Pseudoscience in the American Journal of Physics

How should we think about weird things?
Post Reply
User avatar
xouper
True Skeptic
Posts: 10827
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Pseudoscience in the American Journal of Physics

Post by xouper » Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:17 pm

davidkroemer wrote:blah blah blah . . . [broken record] . . . blah blah blah . . .

http://www.theinternetwizards.com/images/whackAmole.jpg

User avatar
Donnageddon
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1030
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 4:07 am

Re: Pseudoscience in the American Journal of Physics

Post by Donnageddon » Tue Apr 24, 2012 11:32 pm

davidkroemer wrote:You just can't believe that a peer-reviewed science journal is wrong and a Christian apologist is right.


I am sure it has happened. But this is not one of those times.
My name is not Donna.

Face_Palm
BANNED
Posts: 1130
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 4:36 pm

Re: Pseudoscience in the American Journal of Physics

Post by Face_Palm » Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:13 am

davidkroemer wrote:I may be singing the same song, but I keep adding additional verses. I have not heard yet from Victor Stenger. Maybe Ian Stewart will take an interest. Prof. Stewart gave an example to show that the second law doesn't always apply: the formation of stars from the gravitational attraction between molecules. His whole point was that the second law doesn't apply to evolution, completely confirming what I have been saying over and over again. When will it sink in? You just can't believe that a peer-reviewed science journal is wrong and a Christian apologist is right.


I'm not one to speak confidently on the physics aspect of your argument, but I do know your other points have been addressed constructively. You simply haven't responded.
:borg: 2.0

davidroemer
BANNED
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Contact:

Re: Pseudoscience in the American Journal of Physics

Post by davidroemer » Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:22 am

Does anyone still think a Boeing 707 has a temperature? Has anyone told me how long it would take a computer to generate an English sonnet? Has any found a quote saying natural selection explains common descent? Have Victor Stenger or Ian Stewart responded yet to my emails?

You are trusting the wrong people. This is another example of Dawkins being stupid:

"A dualist acknowledges a fundamental distinction between matter and mind. A monist, by contrast, believes that mind is a manifestation of matter—material in a brain or perhaps a computer— and cannot exist apart from matter. A dualist believes the mind is some kind of disembodied spirit that inhabits the body and therefore conceivably could leave the body and exist somewhere else." (The God Delusion, p. 180)

He doesn't understand the insight that humans are embodied spirits. He doesn't understand that the human soul is spiritual. To Dawkins, a soul is a spiritual thing.
David Roemer

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 12444
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Pseudoscience in the American Journal of Physics

Post by Major Malfunction » Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:37 am

davidkroemer wrote:Does anyone still think a Boeing 707 has a temperature?

Why live in wonder when you too can know the answer! For as little as $8, including free delivery. Yes, that's right, FREE delivery!
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
Donnageddon
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1030
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 4:07 am

Re: Pseudoscience in the American Journal of Physics

Post by Donnageddon » Wed Apr 25, 2012 1:57 am

davidkroemer wrote:He doesn't understand the insight that humans are embodied spirits. He doesn't understand that the human soul is spiritual. To Dawkins, a soul is a spiritual thing.


???

You state "He (Dawkins) doesn't understand that the human soul is spiritual"

Which means you believe that Dawkins doesn't understand the postulate that souls are spiritual.

You next state "To Dawkins, a soul is a spiritual thing"

Which means you believe that Dawkins does understand, and believes the postulate that souls are spiritual.

You contradict yourself in two sentences.

You are obviously confused, which I believe accounts for the rest of the nonsense in your posts.
My name is not Donna.

davidroemer
BANNED
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Contact:

Re: Pseudoscience in the American Journal of Physics

Post by davidroemer » Wed Apr 25, 2012 3:56 am

Intelligent person: The human soul is spiritual.
Unintelligent person (Dawkins): That the human soul is spiritual is redundant. The soul, by definition, is spiritual.
David Roemer

User avatar
Donnageddon
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1030
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 4:07 am

Re: Pseudoscience in the American Journal of Physics

Post by Donnageddon » Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:12 am

????
My name is not Donna.

davidroemer
BANNED
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Contact:

Re: Pseudoscience in the American Journal of Physics

Post by davidroemer » Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:24 am

Body and soul are the metaphysical concepts of form and matter applied to humans. The form (soul) is what makes humans equal to each other and superior to animals. The matter (body) is what makes humans different from each other. To informed atheists, body and soul are just ideas.

