A Simpler $1000 Freeroll Challenge

[David Sklansky]

At least five percent of the population believes that hell exists and that believing that Jesus was ressurected and the son of God, is both a necessary and sufficient condition to avoiding that hell and going to heaven. Works don't enter into it as far as they are concerned.

At least 20,000 students have gotten a Phd in physics from an Ivy League university in the last twenty years and fully understand the General Theory of Relativity. (I'm not sure if it is possible to get that Phd without understanding it perfectly, but if it is, those Phds don't count.)

Statistically there should be at least 1000 such Ivy League Phds who believe the first paragraph. (I'm guessing there are at least 2000 such Phds who believe the tenets of Judaism even though there are fewer of them than fundamentalist Christians.)

But I think there are not 1000 such fundamentalist Ivy League Phds. In fact I think the number is very close to zero. The first person to find me one gets a thousand dollars. Split it with the guy if you like. I'll ask for evidence but I won't try to wiggle out on a technicality.

[evolvedForm]

DS,

Why go with physics, instead of another discipline (say philosophy)?

[David Sklansky]

You're joking right?

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
DS,

Why go with physics, instead of another discipline (say philosophy)?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he'd rather start a nice fire with the money.

luckyme

[goodsamaritan]

David, what short of a lie detector test could consitute sufficient evidence?

[felson]

[ QUOTE ]
At least 20,000 students have gotten a Phd in physics from an Ivy League university in the last twenty years and fully understand the General Theory of Relativity.

[/ QUOTE ]

1k PhDs annually, 8 Ivies = 125 PhDs per Ivy per year.

Last year, Harvard graduated 21, and that is not an outlier.

Cut your numbers by a factor of 6, and please increase the bounty proportionally.

http://www.physics.harvard.edu/academics/phds.html#2006

[felson]

[ QUOTE ]
At least 20,000 students have gotten a Phd in physics from an Ivy League university in the last twenty years and fully understand the General Theory of Relativity. (I'm not sure if it is possible to get that Phd without understanding it perfectly, but if it is, those Phds don't count.)

[/ QUOTE ]

MIT doesn't cover it in its qualifying exams, and I doubt the Ivies do either. I am told that many physics PhDs don't understand general relativity.

[ QUOTE ]
There are two components to the written examination, typically taken at different times. Part I is a five-
hour test composed of twenty “short form” questions and tests the standard undergraduate curriculum of
mechanics, electrodynamics, quantum mechanics, and thermodynamics/statistical mechanics. Also included is basic undergraduate material such as optics and special relativity. Part II is a five-hour exam composed of eight questions. Each student is required to choose four, one in each of the four previously mentioned areas. The Part II questions are “long form.”

[/ QUOTE ]

http://web.mit.edu/physics/refs/generals/report/comparisonreport.pdf

[gull]

John A. Bloom.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
At least 20,000 students have gotten a Phd in physics from an Ivy League university in the last twenty years and fully understand the General Theory of Relativity.

[/ QUOTE ]

1k PhDs annually, 8 Ivies = 125 PhDs per Ivy per year.

Last year, Harvard graduated 21, and that is not an outlier.

Cut your numbers by a factor of 6, and please increase the bounty proportionally.

http://www.physics.harvard.edu/academics/phds.html#2006

[/ QUOTE ]

just fyi, it's about 1000-1100 PhD's/yr in physics for ALL US universities.

We all know there's ONE out there...I'm tempted to email some friends, but i figure someone will beat me to this...

DS - does it need to be ivy league? They don't really have the best physics departments...how about chicago, UCB (bunch of hippies...that should be fine...)...

[gull]

Robert Newman, assuming astrophysics counts as physics.

[bills217]

I know of a 1989 Ph.D. in Geology from Harvard who not only is a fundamentalist Christian in the ways you described, but takes the creation account given in the Bible literally and is a Young Earth Creationist (most Christians in this forum are not). His name is Kurt Wise. A google search should turn up his credentials from multiple sources. He studied under noted evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
Robert Newman, assuming astrophysics counts as physics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perry G. Phillips, as well. These two and the other you mentioned co-authored a paper together. All have physics Ph.D.'s from Cornell (2 astrophysics, 1 biophysics).

[bills217]

William Dembski, Ph.D. in Mathematics, Univ. of Chicago, 1988 (http://www.arn.org/authors/dembski.html)

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Robert Newman, assuming astrophysics counts as physics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Perry G. Phillips, as well. These two and the other you mentioned co-authored a paper together. All have physics Ph.D.'s from Cornell (2 astrophysics, 1 biophysics).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think any of these three meets the 20 years requirement (although again that seems purely arbitrary).

[almostbusto]

20 year requirement isn't all that arbitrary. atheism among intellectuals has been growing a lot lately (in historical terms.) I don't think it would be so rare for physics PHDs from the turn of the 20th century to believe in god at all.

Pascal, Descartes, and Newton were all three fiercely religious and are (arguably?) among the smartest people ever born.

[bills217]

Looks like I have found someone who meets all the requirements.

Dr. Ard Louis. Ph.D. in theoretical physics from Cornell. He is the international secretary of the Christians in Science. I have not as of yet found the year of his Ph.D., but when you consider his photo, I find it hard to believe it could have been more than 20 years ago:

http://www.ch.cam.ac.uk/staff/portrait/aal.jpg

Edited to add: He got his Ph.D. in 1998. You can find his complete resume here (http://www-louis.ch.cam.ac.uk/ard-louis-cv.pdf).

[gull]

Well, Randy Ingermanson is a physics Ph.D. who graduated in '86 from Berkeley. The Ivy requirement seems odd to me considering that many of the top rated schools according to US News and World Report aren't Ivies (Caltech, Stanford, Berkeley).

[Al68]

I have a question for David that I haven't seen brought up that applies to a lot of these threads. Do you believe left brain dominant people are all stupid? I would agree that they are generally not good at, or don't care about objective reasoning skills, logical thought, rationality, math, etc.

