http://cnsnews.com/news/article/bar...o-founder-sub-atomic-particles-are-evidence-0

 

Good grief. Way to ignore the complete history and philosophy of science. Every time something elegant and/or complex is "discovered" (I'm not sure there is any new observation data here?), some people abandon the very science that brought them to that point and leap to the presumption that there can only be a supernatural explanation behind it. A mathematical construct is not, and can never be, evidence for or against the supernatural.

I can't believe a respected scientist would embarrass himself so badly with such a proclamation. I would call this a CEM, a career ending moment.

 

No, tenure will protect him. We've all seen this guy for years. This is our science.

 

Tenure will not protect him from my opinion of him.

 

Wow, and I had such a high opinion of that guy!

And now I find myself concluding that despite amazing intelligence, education and study, he is a complete idiot.

I am so disappointed

Lets hope he was simply mis-quoted or something and all is actually OK with the scientific world.

 

He has been on for decades with other sci-lebs. Many are adored world wide. That's fine, it just isn't proven science. Only math. Dr. Who was just as entertaining. He made his own sense too.

 

I know who Michio Kaku is, and have read several of his books over the years. He's always liked being eccentric, and playing on the edge of things.

 

Science and theater usually don't mix well, with some notable exceptions (eg. Carl Sagan).

 

On the other hand, Mr Elon Musk belives that we're living in a simulation. Which I find even more far fetched thank Mr Kaku's beliefs.

 

Guys. You all know I am atheist. But, I am not as taken aback as you all seem to be.

This is an article written by a 'journalist' for popular consumption. He (the author) obviously chose the words and the context in order to create a sensational article -- and possibly to push a personal agenda.

That said, if a (serious) scientist came to me and said, "I have proven the existence of God," I would not dismiss it out of hand. I'd review his methodology, his data, and his conclusion, and, if I were really interested, I'd try to reproduce his results. Perhaps I'd offer an alternate theory or explanation, the burden then on me to show that my my theory is a better explanation than his.

Choose not to be so offended. There are 7.4 billion people in the world, many are nuts, and most are nuttier than average.

 

Further: Scientists, in general, are mostly harmless.

It's when they jump in bed with politicians that things begin to get scary.

 

if a (serious) scientist came to me and said, "I have proven the existence of God," I would not dismiss it out of hand

I would. Why would a serious scientist come to you with such a world-changing discovery?

If the findings were peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal, I might not dismiss it out of hand, but I would remain skeptical until the extraordinary claim had been verified with extraordinary proof.

I would also expect to hear about it first on every news channel I care to watch, not via a link from AAC.

I choose to dismiss it out of hand right now. You can tell me I was wrong to if it turns out to be proven true, but I sense that will not be the case.


I am, however willing to believe that Kaku has maybe been mis-quoted, mis-represented or mis-understood perhaps. I would not want to condemn him out of hand without knowing all of the facts.

 

Occasionally something comes out that makes science scrap old theory, but that is rare, More often the theory is tweaked to include the new evidence. Perhaps a new theory comes out that explains the facts even better than the old one, complete with predictions.

This is what I love about science, while failable men may cling to treasured theories the system does not. The new scientists replace the old, it can slow things down now and again, but it works in the long term.

 

I would. Why would a serious scientist come to you with such a world-changing discovery?

Oh my! You are absolutely correct. Any scientist approaching me personally to convince me of such a ground-breaking discovery would be met with a door slammed in his face, I'm sure.

If the findings were peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal, I might not dismiss it out of hand, but I would remain skeptical until the extraordinary claim had been verified with extraordinary proof.

Steven Hawking has 'proven' that God does not exist. Or at least that if he did exist there is nothing for him to do. Do you hold the same skepticism in this context?

I would also expect to hear about it first on every news channel I care to watch, not via a link from AAC.

While I understand the importance of words and using them accurately and correctly, there are certain concepts that I think are natural not to interpret absolutely literally. Just sayin'.

 

I am, however willing to believe that Kaku has maybe been mis-quoted, mis-represented or mis-understood perhaps. I would not want to condemn him out of hand without knowing all of the facts.

Fair enough. He may have been expressing awe at how things work, and how we've been able to discern some of the rules.

That said, if a (serious) scientist came to me and said, "I have proven the existence of God," I would not dismiss it out of hand.

I would, too. Posing the hypothesis that the only (or best) explanation of some observable phenomenon is supernatural is never going to be science. It's the hypothesis you use when you reach the end of rational knowledge and throw up your hands in defeat that any more is knowable. That's religion. If you keep looking for the explanation, that's science.

There's plenty of room for those who wish to believe in some force or deity responsible for creating the rules of the universe, for making evolution work and making the rules of physics. But that isn't the realm of science.

 

I would, too. Posing the hypothesis that the only (or best) explanation of some observable phenomenon is supernatural is never going to be science. It's the hypothesis you use when you reach the end of rational knowledge and throw up your hands in defeat that any more is knowable. That's religion. If you keep looking for the explanation, that's science.

Geeze...which of my words in post #10 did you guys not understand? I'll try to speak more slowly next time.

 

You said you would evaluate a supernatural hypothesis with the same tools you would evaluate a scientific one. That's what I didn't understand. Nothing wrong with applying the tools, but an untestable hypothesis invoking a deity can be rejected out of hand. Not as being wrong, just as not being science.

 

You said you would evaluate a supernatural hypothesis...

Nope. I don't believe I ever came close to saying such a thing -- that is, if you believe words mean things.

 

That said, if a (serious) scientist came to me and said, "I have proven the existence of God," I would not dismiss it out of hand. I'd review his methodology, his data, and his conclusion, and, if I were really interested, I'd try to reproduce his results.

How is that not exactly as I described it, as evaluating a supernatural hypothesis? Surely the "proof" would be have to be observed data, or you'd be done. The "existence of God" part is the supernatural hypothesis that the scientist is offering to explain the data. Unless it were very different than every previous such invocation of a deity, it must be rejected out of hand as not science.

 

Why can't there be a theoretical particle? After all, there were four elements in plato's time, earth, water, air and fire.

from wiki
In 1661, Boyle defined an element as "a substance that cannot be broken down into a simpler substance by a chemical reaction".

Mankind will learn when they have the tools to discover. It took three centuries before sub-atomic particles were discovered, which can challenge Boyle's definition.

The periodic table is of "intelligent" design in as much as we left open the missing elements.

"Intelligent design" does not necessarily mean GOD. Ancient Alien theorists concluded that those entities would be thought of as GOD or GOD like beings.

I have yet to find a conversion tool that converts GOD's time to man's time.

In the third century BC, a Greek proposed the heliocentric system, the earth revolving around the sun, which was countered by another Greek,
Ptolemy, a century later. It wasn't until 18 centuries after that Copernicus wrote, in a manner like Ptolemy, brought us into the 17th century with the earth revolving around the sun. And yet three centuries later, we scoff at another when our knowledge base is minuscule if it were juxtaposed against a superior being ... and I don't mean GOD in this instance.

I once told a group who commented on the "errors" by one of my people in a national magazine ... I simply stated .... Have you been quoted by the press? You do realize to be misquoted, you must first be quoted. We have no editorial control over what they write. Now STFU about this BS.