Before Anything Else

8/12/2019 Before Anything Else

1/212

"Before anything else, we need a new age of Enlightenment."

- Friedrich Durrenmatt

"I think we ought to have another go at the Enlightenment and use that as a

common goal to ex lain and understand ourselves, to take that self-understanding which we so sorely lack as a foundation for what we do in themoral and olitical realm. !his is a wonderful exercise."

- E. . #ilson


2/212

Scientists score one more victory over uncertainty in quantumphysics measurements

$ichael %ha man, a rofessor in the &chool of 'hysics at (eorgia !ech, oseswith o tical e)ui ment in his la*oratory. %ha man+s research team isex loring s)uee ed states using atoms of Bose-Einstein condensates.%redit (ary $eek/

'hys rg.com/ -- $ost eo le attem t to reduce the little uncertainties of life*y carrying um*rellas on cloudy days, urchasing automo*ile insurance orhiring ins ectors to evaluate homes they might consider urchasing. Forscientists, reducing uncertainty is a no less im ortant goal, though in theweird realm of )uantum hysics, the term has a more s eci0c meaning.

For scientists working in )uantum hysics , the 1eisen*erg 2ncertainty'rinci le says that measurements of ro erties such as the momentum of ano*3ect and its exact osition cannot *e simultaneously s eci0ed withar*itrary accuracy . 4s a result, there must *e some uncertainty in either theexact osition of the o*3ect, or its exact momentum. !he amount of uncertainty can *e determined, and is often re resented gra hically *y acircle showing the area within which the measurement actually lies.

ver the ast few decades, scientists have learned to cheat a *it on the2ncertainty 'rinci le through a rocess called "s)uee ing," which has thee5ect of changing how the uncertainty is shown gra hically. %hanging thecircle to an elli se and ultimately to almost a line allows one com onent of the com lementary measurements 6 the momentum or the osition, in thecase of an o*3ect 6 to *e s eci0ed more recisely than would otherwise *eossi*le. !he actual area of uncertainty remains unchanged, *ut is

re resented *y a di5erent sha e that serves to im rove accuracy inmeasuring one ro erty.

!his s)uee ing has *een done in measuring ro erties of hotons andatoms, and can *e im ortant to certain highrecision measurements needed*y atomic clocks and the magnetometers used to create magnetic resonanceimaging views of structures dee inside the *ody. For the military, s)uee ing
http://phys.org/tags/quantum+physics/http://phys.org/tags/heisenberg+uncertainty+principle/http://phys.org/tags/heisenberg+uncertainty+principle/http://phys.org/tags/measurements/http://phys.org/tags/accuracy/http://phys.org/tags/heisenberg+uncertainty+principle/http://phys.org/tags/heisenberg+uncertainty+principle/http://phys.org/tags/measurements/http://phys.org/tags/accuracy/http://phys.org/tags/quantum+physics/


3/212

more accuracy could im rove the detection of enemy su*marines attem tingto hide underwater or im rove the accuracy of atom-*ased inertial guidanceinstruments.

7ow hysicists at the (eorgia Institute of !echnology have added another

measurement to the list of those that can *e s)uee ed. In a a er a earingonline Fe*ruary 89 in the 3ournal Nature Physics , they re ort s)uee ing aro erty called the nematic tensor, which is used to descri*e the ru*idiumatoms in Bose-Einstein condensates, a uni)ue form of matter in which allatoms have the same )uantum state. !he research was s onsored *y the7ational &cience Foundation 7&F/.

"#hat is new a*out our work is that we have ro*a*ly achieved the highestlevel of atom s)uee ing re orted so far, and the more s)uee ing you get, the*etter," said $ichael %ha man, a rofessor in (eorgia !ech:s &chool of 'hysics. "#e are also s)uee ing something other than what eo le have

s)uee ed *efore."

&cientists have *een s)uee ing the s in states of atoms for ;< years, *utonly for atoms that have 3ust two relevant )uantum states 6 known as s in =systems. In collections of those atoms, the s in states of the individualatoms can *e added together to get a collective angular momentum thatdescri*es the entire system of atoms.

In the Bose-Einstein condensate atoms *eing studied *y %ha man:s grou ,the atoms have three )uantum states, and their collective s in totals ero 6not very hel ful for descri*ing systems. &o %ha man and graduate students

%hris 1amley, %orey (erving, !hai 1oang and Eva Book3ans learned tos)uee e a more com lex measure that descri*es their system of s in ;atoms nematic tensor, also known as )uadru ole.

7ematicity is a measure of alignment that is im ortant in descri*ing li)uidcrystals, exotic magnetic materials and some high tem eraturesu erconductors.

"#e don:t have a s in vector ointing in a articular direction, *ut there isstill some residual information in where this collection of atoms is ointing,"%ha man ex lained. "!hat next higher-order descri tion is the )uadru ole,or nematic tensor. &)uee ing this actually works )uite well, and we get alarge degree of im rovement, so we think it is relatively romising."

Ex erimentally, the s)uee ing is created *y entangling some of the atoms,which takes away their inde endence. %ha man:s grou accom lishes this*y colliding atoms in their ensem*le of some >?,??? ru*idium atoms.
http://phys.org/tags/scientists/http://phys.org/tags/momentum/http://phys.org/tags/scientists/http://phys.org/tags/momentum/


4/212

"4fter they collide, the state of one atom is connected to that of the otheratom, so they have *een entangled in that way," he said. "!his entanglementcreates the s)uee ing."

@educing uncertainty in measuring atoms could have im ortant im lications

for recise magnetic measurements. !he next ste will *e to determineex erimentally if the techni)ue can im rove the measurement of magnetic0eld, which could have im ortant a lications.

"In rinci le, this should *e a straightforward ex eriment, *ut it turns outthat the *iggest challenge is that magnetic 0elds in the la*oratory Auctuatedue to environmental factors such as the e5ects of devices such as com utermonitors," %ha man said. "If we had a noiseless la*oratory, we couldmeasure the magnetic 0eld *oth with and without s)uee ed states todemonstrate the enhanced recision. But in our current la* environment, ourmeasurements would *e a5ected *y outside noise, not the limitations of the

atomic sensors we are using."

!he new s)uee ed ro erty could also have a lication to )uantuminformation systems, which can store information in the s in of atoms andtheir nematic tensor.

"!here are a lot of things you can do with )uantum entanglement, andim roving the accuracy of measurements is one of them," %ha man added."#e still have to o*ey 1eisen*erg:s 2ncertainty 'rinci le, *ut we do have thea*ility to mani ulate it."
http://phys.org/tags/atoms/http://phys.org/tags/atoms/


5/212

Are you certain, Mr. Heisenberg? New measurements deepenunderstanding of quantum uncertainty

Jan !, "# "

1eisen*erg:s 2ncertainty rinci le is argua*ly one of the most famousfoundations of )uantum hysics. It says that not all ro erties of a )uantumarticle can *e measured with unlimited accuracy. 2ntil now, this has often*een 3usti0ed *y the notion that every measurement necessarily has todistur* the )uantum article, which distorts the results of any furthermeasurements. !his, however, turns out to *e an oversim li0cation. Inneutron ex eriments carried out *y rofessor u3i 1asegawa and his team atCienna 2niversity of !echnology, di5erent sources of )uantum uncertaintycan now *e distinguished, validating theoretical results *y colla*orators from

a an. !he inAuence of the measurement on the )uantum system is notalways the reason for uncertainty. 1eisen*erg:s arguments for theuncertainty rinci le have to *e revisited 6 the uncertainty rinci le itself however remains valid. !he results have now *een u*lished in the 3ournalNature Physics .

It is well esta*lished that some hysical )uantities cannot *e measured atthe same time. !he )uestion is, how this fact should *e inter reted."1eisen*erg:s famous thought ex eriment a*out using light light -rays/ to

measure the osition of an electron is still )uoted today", says ac)uelineErhart from the Institute for 4tomic and &u*atomic 'hysics at the Cienna2niversity of !echnology. !o measure the osition of a article with highrecision, light with a very short wavelength and therefore high energy/ hasto *e used. !his results in momentum *eing transferred to the article 6 thearticle is kicked *y the light. !herefore, 1eisen*erg argued, it is im ossi*leto measure *oth osition and momentum accurately. !he same is true for


6/212

other airs of hysical )uantities. 1eisen*erg *elieved that in these cases,an error in one measurement leads to an inevita*le distur*ance of the othermeasurement. !he roduct of error and distur*ance, 1eisen*erg claimed,cannot *e smaller than an a certain threshold.

1owever, the e5ect of the measurement on the )uantum system and theresulting distur*ance of the second measurement is not the core of thero*lem. "&uch distur*ances are also resent in classical hysics 6 they arenot necessarily linked to )uantum hysics ", &te han & onar Cienna 2!/ex lains. !he uncertainty is rooted in the )uantum nature of the article.uantum articles cannot *e descri*ed like a oint-like o*3ect with a well-de0ned velocity. Instead, )uantum articles *ehave as a wave 6 and for awave, osition and momentum cannot *e de0ned accurately at the sametime. ne could say that the article itself does not even "know" whereexactly it is and how fast it travels 6 regardless of the article *eingmeasured or not.

"In order to descri*e the fundamental uncertainty and the additionaldistur*ance due to the measuring rocess, *oth article and measurementdevice have to *e treated in the framework of )uantum theory", says (eorg&ulyok Cienna 2!/. !his was done *y the a anese hysicist rofessor$asanao awa in 8??G, leading to a generali ed uncertainty rinci le . 1ise)uations contain di5erent "kinds of uncertainty" n the one hand theuncertainty which comes from the measurement, as it distur*s the articlethis is the uncertainty descri*ed in 1eisen*erg:s thought ex eriment of theosition-momentum-measurement/, on the other hand the e)uations containthe fundamental )uantum uncertainty, which is resent in any )uantumsystem, regardless of the measurement.

