John Lollard said...
“Which brings me to a difficulty that I am having with both you and Steve. I can't figure out what y'alls exact position is on anything.”
http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/04/in-beginning.html?showComment=1271427522609#c2407242082917553291
I can’t speak for Tfan. I can only speak for myself. He may or may not take the same position that I do.
“Do you believe that physics is capable of telling us the age of the universe, or do you not?”
I do not.
“Or do you believe that physics in intrinsically incapable of measuring the age of the universe because the earth will necessarily appear to be older than it looks?”
i) I think it’s misleading to speak of chronological appearances one way or the other. A physical object qua object doesn’t present any chronological appearance. Rather, that is something we judge in relation to other things, viz. the passage of time. And where physics is concerned, that goes well beyond the appearance of physical objects. Rather, that’s a theoretical construct based on various inferences and assumptions.
ii) But even if I accepted your terminology, I don’t have any antecedent position on whether the universe would *necessarily* appear older than it looks.
“Do you believe that the evidence DOES state the universe to be billions of years old, but it is irrelevant because it was supernaturally made to look that way?”
I don’t think there is any objective evidence for the age of the universe, in part because I don’t think it’s possible to establish an intrinsic temporal metric. For details, see the analysis of van Fraassen and Le Poidevin (in the works I’ve referenced).
“Do you believe that the evidence DOES NOT state the universe to be billions of years old but some other age, and that age is the true age of the universe?”
I don’t think we can use physical evidence to date the universe–in terms of absolute chronology. We can use conventional metrics to establish a relative chronology, although that, too, bumps up against another imponderable (fiat creation).
“Can I EXPECT there to be evidence for fiat creationism?”
I think you’ve bundled two questions into one:
i) Cosmological and teleological arguments, if sound, could establish the fact of fiat creation.
ii) However, given fiat creation, you can’t simply extrapolate time backwards along a linear continuum from the present to a point of origin in the past. And that’s because fiat creation doesn’t range along a continuum. To go from nothing to something is essentially discontinuous. So you can infer a cause, but not a continuum.
iii) Put another way, I don’t think science can ever get behind appearances. But it can draw inferences about what (or who) is producing the appearances.
“What is the ‘historogrammatical’ equivalent in science? I would like one that I can use in all situations.”
i) The objective of scientific realism is to reduce our indexical, first-person impressions of the physical world to an objective, third-person description. In other words, science tries to depict things as they really are, and not merely as they appear to be (to the human observer). But I don’t think that’s possible, for a scientist is ultimately just another percipient.
ii) We need to distinguish between the view from above (i.e. a God’s-eye view) and the view from within (i.e. a man’s-eye view).
God has designed us to perceive reality from within, viz. using our sensory relays (I’d also make allowance for ESP in some cases). And there is nothing wrong with that indexical perspective. For that is how God made us. It is reliable, but reliable according to the parameters that God intended.
By contrast, God views the world from above (as it were). He has exhaustive knowledge of the physical world because he knows his plan for the world. In creation, God instantiated his complete concept of the world.
There’s an ineluctable gap between appearance and reality which only God’s revelation to man can fill–to the degree that God chooses to disclose the details. By divine revelation, the view from above can enter the view from within. They intersect, although they don’t coincide. And that’s the only external check we have on our sensory perception of the world.
So it’s not a choice between science or revelation. Apart from revelation, science is flying blind.
(You might ask how I’m in any position to posit a gap between appearance and reality. Other issues aside, science itself posits such a gap, and then endeavors to close the gap it postulated.)
Mr. Hays, I very much enjoyed your article. I also agree with the underlying premises that you present.
ReplyDeleteForgive my temerity then, If I ask, how is your argument any different than the arguments presented by Catholic theologians in defending the doctrine of Real Presence and Transubstantiation?
God Bless!
I don’t think there is any objective evidence for the age of the universe, in part because I don’t think it’s possible to establish an intrinsic temporal metric.
ReplyDeleteSo what happens to archaeology?
To piggy back on #2:
ReplyDeleteWhat about the apologetic appeals to the short duration of time between Christ’s death and the written record of that event?