To rational people, since humans are embodied spirits, the human soul is spiritual. Uniformed people like Dawkins think that saying humans have souls means humans have a spiritual substance mixed in with the atoms an molecules. Dawkins thinks that saying humans have souls is dualistic. Dawkins thinks saying the human soul is spiritual is redundant.
David Roemer

User avatar
Donnageddon
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1030
Joined: Thu Nov 17, 2005 4:07 am

Re: Pseudoscience in the American Journal of Physics

Post by Donnageddon » Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:45 am

David, how does one rationally arrive at a conclusion by presuming it? And not sound like a nut, I mean?

Do you not see that statements like "since humans are embodied spirits" is just begging the question?

And that your full statement "since humans are embodied spirits, the human soul is spiritual" makes the statement "That the human soul is spiritual is redundant. The soul, by definition, is spiritual." completely correct?

Or are you calling yourself "stupid"?
My name is not Donna.

User avatar
Major Malfunction
Has No Life
Posts: 12444
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 6:20 am
Custom Title: Dérailleur Énigmatique

Re: Pseudoscience in the American Journal of Physics

Post by Major Malfunction » Wed Apr 25, 2012 6:33 am

What's the temperature of a soul?
This being was produced using the same process as other beings, and therefore, may contain traces of nuts.

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 10619
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am
Contact:

Re: Pseudoscience in the American Journal of Physics

Post by Pyrrho » Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:23 am

At this point, I don't think he's discussing entropy.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

davidroemer
BANNED
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Contact:

Re: Pseudoscience in the American Journal of Physics

Post by davidroemer » Wed Apr 25, 2012 12:59 pm

First comes the question: What is the relationship between myself and my body?
Then comes the possible answer: It is a mystery.
Then comes the marshaling of evidence and the decision: It is true that it is a mystery.
Then comes the formulation of the mystery: Humans are embodied spirits.

This is another intelligence and rationality test. Are the following statements true or false.
1) Airplanes have a temperature.
2) Heat can decrease entropy.
3) Humans are collections of molecules.

By the way, Ian Stewart answered my email thanking me for the AJP article. I sent him an email back asking if he thought the American Journal of Physics would have to publish a retraction for saying evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. No answer yet. Victor Stenger hasn't even responded.
David Roemer

Face_Palm
BANNED
Posts: 1130
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 4:36 pm

Re: Pseudoscience in the American Journal of Physics

Post by Face_Palm » Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:12 pm

davidkroemer wrote:Has anyone told me how long it would take a computer to generate an English sonnet? Has any found a quote saying natural selection explains common descent?


Both of these questions have been addressed. You do not respond to the points made. At this point your constant repetition is nothing more than an annoyance, and an increasingly annoying one at that.

Also, Dawkins' quote does not reflect stupidity but the opposite- freedom from ignorance. He's correct. Metaphysics/philosophy are well on their way to obsolescence, and not a moment too soon. It's that subjective, peculiar, and ignorant nonsense that screws things up.

By the way, a number of animals have "form (soul)" qualities very similar to humans. It's the brain, not "some kind of disembodied spirit" as Dawkins aptly states.
:borg: 2.0

davidroemer
BANNED
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Contact:

Re: Pseudoscience in the American Journal of Physics

Post by davidroemer » Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:35 pm

The idea that animals have mental processes similar to that of humans is nonsense.
1) Humans have conscious knowledge, not the sense knowledge of animals. Take, for example, knowing that this page is white and black. This means more than that light is entering the eye and a signal is going to the brain. It means an awareness of it.
2) When animals have nothing to do, they go to sleep. Humans ask questions about the things they observe. Humans invent hypotheses to answer questions. This requires intelligence.
3) Humans marshal evidence and decide whether an hypothesis is true. This requires being rational.
4) Humans decide what to do with their bodies. This requires being responsible.

