Re: something from nothing

Steve Clark (ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu)
Fri, 9 Jun 1995 11:32:44 -0500

Stephen and Dave recently discussed:
>>
>DP>How do we know that every time a rock falls, it is according to the
>>same mathematical principles? At best we can say that every
>>experiment seems to confirm this to be so (but even then there are
>>ambiguities as we reject some experiments as in error and equip the
>>data we do accept with emperical `error bars'. Plus we have to
>>factor in all sorts of other fudges to do with non-linear phenomena
>>such as friction.)
>
>Yes. As I understand it, the laws of nature are idealised generalities
>we derive from statistical groupings around a mean. No experiment ever
>confirms a law of nature exactly.

This covers old ground. It has been shown that one cannot prove that nature
is uniform. Yet, paradoxically, empirical science still functions quite
well using a framework of natural laws that assume uniformity. Therefore,
the philosophical difficulty with the uniformity principle is largely
inconsequential to the actual practice of science. If, in my lab, an
experiment fails to perform appropriately (e.g., a DNA hybridization doesn't
work), I find it more profitable to examine the hybridization conditions
than to assume that God suspended the "laws" of hydrogen bonding that day.

In order to perform empirical science, it is necessary to operate under the
assumptions that nature is both uniform and understandable. If you don't
like this assumption, then you can reasonably ask why must science be
empirical? Why can't we learn about the natural world by simply reading the
Bible, or at most, by purely contemplative means? Basically, the answer is
because God has not revealed to us specific details concerning how He
created or how He sustains, but He has given us the capacity to learn about
the creation. Of course all of this doesn't mean that God could not or
would not work outside of the natural laws as we understant them. However,
empirical science cannot operate under this uncertainty.

At this stage I must make a distinction between DOING and EXPLAINING
science. In doing science, it is necessary to assume uniformity in nature
when designing and performing experiments. However, most scientist
mistakently believe that the interpretation and explanation of the data also
must follow strict rules of objectivity and rationality (this is a legacy of
logical positivism). I find it interesting that at this explanation stage,
Darwinists make the claim that they have "proven" that God is an unnecessary
hypothesis (strict logical positivists would not be impressed by this), but
disallow alternative explanations such as design, usually by invoking
positivistic limitations on explanations that lack rationality and
objectivity. I believe that these philosophical nuances are not well
understood by most of my colleagues which may explain why we scientists can,
on the one hand, be so confident of our understanding of this world, yet, on
the other hand, are never too surprised by the Kuhnian paradigm shifts that
make us rethink how we view nature.

Cheers,

Steve
____________________________________________________________________________
Steven S. Clark, Ph.D. Phone: (608) 263-9137
Associate Professor FAX: (608) 263-4226
Dept. of Human Oncology and email: ssclark@facstaff.wisc.edu
UW Comprehensive Cancer Ctr
University of Wisconsin "It is the glory of God to conceal a
Madison, WI 53792 matter, but the glory of kings to
search out a matter."
____________________________________________________________________________