http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/question/?id=853

---

Question

Why do the planets orbit the Sun on a flat plane rather than different paths or levels, much the way electrons orbit the nucleus of an atom?

The planets orbit in a flat plane because they formed from a spinning disk of gas and dust, sometimes called the solar nebula. Astronomers can observe similar disks surrounding young stars today. The disks themselves are a natural part of the formation of stars from a collapsing cloud of gas and dust. As the cloud shrinks, it spins faster (an example of the conservation of angular momentum), and much of the material falls into the disk rather than inward on the forming star. (Incidentally, don't take the comparisons between the orbits of the planets and the orbits of electrons in atoms too seriously. The analogy is not a very good one, and the behaviors of electrons and planets follow different laws of physics).

David Morrison
NAI Senior Scientist
February 17, 2004

---

---

Quote: from osmoticdespair at 3:58 am on July 5, 2009

---

What you assume for the sake of the predictive model and objective reality are not one and the same thing.

---

Precisely and this is why we have to reject the supernatural in order to do science.

---

---

Yes, but all examples in the history of science, such as the fact that planets lie in the same plane (which Newton attributed to god) have been shown to have natural explanations, not magical and certainly not unpredictable in the way god would be.

---

Newton's mistake and its subsequent discovery should emphasize the dialectical nature of scientific explanation. There are no immutable scientific facts if science behaves dialectically. We ought to view science as relational, i.e. involving process and constant change. Looking critically at the Enlightenment, I believe it severed Chronos (i.e. time) from Ontos (i.e. metaphysics), and thereby as consequence we observe such fantastic paradigm shifts as the shift from Newtonian physics to Quantum physics. Because of this severance, the foundational and fundamental elements of any scientific theory are susceptible to conceptual cracks that only time and further discovery may bring. If the truth of a foundational elements becomes sufficiently questionable, the entire theory crumbles, as in Newton's case. Science does not need to be practiced this way. Marx, for example, formulates his economic theory relationally; if you tinker with one element, it has an immediate effect on every other element, so that, in this way, Marx's theory of political economy might never entirely crumble, only dialectically change fluidly.

But I have digressed. The point I want to get across is this: because no scientific law -- empirical law -- stands immutable, I believe there remains sufficient room for a wholly new system of looking at the empirical world. Science is by no means conceptually perfect.

---

Science could in principle explain all features of our empirical world. This is because any valid explanation of the empirical world is by definition scientific. Now, do I think that science could practically explain every phenomena? No.

---

Science as it stands cannot in principle explain all features of our empirical world not only because there are many systemic problems with science (outlined above), but also because (mental) phenomenological experience (i.e. that first-person ontology I have talked about) intimately informs our experience, and therefore explanation, of the empirical world. Let me explain first-person ontology first. In brief, it is consciousness: the mental phenomenon that interacts with the external world. And since mental phenomena are subjective, belonging to an individual, consciousness is a first-person ontology, out from which flows subjective explanation of the external world. While this may not seem important, especially with respect to how science operates, it does cast a subjectivity over an otherwise staunchly objective science. No matter how objective-minded the scientist may appear to be, the universal (the white whale of absolute, immutable scientific fact) may never be ascribed.

But enough metaphysics. I object most to your position that: "any valid explanation of the empirical world is by definition scientific." Do not art, music and literature (and the many other creative mediums that I have left out) give "valid" explanations of the empirical world? I would hardly consider art scientific, but art certainly appears empirical.

---

Yes, you could start putting the god factor as an insecurity in all of your calculations, but god bring an all-powerful and omnipresent entity, this god factor would be a great deal many orders of magnitude above the actual result. The insecurities would be much larger than the actual result, thereby rendering science impotent. Think of it like this. If you know you are using a broken machine that has the possibility of rendering completely inaccurate data, not just slightly inaccurate, but so wildly inaccurate that it would be equivalent to nonsense, then you would not be justified in using that machine at all. Your colleagues would laugh in your face.

---

But what if the scientific method itself were just as "broken" as that machine you describe in your example, and your colleagues don't know about its disrepair?  

---

Just look at the Old Testament, there is almost a miracle on each page.

---

Talmudic scholars have much more to say of the role of miracles, of their occurrence and of their future role than do Christian scholars. First, we cannot rely on the temporality of the Bible's narrative as an indicator of the frequency of miraculous occurrence. The probable pace of time in the first few pages of the Hebrew Bible is not the same pace as in even Exodus, the book right after Genesis.

