Joseph Smith and the Plurality of Worlds

I'm currently reading The Science of Liberty, by Timothy Ferris, the thesis of which is that science was the driving force behind the Enlightenment and the formation of liberal democracies. A few days ago I came across a passage that fits perfectly in the series of posts I've been doing on prophets and science. The context is the early life of Thomas Paine and his interest in science. He attended lectures by two science popularizers and purchased from one of them a set of globes. (Other items for sale included telescopes, microscopes, etc.)

Displaying a pair of globes--one celestial, the other terrestrial--in your home signified that you were up on the latest scientific developments and knew about "the plurality of worlds," the theory that the earth was just one among many inhabited planets.

This is followed by a few passages from Paine's The Age of Reason asserting that the universe is filled with inhabited worlds. This pamphlet was published a decade before Joseph Smith was born, and Paine's purchase of the globes was more than half a century before Joseph would write the words "worlds without number have I created" and "were it possible that man could number the particles of the earth, yea, millions of earths like this, it would not be a beginning to the number of thy creations," in his revision of Genesis that we call the Book of Moses. It turns out that the concept of the plurality of worlds was not uncommon in the writings of thinkers in the century preceding Joseph. Deist critics of religion such as Thomas Paine used it to ridicule Christianity, while defenders invoked it as evidence of God's majesty.

That Joseph was not alone in contemplating a universe filled with inhabited worlds is lightly touched on in the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry for "Worlds."

Joseph Smith's version of pluralism shared some similarities with ideas of his religious contemporaries and of modern science....Like contemporary pluralists, Joseph Smith's system implied innumerable stellar systems with inhabited planets.

The correspondence between Joseph's revelations and the surrounding culture on this point has not gone unnoticed, with critics charging that Joseph's revelations were little more than re-packaging of ideas accessible to him, and defenders emphasizing differences in content or use.

I don't want to belabor the point, so I will quickly highlight Erich Robert Paul's 1986 Dialogue article, "Joseph Smith and the Plurality of Worlds Idea" [PDF]. This article, which is also cited in the EoM article, provides historical background on the concept and places Joseph's revelations in that larger context.

Finally, I should point out that, strictly speaking, from a scientific point of view the question of whether life forms--especially intelligent ones--inhabit other planets in this universe is still open, since none have yet been discovered and good arguments can be made both for and against the proposition.

---

Continue reading...

Lehi's Inner Logic

We were discussing the parable of the good Samaritan in priesthood meeting recently. As usually happens, we were looking at the various elements of the story and suggesting meanings and applications. In the course of discussing why the priest and Levite passed by the injured man one of the brethren, apparently in an instinctive attempt to deflect judgment upon the priest and Levite, said, "We don't know the whole story." This surprised me because, I thought to myself, we actually do know the whole story. It was a fictional parable meant to answer the question, "And who is my neighbor?" There is no more story. In fairness I should mention that the same person later made the same point about the purpose of the parable, perhaps realizing the strangeness of his earlier statement.

It occured to me that the statement, "We don't know the whole story," is a simple example of just how easily we can slip into the world of fiction and treat it as if it were reality. For at least a moment the priest and the Levite were real people to this brother, and he felt that we were not in a position to judge them with the little information at hand. We do this all the time when discussing books or movies with a good story as we explore character motivation and wonder why certain choices were made or words said. We think of how we would act under similar circumstances. We feel empathy or compassion for some characters and disdain for others. We wonder why a character insists on doing dumb things. We talk about how elements of the story fit with one another.

At this point I could pivot and discuss how scriptural stories can have meaning whether or not they are historical. Of course they can, but that's not quite the direction I'm going. Instead let's change levels and ask whether prophets do the same thing. I have in mind Lehi's blessing of Jacob in 2 Nephi chapter 2. Much of what Lehi says in that chapter, particularly about Adam and Eve, is bracketed by the issues of freedom of choice and the consequences thereof. In other words, Lehi goes on a long digression about choice and roots it in the garden of Eden. The usual way of reading this passage is just to assume that Lehi, as a prophet, was an authority on what happened in the garden of Eden. But what if Lehi was simply doing what humans so often do: exploring the inner logic of a story?

For example, Lehi says that if Adam and Eve had not transgressed "they would have had no children." Other than the fact that in the accounts of Adam and Eve they are not said to have had children until after their expulsion from the garden, to my knowledge Lehi stands alone in the scriptures in saying that Adam's fall was necessary for children. This has spawned a lot of LDS commentary about the nature of their bodies while in the garden, with assertions that not only would they not have had children (as Lehi says), but that they could not have children.

But there is another way to look at this. Adam and Eve were said to have been naked but not ashamed; they were innocent. There is an easy comparison to be made between Adam and Eve and children who have no comprehension of adult sexuality. Perhaps Lehi drew the conclusion that Adam and Eve simply would not have had children, not because they couldn't, but because it wouldn't really occur to them. Or maybe Lehi's thoughts were more in line with the LDS interpretation suggested in the temple, that if Adam did not follow Eve, they would be separated and unable to have children. (Note that the passage of interest focuses on Adam only.)

Lehi's discourse has also served as key support for the teaching that there was no death on earth before the fall.

And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

But again, Lehi seems simply to be following the logic of the story in the context of opposites and choice. Without opposites there is no choice (or existence), and without choice there is no progress. Ergo, if Adam didn't make a choice, everything would stay the same.

Viewed this way, Lehi's discourse is not an authoritative exposition of the history of life on earth. Rather, it is a commentary that takes a highly figurative story (although Lehi may well have understood it literally) at face value and uses it as a way of illuminating the need to choose "the great Mediator of all men." This interpretation releases one from the need to reconcile Lehi's discourse with modern science.

Perhaps you have noticed that there is another layer to all of this in that I have been exploring the logic of the story of Lehi. I can't help it; I'm human.

---

Continue reading...

Joseph Smith as [Non-] Scientist

In 1908 soon-to-be Apostle John A. Widtsoe published his book, Joseph Smith as Scientist. Originally published as independent essays in the Improvement Era, the purpose of the book was to show that, "in 1833, or soon thereafter, the teachings of Joseph Smith, the Mormon Prophet, were in full harmony with the most advanced scientific thought of today, and that he anticipated the world of science in the statement of fundamental facts and theories of physics, chemistry, astronomy and biology."

I haven't read the whole book and a detailed discussion of its arguments are beyond the scope of this post. Briefly, although Widtsoe makes some of Joseph's teachings appear impressively on the mark, other reconciliations fall flat. This is particularly so when, for example, Widtsoe invokes the luminous ether, a concept that would be discarded within twenty years of the book's publication. (This example serves as a warning that reconciling science and religion can be a "dubious achievment.")

More interesting to me in the context of John Walton's statement that scripture does not provide new scientific perspectives are some of Widtsoe's introductory remarks, which would seem to undercut the thesis of the book. I find them to be striking--especially the last one--and I quote them below without further comment.

The mission of Joseph Smith was of a spiritual nature; and therefore, it is not to be expected that the discussion of scientific matters will be found in the Prophet's writings. The revelations given to the Prophet deal almost exclusively with the elucidation of so-called religious doctrines, and with such difficulties as arose from time to time in the organization of the Church. It is only, as it appears to us, in an incidental way that other matters, not strictly of a religious nature, are mentioned in the revelations.

While on the one hand, therefore, it cannot reasonably be expected that Joseph Smith should deal in his writings with any subject peculiar to natural science, yet, on the other hand, it should not surprise any student to find that the Prophet at times considered matters that do not come under the ordinary definition of religion, especially if they in any way may be connected with the laws of religion. Statements of scientific detail should not be looked for in Joseph Smith's writings, though these are not wholly wanting; but rather, we should expect to find general views of the relations of the forces of the universe.

It is not in harmony with the Gospel spirit that God, except in special cases, should reveal things that man by the aid of his natural powers may gain for himself....Such a doctrine makes it unreasonable to look to the Prophet's work for a gratuitous mass of scientific or other details, which will relieve man of the labor of searching out for himself nature's laws. So well established is this principle that in all probability many of the deepest truths contained in the writings of Joseph Smith will not be clearly understood, even by his followers, until, by the laborious methods of mortality, the same truths are established.

---

Continue reading...

Obama's Birth and the Falsification Gods we Worship

This is not about politics. He that hath an ear, let him hear.

The release of Barack Obama's long-form certificate will likely settle the question of his birthplace for most people. However, I want to point out that the matter has not been settled with a high level of scientific certainty. This is because the hypothesis that Obama was born in the U.S. is not falsifiable. He could have been born in Kenya, or anywhere else, but because of poor record keeping we don't have any way to know.

True, the birth certificate is strong evidence and the newspaper announcement of his birth is also significant. However, the newspaper announcement was not a prediction of the hypothesis, and if it had not been discovered, it would not have altered support for the hypothesis. People would simply have made excuses for the lack of corroborating evidence.

Instead of simply looking for evidence that confirms their hypothesis, Obamists should carry out a rigorous test that can address both possibilities. Obama's deceased mother needs to give birth to him again under public observation. Only in this way can we truly know which country he is born in.

