Michael J. Behe's Blog, page 121

The Spiderman movie tackles the evidence (or not) for a multiverse

If there isn’t a multiverse, our universe is unique:

Casey Luskin writes,

Recently a friend convinced me to go see the new Spider-Man movie, where I was surprised to see that the multiverse not only makes an appearance but plays a crucial role in the plot. Without giving away any spoilers, Benedict Cumberbatch’s character, Doctor Strange, declares, “The multiverse is a concept about which we know frighteningly little.” He’s right. And that’s part of the problem for materialists who cite the multiverse to explain.

Casey Luskin, “Spider-Man, the Multiverse, and Intelligent Design” at Evolution News and Science Today (January 4, 2022)

Luskin list the conditions, then says

Apparently under the Newspeak of materialism, proposing an infinite ensemble of universes that we can’t observe is the “simplest” explanation. Some authorities feel otherwise — noting that the multiverse is not a “simple” explanation at all.

Ockham’s razor is a logical principle, often used by scientists, that holds that the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one. What is the simplest explanation: (1) that the fine-tuning of the universe is the result of a near-infinite number of unobservable universes spawned by an unknown mechanism of unexplained origin, or (2) that the special, life-friendly conditions of our cosmos are the result of intelligent design? Theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder (no friend of intelligent design) explains that the multiverse is too complex an assumption to survive Ockham’s razor.

Casey Luskin, “Spider-Man, the Multiverse, and Intelligent Design” at Evolution News and Science Today (January 4, 2022)

The, multiverse wouldn’t even be considered if there was no need to wonder about our own universe’s unique fitness for life.

See also: The multiverse is science’s assisted suicide

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

Richard Dawkins takes a risk: Sex is binary

Gotta hand it to him: This is pretty risky in the age of non-binary. Harry Potter author J. K Rowlings got cancelled for saying that being a woman matters: And so now:

The Sunday Times condensed my words into the headline that I have adopted for this piece: Race is a spectrum. Sex is pretty damn binary. Unlike my wombat conjecture, this point really is childishly obvious. When a female and a male mate, each offspring is either female or male, extremely seldom a hermaphrodite or intersex of any kind. [2] Arusha really was a cow, not a half-way bull. But her intermediate colouring made us suspect that this “pedigree Jersey” was actually half Ayrshire—an artificial insemination screw-up. When two people of different races mate, their offspring is of mixed race and this shows itself in many ways, including skin colour. After generations of intermarriage, beginning with the exploitation of enslaved women and girls, African Americans constitute a rich spectrum such that some individuals, when required to tick the “race or ethnicity” box on official forms, might justifiably feel free to “identify as” whatever they choose.

Meghan (née Markle), Duchess of Sussex

The Duchess of Sussex identifies as “mixed race” but is frequently referred to in the press as black. Barack Obama sees himself (and is commonly described) as black although, having one white parent, he might equally well tick the white box. The “one-drop rule,” once enshrined in the laws of some segregationist states, asserted that one drop of African “blood” was enough to make a person count as black—thus making blackness the cultural equivalent of a genetic dominant. It never worked in reverse, and it still exerts a powerful hold on American discourse—while “African Americans” actually run a smooth gamut from those of pure African descent to those with perhaps one African great great grandparent. Were race not a spectrum, Rachel Dolezal’s critics should have spotted that she wasn’t “really” black, simply by taking one look at her. It’s precisely because black Americans are a spectrum that it wasn’t obvious. With negligible exceptions, on the other hand, you can unwaveringly identify a person’s sex at a glance, especially if they remove their clothes. Sex is pretty damn binary.

Richard Dawkins, “Race Is a Spectrum. Sex Is Pretty Damn Binary.” at Areo Magazine (January 5, 2022)

Dawkins is walking a road here. He’s interfering with a scam. Where people get rights or don’t get them based on “race” or claims about non-binary sex. Better wish him luck.

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

L&FP, 48a: Is the denial of objective moral truth an implicit truth claim about duty to right conduct etc? (Thus, subject to Reductio?)

Over the past month or so, there has been an exchange of comments regarding my OP L&FP 48, where I note how New Atheist Stefan Molyneaux, in his “Universally Preferable Behavior” (2007), stumbled across the Ciceronian first duties of reason. As a part of that, sometime objector VL raised the claim:

Obviously, for one to say that it is objectively true that there are no moral truths is absurd. But that is not what those who are arguing against the idea of objective truths are saying . . .