4 so histicated ex erimental design now made it ossi*le to study thesecontri*ution to uncertainty at the Cienna 2niversity of !echnology. Instead of a article:s osition and momentum, the s in of neutrons was measured. !hes in in x-direction and the s in in y-direction cannot *e measuredsimultaneously, they ful0ll the uncertainty relation, in much the same way asosition and momentum. #ith magnetic 0elds, the neutron s ins were

rotated into the right direction, then the s ins were measured in twoconsecutive ex eriments. %arrying out a large num*er of measurements withsmall, well-de0ned changes in the measurement a aratus, the hysicistscould study the inter lay *etween di5erent sources of uncertainty.

"!he smaller the error in one measurement, the larger the distur*ance of theother 6 this rule still holds. But the roduct of error and distur*ance can *e
http://phys.org/tags/quantum+system/http://phys.org/tags/quantum+physics/http://phys.org/tags/uncertainty+principle/http://phys.org/tags/measurements/http://phys.org/tags/quantum+system/http://phys.org/tags/quantum+physics/http://phys.org/tags/uncertainty+principle/http://phys.org/tags/measurements/


7/212

made ar*itrarily small 6 even smaller than 1eisen*erg:s original formulationof the uncertainty rinci le would allow", says rofessor u3i 1asegawa.

But even if two measurements hardly inAuence each other )uantum hysicsremains "uncertain". "!he uncertainty rinci le is of course still true", the

researchers con0rm. "But the uncertainty does not always come from thedistur*ing inAuence of the measurement, *ut from the )uantum nature of the article itself."

Atom and its quantum mirror image

Apr #$, "# %y &'orian Aigner


8/212

!owards the mirror or away from the mirror 'hysicists create atoms in)uantum su er osition states.

4 team of hysicists ex erimentally roduces )uantum-su er ositions,sim ly using a mirror.

&tanding in front of a mirror, we can easily tell a art ourselves from our

mirror image. !he mirror does not a5ect our motion in any way. For )uantumarticles , this is much more com licated. In a s ectacular ex eriment in thela*s of the 1eidel*erg 2niversity, a grou of hysicists from 1eidel*erg2nversity, together with colleagues at !2 $unich and !2 Cienna extended agedankenex eriment *y Einstein and managed to *lur the distinction*etween a article and its mirror image. !he results of this ex eriment havenow *een u*lished in the 3ournal Nature Physics .

(mitted )ight, *ecoi'ing Atom

#hen an atom emits light i.e. a hoton/ into a articular direction, it recoilsin the o osite direction. If the hoton is measured, the motion of the atomis known too. !he scientists laced atoms very closely to a mirror. In thiscase, there are two ossi*le aths for any hoton travelling to the o*serverit could have *een emitted directly into the direction of the o*server, or itcould have travelled into the o osite direction and then *een reAected inthe mirror. If there is no way of distinguishing *etween these two scenarios,
http://phys.org/tags/particles/http://phys.org/tags/nature+physics/http://phys.org/tags/atoms/http://phys.org/tags/particles/http://phys.org/tags/nature+physics/http://phys.org/tags/atoms/


9/212

the motion of the atom is not determined, the atom moves in a su er ositionof *oth aths.

HIf the distance *etween the atom and the mirror is very small, it ishysically im ossi*le to distinguish *etween these two aths, iri !omkovic,

'hD student at 1eidel*erg ex lains. !he article and its mirror image cannot*e clearly se arated any more. !he atom moves towards the mirror andaway from the mirror at the same time. !his may sound aradoxical and it iscertainly im ossi*le in classical hyiscs for macrosco ic o*3ects, *ut in)uantum hysics, such su er ositions are a well-known henomenon. H!hisuncertainty a*out the state of the atom does not mean that themeasurement lacks recision , Jrg &chmiedmayer !2 Cienna/ em hasi es.HIt is a fundamental ro erty of )uantum hysics !he article is in *oth of the two ossi*le states simultaneousely, it is in a su er osition. In theex eriment the two motional states of the atom 6 one moving towards themirror and the other moving away from the mirror 6 are then com*ined using

Bragg di5raction from a grating made of laser light. *serving interference itcan *e directly shown that the atom has indeed *een traveling *oth aths atonce.

+n i-erent aths at the Same /ime

!his is reminiscent of the famous dou*le-slit ex eriment, in which a articlehits a late with two slits and asses through *oth slits simultaneously, dueto its wave-like )uantum mechanical ro erties. Einstein already discussedthat this can only *e ossi*le if there is no way to determine which ath the

article actually chose, not even recise measurements of any tiny recoil of the dou*le slit late itself. 4s soon as there even a theoretically ossi*le wayof determining the ath of the article, the )uantum su er osition *reaksdown. HIn our case, the hotons lay a role similar to the dou*le slit , $arkus*erthaler 1eidel*erg 2niversity/ ex lains. HIf the light can, in rinci le, tellus a*out the motion of the atom, then the motion is unam*iguouslydetermined. nly when it is fundamentally undecida*le, the atom can *e in asu er osition state, com*ining *oth ossi*ilities. 4nd this fundamentalundecida*ility is guaranteed *y the mirror which takes u the hotonmomentum.

0uantum (-ect 1 2sing +n'y a Mirror

'ro*ing under which conditions such )uantum-su er ositions can *e createdhas *ecome very im ortant in )uantum hysics . Jrg &chmiedmayer and$arkus *ertaler came u with the idea for this ex eriment already a fewyears ago. H!he fascinating thing a*out this ex eriment , the scientists say,His the ossi*ility of creating a )uantum su er osition state, using only amirror, without any external 0elds. In a very sim le and natural way the
http://phys.org/tags/quantum+physics/http://phys.org/tags/superposition/http://phys.org/tags/quantum+physics/http://phys.org/tags/superposition/


10/212

distinction *etween the article and its mirror image *ecomes *lurred,without com licated o erations carried out *y the ex erimenter.

More accurate than Heisenberg a''ows? 2ncertainty in the presenceof a quantum memory

Ju' "!, "# #

uantum cry togra hy is the safest way to encry t data. It utili es the factthat transmitted information can only *e measured with a strictly limiteddegree of recision. &cientists at Kudwig-$aximilians-2niversity in $unichand E!1 Lurich have now discovered how the use of a )uantum memory

a5ects this uncertainty.

4 )uantum article is hard to gras , *ecause one cannot determine all itsro erties recisely at the same time. $easurements of certain arameterairs such as osition and momentum remain inaccurate to a degree given*y 1eisen*erg:s 2ncertainty 'rinci le. !his is im ortant for the security of )uantum cry togra hy , where information is transmitted in the form of )uantum states such as the olari ation of articles of light.

4 grou of scientists from K$2 and the E!1 in Lurich, including 'rofessor

$atthias %hristandl, has now shown that osition and momentum can *eredicted more recisely than 1eisen*erg:s 2ncertainty 'rinci le would leadone to ex ect, if the reci ient makes use of a )uantum memory that em loysions or atoms. !he results show that the magnitude of the uncertaintyde ends on the degree of correlation " entanglement "/ *etween the)uantum memory and the )uantum article. "!he result not only enhancesour understanding of )uantum memories, it also rovides us with a methodfor determining the degree of correlation *etween two )uantum articles",says %hristandl. "$oreover, the e5ect we have o*served could yield a means

of testing the security of )uantum cry togra hic systems." Nature Physicsonline, uly 8


11/212

su er osition states is what makes )uantum com uters otentially soowerful. "!he goal of our research is to work out how )uantum memories,i.e. memory systems for )u*its, might *e utili ed in the future and how theya5ect the transmission of )uantum *its", ex lains %hristandl, who left K$2$unich in une 8?;? to take u a osition in the Institute of !heoretical

'hysics at the E!1 in Lurich.1eisen*erg:s 2ncertainty 'rinci le lays a central role in )uantumcom uting, *ecause it sets a fundamental limit to the accuracy with which a)uantum state can *e determined. uantum mechanics also tells us that themeasurement of a arameter can itself ertur* the state of a article. If, forexam le, one were to measure the osition of a article with in0niterecision, the article:s momentum would *ecome com letely uncertain.uantum cry togra hy uses this e5ect to encry t data, for instance *yentangling two )uantum articles in a way that the ro*a*ility with whichthe measurement of one article yields a certain value de ends on the state

of the other article. Eavesdro ing can thus easily *e uncovered, *ecauseany measurement will change the state of the article measured.

!he teams at K$2 and the E!1 Lurich have now shown that the result of ameasurement on a )uantum article can *e redicted with greater accuracyif information a*out the article is availa*le in a )uantum memory. 4toms orions can form the *asis for such a )uantum memory. !he researchers have,for the 0rst time, derived a formula for 1eisen*erg:s 'rinci le, which takesaccount of the e5ect of a )uantum memory. In the case of so-calledentangled articles, whose states are very highly correlated i.e. to a degreethat is greater than that allowed *y the laws of classical hysics/, the

uncertainty can disa ear. 4ccording to %hristandl, this can *e roughlyunderstood as follows " ne might say that the disorder or uncertainty in thestate of a article de ends on the information stored in the )uantummemory. Imagine having a ile of a ers on a ta*le. ften these will a earto *e com letely disordered -- exce t to the erson who ut them there inthe 0rst lace."

