Science and Politics

When ever science and politics interact more often than not science looses. Now not all interactions between science and government are negative but the overall affect on science is negative.

Politics is about acquiring and holding on to power and not knowledge. In fact politics often is destructive to knowledge since ignorant people are easier to control. Also politicians are often not really interested is the science but sending money to their districts. The biggest example of this is manned space flight which stagnated for 30 years under government control.

Even worst government often favors some lines of research over others in funding, education, and recognition. Government even favors one side in a scientific dispute over others. The best examples are in origins research and climate research.

Government can block lines of research from being perused. Now sometimes this legitimate such as preventing dangerous experimenting on humans, but other times it’s pandering to irrational fears such as those against nuclear power simply because some people can’t separate reactors from bombs. Giving in to this fear has hampered the development of nuclear power.

Government can hide lines of research which often happens with research conducted by the military. The reason given for this is national security and some time it is legitimate but other times it’s just an excuse. The worst examples of these are climate research and origins research because politics has played a major anti-scientific role in both areas.

In climate research global warming has been favored by progressive politicians who see it an excuse for increased government control. They have backed and promoted pro global warming claims over data to the contrary despite emails showing the hiding of climate data contrary to Global warming. This issue has become so politicized that finding the truth is hard because it is almost impossible to find an objective source on the topic.

In origins research only evolutionary research funded the government. Both Intelligent design and Creation Science gets no government funding, but they are forced to fund evolutionary research with their taxes. Intelligent design and Creation Science have been kept out of public schools on the claim that they are not science this has even been enforced by law suits when local politicians try to include them in public schools science class. There is nothing more anti-scientific than bringing law suits to settle scientific issues by having a judge (lawyer not a scientist) decree that the opposing views are not science. Regardless of your view on origins, this should disturb you. The fact is that science should NOT be determined by judicial decree such actions are fundamentally opposed to the entire idea of science as a pursuit of knowledge.

Philosophy of Science

Several claims are commonly made about science.

1. Scientists are unbiased observers.
2. Scientists use the scientific method to confirm or falsify their theories.
3. Scientists have no preconceptions in collecting data and deriving theories.
4. Science is self-correcting because scientists readily abandon theories, when they don’t fit the facts.  

While the claims are true to a point they are not entirely true.

The problem is that data by itself does not falsify or confirm theories.  The interpretation of data is actually somewhat subjective in practice because it is not self interpreting. It needs to be interpreted by way of a theoretical system. Also the scientific method is a generalization of how science is suppose to work it is not a fixed rule.

Scientists have sometimes shown tremendous loyalty to their theories. Finally a scientist’s theories are always influenced by philosophical assumptions.

Assumptions

Science requires starting assumptions because our knowledge is incomplete which is contrary to the myth of Scientists having no preconceptions. The results of scientific inquiry are greatly influenced by starting assumptions such that having the wrong starting assumptions results in wrong theories.

1. Some basic assumptions of science are as follows:
2. That the Universe can be understood.
3. That it is governed by certain rules.  - Laws of Nature.
4. That these laws apply everywhere.

While these are normally taken for granted they are assumptions

Demarcation

The real question of philosophy of Science is “What is science?”  This is not as easy a question to answer as it may seem because Science dose not fit easily into a box because it is simply impossible to draw a clear line between science and non-science because there is too much overlap between them.

The key concepts of Science are observation, falsification and repeatability. However even these are not absolute since not everything fits into them.  There are things in the universe that can not be seen such as atoms, subatomic particles, black holes. There are things that can not be tested such as an unbounded universe and the Cosmological Principle. Some things can not be repeated such as the origin of life, and the origin of the universe it self.

A big part of the problem is the desire of some scientists to eliminate from science areas of study they don’t like so the question of “What is science?” remains an open question.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics

 

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states the following:

• The entropy in a closed system always increases.
• The amount of unusable energy in a closed system increases.
• It is impossible to turn all of the heat put into a system into work so that you can’t make a 100% efficient engine.

The 2^nd law of Thermodynamics is based on the fact that heat will only spontaneously flow from a hot object to a colder object but it never will spontaneously flow from a cold object to  a hot object.

Whenever heat is used to do work a potion of the heat always goes to the colder location. This wasted heat is called entropy. Simply put you can never turn all of the heat into work and percentage of the heat converted in to work it the engines efficiency.  

Now applying work to a system can forced heat to go from a cold object to a hot object, which also reduces entropy, this shows that work can reduce entropy. This process is the basic theory behind air conditioners, refrigerators, and heat pumps.

