Science: It's Not What It's Cracked Up To Be part 1

I've listened to a bunch of lectures on the history of science, and the the philosophy of science and what I got out of it was pretty astounding. Science is nowhere near what I thought it was cracked up to be.

In my experience Science is taught in schools as fearlessly pursuing the truth, shining the pure light of reason on the mysteries of the universe wherever that might lead.  It's taught in an almost Whiggish fashion.  If there are questions in a scientific theory everyone accepts that and they work towards the answer knowing that only the fact matter.  That's not the way it is at all.

The first crack was when I first learned about Creation Science.  I went to BYU, a well know LDS sponsered college.  I got a degree in Mechanical Engineering.  I always wondered in the back of my mind if I was being duped by not believing completly in Evolution.  I mean I couldn't doubt my spirtual experiences, but did that spill over into Science?  I of course thought yes.  Then I joined a Christian Toastmasters group because it was suggested that I should by a sales job manager I had at the time.  One presentation there was done by a PhD Physicist who worked at Sandia Laboratory and he gave a presentation on how Young Earth Creationism works with Einstien Relativity.  I can't remember exactly what he said, and while I won't be suprised to find out that YEC is correct, I'm a little skepical about it.  What I do remember is thinking that I'd never heard anything that this guy was talking about!  Next day I was at the library checking out a book on Creation Science and what I read was astounding.  They seemed to have very good arguments, or reinterpretaions of the evidence of Evolution.  The idea in the back of my head that I was being duped was gone, I wasn't being duped by religion I was being misinformed by our education system.

That being said, I'm not against evolution being taught in schools, and would be upset if it wasn't.  I read in book about LDS Scholars where they shared their testimonies, a biologist said that he sometimes found it strange that he worked in a field that had at it's foundation an idea, evolution, that he didn't necessarily believe in.  That's all that I remember and I'm not sure what he meant.  I would say that it's obvious that species evolve and I think that's what biology is based on.  To me it's not obvious that species evolve into other species.  However, I made sure that my kids knew that there were other interpretations to what they were learning in school.

That was my first crack that maybe science is not everything that it's cracked up to be.  Over the years I'd read interesting things like that when the data by Miliken and the oil drop experiment, and Mendel's sweet pea data were examined with statistics it was discovered that the data was most likely faked.  Oh well at least they were right, and everyone cheats a little I thought.  I also read that Author Eddington was so sure that Einstien was right that he only showed the photos that proved that he was right, and ignored that ones that didn't by the logic that something must be wrong with them.  Well Einstien was right, right?  Well I then read a book called "Kicking the Sacred Cows" by James P. Hogan.  Mr. Hogan was a very good science fiction writer that I'd discovered on the Baen Books site, and when I read the excerpt on the book I didn't think it sounded that interesting.  Mr. Hogan sounded much like myself, with a few differences.  One big difference is that he describes himself as agnostic.  He had an engineering degree, and he bought into Evolution whole heartedly.  He explained that in his early novels he'd written about evolution as a fact.  Then one day he'd seen a book about Creationism or Intellegent Design, and he read it mostly with the idea to ridicule it.  Well that didn't happen, he became convinced that Intellegent Design (ID) was correct.  After that his novels pushed ID, so much so that when Earthlings discovered inhabited planets elsewhere in the Universe it was possible to interbreed with them.  Reading "Kicking the Sacred Cow" was eye opening about just how unscientific science is.  One of the funny things about this is that Mr. Hogan points out that people who say that ID is just an in for Creationism don't know what they're talking about.  Mr. Hogan doesn't accept the Bible, and there are people from other religious faiths who accept ID and obviously don't accept the Bible.  Most people who say that about ID is just Creationism are just trying to discredit it.

Some of the things that Mr. Hogan wrote about I'd known about agreed with.  Others I'd never heard of before and was surprised to be reading the stuff.  The most embarrising thing about the book was the information on Immanual Velikovsky, who wrote "Worlds in Collision".  Someone had asked me what I thought about him at church and I'd just looked around the web and decided that he was a crackpot because that was the accepted account.  After reading the book I started reading a little more deeply around the web and decided that maybe he had some good ideas after all.  I don't know that I agree with all of them but I don't dismiss them all now like I used to.  Pretty much everything that was said in Mr. Hogan's book I now agree with.

Great Courses - Science Wars: What Scientist Know and How They Know It

I recently listened to this lecture series again, and I liked it more the second time around than the first.  The professor is excellent in his presentation.  I love the historical approach that he takes for building up his ideas.  I also loved his development of his ideas around the concept of the God vs. The Earth Giants.

I often say a lectures series, or a book, is awsome if you get one great idea, or concept from it.  Well the great idea that I got from this series is how modern science seems to be built around a logical fallacy called Affirming the Consequent.  The first time I listened to the series I went back and listened to the lecture that explains this idea 3 times because I found the idea so astounding.  I also really appreciated how he points out that for many years technology drove science.  The statement was that no one would mistake the Wright brothers for scientists was marvelous.  Yet they figured out how to make a flying machine, then the scientists helped to make it better.

I highly recommend this series.  I also highly recommend it if you're considering the Philosophy of Science series because this one is much more accessible and lays the ground work for what is cover in that series.

The Importance of Property

I've always said that if I had a chance to go to school just for fun and not to have to earn a living afterwards I would take a course in Philosophy.  I don't know that I would ever have taken a course in history but I would have like to take some classes in it because I've always loved history, at least the kind where I don't have to take tests in it.  Most of the lectures that I've listened to have been either history or philosophy.  I've also listened to some of the music series and they're excellent as well.