" ur results not only im rove our understanding of )uantum memories, theyalso give us a way of measuring entanglement", says %hristandl. "!he e5ectcould also hel us to test the security of )uantum cry togra hic systems."ne can icture the method as a game in which layer B transmits a articleto layer 4. 4 then erforms a measurement on the article, introducing anuncertainty. 4 su*se)uent measurement *y B will only yield the valuedetermined *y 4 with an uncertainty given *y 1eisen*erg:s 'rinci le. "But if B uses a )uantum memory ", says %hristandl, "he can determine the correctvalue and win the game."
http://phys.org/tags/uncertainty+principle/http://phys.org/tags/quantum+memory/http://phys.org/tags/uncertainty+principle/http://phys.org/tags/quantum+memory/


12/212

)a 'ace3s emon

!here was a french scientist, 'ierre-&imon Ka'lace, who once declared in athought ex eriment

"We may regard the present state of the universe as the e ect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment wouldknow all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movementsof the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom for suchan intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future !ust like the past would be present before its eyes."

!his was essentially saying that if a *eing knew to an in0nite degree theexact osition, velocity, mass etc. of all the articles in the universe at anysingle oint in time, then it would also *e a*le to work out completeknowledge of the ast and the future *ased on 7ewtonian laws of motion/.

!his was a retty *allsy thought ex eriment to make, since it re)uired there*e no free will in the universe. 4ccording to Ka'lace, you may think that youare free to make a choice, *ut your decision will have *een *ased u on yourast ex eriences, your current state of mind and other factors, which wouldmake it inevitable that you would make a certain decision in a givensituation. !his is the *ack*one of causal determinism .

It+s fascinating stu5, *ut was he right @ead on to 0nd out.1( D!1E&2&'E7&E.

1e wasn+tM (4&'/

uantum henomena have e5ectively given this thought ex eriment ashotgun mouthwash. It is not actually ossi*le to know a article+s ositionor momentum to an in0nite degree of accuracy due to the 1eisen*erg
http://biopsythismachine.tumblr.com/post/2489525861/laplaces-demonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_determinismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_Uncertainty_Principlehttp://biopsythismachine.tumblr.com/post/2489525861/laplaces-demonhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_determinismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heisenberg_Uncertainty_Principle


13/212


14/212

;. !he 4merican 'sychological 4ssociation 4'4/ did not issue a ositionin su ort of science in the classroom in the recent Dover, 1 schoolcase. !he case involved the integrity of the school district:s sciencecurriculum for teaching of the science of evolutionary *iology, andagainst the introduction of faith-*ased retenses to science.

8. !he ascendancy of the 4ssociation for 'sychological &cience 4'&/ isdue, not in a small way, to the failure of mainstream sychology toem*race the mantel of science.

G. !he de facto secession of Division ;> from 4'4 and the creation aninde endent rofessional association, the &ociety for Industrial andrgani ational 'sychology &I '/.

Students today are not as 9 insert your own text : as when ; was a

student.

I *egan teaching sychological research methods at the undergraduate and

graduate levels after two careers in research sychology 6 one at IB$

%or oration, and another as a social science research consultant. !he new

mission I gave myself was the training of the next generation of research

sychologists. Cery )uickly, I fell in love with teaching, and I fell in love with

my students not ina ro riately, I might add./ For the father in me, it felt

like having my children *ack home again.

&o it is with some em*arrassment and guilt that I confess to entertaining thethought that my students didn:t know anything. I couldn:t *elieve they wereas ignorant as they a eared. Is it really true that students today are not asgood as students when I was an undergraduate

I mentioned this to a colleague and friend, more seasoned than I, who, )uitea while *efore I did, entered college teaching after a long and successfulcor orate career. In the 0rst semester of his new role as educator of theneonate rofessional, he came to the same conclusion as I. 1e com lained tohis wife that his students were ignorant of ractically everything thatmattered. !hey didn:t know a damn thing. !he light of ers ectivedescended u on him when she suggested he ut himself *ack in time towhen he was an undergraduate. 1ow much did he know a*out anything thatmattered 1e came to the conclusion that he had *een e)ually ignorant. 1edidn:t know a damn thing either at that age. I considered myself lucky thathe assed on his wisdom to me at the time that I could *est ro0t from it.


15/212

I *ecame comforta*le with the fact that my students were as smart as I was

at their age, if not a lot smarter. If they were ignorant a*out im ortant

matters in life and scienti0c sychology, then it was my 3o* to im art the

re)uisite knowledge and skills. !hey might not know a damn thing coming

into my classes, *ut they were sure as hell going to know a lot when they

went out. 4t the end of each semester, I would raise my students for the

0ne work they did. I told them, however, that I had one com laint a*out

them. !hey did not argue enough with their teachers, including me. I didn:t

want them to *e dis utatious for its own sake, rather I wanted them to

)uestion their own willing accession to :truth delivered *y the rofessor:, and

challenge ideas that didn:t make sense to them.

Academic sycho'ogy, /oday

2nfortunately, the new found a reciation for my students, and con0dence

in them were not matched in my rediscovery of academic sychology. In my

earlier H'sychological &cience articles , I descri*ed signi0cant shortcomings

in sychological test theory. !he ro*lems were as fundamental as they get

;. 4 hiloso hy of science that is founded on 'lato:s Ideal FormsQ8. @egarding mathematical constructs, like the normal curve, as if theywere derived from nature and actually re resented natureQ

G. Failing to see sychological test theory as a tautology and not a realscienti0c theoryQ

>. 4nd e)uating the high utility of statistical models to scienti0c evidenceof truth a*out nature.

!he three-fold sources of my disillusionment, the grating on my intellectual

nerves, and my u ity reactions are the many errors in some sychologicalresearch methods texts, my role as a reviewer of technical a ers for one of

my rofessional associations, and the indi5erence of some of my colleagues

in various institutions. For some colleagues, the indi5erence was so forced as

to thinly veil a seething hostility. n my art, as an exam le, I su ose it
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2009/08/psychological-science-the-non-theory-of-psychological-testing-part-3.htmlhttp://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2009/08/psychological-science-the-non-theory-of-psychological-testing-part-3.html


16/212

didn:t hel that I was )uick to descri*e a long used and treasured text as a

: iece of cra .:

Measurement

I remem*er, very well, my frustration with the undergraduate text I was

using. I didn:t like the exam les. !he *eginning of each cha ter seemed to

read well, *ut the later half seemed to dilute the earlier clarity and *ecame

confusing. &ome of the gra hics had style elements that, I thought, were

su osed to contri*ute something to conveying meaning. !hey didn:t. !hey

were gratuitous and distracting. !here were su*stantive errors throughout

the text, and statements *y the author that were 3ust wrong.

!he moment of truth came for me in the cha ter on measurement scales. I

told my students that my frustration level had reached the limit, and it was

no more $r. 7ice (uy when it came to the shortcomings of the text. In the

0ve rior cha ters we dealt with fundamental conce ts of science and

ex erimental design. In cha ter six we were getting down to the meat and

otatoes of all scienti0c research.

. #hat makes science di5erent from other a roaches to understanding

nature and ourselves

4. *servation and the recording of data.

. 4nd what is it a*out the recording of data from o*servation that allows

science to *e science

4. !he conce t of measurement.

4nd here is where the fun starts for scienti0c research.

But there was no fun in that cha ter on measurement. H!he mighty %asey

had struck out. I was mad as hell and I wasn:t going to take it anymore. !he


17/212

text *ook author ex ounded u on di5erent ty es of measurement scales,

and the use of fre)uency distri*utions, ercentiles, measures of central

tendency, and standard scores. 7ever once did he *other to de0ne the

conce t of $easurement. !here was no entry for $easurement in the *ook:s

glossary. &o what was a frustrated and im atient research methods teacher

su osed to do

/he Made'ine /heory of Measurement

It was at this oint that I 0rst develo ed my $adeline lecture on

$easurement. I o ened my lecture on cha ter six with the o ening stan a of

the classic illustrated children:s story, H$adeline, *y Kudwig Bemelmanns

"In an old house in 'aris

that was covered with vines

lived twelve little girls in two straight lines.

!hey *roke their *read

and *rushed their teeth and went to *ed.
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/.a/6a00d8341c562c53ef01287621e47f970c-popup


18/212

!hey left the house at half ast nine

in two straight lines in rain or shine

Rthe smallest one was $adeline."

!his wonderful children:s story ca tured the attention of any student, no

matter the circumstances of their u *ringing. 4lmost everyone could

associate to wonderful memories of *eing read the *ook as a child. But, my

use of the story:s o ening had more of a function than eliciting childhood

memories. I focused on the o ening lines, HIn an old house in 'aris that was

covered with vines... . I *egan the su*stantive art of the lecture *y saying

that in an old government *uilding in 'aris, a half do en levels *elow street

level, were a num*er of o*3ects that were guarded day and night, and stored

under strictly controlled conditions of tem erature and humidity. 4mong

those o*3ects was a latinum rod and a metal alloy s here. !he rod was the

universal standard of length for the meter. !he metal alloy s here was the

universal standard of weight for the kilogram. !hey were deemed universal

standards as a result of international treaties going *ack centuries,

rofessional associations, industry grou s, and standards committees thatwork through the 2nited 7ations.

$easurement is a com arison to a standard. #ithout this understanding,

there is no measurement. !his *egs the )uestions, as to how standards are

determined, and who or what makes the determination 7ot a few of my

students were mi5ed, initially, at the answer to the 0rst )uestion #e make

them u M 'art of my lecture discusses the 0rst erson to articulate the notion

of relativity. It was (alileo, and not Einstein. (alileo was the 0rst to articulate

the idea that there was no a*solute reference to osition and momentum.

'ick a oint of reference that makes sense, and you have a standard. !his

leads to some interesting exam les a*out settling on a standard for length

*ased u on the distance from the Sing:s nose to the ti of his longest 0nger


19/212

on an outstretched arm. I tell my students that if they and some of your

friends agree to use some ar*itrary determination of length, as an exam le,

then you have a standard. If lots of eo le agree to use your standard, then

you have a unit of measurement.