In other words, humans are conscious, intelligent, rational, and responsible animals.
David Roemer

Face_Palm
BANNED
Posts: 1130
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 4:36 pm

Re: Pseudoscience in the American Journal of Physics

Post by Face_Palm » Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:38 pm

Can someone enlighten us with stuff on primates, dolphins, whales, and elephants please?
:borg: 2.0

User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5121
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit
Contact:

Re: Pseudoscience in the American Journal of Physics

Post by Austin Harper » Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:39 pm

Face_Palm wrote:
davidkroemer wrote:Has anyone told me how long it would take a computer to generate an English sonnet? Has any found a quote saying natural selection explains common descent?


Both of these questions have been addressed. You do not respond to the points made. At this point your constant repetition is nothing more than an annoyance, and an increasingly annoying one at that.

Also, Dawkins' quote does not reflect stupidity but the opposite- freedom from ignorance. He's correct. Metaphysics/philosophy are well on their way to obsolescence, and not a moment too soon. It's that subjective, peculiar, and ignorant nonsense that screws things up.

By the way, a number of animals have "form (soul)" qualities very similar to humans. It's the brain, not "some kind of disembodied spirit" as Dawkins aptly states.

We disagree often, Face_Palm, but not in this thread.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

Face_Palm
BANNED
Posts: 1130
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 4:36 pm

Re: Pseudoscience in the American Journal of Physics

Post by Face_Palm » Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:43 pm

The Force but flickers with you, Sith Squire Harper. You err often.

edits: the Force deserves to be capitalized, and its capitalization reiterated
Last edited by Face_Palm on Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:46 pm, edited 2 times in total.
:borg: 2.0

User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5121
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit
Contact:

Re: Pseudoscience in the American Journal of Physics

Post by Austin Harper » Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:43 pm

And we're back to disagreeing.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

Face_Palm
BANNED
Posts: 1130
Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2012 4:36 pm

Re: Pseudoscience in the American Journal of Physics

Post by Face_Palm » Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:46 pm

Your training is ongoing after all.
:borg: 2.0

davidroemer
BANNED
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Contact:

Re: Pseudoscience in the American Journal of Physics

Post by davidroemer » Wed Apr 25, 2012 3:55 pm

It is sometimes thought that animals are intelligent because they can solve problems. But intelligence means asking questions about the cause of things, the relationship between things, and the unity between things. Animals don't ask questions.

What is amusing about atheists is that they attribute to animals consciousness, intelligence, and rationality. But they don't attribute free will to animals. In the case of free will, atheists say it is an illusion.

Atheists say and think whatever they have to say and think to keep up the delusion that a human being is a collection of molecules.
David Roemer

User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5121
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit
Contact:

Re: Pseudoscience in the American Journal of Physics

Post by Austin Harper » Wed Apr 25, 2012 4:03 pm

davidkroemer wrote:It is sometimes thought that animals are intelligent because they can solve problems. But intelligence means asking questions about the cause of things, the relationship between things, and the unity between things. Animals don't ask questions.
No it doesn't.
Merriam-Webster wrote:intelligence
the ability to learn or understand or to deal with new or trying situations


davidkroemer wrote:What is amusing about atheists is that they attribute to animals consciousness, intelligence, and rationality. But they don't attribute free will to animals. In the case of free will, atheists say it is an illusion.
Who says animals don't have free will?

davidkroemer wrote:Atheists say and think whatever they have to say and think to keep up the delusion that a human being is a collection of molecules.
We are a collection of organs, which are collection of cells which are collections of organelles, which are collections of molecules, which are collections of atoms, which are collections of protons, neutrons (which are collections of up and down quarks), and electrons.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
fromthehills
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9925
Joined: Wed Aug 19, 2009 2:01 am
Location: Woostone

Re: Pseudoscience in the American Journal of Physics

Post by fromthehills » Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:35 pm

Face_Palm wrote:Your training is ongoing after all.


Newman?

The same sort of condescending prick, nonetheless.

Fozzy
Poster
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 6:00 am

Re: Pseudoscience in the American Journal of Physics

Post by Fozzy » Wed Apr 25, 2012 5:52 pm

Fozzy wrote:
davidkroemer wrote:Temperature, like entropy, is a macroscopic thermodynamic variable. It corresponds the sensation of hot and cold and can be measured with a thermometer. In statistical mechanics, you can calculate and measure the average kinetic energy of a gas. The two variables are related by measurements by KE = (3/2)kT.


davidkroemer wrote:A Boeing 707 is made up of thousands of parts. Each part has a different temperature. There is no one single temperature.