But they are good at other things, and, some would argue, just as intellegent (on average), only in a different way. I generally agree with your thoughts, but don't consider my left brain dominant friends "stupid". I just accept that their brains function different from mine.

And I have read, and continue to refer to your books to improve my poker game, and now make a pretty good living playing poker. Thank You for all your efforts.

Alan

[gull]

It looks like he got his Ph.D. in '98.

[KUJustin]

So which of these answers won?

[bills217]

William D. Phillips, Ph.D. in physics from MIT in 1976, Nobel Prize winner (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1997/phillips-autobio.html)

Also fails 20-years requirement. Ard Louis is the only one mentioned in the thread who meets all the requirements. Bloom, Phillips, and Newman got their doctorates in the 70's or earlier.

I don't know if DS realized or intended it, but the 20-years requirement makes it a lot harder because the more recent Ph.D.'s are not as noteworthy yet. I do not know any personally. I wonder how hard the same challenge would be with, say, a 5-years requirement and atheist beliefs (instead of Christian), assuming no one personally knew any.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
Bloom, Phillips, and Newman got their doctorates in the 70's or earlier.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bloom's was 1980, Newman 1965, can't find the exact year on Phillips but it doesn't appear to be that recent.

[gull]

Well, you were the one who said Phillips so it doesn't matter.

[Yuv]

Can I get a 1000$ from the jewish part? That will be easy money.

[Metric]

He may be a super-Christian, but I kind of doubt you'll be able to get him to sign off on the statement that "believing that Jesus was ressurected and the son of God, is both a necessary and sufficient condition to avoiding that hell and going to heaven." In fact, I doubt you'd be able to get most Christian pastors to sign off on a statement like that either.

Perhaps if you rephrased it as "actively place your trust in Jesus" or something to that effect, he'd sign off (I assume a "signing off" is a requirement to collect?). But "belief only" is a huge constraint -- after all, there are Satanists that believe in Jesus' spiritual status as "savior" as strongly as any Christian.

I'm not sure if this is what DS meant by "technicality," but it seems a rather important distinction to me, particulary with money on the line. Perhaps he'd like to clarify this particular point.

[Yo_Respek]

Hey Dave your ego knows no bounds. I can read your whole thought process. Your internal dialog looks like this.

skalansky to self: Wow I am so smart. I believe that anyone who has this belief can't be smart because I don't have it and I am the pinocle of evolution. A virtual masterpeice of brainpower.

The Truth: Dave is so in love with himself that he could never believe in God because he doesn't know how to humble himself to anything. Also he lacks class and respect by posting these challenges. This stuff is getting pretty out of hand. We should all agree to stop the Atheist and Christian bashing. You wouldn't say this stuff about racial groups would you? Einstein has a bunch of quotes about God here's a really good one.

Albert Einstein
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.

[David Sklansky]

But I won't pay if I shouldn't. The guy must fully understand the GENERAL theory of relativity. There are at least five known poker players who do, Mark Weitzman, Michael Blinder, Jimmy Warren, Tom Weideman, Borodog, and a few other regular posters here. I'll need two of them to tell me if he does.

Secondly it is absolutely necessary that they are certain that a belief in Jesus is a necesarry and sufficient condition to avoiding hell and going to heaven. Because it is only this belief that I claim automatically shows stupidity (if you also believe God is just.)

If any of the names mentioned (who got their Physics Phd after 1985) are contacted and prove they meet the criteria, I will pay the appropriate poster.

I'm sorry that I underestimated the number of Ivy League Phds. But even so there should be plenty who meet my paying requirements if fundamentalism is randomly distributed among super brains. But of course it is not. In fact even if there are a handful of fundamentalist Ivy League Phds one should pause to wonder why Jewish Phds are a HUNDRED times more likely.

As to the question of whether it is only left brained people who I consider "smart", the answer is yes. If smart means the ability to find answers to questions that are not a matter of opinion. Such as whether Jesus was ressurected, and all who believed are in heaven, and all who disbelieved are in hell.

[Borodog]

Please do not include me in the group that "totally understands" GR; it is not my particular field. Perhaps you mean Metric.

PS. David, I think there is a real chance at your losing money here. Many extremely intelligent people who were raised fundamentalist Christian from early childhood simply avoid applying their intellects to their beliefs, and hence never have to give them up. My brother-in-law has his Ph.D. in biomedical engineering from Duke, currently works for IBM designing cutting edge ultrasound equipment, and is a Bible-thumping, hymn-singing, Young Earth Creationist, because he avoids challenging his childhood beliefs.

[bills217]

I e-mailed Dr. Louis asking if he agreed with your statement, and am awaiting his reply. I didn't tell him why I was asking so as not to bias his answer. This should be interesting.

[gumpzilla]

[ QUOTE ]
Please do not include me in the group that "totally understands" GR; it is not my particular field. Perhaps you mean Metric.

PS. David, I think there is a real chance at your losing money here. Many extremely intelligent people who were raised fundamentalist Christian from early childhood simply avoid applying their intellects to their beliefs, and hence never have to give them up. My brother-in-law has his Ph.D. in biomedical engineering from Duke, currently works for IBM designing cutting edge ultrasound equipment, and is a Bible-thumping, hymn-singing, Young Earth Creationist, because he avoids challenging his childhood beliefs.

[/ QUOTE ]

This seems very correct. I'm a reasonably intelligent person, and there are many, many things that I'm sure I believe out of habit and not because I've clearly thought about them.

I'm not sure why you're using GR as the metric (har, har) of true analytical intelligence here. I guess you just need some pretty mathematical thing to latch onto. I doubt Bill Phillips knows GR but he definitely has an extremely capable mind for physics and mathematics, certainly enough to make the thrust of your argument wrong. If you want raw math power, why not just pick a Ph.D mathematician instead?