If metascientific arguments threaten our confidence in the science of dating the earth/universe, should they not equally corrupt forensic science, which largely depends on duration arguments?
ReplyDeleteIn response to Hoffner, I don't deny that primary qualities are producing secondary qualities. By contrast, transubstantiation does.
ReplyDeleteIn answer to Randall and Jen:
ReplyDeletei) A conventional temporal metric is adequate for forensics and archeology–which involves a temporal sequence. But to ascertain the absolute duration of intervals seems to me to be unattainable.
ii) My point is not that we should be inherently sceptical about our perception of space and time, but that, unless our perception of space and time is underwritten by transcendental theism, then scepticism is our lot.
"My point is not that we should be inherently sceptical about our perception of space and time, but that, unless our perception of space and time is underwritten by transcendental theism, then scepticism is our lot."
ReplyDeleteGranted, but the posted debate is with a theist, is it not? You have common ground there, so the fact that you brought up anit-realsim during the discussion led me to believe you regard it as relevant to TEs and OECs as well.
“A conventional temporal metric is adequate for forensics and archeology–which involves a temporal sequence. But to ascertain the absolute duration of intervals seems to me to be unattainable.”
But you’re proposing this as a defeater for evolution, aren’t you?
Forsenic science (to focus on one example) is interested (among other things) in duration *relative* to events that it ascertains could reasonably have (or not) occurred during that duration based on human perception of time, not God’s. Absolute duration is irrelevant to that endeavor. Evolutionary theory assigns duration in this relative sense as well.
So, I’m not seeing how the truth or falsity of evolution is impacted any more than forsenic science by its inability to measure absolute time.
To answer the question about archaeology, it is certainly possible for someone to feel confident about the time scales within history while still being doubtful of pre-historic claims. Especially when the pre-historic claims are pushed out so far. For instance, it is sometimes said that if all of geologic time was condensed into a 24 hour clock, the entirety of human existence would be less than a minute.
ReplyDeleteWhen calculating the age of objects, you have to take into account two things. First is that even if you can keep a constant error rate, recent events will be measured more accurately. Thus, suppose you're off by 1% in your measurements. If you think something happened 400 years ago, and it really was 396 years ago, that's not a big deal. You're only off 4 years. But if you thought it was 4,000 years ago, now you're off by 40 years. And if you thought it was 4 billion years ago, now you're off by 40 million years. Thus, the further back in time you go, the more an error rate will affect your measurement of time.
Additionally, however, you have to deal with the fact that the further back in time we go, the less confidence we can have in our measurements anyway. That is, the error rate increases the further back in time we go, because there has been more time for uncertainties to creep into measurements, more time for things that would cause variations that we could never discover to have taken place, more time for random fluctuations to make their presence known, and so forth. Thus, not only do we have to deal with the fact that a consistent error rate balloons errors as we measure further back in time, but the error rate increases too.
Thus, even if we could say with some certainty that the time measuring devices we use are consistent, I can fully see why someone would find archaeology to be valid (since it's within the realm of acceptable error rates) and not find claims of the age of the Earth or universe to be anywhere near right; and this would be based solely on the internal problems with the measuring system.
I'm wondering what your views on time and dating's consequences are for dating of the NT documents, etc. Are there any consequences you are aware of, or are they not much affected?
ReplyDeleteRANDALL VAN DER STERREN SAID:
ReplyDelete“So what happens to archaeology?”
To my knowledge, archeology doesn’t make much use of radiometric dating. Rather, it uses things like ancient star charts, period calendars, and pottery (based on the superposition of pottery in mounds).
Moreover, even if radiometric were employed, that can still be used to establish a temporal sequence.
“What about the apologetic appeals to the short duration of time between Christ’s death and the written record of that event?’’
If, for instance, the author of the Fourth Gospel tells us that he was an eyewitness to the events recorded, then it happened within his lifetime. That’s an obvious way to establish the pertinent interval.
And that’s quite different than, say, radiometric dating.
JEN H. SAID:
“Granted, but the posted debate is with a theist, is it not? You have common ground there…”
We share theological common ground. However, different Christians may have different theories of knowledge. One Christian (or Christian apologist) may take the reliability of sense knowledge for granted, then argue from that presumption, along with attendant lines of sensory evidence, to the existence of God.
