Bbc: Scientists Use Maths To Predict "the End Of Religion"

[Theresita Nerita]

[url="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-%20%20%20%20%20%2012811197"]http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment- 12811197[/url]

This just blew my mind for many reasons, but mostly because I've never seen anyone so blatantly make a fool out of themselves in the very PROCESS of trying to prove themselves right!

The operative paragraph is:

"It posits that social groups that have more members are going to be more attractive to join, and it posits that social groups have a social status or utility."

Both those positions are fallacious, and it seems to me that by their fallacious assumptions they disprove exactly what they mean to prove. It's so silly it makes my mind literally explode.


1) It would seem that "Social groups with more members are going to be more attractive to join."

[b]On the contrary,[/b] as T. Aq. would say, since when have human beings made their decisions based on pure numbers? Who chooses to join a group based on it being the largest group? Many people, on the other hand, choose groups based on smaller numbers - exclusivity, pretentiousness, or even novelty. It's observable that the human impulse for "uniqueness" is arguably much more powerful than the human impulse to be in a "large" group. Example: the rise of countercultures (beatniks, goths, hippies) not to mention that every social movement was once a counterculture (including every religion - the disciples didn't join Jesus because the group had "more members.") If everyone in the world were a member of a certain social group (say, "Athesits United") my first thought would be NOT to become a member of that group. Even if the entire world were Catholic, I can honestly see myself being at least tempted to rebel against THAT group.



2) It would seem that "social groups have a social status or utility." See: sororities, tribes, etc.

[b]On the contrary, [/b]while many groups are joined for their utility (such as villages, trade unions, berkshire hathaway shareholders, etc.) social status is (as mentioned above) a type of utility that is inversely, not directly, proportional to the number of members of the group. Example: no one wants to be in the sorority with the most members. Everyone wants to be in the sorority with the least members.
ALSO, while a union or a political party may be more useful the more members there are, Christianity does not offer any earthly utility. "Whoever loses his life shall save it" is not a message to be embraced based on utility.
[b]
[/b]IN SHORT: it strikes me as sort of pitiful that the very "scientists" who make it their business to crusade against organized religion come to that task with so little intellectual rigor, and so many fallacious a priori assumptions, effectively demonstrating exactly how necessary religion is and how little equipped the human intellect is to deal with reality using logic alone. If these "scientists" and those who cheer on their findings (see the article comments) are suggesting that humanity will be better off without religion, it shows a very disturbing lack of understanding of human nature.

I'm unimpressed by the intelligence of any "scientist" who seriously thinks that human beings are motivated by predictable, rational desires (have they ever MET a human being?). It shows a lack of wisdom not to understand that Man's perversity, his rebelliousness, and even his illogicality are his eternal traits, and that they will ensure the survival of religion because nothing but religion can make sense of them.

Or am I completely off here?

[CatherineM]

Must be that "new" math.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Theresita Nerita' timestamp='1300811688' post='2222330']
[url="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-%20%20%20%20%20%2012811197"]http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment- 12811197[/url]

This just blew my mind for many reasons, but mostly because I've never seen anyone so blatantly make a fool out of themselves in the very PROCESS of trying to prove themselves right!

The operative paragraph is:

"It posits that social groups that have more members are going to be more attractive to join, and it posits that social groups have a social status or utility."

Both those positions are fallacious, and it seems to me that by their fallacious assumptions they disprove exactly what they mean to prove. It's so silly it makes my mind literally explode.


[/quote]
The best part is that you can still type, even though your head literally exploded. Are you a zombie?

[sixpence]

this is the actual article.... it is published online and it is pretty questionable whether it is in a peer-reviewed journal....
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.1375

also, from what I know of mathematical models... if they are too simple they are usually not a reflection of real life, and if they are more complicated, they might only specifically apply to a small population.. soo...