Finally, I make the oint in my lecture that standards do not last. !he old

house in 'aris, that is the de ository for many of the world:s standards for

measurement, will *ecome, someday, a reli)uary. Electronic and atomic level

standards are *eing develo ed and ado ted, and will render the old

standards o*solete.

(nter /he 9 a er *y &. &. &tevens, H n the

theory of scales of measurement. &cience, ;?G, 9UU-9V?. It reads

[M]easurement, in the broadest sense, is defned as the

assignment o numerals to objects or events according to

rules. !". #$$%

&tevens: de0nition of $easurement is totally useless. I could go even further.

It is one of the worst de0nitions I:ve ever seen. In common arlance, HIt

really sucksM 2 on closer scrutiny, it is not a de0nition of anything that hasvalue or utility for the social sciences. I can assign numerals to henomena

according to :rules: that have nothing to do with com arisons to standards.

!he result would *e a collection of assigned scores that are totally

meaningless for any measurement ur ose in sychological research.


20/212

For exam le, I a roach a erson on the street and ask if I may assign that

erson a num*er. (iven a ositive res onse, I ut my hand into a *ag full of

coins of di5erent monetary values 2. &. legal tender coinage/ and ull out a

single coin. I determine the face value of the coin and assign that numeral to

the individual. I ull out a nickel a 2.&. 0ve-cent iece/ and say, H ou are a

0ve. 4s I leave to a roach another erson on the street, my graduate

student assistant asks the individual to H... ick a num*er, any num*er,

*etween ; and ;?. !he icked num*er is recorded along with the coin

num*er. 4 0nal score a measurement/ is determined *y multi lying the coin

num*er *y the icked num*er. !he icked num*er was four. &o the 0nal

measurement value is 8? < x > W 8?./ es, this de0nition really sucksM

!he only way the &tevens de0nition could work, is if the :rules: involved a

com arison to a standard. I have seen a few authors who a ended the idea

of :a com arison to a standard: to the &tevens de0nition. #hen that

ha ens, the center iece of &tevens: de0nition, :rules:, *ecomes su erAuous.

!he de0nition reduces to, H...the assignment of numerals to o*3ects or events

according to...Oa com arison to a standard.P

$ost authors of technical a ers and *ooks, who cite the &tevens de0nition

of $easurement, do not reali e that this is not &tevens de0nition, at all. In

fact, there is some dou*t that he acce ts this as a de0nition of

$easurement, or, at the very least, does not acce t it as a good de0nition. !o

understand this you would have to go *ack to the work of the Ferguson

%ommittee, esta*lished *y the British 4ssociation for the 4dvancement of

&cience in ;TG8. !he ur ose of the committee was to determine whether or

not real scienti0c measurement was a ossi*ility for the sychologicalsciences. In other words Is sychology a real science or not !he Ferguson

%ommittee, dominated *y 7. @. %am *ell, an im ortant 0gure in the

hiloso hy of science for the hysical sciences, answered the )uestion with a

resounding, H7oM f course, the re ort ut its res onse in a highly technical


21/212

treatment, focusing on %am *ell:s theory of scienti0c measurement *ased

on hysical additivity, the structural additivity of the mathematician tto

1older, and, in my ersonal view, the fact that %am *ell would rather die

from eating *ad shell 0sh than recogni e sychology as a science.

&tevens: de0nition of $easurement was, as he states, a ara hrasing of

%am *ell:s de0nition, although he does not give us %am *ell:s de0nition

from the 0nal %ommittee re ort. In %am *ell:s view, measurement involved

the assignment of numerical values to henomenon according to scienti0c

laws. !his meant that sychologists had to conduct ex eriments to

demonstrate the ro erties of hysical and structural additivity in sycho-

hysical, sycho-social, and sychological measurement. 'hysical additivitywas akin to taking many one-foot rulers and laying them end-to-end along

side a much longer o*3ect to *e measured. 4dd u the num*er of rulers, and

you have a measure of the length of the o*3ect. &tructural additivity was a

set of mathematical axioms develo ed *y tto 1olding, and u*lished in

;T?;. !oday we see these axioms in our 0rst courses in alge*ra. For

exam le,

;. a is e)ual to * aW*/ or not e)ual a X *Q a Y */.8. For any lengths a and *, a Z * Y a.

G. rder of o eration doesn:t matter, a Z * W * Z a.

>. 4dditive relation is indi5erent for com ound o erations, a Z * Z c/ W a Z * / Z c.

&tevens ignored the re ort of the Ferguson %ommittee. In short, he

dismissed the matter entirely and felt that they sim ly got it wrong. 1e didnot *other to address the call for ex eriments that would address the issues

of additivity. It fell on later sychological researchers and statisticians, in the

;T9?s, to develo the mathematical roofs that scienti0c measurement was

clearly in the domain of sycho- hysical, sycho-social, and sychological

science.


22/212

Stevens= /heory of Measurement Numerica' Sca'es

&tevens went on to develo his theory of measurement scales, that is well

known to all students of sychological research methods. n this age is thegra hic of !a*le ; from his ;T>9 article. 1e asserted, correctly, that di5erent

ty es of measurement scales are derived from di5erent measurement

o erations that we use to roduce them. !his is of utmost im ortance to

sychological science *ecause, de ending u on the ty e of measurement

scale a researcher is using, di5erent decisions must *e made a*out how to

analy e the data. For exam le, you can:t com ute averages for nominal

measurement scales like religious a[liation. &u ose the numeral :;:re resents a &outhern Ba tist, :8: re resents a Len Buddhist, and :G:

re resents a &u0 $uslim. It is meaningless to com ute an average religious

a[liation score for a sam le of eo le for which you have data.


23/212

&tevens thought he was develo ing a theory of measurement that would

yield a de0nition of $easurement *ased u on the o erations re)uired to

roduce measurements. 1e was greatly inAuenced *y the conce t of

o erationalism in the work of fellow 1arvard faculty, 'ercy Bridgman, a 7o*el

Kaureate in 'hysics. In the end, he did no such thing. 4 close examination of

his ta*le shows that his theory of measurement is really a self-contained,

mathematical descri tion of the ro erties of di5erent numerical scales.

#hat he develo ed was a theory of numerical scales, not a theory and

de0nition of $easurement. 1e constrained himself to the con0nes of the

internal mathematics involved, and never ventured to examine the

relationshi of a fundamental or derived measure to a standard. 1e was

stuck on the fact that the di5ering o erations Odi5erent :rules:P that were

a lied, would im ute di5erent ro erties to the assigned numerals. 1e was

correct, as far as it went. But, we still don:t have a de0nition of

$easurement.

!hroughout &tevens: discussions of 7ominal, rdinal, Interval, and @atio

scales, $easurement as a com arison to a standard is im lied to the oint

that it almost 3um s out and *ites you on the nose. 1e was so focused on the

o erational as ects and internal mathematical ro erties of the resulting

scales, that he sim ly missed the essence of what he was talking a*out. 1e

couldn:t see the forest Othe conce t of $easurementP for the trees Othe scale

ro erties that are contingent on the o erations of measuringP. If he thought

it was too o*vious to mention, which I highly dou*t, then he should have said

it out loud. !he fact is that he already committed himself to a useless

de0nition of $easurement. &tevens redeemed himself, thankfully, *y giving

sychological and *ehavioral sciences an understanding of di5erent ty es of

numerical scales that serves us to this day.

Measurement is a comparison to a standard


24/212

E. K. !horndike, who *ridged the ;Tth and 8?th centuries, and his

contem oraries were keen on develo ing the scienti0c foundations of

sychological and the *ehavioral research. 1e was the 0rst sychologist to

attem t a codi0cation of the ro erties of scienti0c measurement in the

social sciences. !hough his e5ort fell short 6 he never ca tured the idea of

com arison to a standard, for exam le 6 it was an im etus for others who

followed, and who sought to elevate sychology to a science. #e are not

there, yet. But, we can get there if we get our fundamentals in order.

1ow have we come this far without a consensus for a good de0nition of

$easurement

Is it really true that so many of us haven:t a clue, that as a science, and

scientists, we are missing something very im ortant

n Part # of this article, will discuss the issues of $ncertainty, and

%eterminism in the science of psychology. think a good subtitle for Part #

might be& '(ow Psychologists )uote (eisenberg and %rive Physicists $p the

*riggin+ Wall -

hank you for reading. Please /0112N, P3A 42, /3 / 52, 4$PP03,

%2N0$N/2, A36$2, and %2*2N% as you are inclined to do. All of your

observations help me, enormously, in developing my ideas. +ll see you here

at 7)uarksdaily.com on 8anuary 7, #9:9. (appy (olidays and (appy New

;ear

'osted *y 7orman %osta at ;8 ?G 4$ \ 'ermalink

sycho'ogica' Science5 Measurement, 2ncertainty, and eterminism1 art "

*y 7orman %osta

/he 9Sad: Story So &ar
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2009/12/psychological-science-measurement-uncertainty-and-determinism-part-1.htmlhttp://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2009/12/psychological-science-measurement-uncertainty-and-determinism-part-1.html


25/212

Few ideas are as fundamental to sychological science, and all science, asthe conce t of measurement. &cience does not exist without measurement.

et, many sychologists who would identify themselves as scientists do notseem to understand the most fundamental de0nition of measurement$easurement is a com arison to a standard. !his does not s eak well for

those who are res onsi*le for scientists-in-the-making at the undergraduatelevel and es ecially at the graduate level.