By contrast, another Christian may say that unless we take the existence of God for granted, there is no reason to trust our senses.
I’ve been responding to a physics student who perceives a tension between science and Scripture. One temptation in that situation is to ditch Scripture for science. But one of my points is that, unless the God of the Bible exists, there’s no reason to abode confidence in scientific knowledge.
“So the fact that you brought up anit-realsim during the discussion led me to believe you regard it as relevant to TEs and OECs as well.”
Scientific antirealism is broader than metrical conventionalism. (And, of course, there are varieties of scientific antirealism.)
Cont. “But you’re proposing this as a defeater for evolution, aren’t you?”
ReplyDeleteNot specifically. I was responding to a claim regarding the antiquity of the universe. It seems to me that metrical conventionalism is a defeater (or at least an undercutter) for that claim.
“Forsenic science (to focus on one example) is interested (among other things) in duration *relative* to events that it ascertains could reasonably have (or not) occurred during that duration based on human perception of time, not God’s. Absolute duration is irrelevant to that endeavor. Evolutionary theory assigns duration in this relative sense as well.”
Metrical conventionalism assigns conventional intervals to events.
“If metascientific arguments threaten our confidence in the science of dating the earth/universe, should they not equally corrupt forensic science, which largely depends on duration arguments?”
A criminologist is using a common temporal metric. He uses the same metric to prove the whereabouts of the defendant at the scene of the crime as the defendant’s lawyer will use to prove the absence of the defendant at that time and place. I don’t see the problem. All parties concerned use a synchronized metric to “clock” events.
“So, I’m not seeing how the truth or falsity of evolution is impacted any more than forsenic science by its inability to measure absolute time.”
ReplyDeletei) The physics student raised the question of time scales. That’s a chronometric question. And that, in turn, raises the question of whether we have some independent means to compare intervals of time. From what I can tell, any procedure we use is circular.
You can only use a clock to measure time in case you know that your clock is running on time. And you can only do that in case you are able to compare your clock against the actual duration. So how do you calibrate the clock in the first place?
ii) Suppose, for the sake of argument, that metrical conventionalism removes a standard argument in the arsenal of the Christian apologist? But if, by the same token, it also removes a counterargument in the arsenal of the atheist, then that’s a comparable tradeoff.
STEVEN SAID:
“I'm wondering what your views on time and dating's consequences are for dating of the NT documents, etc. Are there any consequences you are aware of, or are they not much affected?”
How do church historians date events? Well, to take one example, if Irenaeus says he knew Polycarp, and Polycarp says he knew John, then that’s one way to establish a relative, interlocking sequence of events. John is earlier than Polycarp–but their lives overlap, making Polycarp a contemporary witness to John.
“Suppose, for the sake of argument, that metrical conventionalism removes a standard argument in the arsenal of the Christian apologist? But if, by the same token, it also removes a counterargument in the arsenal of the atheist, then that’s a comparable tradeoff.”
ReplyDeleteEarlier you said that metrical conventionalism isn’t (specifically) a defeater for evolution. Here you say it is defeater for atheism. How can it be a defeater for the latter without the former?
Me: But you’re proposing this as a defeater for evolution, aren’t you?
ReplyDeleteSteve: Not specifically. I was responding to a claim regarding the antiquity of the universe. It seems to me that metrical conventionalism is a defeater (or at least an undercutter) for that claim.
Me:
Claims about the “antiquity of the universe” have relevance to the scientist in the same way that claims about the “antiquity of Abraham and Moses” have relevance to the historian.
How do either set of claims stand or fall on metrical conventionalism? Both sets of experts are representing proposed facts in *observed* time, so claims of antiquity are true in the relevant sense.
JEN H. SAID:
ReplyDelete"Earlier you said that metrical conventionalism isn’t (specifically) a defeater for evolution. Here you say it is defeater for atheism. How can it be a defeater for the latter without the former?"
I didn't say it was a "defeater" for atheism. To begin with, we're not talking about atheism in general. Rather, in context, we're talking about the atheist claim that Gen 1 is false because the universe is far older than Gen implies.
