Premysl Bosak Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 Hello everybody, I have started translating UPB into Czech language and publishing it on mises.cz recently. After publishing third part (Introduction – The „null zone“, The Causalities, „Middle Truths“) very ferocious debate started under this part. I will try to sum up main objections against it and ask the community to help answer them. I will appreciate also references or links. Thanks in advance. Last two points 4) and 5) I consider just as nitpicking. I will always start with the citation from the book. 1) “When we let go of a rock in our hand, it falls – this is the real evidence of the senses, not that the Earth is fixed and immovable. The idea that the world is immobile is an incorrect assumption that contradicts the direct evidence of our senses, which is that everything falls. If everything falls, the world cannot be fixed and immovable.” Critic contends that this whole implication is not true because the fact that rock falls does not imply that the earth move. In hypothetical situation, the Earth can be in the middle of the whole universe, gravity will hold, but the Earth is not moving. Therefore, he claims that Stefan uses the same nonscientific approach, which he criticizes. 2) “It is true that we are very different from animals. It is not true that we were created by a god and have a soul.” He claims that this just statement without proof and that existence of the god is neither confirmed nor falsified and that many scientists around the world accept it. 3) “Personally, a man believes that that which cannot be perceived does not exist –intellectually, science has proven this repeatedly. However, in the “null zone” of theology, the exact opposite proposition holds true – the axiom there is that that which cannot be perceived must exist.” Here he claims that things, which we cannot perceive, exist and give example of atoms. We cannot perceive them but they exist. And that science hasn't proven it. In addition, attacked the axiom where he claims that no theology holds that “everything that we cannot perceive exists”. 4) “If we look at the technological and economic progress of mankind, we see more or less a flat line for countless millennia, followed by massive and asymptotic spikes over the past few hundred years.” He contends that there is no asymptote for the curve of the wealth growth. 5) “The greatest mathematical theory cannot be valid if applying it returns incorrect change at the checkout counter.” Here critic contends that mathematical theories are not about counting and you cannot make checkout counter in differential calculus for example.
Wesley Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 1. All mass has a force that attracts other masses. This has been shown in experimentation many times. Just as the rock falls to the earth, the earth falls toward the rock. Comparably, since the rock is so small, the affect of gravity on the earth is undetectable. However, the earth falls around the sun which has been proven. The sun's gravitational pull has a much larger affect on the earth. You can define an origin wherever you want, but when you zoom out to a larger picture, your origin may not make perfect sense as you end up with a bunch of negative numbers. (aka earth falls around sun, which falls around the center of the universe) 2. Anecdotes do not mean anything. Scientists believing it doesn't make it true. God is logically contradictory which makes it not possible for it to exist. There are a ton of available resources on this in these podcasts, online, and other places. 3. Perception applies also to the affects of their actions. We cannot see x-rays, but we perceive their results and can use instruments to see them. Thus, the senses are still used for verification. There is the extent of theoretical physics which cannot be verified yet with senses, data, or experimentation, but they are put forward as potential theories and not truths. 4. The poor in America today are much richer than people who were considered poor in the Middle Ages. This obviously doesn't show understanding of the state of humans in history. In the start of agriculture, the richest were one bad harvest away from possible starvation. We have progressed quite far from this. 5. Those mathematical theories do not apply for change at the checkout, but they do not contradict the math that provides correct change at the checkout. These are vastly different and he is conflating the two.
Premysl Bosak Posted February 13, 2014 Author Posted February 13, 2014 Thanks for reply. You are right point 2) is well documeted. Can you see and comment also second part of point 3) please. My opinion is that theologies must hold that everything that we cannot perceive exists because otherwise they should have two cathegories - that we cannot perceive and exists and - that we cannot perceive and doesn't exist and if they want to be consistent they must hold that axiom in the book. Just back to number 1) He states that the fact that gravity exists, doesn't neccessarily leads to the fact that earth is moving. You can have a material object which is affected by gravity but this object doesn't need neccessarily to move. And in that hypothetical example the earth is in the middle of the universe so no further zoom out is possible. Can anybody also give me any reference to this statement from the book please: "There are no perfect circles in our direct experience, but because of a belief in God, all planetary motion had to be a “perfect circle” – a premise that retarded astronomy for centuries.
Wesley Posted February 13, 2014 Posted February 13, 2014 Theology is not about holding consistency, it is about creating an exception for their prejudices. I think you may have to explain what you mean a little bit more or what you want me to clarify. It is true that something affected by gravity doesn't necessarily move. My laptop is affected by the forces of gravity, but the forces of the table are equal and opposite so it sits in place. If you define the earth as the origin, then it will not move. However, Einstein pretty rigorously proved that movement was relative and that any other origin could be defined and relative to those origins, the earth is moving at all times. If a force exists, then its movement is changing, unless an equal and opposite force is applied, or you have defined that object as your origin. For my perception, my eyes are the origin and as I walk, the earth moves behind me. If the Earth is actually moved to the middle of the universe and that there is equal gravitational pull on all sides, then the earth will not move. However, this doesn't happen, so does not matter as a description of reality because it is not true. It is like saying "if things were different, then there would be these differences". It doesn't describe reality, so it doesn't really matter. Finally, all if this is nitpicking and has very little to do with the point of what Stefan was actually trying to show with the description. Gravity was just chosen because we can see the evidence and everyone knows what it is without much description. That quote is page 14, towards the top of the page.
Premysl Bosak Posted February 13, 2014 Author Posted February 13, 2014 You know I totally understand that this nitpicking doesn't deteriorate the thought which the book should convey. I just wanted to clarify it for readers and was not sure about it. I understand your point with the gravity, but what he tried to show was that Stefan used implication which is not valid. That rock falls does not imply that earth is moving. What he described is not reality but when you start the proof you do not know the reality. The first part was that in the book is axiom - ... in theology holds true "that which cannot be perceived must exist" which implies that theologists claims that "everything that we cannot perceive exists”. And guy I discussed with said that no theology claims this.
Recommended Posts