not excusable.

But those of us who have discovered coursera.org already know that.

 

[Barbarian]

1) (From episode 5) When Copernicus/Galileo/Kepler took the earth from the center of all, and moved it, trading places with the sun. Suddenly, the earth went around the sun after centuries (?) of the sun going around the earth.

It had long been known that before Christ was born, Aristarchus of Samos had determined that the Earth went around the Sun. It seemed to contradict common sense, so few believed it. Only when better observations and calculations made it too clear to deny, did that change.

2) (From episode ten) When the crazy idea that the continents had once been together and it was realized that they HAVE, indeed, drifted apart into their current positions.

Alfred Wegener first brought up his theory of continental drift in 1912. It wasn't accepted until the 50s-60s, when paleomagnetic studies, and the discovery of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge made it clear that he was right, and presented a reasonable mechanism for it. So, a long revolution there, too, albeit not as long as that of heliocentrism.

I

n both cases, the new paradigm did not build upon the old, but replaced it.

Have you read Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions?

I cannot type enough words to emphasize the impact this has had on me, my faith and my love of and caution with, science.

All scientific truth is provisional. We go from being wrong to being more subtly wrong. And yet it produces all these wonderful revelations that are so beautiful and useful.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

This is part 10 of a 10 part TV series produced in the mid 1980s. It encompasses a lot of thought on science, religion and the human condition. But it also touches on "Reliable Science", he takes some shots at science, even tho he is an atheist/agnostic. I find all of what he says to be profound.

When you get 45 minutes to watch it - please do, and see what you get from it.

The problem with Creationists is that they don't just deny the theories of science that are the best explanations we have for the observable data, but they deny the observable data itself.

Such as radiometric dating, and various hominid fossils, etc.

It baffles me when people are skeptical of scientific theories, but when their reasoning is unraveled and their alternative hypotheses are revealed the bias is slowly unveiled for all to see.

 

[Pizza]

Alfred Wegener first brought up his theory of continental drift in 1912. It wasn't accepted until the 50s-60s, when paleomagnetic studies, and the discovery of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge made it clear that he was right, and presented a reasonable mechanism for it. So, a long revolution there, too, albeit not as long as that of heliocentrism.

He went into that in episode ten (and a lot of other stuff...)

 

[Not_Now.Soon]

This brings to mind a few thoughts on not trusting Man's knowledge, but God's.

Proverbs 21:2 (NLT). 2 People may be right in their own eyes, but the Lord examines their heart.

The philosophies in Job, where Job's friends were originally trying to comfort their friend's suffering, try to tell Job to turn from his sins, and that Job's suffering is evidance that he has sinned. It gets deeper into discussions when Job refuses this reasoning, and the friends get angry at his refusal. Very heavy in philosophical debate that book is, and (at least for me) hard to follow. But what this video brought to mind is that each was confidant they knew what was God's reasoning for Job's suffering. They were speaking from Their own knowledge and couldn't know God's. At the very end, God has His say to Job. And God doesn't give an explaination for why he did it, but gave the credentials of who he is, that he formed the earth and everything in it, causes joy and causes pain, and everything in the world is His. God said, "who is this man who questioned me?" And in it, I think the point that's made is that we are suppose to trust God.

Then in 1 Corinthians 2:1-5 (NLT) Paul writes:

2 When I first came to you, dear brothers and sisters, I didn’t use lofty words and impressive wisdom to tell you God’s secret plan.2 For I decided that while I was with you I would forget everything except Jesus Christ, the one who was crucified.3 I came to you in weakness—timid and trembling.4 And my message and my preaching were very plain. Rather than using clever and persuasive speeches, I relied only on the power of the Holy Spirit.5 I did this so you would trust not in human wisdom but in the power of God.

I liked the video Pizza. Just had to wait till I had time to watch it. Going to have to look for the other 9 episodes of that series.

 

[Pizza]

Have fun finding them. At one time they were on YouTube. Today, only way I know is to order them on DVD thru Amazon.

Look, the guy gets some stuff wrong, and he starts off with a real anti-Christian bent (oddly enough, he is rather easy on Islam and other religions) but in the end, in episode 10, he actually defends the witch trials and the burning of a woman alive. You have GOT to watch the whole series (or at least episode 10, not sure which of my links you watched) to understand what is he trying to say.

He's very good at presenting his view, and he makes it clear that the whole thing is HIS VIEW. But he does make one think, that is for sure. I've learned a lot from the guy, even tho I have been at odds with him at times. His recent public statements about college educations, I think, are SPOT ON.

Check THIS out:

 

[Barbarian]

And when new information comes to us such that we cannot deny it, for us, the universe has changed. He takes this so far as to drive home the point that, many times in the past, the new universe we 'live in' is irreconcilable with the 'old one'.

He borrowed that from Freud, who claimed three such changes.

• Copernicus, establishing heliocentrism
• Darwin, establishing evolution
• Freud, establishing the nature of the unconscious

Freudian ideas haven't done so well, but between Freud and Jung, our vision of our own minds has certainly changed.