In the meantime we should not condemn Obamists. Given the evidence at hand, theirs is the most strongly supported scientific hypothesis. It's ultimate worth, however, will be determined by whether they carry out a definitive test and what its results are. Birtherism is a perfectly rational and philosphically legitimate position to take, and the longer Obamists choose to simply assert their dominance rather than carrying out a definitive test, the more apparent it will be that the emperor has no citizenship.

---

Continue reading...

Smoking Guns

I finally finished reading Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk by Massimo Pigliucci. Pigliucci is an evolutionary biologist turned philosopher of science who is one of the main participants in the fine podcast Rationally Speaking. It turns out that science and bunk cannot be distinguished by hard and fast rules, but there are some guidelines. Along the way he examines examples of controversial science, clear pseudoscience, and other auxiliary phenomena such as the rise of think tanks and postmodern critiques of science.

The second chapter deals with the notion that there are so-called 'hard' sciences (e.g. physics) and 'soft' sciences (e.g. sociology). Physics, with its exactness and predictive power, is often held up as the ideal to which all other sciences should aspire. However, Pigliucci argues that the sciences are heterogeneous because they deal with different problems of different complexity, and that their methods reflect those differences. In this view, physics is not somehow better than, say, biology, it's just different.

Early in the chapter he discusses the concept of strong inference. This is where a crucial experiment can be used to rule out one or more mutually exclusive hypotheses. Essentially you set up a situation where either X or Y is true, and then perform an experiment to unambiguously rule one of them out. This kind of approach can work well in physics. However, although it is a very logical way to proceed, not all scientific questions are amenable to this method because of the complexity of the subject matter and because not all answers are black and white. (For example, you might find that many people with a disease show improvement with a particular drug. It's not a cure vs. no cure, nobody vs. everybody dichotomy.)

He then goes on to discuss historical sciences (e.g. geology, paleontology) which are sometimes maligned as having untestable theories. In this view, experimental findings are privileged above all else, and since you cannot perform experiments with past occurrences, those occurrences must remain unverifiable. (This is a common argument made by creationists seeking to cast doubt on evolution or anything else that contradicts their interpretation of the Bible). However, as Pigliucci points out, science is about more than doing experiments (e.g. astronomy), and drawing on work by Carol E. Cleland he argues that historical hypotheses can indeed be verified with a high degree of certainty. It's worth spending a moment on this.

A difference between historical and experimental sciences is captured in the philosophical (and certainly philosophical-sounding) term, asymmetry of overdetermination. This term simply refers to the difference in our ability to know cause and effect when looking into the future vs. the past. Cleland uses the example of a house fire: someone investigating a house fire may be able to determine that it was caused by a short circuit. This is because of all of the clues left behind after the event. However, that knowledge does not translate into the ability to predict whether a particular future short circuit will result in a fire. Similarly, police investigating a crime often have many clues with which to reconstruct what happened, but they cannot predict how and when a future crime might occur. On the other hand (my own interpretation), an instructor at a fire fighting school might be able to arrange things such that a short circuit reliably causes a fire, but this is because the instructor has eliminated variables that might prevent the fire from starting and constrained conditions to give a reliable result.

Historical sciences rely on the fact that historical occurrences leave behind many clues, only a few of which may be needed in order to establish the reality of the occurrence. Scientists in this mode of investigation look for 'smoking guns' from which they can infer what happened. Experimentalists, on the other hand, seek to limit variables that might interfere with the experiment in question--trying to eliminate false negatives and false positives. These constrained conditions allow them to make more precise predictions and measurements, but that precision can quickly disappear in a more complex context. It's also worth pointing out that these two approaches can be employed together such that they inform one another.

Cleland summarizes:

When it comes to testing hypotheses, historical science is not inferior to classical experimental science. Traditional accounts of the scientific method cannot be used to support the superiority of experimental work. Furthermore, the differences in methodology that actually do exist between historical and experimental science are keyed to an objective and pervasive feature of nature, the asymmetry of overdetermination. Insofar as each practice selectively exploits the differing information that nature puts at its disposal, there are no grounds for claiming that the hypotheses of one are more securely established by evidence than are those of the other.

---

Further reading:

Cleland, Carol E. (2001). "Historical science, experimental science, and the scientific method," Geology 29, pp. 987-990.

---

Continue reading...

Well, I'll Be Darned

The first I ever heard of Richard Sherlock, a professor of philosophy at Utah State University, was when I purchased the book, The Search for Harmony: Essays on Science and Mormonism. His historical chapters treating the spectrum of reactions to evolution and the B.H. Roberts/Joseph Fielding Smith/James E. Talmage argument were among the best of the book. Later I was a little disappointed when he defended intelligent design in the FARMS Review, which I took issue with on this blog. I was also a little disappointed when, in his founding essay for Square Two, he came out strongly against embryonic stem cell research. "Well," I thought, "I guess we disagree on some things, but those evolution essays were great." Meanwhile I saw his name pop up here and there, such as at FAIR, etc.

