Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

BiSci > Test 1 > Flashcards

Test 1 Flashcards

0
Q

Sagan

A

“Sci method is universally applicable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
1
Q

Logical positivism

A

Sci is only meaningful dialogue; all else is pseudo truth. Ex Carl Sagan

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Monod

A

Chance is only source of novelty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Neoorthodoxy

A

Barth, etc.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Critical realism

A

If both sci and r make claims to a transcendent truth, there must be a compromise

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Linguistic analysis

A

Is non-realist way of ascribing r and sci to different uses of language

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

“Similar data, deal with unpicturable reality”

A

Kuhn and Polayni’s methodological parallels between r and sci

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Swinburne

A

Natural theology; God is plausible and nature supports it

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Peacocke

A

God created through the processes of the world

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Teilhard de Chardin

A

Omega point

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Hexahemeron

A

Creation is the point to the early church, but churches like Alexandria were allegorical while Antioch was literal. Auggie’s idea of successive creation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Augustine

A

Biblical truth has primacy over sci
Epistemic humility with interpretation
Science as aiding witness(HGL)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Popper

A

Falsification theory (to distinguish sci from pseudo science like Freud and Marx)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Bacon

A

No preconceptions and as objective as possible

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Goodstein’s amalgam of Kuhn, Bacon, and Popper

A

Bacons honesty
Poppers rivalry
Kuhns gestalt shift
+Peer review

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Plate tectonics as paradigm shift

A

Answer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Barr, TAquinas, Davis

A

An eternal universe gives no telos according to Davis and no conclusion according to Aquinas

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Slipher

A

1925 receding galaxies

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Hubble and Humeson

A

1929 distance and speed much greater than what Slipher thought; Hubble’s Law=speed increases in proportion to distance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Penzias/Wilson

A

1965 background cosmic radiation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Alpher and Herman

A

1948 made theoretical predictions of Penzias and Wilsons discoveries

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Friedman and Lemaitre

A

1924 used relativity to support an expanding universe; postulated a Beginning

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Nerst and Eddington

A

Felt a finite universe destroyed basis of sci

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Steady State Theory

A

The universe had always expanded and created matter to support density

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Homogeneity

A

At a given time, density, T, curvature are about equal

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Isotropy

A

The universe looks the same in any direction

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Theoreticians who tackled problems of paradigm application

A

Gauss, Euler, Lagrange, Hertz

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Is it easier for a historian to find the paradigm or find the rules that govern a paradigm?

A

House rules in Monopoly–finding rules requires abstraction of paradigm. Finding paradigm is easier

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Kuhn’s reasons for paradigm governing without rules?

A

Difficulty in discovering rules
The methodological initiation in scientific education
Rules aren’t relevant without a paradigm(like pre-paradigm method)
Paradigms can be applicable (and change!) locally, while rules must be applied to Science holistically

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Scirev

A

Noncumulative episode when a paradigm is replaced in whole or in part by an incompatible new one

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Scientists from competing paradigms can/can’t argue on which levels?

A

Their paradigms are partially exclusive; they also are slightly polarized. Paradigms are usually tautological in self-fulfillment. Additionally, no paradigm is perfect and no two paradigms solve the exact same problems, so scientists must decide which worldview to adopt

31
Q

“Scientific texts disguise not only the role but the very existence of the scientific revolution that preceded them”

A

Sci texts try to convey sci vocab in contemporary language. They only convey outcome of rev in a cumulative manner. Texts are pedagogic vehicles for normal science

32
Q

Ways that paradigms win converts

A

Solving the problem that created the crisis (Kepler and calendar)
Predicts new phenomena (Copernicus and the phases of Venus)
Aesthetics
Faith that the new P is the way forward
Men commit to the new P and strengthen it (plate tectonics)

33
Q

5 primary arguments for young earth

A
  1. Yom is 24h
  2. One yom always is 24h, and one yom is genesis
  3. Evening and morning implies a day
  4. “let there be light to separate days” is same structure as “days” of creation.
  5. God tells Jews to imitate him with a literal sabbath. Exodus 20
34
Q

Supporting evidence for young earth

A
  1. Scriptural primacy over science, and ex nihilio over all other interps
  2. God only acts supernaturally in the bible
  3. God creates everything vegetarian (gen )
  4. Science isn’t unanimous on Bang, radiometric dating. + ρ is wrong.
35
Q

Objections to young earth and the responses of its proponents

A
  1. “Sun didn’t exist until d4.” Well, there was still evening and morning.
  2. “d7 is still in progress=rest of God.” Well Hebrews doesn’t say that literally, and Jesus says God is still at work.
  3. “D6 is too busy with animal naming.” Well, Adam was unfallen, and maybe that bit wasn’t literal after all
  4. “God is deceptive since earth looks aged.” Well, that sci is wrong, and God made creation fully formed anyways.
36
Q

Main arguments for day-age?