To remove one atheistic objection to the Bible is not a defeater for atheism. A defeater for atheism would be a positive argument against atheism.
Jen H. said...
ReplyDelete"Claims about the 'antiquity of the universe' have relevance to the scientist in the same way that claims about the 'antiquity of Abraham and Moses' have relevance to the historian. How do either set of claims stand or fall on metrical conventionalism? Both sets of experts are representing proposed facts in *observed* time, so claims of antiquity are true in the relevant sense."
i) You need to distinguish questions of temporal sequences from the more arcane question of whether the duration of discrete temporal intervals is intrinsically measurable.
ii) I also don't know in what sense you think the claim that our universe came into existence about 14 billion years ago involves "observable time." Who was the observer of that putative event?
“You need to distinguish questions of temporal sequences from the more arcane question of whether the duration of discrete temporal intervals is intrinsically measurable.”
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with your distinction. I just don’t think it is relevant to physics, biology, forensics etc.
Science does not stand or fall on whether time is conventional or intrinsic. That is a metascientific claim.
I’ll put it this way. Under conventionalism truth claims would be preserved under transformation between God–time and people-time. The facts are preserved, how they are indexed to time would change. This assumes the laws of nature are fixed, of course, but that is a different subject.
“I also don't know in what sense you think the claim that our universe came into existence about 14 billion years ago involves "observable time."
Who was the observer of that putative event?”
By “observable time”, I didn’t intend to invoke the image of someone literally watching a clock but rather to denote how we use time in relation to purported facts.
Whether time had the same meaning before humans existed to observe it (time) is a different topic related to fixity of the laws of nature.
“Rather, in context, we're talking about the atheist claim that Gen 1 is false because the universe is far older than Gen implies.”
ReplyDeleteIf the science of dating is correct (and whether it is or not is a separate topic), then Gen1 would be wrong in same sense that assigning time of death to some hypothetical person at 12pm would be wrong if sound forensics tells us that death occurred at least 2 hours prior.
I'm not saying Gen 1 is wrong, by the way...
ReplyDeleteJEN H. SAID:
ReplyDelete“I just don’t think it is relevant to physics, biology, forensics etc.”
It’s relevant to claims about the *actual* age of the earth or the universe.
“Science does not stand or fall on whether time is conventional or intrinsic.”
I never said it did. You keep conflating arguments for scientific realism in general with arguments for chronometric conventionalism in particular.
“Under conventionalism truth claims would be preserved under transformation between God–time and people-time.”
In the sense that God knows how long things really take to transpire.
“If the science of dating is correct (and whether it is or not is a separate topic), then Gen1 would be wrong in same sense that assigning time of death to some hypothetical person at 12pm would be wrong if sound forensics tells us that death occurred at least 2 hours prior.”
And how is that germane to the issue at hand?
I said: If the science of dating is correct (and whether it is or not is a separate topic), then Gen1 would be wrong in same sense that assigning time of death to some hypothetical person at 12pm would be wrong if sound forensics tells us that death occurred at least 2 hours prior.
ReplyDeleteYou replied: And how is that germane to the issue at hand?
Me:Well, because you said the metrical conventionalism removes this “atheist” objection.
I assume what the atheist objects to something akin to a YEC take on Gen1—that is, the validity of the YEC science.
But the validity of the objection is independent of metrical conventionalism, so it (metrical conventionalism) fails to undercut it.
The validity of forensic pronouncements is independent of metrical conventionalism for the same reason.
I agree with you that metrical conventionalism undercuts anyone who takes intrinsic time for granted. That time has a conventional aspect is the best we can show.
But that doesn’t undercut the atheist objection. So I’m now confused as to just what you are trying to show via metrical conventionalism.
JEN H. SAID:
ReplyDelete"But that doesn’t undercut the atheist objection."
I already explained that. If an atheist says Gen 1 is wrong because it teaches us that the world is really 6,000-10,000 years old whereas we now know that the world is really 14 billions years old, then metrical conventionalism undercuts that objection. For, on that view, the actual age of the world is indetectable.
