tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post116744031659175485..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Caponizing physicsRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1167468981833790962006-12-30T03:56:00.000-05:002006-12-30T03:56:00.000-05:00Steve,I’m a bit confused by your references to ‘me...Steve,<BR/><BR/>I’m a bit confused by your references to ‘metrical conventionalism’. How precisely do they impugn naturalism but not the exegetical methods that scholars employ to, say, date the book of Mark?<BR/><BR/>More specifically, since time is amorphous by your own account, time would be just as much a problem for the bible scholar’s dating techniques as well, no? <BR/><BR/>Additionally, I’m aware of no time keeping device that does not index itself to some observed phenomenon (spring rates in wind-up clocks, atomic clocks, sundials). Natural phenomena is *all* we have to guide us, so why does the use of ‘natural’ phenomena (to establish the age of the earth, for instance) constitute a weakness of some sort? <BR/><BR/>The notion of time that we *all* use can’t be separated from the periodicities we perceive in the natural world (including crowing roosters, or the rising and setting sun). What else is there?<BR/><BR/>More to the point, according to my understanding, a rooster and a cuckoo clock are essentially the same: both are time keeping devices identified by humans to keep time quite reliably (though neither perfectly) and both are based on processes that are thoroughly naturalistic. <BR/><BR/>The only difference is that the clock is designed to model what the rooster presents to us as a ‘paradigm of periodicity’. I’d therefore say that *designed* time keeping devices are no better than the periodic *natural* phenomena that they model. They are, in fact, synonymous.<BR/><BR/>Maybe you could you spell out more completely your conception of time and precisely how it improves upon the standard usage?<BR/><BR/>You’re referencing philosophical nuances that I’m just *not* managing to wrap my brain around.<BR/><BR/>Thanks, <BR/><BR/>AndrewAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1167455696364156232006-12-30T00:14:00.000-05:002006-12-30T00:14:00.000-05:00Patrick,As I've said from the beginning, I'm opera...Patrick,<BR/><BR/>As I've said from the beginning, I'm operating from the understanding that YECs must resort to scientific solipsism in order to maintain their views -- Steve's divorced from science, in other words. <BR/><BR/>It's fine to ask: "What is time?" For my part, I don't mind discussing it, but the important observation is that when you ask a YEC how old something is, you get answers like "What is time, really?"<BR/><BR/>If we just note that you're obliged to offer such responses to basic scientific questions, my primary point is made, thank you. Readers can make up their own minds as to what a response like that means.<BR/><BR/>As for "what is time?" I still don't have a clue how Steve (or you for that matter) thinks conventionalism applies to estimating the age of the earth. All I've heard is "what about metric conventionalism" as if there's some obvious implication. If you go ask your local geology professor what the age of the earth is, do you think he will tell you it all centers on metric conventionalism? Heh. <BR/><BR/>So, when I read through the research papers on the supernova SN1987A or radiometric dating techniques, or even ice rings, I don't see metrical conventionalism invoked as a problem in the publications. Are these guys just nuts compared to Steve here? <BR/><BR/>I suggest that either Steve has a handful of Nobels in physics coming his way for noticing what everyone else missed -- that metrical conventionalism invalidates Einstein's GR and a host of other established theories in physics, or Steve's just offering some convenient bits of solipsism that keep him from having to address the scientific evidence.<BR/><BR/>As above, though, the bottom line is that when science comes into view, YECs proceed by asking things like "What is time?" and "What does 'real' really mean, anyway?"...<BR/><BR/>-TouchstoneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1167454474647937992006-12-29T23:54:00.000-05:002006-12-29T23:54:00.000-05:00Steve, your voluminous blogging serves as ample ad...Steve, your voluminous blogging serves as ample advertisement of your naiveté. Thanks a lot and keep up the good work!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1167453310670156442006-12-29T23:35:00.000-05:002006-12-29T23:35:00.000-05:00Touchstone said: I think if that's too vexing a qu...Touchstone said: <I>I think if that's too vexing a question for you, then science really is something you've pushed quite a ways away.