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1300814736' post='2222343']
this is the actual article.... it is published online and it is pretty questionable whether it is in a peer-reviewed journal....
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1012.1375
[/quote]
In case anyone is curious:

The arXiv isn't peer-reviewed but that's not really what it is supposed to be. 'Tis an open access repository for reprints of stuff formally published elsewhere (for the most part). The site does occasionally include something cracked but overall it is the work of mainstream scientists. I've been a devotee of this site for years and have seen a wide range of stuff. So, while it is funded by Cornell and the NSF, the papers it contains ought to be evaluated individually. For example, cutting edge research from the LHC can be found in the arXiv (e.g, [url="http://arxiv.org/find/hep-ex/1/au:+Collaboration_ATLAS/0/1/0/all/0/1"]ATLAS collaboration[/url]), but you might also find a paper arguing for Tegmark's "Ultimate Ensemble" theory of everything, or Wickramasinghe's panspermia research. So, in effect, being available in the arXiv is not a mark of prestige for a paper, doesn't really mean anything. It might mean that it is probably not crackpot pseudoscience (they do have some process for weeding out cr[s][/s]ap, but I don't know exactly what it is), but still, 'tis best to be familiar with the author(s) and/or institution(s) of origin. Btw, often the metadata, or a blurb in the PDF/PS version, will indicate if and where the research was originally published.

[Laudate_Dominum]

Here's a little something about the authors in case anyone is curious.

Daniel M. Abrams ([url="http://www.esam.northwestern.edu/people/faculty/Abrams.html"]Faculty Page[/url]); Haley Yaple (No website afaik, a PhD student); Richard J. Wiener ([url="http://www.rescorp.org/gdresources/downloads/Wiener_Vita_Nov_09.pdf"]CV in PDF format[/url])

That paper doesn't seem to have been published anywhere yet (other than arXiv which isn't really a scientific journal). After reading the paper I thought it had a certain plausibility to it, and some of the data was interesting, but the model does seem too simplistic as does the comparison of the phenomenon of religion to language. (The model is largely based on studying language death in societies.) But yeah, I'm not at all qualified to evaluate the paper so take this with a grain of salt obviously. I find it plausible that some countries may continue down a path of irreligion, but my mind is not blown by the insight of that paper and I'm hoping that it is torn to shreds by better researchers.

Also, of all the random research that passes through arXiv on a daily basis I find it tacky that teh BBC picked up on this unremarkable piece. I guess atheism vs religion really sells over there.

Edited March 22, 2011 by Laudate_Dominum

[cmotherofpirl]

I sent it off to my math-brained son for an opinion.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1300823108' post='2222382']
I sent it off to my math-brained son for an opinion.
[/quote]
Can't wait to hear what he has to say!

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1300823529' post='2222388']
Can't wait to hear what he has to say!
[/quote]
THere are some advantages to a geek-nerd , I remember when he was bored he used to write out googleplexs

[ardillacid]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1300823698' post='2222394']
THere are some advantages to a geek-nerd , I remember when he was bored he used to write out googleplexs
[/quote]
I don't think it's physically possible to write out a googolplex

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='ardillacid' timestamp='1300843109' post='2222502']
I don't think it's physically possible to write out a googolplex
[/quote]
[img]http://www.mindspring.com/~jimvb/googolplex.gif[/img]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Theresita Nerita' timestamp='1300811688' post='2222330']
[url="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-%20%20%20%20%20%2012811197"]http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment- 12811197[/url]

This just blew my mind for many reasons, but mostly because I've never seen anyone so blatantly make a fool out of themselves in the very PROCESS of trying to prove themselves right!

The operative paragraph is:

"It posits that social groups that have more members are going to be more attractive to join, and it posits that social groups have a social status or utility."

Both those positions are fallacious, and it seems to me that by their fallacious assumptions they disprove exactly what they mean to prove. It's so silly it makes my mind literally explode.


1) It would seem that "Social groups with more members are going to be more attractive to join."

[b]On the contrary,[/b] as T. Aq. would say, since when have human beings made their decisions based on pure numbers? Who chooses to join a group based on it being the largest group? Many people, on the other hand, choose groups based on smaller numbers - exclusivity, pretentiousness, or even novelty. It's observable that the human impulse for "uniqueness" is arguably much more powerful than the human impulse to be in a "large" group. Example: the rise of countercultures (beatniks, goths, hippies) not to mention that every social movement was once a counterculture (including every religion - the disciples didn't join Jesus because the group had "more members.") If everyone in the world were a member of a certain social group (say, "Athesits United") my first thought would be NOT to become a member of that group. Even if the entire world were Catholic, I can honestly see myself being at least tempted to rebel against THAT group.



2) It would seem that "social groups have a social status or utility." See: sororities, tribes, etc.