A

Yom is epoch elsewhere in OT
24h day creates problems like light š light-bearers, d5 and d6, which are impossible on a literalists hermeneutic
Gods day is not a human d like in Peter
Scripture celebrates the antiquity of Earth

37
Q

Supporting arguments for day-age

A

Consistency and truthfulness of God
Witness of the church; reconciliation of church and sci gives cred
Sci supports it (2 books)

38
Q

Objections to day age and responses

A

“1 “Yom” always is 24h.” Well, it’s not a rule, and Gen 1 is exceptional anyways
“‘Evening and morning’ implies 24h.” But there’s no sun!
“There’s a Hebrew word for epoch that isn’t yom.” Well, we don’t know that Biblical Hebrew had that.
“Death entered the world with Adam (Romans 5:12).” Well, animals did come before humans, death may be spiritual death, and it contradicts sci
“D7=sabbath day.” Well, they also had sabbath years and jubilee

39
Q

Main biblical arguments for restoration view (gap theory)

A
  1. Tohu and bohu always refer to something corrupted, but God created good.
  2. “The deep” is Mesopotamian evil, therefore original creation went bad and was judged
  3. Scripture says a lot about pre creation conflict between God and demons
  4. God doesn’t “create”, he “makes”as in out of existing stuff
  5. Human dominion implies evil resistance
40
Q

Supporting arguments for restoration theory

A

1 combined young and old earth views

2 explains prehumanoid suffering and death through Adam. Since creation had demons

41
Q

Objections and responses to restoration view

A

“Unorthodox.” Well, there is no orthodox
“Based on circumstantial inferences.” Well, so is all scriptural exegesis
“Hebrew create=make.” Well, this change between words is in the same verse
“Restoration implies a poor initial creation.” Well, the “God saw that it was good” only applies to the latter creation.
“Inconsistent with fossils if ‘bohu’ first.” Well, sci recognizes that catastrophes happened

42
Q

Biblical evidence for literary framework

A

Willis’ chart. The literary structure of Genesis 1 shows it to be polemic of how Yahweh’s creation solved problems
The thematic intent of Genesis 1 should be valued above the historical narrative which the author did not intend.

43
Q

Additional evidence for literary framework

A

Near Eastern background, like Enûma Eliš, and author’s likely familiarity
Theology of Genesis 1 is polemic against eastern cosmologies: Yahweh created alone, ex nihilio
Framework avoids weaknesses of literalism
Easily reconciled with science regardless of the paradigm

44
Q

Criticisms and responses of literary framework

A

“It’s liberal.” Well, it’s actually a hermeneutic that tries to be true to the text.
“Overstates parallels with eastern myths.” Well, of course differences between the texts are expected.
“Yom is always literal.” Not in all eastern cosmologies, and literalism is too problematic.
“False antithesis between history and literature.” Do you want conflict?! Framework avoids conflict of literalism.
“If Genesis 1 isn’t literal then the sabbath loses its holiness.” The literal day is not the point of God’s sabbath.

45
Q

Where and in what context are days of creation in OT?

A

Gen 1,2; exodus 20

46
Q

Josephus’ approach to creation?

Philo’s “ “ “?

A

J: literal
P: time began with creation; has tension between 6 days or instantaneous. Allegorical interpretation

47
Q

Epistle of Barnabus about Ps. 90:4 and how his view was used by thinkers like Irenaeus

A

Since “1d=1000y to God”, creation happened in 6k years, which places second coming far in future. Heretics used d for own purposes. I used epistle to support recapitulation

48
Q

How did Celcus attack literal 7d? How did Origen respond?

A

C: “God was creating during days before time existed!”
O: “history took place in appearance but not literally”

49
Q

How did Auggie deal with instantaneous and 6d creation?

A

Successive creation; literal, allegorical, and spiritual meanings of Scripture. Successive=God created form and time all at once, then 6d for substance.

50
Q

Basil’s attitude to exegesis in Gen 1? His interp?