[David Sklansky]

"If you want raw math power, why not just pick a Ph.D mathematician instead?"

Because that is ridiculously unfair to me. I want to show that fundamentalists are very much less likely than average to achieve great brilliance. They are 5% of the population and probably .05% of the brilliant poulation. Just maybe there are zero of them in the category I picked. But the category you picked, Phd in math, is so much more numerous that at least a few have made it there. So I prove nothing when one shows up.

[txag007]

[ QUOTE ]
David, I think there is a real chance at your losing money here. Many extremely intelligent people who were raised fundamentalist Christian from early childhood simply avoid applying their intellects to their beliefs, and hence never have to give them up.

[/ QUOTE ]
David readily admits to not having read the Bible nor evaluated the basis for Christian beliefs because he trusts others to do that for him. So you're saying that if one of those persons happens to be a christian, it's because he or she wasn't thinking intellectually? How is David to know if he doesn't evaluate the evidence for himself?

[andyfox]

Not Christian, but a belief in Jesus as necessary and sufficient for avoiding hell.

[mvdgaag]

Even Einstein himself was a convinced Christian although I don't think he meets your fundamentalist criteria. The believes, religious or not, that someone is told/indoctrinated with during his early childhood will be almost impossible to get away from later in life.

[bills217]

David,

Dr. Louis got back to me. He says he subscribes to the UCCF doctrinal basis, which states in part:

"The Lord Jesus Christ, God's incarnate Son, is fully God; he was born of a virgin; his humanity is real and sinless; he died on the cross, was raised bodily from death and is now reigning over heaven and earth."

"Those who believe in Christ are pardoned all their sins and accepted in God's sight only because of the righteousness of Christ credited to them; this justification is God's act of undeserved mercy, received solely by trust in him and not by their own efforts."

He certainly seems to meet the belief requirement. The complete UCCF doctrinal basis can be found at http://www.uccf.org.uk/resources/general/doctrinalbasis/doctrinalbasis.php

I would be happy to forward you the e-mail if you want. What else do you require?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Even Einstein himself was a convinced Christian although I don't think he meets your fundamentalist criteria. The believes, religious or not, that someone is told/indoctrinated with during his early childhood will be almost impossible to get away from later in life.

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif Welcome to the zero-credibility club!

[David Sklansky]

A polygraph test and acceptable proof that he fully understands the General Theory of Relativity to the satisfaction of two experts in the field. If he does I'll pay the thousand plus a few hundred mor for expenses.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
A polygraph test and acceptable proof that he fully understands the General Theory of Relativity to the satisfaction of two experts in the field. If he does I'll pay the thousand plus a few hundred mor for expenses.

[/ QUOTE ]

David,

Regarding the polygraph thing:

This is a qualification that you either have to eliminate or understand that it can never be met. It seems you are not aware that those of us of Faith always have doubts - or rather at times have moments of doubts (honestly, I am not sure which of the two better describes folk of Faith.)

All of the many priests I know, any Bishop, Cardinal and even the Pope will readily admit to you that he has his moments of doubt.

Jesus, Himself, had his moments of doubt. In the Garden of Gethsemane, before his crucifixion, he asked his Father to “let this cup pass” , i.e., get me the hell out of this Crucifixion thing. Dying on the cross he cried out “My God, my God why have you forsaken me?”

No one of Faith is without doubt. To pass your test, I think you will have to rely on the person’s integrity. Someone like the Ken Jenkins type, I would think, is not going to lie to you for $ 1,000.

But, then, perhaps it is our Faith that you want to test to begin with. I know you have tested mine this past year. (I still have it, btw.)


RJT

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
A polygraph test and acceptable proof that he fully understands the General Theory of Relativity to the satisfaction of two experts in the field. If he does I'll pay the thousand plus a few hundred mor for expenses.

[/ QUOTE ]

The evidence I have already provided is much, much, much more reliable than a polygraph test that he has absolutely no reason to consent to anyway. The original challenge says nothing about any polygraph test. It DOES say that you will not try to wiggle out on a technicality, which is exactly what you are trying to do.

Edited to add: Exactly what sort of proof do you require that he understands the general Theory of Relativity? We've already had borodog post that he, as a Physics Ph.D., does not fully understand it.

Maybe I will write Dr. Louis another e-mail and see if I can get him to write a 500-page dissertation on the Theory of Relativity, with nothing or virtually nothing in it for him, so that you can turn it over to whoever you arbitrarily deem to have a "full" understanding of it and see what they think. His time is probably not that valuable anyway.

[bills217]

Well, after looking through his CV a little deeper, I doubt he has even heard of the General Theory of Relativity. He's only given 60 invited lectures and written 50 publications in peer-reviewed scientific journals. He is probably not nearly as distinguished as your poker-playing buddies with physics doctorates.

http://www-louis.ch.cam.ac.uk/ard-louis-cv.pdf

http://img226.imageshack.us/img226/3891/screenhunter037by8.jpg
http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/1918/screenhunter039nm7.jpg
http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/2562/screenhunter040ex5.jpg
http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/2546/screenhunter041fw2.jpg
http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/6561/screenhunter042jb5.jpg
http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/2922/screenhunter043hz1.jpg
http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/2299/screenhunter044dh2.jpg
http://img187.imageshack.us/img187/8468/screenhunter045jq8.jpg

[David Sklansky]

"David,

Regarding the polygraph thing:

This is a qualification that you either have to eliminate or understand that it can never be met. It seems you are not aware that those of us of Faith always have doubts - or rather at times have moments of doubts (honestly, I am not sure which of the two better describes folk of Faith.)

All of the many priests I know, any Bishop, Cardinal and even the Pope will readily admit to you that he has his moments of doubt."

I stated that the polygraph must test whether he is 95% sure. Especially about the part that says no atheisth, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, has any hope of entering heaven while any true believer has any chance of not entering.

