From: lydick@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Speaker-to-Minerals)
Newsgroups: alt.callahans
Subject: Re: Science and god:  Are they incompatible?  If so, why?
Date: 15 Nov 1992 22:31:04 GMT
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Distribution: world
Reply-To: lydick@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol1.gps.caltech.edu

In article <RANDOLPH.92Nov15125813@cognito.ebay.Sun.COM>,
randolph@cognito.ebay.Sun.COM (Randolph Fritz) writes:

->"Scientists constantly change their rules for the universe

No, they don't.  Scientists certainly do not to claim that they make the laws
of the universe, nor that their theories are perfect models of the universe. 
To call scientific theories "the rules for the universe" is to turn science
into a religion, something few scientists would welcome.  Scientists DO update
their MODELS of the universe as they collect new data.  That is *NOT* the same
as changing the rules.  As someone (I can't remember who, can someone tell me?)
put it quite aptly:  The map is NOT the territory.  Scientific theories are NOT
the laws of the universe.  They're our current best approximations to those
laws.

Or are you claiming that the speed of light was once infinite, but has since
been reduced to its current value?  The idea that human belief systems
determine objective reality is an amusing one, and has been used as the basis
for at least one science fictional short story.  But I doubt you'll find any
scientists who believe that to be true (some psychologists and philosophers on
the other hand, seem quite willing to make that argument).

=--why shouldn't god?  When scientists discard one model of truth--paradigm
=--for another, they lose the ability to predict some things, gain the
=ability to predict others.

Perhaps you can point out a case in which a paradigm shift caused the loss of
ability to predict something?  (please restrict it to the loss of ability to
ACCURATELY predict something;  the loss of the ability to predict the position
of an electron in a potential well with the advent of QM, for example, doesn't
count.  Though prior to QM it was believed that if the electron's energy was
less than the height of the well, the electron would stay in the well,
experiments have since shown that belief to be incorrect.  Hence such things as
tunnel diodes and scanning tunneling electron microscopes). I can't think of
one.  If Model A predicts some thngs, and Model B predicts others, you don't
throw out either model unless the predictions of the other form a superset of
the one you're considering abandoning, or unless the predictions of that model
are found to be false.

=We hope that the new model is more useful
=and accurate and yet there is no simple convergence to universal
=truth.  There may be no convergence even if there are rules--a whole
=range of results in mathematical logic show that there is no certain
=way of deducing rules even when they exist.

True.  There are some theorems that are true but not provable.  Of course, if
there are no rules at all, then there are no theorems that are provable.

=Randolph looks very sober for a moment.  "I think you, personally,
=are afraid of change, as I am, and therefore the only god you will
=allow is one who makes and follows rules.

No, I'm not afraid of change.  Where did I say something that implied that?
What I said was that if the rules are subject to change without notice, science
is futile.

I did not "disallow" any god.  Please note the subject of the thread:  "Science
and god:  Are they incompatible?  If so, why?"  My article did NOT touch on the
question of whether or not there is a god.  It simply looked at the question of
what attributes of a hypothetical god would render science an exercise in
futility.  And a god who can and does change the rules arbitrarily and without
warning undermines one of the fundamental assumptions of science.  If such a
god exists, then the only potentially valid answer to any question is "Because
God wants it that way." Now, such a god might exist.  If so, he seems to
exhibigt the "shyness effect" so beloved of paranormalists:  He doesn't perform
miracles under conditions in which a competent stage magician couldn't achieve
the same results.  The religious and the paranormalists are very similar in
their explanation of the lack of miracles/paranormal powers under controlled
conditions:  The doubt of the person running the experiment prevents the
alleged power from manifesting. A miracle didn't occur?  You obviously didn't
have enough faith.  The dowser was unable to figure out which container
actually had water in it?  The person running the experiment was sending out
negative vibrations which interfered with the douser's ability.  In any event,
there have been MANY claims both of paranormal abilities and miracles;  neither
have held up under close scrutiny, to the best of my knowledge.

="Well, everyone must believe in something, I suppose.  Mike, I believe
=I'll have another glass of wine. :-) Buy you a drink, Speaker?"

Thanks.