Posts Tagged “Philosophy”

As I am already talking about comments in the last blog post, I can as well start a new category now: comment analysis. I regularly get comments on my critical post concerning esoteric and the misuse of quantum-physics for their purposes. Those comments are often, well, ‘interesting’. I am going to analyze one in the following. Maybe at some point in time I will have collected enough of them to compare and find common features.

Today’s comment is by someone calling himself ‘Art. 4 GG’. This is the first observation: These type of comments are often anonymous. It was posted at a followup of a followup (what’s next, followup cubed?) of a article criticizing a esoteric event stating that quantum-physics would support their believes. As most of these comments, it is in German. Another interesting point.

It starts with quoting a former German judge, in a typical manner of referring to ‘authorities’ in support of one owns point of view. I am actually immune to it: Not the opinions of some people count (even famous people do make errors and might have strange believes). What is important are the arguments.

By the way: the quote by said former judge, Martin Kriele, is critisized here (in German), he reacts to this in a very impolite manner on his homepage, personally attacking the lifestyle of the critic. He signed a declaration which supports the view that you could ‘heal’ homosexuality. His Wife, Alexa Kriele, works as an ‘Angel-Interpreter’, has been in the German TV recently (a good criticizing article can be found here, in German). Her husband supports her, was involved in her books on angles and their healing powers and wrote a foreword. Now I should take this guy seriously?

The comment goes on in a very rude manner, attacking me and my mental capabilities. There are no arguments or supporting evidence why I should be wrong. Instead, he says:

Your critical comments are undecided, blatantly unsubstantiated and confirm your self-assessment that quantum physics is hard to understand for you, because obviously you are uninformed, or de facto intellectually unable to grasp the findings of quantum physics.

In short, less complicated words: “You have no idea or are stupid.” I am not sure what is the best way to treat these kinds of comments: simply ignore and delete them, or allow them to appear as they unmask the was esoterics think and argue? I decided for the latter here. Especially, because the commenter does not have any clue about who I am: I studied Physics for several years, my professor in theoretical physics must have been of other opinion about my capabilities than the commenter as I got my degree recently, and now I am doing my PhD. Furthermore, I even studied the influences of quantum physics on philosophy in my minor. I would say I know enough about the topic. :-)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments No Comments »

Among German Science-Bloggers the currently is a discussion about one of the questions in the study of the Programme for International Student Assessment, PISA. The Question in question is:

Which one of the following statements best applies to the scientific theory of evolution?
A The theory cannot be believed because it is not possible to see species changing.
B The theory of evolution is possible for animals but cannot be applied to humans.
C Evolution is a scientific theory that is currently based on extensive evidence.
D Evolution is a theory that has been proven to be true by scientific experiments.

The correct answer is C.

For me it would have seemed to be evident and no reason for discussion. Unfortunately, in the German translation of the question, C sounds rather weak (more like: “Evolution is a scientific theory that is currently based on numerous observations”). Because of this, some bloggers (Sandra Thal (Wissenslogs) and Kamenin (Begrenzte Wissenschaft)) are of the opinion that answer D should be counted as the correct one, because evolution is absolutely successful. So it should be accepted as a proven scientific theory. Others open discussions on the topic (Christian Reinboth from Frischer Wind (Scienceblogs), Skeptic as hell) or even write to the PISA organizers (Marcus Anhäuser from Placeboalarm (Scienceblogs), including a fast answer).

The problem with the statement “D would be the correct answer” is that it contradicts basic philosophy of science. Every scientist* should know that it is impossible to prove a scientific theory. What also bothers me in this discussion is that different people use the same words, but mean different things. In the following, I thus try to define my understanding of the important expressions.
Furthermore, over the course of the 20th century, many positions have formed in the philosophy of science on the topic of what science does. Sometimes it is argued that the more modern findings might lead to an acceptance of the statement that theories may be proven. I will try to show that this is not the case, as the underlying “Problem of Induction” remains unsolved.
In the end, I’ll come back to the issue with the PISA question and highlight the problem I see emerging from this discussion.




Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments 12 Comments »

The German government decided for a 500 billion Euro package as bailout for German banks. That’s a ridiculously high sum. It’s more than one fifth of the German gross domestic product. But then, with the current world population of 6.7 billion, it’s only 75 euro per person.

Sami asks in his blog (German only): “What would you do with the money?” I think it’s an interesting question, as no person will ever be able to use all this money. It will make you the riches person in the world, way above the current billionaire number one, Warren Buffet, with an estimated 62 billion $. So you probably want to do something beneficial for humankind.

If I got 500 billion, the first thing I would do is to take it to a bank (one of those without financial problems, I there are such). I’d put in into a savings account with, lets say, an interest rate of 3 percent.
The next thing I’d do is having lunch. For that I’d go to a nearby restaurant and spend the 16.85 Euro in my wallet. After an hour or so I go back to the bank and withdraw what the interest has produced: 1.7 million Euro.
That should be enough money to organize my further steps: finding out how to use the wealth. I’d travel the world to talk to experts and to find out where the biggest needs are. But overall, I would spend the money on two different projects:

Read the rest of this entry »

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Comments 2 Comments »