I responded in comment 1110, and think it worth the while to headline that response, with slight adjustments:

>>Saying and pretty directly implying are of course two distinct things. Relativists typically emphasise diversity of opinions among individuals and cultures etc, but that has never been a matter of controversy. Nor, do presumably well informed relativists merely intend [to confess their inexplicable] ignorance of such accurately described states of affairs regarding duty, right conduct etc, they imply longstanding want of warrant and no reasonable prospect or even possibility of such warrant. That is, my summary statement accurately reflects the bottomline stance of relativists.

I thank you for acknowledging that that summary proposition is indeed reduced to absurdity.

Going on, manifestly, we are an error-prone race, and across time, space etc have many, many areas of profound disagreement. The normal procedure in such areas, is to identify sound first principles for the area, starting with first principles of right reason, logic. Then, if self evident first truths can be listed, a framework for the field can be identified and developed into a body of well warranted so reliable and objective knowable truth independent of the error proneness of our individual or collective opinion-forming. From which, we then have a body of knowledge and best practice to work with.

For logic, the general tool, there is an established body of knowledge and Epictetus long since put its branch on which we all sit character on record:

DISCOURSES
CHAPTER XXV

How is logic necessary?

When someone in [Epictetus’] audience said, Convince me that logic is necessary, he answered: Do you wish me to demonstrate this to you?—Yes.—Well, then, must I use a demonstrative argument?—And when the questioner had agreed to that, Epictetus asked him. How, then, will you know if I impose upon you?—As the man had no answer to give, Epictetus said: Do you see how you yourself admit that all this instruction is necessary, if, without it, you cannot so much as know whether it is necessary or not? [Notice, inescapable, thus self evidently true and antecedent to the inferential reasoning that provides deductive proofs and frameworks, including axiomatic systems and propositional calculus etc. We here see the first principles of right reason in action. Cf J. C. Wright]

Notice, the classic framework of a set of first principles: inescapable, so inescapably, self evidently true. Thus, warranted and objective.

Now, regarding our sense of being duty-bound to right conduct etc, conscience is so pervasive that it was only in recent centuries that it was fully seen as distinct from consciousness. Thus, on pain of self-referential discredit to our mindedness, we have to recognise validity of sound conscience and its testimony. Where, soundness implies due application of right reason and prudence towards warranted [so, objective] conclusions and linked due recognition of limits. Where, in the face of risk and uncertainty, prudence points to least regrets and similar precautionary principles. Similarly, “due” is of course directly connected to duty. What we do is under government of what we can reasonably identify as what we ought to do. But, too often, don’t. As a rule, with damaging consequences.

Underneath, is the naturally evident end of cognition, truth, accurate understanding and description of entities, states of affairs etc in reality, whether tangible or abstract. That is, if we regard our mindedness as grossly defective and dominated by our known error proneness we undermine cognition and credibility of mind.

Further to this, we realise we are a common and social race in two complementary sexes with linked requisites of child nurture such that our mutual thriving under the civil peace of justice is a reasonable criterion, i.e. there is to be due balance of rights, freedoms, duties. Where, per sound conscience, a valid rights claim must not be such that it taints sound conscience of others. This, being a coherence criterion.

If you have been keeping track, I have outlined precisely the Ciceronian first duties as are listed in the OP as having been stumbled across by SM:

1: to truth,
2: to right reason,
3: to warrant and wider prudence,
4: to sound conscience,
5: to neighbour,
6: so too to fairness, and
7: to justice,
. . . ,
x: etc.

In short, c 50 BC, Cicero was not putting up random notions but was recognising the sum and substance of centuries of “the highest reason,” on a subject of highest importance, which frames government and sound law.

My comment on this, was to observe a familiar pattern, which again crops up in the latest raft of objections. Namely, that these Ciceronian first duties have the Epictetus characteristic: they are pervasive, inescapable, branch on which we sit first principles. As I noted, even objectors routinely appeal to same in order to gain persuasive power for their objections. For instance, above there is much failed appeal to duties to right reason that I allegedly fail to meet.

The onward point is, from these longstanding classic principles, the moral, legal and governmental ideals and framework of our civilisation was built. As noted above, the US DoI 1776, charter of modern constitutional democracy, is a case in point. But latterly, selective hyperskepticism has been used to undermine such, frankly, the better to promote lawlessness, licence and libertinism at expense of sound governance.

That is, we have had a mutiny on the Platonic ship of state.