If he is truly renowned I think I will accept a public statement if he uses almost those exact words. But he still needs to be able to TEACH the General Theory of Relativity.

I have every right to be this picky since I am offering a freeroll on an astounding proposition. Namely that not ONE of five thousand great physicists believes these things. Even though statistically there should be a couple of HUNDRED.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Edited to add: Exactly what sort of proof do you require that he understands the general Theory of Relativity? We've already had borodog post that he, as a Physics Ph.D., does not fully understand it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey now, let's not make it look like I couldn't understand it; it's just not my field.

Also, while I appreciate the fact that you've effectively disproven David's point (and proven mine, made earlier in the thread), I don't think you're going to get the $1000 out of David. He clearly set GR as his Gold Standard in the OP, and (wittingly or unwittingly) gave himself a HUGE edge; if all the Ivy league schools combined have produced 20,000 general relativists in the past 20 years, I'll eat my own head. My guess would be something in the hundreds, perhaps as low as 150, rather than tens of thousands. The point being, your guy is not a general relativist. And while he, like myself, could fully understand it if he were to take the time, I would estimate the chances against his currently "completely understanding" GR, given his CV, to be in excess of 100 to 1 against. If he understood it, he'd be publishing about it.

[David Sklansky]

Borodog.

If he meets all the other requirements, including a PUBLIC statement that I can disseminate and hopefully force him to defend, and if he can convince you that he COULD fully understand the General Theory, I will pay up.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
I have every right to be this picky since I am offering a freeroll on an astounding proposition. Namely that not ONE of five thousand great physicists believes these things. Even though statistically there should be a couple of HUNDRED.

[/ QUOTE ]

THIS is clearly NOT THE challenge, because I have already MET THIS challenge.

The REAL "challenge" is, as Borodog said, to FIND 1 of the 150+ general relativists (arbitrary) who have graduated from Ivy League schools (arbitary) in the last 20 years (arbitrary), THEN find one who is a Christian with an extremely specific subset of beliefs, THEN somehow get him to agree to take a polygraph test that he is "95% sure" (arbitrary) about said beliefs.

Why don't you add the stipulation that they also must have thrown out the ceremonial first pitch at the Cincinnati Reds baseball game on August 4, 2003? It would be just as relevant to your point, and simultaneously assure that you could weasel your way out of paying on a technicality (which, again, you specifically said you wouldn't do).

[MelchyBeau]

I would guess the majority of physicists produced in the past 20 years are in fact focused on the very small (quantum/nuclear) and not the very large (astro/GR)

[surftheiop]

Jews - no christian would say this is imposible, moses, abraham etc. are definately in heaven

[almostbusto]

thread cliff notes:

bills217 1
Sklansky 0

[David Sklansky]

"[ QUOTE ]
Jews - no christian would say this is imposible, moses, abraham etc. are definately in heaven

[/ QUOTE ]"

I'm obviously speaking of post Christian era Jews.

[surftheiop]

I know : )

Even as a christian who believes belief in christ is sufficient for salvation i still think god has a seperate plan for his chosen people, so i guess this would disqualify me from competition even if i was a math genius (only 740).

[fun160]

I'm not convinced Dr. Louis is qualified. After all, his Ph.D. is in Theoretical Physics, not real physics.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[AlienBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
But I won't pay if I shouldn't. The guy must fully understand the GENERAL theory of relativity.

[/ QUOTE ]


Understand the *concepts* or understand the minutia of the mathematics involved?

The concepts I think are pretty easy to grasp, though the underlying math is another matter.

AB

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
"David,

Regarding the polygraph thing:

This is a qualification that you either have to eliminate or understand that it can never be met. It seems you are not aware that those of us of Faith always have doubts - or rather at times have moments of doubts (honestly, I am not sure which of the two better describes folk of Faith.)

All of the many priests I know, any Bishop, Cardinal and even the Pope will readily admit to you that he has his moments of doubt."

I stated that the polygraph must test whether he is 95% sure. Especially about the part that says no atheisth, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, has any hope of entering heaven while any true believer has any chance of not entering.

If he is truly renowned I think I will accept a public statement if he uses almost those exact words. But he still needs to be able to TEACH the General Theory of Relativity.

I have every right to be this picky since I am offering a freeroll on an astounding proposition. Namely that not ONE of five thousand great physicists believes these things. Even though statistically there should be a couple of HUNDRED.

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that all of this is just a ruse, the real intentions are to give David a forum to spread his opinions. He is not really interested in having this play out (or more specifically, he realizes that it is very unlikely that some physicist is going to go to take a polygraph, etc bla bla) so his friend can attempt to collect a grand. So he gets a bunch of play on this forum to put forth his beliefs, which is his true agenda. And he gets to do it for free, putting up the 1g is just an attention grabber to have people here pay more attention to him.

So yes, David is smart. And yes, David's agenda is to spead his views about fundamental whoevers.

If he offered a hundred grand or so I would think he was really interested in discovering if there was someone with phd x who undersands y and believes z. As it stands he is interested in spreading his beliefs here amongst the posters.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
Hey now, let's not make it look like I couldn't understand it; it's just not my field.

Also, while I appreciate the fact that you've effectively disproven David's point (and proven mine, made earlier in the thread), I don't think you're going to get the $1000 out of David. He clearly set GR as his Gold Standard in the OP, and (wittingly or unwittingly) gave himself a HUGE edge; if all the Ivy league schools combined have produced 20,000 general relativists in the past 20 years, I'll eat my own head.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thread hijack.

Borodog, I'm surprised by this claim. I would think nearly every Ph.D. candidate in Physics (or at least those in theoretical Physics) would need to pass qualifying exams or whatnot which require thorough understanding of "basic" GR. I think I heard Steven Weinberg remark that at least some Physics grad students these days understand GR better than Einstein did himself.

