SCIENCE FOR THE UNITIATED

OR

AN ANSWER TO AN EARLIER TALK PRESENTED BY EUGENE CONNORS ON "THE BAHAI FAITH"

by

Karl H. Puechl

January 5, 1997

I seem to want to come up here every time that I get annoyed: Like after the talk we had on the Bahai Faith given recently by Eugene Connors (which I'll get into detail later); like the Business Week article on education, and how they botched up my letter to the editor (take this along and explain how they butchered it). Like the news blurbs on the wonderful GM electric car, without saying how they were going to generate the electricity to charge the batteries (The last time I looked at the numbers for the U.S. alone, the total amount of fuel needed to run all of our cars was equal to about 50% of the amount needed to generate all of our electricity. Hence, if all of our cars were converted to electric battery operation, we would again have to build half as many central-station powerplants as we already have. Obviously, we can't convert to an electric-car economy overnight, but if we strive to go in this direction we ought to ask ourselves how will this additional electricity be generated? By more oil- or gas-fired plants, when these earthly resources are expected to run out in less than 100 years; in coal-fired plants which over their lifetimes would release billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, together with other chemicals that produce smog and acid rain; or in nuclear powerplants where a lifetime supply of electricity for one American would produce only a teacup-size amount of high-level nuclear waste while an equal amount of electricity made with coal would create about 60,000 pounds of waste.). Like Neal Lane's, director of the National Science Foundation, editorial in the LA Times about Carl Sagan and the responsibility that scientists have to educate the public. (Is talking to people who don't want to be educated a valuable endeavor or a waste of time?) Like my after-lunch discussion with Ron Griffin, Gloria's oldest son, a devoted "born-again" fundamentalist whose wife teaches their kids at home. This time I asked myself the question: Why? Why are there so many differences of opinion, and why am I bothered by some and not others? I'll try to answer this question, after I mention some related observations.

I find that I am particularly perturbed by "the don't bother me with facts" attitude that seems to be common among some high-minded individuals whom I'll simply call "do-gooders" (like Ralph Nader, for example), as well as among many devout religious believers. These individuals are sure that they know what is wrong with the world and know how to fix it, therefore, it is quite logical for them to have this attitude which says "don't waste my time by bothering me with facts that don't support my viewpoint".

Also, I am also especially bothered by the writings of well-known scientists who write popular articles in fields related to their area of expertise but not within their area of expertise; since they certainly are not expert in these areas, they tend to write pseudo-scientific nonsense which gives the public false information and false impressions. Examples of this are Carl Sagan's writings about his coined phrase "nuclear winter". If anyone is deeply interested in this subject, I suggest that they compare his conjectures to what is actually happening in the environs affected by the nuclear accident at Chernobel. The consequences of a massive nuclear war will, most likely, be bad enough without the need to now draw fairy-tale pictures that are based on erroneous, but advertised as scientific, assumptions and analyses. In spite of this shortcoming of his, I agree with most of Carl Sagan's philosophy.

To put this in some sort of framework, let me describe a typical scientist. First he or she must be fearless, at least when it comes to his or her work. (To save time, I'll stop using he or she and just say he.) He must not be afraid of being wrong for, if he is a prolific scientist, he will be wrong much more often than being right, and he must enjoy an adversarial relationship; he must get great exhilaration not only by finding out something new or gaining a better understanding of nature but also by proving that one of his living or dead colleagues is wrong. He must be intrigued by novelty, and not discard a supposition or hypothesis just because, at first glance, it is weird, outrageous, or different from what is observed by our five senses, or simply contradictory to current universally-accepted belief. (All his could naturally lead me into a discussion of the more philosophical question: "What is reality?" However, that would take too much time; it might be a topic for a future talk; but keep the question in mind for it will be pertinent to what I have to say later.) This adventuresome attitude of scientists is far different from the attitude of engineers who must be deathly afraid of being wrong since it is professionally disgraceful to have something that one designs, to not work, fall down, or cave in. These descriptions show why most engineers are conservatives and most scientists are liberals, using the strict definitions of these two words.

Scientists are inclined not to shy away from novel ideas, no matter how atrocious they seem to be when first conceived. To get your attention, consider an extreme example that I thought of while trying to collect my thoughts for this talk. Might it not be that the original writers of sections of the New Testament meant for the word "Jesus" to be a synonym for the word "penis"? Consider such phrases as: He has risen. He is love. He will come again and again. The sermon on the mount. This seems to be a not unreasonable assumption or hypothesis and it can probably be proved or disproved with some, perhaps only with a great amount of, research. Has anyone here ever heard of a biblical scholar who attempted to do this, and of his conclusions? Contrary to theology, in science there are no areas that are forbidden from investigation.

Now I am prepared to consider the question as to why people have different viewpoints. Perhaps, people have different opinions about things for a number of different reasons: a) perhaps they never really learned logic, or how to use it correctly; b) perhaps there is disagreement simply because of a difference in word definitions, which I'll call semantic problems, like the definition of the word "theory" for example; finally, c) perhaps the most prevalent reason for differences of opinion is the fact that we all read different literature; using the word literature loosely.

For examples of faulty logic, I can use Connors talk on the Bahai Faith; I took notes as he spoke, so I can repeat almost his exact words.

First, he insisted that we have to insert "god" into our belief system, whatever it may be. Then later he introduced the word "soul" and also asserted that it is a "must". He implied that human nature is such that these concepts must exist in everyone's belief system. How can he make such a generalization, when he has not questioned everyone? If one person believes otherwise, his theory falls apart. All crows are black is a seemingly good theory; but if ever someone finds even only one lone crow that is of a different color, the theory is thereby proven false and useless as a working hypothesis. Since, I, for one, don't seem to need a god or a soul in my belief system, my beliefs alone are sufficient to disprove Connor's theory.

He also insisted that there must have been a beginning that was somehow planned, he can't seem to comprehend that it could have all just been there or that it might have happened spontaneously. Someone asked him the question about God: Was he always there, or did there have to be some sort of a super-god to make him? Then who made the super-god? ---ad infinitum --- and Connors circumvented the question..

Connors contended that it is illogical for one to not believe in what one cannot see? He gave no reason as to why this might be so. If carried to extremes, we can then believe in all kinds of crazy, imaginary, things; angels, ghosts and aliens, for example. Physicists believe in many things that they cannot see (atoms, electrons, quarks, etc.) but their beliefs are constrained by the fact that incorporating these features into a generalized theory must result in the better understanding of things or processes that we can see or otherwise sense.

Connors also blatantly stated that "man cannot make it for himself". He presumes that it is illogical to assume otherwise. Where is his evidence? Doesn't Darwinism, whose internal logic is consistent, contradict this statement?

Throughout his talk, he emphasized that things must change, without change there is stagnation and death; everything must change. Yet in a later breath, he pronounced that "the spiritual message doesn't change"; relative to this, the only thing that changes is the message that the prophets bring, which message is attuned to the comprehensive ability of humanity at the time the various prophets lived or will live. And, of course, god doesn't change; to him, god is still an anthropomorphic being.. Also, belief in the Bible doesn't change. Everything in the Bible is absolutely true since it was written by God. I ask: If everything must change, why not god and the Bible?

He further said, that scientists now show that there is no rift between science and religion. What scientists is he talking about? I can name over a dozen living Nobel prize winners who disagree with this viewpoint and only a few scientific hacks who seem to agree. He also said: "After all, science like religion is theoretical; we can't prove either, therefore both are equally valid". Since when is science theoretical? This hasn't been true since Roger Bacon in the 1200s decided to renounce some of the teachings of Aristotle. An aspect of science is judged to be true because, after many years, it hasn't been disproved by even one exception, or because one can point to the accomplishments that accrue from its belief. I call myself a theoretical physicist, but that just means I develop equations and put in numbers to get answers rather than doing experiments, but the validity of my answers must be experimentally verifiable and verified.

At this point, I'd like to interject a personal note by comparing the physics departments of Columbia and Princeton. I went to Columbia, and here we accepted the theories and equations of modern physics and simply tried to use them where applicable in order to advance our understanding as well as furthering the associated technology. Contrary to this, at Princeton the faculty and students were always asking questions like: Why are these theories and equations valid? What do they mean? My own personal feeling was that it was premature to ask the questions posed by the Princeton tigers; these questions would answer themselves after we had sufficient experimental data in hand. Dick Feynman, the Nobel Laureate at Cal Tech, went even further: he considered such questions to be nonsensical. Now I point out the consequences of using these two different points of emphasis in the real world: Eight Columbia faculty members or their students were awarded the Nobel prize in physics, while there was only one Princeton faculty member so recognized. I've had some association with all these individuals, and, perhaps not surprisingly, I consider the greatest intellect to have been Eugene Wigner of Princeton.

Now getting back to the Bahai Faith. Connors sort of ended his talk by saying that it is in human nature to accept faith; like us having faith that an airline pilot is qualified. I contend that this latter faith is limited, being based on facts and experimental data, which is a far cry from accepting religious faith, where one can believe anything. Would we really have faith in a pilot's competence if we had as little evidence for his ability to fly as we have for the existence of a god? Note that there are many religions, because one is free to believe whatever one wants to, unconstrained by logic or experience, while there is only one science because of the strict criteria demanded for belief.

A new scientific theory is different from a hypothesis, since it must explain, without exception, everything that is known and must point out what further information can be deduced from it, better, more profound, or more general than the existing recognized theory, and further it must point out what measurements or observations can or should be made, which results might invalidate the theory. This is far different from the common definition of a theory, which is usually taken to be synonymous with a "hypothesis" or an "assumption".

Now finally, I can get down to the role of reading matter.

If one reads only articles on creationism, for example, where the publishers start out with the premise that the biblical story of creation is true, and that only articles or books shall be published by them which support their basic thesis, then, obviously, a reader who so limits his horizons will undoubtedly become convinced that this thesis is true. (I note the publications of the Institute for Creation Research in El Cajon.) Or if a person reads only the newspapers, he or she may come away with other biases, based upon the fact that the choice of articles and the slant that is given the news articles is aimed at satisfying their readers. We all know that a "liberal" paper such as the NY Times or the Washington Post, will slant the news differently from the Wall Street Journal. Unless one reads more than one paper, each with different slants, one can tend to become biased in the direction of the paper that is being read. Now let's look at the scientific end. Is science similarly biased? The answer is "no" because a scientist is trained, and by inclination enjoys, either coming up with new or different viewpoints, or in somehow showing that one or a group of his fellow scientists is wrong. Yes there is peer review of Journal articles to discourage filling the pages with crackpot ideas, but a scientist can always present a paper, that differs from common belief, at a meeting since these papers are not so severely restricted. (I can illustrate with my paper contradicting Herb Kouts, and also my peer review of the cross section of tantalum 182, going to the short half-lived Ta-183.) One needs an adversarial relationship, a dialectic, or a dichotomy. I said this before in my talk entitled, "What do Airplanes, Some Nuclear Reactors, Peacock Tails, Whale Testicles, Human Brains, Cozy Economic Relationships; Bloated Executive Salaries, and the Illegal Drug Trade have in common?". Things especially go awry when the public thinks there is an adversarial relationship, when in fact the two sides are working toward the same goals in what I had called a "cozy adversarial relationship". Is there competition among newspapers? Probably no more since most large cities now have only one. Is there competition among publishers. Yes, but one must be willing to read the books put out by different publishers in order to arrive at a balanced viewpoint. Is there competition among TV stations? Probably, yes, but it is measured by how best to satisfy their viewers, not by the intellectual merits of their programming. Is there competition within science? Yes, because each scientist is in continuous competition with all of his colleagues.

After this introduction, go into the meaning of quantum mechanics, how illogical it is, yet how wondrously well it explains the universe: Giving us all the electronic technology, plus an understanding as to how the universe got started. Or how many universes got started, each with different laws of nature. Show the universal applicability of Darwin's theory. To the many universes theory, where each has different characteristics and values for the fundamental constants, and different laws of physics. Perhaps get into my theory that everything is discrete, and that when something is between the discrete boxes, its location or any other characteristic cannot be determined, asking the question simply is not applicable. Science is not a dry subject.

Start with Einstein's special theory of relativity, where c is a constant and where clocks slow down and measuring rods shorten. Then go to general relativity where space is curved. These things plus quantum mechanics which is applicable in small dimensions, and is the most accurate theory ever devised, all reduce to give answers to what we see, hear, or feel, in the macroscopic universe that we know. Therefore, these theories must reduce to the experienced facts when applied to "our world"; in fact they are derived using the macroscopic information and the associated theories as a starting point. Physics theories are not conceived out of thin air; in order for a new theory to be proposed, one must first show that it satisfies all previous observations and experimental results; e.g., Einsteins theories reduce to Newton's theory of motion when one considers only small relative motions, and distances and masses that we are used to talking about. In other words, physics theories are not accepted or even proposed on faith; they are something like our faith in airline pilots; they are based on a history of practical experience; and reproducibility of results by others. What is reality? We only know what our senses can tell us in the macroscopic universe. One can accept religion on faith if one believes that "miracles" actually have happened or are still happening; but, to my knowledge, no one has ever produced a miracle on demand; hence such cannot be considered factual. If one believes that the problem lies in the fact that God willed it so that miracles cannot be produced on demand; then the same "logic" can be used to have us believe in any harebrained hypothesis. Angels are all around us because God ordained that they be ever invisible to human beings, no matter what devices we might employ to find them; etc. etc. What have these beliefs done for us. No technological advances. Comfort? Maybe.

Show by illustration what comes out of black boxes that measure color or hardness, two characteristics of an elementary particle?

What has ever come out of non-suppportive beliefs? Some personal comfort? Why? Could such comfort have been obtained any other way? What is so scary about having to make it on your own? Should I go into a humanistic philosophy? At least get into this for the question and answer session?

What is reality? Can't apply what is true in one regime to another. "Miracles" happen at the quantum level, but quantum mechanics shows that they do not happen in the macroscopic level.

Fear. Fear of being wrong. Fear of looking ridiculous when proposing something new. Fear leads people to live small lives rather than broad and exciting ones.

And now quotations from two Nobel prize winners, each receiving his prize for physiology or medicine, not for physics; although I could equally well quote from such.

CHANCE AND NECESSITY by Jacques Monod, Arnold A. Knopf, 1971

In the course of three centuries science, founded upon the postulate of objectivity, has conquered its place in society---in men's practice, but not in their hearts. Modern societies are built upon science. They owe it their wealth, their power, and the certitude that tomorrow far greater wealth and power still will be ours if we so wish. But there is this too: just as an initial "choice" in the biological evolution of a species can be binding upon its entire future, so the choice of scientific practice, an unconscious choice in the beginning, has launched the evolution of culture on a one-way path. --- Modern societies accepted the treasures and the power that science laid in their laps. But they have not accepted---they have scarcely even heard---its profounder message: the defining of a new and unique source of truth, and the demand for a thorough revision of ethical premises, for a total break with the animist tradition, the definitive abandonment of the "old covenant", the necessity of forging a new one. Armed with all the powers, enjoying all the riches they owe to science, our societies are still trying to live by and to teach systems of values already blasted at the root by science itself.

No society before ours was ever rent by contradictions so agonizing. In both primitive and classical cultures the animist tradition saw knowledge and values stemming from the same source. For the first time in history a civilization is trying to shape itself while clinging desperately to the animist tradition to justify its values, and at the same time abandoning it as the source of knowledge, of TRUTH. For their moral bases the "liberal" societies of the West still teach---or pay lip-service to---a disgusting farrago of Judeo-Christian religiosity, scientistic progressism, belief in the "natural" rights of man, and utilitarian pragmatism. --- All these systems rooted in animism exist at odds with objective knowledge, face away from truth, and are strangers and fundamentally HOSTILE to science, which they are pleased to make use of but for which they do not otherwise care. --- What ails the modern spirit is this lie gripping man's moral and social nature at the very core. It is this ailment, more or less confusedly diagnosed, that provokes the fear if not the hatred---in any case the estrangement---felt toward scientific culture by so many people today.... For behind the protest is the denial of the essential message of science. the fear is the fear of sacrilege: of outrage to values. A wholly justified fear. It is perfectly true that science outrages values. Not directly, since science is no judge of them and MUST ignore them; but it subverts every one of the mythical or philosophical ontogenies upon which the animist tradition, from the Australian aborigines to the dialectical materialists, has made all ethics rest: values, duties, rights, prohibitions. ---

Modern societies, woven together by science, living from its products, have become as dependent upon it as an addict on his drug. They owe their material wherewithal to this fundamental ethic upon which knowledge is based, and their moral weakness to those value-systems, devastated by knowledge itself, to which they still try to refer. The contradiction is deadly. It is what is digging the pit we see opening under our feet. The ethic of knowledge that created the modern world is the only ethic compatible with it, the only one capable, once understood and accepted, of guiding its evolution.

MIND FROM MATTER?, An Essay on Evolutionary Epistemology, by Max Delbrück; Blackwell Scientific Publications, Inc., Palo Alto, Ca. 1986

From the point of view of evolutionary epistemology, human beings are organisms capable of manipulating internal representations of the world by means of concrete operations and can transcend the bounds of their biologically given perception. They can liberate themselves and construct a view of reality that conflicts with intuition, yet gives a truer, more encompassing view. ... We should take the lesson of quantum theory to be that physical reality is too rich to be caught in the net of the "objective reality" of classical physics. ... The Stone Age people in England constructed Stonehenge 4000 to 5000 years age, embodying some astronomical information in its architecture. They probably thought very highly of themselves. Little did they know how much they didn't know. ... The Cartesian cut between mind and matter is the rock on which such physical laws stand. Modern science has gone in the opposite direction. It has forced us to abandon absolute space and time, determinism, and the absolute object. It has shown that these naive notions are applicable only in the middle dimensions of space, time, and energy and must be replaced by more abstract formal schemes. As soon as we move to phenomena at extreme dimensions, our intuitions---that is, our concrete mental operations --- become inadequate. --- Our concrete mental operations are indeed adaptations to the mode of life in which we had to compete for survival a long time before the development of science. As such we are saddled with them; but with science we can transcend our intuitions, just as with electronics we can transcend our eyes and ears.