Such mutinies don’t end well.>>

A further comment I made in response to VL’s attempt to dismiss an algebraic expression of a reductio of the relativist thesis, is also worth noting, from 1112:

>>[T]he following [duly informed by the just above context that is readily accessible to those who would ponder] is patently not “meaningless”:

Let a proposition [= an assertion that affirms or denies that something is the case, e.g. Socrates is a man] be represented by x [–> symbolisation]
M = x is a proposition asserting that some state of affairs regarding right conduct, duty/ought, virtue/honour, good/evil etc (i.e. the subject is morality) is the case [–> subject of relevance]
O = x is objective and knowable, being adequately warranted as credibly true [–> criterion of objectivity]

[–> patently meaningful]

It is claimed, S= ~[O*M] = 1 [–> the there are no objective, warranted, knowable moral truths claim, again meaningful]
However, the subject of S is M, [–> by simple inspection]
it therefore claims to be objectively true, O and is about M [–> pointing out the implicit thesis that relativists claim to know the accuracy of their claim or implication, on warrant]
where it forbids O-status to any claim of type M [–> patent]
so, ~[O*M] cannot be true per self referential incoherence [–> reductio]

++++++++++
~[O*M] = 0 [as self referential and incoherent cf above]
~[~[O*M]] = 1 [the negation is therefore true]
__________
O*M = 1 [condensing not of not]
where, M [moral truth claim]
So too, O [if an AND is true, each sub proposition is separately true]

That is, there are objective moral truths; and a first, self evident one is that ~[O*M] is false.

The set is non empty, it is not vacuous and we cannot play empty set square of opposition games with it. That’s important. [–> square of opposition issues]

Your attempted dismissal fails. The argument is meaningful and relevant to the underlying thesis of relativism. Relativists are not confessing general ignorance and openness to be instructed otherwise, they are rejecting validity of objective claims regarding right conduct etc on grounds of irresolvable difference, demand for tolerance etc.

Of course, due tolerance is an onward objective moral principle. Namely, that as we are error prone and need due freedom of inquiry and community, a fairly wide range of opinion and discussion must be tolerated on pain of undermining liberty. Where, similarly, other credible evils must be put up with and regulated as opposed to abolished due to “hardness of men’s hearts,” pending moral growth of society. An excellent comparison is abolition of slavery starting with the trade and the fate of prohibition as peak temperance movement in the US and how it had the unintended consequence of empowering organised crime. Similar arguments can be made regarding Marijuana.

In short, due tolerance is an objective moral principle and has due limits.>>

What I find further interesting is that in 2018, a posthumous, completed book based on a Manuscript by Dallas Willard came out, The Disappearance of Moral Knowledge. That book’s Amazon Blurb reads:

Based on an unfinished manuscript by the late philosopher Dallas Willard, this book makes the case that the 20th century saw a massive shift in Western beliefs and attitudes concerning the possibility of moral knowledge, such that knowledge of the moral life and of its conduct is no longer routinely available from the social institutions long thought to be responsible for it. In this sense, moral knowledge―as a publicly available resource for living―has disappeared. Via a detailed survey of main developments in ethical theory from the late 19th through the late 20th centuries, Willard explains philosophy’s role in this shift. In pointing out the shortcomings of these developments, he shows that the shift was not the result of rational argument or discovery, but largely of arational social forces―in other words, there was no good reason for moral knowledge to have disappeared.

The Disappearance of Moral Knowledge is a unique contribution to the literature on the history of ethics and social morality. Its review of historical work on moral knowledge covers a wide range of thinkers including T.H Green, G.E Moore, Charles L. Stevenson, John Rawls, and Alasdair MacIntyre. But, most importantly, it concludes with a novel proposal for how we might reclaim moral knowledge that is inspired by the phenomenological approach of Knud Logstrup and Emmanuel Levinas. Edited and eventually completed by three of Willard’s former graduate students, this book marks the culmination of Willard’s project to find a secure basis in knowledge for the moral life.

In short, something is rotten in the state of our civilisation and we need to work to recover moral knowledge as a key piece of cultural capital. Or, the consequences will be dismal. END

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

Well, Jogalekar finally got a chance to tell his story re what happened at Scientific American

Anyone remember Scientific American may be run by Nature but it is now owned by Twitter?