[ QUOTE ]
If he understood it, he'd be publishing about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this really true? I would think there is a wide gulf between understanding GR and being able to publish new ideas about it. My Ph.D. is in Aerospace Engineering (control theory), and I'm quite confident I could teach control theory classes up through the grad level, but I'm not an active researcher, which requires much more esoteric and specialized understanding. Yeah, I know, not as difficult as GR, but similar idea.

[bills217]

George Ellis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Ellis) can teach GR, and is a Quaker.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Hey now, let's not make it look like I couldn't understand it; it's just not my field.

Also, while I appreciate the fact that you've effectively disproven David's point (and proven mine, made earlier in the thread), I don't think you're going to get the $1000 out of David. He clearly set GR as his Gold Standard in the OP, and (wittingly or unwittingly) gave himself a HUGE edge; if all the Ivy league schools combined have produced 20,000 general relativists in the past 20 years, I'll eat my own head.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thread hijack.

Borodog, I'm surprised by this claim. I would think nearly every Ph.D. candidate in Physics (or at least those in theoretical Physics) would need to pass qualifying exams or whatnot which require thorough understanding of "basic" GR. I think I heard Steven Weinberg remark that at least some Physics grad students these days understand GR better than Einstein did himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is not the case at all. The core required subjects are almost universally classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, E&M, sometimes stat mech (for us, stat mech was a required core class, but was not represented on the qualifier). Outside of the core classes, people generally take classes in their research area. GR is a complex subject that requires a lot of high end mathematics that are not generally applicable to other fields. It is not uncommon for the general relativists to not be in the physics department at all, but rather the math department. In other words, it simply does not "pay" to master GR unless you're going into that field. I personally have never taken a class in GR. Most of the non-astro courses I took in grad school were basically to fill elective requirements and out of intellectual curiosity, particle physics, optics, what have you. Some of the classes that were the most important to my research were not even physics classes, but rather math and mechanical engineering (numerical solutions of differential equations and fluid dynamics, respectively).

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If he understood it, he'd be publishing about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this really true? I would think there is a wide gulf between understanding GR and being able to publish new ideas about it. My Ph.D. is in Aerospace Engineering (control theory), and I'm quite confident I could teach control theory classes up through the grad level, but I'm not an active researcher, which requires much more esoteric and specialized understanding. Yeah, I know, not as difficult as GR, but similar idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

My understanding of the challenge is that the subject must completely understand GR, including the mathematics of it. If you know of any human being on Earth who understands GR to that specification and is not a pbulished theoretician in the field, I would like to meet him, because he must be some vast-grown mathematical freak.

Maybe Metric can back me up here; he's a general relativist.

[bills217]

Charles Hard Townes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Hard_Townes), Ph.D. in Physics in 1950 from CalTech, Nobel Prize in Physics, protestant Christian.

[David Sklansky]

Again, it was not my intention to limit the number of qualifiers down to this degree. I expect to pay the thousand. But in return that scientist is going to have some splainin to do.

[bills217]

John D. Barrow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_D._Barrow), Ph.D. in astrophysics, University of Oxford, 1977, protestant Christian.

[ QUOTE ]
Dr. Barrow, 53, a mathematical sciences professor at the University of Cambridge, is best known for his work on the anthropic principle, which has been the subject of debate in physics circles in recent years. Life as we know it would be impossible, he and others have pointed out, if certain constants of nature — numbers denoting the relative strengths of fundamental forces and masses of elementary particles — had values much different from the ones they have, leading to the appearance that the universe was "well tuned for life," as Dr. Barrow put it.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Dr. Barrow is the co-author of "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle," a primer on the subject, as well as 16 other books, more than 400 scientific papers, and a prizewinning play, "Infinities."

[/ QUOTE ]

[David Sklansky]

I know him well. If he could pass the polygraph I would be truly shocked and sickened.

[UpstateMatt]

David:

Could you go into some detail as to why I can't simply accuse you of conflating education with intelligence? While it is certainly possible that fundamentalist christians beliefs are correlated with lack of intelligence, isn't an easier explanation for the lack of Ph.Ds that belief in fundamentalist Christianity is correlated with lack of interest in education or a lack of money required to get top quality educations?

Evidence of your hypothesis would be a sizable number of fundamentalists pursuing Ph.Ds but failing to achieve them. Evidence of my counter-hypothesis would be a sizeable number of capable fundamentalists eschewing college or not being able to afford it.

Surely you don't believe that people in third world countries are unintelligent simply because they are uneducated? And if you do, what you are really talking about is not intelligence, but learned education. As someone without a higher ed degree, i would assume this point is not lost on you. I don't know how to test for intelligence in a way that completely separates it from education, but i think we should separate the concepts.

What percentage of the disparity is accounted for by this alternative hypothesis?

[bills217]

Howard Georgi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Georgi), Ph.D. in physics from Yale 1971, current Harvard physics professor, protestant Christian.

[David Sklansky]

"isn't an easier explanation for the lack of Ph.Ds that belief in fundamentalist Christianity is correlated with lack of interest in education or a lack of money required to get top quality educations?"

I'm sure that is a factor. Which is why math SATs are more revealing. What percentage of Fundamentalists who take the math SAT get an 800 compare to the percentage of non Fundamentalists who get an 800. I'm guessing its less than one tenth. But there is no statistic available.

Which reminds me. Elaine Miller is giving me a hard time over a crack I made about woman's SAT's. But this statistic IS available. Does anybody know the ratio of female vs. male as far as math 800's are concerned? Of course if there is a discrepancy it is undoubtedly due to cultural reasons.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
"isn't an easier explanation for the lack of Ph.Ds that belief in fundamentalist Christianity is correlated with lack of interest in education or a lack of money required to get top quality educations?"