&tandards of measurement are inventions of the human mind, they arear*itrary, and they re)uire only consensus and demonstrated utility. vertime, standards are im roved, changed, or even discarded. For exam le,standards of measuring time have evolved from naturalistic o*servation of the cycles of day and night, to using the oscillating ro erties of the cesiumatom. &tandards for measuring sychological de ression have evolved fromvague and general descri tions to a tallying of s eci0c *ehaviors that can *eo*served.

&cience is an a roach to understanding nature and ourselves that hasmethod and content. &cience as method is the systematic o*servation of henomena and the recording of data. #ithout measurement, there is norecording of data from o*servation. $easuring, com aring to a standard,takes lace on many levels from the most sim le to the very com lex. !hemost *asic com arison to a standard is determining that a henomenon isresent or not resent. ther com arisons allow us to determine similarity ordissimilarity. If a decision is made that something is dissimilar to a standard,then we might determine how dissimilar, and in what direction, like more orless. &cience as content is the organi ation of this information into a *ody of knowledge. For exam le, we have the science of metallurgy, the science of *iology, and the science of ver*al learning.

&o where is this academic exercise leading us I thought you would neverask. It is leading us to the next im ortant to ic associated withmeasurement Error, more s eci0cally, errors of measurement. ne of the*iggest mistakes that scienti0c sychology makes, however, is confusing thenotion of errors of measurement with #erner 1eisen*erg:s :2ncertainty
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/.a/6a00d8341c562c53ef012876a347ee970c-popup


26/212


27/212

I like com aring scienti0c sychology with sychics *ecause it dis els manyfalse notions of science and makes room for sychology in the antheon of science. For exam le

It dis els the notion that :real: science is exact, o*3ective, and

dis assionateQ 4lso, it *lunts the o*3ections of those who dismisssychological science as inexact, su*3ective, and self-a*sor*ed. It dis els the notion that there is such a thing as an exact scienceQ

@ather there are sciences that deal with relatively smaller errors of measurement hysics,/ and others that deal with relatively largererrors of measurement econometrics./ 'sychology lies *etween thetwo in terms of the si e of errors of measurement.

Few scientists are o*3ective and dis assionate in the a*soluteQ @ather,science, *y the way science is conducted, is self-correcting, in the longrun, and kee s scientists on the straight and narrow.

&cientists are not free of *iases, reconce tions, misconce tions, andersonal agendasQ @ather, these can fuel the energy, motivation, andcreativity of scientists.

7o scienti0c knowledge is a*solute, unchanging, or 0nalQ @ather, allscienti0c knowledge is roximate and rovisional, and only re resentsthe *est we can roduce to this oint in time. #e can count on *etterdata in the future su erseding resent-day knowledge.

4 colleague of mine argues with me that sychology ought to get over itshysics envy and sto trying to *olster itself with an eternal reference tohysics. &he is correct, *ut, I think it still has *ene0ts in understandingscience in general, as I stated a*ove. 1owever, she has a very good oint*ecause scienti0c sychology kee s getting some things wrong when we tryto iggy-*ack on hysics. I:ve already discussed in 'art ; how sychology:sattem t to gain the res ect and recognition of the more successful sciencesled us to an em*arrassing failure to come u with a consistent and worka*lede0nition of measurement. $easurement is not the only em*arrassing*loo er in a com arison of sychological science to the more successful

sciences.

2ncertainty About Heisenberg=s =2ncertainty rincip'e=
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2009/12/psychological-science-measurement-uncertainty-and-determinism-part-1.htmlhttp://www.3quarksdaily.com/.a/6a00d8341c562c53ef012876a343e2970c-popuphttp://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2009/12/psychological-science-measurement-uncertainty-and-determinism-part-1.html


28/212

!his one is really em*arrassing. &cienti0c sychology likes to )uote the great7o*el Kaureates in hysics, #erner 1eisen*erg and 'ercy Bridgeman, in the*elief that *oth are relevant to scienti0c sychology, and that *oth containim ortant foundations to the hiloso hy of science for sychology. In thecase of Bridgeman and his discussion of the hy othetical construct and

o erationalism, he is very relevant. 1owever, many in scienti0c sycholoogyrofess a *elief in hy othetical constructs on &unday, and then *ehave as if they don:t really matter on $onday. 4t that time we return to *ehaving as if our hy othetical constructs like mental health, intelligence, 3o* satisfaction,or social anxiety/ have an actual existence in a reality that is a art from thehuman mind:s a*ility to create them, conce tuali e them, and use them tothink and communicate. #e kee trying to have our cake Ohy otheticalconstructsP and eat it O 'lato:s Ideal Forms ,P too.

In the case of 1eisen*erg:s :2ncertainty 'rinci le,: scienti0c sychologykee s referencing it as if it were a known, fundamental rinci le of

measurement in sychology. 'sychologists who reference 1eisen*erg in theirwork *elieve that his :2ncertainty 'rinci le: can *e restated thusly !he act of measuring a henomenon changes that which is measured. !here are threereasons it is com letely wrong to reference 1eisen*erg in any context of measurement in sychology

;. 1eisen*erg:s :2ncertainty 'rinci le: a lies 7K to )uantum hysics andnot to any other scienti0c disci line. It is not a scienti0c rinci le that can *egenerali ed, a lied, or extended to any science or 0eld of measurement.

8. &cienti0c sychology, at times, mistakenly e)uates ro*a*ilities

associated with errors of measurement in sychology, with the uncertaintiesassociated with )uantum henomena. !hey are two com letely di5erentideas.

G. &cienti0c sychology assumes a deterministic model of nature Oat leastthat art of nature to which sychology devotes its time and energyP, and is
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2009/08/psychological-science-the-non-theory-of-psychological-testing-part-3.htmlhttp://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2009/08/psychological-science-the-non-theory-of-psychological-testing-part-3.html


29/212

an anathema to )uantum hysics: ro*a*ilistic view of nature.

!he 0rst thing we should do is look at what 1eisen*erg actually said a*outthe conce t of uncertainty. !hen we can determine what he meant and howit is a ro riated, without 3usti0cation, *y scienti0c sychology. 1ere is a)uote from ' he Physical Principles of the )uantum heory- , By #erner1eisen*erg, ;TG?, !ranslated *y %arl Eckart and F. %. 1oyt, and u*lished *yDover 'u*lications, Inc. in ;T>T. ' .8?.

& '. ())*+ - (/0+ / 12 *032- (0 4 -2) (/0+

he uncertainty "rinci"le re ers to the degree o indeterminatenessin the "ossible "resent 5nowledge o the simultaneous values o various 6uantities with which the 6uantum theory deals7 it does not restrict, or exam"le, the exactness o a "osition measurement alone or a velocity measurement alone. hus su""ose that thevelocity o a ree electron is "recisely 5nown, while the "osition iscom"letely un5nown. hen the "rinci"le states that every subse6uent observation o the "osition will alter the momentum by an un5nown and undeterminable amount such that a ter carryingout the ex"eriment our 5nowledge o the electronic motion isrestricted by the uncertainty relation. his may be ex"ressed inconcise and general terms by saying that every ex"eriment destroyssome o the 5nowledge o the system which was obtained by

"revious ex"eriments. his ormulation ma5es it clear that theuncertainty relation does not re er to the "ast7 i the velocity o theelectron is at frst 5nown and the "osition then exactly measured,the "osition or times "revious to the measurement may becalculated. hen or these "ast times 8"86 is smaller than the usual limiting value, but this 5nowledge o the "ast is o a "urely s"eculative character, since it can never !because o the un5nownchange in momentum caused by the "osition measurement% be used
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/.a/6a00d8341c562c53ef012876a3463b970c-popup


30/212


31/212


32/212


33/212

and ask for a satisfaction rating, from ; to ;?, with ; re resenting :CeryDissatis0ed:, and ;? re resenting :Cery &atis0ed.: !he em loyee might neverhave considered the idea of satisfaction with the em loyer *efore res ondingto the )uestionnaire. &o the act of measuring em loyee satisfaction changedthe erson com leting the )uestionnaire. n the other hand, I might

o*serve, uno*trusively, various *ehaviors of the em loyee that indicate levelof satisfaction. In this case, the entity *eing measured is unchanged.

!he conce t of uncertainty is still a very owerful hiloso hical construct forall of science. I was watching a video rogram on )uantum hysics that was

intended for a non-scienti0c audience. 1eisen*erg:s :2ncertainty 'rinci le:was discussed in the rogram:s content. 4fterward, the hysicist KeonKederman, 7o*el Kaureate and former head of Fermila*, discusseduncertainty as a fundamental rinci le of how eo le should view the world,in general. 1e was arguing for a sense of humility and ers ective vis a visthe natural world, knowledge, and our relationshi s with each other.

4ll of this *egs some serious )uestions. Ket me take a sta* a few.

0. &hould scienti0c sychology *e content to view the world as deterministic6 is the deterministic model su[cient for scienti0c sychology

A. I D 7:! S7 #. 4 deterministic model im els us to continually im rove, inan iterative rocess, the conce tuali ation of our hy othetical constructs andthe o erational de0nitions we use to measure them. In this sense, theiterative rocess is continually trying to im rove our record of measurementerror. !his is not a *ad model. Is there a *etter one $ay*e, *ut let:sunderstand what we are dealing with and what can *e su orted *y science.
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/.a/6a00d8341c562c53ef012876a34be7970c-popup


34/212


35/212

neural activity in the brain. At times, use +overstatement+ as a rhetoricaldevice to make a point.

