Taking Science on Faith

[countrycousin]

is an op-ed piece in the NY Times:  http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html

The apparent aim is to improve the dialog between the religious and science.  I'm all for the aim, and Davies has impressive credentials, but

Comments

[charlie_ego]

ugh. I was all set to rant, and then I realized you had done it already, and more coherently than I would have :)

Anyway, I agree that he seems to be confusing and conflating the question "How does it work?"-- which science answers-- with "Why does it work?" -- which is at its roots really a philosophy (or theology) question. I suppose it's a reasonable error given that in grade school the questions are pretty much the same, but still, I would expect someone publishing in the NYT to at least ask a working physicist about such an article, sigh.

And he seems to be confusing "assumptions a particular human scientist might hold" with "the platonic ideal scientist"-- I might assume that Newton's laws always hold, but the ideal scientist would add "in the realm in which we've tested it, and only insofar as we have not found exceptions."

This reminds me of a tangential story: I once knew a guy, a mathematician, who was not inclined to accept people's assumptions about anything, be it math or physics or politics or religion or whatever.

[charlie_ego]

(In par. 3: Of course, I mean "I" and "ideal scientist" as "living before the time of quantum mechanics! The point being that I would be wrong, but the ideal scientist wouldn't be.)

[countrycousin]

re: last para - well, I can't argue with him. :<) Not quite sure why he picked the Civil War. Maybe he visited Gettysburg or similar - that does tend to be convincing. And if once was a while ago, perhaps he knew people still influenced by the era and its aftermath

[charlie_ego]

Actually... the blurb you posted, I think, speaks to that confusion a bit. "Is there a meaning to it all" and "the big questions of existence" are kind of... well, not exactly right as questions of science. Though I bet that Davies is very good at his job, which probably involves getting people all excited about science.

Waaait a second... this is the Paul Davies, the Australian? I thought it had to be someone else with the same name. Okay, I read one or two of his books as a teenager (I sem to remember not being a huge fan, but whatever), and in fact I have actually met this guy (he is friends with the prof who was my advisor when I was abroad). That is really, really, disturbing. I don't understand this at all, because he really ought to know better. Maybe it isn't the same guy?