Entropy is the measure of a system's thermal energy unavailable for conversion into mechanical work. It is also a measure of the equivalent states or multiplicity of a system and there by a measure of the disorder or randomness in a system.

In Classical Thermodynamics entropy is mathematically defined as dS = dQ/T.

These results in the change in entropy as: DS = Q/T.

• S = entropy
• Q = Heat energy
• T = Temperature

In statically thermodynamics entropy is mathematically defined as S = k ln W.

This results in the change in entropy as: DS = k ln W₂ / W_1.

•  S = entropy
•  k = Boltzmann constant
•  W = the multiplicity of a system.

Entropy and Disorder

The relationship between entropy and disorder is shpwn through the multiplicity of a system which is denoted by W. The multiplicity of disordered states (W_d) is many orders of magnitude grester than the multiplicity of ordered states (W_o) such that W_d >> W_o  this means they S_d >> S_o.

Since 2nd Law of Thermodynamics shows entropy tends to increase it also shows that the degree of disorder of a systems tends to increases. The only way to increase a system’s order; decreasing entropy; is for work to be performed on the system.

Abiogenesis and 2nd Law

The spontaneous process of life forming from non life by naturalistic means is called Abiogenesis. Now living things are the most ordered and complex systems that are known to exist, In fact even the simplest known living cell is infinitely more organized and complex than the most organized non-living chemical systems known to exist.

As a result the entropy of a living cell is many orders of magnitude lower than the entropy of the same amount non-living chemicals. This means that for abiogenesis to occur it must go against the 2nd law’s tendency towards increasing entropy.

Now it is true that entropy can be decreased by work being performed on a system but there is no evidence for a naturalistic mechanism performing the work needed for such a large decrease in entropy. Without this mechanism the 2nd law suggests that abiogenesis is impossible.

Applied Energy and 2nd Law

The 2nd Law Thermodynamics does indeed show that when energy is applied to a system it can reduce the system’s entropy. What it fails to show how the manner in which energy is applied affects entropy.  It does not show the deference between construction work and a bomb.

Construction work reduces a system’s entropy while bombs increase a system’s entropy.  Unfortunately the 2nd Law does not show the difference.  The result is that additional principle is needed to show this difference and this is also need to really determine if abiogenesis is possible or not.

The 1st Law of Thermodynamics

The 1st Law of thermodynamics can be stated as follows

1. The Law of Conservation of Energy.
2. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed but it can change forms..
3. Total amount of energy in a closed system remains constant.

The significance of this is that the total amount of energy in the Universe is constant. It is also impossible to get more energy out of a system than is put into it. You can’t get just energy from nothing it has to come from some place. Most often it is stored in the form of some type of fuel but regardless energy has to come from some source. 

The 1st Law of Thermodynamics tells us a lot about what systems are possible and what systems are impossible. Any system that puts out more energy than is put into it from any source is impossible. To be possible a system must it needs to get energy from some place, even if it is not obvious. This does not mean that you can’t get more energy out of a system tan you put into it but it has to come from someplace..

Free Energy is often associated with pseudo-science and conspiracy theories but it is a legitimate scientific term. In classical thermodynamics free energy is the energy in a system available to do work. However “free energy” refers to a group of devices alleged to put out more energy than the user supplies to them. Though I have never seen a convincing demonstration of a free energy device the question here is does free energy violate the 1st Law of thermodynamics? 

The answerer is no as long as the free energy device gets energy from some place. Now there are recognized devices that technically qualify as free energy they include solar cells which get their energy from sun light and wind mills that get their energy from wind. However most alleged free energy devices seek to tape the Universe’s zero point energy. Now it is highly debatable as to whether or not this zero point energy can be taped but in principle it does not violate the 1st law thermodynamics.   

In conclusion the 1st Law of thermodynamics simply says that the amount energy in a closed system remains constant.  This is regardless of how it is changed or is moved around. To add energy to a system it needs to come from some place else.

What Science Is

Ironically the biggest problem in science is defining science itself. This problem arises in part from an effort by some to limit the meaning of science in a manner that excludes lines of study and explanation that they specifically want to exclude. These areas of desired exclusion; include a form of Creationism and anything thing else involving God or the supernatural.

An objective definition of Science is:

• "Systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied."
• (Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language)

 Unfortunately many insist on only allowing naturalistic explanations for everything as a qualification of science. The problem is that this artificially limits science to what can be considered even if the truth is outside that cozy little box. Such a limit removes science from being a search for truth and turns it into an atheistic propaganda machine. This is why there is so much conflict between science and religion.