A

Away from allegory; literal only(as opposed to A). Dismissed biblical metaphor as only the object it describes (like “the deep”). Extremely literal Gen 1 interp–God is source of light until d4, not luminaries…

51
Q

Ambrose and Chrysostom’s views on Creation?

A

Ambrose: literal, d1 is “one day” rather than “first day” because God’s work is ongoing
Chrysostom: sun d4 because “God is source of light; sun!=god” as polemic, very mouth-of-God literal

52
Q

3 rabbinic interpretations of Genesis 1:

A

1: evening and morning refer to time’s eternal ness
2: gen 1:5 “one day” implies God created and destroyed worlds before this one
3: “like fig-gathering”: d1 was primary creation; d2-d6 were setting in place

53
Q

Rabbis Rashi and Maimonedes on creation:

A

Rashi: d1 was all creation; view 3 of rabbis
Maimonedes: time was created; successive creation

54
Q

Calvin on creation

A

Literal, no successive creation, corroborated by using Exodus 20

55
Q

3 ways of explaining design-like complexity:

A 
Chance
Laws of nature (it's the way it is; symmetric structure)
Natural selection (chance+nature)
56
Q

What have materialists missed, according to Barr, when they imagine life from non-life spontaneously?

A

Order always comes from deeper levels of order. Barr uses the marble example(tilt box)

57
Q

Four steps in dethroning man

A

Heliocentrism
Evolution
Psychology
Deep time

58
Q

Strong nuclear force anthropic coincidence(AC)

A

If 10% less, couldn’t bond deuterium

If 4% more, creates diprotons and dineutrons which make stars burn too quickly to support evolution

59
Q

Carbon formation AC

A

3 alpha particles(He-4) make C-14. This should make C-14 ultra rare but C-14 resonates enough to accelerate process but not enough to make O-16

60
Q

Proton stability AC

A

If protons were not stable H wouldn’t exist(therefore no water, Suns, etc)

61
Q

Electromagnetic force AC

A

If the repulsion between subatomic particles were greater then there would be too few elements to compose the human body

62
Q

Value of v AC

A

Vacuum expectation value of Higgs field. If it were greater deuterium wouldn’t exist or maybe even no neutrons

63
Q

Λ AC

A

Is currently 10^-120. If it were less than 0 then the universe would exist for a Planck time, but if positive the universe would expand so quickly it would rip us apart

64
Q

Flatness of space AC

A

If universe is not relatively flat then universe wouldn’t have lasted 15 billion years for evolution

65
Q

Number of dimensions AC

A

Hidden dimensions notwithstanding, 2D or 1D would make brains impossible (Ē), with nD fundamental forces will diminish(nuke force, G)

66
Q

Quantum nature of the world AC

A

If atoms were classical and unmoving (unlike Heisenberg uncertainty) then universe would have infinite density

67
Q

Necessity of Ē as AC

A

Seemingly arbitrary but hugely important for the atom and chemistry

68
Q

Necessity of matter AC

A

If no matter, it is implausible that life would form (even though a lack of matter is mathematically consistent)

69
Q

3 objections to design through anthropic coincidences

A

The requirements for life are unknown
Conventional scientific proof may exist
Would Physics work any other way?=God had no choice because Physics

70
Q

The requirements for life are unknown

Objection to AC

A

Fair enough, but AC makes materialism less probable. Some AC is very precise (Λ), and other life-forms are equally implausible without the initial AC

71
Q

Conventional sci may explain AC

Objection 2

A

That doesn’t mean it’s no longer an AC! There’s still AC even if superstring unified all theories.
(If sci=atheistic sci, then this is really Objection 3)

72
Q

We don’t know if we can test AC reasoning since Physics are immutable

Objection 3

A

We don’t know if this is how Physics had to be. God could have chosen some unified theory besides superstring and it’d be okay.

73
Q

Weak Anthropic Principle

A

Either
Many universes exist and therefore no surprise (many discrete books)
Many domains of our universe exist (pages of a single book)

74
Q

Problem with many-domain WAP

A

The fact that all the domains are unified by a single law is itself evidence for Design on an even grander scale. If there are infinite values of Λ in different domains, it would be a special universe indeed that unified those values with a single Law.

75
Q

Problem with only a few infinite universes:

A

Who chose which ones existed? (A God, perhaps?) atheists can’t have some infinity without all infinity.

76
Q

Problem with ALL universes existing?

A

Violates philosophical principle by saying that anything that is possible is actual.
This means even HP universes, SW, etc.
Also, why then is our universe perfectly lawful unless a choice was made?

BiSci (13 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions