NOVA (TV)
Definitions
Ostensibly NOVA is a TV series about scientific
presentations employing TV auditory-visual effects as the principal medium,
which are commonly broadcast by pbs.org either through TV channels or through
streaming internet.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/
It is easy to mistake scientific presentation and science as
being the same thing. They are not the
same. What is science?
Dimensionality
and Sensation
All human investigation is supposed to enter the mind
through sensory gates of which there are exactly five: hearing, sight, smell,
taste, touch. These sensate observations
are thought to be limited to three Cartesian dimensions and time. Such rules of observation are not necessarily
true. Already, in science we are
confronted with ideas that cannot be described in terms of dimensions and time. The idea of moments (torque, twisting)
requires additional constrains: so instead of three dimensions, scientists
begin to think in terms of six degrees of freedom and time, rather than in
terms of three dimensions and time. The
new vector space is now six dimensional.[1] In order to cope with a mathematics of first
moments, we define them in terms of cross products[2] so that they can be
thought of as vectors that happen to align with some original three dimensional
Cartesian vector space, but we have really discovered three new dimensions; as
well as a seventh dimension that is beyond our understanding.
In the field of statistics it is not difficult to encounter
problems that might have an infinite vector space: practically we must limit
the number of vectors under consideration, because we can only juggle so much
at one time. I’ve occasionally played
with vector spaces as large as forty-one: but this becomes difficult to manage;
vector spaces of 25 are not uncommon.
This is not new. Such mathematics
finds its historic roots in the Latin Square.
Nuclear physics also considers additional dimensions. The idea of an Einsteinian alternate reality
is not some science-fiction mythology of a parallel universe or parallel
universes. Rather, it is the idea of unknown
and unidentified dimensions where the forces that obviously exist in Cartesian
space, may exert unknown influences in other dimensions: they might bleed
through. This is not so important to me
and you. Yet, it is important to those
struggling with the implications of General Relativity. It is also important to those working at CERN
in search of the Higgs or currently in search of micro-black holes.
The field of spirituality also requires the consideration of
additional dimension(s). The Spirit
bears witness with my spirit.[3] Obviously, many who call themselves
Christians do not really believe in such an alternate heavenly reality, a
spiritual reality. This is a serious
contradiction, so that such people are not really Christians, except in name
only. For such people, spiritualty is
limited to Cartesian dimensions, and is nothing more than a grand expression of
moral ideals, which is devoid of any rational reason for the existence of such
high moral ideals. One who does not
believe in God, good or evil, heaven or hell, angels and demons, spiritual
warfare, satanic attack, or demonic influence is simply not thinking Biblically
or Christianly. On the other hand,
genuine spirituality is filled with ideas requiring additional dimensions: the
eyes and ears of faith; spiritual hearing, sight, visions, dreams. Yet, such experiences are so universal, why
are we doubting their scientific existence, rather than investigating the
possibility of real causes?[4] We don’t doubt our physical senses that
way. Why do we doubt the existence of
spiritual hearing, sight, smell, taste, and touch? Why do we doubt the existence of an alternate
coexistent reality in other dimensions?
Or even without dimensions or time?
What kind of science begins with the elimination of evidence?
From square one, the Bible speaks of an alternate, yet
tangent spiritual reality. Genesis 1:2 —
The Spirit of God hovered over the surface of the waters.
Genesis 1:26-27 —
And God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness….” So God created man in His own image, in the
image of God He created him; male and female He created them [both with the
image of God].
Since God is a Spirit, then His image and likeness in me
must have a spiritual or immaterial aspect or component. Indeed, God claims such a reality in Genesis
2:7 —
And the Lord God formed
man from the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the spirit of
life; and man became a living soul.
It is tempting to equate the “the spirit of
life” with nothing more than the blood-oxygen system. If I should breathe into another’s nostrils,
the other’s lungs will fill with air and nothing else need happen at all. If I breathe into the nostrils of a clay
figure, nothing ever happens. Yet, when
God breathes, more takes place, life happens.
Thus we believe that human beings have a dual aspect to their nature:
partly physical, and partly spiritual; the two aspects together making up the
whole or the soul.[5] Additional evidence is found in Matthew 26:41
—
The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.
John 4:24 —
God is a Spirit: and those who worship Him must worship Him in
spirit and in truth.
Romans 8:16 —
The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit, that we are the
children of God.
Galatians 5:17 —
For the flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the
flesh. These are contrary to each other:
so that you cannot do whatever you will.
The Bible is so filled with this emphasis on otherworldly,
spiritual dimensions or dimensionlessness:
eternity, infinity, ubiquity; that if we allow analysis after this emphasis is
removed, we have destroyed half of the evidence, and the Bible itself cannot
any longer make sense. Yet, this is
exactly the approach of The Bible’s Buried Secrets and it is
taken in the false name of science, pseudo-science. Real science never throws evidence away. So The Bible’s Buried Secrets
is built upon error[6]
from square one. Archaeologists do not
have the scientific right to pick and choose what evidence they like or don’t
like. Scientists must always deal with
the evidence that is set before them.
Scientific
Method
We digress. What is
science? Science is the rigorous use of
the Scientific Method. All human
endeavor begins with observation, but not all observation is science. Each individual field of observation has its
own definitions, rules for formulating new definitions, as well as its own
tests of truth. For example: neither
logic nor mathematics need or depend on science in any way. Even so, science is highly dependent on both
logic and mathematics. Scientific
observation comes with its own set of definitions and truth tests, commonly
known as the scientific method.
Observations in a philosophical vacuum do not a science make. Yes, science begins with observations, but
that is not its distinctive beginning.
The first baby step of science is abduction or induction
(definitely not deduction). Abduction is
guessing. Induction is educated
guessing. Science begins with the idea,
the confidence, the faith that one’s observations have coherent meaning. We wonder what such a meaning might be. If we have already developed some conclusive
experience with these observations we may be able to form educated
guesses. Otherwise we start with silly
wild blind guesses, shots in the dark.
The second baby step of science is to state these guesses
formally in a null hypothesis, which we now set out to disprove; and/or an
alternate hypothesis for which we hope to find some probability of success. The ensuing steps include experimental
design, apparatus design, experimentation, experiment repetition and
replication, tentative conclusions, peer review, conclusions, all of which must
take place before we have any science.
Even with all this rigor, many scientific errors and biases leak through
the scientific screening, vetting system.
Scientists themselves are plagued with personal biases and assumptions,
which are difficult to expunge from the mind.
Bacon is neither the first nor the last to observe and express such
human frailty openly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baconian_method#Idols_of_the_mind_.28idola_mentis.29
In any case, in spite of the excellent presentation, no
matter how well intentioned the purpose and scope, it is important to recognize
that NOVA is not science. You are free
to examine the discussion above to find a few of the reasons why NOVA is not
and can never become science.
Statistics
There are errors associated with the applied mathematics,
the statistics employed in The Bible’s Buried Secrets. Since statistics, characteristically, are not
completely reported, we are left with a wide latitude for deception. Not long ago the only statistic commonly reported
was the mean or average. Mean by itself
is a meaningless statistic. To start
with, the mean is only one of several indicators of central tendency, but it
may not be the best one to apply: for example the ever popular mean, median,
and mode; as well as several others.
Mean can be made more meaningful by reporting the standard
deviation or error which is one of several ways to indicate dispersion.
The actual number for dispersion reported by NOVA in The
Bible’s Buried Secrets is Margin of Error. What does Margin of Error mean? Since NOVA does not state the confidence
being used, we must suppose that the commonly accepted use of 95% is
intended. This equates to 4 times or ± 2 times the standard
error of the mean. Standard error of the
mean is also discussed in the article on standard error. Standard error is a characteristic of the
population and identical to standard deviation: it describes the population
dispersion. Standard error of the mean,
on the other hand, is, as it says, a characteristic of the mean: it describes
mean drift. SEM = SD / √n.
To get an even better picture we would need to construct a
good-old-fashioned histogram which will give us a visual picture of the data
shape. This requires that we get our greasy
mitts on the actual data.
If we were to collect and evaluate one hundred pieces of
data for mean and standard distribution (σ) and we happened to know that the data were shaped
like a Gaussian sample we would be confident that 95% of the samples would be
found within ± 2 * σ from
the mean. But if the distribution took
some other shape, as many statistics do, we would have no such confidence. Moreover, the statement of such a statistic indicates
that we have at least 5% of the population about which we know absolutely
nothing: when the distribution is not Gaussian our knowledge deteriorates
rapidly, we cannot make predictions of any kind, and the sum of our knowledge
is limited to the original data. So much
for the behavior of individual pieces of data.
Now we will abandon the discussion of individuals.
The Law
of Large Numbers (LLN) and the Central Limit Theorem (CLT) guarantee to us that
the statistics calculated from any data set: such as both mean and standard
deviation will follow a Gaussian distribution, no matter what the original
shape of the individual data looked like.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_limit_theorem
So if
our original hypothetical data set had a mean of 3000 and a σ or SD of 10,
without much more specific information we would know nothing about the
individuals, but we would be very confident that the average was 3000; that the
SEM was 1; that the Margin of Error at 95% confidence was ± 2. What does this show? It shows that we are 95% sure that the mean
falls between 2998 and 3002. It also shows
that there is a 5% chance that we haven’t got much of a clue. Of course we can continue to crank up our
confidence level: but after our error risk reaches parts per billion, what’s
the point, we’ll never find our error anyway.
Okay,
what does this demonstrate in common language?
It demonstrates that we are 95% sure that we know where the herd is
going; but we have a little doubt about that: even so, the odds are pretty good
that we know where the herd is going (20:1).
It’s a good bet; it’s a safe bet; but it’s never a guaranteed bet, a
sure thing. On the other hand, we know
absolutely nothing about the individual cows.