@;f a thing e8ists, it e8ists in some amount and if it e8ists in someamount, it can be measured.@ B

] 6E. K. !horndike ;VU>-;T>T/, ntroduction to the heory of 1ental and4ocial 1easurements ;T?>/

@/hus, if we perceive the presence of some attribute, we can inferthat there must a'so be present an e8isting thing or substance to

which it may be attributed.@ BB

@&or ; free'y ac4now'edge that ; recogniCe no matter in corporea'things apart from that which the geometers ca'' quantity, and ta4eas the obDect of their demonstrations, E.@ BB

]] 6@ene Descartes ;


36/212

hiloso hy, *ut with a vestige of relationshi issues from the rior marriageof long standing.

Descartes gave us another ro*lem, frustrating when we look *ack on it,

that limited rogress in science andhiloso hy for nearly >?? years. #hen it came to mental life thinking,reasoning, cognition, memory/, there was a clear line of demarcation*etween humans and the rest of entire animal world. 1umans could think,lan, imagine, reason, and solve com lex ro*lemsQ animals functioned atthe level of instinct and *ase neural connections. !horndike reinforced thisnotion *y a refusal to see the ossi*ility of human-like thought rocesses inresearch on animals. !he ro*lem of mind and *ody, since Descartes,advanced only *y utting a hy hen *etween the two words, :$ind-Body:.Fortunately, hiloso hy has sto ed asking itself )uestions that can:t *eanswered.

4lright, not all scientists, and hiloso hers are erfect. !he oint I wish to make, though, is that the same hiloso hical andmathematical assum tions that hel to s ur advances in sychologicalscience, can also limit its future develo ment. If sychology, as we know it,does not get it:s scienti0c- hiloso hical-mathematical act together, it will *eecli sed *y neuro-cognitive science, f$@I, genetics, *iology, endocrinology,harmacology, and the commercial testing industry. !he re0x : sycho: may*e s rinkled, am ly, through course catalogs, *ut we might *e hard ressedto 3ustify administering it as a se arate disci line, and distri*uting research

dollars on a ar with other de artments. It is my ersonal
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/.a/6a00d8341c562c53ef0120a4fcc808970b-popuphttp://www.3quarksdaily.com/.a/6a00d8341c562c53ef0120a553ee3f970c-popuphttp://www.3quarksdaily.com/.a/6a00d8341c562c53ef0120a553ed46970c-popuphttp://www.3quarksdaily.com/.a/6a00d8341c562c53ef0120a4fcc552970b-popup


37/212

view that we have less than one generation to shake ourselves loose of anentrenched failure to reform our scienti0c shortcomings.

!he @evolutions of ;V>VTT9-U I was com letely o*livious to the o ening salvos, and the *arricades, whena few anarchist sychologists and disillusioned social science researcherswent into the streets and called for an end to sychological and inferentialstatistics as we knew them. !he voices of discontent and rogress were*attling the entrenched de artment heads who thought their own research,and that of their students, would not reach u*lication. &e)uences of courseswere *reached, content was revised, and a few of the old guard went,

voluntarily, t o reeducation cam s re-conventionseminars/. In 4 ril ;TT9, I started a social science research com any inBrewster, 7. I was reoccu ied with hiring sta5, renting o[ce s ace, *uyinge)ui ment, marketing, writing ro osals, and funding my own start-u*usiness. I don:t think I read a rofessional 3ournal for a cou le of years.%ertainly, there was no time or money to s end the *etter art of a week atthe annual conventions of the 4merican 'sychological 4ssociation 4'4/, andthe &ociety for IndustrialN rgani ational 'sychology &I '/.

#hen I 0nally discovered what ha ened, the smoke and the *arricadeswere gone, and there was no o*vious trace of the *irth of an im ortantmovement. I had to go looking for it. It:s always chancy when you try to indown the one event that started it all, es ecially when many factors, overtime, may have made that one moment an aus icious one. &o, here:s mycandidate for the shot heard round the world of sychological statistics. Itwas an article *y Frank K. &chmidt, &tatistical &igni0cance !esting and%umulative Snowledge in 'sychology Im lications for !raining of @esearchers, in 'sychological $ethods, I, ;;


38/212

and womaned the *arricades did change some of the rules of eer reviewed

3ournals in sychology for the *etter.

#hat the hell was going on that led *ookish, nerdy researchers to take tothe streets, and ut their 3o*s and re utations on the line $y view is thatthe fundamental su ositions of sychology as a science were fatally Aawed.

!hey were not re*elling at sychology, nor were they re*elling at the scienceof sychology. !hey were sim ly saying that what they:ve learned ingraduate school, and continued to teach their students, was frustrating theirrogress as social science researchers. !hey were wondering, in my o inion,if sychology as a science could hold it:s own with the other more successfulsciences. I think many of the courageous warriors DID 7 ! understand thatthe hiloso hy and statistical theories undergirding their science wasdooming them to failure. !hey didn:t a reciate this ro*lem nor articulate itthis wayQ they 3ust knew it wasn:t working. !he result of *rave men andwomen standing u to the tyranny of the ast and the esta*lished order of things, was to deem hasi e statistical tests in refereed 3ournals, and rovideresults that were more descri tive rather than urely inferential.

're-revolution history

!he re-revolution history shows that this moment in time was inevita*le.'sychology, as a science, was given a huge *oost *y the sychologists whocut their teeth on sychological testing and sychological research in the 2.&. 4rmy 4ir %or s during ##II. It is not an exaggeration to say that thescience of sychology in the second half of the twentieth century is inde*ted,immeasura*ly, to the 4rmy 4ir %or s. 4mong many truly outstandingsychologists was @o*ert K. !horndike ;T;?-;TT?/, who followed his father,E. K. !horndike, into !eachers %ollege, %olum*ia 2niversity, in 7ew ork %ity.

1e was one of the *est sychologists and
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/.a/6a00d8341c562c53ef0120a553f1fd970c-popuphttp://www.3quarksdaily.com/.a/6a00d8341c562c53ef0120a4fcc9c0970b-popup


39/212

sychometricians of the twentieth century. Few, however, took note that hewas very clear that '!! was a tautology. $any of my colleagues will ro*a*ly*ristle at this and 0nd it im lausi*le. 4fter all, he was one of the giants in the0eld of '!!, and contri*uted mightily to the literature, and the texts that arestill used today. Is there a aradox or contradiction here 7o. 1e was

intelligent enough, and so well versed in the statistical theory of mentaltests, that he understood it for what it was a highly useful tool for societyas it still is/ that was *ased on a tautology.

@. K. !horndike demonstrated the tautological nature of '!! with a sim leexam le. First, we need a little *ackground. !he two most im ortantcornerstones of '!! are the conce ts of validity and relia*ility. Calidity is aro erty that is im uted to a sychological or educational test, if it can *edemonstrated that it is measuring what it is intended to measure. Forexam le, a school district wants to use a standardi ed test to assessmathematics achievement among its eighth graders. 1ow do the school

su erintendent, rinci als, and arents, know that aarticular test really measures mathematics achievement as it relates totheir educational re)uirements !est u*lishers claim a test, in their catalog,measures eighth grade math achievementQ u on ins ection it may even looklike a test of eighth grade math. Is it valid as a test of eighth grade mathachievement It is valid it has validity/ only if the test is su*3ected tos eci0c kinds of research and examination that are s elled out in adocument called, "!he &tandards for Educational and 'sychological !esting."

@elia*ility is a ro erty that is im uted to asychological or educational test, if it can *e demonstrated that it yieldsconsistent results with re eated use, all other things *eing e)ual. !hestatistical determination of the ro erty of relia*ility is founded u on theconce t of arallel tests. 4chievement !est 4, and 4chievement !est B, arearallel if the content is essentially the same with, ossi*ly, some variation.
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/.a/6a00d8341c562c53ef0120a4fcdbe0970b-popuphttp://www.3quarksdaily.com/.a/6a00d8341c562c53ef0120a5540138970c-popup


40/212

For exam le, !est 4 asks a student to solve for the unknown in the e)uation,8> W > Z x. !est B uses the e)uation, ;G W G Z x. If there is only one testform availa*le, the items of the single test could *e divided into two tests of e)ual num*ers of items. !hus, we have a !est 4, and a !est B, administered

at the same time on one form, and in one sitting. !hese arallel tests are referred to as s lit-half, arallel tests. It is also

ossi*le to use a single test as its own arallel test, with two di5erentadministrations of the same test. Kike validity, the determination of a test:srelia*ility is the result of rescri*ed research and statistics found in "!he&tandards for Educational and 'sychological !esting." @elia*ility is anindis ensa*le, *ut not su[cient, condition for the validity of a test.

7ow, how does !horndike demonstrate the tautological nature of '!! 1edoes it very sim ly. @elia*ility is de0ned in terms of arallel tests, andarallel tests are de0ned in terms of relia*ility. If you want to determine atest:s relia*ility, then create a arallel test and follow the reci e in the"&tandards." !ests are arallel, if they can *e used to measure relia*ility.#hat do we have #e have circular reasoning, also known as a tautology@elia*ility cannot *e im uted without arallel tests, and arallel tests, as aconce t, do not exist a art from their use in determining relia*ility. 4llstatements in a tautology are necessarily true.

&ome of the leading, early sychometricians recogni ed thistautological ro*lem as early as the ;TG?s 6 de0nitely in the ;T>?s and;T


41/212

the 0rst and for a long time the only/ sychologist tomake a stink a*out the fact that there was no non-circular de0nition of testrelia*ility. &he was ignored *y the *ig name sychometricians of her day, *uther assertion stands, and has never *een challenged, successfully. 1erersonal history is fascinating. In s ite of *latant gender discrimination fordecades, hers was an exce tional career as scholar, teacher, and researcher.

!@ICI4 4KE@! ane Koevinger singlehandedly created the academic area of women:s studies in the university. 'lease say a rayer of thanks, or give amoment of reAection, for her gift to all of us, women and men.