Now I see that Sherlock has converted to Catholicism. Another curve ball in life, I guess. I hope he finds fulfillment in his choice, but for not otherwise knowing him from Adam, I have to admit that I'm a little disappointed.

So once again, I guess we disagree on some things. But those evolution essays were great.

---

Continue reading...

If I Had a Side Blog

1. A fitting summary of Glenn Beck's time at Fox News.

A low-lights reel of Beck’s worst moments on Fox would take hours to watch, but it would offer a useful seminar on the politics of incitement and near-mainstreaming of conspiracy theories in the Obama era. A talented broadcaster, Beck used his perch to echo old narratives straight out of the paranoid style in American politics—sinister plots to impose one-world government, the intentional subversion of the Constitution, the oppression of the faithful at the hands of a secular socialist elite hell-bent on replacing the American experiment with tyranny. “The Glenn Beck Show” is the closest the John Birch Society has ever come to having their own national program, reaching millions and poisoning political debate in the process.

2. When ground-breaking scientists go bad: Lynn Margulis edition.

3. Tennessee leads the nation in trying to get creationism back into schools. Texas and Florida follow close behind.

4. A skeptic of climate science finds that the experts may have been right all along; tells Congress.

5. Food for thought: "The rise of the Tea Party and its anti-intellectual, anti-establishment, anti-elite worldview has brought both a mainstreaming and a radicalization of antiscientific thought."

6. If you like popping zits, you'll love this. [Not for the easily disgusted.]

---

Continue reading...

Peak Oil

I've been casually reading a little bit about the issue of 'peak oil'. It seems like this topic doesn't get much attention--or as much as it, perhaps, deserves. The general concept is pretty simple: The easy sources of oil have mostly been found and the rate of their discovery is declining. When a new oil field is discovered and developed, the rate of oil production increases from zero to a certain point where oil cannot be extracted any faster. And then the rate of production begins to fall. You haven't run out of oil, but you can't produce it as quickly any more.

Here's a little analogy that helps me to think about this. Imagine a towel soaked with water. As you begin to wring it out, the water flows increasingly fast until it pours out at a maximum rate, then begins to decline. You rest a moment, and then try again. A lot of water comes out, but not as quickly as before, and each subsequent attempt yields less and less. Your rate of water production from the towel has peaked, and although you can continue producing water, the rate of production is diminishing.

This basic scenario applies on a global scale. When you aggregate all global oil fields together and consider that the rate of discovery of easy sources is declining, you are set up for the worldwide rate of production to peak, and then decline. This is a problem if demand for oil continues to increase, as it is expected to as the world population increases by billions and India and China become more prosperous, because supply will not be able to keep up with demand.

The main tricky part is uncertainty of timing because there usually isn't much warning that an oil field's peak is coming, so you don't know that you've hit the peak until after you've already passed it, and the same applies on a global scale. Although it remains uncertain, a lot of forecasters see the world hitting peak oil within the next 20-30 years. The rate of oil production in the continental U.S. peaked in the 1970s, and in the U.K. it peaked in 1999. A news article in the March 25 issue of Science opens with this:

Five years ago, many oil experts saw trouble looming. In 10 years or so, they said, oil producers outside the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) would likely be unable to pump oil any faster and OPEC would gain an even stronger hand among the world's oil producers. Five years on, it appears those experts may have been unduly optimistic—non-OPEC oil production may have been peaking as they spoke. Despite a near tripling of world oil prices, non-OPEC production, which accounts for 60% of world output, hasn't increased significantly since 2004. And many of those same experts, as well as some major oil companies, don't see it increasing again—ever.

Those major oil companies include Shell and ExxonMobil. In fact a graphic from the article (shown below) comes from an ExxonMobil energy outlook report.



Now for a little perspective. How much of the world's produced oil does the U.S. use? Answer: about 22%, with a little over half of that coming from imports, as shown in this graph [source]:



At this point you might think (aside from, "Hey, that looks like Pac-Man!"), "Well, we better pull out all the stops and drill everywhere we can in the U.S." Aside from the negative side-effects such an approach might have, there is one little problem which is illustrated with this graph:



As you can see, U.S. oil reserves are diddly-squat compared to the rest of the world--about 1.4% [source]. Here is another way to look at it [source]. (Click for large):




This, then, is what it means to say that we cannot drill our way out of the problem of oil dependence.

---

Further Reading:

For more, see the Hirsch Report, published in 2005 at the request of the Department of Energy. The summary version [PDF] is quite readable.

---

Continue reading...