Ashutosh Jogalekar, a reasonable science journalist, got dumped by Scientific American for reasons that were never clear. Via Scott aronson:

After reading my Facebook post, my friend Ashutosh Jogalekar was inspired to post an essay of his own. Ashutosh used to write regularly for Scientific American, until he was fired seven years ago over a column in which he advocated acknowledging Richard Feynman’s flaws, including his arrogance and casual sexism, but also understanding those flaws within the context of Feynman’s whole life, including the tragic death of his first wife Arlene. (Yes, that was really it! Read the piece!) Below, I’m sharing Ashutosh’s moving essay about E. O. Wilson with Ashutosh’s very generous permission. —Scott Aaronson

Scott Aarnanson, “The demise of Scientific American: Guest post by Ashutosh Jogalekar” at Shtet;e-optiomzed

Read it. Think for yourself. Who else is going to think for you?

Note: At the time, We thought the whole business it had something to do with racism.

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

At The Conversation: How could the Big Bang arise from nothing?

Alastair Wilson attempts to explain:

The ouroboros of the one cyclic universe is majestic indeed. It contains within its belly our own universe, as well as every one of the weird and wonderful alternative possible universes allowed by quantum physics – and at the point where its head meets its tail, it is completely empty yet also coursing with energy at temperatures of a hundred thousand million billion trillion degrees Celsius. Even Loki, the shapeshifter, would be impressed.

Alastair Wilson, “How could the Big Bang arise from nothing?” at The Conversation (January 3, 2022)

Wait. There is a simpler explanation: In the beginning, the Lord created the heavens and the earth.

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

Here’s a new one for coffee hour: Rogue planets

Planets like ours but they do not follow a star:

Rogue planets are elusive cosmic objects that have masses comparable to those of the planets in our Solar System but do not orbit a star, instead roaming freely on their own. Not many were known until now, but a team of astronomers, using data from several European Southern Observatory (ESO) telescopes and other facilities, have just discovered at least 70 new rogue planets in our galaxy. This is the largest group of rogue planets ever discovered, an important step towards understanding the origins and features of these mysterious galactic nomads.

ESO, “Astronomers uncover largest group of rogue planets yet” at Mind Matters News (December 22, 2021)

Astronomers Uncover the Largest Group of Rogue Planets Yet

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

The million to one statistical fluke that creates our universe

Rob Sheldon kindly writes to say about that:

Just getting to this news blurb.

Adam Reiss got the Nobel Prize for discovering dark energy, so of course he is going to believe in it.

The issue at hand is that the CMBR (cosmic microwave background radiation) which started at 3000K in temperature, is now 2.725K degrees above absolute zero. This cooling is simply a function of the universe expanding some 1100 times. Since we “know” the time in the Big Bang at which it was cold enough for free electrons to recombine with free protons and decouple from the photons (379,000 years after the BB), we have two times and two sizes, so we have an expansion rate = Hubble Constant = 64 km/s/Mpc (kilometers per second per megaparsec). However when we look at the rate of expansion today, by seeing how fast the galaxies are receding from us, we get 73 km/s/Mpc. Thirty years ago, these numbers weren’t known very well, and it was assumed that better data would bring them into alignment.

It hasn’t. Instead the “Hubble Tension” has increased as the numbers didn’t budge, but the error bars kept getting smaller. We are now some 8 sigma apart.

Adam Reiss got his Nobel in 2011 for proving “dark energy” by measuring the dimming of Type 1a supernovae, which recent work suggests was a data artifact due to his selective use of 74 supernovae and increasing the data set to 1200 or 2000 supernovae has removed the effect. So he needs to justify his Nobel on other grounds, and he has selected the Hubble Tension as proof of dark energy = anti-gravity = acceleration of galaxies. He reasons that if we take the two times and two distances, we get an average speed for Hubble’s constant. But if we make some measurements in the times between, say galaxy speeds only 4 billion years ago, we can show that the Hubble constant gets faster with time, it is accelerating, which means “dark energy” did it. This is where the James Webb telescope will help, getting pictures of some truly ancient (and therefore IR red-shifted) galaxies.

He claims to have exhausted all other explanations, which is use of abductive reasoning if you need an example. But he has not challenged the BB model itself.

If, as I claim, the BB did not expand very quickly at the very beginning because of magnetic tension forces, then the 379,000 years number needs to be changed upwards. say to 760,000 years. That factor of 2 shows up as the Hubble Constant, because the universe then took less time to get to our observed 1100 expansions. So naively, moving the decoupling era to later times, raises the Hubble Constant and removes the tension without any dark energy added. Or to say it another way, the dark energy is the magnetic field which assists gravity in the early universe, and its absence in the late universe appears as if it were anti-gravity. But of course, it isn’t there anymore, and looking for it now is pretty frustrating.