Second, time alone does not factor into miraculous occurrence, at least if we are to stick with Biblical exegesis (which you seem to enter once you claimed something about the "Old Testament"). According to some talmudic scholars, the Sanhedrin (the ancient council of Rabbis that replaced prophecy as an instrument of lawgiving) replaced the last prophet Daniel as God's authority, and therefore divine miracles became didactically unnecessary. The rational interpretations of previous miraculous occurrences (such as God's interactions with Moses, Abraham, etc.) replaced the unpredictable interventions of God himself.

Post edited at 10:31 pm on July 6, 2009 by Peregrine

-------
"You've changed." "No, I haven't." "Then why do you look so?"

---

Quote: from Moridin at 11:00 pm on July 6, 2009

---

Quote: from osmoticdespair at 3:58 am on July 5, 2009

---

What you assume for the sake of the predictive model and objective reality are not one and the same thing.

---

 

 Precisely and this is why we have to reject the supernatural in order to do science.

---

But science is not the only legitimate means of conceptualising the world.

---

Exactly.

-------
"You've changed." "No, I haven't." "Then why do you look so?"

---

Quote: from Moridin at 11:00 pm on July 6, 2009

---

Quote: from osmoticdespair at 3:58 am on July 5, 2009

---

What you assume for the sake of the predictive model and objective reality are not one and the same thing.

---

 

 Precisely and this is why we have to reject the supernatural in order to do science.

---

But science is not the only legitimate means of conceptualising the world.

---

What other legitimate means are there for understanding the empirical world?

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

Looking critically at the Enlightenment, I believe it severed Chronos (i.e. time) from Ontos (i.e. metaphysics), and thereby as consequence we observe such fantastic paradigm shifts as the shift from Newtonian physics to Quantum physics.  

---

This is clearly incorrect. Time still has an ontological status and there was no paradigm shift from Newtonian physics to quantum physics. Quantum physics is merely relevant for the extremely small scales, whereas Newtonian mechanics works perfectly fine on the everyday scale. As we scale up, the quantum effects diminishes and eventually disappear.

---

Because of this severance, the foundational and fundamental elements of any scientific theory are susceptible to conceptual cracks that only time and further discovery may bring. If the truth of a foundational elements becomes sufficiently questionable, the entire theory crumbles, as in Newton's case.  

---

If Newtons models have crumbled as you claim they did, why did we use Newtonian mechanics to land on the moon?

---

Science does not need to be practiced this way. Marx, for example, formulates his economic theory relationally; if you tinker with one element, it has an immediate effect on every other element, so that, in this way, Marx's theory of political economy might never entirely crumble, only dialectically change fluidly.

---

Then Marx theory of political economy is unfalsifiable and empirically worthless. Well done.

---

Science as it stands cannot in principle explain all features of our empirical world not only because there are many systemic problems with science (outlined above), but also because (mental) phenomenological experience (i.e. that first-person ontology I have talked about) intimately informs our experience, and therefore explanation, of the empirical world.

---

This is clearly self-contradictory since such a view would itself be influenced intimately with your experience, thereby undermining its own standing. Subjectivity gets you nowhere really fast.

---

In brief, it is consciousness: the mental phenomenon that interacts with the external world. And since mental phenomena are subjective, belonging to an individual, consciousness is a first-person ontology, out from which flows subjective explanation of the external world.

---

I reject this form of contradictory dualism. Furthermore, if all consciousness experience is subjective, that is, not a reflection of objective reality and therefore invalid, then this conclusion itself must a subjective conclusion, not a reflection of objective reality, and therefore invalid.

---

No matter how objective-minded the scientist may appear to be, the universal (the white whale of absolute, immutable scientific fact) may never be ascribed.  

---

But now you are claiming that it is an absolute empirical fact that no scientist can ever attain absolute empirical fact, contradicting your own position, yet again.

Post edited at 3:02 pm on July 7, 2009 by Moridin

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

It has to do with the physics behind planetary formation. Even though I am sure that there are more things to know about this, I would not call it a mystery like it was in the time of Newton.

http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/question/?id=853

---

Question

Why do the planets orbit the Sun on a flat plane rather than different paths or levels, much the way electrons orbit the nucleus of an atom?