"But the validity of the objection is independent of metrical conventionalism, so it (metrical conventionalism) fails to undercut it."
ReplyDeleteNot independent in reference to actual ages.
"The validity of forensic pronouncements is independent of metrical conventionalism for the same reason."
Not independent in reference to actual ages.
“I already explained that. If an atheist says Gen 1 is wrong because it teaches us that the world is really 6,000-10,000 years old whereas we now know that the world is really 14 billions years old, then metrical conventionalism undercuts that objection. For, on that view, the actual age of the world is indetectable.”
ReplyDeleteSince scientists (including YECs) aren’t interested (or able for that matter) to propose facts in relation to indetectible metrics (God-time for instance), isn’t this a straw man of the atheist objection?
You’re attempting to undercut a claim that isn’t actually being made.
You don’t assume forensic experts are making leaps into meta-science, why assume the objecting atheist is? He’s merely attempting to refute YECs on their own terms.
Everyone who tries to measure time has to operate with a temporal metric. So the debate over metrical conventionalism v. metrical objectivism is unavoidable.
ReplyDeleteAnd it's hardly a straw man objection to atheism when distinguished secular scientists and/or philosophers of science subscribe to metrical conventionalism, or discuss the difficulties of eliminating that alternative. Appeal to metrical conventionalism is hardly an appeal to "God-time" (not that there would be anything wrong with introducing theological imponderables into the debate).
Metrical conventionalism is consistent with YEC. It is also consistent with standard dating techniques.
But it disarms the use of standard dating techniques as a facile objection to YEC.
Why you're so resistant to this argument is odd.
Though my exposure to the debate is limited, admittedly, what I have observed is YECs and old earthers debating the age of the earth at the same level forensic experts might debate time of death.
ReplyDeleteIn both cases, the debate is only over the viability of the dating methods, not the nature of what is being measured.
The debate, in both disciplines, is won or lost solely on the basis of viability of the dating method relative to the mutually accepted metric.
Given those ground rules, I don’t see how failure to acknowledge metrical conventionalism would be a problem for either side.
It might help if you could cite some real world examples of people leveling what you consider to be facile objections to YEC.
(You might ask how I’m in any position to posit a gap between appearance and reality. Other issues aside, science itself posits such a gap, and then endeavors to close the gap it postulated.)
ReplyDeleteThis is an important point. More specifically, the scientific method proposes a deductive correlation and proceeds to inductively investigate its likelihood. But science can only do so given the evidence at present. The farther removed the evidence, the less reliable it is for demonstrating a likelihood. So present evidence of recent events are more reliable and present evidence of ancient events are less reliable. Evidence of prehistoric events, especially atomic dating, require some exceptional assumptions to be made. It's disingenuous to claim a particular certainty when the assumptions have not been tested. The fact that many assumptions regarding extremely long periods of time cannot be tested make claims of viable certainty extremely suspect.
JEN H. SAID:
ReplyDelete"Though my exposure to the debate is limited, admittedly, what I have observed is YECs and old earthers debating the age of the earth at the same level forensic experts might debate time of death. In both cases, the debate is only over the viability of the dating methods, not the nature of what is being measured. The debate, in both disciplines, is won or lost solely on the basis of viability of the dating method relative to the mutually accepted metric."
That's irrelevant to whether or not a different, complementary strategy can be deployed to harmonize appearances.
"Given those ground rules, I don’t see how failure to acknowledge metrical conventionalism would be a problem for either side."
Those aren't the "ground rules." Truth isn't bound by arbitrary, man-made rules. This isn't a game of checkers.
You're confusing a sociological description of how proponents may frequently argue with a normative statement about how they ought to argue. A classic fallacy.
"It might help if you could cite some real world examples of people leveling what you consider to be facile objections to YEC."
It might help if you could deal with the logic of the position rather than intrude irrelevancies into the debate. This isn't a debate over the sociology of science.
Me:
ReplyDelete"Though my exposure to the debate is limited, admittedly, what I have observed is YECs and old earthers debating the age of the earth at the same level forensic experts might debate time of death. In both cases, the debate is only over the viability of the dating methods, not the nature of what is being measured. The debate, in both disciplines, is won or lost solely on the basis of viability of the dating method relative to the mutually accepted metric."
