Comment on "Is Faith the Enemy of Science?"

Lawrence M. Krauss

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0808.0128

2008-08-02

Abstract:This comment was solicited by Physics in Canada and will appear alongside the article by Richard Mackenzie [<a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="0807.3670" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/0807.3670">arXiv:0807.3670</a>] in the next issue.

Popular Physics,Physics and Society

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Remarks on the relation between physics and faith

Horst R. Beyer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.physics/0611106

2006-11-11

Abstract:It is a quite common view among people, that are not aware of the developments in modern physics, that it is part of human nature to substitute religious faith in places where there is no knowledge. Therefore, an increase in knowledge would lead to a decrease in the necessity of faith. Further, it is argued that, ideally speaking, a full knowledge of the laws of nature would make obsolete any sort of religious faith and would ultimately allow a complete control of nature by man. Since referring to nature, such views must be founded in the natural sciences of which physics is the most fundamental. Therefore, the question whether such views are compatible with the current state of natural sciences is ultimately decided in physics. Indeed, it is likely that these simplistic views have their origin in the world view generated by the successes of Newtonian physics from the middle of the 17th century until the beginning of the 20th century which viewed the physical world as a type of mechanical clock in which the motion of the gears affect each other in a precise and predictable way. In particular, the paper points out that the above views are no longer supported by current physics and that abstracted world views cannot be considered as part of natural sciences, but only as belief systems.

History and Philosophy of Physics,Physics and Society
Comment on Article by Ferreira and Gamerman

James V. Zidek

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1214/15-BA944C

2015-09-16

Abstract:Comment on Article by Ferreira and Gamerman [<a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="1509.03410" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.03410">arXiv:1509.03410</a>].

Statistics Theory
Reply to the Comment "Past of a quantum particle and weak measurement"

Lev Vaidman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1310.1319

2013-10-04

Abstract:Misinterpretation in the preceding Comment of my recent analysis of the past of a photon is corrected. There is nothing in this analysis which is "contrary to the usual quantum expectations" but, nevertheless, it does provide "further understanding and interpretation of the system considered". In particular, it teaches us that the naive common sense argument frequently used in the literature including the Comment has to be abandoned.

Quantum Physics
Comments Regarding "On the Nature of Science"

Amy Courtney,Michael Courtney

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0812.4932

2008-12-30

Abstract:An attempt to redefine science in the 21st century (BK Jennings, On the Nature of Science, Physics in Canada, 63(7) 2007) has abandoned traditional notions of natural law and objective reality, blurred the distinctions between natural science and natural history, elevated Occam's razor from an epistemological preference to a scientific principle, and elevated peer-review and experimental care as equals with repeatable experiment as arbiters of scientific validity. Our comments review the long-established axioms of the scientific method, remind readers of the distinctions between science and history, disprove the generality of Occam's razor by counter example, and highlight the risks of accepting additional scientific arbiters as equal to repeatable experiment.

History and Philosophy of Physics
Comment on Book Review of `Quantum Evolution' (Johnjoe McFadden) by Mathew J. Donald

Johnjoe McFadden,Jim Al-Khalili

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/0110083

2001-10-12

Quantum Physics

Abstract:This paper is a response to the critical review by Mathew J. Donald of the popular science book 'Quantum Evolution' by Johnjoe McFadden and our earlier paper (by Johnjoe McFadden and Jim Al-Khalili), in which we propose a quantum mechanical explanation for certain types of mutation. We here address Donald's criticisms and reassert our proposal.
Comment on "Trouble with the Lorentz Law of Force"

David J. Griffiths,V. Hnizdo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1205.4646

2012-05-22

Abstract:A recent article claims the Lorentz force law is incompatible with special relativity. The claim is false, and the "paradox" on which it is based was resolved many years ago.