Sure there is. It's the average of all the component temperatures.
Just as, I will argue, that you can never get a perfect temperature for a gas or any substance. Not only is temperature going to be non-homogeneous, but fluctuations within the kinetic energy of a gas will always provide minute differences. Look at it this way. What is the temperature if you look at 3 molecules within your gas? What is the temperature when you look at 30, 300, 3000 and so on. As your number of molecules increases, you will get a steadier temperature but never perfect.

davidkroemer wrote:If a Boeing 707 in flight weighs 1,000,000 tons and has an average speed of 500 mph, you can’t use these numbers to get the temperature of the plane.

By that logic you could not measure the temperature of a gas, as you stated above, which is rotating around the earths axis, rotating around the sun, moving around the center of the galaxy, moving away from the center of the universe.
"The speed, and thus the kinetic energy of a single object is frame-dependent (relative): it can take any non-negative value, by choosing a suitable inertial frame of reference. For example, a bullet passing an observer has kinetic energy in the reference frame of this observer. The same bullet is stationary from the point of view of an observer moving with the same velocity as the bullet, and so has zero kinetic energy."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy

davidroemer
BANNED
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Contact:

Re: Pseudoscience in the American Journal of Physics

Post by davidroemer » Wed Apr 25, 2012 7:16 pm

The AJP articles did not give an equation for the "average entropy." They gave equations for entropy. It makes as much sense to talk about the entropy of the biosphere as to talk about the temperature of the biosphere.
David Roemer

Fozzy
Poster
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2011 6:00 am

Re: Pseudoscience in the American Journal of Physics

Post by Fozzy » Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:25 pm

I was talking about temperature.

davidroemer
BANNED
Posts: 221
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 2:28 pm
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Contact:

Re: Pseudoscience in the American Journal of Physics

Post by davidroemer » Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:28 pm

I got the following comment on another blog about the AJP articles by "allaspg" and my answer follows:
You write “The other absurd thing in the articles is the implication that adding heat to a system can decrease its entropy.”
Of course it can. You can see it for yourself with a simple experiment.
Take a frying pan and fill it with some olive oil. The layer of olive oil should be 1-2 mm thick, not more. Put it on a stove and turn the heat to medium. After a while you will see a honeycomb structure in the olive oil. The oil is “ordered”, entropy has decreased. The temperature difference between the top and the bottom of the oil layer has created small “cells” with (more or less closed) convection currents.

The point is, of course, that the oil is an open system. The underside of the layer is heated, on the other side heat is escaping to the environment. Adding heat to an open system can decrease the entropy of the system.

@allaspg
I don't think the creation of convection currents means a decrease in entropy. Suppose you have a iron frying pan of water at room temperature and you slowly increase the temperature of the water with a regular kitchen stove. The entropy of the water will increase.

Now suppose you don't use a stove, but a tiny high temperature blow torch. Bubbles and convection currents will form where the blow torch is located. You will see a structure being created.

My analysis is that when you use a regular stove, you have one system and you are adding heat to it. When you use a blow torch. You really have two systems: the water over the blow torch and the rest of the water. There is no structure except in your mind.

Thank you for taking an interest in the American Journal of Physics articles. I think it is big news if the AJP retracts the article, as it should.

By a funny coincidence Ian Stewart discusses evolution and the second law of thermodynamics in the following pod cast 22 minutes into the podcast. He says flat out that the second law doesn't apply to biological systems. He gave as an example of another system that does not follow the second law: a gas where the gravitational forces are not negligible, as in the formation of a star.

http://www.sidrodrigues.com/2012/04/ian ... mment-2055

I gave Prof. Stewart a copy of the AJP article and asked him if there should be a retraction. No answer yet, as there has been no answer from Victor Stenger.
David Roemer

rickoshay85
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2187
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 6:19 pm

Re: Pseudoscience in the American Journal of Physics

Post by rickoshay85 » Tue Jun 05, 2012 10:39 pm

davidkroemer wrote:It is sometimes thought that animals are intelligent because they can solve problems. But intelligence means asking questions about the cause of things, the relationship between things, and the unity between things.


It's much better to find out things for yourself.
What we think, or what we know, or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is WHAT WE DO. John Ruskin (1819 - 1900)

Post Reply