The planets orbit in a flat plane because they formed from a spinning disk of gas and dust, sometimes called the solar nebula. Astronomers can observe similar disks surrounding young stars today. The disks themselves are a natural part of the formation of stars from a collapsing cloud of gas and dust. As the cloud shrinks, it spins faster (an example of the conservation of angular momentum), and much of the material falls into the disk rather than inward on the forming star. (Incidentally, don't take the comparisons between the orbits of the planets and the orbits of electrons in atoms too seriously. The analogy is not a very good one, and the behaviors of electrons and planets follow different laws of physics).

David Morrison
NAI Senior Scientist
February 17, 2004

---

---

In the end, the point of hagiographies was to instruct and encourage Christians.  They should always be read with that purpose in mind.  The scientific mind may wonder "did that really happen," but the spiritual man asks "how does this story transform me more in to the likeness of God."  The question of whether or not it happened becomes more or less moot in view of that.

-------
"It is the wrong question to ask, and therefore, as one might expect, has
no right answer." - Hans von Campenhausen

This is the philosophy of my life.

It only bothers me when I look at post-Enlightenment religious texts.  Prior to that the "scientific" or historical is almost always subordinated to the spiritual.  The authors are trying to be forthright, but where it matters.  The modern author tries desperately to accurate about the history regardless of what it means for the person of faith; the ancient hagiographers poured everything into be edifying to the person of faith.  That doesn't mean they deliberately falsified history, only that there priorities were elsewhere.  (In all likelihood, they probably all thought they were - in addition to being spiritually edifying - writing accurate historical accounts based on the oral and written traditions to which they had access.  I don't imagine many were being "dishonest"...except Athanasius.  I think he may have been deliberately falsifying things.)

-------
"It is the wrong question to ask, and therefore, as one might expect, has
no right answer." - Hans von Campenhausen

This is the philosophy of my life.

---

Quote: from osmoticdespair at 9:55 pm on July 7, 2009

---

I have to admit the thing I hate most about doing academic history is approaching texts with skepticism. I generally want to assume the writer of something is being forthright unless there is good reason to believe otherwise.

---

It only bothers me when I look at post-Enlightenment religious texts. Prior to that the "scientific" or historical is almost always subordinated to the spiritual. The authors are trying to be forthright, but where it matters. The modern author tries desperately to accurate about the history regardless of what it means for the person of faith; the ancient hagiographers poured everything into be edifying to the person of faith. That doesn't mean they deliberately falsified history, only that there priorities were elsewhere.

---

---

You would be. It doesn't matter what I think about the historicity of the Life of Anthony, it is one of the most inspirational narratives of the early church, in my opinion. I even cited it recently in a sermon, because its spiritual value transcends the historical circumstance. But reading things that way doesn't require a predetermined stance of uncritical acceptance, only of agnosticism and honesty about the author's intentions.

---

---

Quote: from Moridin at 5:41 pm on July 6, 2009

---

It has to do with the physics behind planetary formation. Even though I am sure that there are more things to know about this, I would not call it a mystery like it was in the time of Newton.  

 http://astrobiology.nasa.gov/ask-an-astrobiologist/question/?id=853  

 

---

Question  

 Why do the planets orbit the Sun on a flat plane rather than different paths or levels, much the way electrons orbit the nucleus of an atom?  

 The planets orbit in a flat plane because they formed from a spinning disk of gas and dust, sometimes called the solar nebula. Astronomers can observe similar disks surrounding young stars today. The disks themselves are a natural part of the formation of stars from a collapsing cloud of gas and dust. As the cloud shrinks, it spins faster (an example of the conservation of angular momentum), and much of the material falls into the disk rather than inward on the forming star. (Incidentally, don't take the comparisons between the orbits of the planets and the orbits of electrons in atoms too seriously. The analogy is not a very good one, and the behaviors of electrons and planets follow different laws of physics).  

 David Morrison  
 NAI Senior Scientist  
 February 17, 2004

---

---

That also assumes that physics works for every phenomenon we have observed, or the result thereof, in the universe. But we know it doesn't, don't we?

---

If the Christian god exists, we are not even justified in thinking that the physics we know even works for the situations we know they work in. After all, the Christian god can intervene arbitrarily in accordance with his will to mess up reality for humans, like turning water into wine or making the sun stand still in the sky etc.

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)