The Buzsaw Objection - Theoretical Physics Vs Supernatural Evidence

In Message 297 Buz says the following: Now I don't agree with Buz. Nor do I think anyone is ever going to convince Buz himself that the evidential basis for various hypotheses in theoretical physics are superior to the evidential basis for his supernatural claims.However I do think that there are quite probably plenty of people out there who might read what Buz is saying and think it sounds rather reasonable. We don't have physical evidence of things like branes or wormholes. So why are these things taken scientifically seriously and other things (e.g. some common notions of the supernatural) dismissed as unscientific? What is the difference? Is it just some sort of innate bias on the part of scientists? Is it just because we have defined some things as natural and defined others as not - thus making them unscientific by definition? Or is there a genuine difference in the type and reliability of the evidential basis being claimed in each case?Why exactly is it that Buz gets berated for failing to supply empirical evidence for his claims whilst Cavediver (for example) gets almost universal appreciation from the pro-science EvC contingent for his contributions regarding empirically unverified but mathematically derived notions in theoretical physics?To many lurkers and maybe even other EvC members, superficially at least, I suspect that Buz's objections strike a chord. So I thought I would propose a thread where the reasons for such a distinction can be explored.I guess, if promoted, it really should be somewhere where Buz can take part. But if he does take part I would like to make clear to him that this thread is about comparing types of evidence and their relative reliability than specifically about whether some biblical claim or other is correct.

I don't want you to waste your time so I'll say up front that I don't think the probability is good that I would ever promote this thread, but if you would like to try modifying your proposal so that it is takes a clearly articulated position rather characterizing this as a puzzle to explore then I can take another look.I do agree that what Buz is saying sounds reasonable. It's also wholly inaccurate.

Indeed. So how do we tackle that? OK. Rather than modify the original I'll "clearly articulate" the case for theoretical physics that I think Buz has to contend with.Theoretical physics is at base rooted in scientific fact. It is based on mathematical models of reality that we know work in a very practical sense. Models that allow us to predict the positions of planets with astonishing accuracy, that allow us to predict eclipses years in advance, that allow us to construct nuclear reactors and GPS systems etc. etc.Mathematics is the language of pure logic. The results of mathematical analysis are not susceptible to human bias or embellishment in the same way that most human pursuits (including science) are.So if we take a model that we know works in a very practical sense and we extrapolate it purely mathematically we get the direct and pure logical consequences of that model. An extrapolation that is unimbued with the sort of human biases normally associated with extrapolating into the unknown. More to the point what we get what is arguably the most demonstrably effective discovery tool in modern physics. All of the below were discovered as a direct result of the methodology described: Anti-matter

quote:

---

In 1928 Dirac took an important step towards bringing quantum physics into conformity with Einstein's special theory of relativity by devising an equation (now called the Dirac equation) that could describe the behaviour of electrons at any speed up to the speed of light. This equation provided a natural explanation of one of the electron's intrinsic properties - its spin.

​

Taking the mathematical form of his equation seriously, and searching for a way of interpreting it, Dirac was led, in 1931, to propose that there should exist a class of 'anti-electrons,' particles with the same mass and spin as the electron but with the opposite electrical charge. By correctly predicting the existence of these antiparticles, now called positrons, Dirac became recognized as the 'discoverer' of antimatter - one of the most important discoveries of the century.

​

Then ... in 1932, a professor at California Tech - Carl Anderson - proved Dirac's prediction about antimatter was accurate. While studying showers of cosmic particles in a cloud chamber, Anderson saw a track left by "something positively charged, and with the same mass as an electron."

---

Standard Model Particles

quote:

---

The Standard Model (SM) predicted the existence of the W and Z bosons, gluon, and the top and charm quarks before these particles were observed. Their predicted properties were experimentally confirmed with good precision. To give an idea of the success of the SM, the following table compares the measured masses of the W and Z bosons with the masses predicted by the SM:

---

quote:

---

Currently, there is one elementary particle predicted by the Standard Model that has yet to be observed: the Higgs boson. A major reason for building the Large Hadron Collider is that the high energies of which it is capable are expected to make the Higgs observable.

---

Various light bending effects of General Relativity

quote:

---

That light appeared to bend in gravitational fields in line with the predictions of general relativity was found in 1919 but it was not until a program of precision tests was started in 1959 that the various predictions of general relativity were tested to any further degree of accuracy in the weak gravitational field limit, severely limiting possible deviations from the theory.