!he *iggest antecedent to the revolutionoccurred GU years earlier. !he hiloso her 1. Feigl u*lished the article,"'hiloso hical Em*arrassments of 'sychology," in the 4'4:s Aagshiu*lication, 4merican 'sychologist, ;T, ;;


42/212


43/212

!he @evolution con0rmed the inade)uacies of the esta*lished regime.#hat was so familiar to them in the ast, was, and still is, hard to see aswrong. For exam le, classical inferential statistics for sychological research,a ears to *e 3oined at the hi of ex erimental design that we teach in

sychological research methods classes. !heclassical model resu oses an ongoing accumulation of data that standa art from the researcher, and who is o*3ective and dis assionate. 4Bayesian model of statistical inference com ensates for many of thelimitations of classical statistical inference. I won:t go into all the goodiesassociated with a Bayesian a roach. I want to focus, instead, on the ma3orroad*lock to incor orating Bayesian inference *y social science researchers.#hat is untena*le, if not downright unnatural for the classically trained, isthat the Bayesian a roach functions *y modifying the *eliefs and ro3ectedassum tions of the researcher. !he researcher is rom ted, constantly in theresearch rocess, to take a osition on what is likely to ha en, *ased onrior data. #hat ha ened to the o*3ective, detached sychological

scientist !he Bayesian focus of sha ing the *elief system of the researcher 3ust doesn:t com ute for most investigators in the social sciences.

!hose not familiar with a Bayesian a roach to statistical inferenceassume there must *e a corollary in the classical model. !here isn:t. I gave atalk on Bayesian sam ling, some years ago, to our graduate

and ost-doc interns in industrialsychology at IB$. ne of our very *right interns suggested that we couldchange the value of al ha, the ro*a*ility of making a !y e I errorincorrectly re3ecting esta*lished knowledge when, in fact, it was true allalong/, using a classical model of statistical inference. I asked him if he wouldlike to re ort to the executive of com ensation and *ene0ts that the ercentof em loyees who were satis0ed with their ay was GV ercent, Z or 6 >;ercent. 1e would get thrown out of the executive:s o[ce, and asked to ackhis *ags and head *ack to the 2niversity of &outh Florida. !hat is the
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/.a/6a00d8341c562c53ef0120a4fcd8a6970b-popuphttp://www.3quarksdaily.com/.a/6a00d8341c562c53ef0120a553fb5a970c-popup


44/212

conse)uence of trying to use classical inference when Bayesian is morea ro riate. It is a very di5erent rocess that sounds like make *elieve to theuninitiated. It will *e at least a generation, if at all, for those trained inclassical inferential statistics to consider using a Bayesian a roach.

4nother thing we must do is to understand the stiAing e5ect on rogressin sychological science *y ;. ur hiloso hy that fails to relin)uish the#orld of Ideal FormsQ 8. the tautology of the statistical theory of mentaltestsQ and G. the assum tions that our models of the distri*ution of traits arede ictions of reality. 7o matter how closely an o*served distri*ution of ameasured sychological trait 4''E4@& ! K S KISE a 7ormal Bell %urve, oranother ideali ed distri*ution, we must understand that the curve is amathematical model, a human construction, that is used *ecause it hasutility. !he model of the 7ormal Bell %urve is no more a de iction of realitythan 'tolemy:s model of the universe.

'tolemy:s model wasacce ted as the truth of reality *ecause reality, as it was erceived, 0t iterfectly. 'tolemy:s descri tion of reality allowed western civili ation to makevery accurate calendars, and redict events that were so im ortant tosustaining civili ation, like when to lant. *servation 0t his ideali ed curve,exactly. It was so successful, and acce ted as o*viously real, that it o*viatedthe need to ex lore a di5erent model of reality for many centuries. #hen itwas virtually synonymous with truth, as determined *y the church, thear*iter of all truth, investigation into new ideas was a*orted, discouraged, orersecuted.

!he ro*lem for '!! is not that is isn:t very useful, in the way that'tolemy:s model of the universe was very useful 6 in fact essential to the
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/.a/6a00d8341c562c53ef0120a4fce114970b-popup


45/212

survival of whole eo les. !he ro*lem is that the current state of '!! limitsrogress in sychological science. 1ere:s how. Ket:s look at the hiloso hicalstraight-3acket that is 'lato:s Ideal Forms. ne of the fundamentalassum tions of Forms is that, since they can:t *e o*served directly, we canonly o*serve their manifestation in the #orld of Ex erience as successive

a roximations of the @E4K !1I7(, which @E4KK E^I&!&. 'ersonalex erience over a lifetime gets us ever closer to the truth *ecause, *yde0nition, life is an accumulation of closer, successive a roximations. &owhat the hell is wrong with that, you ask. 'lentyM 4ssuming an u

nchanging reality that we continue to a roximate,com letely shuts o5 the o tion to chuck the whole thing, say it was all*ullshit, and start over with something $onty 'ython/ com letely di5erent.

!his was the )uandary that Se ler and Bruno were in. &ince we all know theearth is at the center of (od:s creation, then there must *e something wrongwith our data 6 worse still, we have to discount them as an illusion.

Ket:s take a look at Isaac 7ewton:s work on hysics andastronomy, resulting in his 'rinci ia. !he mathematical rinci als of the day,inAuenced greatly *y 4rchimedes, 'ythagoras, and 1indu and Islamicscholars, were insu[cient for the work he was doing. &o he invented a newsystem of mathematics that would work for him 6 %alculus. %alculus wasalso invented inde endently and contem oraneously *y Kei ig./ !ry toimagine 7ewton trying to do his research with only 'ythagoreanmathematics, *ack in the time when 'ythagoras was kee ing secret hisdiscovery of irrational num*ers, and solid geometric constructions like thedodecahedron. 7ewton would have nowhere to go. Imagine the %hurchsaying, this is the extent of truth, and there is nowhere else to go, anyway.

!his is the highly circumscri*ed situation we 0nd ourselves in regarding
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/.a/6a00d8341c562c53ef0120a4fce47b970b-popuphttp://www.3quarksdaily.com/.a/6a00d8341c562c53ef0120a55406d4970c-popup


46/212

sychological science, in general, and '!! in articular. #e acce t

re resentational mo dels as actual reality. #e can:t see thetautologies for the forest, *ecause we:ve *ecome too accustomed to usingthem as if they were legitimate scienti0c theories *ased on o*servation.Einstein:s general relativity was not an extension, ela*oration, or re0neda roximation of 7ewton:s work on gravity and motion. Einstein threw it allout. 7ewton was almost com letely wrong. &ometimes scienti0c rogress isincremental, *ut let:s not con0ne ourselves in a scienti0c rison with highlycircumscri*ed assum tions *efore we even *egin.

!hank you for taking the time to read and, ho efully, comment on my ideas.4t another time I will return to the intricacies of '!! and discuss them inmore technical detail.1owever, that will not *e for a while. 7ext month I willreturn to a more familiar genre of non-0ction. 4ll I will reveal at this time isthe title, "$y Kife as an *server !arget 'ractice." &ee you on &e tem*er ;>,8??T.

'osted *y 7orman %osta at ;8 ?? 4$ \ 'ermalink

Fegner, for his part, presents no re'evant data from theneurosciences Gother than )ibet3s to suggest that the brainprocesses associated with our conscious intentions are causa''y cuto- from those that produce actions.
http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2009/08/psychological-science-the-non-theory-of-psychological-testing-part-3.htmlhttp://www.3quarksdaily.com/.a/6a00d8341c562c53ef0120a5540a00970c-popuphttp://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2009/08/psychological-science-the-non-theory-of-psychological-testing-part-3.html


47/212

o Fe Have &ree Fi''?

4rticle *y 4ndrew 7aselli 4ugust 8??T

7on-%hristians and %hristians alike often give the same answer to di[cult)uestions like these #hy did (od allow sin in the 0rst lace #hy does (odsave some eo le and not others #hy does (od send eo le to hell #hycan living like a %hristian *e so frustrating !he immediate solution oftensuggested is sim le "free will." !o many eo le, it:s a satisfying answer " h,that makes sense. eah, (od does x *ecause he has to reserve my free will.

eah, S. 7ext )uestion." I:d like to suggest that we re-think this im ortantissue.

!he title of this short essay is a )uestion "Do #e 1ave a Free #ill " !hat)uestion may *e 3arring to you *ecause it asks if something exists that mosteo le assume exists. $y short answer to that )uestion is that it de ends onwhat you mean *y "free." !he longer answer is the rest of this essay.

#e should study "free will" *ecause it is theologically signi0cant and *ecausemany eo le assume a articular de0nition of "free will" that is incorrect.&tudying "free will" is challenging *ecause it is not de0ned in &cri ture.Further, it is com lex *ecause it connects to many other larger theologicalissuesQ it intersects with hiloso hy, historical theology, and systematic
http://72.47.212.95/andrew-naselli/http://72.47.212.95/andrew-naselli/


48/212

theology.

Fhat is @free wi''@?

#e should start *y learning the standard terminology associated with the

"free will" de*ate.;. "#ill" means the function of choosing.

8. %onstraining causes force eo le to act against their will. For exam le, aerson *eing ro**ed at gun oint is constrained in this sense. 7on-

constraining causes do not force eo le to act against their will *ut aresu[cient to cause an action. For exam le, if you have a fear of heights, youro*a*ly will not want to walk on the edge of a tall *uilding:s roofQ that fear isa non-constraining cause.

G. Indeterminism holds that genuinely free acts are not causally determined.Determinism holds that everything is causally determined i.e., that riorevents and conditions necessitate every event/.

>. Incom ati*ilism holds that determinism and human freedom areincom ati*leQ it re3ects determinism and a[rms human freedom.%om ati*ilism holds that determinism and human freedom are com ati*le.


