22.08.2013 Views

Dr Faustus of Modern Physics - Department of Speech, Music and ...

Dr Faustus of Modern Physics - Department of Speech, Music and ...

Dr Faustus of Modern Physics - Department of Speech, Music and ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

212 CHAPTER 48. PENGUIN LOGIC<br />

used to motivate that the assumption is not just an assumption but a true<br />

fact: There is molecular chaos <strong>and</strong> a smallest quantum <strong>of</strong> energy, electrons<br />

do respect the exclusion principle, the Lorentz transformation must connect<br />

different observations, space-time is curved, light is photons, there was a Big<br />

Bang, there is a black hole in the center <strong>of</strong> a galaxy, a proton is three quarks,<br />

the Earth is resting on four tortoises, CO2 is a critical greenhouse gas.<br />

Notice also that in all cases, it is impossible to directly check if the assumption<br />

is valid, which is part <strong>of</strong> the beauty. The assumption is hidden<br />

to inspection <strong>and</strong> can only be tested indirectly: It is impossible to directly<br />

observe molecular chaos, a smallest quantum <strong>of</strong> energy, photon, electron, particle<br />

exclusion, wave-function collapse, uncertainty, quark, space-time curvature,<br />

black hole, tortoise, string...or that CO2 is a critical greenhouse gas.<br />

It is therefore impossible to directly disprove their existence...Clever, but<br />

there is an obvious drawback, since the existence is also impossible to verify...science<br />

or pseudo-science?<br />

The argument is that the assumption must be true, because this is the<br />

only way a theoretical explanation seems to be possible. Our inability to<br />

come up with an alternative explanation thus is used as evidence: The more<br />

we restrict our creativity <strong>and</strong> perspective, the more sure we get that we are<br />

right. Convincing or penguin science?<br />

Compare the same logic in a trial: If we assume X had a reason to kill Y,<br />

then we can theoretically explain the observed murder <strong>of</strong> Y. Hence X had a<br />

reason to kill Y. And thus probably did it! What if you were X?<br />

Notice in particular that present climate politics is based on the idea<br />

that CO2 is the cause <strong>of</strong> the observed global warming, with the motivation<br />

that certain theoretical climate models show global warming from CO2. But<br />

the observed modest global warming during the 20th century <strong>of</strong> 0.7 degrees<br />

Celsius may have natural causes rather than anthropogenic burning <strong>of</strong> fossil<br />

fuels. What do you think? What does a penguin in the Antarctic think?<br />

Compare e.g. EIKE.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!