</I><BR/><BR/>Just a quick comment: <BR/><BR/>Touchstone often attempts to obfuscate the actual issues at hand by putting forth (his version of?) certain scientific facts or theories.<BR/><BR/>Of course, it's perfectly legitimate to bring up scientific facts or theories in order to support one's argumentation.<BR/><BR/>But in this case, the issues go beyond the scientific facts or theories, and move into the philosophy of science. "What is time?" "What does it mean to measure time with an artificial or natural instrument?" Etc.<BR/><BR/>So it would seem Touchstone keeps bringing up scientific facts and theories not to support his argumentation, but in order to avoid dealing with issues originally raised.Patrick Chanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095377877712197984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1167448823931549452006-12-29T22:20:00.000-05:002006-12-29T22:20:00.000-05:00A couple more things. Maybe to prevent the pedantr...A couple more things. Maybe to prevent the pedantry here we can agree on the term "scientific estimate" -- the best practices judgment of science regarding some kind of phenomena. It's not interesting scientifically to wonder about what a three year old entertains as visual stimuli. For the purposes of making headway, let's assume I'm thinking in terms of scientific investigation. <BR/><BR/>That means that far off mountains are "estimated" to be, well, "far off", in terms of science. Some stars "appear" (are estimated to be) many hundreds of years old, based on the physics applied to the light arriving here on earth. <BR/><BR/>If science just doesn't have any relation to reality in your view, I'll accept that position, that's been the direction I've seen you leaning from the start. But if scientific estimates *do* have some correspondance to reality -- something we can rely on, then, how does a YEC dispose of all the estimates that come in at hundreds of thousands, millions and billions of years? <BR/><BR/>And as for age, let's start with something simple. Do you have an actual age? Even approximately? How many years old were you on the day of your tenth birthday, approximately? (Cesium clocks are fine as the measuring tool here).<BR/><BR/>I think if that's too vexing a question for you, then science really is something you've pushed quite a ways away.<BR/><BR/>-TouchstoneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1167447911109667332006-12-29T22:05:00.000-05:002006-12-29T22:05:00.000-05:00Steve,Regarding metric conventionalism, you offere...Steve,<BR/><BR/>Regarding metric conventionalism, you offered up the subject of metric conventionalism in response to Anonymous who said:<BR/><I>"If you want to move the creation event up to 4004 BC, then you either have to reject science, or you have to ignore all prior appearances of natural history as a carefully crafted illusion."</I><BR/><BR/>Anonymous can clarify for him/herself, but I think the clear intent of the comment hear was the "scientific appearance" -- the result of scientific measurement and calculation. That's why s/he said you would have to reject science, in my view. <BR/><BR/>So let me ask again:<BR/><BR/>How does metric conventionalism apply to Anonymous' comment here. I've looked up past references on your part to 'conventionalism', and don't see it attaching to the 4004 BC date. Maybe you can point me to where you did apply it to that date, or explain how it matters here.<BR/><BR/>Also, teleology is enthusiastically accepted by science (methodological naturalism). Remember those spears we were talking about from 375,000 years ago that got dug up. Those spears were identified as the target of teleology -- a goal-oriented effort on the part of the makers to fashion raw materials into spears. Arson investigators and homicide detectives work at determining whether teleology (human planning and execution) was at work in starting the fire or causing the victim's death. <BR/><BR/>Oh, and of course SETI looks for teleology in communications or modulated phenomena. You get the idea -- teleology is not forbidden as a factor in science.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-1167443856265119572006-12-29T20:57:00.000-05:002006-12-29T20:57:00.000-05:00Speaking of Genesis commentaries, have you checked...Speaking of Genesis commentaries, have you checked out the ones by Victor Hamilton? I'm wondering how good they are, or if there are better ones to start off with.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com