49/212

G. 1umans are morally res onsi*le, which re)uires that they *e free. !hereis no *i*lical reason that (od cannot cause real human choices. !he Bi*legrounds human accounta*ility in (od:s authority as our creator and 3udge,not in li*ertarian free will.

>. Both ;/ (od:s a*solute sovereignty and 8/ human freedom andres onsi*ility are simultaneously true. 1ere are 3ust a few of many assagesin which *oth elements are resent without any hint of contradiction. "!heheart of man lans his way, *ut the K @D esta*lishes his ste s.... !he lot iscast into the la , *ut its every decision is from the K @D" 'rover*s ;9 T ,GG/. "!his esus, delivered u according to the de0nite lan andforeknowledge of (od, you cruci0ed and killed *y the hands of lawless men"4cts 8 8G /. "For truly in this city there were gathered together against your

holy servant esus, whom you anointed, *oth 1erod and 'ontius 'ilate, alongwith the (entiles and the eo les of Israel, to do whatever your hand and

your lan had redestined to take lace" 4cts > 8U- 8V /.

/.
http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Proverbs%2016.9http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Proverbs%2016.33http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Acts%202.23http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Acts%204.27-%2028http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Proverbs%2016.9http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Proverbs%2016.33http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Acts%202.23http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Acts%204.27-%2028


50/212

U. (od *reathed out &cri ture through humans without violating theirersonalities. !he way that (od ins ired the Bi*le re)uires com ati*ilism.

V. (od ena*les %hristians to ersevere %hristians work *ecause (od workscf. 'hili ians 8 ;8- ;G /. Indeterminism would mean that %hristians can

re3ect %hrist and lose their salvation, *ut the Bi*le teaches that all genuine%hristians are eternally secure and will ersevere to the end *y (od:s grace.

T. (od himself does not have a free will in the li*ertarian sense. %an (odsin If not, then he does not have a li*ertarian free will, and thus a li*ertarianfree will is not necessary for a erson to *e genuinely free.

;?. (od:s eo le do not have free wills in heaven in the li*ertarian sense.#ill (od:s eo le *e a*le to sin in heaven If not, then they will not have ali*ertarian free will, and thus a li*ertarian free will is not necessary for eo leto *e genuinely free.

;s 'ibertarian free wi'' the reason for the origin of sin?

&hort answer 7o.

#hen addressing this hugely di[cult )uestion, it is hel ful to consider thefollowing;. (od is not the author or agent of evil, and he is not cul a*le for evil.

8. &atan is not (od:s e)ual o osite i.e., a (od-versus-&atan dualism/.

G. (od, who accom lishes all things according to the counsel of his will,ordained that sin would enter his universe. &ee the short essay in this seriesentitled "1ow %ould a (ood (od 4llow &u5ering and Evil "/ (od sovereignlyworks through secondary causes such as humans/ such that he is notcul a*le for evil *ut the secondary causes are.

>. &atan and then 4dam and Eve sinned *ecause they wanted to sin, andthey are morally res onsi*le to (od for it. !he a*ility of humans to sin hasfour historical stages. First, 4dam and Eve were initially a*le to sin. &econd,after their fall, all unregenerate humans Oi.e., those who are s iritually deadPare not a*le not to sin. !hird, regenerate humans Oi.e., those whom (od hasgiven s iritual lifeP are a*le not to sin. Fourth, glori0ed regenerate humansare not a*le to sin./


51/212

acknowledge that this is a mystery that we 0nite and fallen humans sim lycannot com rehend exhaustively.

9. !here is no easy answer to ex laining why (od ordained the origin of sinin the 0rst lace. ohn 'i er o5ers a hel ful astoral ers ective in

& ectacular &ins and !heir (lo*al 'ur ose in the (lory of %hrist #heaton%rossway, 8??V/. !his is availa*le online for free as a 'DFhtt NNwww.desiringgod.orgNmediaN dfN*ooks_*ssN*ss. df. &ee es . . GT-9>./ #hy doesn:t (od sim ly wi e out &atan 'i er concludes, "!he ultimateanswer . . . is that :all things were created through O%hristP and for O%hristP:%ol. ; ;9 /. (od foresaw all that &atan would do if he created &atan andermitted him to re*el. In choosing to create him, he was choosing to fold allof that evil into his ur ose for creation. !hat ur ose for creation was theglory of his &on. 4ll things, including &atan and all his followers, were createdwith this in view" . >V/.

;s 'ibertarian free wi'' the u'timate reason for conversion?

%onversion consists of turning from sin i.e., re entance/ and to (od i.e.,faith/. #hy do eo le convert from *eing non-%hristians and *ecome%hristians Is it ultimately *ecause of their li*ertarian free wills r is itultimately *ecause of (od

#e do what we do *ecause we want to do it as long as we are notconstrained/, *ut we are not always a*le to do something or not i.e., we donot always have the inherent a*ility to choose *etween o tions/. 7on-%hristians do what they want to do, and they will never want to come to

%hrist as their master unless (od 0rst changes their "wanter." 1ere:s ananalogy if a erson is locked in a room *ut doesn:t want to get out, theneven though he can:t get out, he is not there against his will.

;. !otal De ravity. 2n*elievers are totally de raved in the sense thatde ravity a5ects their entire *eing (enesis 9 < Q Ecclesiastes U 8? Q T GQIsaiah ; 9 Q9> 9 Q eremiah ;G8GQ ;U TQ @omans ; ;V-G 8? , 8GQ ames G 8 Q;

ohn ; V , ;? / including the mind @omans V Q !itus; ;< /, *ody @omans V ;? Q E hesians > ;U-;T /, and will ohn V G> /.

8. !otal Ina*ility. !otal de ravity descri*es the human condition, and totalina*ility descri*es the result of that condition ohn ; ;G QE hesians > ;V andE ekiel G9 89 Q8 !imothy 8 89 Q@omans 9 ;U , 8? QV U-VQ8 %orinthians > > /.2nregenerate humans are inca a*le of o*eying the gos el $atthew U ;V Q

ohn V >G->> Q ;> ;U Q @omans V U- V Q ; %orinthians 8 ;> /.

G. @egeneration. %onversion is entirely a work of (od ohn 9 GU , >> , 9< Q ames ; ;V /. @egeneration transforms a human:s will and ena*les a erson tocome willingly to %hrist. @egeneration is the act where*y (od through the
http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Col.%201.16http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Genesis%206.5http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ecclesiastes%207.20http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ecclesiastes%209.3http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Isaiah%201.6http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Isaiah%2064.6http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Romans%201.18-3.20http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Romans%201.23http://biblia.com/bible/esv/James%203.2http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20John%201.8http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20John%201.8http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20John%201.10http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Romans%208.5-8http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Corinthians%202.14http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Titus%201.15http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Titus%201.15http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Romans%208.10http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ephesians%204.17-19http://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%208.34http://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%201.13http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ephesians%204.18http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ezekiel%2036.26http://biblia.com/bible/esv/2%20Timothy%202.26http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Romans%206.17http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Romans%206.20http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Romans%208.7-8http://biblia.com/bible/esv/2%20Corinthians%204.4http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Matthew%207.18http://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%208.43-44http://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%2014.17http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Romans%208.7-%208http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Corinthians%202.14http://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%206.37http://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%206.44http://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%206.65http://biblia.com/bible/esv/James%201.18http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Col.%201.16http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Genesis%206.5http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ecclesiastes%207.20http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ecclesiastes%209.3http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Isaiah%201.6http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Isaiah%2064.6http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Romans%201.18-3.20http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Romans%201.23http://biblia.com/bible/esv/James%203.2http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20John%201.8http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20John%201.8http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20John%201.10http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Romans%208.5-8http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Corinthians%202.14http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Titus%201.15http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Titus%201.15http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Romans%208.10http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ephesians%204.17-19http://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%208.34http://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%201.13http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ephesians%204.18http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Ezekiel%2036.26http://biblia.com/bible/esv/2%20Timothy%202.26http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Romans%206.17http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Romans%206.20http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Romans%208.7-8http://biblia.com/bible/esv/2%20Corinthians%204.4http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Matthew%207.18http://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%208.43-44http://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%2014.17http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Romans%208.7-%208http://biblia.com/bible/esv/1%20Corinthians%202.14http://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%206.37http://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%206.44http://biblia.com/bible/esv/John%206.65http://biblia.com/bible/esv/James%201.18


52/212

1oly & irit *y means of his word instantaneously im arts s iritual life to thes iritually dead ohn ; ;G Q !itus G < Q ; 'eter ; 8G Q ames ; ;V /. It is as iritual resurrection E hesians 8 ;-9 Q%olossians 8 ;G /, *irth ohn G G- V /,and creation 8 %orinthians < ;U /.

>. 1uman @es onsi*ility. !his does not mean, however, that humans are notres onsi*le to o*ey the gos el *ecause (od may command humans to dowhat they cannot do *y themselves cf. Keviticus ;V < with (alatians G ;8 /.1uman ina*ility and res onsi*ility are mysteriously com ati*le.


53/212

You dont really exist, do you?

by Massimo Pigliucci

www.universaltheory.orgFor some time I have been noticing the emergence of a strange trinity of beliefs among myfellow skeptics and freethinkers: an increasing number of them, it seems, dont believe that theycan make decisions the free will debate!, dont believe that they have moral responsibilitybecause they dont have free will, or because morality is relative " take your pick!, and theydont even believe that they e#ist as conscious beings because, you know, consciousness is anillusion.

$s I have argued recently, there are sensible ways to understand human volition a much lessmetaphysical

Before Anything Else

Documents

Transcript of Before Anything Else