I'm sure that is a factor. Which is why math SATs are more revealing. What percentage of Fundamentalists who take the math SAT get an 800 compare to the percentage of non Fundamentalists who get an 800. I'm guessing its less than one tenth. But there is no statistic available.



[/ QUOTE ]

What % of non religious faimlies hold math and science as virtuous (and thereby studied by their children) compared to very religious familes?

Are fundamentalist religious families enticing their children to pursue math and science?

Do non religious families expouse the virtues of math and science in greater numbers than religious families? Do non religious people pursue careers in math and science in greater numbers than religious families, passing this down generationally?

[UpstateMatt]

[ QUOTE ]
"isn't an easier explanation for the lack of Ph.Ds that belief in fundamentalist Christianity is correlated with lack of interest in education or a lack of money required to get top quality educations?"

I'm sure that is a factor. Which is why math SATs are more revealing. What percentage of Fundamentalists who take the math SAT get an 800 compare to the percentage of non Fundamentalists who get an 800. I'm guessing its less than one tenth. But there is no statistic available.

Which reminds me. Elaine Miller is giving me a hard time over a crack I made about woman's SAT's. But this statistic IS available. Does anybody know the ratio of female vs. male as far as math 800's are concerned? Of course if there is a discrepancy it is undoubtedly due to cultural reasons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

However, I think you should backtrack on some of your claims then. Mainly that the disparity in Ph.Ds gives us an accurate statistical picture of the magnitude of the "brilliance" gap.

It's relatively obvious that asian and jewish families/communities tend to place a high premium on education, meaning that there are biases that inflate the disparity on both ends. So although there may be 1000 jews with Ph.Ds for every fundy Ph.D, the actual underlying brilliance gap might be something more like 10 to 1 or 50 to 1 or whatever. But certainly less than the observed results of this thread's topic.

By the way, wouldn't a nice way to control for some of this be to compare secular jews with highly religious jews? My experience tells me that highly secular jews outnumber *highly* religious jews in the Ivy league by at least 50 to 1. I'm sure the gap is much smaller in the general population of U.S. jews. This is generally proof in your direction, no?

[bills217]

Brag: Made 800 on my math SAT less than 4 years ago. I'm not sure if I would call myself a fundamentalist, but my theology isn't exactly liberal either.

I take the GMAT next week, trip report upcoming. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[bills217]

Stephen Blundell (http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Associates.php), 1993 Ph.D. in Physics from Oxford, protestant Christian, member of Christians in Science, same organization as Dr. Louis, wonder if they know each other.

Also Katherine Blundell (http://www-astro.physics.ox.ac.uk/~kmb/index.html), Oxford Physics professor, do not know if they are related.

[bills217]

Barbara Drossel (http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Associates.php), post-doc researcher in theoretical physics at MIT from 1994-1996, also a Christians in Science member.

[bills217]

Wilson Poon (http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Associates.php), Ph.D. in Physics from Cambridge, 1988, member of the Doctrine Committee of the Scottish Episcopal Church.

[ QUOTE ]
The Bible also features strongly in his work, particularly those texts that help us understand how and why scientists can successfully carry on their work without importing the ‘God hypothesis’.

[/ QUOTE ]

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Wilson Poon (http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Associates.php), Ph.D. in Physics from Cambridge, 1988, member of the Doctrine Committee of the Scottish Episcopal Church.

[ QUOTE ]
The Bible also features strongly in his work, particularly those texts that help us understand how and why scientists can successfully carry on their work without importing the ‘God hypothesis’.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any idea whether any of these people think Gandhi is burning in hell? Or are you just going to continue listing PhDs who go to church?

[bills217]

Gunter M. Schulz (http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Associates.php), held postdoc physics position at Oxford from 1993-1996, protestant Christian.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wilson Poon (http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Associates.php), Ph.D. in Physics from Cambridge, 1988, member of the Doctrine Committee of the Scottish Episcopal Church.

[ QUOTE ]
The Bible also features strongly in his work, particularly those texts that help us understand how and why scientists can successfully carry on their work without importing the ‘God hypothesis’.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any idea whether any of these people think Gandhi is burning in hell? Or are you just going to continue listing PhDs who go to church?

[/ QUOTE ]

For each I make it clear that they are Protestant. Salvation-by-faith-alone is a very integral Protestant doctrine, and, I may be wrong here, but I believe a large part of the reason for the Protestant Reformation in the first place. A Protestant who doesn't believe in salvation-by-faith-alone would be the exception, not the rule. I believe the Catholics would back me up on this and emphasize it as a key distinction between Protestantism and Catholicism. I admit I am far from a theologian (maybe one day) and don't have nearly the theological acumen of NotReady or the prominent Catholic posters, so I will let them expound.

Also, for those who I have pointed out are members of Christians in Science, I have already linked to and quoted their statement of faith and doctrinal basis in this thread, which essentially confirms that, yes, they believe Ghandi is burning in Hell if he did not accept Jesus as his Savior. So, read the [censored] thread. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

As a Christians in Science committee member, Dr. Louis is bound by that doctrinal basis, and has taken time out of his day to confirm as much to me via e-mail, which is why I am somewhat irritated that David continues to insist on polygraphs/public statements/etc.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Wilson Poon (http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Associates.php), Ph.D. in Physics from Cambridge, 1988, member of the Doctrine Committee of the Scottish Episcopal Church.

[ QUOTE ]
The Bible also features strongly in his work, particularly those texts that help us understand how and why scientists can successfully carry on their work without importing the ‘God hypothesis’.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you have any idea whether any of these people think Gandhi is burning in hell? Or are you just going to continue listing PhDs who go to church?

[/ QUOTE ]

For each I make it clear that they are Protestant. Salvation-by-faith-alone is a very integral Protestant doctrine, and, I may be wrong here, but I believe a large part of the reason for the Protestant Reformation in the first place. A Protestant who doesn't believe in salvation-by-faith-alone would be the exception, not the rule. I believe the Catholics would back me up on this and emphasize it as a key distinction between Protestantism and Catholicism. I admit I am far from a theologian (maybe one day) and don't have nearly the theological acumen of NotReady or the prominent Catholic posters, so I will let them expound.