---

Or the existence and exact specified nature of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation

quote:

---

After the discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964, and especially when its spectrum (i.e., the amount of radiation measured at each wavelength) was found to match that of thermal radiation from a black body, most scientists were fairly convinced by the evidence that some version of the Big Bang scenario must have occurred.

---

quote:

---

For a while, support was split between these two theories. Eventually, the observational evidence, most notably from radio source counts, began to favor the latter. The discovery and confirmation of the cosmic microwave background radiation in 1964[28] secured the Big Bang as the best theory of the origin and evolution of the cosmos.

---

So on the side of theoretical physics we have

A sound logical basis for expecting the methodology used to yield results

​

A demonstrable record of success for this methodology.

​

Unless the sort of evidence and methodologies Buz is advocating can yield similar predictive results or discoveries of equal magnitude how can he possibly claim they are comparable?

​

Admin writes:

​

I don't want you to waste your time so I'll say up front that I don't think the probability is good that I would ever promote this thread....

​

Well I gave it a shot.

​

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

And it's a good shot, but my concern that I'm wasting your time is increasing. I don't want to provide too much specific direction because then the proposal becomes my thoughts in someone else's words, but I'm not going to promote a thread that doesn't address what I think is the real problem. This leaves you trying this and trying that hoping you'll hit the target. Anyway, let me try again. In my mind Buz is equating possibilities like branes, for which no one is claiming evidence exists, to things like his tsunami at Nuweiba that he mentions in his Message 53 in the What variety of creationist is Buzsaw? (Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only) thread, for which he claims evidence exits.--Percy

Buzsaw has just posted a good example of the problem in Message 57 over in the What variety of creationist is Buzsaw? (Minnemooseus and Buzsaw only) thread: I could promote a thread that focuses a significant degree of attention on the need for relevant evidence and Buzsaw's inability to recognize this.

Well having read the links I get what you are saying re the futility of convincing Buz specifically. But I never really thought I would convince him anyway. It was more the Buz sympathetic lurker that I hoped (with others?) to convince of anything at all. Which I could write an OP on. But it isn't really the OP that I have written and certainly isn't the subsequent advocacy of theoretical physics as a demonstrably superior method of hypothesising that I have since submitted. Arrrr my time is unimportant. If I didn't have the time I wouldn't bother putting the time in. I make no secret at all that my EvC participation is for my own intellectual entertainment. That doesn't mean I am flippant about what I say. But it does mean that nobody is responsible for wasting my time here other than me myself and I.I posted my "Case For Theoretical Physics" with no expectation or demand that it made any difference to your original comments.

If you want Buz as a participant, the only science thread I'll allow him to participate in is one that focuses significant attention on the nature of relevant evidence. This is the same Message 57 I cited before, but this time I'll quote the portion about the tsunami: To Buz this is evidence, better than evidence for the multiverse. That Buz thinks this is evidence is why he can no longer participate in science threads (actually, he can think what he likes, the real reason he can't participate is that his claims that things like the above example are evidence bogs down too many threads into repeated exchanges of, "You didn't present any evidence ... Yes I did" and "That's not evidence ... Yes it is").I didn't think that antimatter, the standard model, general relativity and the CMBR, for which there's huge amounts of evidence, got to the heart of the problem. The problem is that Buz somehow thinks people are claiming there's evidence of the multiverse. But no one is claiming they have evidence of the multiverse, let along using the multiverse as evidence for anything else, for example, for why our universe is friendly to life, but Buz is using the tsunami at Nuweiba as evidence for the Exodus. It is this flawed kind of thinking that has to be addressed.

Well you make a good point and I get what you are saying. So with regard to this topic proposal directly I think we can both agree that abandonment is the best option. But....In all seriousness - I think you should propose a thread to tackle the "Buzsaw issue". You have obviously thought about what is needed. You obviously recognise that, superficially at least, some of Buz's objections regarding things like theoretical physics strike a chord with others possibly less immovable out there.So rather than modify my own proposal or create a new one to try and achieve what is needed here I honestly think you should put something forward that you think tackles the issue at hand.Either way this particular proposal is a dead duck.

I'll close this thread now and just comment that if Buzsaw would like to return to participation in the science forums then he should propose a thread to discuss the nature of scientific evidence. I had removed his permissions in the Proposed New Topics forum, so I'll restore them now in case he would like to take advantage of this opportunity.