subscribe to our mailing list:
|
SECTIONS
|
 |
|
|
Letters
[Create a New Thread]
[Letters Index]
| Title |
Author |
Date |
| Failure to demystify |
C, David |
Aug 30, 2006 |
I'm afraid this attempt to demystify physics by removing the wave aspects from massed particles is all wrong.
For one thing, if physicists had it all wrong for massed entities like protons and electrons, then the solution of the Schrodinger wave equation for the hydrogen atom would not conform to experimental results. But it does. That demolishes the thesis of this entire essay.
But the author and his fellow physicists make a fundamental error from the start: what they observe with electrons, photons, and other fundamental physical entities is not wave-particle duality. It is wave-particle non-duality! Wave-particle duality is what is observed in the macroscopic world. The physics community is looking at the problem from a philosophically backwards perspective. |
read replies (1)
write a reply
|
Related Article(s):
Wave-particle duality demystified?
|
| Title |
Author |
Date |
| correction |
Rossol , Ernie |
Aug 30, 2006 |
I just happened on your website as I was reviewing some info re Hugh Ross' positions on various issues. As I read your critique, I noticed what appears to me to be a mischaracterization of the position of young universe creationists ("YUCs"). You wrote,
"The "young universe creationists" maintain that every word of the Bible must be accepted in its simple literal meaning, and if it contradicts science, that is just too bad for the science. For example, the modern astronomical data, together with the facts established by physics (such as the value of the speed of light) indicate the enormous dimensions of the universe and correspondingly give its age as about fifteen billion years. This does not deter the young universe creationists who shrug off the scientific data and claim that the large size of the universe is just an illusion. Likewise, according to the young universe creationists, the fossils found in various strata of the Earth crust have been deposited by God to create an illusion of billions of years of the earth' history. Of course, the young universe creationists are not in the least baffled by the question as to why God would indulge in the deception of scientists. The ways of God are unfathomable, and the word of the Bible is not to be doubted in any manner – that is the unshakable conviction of the young universe creationists."
While it would not surprise me to find that a few folks take these rather simplistic positions, they certainly do not fairly represent the approach most YUCs take. I find that many (perhaps most) YUCs recognize that the universe is quite large, and do not generally ascribe the appearance of such as an illusion. On the other hand, they also recognize that the "generally accepted" size is an estimate based on a number of assumptions and presuppositions, not all of which are necessarily correct, and they therefore reasonably question whether the number is indeed correct. The fact is, no one really knows.
Your second example is much worse. I don't know of any present day YUCs who believe God is playing tricks with fossils to give the illusion of billions of years. On the contrary, YUCs by and large take the position that what we see in the fossil record is largely the result of the rapid burial of millions of plants and animals during the world-wide flood described in Genesis. (Indeed, present day observation easily demonstrates that apart from rapid burial by catastrophic causes, fossils rarely are formed.) YUCs observe that virtually all dating methodologies are based on multiple assumptions that we really don't know to be true. More often than not, tests on fossils and rock layers produce various disparate dates and dates are assigned in a circular process: rock layer dates are based on which fossils they contain and fossil dates are based on the rock layers they're in.
Representing alternative views fairly and accurately will improve your own credibility.
Sincerely,
Ernie Rossol |
read replies (1)
write a reply
|
|
| Title |
Author |
Date |
| They know nothing about religion |
C, David |
Aug 28, 2006 |
The authors of this article are speaking to a topic they don't understand: religion.
There is nothing in their comments that indicated they know there are different "god-hypotheses" for instance.
What do they know of the history of religions? Of comparative mythology? Of the philosophy of religion? As far as I can tell the answer to all these questions is absolutely nothing.
For that matter, their discussion on the philosophy of science was exceedingly shallow.
If they want to talk about implications of natural science and religion for one another, then they should get really serious about about the philosophies of these to human activities. Blathering about randomness versus providence and claiming that somehow gods violate the laws of thermodynamics (how?) doesn't cut it?
And if they don't want to seriously study these things, then they should shut the hell up on science versus religion!
|
read replies (1)
write a reply
|
Related Article(s):
Religion and skepticism: can (and should!) skeptics challenge religion?
|
Previous |
| Next
|
|