Recently I just listened to the series "The American Mind", and I also listened once to the series "Civil Liberties and the Bill of Rights."  Ok so here is the cool thing about history and making connections.  In the Civil Liberties lectures they talk about how for the first part of the American experience property was all important and the driving force of Civil Rights.  I found this especially interesting when I heard it but it really strikes home after listening to The American Mind.  John Locke said that in a state of nature people took their land and put their labor into it developed property then in an effort to protect that property they would enter into contracts with others to protect their combined property and this is how society arose.  Of course there was another great philosopher about society at that time who took a different tack and that was Hobbs, who talked about the state of nature being "nasty brutish and short".  I guess Americans seemed to see Locke as being the correct one, although I'm sure they saw plenty of Hobbs in action as well.

In the American Mind lectures the professor pointed out that Americans could see that their societies had arisen as Locke had said they would and the Americans had set up legislatures in the way Locke had said people would.  By this light you can really see why the early Americans would have emphasized the importance of property in their concepts of Civil Liberties.  Of course I think it's practically self evident that the safety of property should be something that all societies should encourage.  When people know their property is safe from confiscation they're willing to put that property at risk and invest it, or make it increase, if not the only thing they can think of is keeping their property safe, generally by hiding it.  That hurts all of society in general.  Unfortuntely we're losing that concept slowly in America, and I think that it's going to be for the worst.

Great Courses - The American Mind

This was a pretty good course.  It was taught by Professor Allen C. Guelzo.  Dr. Guelzo's presentation manner was excellent and the information was well presented.

Professor Guelzo said that there would be six recurring themes that would run through the lectures.  I forgot what they all were but two of them were that the Puritan beginnings of America and the Enlightenment were the two minds of America and they would continue to interact throughout the series.  I thought that was an excellent point and was well developed throughout.

There was one thought that was presented that I thought made the entire lecture series worth while.  He said that when Englishmen read Locke they had to imagine society rising from a state of nature and entering into contracts to keep their property safe.  However, the American's didn't have to use their imagination they could see it taking place around them.  I've never thought of it that way.  It was awesome.

I really enjoyed the first half of the series up until Lincoln and the Civil War.  Then I started noticing that Dr. Guelzo was concentrating on the liberal and progressive thought process of the American mind.  I kept waiting for him to mention the Christian Fundamental movement of the 20th Century.  Practically the only mention of it was when he said the Reinhold Nieburh was too old and tired to respond to something negative that Billy Graham said about him.  That's the only mention Billy Graham which was the only mention of the Fundamental movement, and Billy Graham wasn't that great a mention of the movement anyway.  Reinhold Nieburh is the only Christian mentioned in the 20th Century, and while he's a good representative I wouldn't say that he represented most American Christians.

However, in the 36th Lecture he redeems or explains himself.  He said that there were many strands of thoughts that he could have covered and that he covered those that he knew the best.  I'm sure that's true.  He also, talked about the conservative movement, and how he thought that President Regan was the first conservative president elected.  I thought that was pretty good.  He also said that he thought that the left was caught be surprise when Regan was elected because they had totally bought into Marxist idea that mankind was homo economist, or man driven by economics.  With Regan they voted culturally.  this delivered 5 of the next 7 presidencies to the Republicans.  I wish it was that the current Republicans would learn that lesson: people don't just vote their pocket books but sometimes vote their consciences if they have a choice.  Of course this caught the the left by surprise for much the same reason that Dr. Guelzo didn't cover the Christian Fundamental movement.  The Left ignores the majority of Christians, and just relates with the intellectual Christians like Reinhold Nieburh, the kind who wouldn't vote for Regan on a dare.

Overall an excellent lecture series.

Great Courses - Histroy of Christianity: From the Disciples to the Reformation

A few years ago a co-worker turned me on to the Great Courses.  Since then I've gotten a number of courses and have really enjoyed them.  I feel almost like a History Major now.  I've decided to start writing reviews on them as I get a chance and decided to post the reviews here as well.

A few years ago a co-worker turned me on to the Great Courses.  Since then I've gotten a number of courses and have really enjoyed them.  I feel almost like a History Major now.  At first I pretty much just accepted what was said, but now I’ve definitely developed some opinions myself and  I've decided to start writing reviews on them and decided to post the reviews here as well.

When I heard who this author was I thought; "Oh good a most likely a believer."  After all the professor Dr. Timothy Johnson is a former Benedictine Monk.  However, this was a lecture that was far from friendly. 

I am a believer in Christ and that Christianity is the greatest force for good in the world.  If this is an example of teaching about Christianity in colleges it's no wonder that colleges turn out atheists so often.  I usually expect this in most lecture but sometimes it's not true.  Dr. Phillip Cary for instance seems to give good lectures that are positive without being fawning.  Professor William Cook seems to be able to do so as well.

Dr. Johnson wasn't outright hostile, but he seems to present everything in the most negative light possible.  Two examples stood out.  First he said that the 4th Crusade was hijacked by the Venetians and they conquered Constantinople.  I guess that's not incorrect but it's got to be the worst possible light to portray what happened.  He sounded positively gloating as he talked about the inquisition.  It seemed almost with regret that he admits that the inquisition averaged only 3 deaths per year it it was mentioned only in passing not emphasized.  The English started a propaganda campaign against the Spanish when the Spanish were the European super power and it seems to have been successful because Dr. Johnson is still propagating it.  I've read from other historians that the Inquisition was really put in place to stop the worse offenses caused by over zealous Catholics punishing those they thought were heretics.  The statement about the Inquisition only causing  3 deaths a years would seem to support this, but you wouldn't guess from the way the whole section was presented.

That being said I overall enjoyed this lecture series, and it's not the first that I've heard from Dr. Johnson.  I did really enjoy this series.  I especially enjoyed the amount of time he gave to the Eastern Orthodox part of Christianity, and the branches that were considered heretics such as the Nestorians and the Monophysites.