Classical Physics
Reply to the comment "quant-ph/9710002"

Lu-Ming Duan,Guang-Can Guo

1997-01-01

Abstract:In the comment, Zanardi and Rasetti argue that several claims in our recent letter (Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1953, 1997) are questionable. The reply shows these claims remain true.
Positive psychology and romantic scientism: Reply to comments on Brown, Sokal, & Friedman (2013)

Nicholas J. L. Brown,Alan D. Sokal,Harris L. Friedman,Nicholas J.L. Brown

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1409.5172

2014-09-18

Applications

Abstract:This is a response to five comments [American Psychologist 69, 626-629 and 632-635 (2014)] on our article arXiv:1307.7006.
Qin Et Al. Reply

Nan Qin,Emmanuelle Le Chatelier,Jing Guo,Edi Prifti,Lanjuan Li,S. Dusko Ehrlich

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14852

IF: 64.8

2015-01-01

Nature

Abstract:A Reply to the Comment by J. H. Chen and H. Y. Fan.Received 22 May 2013DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.269502© 2013 American Physical Society
Comment on "Quantum Physics from A to Z"

Ulrich Mohrhoff

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/0508212

2005-08-29

Abstract:This is a comment on a collection of statements gathered on the occasion of the Quantum Physics of Nature meeting in Vienna.

Quantum Physics
Reply to the Comment, <a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="0810.3243v1" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3243v1">arXiv:0810.3243v1</a> by B. Geyer, G. L. Klimchitskaya, U. Mohideen, and. V. M. Mostepanenko

L. P. Pitaevskii

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0811.3081

2008-11-19

Abstract:It is shown that criticism of my paper <a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="0801.0656" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/0801.0656">arXiv:0801.0656</a> Phys. Rev. Lett, vol. 101, 163202 (2008) by the authors of Comment <a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="0810.3243v1" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3243v1">arXiv:0810.3243v1</a> is wrong and that their main arguments are in contradiction with established concepts of statistical physics.

Statistical Mechanics
Science Under Attack

Nicholas Maxwell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2001.10416

2019-12-12

Abstract:Some attack scientific rationality, others defend it, but both miss the point. What both parties take to be scientific rationality is actually a species of irrationality masquerading as scientific rationality. The current orthodox conception of science, taken for granted by scientists and non-scientists alike, is irrational because it suppresses problematic assumptions, inherent in the aims of science, having to do with metaphysics, values, and political and social issues. We urgently need a more rigorous conception of science to be adopted and implemented that honestly acknowledges the problematic character of the aims of science, and seeks to improve them as science proceeds.

History and Philosophy of Physics
Against Fundamentalism

Matthew Saul Leifer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1810.05272

2018-10-12

Abstract:In this essay, I argue that the idea that there is a most fundamental discipline, or level of reality, is mistaken. My argument is a result of my experiences with the "science wars", a debate that raged between scientists and sociologists in the 1990's over whether science can lay claim to objective truth. These debates shook my faith in physicalism, i.e. the idea that everything boils down to physics. I outline a theory of knowledge that I first proposed in my 2015 FQXi essay on which knowledge has the structure of a scale-free network. In this theory, although some disciplines are in a sense "more fundamental" than others, we never get to a "most fundamental" discipline. Instead, we get hubs of knowledge that have equal importance. This structure can explain why many physicists believe that physics is fundamental, while some sociologists believe that sociology is fundamental. This updated version of the essay includes and appendix with my responses to the discussion of this essay on the FQXi website.

History and Philosophy of Physics
Comments on Unruh's Paper

Henry P. Stapp

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.quant-ph/9801056

1998-01-24

Abstract:Unruh has commented upon my recent proof that certain predictions of quantum theory are incompatible with the assertion that no influence of any kind acts backward in time in any Lorentz frame. Unruh fails to make a necessary distinction between statements that assert the existence of values, and statements that assert the existence merely of correlations between possible values. Consequently his argument fails to show that my proof involves a tacit or hidden reality assumption that is alien to quantum theory.

Quantum Physics
Scientific and Philosophical Challenges to Theism

Don N. Page

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0801.0247

2008-02-15

Abstract:Modern science developed within a culture of Judeo-Christian theism, and science and theism have generally supported each other. However, there are certainly areas in both science and religion that puzzle me. Here I outline some puzzles that have arisen for me concerning everlasting life, human free will, divine free will, the simplicity and probability of God, the problem of evil, and the converse problem of elegance.

