Re: Stephen Hawking is wrong

[Jack Park <***>]

John,
Are you saying Lawson pirated your work?
Jack

On 11/30/05, John M <***> wrote:
> Dear Jack,
> it was so boring to read that Lawson text: I felt I am
> reading my own writing. Of course he used 'closure'
> and I use 'model', but that does not change too much.
>
> Thanks for the info, I am sorry all that did not come
> out with my name. (Maybe his English and style is a
> bit better)<G>. I had the details spread into posts on
> diverse lists, some here.
>
> John M
>
> --- Jack Park <***> wrote:
>
> > This paper is found at
> >
> http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/stephenhawkingwrong112201.htm
> > Jack
> >
> > On 11/27/05, Rodrigo Peláez <***>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > With regard to the thoughts recently brought by
> > Judith, I consider it
> > > pertinent to copy an article written by Hilary
> > Lawson. I don't know how to
> > > attach an archive to the list, so excuse me the
> > length of the post.
> > >
> > > On Sun, 21 Mar 2004 Tim Gwinn writes about a
> > "…book entitled Closure: A
> > > Story of Everything by Hilary Lawson (Routledge,
> > 2001). After reading this,
> > > I find the ideas presented therein to be very
> > enlightening and persuasive. I
> > > also find that they are consonant with Rosennean
> > complexity in a very deep
> > > way, such that I feel it has opened up and
> > broadened my understanding of
> > > complexity and its pervasiveness greatly."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Stephen Hawking is wrong. By Hilary Lawson
> > >
> > > The notion that we might uncover the nature of the
> > world through a
> > > combination of careful observation and logic goes
> > back to the inception of
> > > the scientific project. It was the dream of the
> > Enlightenment and it could
> > > even be said that this vision has defined modern
> > western culture. A
> > > motivating and liberating force, it has given us a
> > sense of progress, a
> > > sense that unlike previous cultures and other
> > societies we are on the road
> > > to truth. Nevertheless, it is profoundly mistaken.
> > >
> > > In the closing pages of A Brief History of Time
> > Stephen Hawking took a
> > > sideswipe at contemporary philosophy, arguing that
> > it has been reduced to an
> > > analysis of language. In his haste to dismiss
> > philosophy he allowed himself
> > > to misunderstand not only language but the nature
> > of the world. Hawking
> > > makes the simple error of assuming that the world
> > and our descriptions of it
> > > might be one and the same. In our descriptions of
> > the world we divide it
> > > into things: trees and houses, people and events,
> > stars and planets, atoms
> > > and molecules. But the world is not a thing or a
> > combination of things, for
> > > these categories-these closures, as I call
> > them-are the outcome of our
> > > descriptions. Instead, the world is open and it is
> > we who close it. Through
> > > our closures we grasp the openness of the world as
> > things, and out of these
> > > things we build stories and models through which
> > we are able to intervene.
> > > But these stories and models are not the world,
> > nor could they in principle
> > > come close to being the world.
> > >
> > > The world does not come pre-packaged and divided
> > into its parts. We are not
> > > in a cosmic supermarket identifying cling-wrapped
> > items of reality. Instead
> > > we find ourselves in openness, and in order to
> > make sense of it, to have
> > > some means of intervening to certain effect, we
> > realise closure. We do not
> > > form our closures in a vacuum. We find ourselves
> > in a network of linguistic
> > > closures already realised and handed down by our
> > culture from generation to
> > > generation. As biological organisms, we are
> > already set up, through
> > > evolution, to generate certain types of sensory
> > closure. These biological
> > > and cultural systems of closure have been adopted
> > because they prove useful,
> > > not because they are true.
> > >
> > > Current theories of astrophysics, with tales of
> > the big bang, black holes
> > > and antimatter, have the feel of science fiction.
> > And in a sense that is
> > > what they are: the stories of contemporary
> > science. These stories are not
> > > unconstrained; they do not allow anything to be
> > said. For the stories of
> > > science have an internal logic which drives them
> > forward. They are often
> > > useful. We live by our closures. But we should not
> > imagine that we have
> > > thereby captured the secrets of the universe. Nor
> > should we suppose that
> > > there are not countless alternatives, offering
> > other ways of holding the
> > > world that may be equally valid.
> > >
> > > The closures of contemporary science appear to be
> > unavoidable because they
> > > take their place in a system of closures that has
> > been built and defended
> > > over centuries. When Hawking describes the
> > universe as a vast array of
> > > galaxies exploding into the emptiness of space
> > propelled by the energy from
> > > the original big bang, it is the outcome of a
> > history of preceding closures
> > > which combine to make it look as if Hawkins's
> > closure is the only available
> > > option. Yet there are other options, at every
> > level of the account, from the
> > > tiniest detail to the most general theory; options
> > that would grasp openness
> > > differently in some respect, that would draw
> > attention to different patterns
> > > and different connections, and which would as a
> > consequence offer different
> > > ways of intervening and to different purposes.
> > >
> > > In his new book, The Universe in a Nutshell,
> > Hawking regards Newton's
> > > account of motion and his theory of gravity as the
> > starting point for the
> > > contemporary scientific account of the universe.
> > Instead, we should regard
> > > Newton as the initiator of a complex and elegant
> > system of closures.
> > > Newton's centrality to science and to our culture
> > obscures the limitations
> > > of his theory. We are dazzled by his importance
> > and his influence and so
> > > overlook the mechanism of his closures.
> > >
> > > Since Newton every schoolchild has known that the
> > apple falls from the tree
> > > because of gravity. Yet gravity cannot be detected
> > or identified. We see
> > > only its consequences. Newton replaced one
> > mystery, the falling apple, with
> > > a more profound one, the existence of something
> > that cannot be seen or
> > > touched, and which causes change instantly across
> > any distance. Newton's
> > > explanation was no less mysterious than the
> > explanation that the apple falls
> > > to the ground because God made it do so. We have
> > become so used to the
> > > notion of force that it seems to us now to be
> > almost mundane in character.
> > > Yet Newton's theory, which proposed that the world
> > is awash with
> > > undetectable and mysterious forces, is bizarre.
> > There is evidence that
> > > Newton himself was concerned about the essentially
> > mystical core to his
> > > theory (as Einstein would later be about his).
> > >
> > > There is also, throughout Newton's theory, a
> > circularity: for the most part,
> > > the apple does not fall at all but remains on the
> > tree. Newton has therefore
> > > to propose that another force is acting to keep
> > the apple on the tree, a
> > > force precisely equal and opposite to that of
> > gravity. And like gravity,
> > > this force is also undetectable. Force is Newton's
> > explanation for change,
> > > but to any counter-example we choose to offer,
> > Newton simply proposes a new
> > > force that is equally unidentifiable or provable.
> > This circularity might
> > > appear a weakness, but the great strength of his
> > theory was precisely that
> > > it could not be disproved. It is a circularity
> > which ensures a solid core
> > > from which to build a system of closures. Where
> > the theory proved useful, it
> > > could be applied. And where it was not, a complex
> > amalgam of other forces
> > > could be envisaged to explain its failure. So
> > gradually the web of
> > > explanation and closure grew. Over time, Newton's
> > framework enabled others
> > > to extend and develop the system of closure until
> > today we have the vast
> > > network of closures that make up the contemporary
> > scientific
> === message truncated ===
>