[b]On the contrary, [/b]while many groups are joined for their utility (such as villages, trade unions, berkshire hathaway shareholders, etc.) social status is (as mentioned above) a type of utility that is inversely, not directly, proportional to the number of members of the group. Example: no one wants to be in the sorority with the most members. Everyone wants to be in the sorority with the least members.
ALSO, while a union or a political party may be more useful the more members there are, Christianity does not offer any earthly utility. "Whoever loses his life shall save it" is not a message to be embraced based on utility.
[b]
[/b]IN SHORT: it strikes me as sort of pitiful that the very "scientists" who make it their business to crusade against organized religion come to that task with so little intellectual rigor, and so many fallacious a priori assumptions, effectively demonstrating exactly how necessary religion is and how little equipped the human intellect is to deal with reality using logic alone. If these "scientists" and those who cheer on their findings (see the article comments) are suggesting that humanity will be better off without religion, it shows a very disturbing lack of understanding of human nature.

I'm unimpressed by the intelligence of any "scientist" who seriously thinks that human beings are motivated by predictable, rational desires (have they ever MET a human being?). It shows a lack of wisdom not to understand that Man's perversity, his rebelliousness, and even his illogicality are his eternal traits, and that they will ensure the survival of religion because nothing but religion can make sense of them.

Or am I completely off here?
[/quote]
No, you're spot on.

Beyond the (what should be) self-evident absurdity of thinking that such things as human behavior and belief can be perfectly predicted by mathematical models, its premises about religion, as you point out, cannot account for the facts of religious behavior.

"Social utility" or superior numbers cannot explain how Christianity spread from a few disciples to become the dominant religion of a formerly-hostile Roman Empire, not how the Faith grows under persecution (There's little "social utility" in being Christian, when you can be killed for it!)

And most of the converts to the Catholic Faith I've known did not convert for reasons of "social status or utility." Many times converts raise the ire and ridicule of family and friends, and may oftentimes lose some of their former social status.
People convert because they see the Catholic Faith as the Truth, which must be followed regardless of social status.

I know of nobody who converted to improve his or her social status.

In fact, for me, I'll have to admit going against the grain of the world is one of the attractions of being an orthodox traditional Roman Catholic.


"Intellectuals" have been predicting the death of religion for well over a century now, but religion never seems to completely go away.


It's pathetic that such drivel (which can be considered at best idle speculation) gets passed off in the press as scientific discovery.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1300820242' post='2222371']
Also, of all the random research that passes through arXiv on a daily basis I find it tacky that teh BBC picked up on this unremarkable piece. I guess atheism vs religion really sells over there.
[/quote]
Yeah, I see so much ideologically-based idiocy presented as "Science" in the press.

Such as all those breathless headlines about how studies allegedly "prove" that liberals and atheists are more intelligent or "more evolved" than us religious conservative Neanderthals.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='ardillacid' timestamp='1300843109' post='2222502']
I don't think it's physically possible to write out a googolplex
[/quote]
If I remember correctly it was a whole classroom of chalkboards, very tiny printing, and one very amused teacher

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1300854569' post='2222592']
If I remember correctly it was a whole classroom of chalkboards, very tiny printing, and one very amused teacher
[/quote]
Actually Ardill is right. It's been speculated that there isn't enough material in the entire universe to write out an entire googolplex.

From Wiki:


An average book of 60 cubic inches can be printed with 5×105 zeroes (5 characters per word, 10 words per line, 25 lines per page, 400 pages), or 8.3×103 '0's per cubic inch. The observable (i.e. past light cone) universe contains 6×1083 cubic inches (1.3 × π × (14×109 light year in inches)3).
This math implies that if the universe is stuffed with paper printed with '0's, it could contain only 5.3×1087 '0's—far short of a googol of '0's. In fact there are only about 2.5×1089 elementary particles in the observable universe so even if one were to use an elementary particle to represent each digit, one would run out of particles well before reaching a googol of digits.
A Planck space has a volume of a Planck length cubed, which is the smallest measurable volume, which is approximately 4.222×10−105 m3 = 4.222×10−99 cm3. Thus about 2.5 cm3 contain about a googol Planck spaces. There are only about 1084 cubic centimetres in the observed universe, so a googolplex is far larger than the number of the smallest spaces in the observed universe.
The time it would take to write such a number also renders the task implausible: if a person can write two digits per second, it would take around about 1.51×1092 years, which is 1.1×1082 times the age of the universe, to write a googolplex.[2]
Consider printing the digits of a googolplex in unreadable, one-point font (0.353 mm per digit). It would take about 3.5×1096 metres to write a googolplex in one-point font. The observable universe is estimated to be 8.80×1026 meters, or 93 billion light-years, in diameter,[3] so the distance required to write the necessary zeroes is 4.0×1069 times as long as the estimated universe.