Are sciences becoming to Philosophical?

Logic and Reason are powerful things and great for debate, however it is also dangerous in the absence of facts. Just because one can reason with logic about an issue, doesn’t mean it is true.

These thoughts are of course provoked somewhat by recent scientific news and debate, particularly on  A Universe From Nothing, but also Anthropogenic Global Warming.

In A Universe From Nothing (UFN), eminent scientists (physicists and cosmologists) put forward the models and analogies of a Universe (and particularly the Big Bang) being completely viable to appear from nothing, without a spiritual force, such as God.

Their theories do make sense, they are well reasoned. From M-Theory (String Theory) to Multi-Verse. There are plenty of models which can describe their hypothesis.

However in the absence of empirical data, observation, there is no way to verify such hypothesis. Just because you have a complex theory which fits together nicely doesn’t mean you have found an objective truth.

In the article, the author writes

can almost put under a lab microscope.

Now, you can either observe or not observe. There is no, “nearly observe”. In M-Theory they have all but ruled out the possibility of observing the theoretical vibrating strings at the center of matter. Perhaps graviton particles can move between dimensions? Perhaps we can observe them? It’s all inconsequential if it cannot be proven. And may as well be called a philosophical statement.

Sometimes complex philosophical arguments, are seemingly easy to break with simpler logic and reason. Sometimes, these so called scientists can get carried away, perhaps believing their logic trumps common sense. Take this quote for example

Indeed, you might ask why it is that we think there is something here at all

Every individual is self-aware, alive. Something (matter) is here. Why make such assertions suggesting there’s nothing (matter) here at all? At best it is a poor analogy to use to frame their theories. And how are they productive? Of course one needs to devise hypothesis, but until there is proof or a pathway to finding proof, why publish such hypothesis? You have to wonder whether these people can indeed be called scientists or fathers of a new religion.

For the Sydney Morning Herald to publish this ridiculous stuff, it must be a slow news day.

Enhanced by Zemanta