General Physics,High Energy Physics - Theory
Gregoryanzet Al.reply:

Eugene Gregoryanz,Russell J. Hemley,Ho-kwang Mao,R. E. Cohen,Philippe Gillet

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.90.079702

IF: 8.6

2003-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:A Reply to the Comment by Margin H. Müser and Philipp Schöffel.Received 1 November 2002DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.079702©2003 American Physical Society
Fundamentalist physics: why Dark Energy is bad for Astronomy

Simon D.M. White

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/70/6/R01

2007-04-18

Abstract:Astronomers carry out observations to explore the diverse processes and objects which populate our Universe. High-energy physicists carry out experiments to approach the Fundamental Theory underlying space, time and matter. Dark Energy is a unique link between them, reflecting deep aspects of the Fundamental Theory, yet apparently accessible only through astronomical observation. Large sections of the two communities have therefore converged in support of astronomical projects to constrain Dark Energy. In this essay I argue that this convergence can be damaging for astronomy. The two communities have different methodologies and different scientific cultures. By uncritically adopting the values of an alien system, astronomers risk undermining the foundations of their own current success and endangering the future vitality of their field. Dark Energy is undeniably an interesting problem to attack through astronomical observation, but it is one of many and not necessarily the one where significant progress is most likely to follow a major investment of resources.

Astrophysics,General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology,High Energy Physics - Phenomenology,High Energy Physics - Theory
Conflicts Between Science and Religion: Epistemology to the Rescue

Moorad Alexanian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2104.10776

2021-04-21

History and Philosophy of Physics

Abstract:Both Albert Einstein and Erwin Schr\"{o}dinger have defined what science is. Einstein includes not only physics, but also all natural sciences dealing with both organic and inorganic processes in his definition of science. According to Schr\"{o}dinger, the present scientific worldview is based on the two basic attitudes of comprehensibility and objectivation. On the other hand, the notion of religion is quite equivocal and unless clearly defined will easily lead to all sorts of misunderstandings. Does science, as defined, encompass the whole of reality? More importantly, what is the whole of reality and how do we obtain data for it? The Christian worldview considers a human as body, mind, and spirit (soul), which is consistent with Cartesian ontology of only three elements: matter, mind, and God. Therefore, is it possible to give a precise definition of science showing that the conflicts are actually apparent and not real?
Reply to Comment on ‘quantum Principle of Relativity’

Andrzej Dragan,Artur Ekert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/acec62

2023-01-01

New Journal of Physics

Abstract:We refute criticisms by Del Santo and Horvat towards our paper "Quantum principle of relativity": most of their counterarguments can be dismissed, and the rest provides further evidence to our claims.
Comment on “Capture-Zone Scaling in Island Nucleation: Universal Fluctuation Behavior”

Maozhi Li,Yong Han,Jonathan P. Evans

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevlett.104.149601

IF: 8.6

2010-01-01

Physical Review Letters

Abstract:A Comment on the Letter by Alberto Pimpinelli and T. L. Einstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 226102 (2007). The authors of the Letter offer a Reply.Received 8 January 2010DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.149601©2010 American Physical Society

Comment on "Is Faith the Enemy of Science?"

Remarks on the relation between physics and faith

Comment on Article by Ferreira and Gamerman

Reply to the Comment "Past of a quantum particle and weak measurement"

Comments Regarding "On the Nature of Science"

Comment on Book Review of `Quantum Evolution' (Johnjoe McFadden) by Mathew J. Donald

Comment on "Trouble with the Lorentz Law of Force"

Reply to the comment "quant-ph/9710002"

Positive psychology and romantic scientism: Reply to comments on Brown, Sokal, & Friedman (2013)

Qin Et Al. Reply

Comment on "Quantum Physics from A to Z"

Reply to the Comment, <a class="link-https" data-arxiv-id="0810.3243v1" href="https://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3243v1">arXiv:0810.3243v1</a> by B. Geyer, G. L. Klimchitskaya, U. Mohideen, and. V. M. Mostepanenko

Science Under Attack

Against Fundamentalism

Comments on Unruh's Paper

Scientific and Philosophical Challenges to Theism

Gregoryanzet Al.reply:

Fundamentalist physics: why Dark Energy is bad for Astronomy

Conflicts Between Science and Religion: Epistemology to the Rescue

Reply to Comment on ‘quantum Principle of Relativity’

Comment on “Capture-Zone Scaling in Island Nucleation: Universal Fluctuation Behavior”