Victor Stenger - The Future of Naturalism Interview

Recorded at the Future of Naturalism conference at the Center for Inquiry. ©2007 Center for Inquiry, Inc.

• Category

  Nonprofits & Activism

[virumoz]

Watch it again, SmalltimR. Maybe you missed the destruction of the fine-tuning argument and the refutation of the anthropic principle.

Stenger is in the process of writing a book about fine tuning titled »The Fallacy of Fine-Tuning -- Why the Universe Is Not Designed for Us«. A link to the draft is in the header of his recent article at the Huffington Post (»Absence of Evidence *Is* Evidence of Absence«, 2010-08-14, emphasis mine).

[vdtmh]

Deepak Chopra, quantum healing? What a fucking joke!

[MisterAdamWayne]

:-) I only got one notification as well. I'm not sure I'm moving the goalpost, so much as I'm pointing out that even indirect verifiable methods that do not directly measure motion are still really only describing and referring exclusively to objective physical reality, which is defined by models of motion. You might say such knowledge is the only practical purpose of physical science, and that such knowledge is inherently incomplete. We fill in the blanks with indirectly observed quantities.

[MisterAdamWayne]

Yes, and, certainly, by physical things, I mean all measurable phenomena, all things that can be detected and described by some kind of measurement. Your example is possible because of the motion of photons, and I suppose the relative motion of the detecting thing. If you could imagine there is only one completely unmoving thing, it becomes detectable relative to the motion of everything else, including the thing detecting it.

[virumoz]

This may be true, but neither can theology and philosophy, it seems. At least, science works. So what else remains?

[virumoz]

I see, you're moving the goalpost, going from »the only purpose of physical science« to »depend on measuring physical motion«.

(I got only one notification from YouTube for your two replies to me. This hasn't always been the case. Maybe it came as part of the changes in »Cosmic Panda«. We'll have to be careful to check the whole comment thread not to overlook anything. The »sort by thread« link on the top of this page isn't helpful either. Every web forum seems to reinvent the wheel. :-)

[virumoz]

If I’d reply spectroscopy you’d argue that photons move, wouldn't you?

By the way, can you provide an example of something being »useful for predicting« anything other than »measurable phenomina«, MisterAdamWayne?

[MisterAdamWayne]

By the way, can you provide an example of a scientifically verifiable process or area of study that does not depend on measuring physical motion or qualities, or does not have as its aim the description of physical motion or qualities?

[MisterAdamWayne]

Good talking to you again. Ah, I see. You think scientific or verifiable methods can be applied to the whole of reality. I disagree, and believe science is inherently only useful for predicting measurable phenomena. In other words, science can only strive for empirical adequacy by means of models, and does not describe the whole of reality, per se.

[virumoz]

Let me rephrase a tiny bit: The purposes of physical science is to learn about and describe reality, and apply that knowledge to technology and further understanding about the cosmos. One of the *means* at scientists’ disposal is measuring physical motion.

So the description of physical motion is not »the only purpose of physical science.«

[MisterAdamWayne]

I understand, but in the absence of complete knowledge about the universe (and the inability of simulations to account for every part of the Whole), computer models can only confirm results expected from the limited known conditions put into them, not unlike trying to get new information from a pure deductive Aristotelian argument, the failed precursor of science. By the latter, I am pointing out that science is not philosophy. The only purpose of physical science is to describe physical motion.

[virumoz]

Tautology: »models can confirm models«. False dichotomy: »Either [identity crisis], or [no relationship]«. Where did you get that from? Just want to point out that science is greater than one of its parts (e.g. making measurements).