Also, for those who I have pointed out are members of Christians in Science, I have already linked to and quoted their statement of faith and doctrinal basis in this thread, which essentially confirms that, yes, they believe Ghandi is burning in Hell if he did not accept Jesus as his Savior. So, read the [censored] thread. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

As a Christians in Science committee member, Dr. Louis is bound by that doctrinal basis, and has taken time out of his day to confirm as much to me via e-mail, which is why I am somewhat irritated that David continues to insist on polygraphs/public statements/etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm...its not that I haven't read the thread. Its just that I know plenty of Protestants that, if pinned down and forced to answer whether they really thought Gandhi was burning in hell, they would say probably not. I have no real reason to suspect these people you are listing feel the same way, besides begging the very question that DS is asking. I guess my point was just that knowing they are Protestant doesn't tell me much. Someone says they are a Christian, and TECHNICALLY I can assume a whole host of beliefs about them, but I'd be awfully naive if I actually did that.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
I know plenty of Protestants that, if pinned down and forced to answer whether they really thought Gandhi was burning in hell, they would say probably not.

[/ QUOTE ]

They would probably say they couldn't know for sure, which is theologically correct on their part, regardless of denomination. This topic has already been discussed ad nauseum in this forum.

I see the point you're trying to make, but there is a big difference between Billy Bob who goes to church on Christmas and Easter and checks "Protestant" on religious surveys, and someone who takes theology seriously (most of those I linked to are also involved in the field of theology) and chooses to align themselves with Protestant organizations that have very specific beliefs, and in the case of Christians in Science, a clear statement of faith and doctrinal basis that committee members and officers are bound by.

[bills217]

And frankly, it isn't easy for me to PROVE that ANYONE believes Ghandi is burning in Hell, to say nothing of finding a recent Ivy League Physics Ph.D. (who is much less likely to be noteworthy due to the 20-years requirement) and General Relativist who does. It's not like I can type "Do you think Ghandi is burning in Hell?" in Google and it will bring up 700,000 people who say yes. Although I haven't tried that yet.

IMO it wouldn't be much easier to find an atheist with some given subset of atheist beliefs given the same requirements, simply due to the inherently difficult nature of the proposition (which DS had to be aware of). I do not personally in real life know even a single person who has a Physics Ph.D. unless you count my past Physics professors.

[bills217]

Bob White (http://www.st-edmunds.cam.ac.uk/faraday/Staff.php), Geophysics professor at Cambridge, also a committee member on Christians in Science, and thus bound by their statement of faith and doctrinal basis.

[gull]

Where did you find all these people? I spent quite a while googling.

[bills217]

J. Richard Gott (http://www.princetonastronomy.org/gott.html), Astrophysics Ph.D. in 1972 from Princeton. Gott is a Presbyterian and native of my home state of Kentucky. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[ QUOTE ]
I’m a Presbyterian. I believe in God; I always thought that was the humble position to take. I like what Einstein said: “God is subtle but not malicious.” I think if you want to know how the universe started, that’s a legitimate question for physics. But if you want to know why it’s here, then you may have to know—to borrow Stephen Hawking’s phrase—the mind of God.

[/ QUOTE ]

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
Where did you find all these people? I spent quite a while googling.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I generally started with google or wikipedia, but a lot of times I followed link after link etc. to another page such as an evangelical Christian science organization home page, etc.

It is abundantly clear that there are quite a few of them (far, far greater than zero), and these are just the notable ones who have Physics doctorates from prominent institutions.

[bills217]

John T. Houghton (http://www.jri.org.uk/intro/directors.htm#jth), professor of Atmospheric Physics at Oxford 1976-1983, Director of John Ray Initiative (JRI). Bob White is also a director of JRI.

JRI Basis of Faith (http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=101&Item id=85)

[ QUOTE ]
1. I declare my belief in God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and my faith in Jesus as Saviour, Lord and God.

2. I acknowledge the Bible as the inspired word of God, the final authority in matters of faith and conduct, and Creation as the work of God, entrusted to humans to respect and care for.

3. I accept my obligation to be a careful steward of God's Creation, encouraging the responsible use of science and technology in pursuit of environmental protection and sustainable development.

[/ QUOTE ]

[bills217]

Here (http://www.leaderu.com/truth/1truth16.html) is a very interesting piece by Dr. Henry Margenau (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Margenau) (Ph.D. in Physics from Yale in 1929, although the piece was written no earlier than 1982, perhaps as recently as 1995) entitled "Why I am a Christian," where he reconciles physics specifically with Christianity.

It opens:

[ QUOTE ]
Dear Roy:
In a recent telephone conversation you requested that I clarify, or perhaps amplify, my claim that I am a physicist and a Christian. I fully understand this request, for there exists a wide-spread view that regards science and religion in general as incompatible. Let me therefore point out, first of all, that this belief may have been true half a century ago but has now lost its validity as may be seen by any one who reads the philosophical writings of the most distinguished and creative physicists of the last five decades. I am referring here to men like Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Schroedinger, Dirac, Wigner and many others.


[/ QUOTE ]

His contention would seem to be the exact opposite of David's.

[lastchance]

Bills217 > David Sklansky.

[Assani Fisher]

[ QUOTE ]


Secondly it is absolutely necessary that they are certain that a belief in Jesus is a necesarry and sufficient condition to avoiding hell and going to heaven.

[/ QUOTE ]For the record, the Bible does not claim this. There is a verse that says something along the lines of "even the Demons believe in Jesus." Belief in Jesus AND acceptance of him as your Savior are necessary and sufficient conditions according to the Bible.