Any cow can wander out of the herd at any moment in any direction; or
startle the herd, break down the whole statistic and cause a stampede. Which is why herds require herders. The strange anomalies need to be
controlled. Herding consists of hours
upon hours of boredom interspersed with an occasional stray, and a few seconds
of stark terror.
This is
why, when you turn on the faucet, you are reasonably confident about the
direction the water is going; but you cannot explain at all how a single
individual drop, coming from the same stream of flow, could possibly go in the
opposite direction, and hit you in the face.
However, it most certainly did: you felt it and you know it happened,
you know that this is reality.
Most of
the dating systems which we will discuss behave in such a statistical
fashion. This is as true of 14C
dating as it is of pottery dating; and even to some extent of epigraphic
dating. We can predict the behavior of
large groups, but we can never be sure of the behavior of individuals.
Uncertainty
Principle
Werner Heisenberg,
first put his statement of the Uncertainty Principle as it relates to quantum
mechanics into words around 1927.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
It was not that
the idea of error was new, but our concepts of error were rather naïve and
simplistic. By 1913 all of that
changed. Ernest Rutherford (1817-1937)
proposed that Hans Geiger (1882-1945) and Ernest Marsden (1889-1970) conduct
experiments, firing alpha particles at thin gold foil. The results were both spectacular and
unexpected. Atomic theory was born.[7] Michelson and Morley had measured the speed
of light and that would be further perfected.[8] Our understanding of the reality of the
universe was changed forever. Einstein’s
theories would be proposed.[9]
Among the
mysteries that Heisenberg proposed to us is that we don’t know where fast
moving objects, such as electrons, really are.
In a world of binary logic they can be at 0 or at 1; at both places at
the same time, or at neither place. If
there is a probability that an electron is confined to a particular region;
there is also a corresponding probability that it is not there. I’m prone to the idea that we don’t really
understand what an electron is. We don’t
understand light either: so we are compelled to describe it in terms of two
conflicting theories at the same time: namely corpuscular theory and wave
theory. This sort of discussion
eventually led to the idea of alternate realities, the Higgs quest, and now,
the search for micro-black holes.
Since Heisenberg has introduced the idea that we must change everything
we believe about molecular structure, measurements, statistics, and dimensionality;
it seems absurd that a few archaeologists should be allowed to propound
theories that openly dodge such issues.
Heisenberg opens a door that we are unable to close. We are not only uncertain about the
measurement of momentum and position at the same time; we are virtually
uncertain about pretty much everything we know by observation. The attempt to analyze artifacts statistically,
and use those statistics to overstate conclusions must cease. The temptation to delete or destroy evidence
we don’t like must be stopped. We must
learn to proceed with greater humility.
This is especially true as we consider any theory of archaeological
dating.
[1]
Actually, the new vector space is seven dimensional, but we don’t understand
the meaning of the seventh dimension; I am not aware of a single math,
engineering, or science textbook even discussing it. The topic comes up in advanced applied
statistics. In aircraft or other
vehicles these are called thrust, lift, slip, pitch, roll, and yaw: there is no
definition, meaning, or name associated with the seventh degree of freedom or
dimension.
[2]
Vector products, as distinct from scalar or dot products. The behavior of vectors and scalars is widely
different: even when they look similar numerically.
[3] Matthew
28:19; Romans 8:16; 1 John 4:1; Revelation 22:17
[4]
No, I’m not advocating for any of the practices of clairaudience, clairvoyance, extrasensory
perception, magic, mindreading, paranormal activity, precognition and retrocognition, psychic
phenomenon, telekinesis, telepathy, or anything else of the sort. I am simply claiming that God maintains a
continuous conversation with some of mankind through spiritual gifts (1
Corinthians chapters 12-14), which operate far above and beyond ordinary human
talent; among which are secondary prophetic abilities, which enable us to
understand, interpret, and explain Scripture.
Moreover, God has opened this conversation so that any and all who
sincerely seek it may join in it (Luke 11:13).
In rare cases God has given primary prophetic abilities, which are
necessary for the writing of Scripture.
So Moses is a prophet in the primary sense; while I am only a prophet in
the secondary sense, because I have some small ability to understand Scripture. That being said, such a gift did not come
because of anything about my brain which might be considered unusual, the gift
came from God the Father, through God the Holy Ghost.
[5]
Not the Greek idea of a duality of nature in which the spirit is imprisoned in
the body and must fight its way free: through Epicureanism or Stoicism, and the
like. Rather a single nature with dual
aspects. The words soul and spirit may
be used interchangeable, so this can be confusing. We have retained Genesis 2:7 as our
definition.
[6]
This kind of error is commonly known as presuppositional error. In the vernacular it may also be termed “a
hip-pocket veto,” tampering with evidence, fraud, lying, and the like.
[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%e2%80%93Marsden_experiment
[8] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity
[10] If
you have been blessed or helped by any of these meditations, please repost,
share, or use any of them as you wish.
No rights are reserved. They are
designed and intended for your free participation. They were freely received, and are freely
given. No other permission is required
for their use.