Which points out the whole problem of abductive reasoning in the historical sciences (which this is) — you have to be exhaustive in your theorizing. And only God is exhaustive. Which makes abductive reasoning somewhat theological.

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

Researcher found guilty of lying about links to China

Does this have anything to do with stuff like COVID?:

Harvard professor Charles M. Lieber was found guilty of lying to government authorities about his ties to China in federal court on Tuesday, concluding a stunning downfall for one of the country’s top chemists.

A federal jury found Lieber guilty on all six felony charges, including two counts of making false statements and four related tax offenses. Federal prosecutors said Lieber, 62, chased money and Nobel hopes past the limits of the law by concealing his ties to China’s Thousand Talents Program in misleading statements to investigators and falsely-reported tax returns.

Jurors deliberated for just shy of three hours before coming to a verdict Tuesday evening. Lieber showed little reaction as the decision was read in court.

Lieber’s conviction marks a high-profile victory for the Department of Justice’s China Initiative, which some critics have accused of targeting individuals of Chinese descent and straying from its original goals. The closely-watched Lieber case was brought as part of a crackdown on academic espionage at American universities.

Isabella B. Cho, Brandon L. Kingdollar, and Mayesha R. Soshi,, “Harvard Professor Charles Lieber Found Guilty of Lying About China Ties” at Harvard Crimson (December 22, 2021)

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

Another example of our earthly uniqueness

We are orbiting a yellow dwarf star:

On the grand cosmic scale, our little corner of the Universe isn’t all that special – this idea lies at the heart of the Copernican principle. Yet there’s one major aspect about our planet that’s peculiar indeed: Our Sun is a yellow dwarf.

Because our home star is what we know most intimately, it would be tempting to assume that yellow and white dwarf stars (FGK dwarfs) are common elsewhere in the cosmos. However, they’re far from the most multitudinous stars in the galaxy; that particular feather belongs in the cap of another type of star – red dwarf (M dwarfs).

Not only do red dwarfs make up as much as 75 percent of all stars in the Milky Way, they are much cooler and longer-lived than stars like the Sun. Much, much longer lived.

We expect our Sun to live around 10 billion years; red dwarf stars are expected to live trillions. So long, in fact, that none have yet reached the end of their main sequence lifespan during the entire 13.4 billion years since the Big Bang.

Since red dwarfs are so abundant, and so stable, and since we shouldn’t automatically consider ourselves to be cosmically special, the fact we’re not orbiting a red dwarf should therefore be somewhat surprising. And yet, here we are, orbiting a not-so-common yellow dwarf.

Michelle Starr, “The Red Sky Paradox Will Make You Question Our Very Place in The Universe” at ScienceAlert (December 27, 2021)

Don’t want to spoil the ending of the story.

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana

At Fox News: Adam and Eve are compatible with evolution

Sure, but so?:

Many Christians have rejected the scientific theory of evolution in part because they think it rules out the existence of a historical Adam and Eve. Yet some scientists and theologians argue that recent breakthroughs in genetics make a historical Adam and Eve compatible with evolution, and that this development may help bridge what many see as a conflict between faith and science.

“For over 160 years, the societal conflict over evolution has been deep and stubborn. But now, in a surprise twist, evolutionary science is making space for Adam and Eve,” S. Joshua Swamidass, an associate professor at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, Missouri, told Fox News Digital. “It turns out that the theological questions are about genealogical ancestry, not genetics. In this paradigm shift, we are finding a better way forward, a better story to tell.”

In his book “The Genealogical Adam and Eve: The Surprising Science of Universal Ancestry,” Swamidass argues that genetics and evolutionary theory do not conflict with the existence of Adam and Eve, universal ancestors of all humans whom Jesus died to save.

Tyler O’Neil, “Christians point to genetics breakthroughs to show Adam and Eve are not incompatible with evolution” at Fox News

When we consider the huge difference between human beings and any other life form on the planet, it is more reasonable to assume that we had one pair of ancestors than that we had many.

Copyright © 2022 Uncommon Descent . This Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you are not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you are looking at is guilty of copyright infringement UNLESS EXPLICIT PERMISSION OTHERWISE HAS BEEN GIVEN. Please contact legal@uncommondescent.com so we can take legal action immediately.
Plugin by Taragana