In this episode I discuss criteria for making the demarcation between science and pseudoscience–that is, what we should consider science and non-science. I use an example of “Creation Science” as an example and evaluate whether or not it is scientific.
In this episode of Eavesdropping, Tyler McNabb and I go through a list of questions that have been submitted to sententias.org and have been asked by readers. It’s a series a affirmations and denials–our positions on matters concerning philosophy, theology, science, and social issues.
*NOTE*: As evidenced by me accidentally saying the universe is 3.7 billion years old I meant to say it’s 13.7 billion years old, demonstrating the off the cuff conversational mishaps!
Eavesdropping is conversational, informal podcast that is sometimes a monologue, or dialogue with guests, on various topics including philosophy, theology, science, contemporary events, and random meanderings of a philosopher. The primary focuses are philosophy of science, multiverse scenarios, and Molinism.
For listening on the go, download the SoundCloud App:
Constants of Space and Time.
- Planck length (the minimum interval of space), lp = 1.62 x 10-33 cm.
- Planck time (the minimum interval of time), tp = 5.39 x 10-44 sec.
- Planck’s constant (this determines the minimum unit of energy emission), h = 6.6 x 10-34 joule seconds.
- Velocity of light, c = 300,000 km/sec.
- Gravitational attraction constant, G = 6.67 x 10-11 Nm2/kg2.
- Weak force coupling constant, gw = 1.43 x 10-62.
- Strong nuclear force coupling constant, gs = 15.
Individuating Constants (Composition of the Electromagnetic Force).
- Rest mass of a proton, mp =1.67 x 10-27 kg.
- Rest mass of an electron, me = 9.11 x 10-31 kg.
- The electron or proton unit charge, e = 1.6 x 10-19 coulombs.
- Minimum mass in our universe, (hc/G)½ = 2.18 x 10-8 kg.
read more »
After this I feel a huge sigh of relief coming… A relief that science hasn’t been hijacked by the one-track minded aristocrats of scholarship who only want to monologue. Remember what happened to Einstein and Higgs’ first major papers that led to amazing theories and confirmations? Oh, yeah…
Leading academic journals are distorting the scientific process and represent a “tyranny” that must be broken, according to a Nobel prize winner who has declared a boycott on the publications.
Randy Schekman, a US biologist who won the Nobel prize in physiology or medicine this year and receives his prize in Stockholm on Tuesday, said his lab would no longer send research papers to the top-tier journals, Nature, Cell and Science.
Schekman said pressure to publish in “luxury” journals encouraged researchers to cut corners and pursue trendy fields of science instead of doing more important work. The problem was exacerbated, he said, by editors who were not active scientists but professionals who favoured studies that were likely to make a splash.
First of all, I want to congratulate you on your opportunity to study in Scotland! What an honor! I look forward to seeing where that will take you. Secondly, I want to be clear that the motivation of my questioning is NOT to simply stir controversy, and not to put you in a difficult position to answer. However, the nature of the topic of my question tends to cause controversy among some, so be warned.
My question is one regarding the relationship between Young Earth Creationism, the science and religion “conflict”, and the ministry of apologetics. I have been wrestling with this topic for about six months now, and I am seeking your insight to gain some clarity, understanding, and advice.Earlier this year, I completed the undergraduate Creation Studies class at Liberty University. Although I enjoyed the class, at the end of the six week course I remained unconvinced that the Young-Earth view is a proper interpretation of Genesis 1, or an accurate scientific explanation of the universe we observe. My skepticism of YEC raised several other questions regarding apologetic ministry and the supposed conflict between science and religion.read more »