You:
That's irrelevant to whether or not a different, complementary strategy can be deployed to harmonize appearances.
My reply:
Unless you’re going to now bring anti-realism into the debate, I completely disagree. There is an objectively right answer to the question of the earth’s age that metrical conventionalism all by itself does not remove. If YEC is bad science, then it fails to characterize natural history relative to our time metric, and this would include the age of the earth. Under metrical conventionalism the same conclusion holds, albeit relative to an alternate metrics. If YEC fails to identify the age of the earth relative to one time metric, then it fails relative to all time metrics.
There is a parallel here to Special Relativity. If my methods for measuring an object’s speed fails in my reference frame, then it fails to characterize speed correctly in a given moving reference frame as well.
Me:
"Given those ground rules, I don’t see how failure to acknowledge metrical conventionalism would be a problem for either side."
You:
Those aren't the "ground rules." Truth isn't bound by arbitrary, man-made rules. This isn't a game of checkers.
You're confusing a sociological description of how proponents may frequently argue with a normative statement about how they ought to argue. A classic fallacy.
My reply:
I thought it was clear I am discussing metrical conventionalism solely and asking what its implications would be for science as it is practiced. I assumed you accepted the distinction. You did, after all, underscore the fact that it is a separate concept from scientific anti-realism.
Me:
"It might help if you could cite some real world examples of people leveling what you consider to be facile objections to YEC."
You:
It might help if you could deal with the logic of the position rather than intrude irrelevancies into the debate. This isn't a debate over the sociology of science.
My reply:
If dating methods are facile arguments against YEC, then by the same reasoning YEC science is facile too.
The reality is, metrical conventionalism alone doesn’t make either position facile.
In principle, dating methods are on the same footing as the forensic use of, say, tissue decay rates to help establish a murder suspect’s guilt or innocence. The fact of guilt or innocence is independent of time metric.
So, I get the logic of the position. I just don’t think it is relevant to truth or falsity of age claims in a way that is relevant.
Jen H. said...
ReplyDelete"There is an objectively right answer to the question of the earth’s age that metrical conventionalism all by itself does not remove."
Wrong again. If metrical conventionism is correct, then there is no "right" age for the universe, in terms of its actual age. That would only be the case if our temporal metric were intrinsic to time.
"If YEC is bad science..."
I didn't say if it's good science or bad science.
"If YEC fails to identify the age of the earth relative to one time metric, then it fails relative to all time metrics."
YEC doesn't need to identify the actual age of the earth. It only has to show that its interpretation of Gen 1 is consistent with the natural evidence.
"I thought it was clear I am discussing metrical conventionalism solely and asking what its implications would be for science as it is practiced."
How science is practiced or malpracticed is irrelevant to the logical implications of metrical conventionalism (or fiat creation, for that matter).
"In principle, dating methods are on the same footing as the forensic use of, say, tissue decay rates to help establish a murder suspect’s guilt or innocence."
You keep trotting out the same comparison as if I hadn't dealt with that before. Repeating the same discredited argument doesn't make it any better.
“You keep trotting out the same comparison as if I hadn't dealt with that before. Repeating the same discredited argument doesn't make it any better”
ReplyDeleteHere is how you dealt with forensics earlier in this thread:
“A criminologist is using a common temporal metric. He uses the same metric to prove the whereabouts of the defendant at the scene of the crime as the defendant’s lawyer will use to prove the absence of the defendant at that time and place. I don’t see the problem. All parties concerned use a synchronized metric to ‘clock’ events.”
But later when I said “the debate, in both disciplines, is won or lost solely on the basis of viability of the dating method relative to the mutually accepted metric”, you replied like this:
“Truth isn't bound by arbitrary, man-made rules. This isn't a game of checkers...You're confusing a sociological description of how proponents may frequently argue with a normative statement about how they ought to argue. A classic fallacy.”
So somehow the validity of, say, forensic use of tissue decomposition rates is salvaged by a common temporal metric, but where, say, carbon dating is concerned, a common temporal metric is just an arbitrary stipulation?