[David Sklansky]

Mentioning dozens of names tends to make it more, rather than less clear, that Christians are woefully underrepresented among top physicists. Given the obvious lengths you have gone to find them.

But now lets get you that thousand bucks. I actually want to pay it. But I need you to find me someone who will say in no uncertain terms that he is almost positive that pious Jews, incredibly generous agnostics, and all others of that ilk will go to hell if thy don't change their beliefs. I need him to have approximately the same beliefs as Not Ready and for him to publicly proclaim it.

Alternatetively you could perhaps persuade NR to get off his duff and get a physics degree. I'll pay double for that.

[SNOWBALL]

[ QUOTE ]
Statistically there should be at least 1000 such Ivy League Phds who believe the first paragraph. (I'm guessing there are at least 2000 such Phds who believe the tenets of Judaism

[/ QUOTE ]

I've never been less impressed with you than I am now

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
Alternatetively you could perhaps persuade NR to get off his duff and get a physics degree. I'll pay double for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL

[bills217]

Dr. Louis replied to my e-mail. Here is his response:


Dear bills217,

I'm sure this $1000 thing is a hoax -- there are loads of Christian
Physics PhD's from Ivy league universities who work on GR and would
believe such things. Just have a look at the IVCF graduate Christian
Fellowships:

http://www.intervarsity.org/gfm/gfm-chapters.php

e.g. the one at Harvard has 1,000 students on its mailing list, a number
of which I'm sure do GR. Similarly, over on this side of the channel, I
know a good number of (young) evangelical Christians who have faculty
positions in Physics/Applied Maths in Oxford or Cambridge. Their exact
positions on this rather poorly formulated theological statement is hard
to predict, but I'm sure, given their church background, some would agree
with its principle.

I'm not willing to participate in this publicity stunt by your atheist
friend, but you're welcome to post this reply to your list.

cheers,
Ard

[bills217]

I may be away from the comp for the next day or two, if so, we will pick this up when I return.

[Magic_Man]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not willing to participate in this publicity stunt by your atheist
friend, but you're welcome to post this reply to your list.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you tell him DS was an atheist? If not, this is an interesting assumption. I'll let others elaborate.

~MagicMan

[David Sklansky]

Of course it is not a hoax. You are almost there. On the other hand Dr. Louis had the money to split with you in his hand and chose not to. Truth be known, I was looking for an American but since I didn't state it originally that is my problem. I may pay a 2nd $1000 to find one.

As for my poorly worded theological statement, it can be changed a bit to their liking. As long as it includes the comment that the all exemplary non believers are doomed to hell if they don't change.

Meanwhile for those of you who might claim that such believers will be reluctant to admit it, I would counter that such reluctance is either evidence of uncertainty or hypocrisy. If I believed it I would want to proclaim it to the world.

[gull]

Weird, I emailed Ard Louis right after you posted him yet I haven't received a reply.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
William Dembski, Ph.D. in Mathematics, Univ. of Chicago, 1988 (http://www.arn.org/authors/dembski.html)

[/ QUOTE ]
He is a Math PhD, not a physics PhD, and there's no way he understands General Relativity since he pretty much doesn't understand anything about science at all. Also, not that it's relevant to this particular challenge, but DS would wipe the floor with him on the SAT.

[bills217]

You probably sent it to an old address.

[bills217]

Jennifer Wiseman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Wiseman), Bachelor's in Physics from MIT, Ph.D. in Astronomy from Harvard 1995, Protestant Christian.

I realize she doesn't meet the letter of David's requirements, but seems to meet the spirit, and she seems to have been outspoken about her faith in the past. However, I can't find any contact info for her (or at least not any that looks recent).

Basically, there are three things that make this challenge very difficult that have nothing to do with David's main point (and having the Physics Ph.D. from an Ivy isn't one of them):

1) Finding a scientist who has become noteworthy <20 years removed from their doctorate.

2) Finding that scientist's current contact info.

3) Convincing them to take time out of their busy day to visit a gambling message board of all places and post about their faith as part of what must seem to them like a ridiculous publicity stunt (given what they know about the number of Christians in their field and science in general), for a trivial amount of money, and about a subtopic that has seen no lack of debate throughout the internets and for that matter throughout history.

If I were actually a student at Harvard, per se, I think this challenge would be beyond easy.

[bills217]

Dr. Jason Lisle (http://www.answersingenesis.org/events/bio.aspx?Speaker_ID=40), Ph.D. in astrophysics from Colorado.

He appears recent, but not from an Ivy. Shot him an e-mail.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, not that it's relevant to this particular challenge, but DS would wipe the floor with him on the SAT.

[/ QUOTE ]

By "wipe the floor," you of course mean, finish faster. The SAT M is super easy. Would it impress you if I said that I could do single digit multiplication worksheets faster than Sklansky?

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Also, not that it's relevant to this particular challenge, but DS would wipe the floor with him on the SAT.

[/ QUOTE ]

By "wipe the floor," you of course mean, finish faster. The SAT M is super easy. Would it impress you if I said that I could do single digit multiplication worksheets faster than Sklansky?

[/ QUOTE ]

Those were my thoughts exactly...I would say almost any Math Ph.D. who isn't 100 years old or something would probably be an overwhelming favorite to score 800.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

I'll pay double for that


[/ QUOTE ]

In advance?

[monkeymaps]

[ QUOTE ]
"If you want raw math power, why not just pick a Ph.D mathematician instead?"

Because that is ridiculously unfair to me. I want to show that fundamentalists are very much less likely than average to achieve great brilliance. They are 5% of the population and probably .05% of the brilliant poulation. Just maybe there are zero of them in the category I picked. But the category you picked, Phd in math, is so much more numerous that at least a few have made it there. So I prove nothing when one shows up.

[/ QUOTE ]

So according to David a Phd in Physics makes someone brilliant? Im not saying people with Phds are not brilliant but there must be better ways to quantify who is brilliant?