Cuyamaca College Big Bang the Temperature of The Universe Dialogue

Now that you have learned about some key concepts in the philosophy of science and read about some of the most influential schools of thought, I would like you to try a little exercise. For this assignment

1- Go back to the

3.1.b The skeptic’s challenge

at the beginning of this unit and read again the dialogue between Alice and Deb.

2- Imagine Deb and Alice meet again. Imagine, both have read/learn the same information you have read in this unit.

3- Create a new dialogue between them about what they (you) have learned. Each of them has to participate in the dialog for at least five times with something else than a yes/no answer) and the dialogue should incorporate concepts covered in this unit such as empiricism, realism, falsifications, paradigm, etc…

3.1.b The skeptic’s challenge Our starting point is the desire to arbitrate the following dispute that arises when Alice, who has been reading A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking, is trying to explain the exciting things she has learned about the Big Bang and the history of the universe to her friend Deb.

Alice:

. . . and so one second after the Big Bang the temperature of the universe was about ten thousand million degrees, which is about the same as the temperature in the middle of the explosion of a nuclear bomb.

Deb:

Do you really buy all that stuff? Don’t you think it’s a bit far-fetched?

Alice:

Of course I believe it, and I don’t think it is any more far-fetched than the fact that this table we are sitting at is almost all empty space and that it is made of atoms so tiny that millions of them could fit on the end of a pin.

Deb:

Exactly, it is just as far-fetched and you are just gullible for believing it.

Alice:

But that is what science tells us.

Deb:

‘Science’ doesn’t tell us anything; scientists, people like you or me, tell us things and like all people they tell us what is in their interest to tell us.

Alice:

What do you mean?

Deb:

Isn’t it obvious? A used-car dealer will tell you that a car is a lovely little runner with one previous owner because they want you to buy the car, priests tell you that you must come to church so you can go to heaven, because otherwise they would be out of a job, and scientists tell us all that nonsense so we will be amazed at how clever they are and keep spending taxpayers’ money on their research grants.

Alice:

Now you are just being cynical; First, I don’t think everybody lies or make up stories to get what they want. I don’t, do you? Not everyone is out for themselves you know. And second, I do personally experience technological advances everyday, that are the result of scientific discovery.

Deb:

And you are just being naïve; anyway, even supposing that scientists really believe their theories, can’t you see that science is just the modern religion?

Alice:What do you mean?Deb:

Well, if you were living five hundred years ago you would believe in angels and saints and the Garden of Eden; science has just replaced religion as the dominant belief system of the West. If you were living in a tribe in the jungle somewhere you would believe in whatever creation myths the elders of the tribe passed down to you, but you happen to be living here and now, so you believe what the experts in our tribe, who happen to be the scientists, tell us.

Alice:

You can’t compare religious dogma and myth with science.

Deb:

Why not?

Alice:

Because scientists develop and test their beliefs according to proper methods rather than just accepting what they are told.

Deb:

Well you are right that they claim to have a method that ensures their theories are accurate but I don’t believe it myself, otherwise they would all come to the same conclusions and we know that scientists are always arguing with each other, like about whether salt or sugar is really bad for you.

Alice:

Scientific arguments have more to do with interpretation of the data, and interpretation of the data could be unfortunately subjective to many aspects, regional, cultural, backgrounds, etc..  And it takes time for theories to be proven but they will find out eventually.

Deb:

Your faith is astounding – and you claim that science and religion are totally different. They are both as you just said very subjective. The scientific method is a myth put about by scientists who want us to believe their claims. Look at all the drugs that have been tested by scientific methods and pronounced safe only to be withdrawn a few years later when people find out how dangerous they are.

Alice:

Yes but what about all the successful drugs and the other amazing things science has done.

Deb:

Trial and error, that’s the only scientific method there is, it’s as simple as that. The rest is just propaganda.

Alice:

Trial and error. I can’t believe you really said that; scientific theories, like the Big Bang theory, are proved by many experiments and observations, by many people working in different fields of science. That is why we ought to believe them and that is what makes them different from creation myths and religious beliefs.

Deb:

So you say but how can experiments and observations prove a theory to be true?

Alice:

I suppose I don’t really know. But if experiments and observations agree with the theory, how can you say the theory is not true?

Deb:

We need to keep learning and talking about this. It is very interesting.

In this dialogue, one of the characters challenges the other to explain why her beliefs, which are based on what she has been told by scientists, are any better supported than belief in angels and devils or the spirits and witchcraft of animistic religions.

Of course, there are lots of things that each of us believe that we cannot justify directly our-selves; for example, I believe that large doses of arsenic are toxic to humans, but I have never even seen any arsenic as far as I am aware, and I have certainly never tested its effects.

We all believe all kinds of things to be the case because we rely upon what others, experts in the subject) tell us directly or indirectly.

This is method of gaining knowledge is called: by Authority.

This method can be very biased and sometimes leads to grave error, however it is indispensable to living our daily lives.

We simply must accept a large amount of information on the basis of authority, if for no other reason than we often do not have the time or the expertise to check it out firsthand.

Most of us believe that the Earth revolves around the Sun, that we as human beings evolved from animals that were more like apes, that water is made of twice as much hydrogen as oxygen, that diseases are often caused by viruses and other tiny organisms, and so on. If we believe these things it is because the experts in our tribe (the scientists) tell us them; in that way, the causes of our beliefs are of much the same kind as those of someone who believes what the local witch-doctor tells them about, say, the cause of disease being the witchcraft of another person.

We like to think that there is a difference between our beliefs and belief in witchcraft nonetheless; if there isn’t then why do we spend so much money on modern drugs and treatments when a few sacrifices or spells would do just as well?

In the next sections we will investigate the nature, history and philosophy of the scientific thinking. We will present different approaches and debates about what science is and how scientists (the experts we are asked to trust) acquire knowledge.

Our goal will be to determine if Alice, who believes in what science tells her, is entitled to her faith, if the attitude of Deb belongs to the skeptical movement or a denial approach, and whether it is or not any of those is the more reasonable one.