The Three E's : Evidence, Evolution, and, um, Eggs (Page 6)

CoIin
(Post deleted by CoIin 9 years ago)
CoIin
(Post deleted by CoIin 9 years ago)
lori100
(Post deleted by CoIin 9 years ago)
CoIin
(Post deleted by CoIin 9 years ago)
CoIin
CoIin: More on the Theory Ladenness of Observation


We all know, or I hope we all know, that things can get very murky when we're dealing with theory.

On the other hand, sensible grown-ups will often try to convince you that all is nice and simple at the observational level. We may differ in our theoretical interpretations of what we see, but we can all agree on WHAT WE SEE. Our language of observation is theory neutral. A particularly eloquent grown-up might tell you that observation constitutes the final court of appeal in all matters scientific.

And don't listen to any airy-fairy philosophers in ivory towers who try to tell you otherwise!


Are you familiar with the Ames Room? Take a look:-




Now, what's the lesson to be learned from the Ames Room with regard the philosophy of science? Well, almost anybody first confronted with the Ames Room illusion will assert:-

"It's a room with one big dude and one small dude in it."

This is our DATA. These are the FACTS. And data and facts, of course, are that which we build our theories around. What could possibly be problematic about a simple observation statement like this?

Now, of course, we know the answer. The statement above is by no means "pure" or "untainted" by theory. It is every bit as "theory-laden" as those observation reports made by scientists working with cutting-edge equipment. Even a term as humble as "room" is packed with assumptions that we're generally not even aware of.

There's no need to invoke electrons, genes, planets, cloud chambers, and all the rest to find examples of terms that are theory-laden. A simple "room" far from the frontiers of scientific research will do just fine.

Don't believe all that grown-ups tell you, boys and girls.

(Edited by CoIin)
9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: "This view [convergence upon truth] faces grave difficulties, for scientific change is not a matter of making minor adjustments in earlier views. Natural science does not develop by accretion and cumulation but by way of substitution and replacement."

- Nicholas Rescher



In my dealings with the more scientifically oriented Wireclubbers, I'm frequently struck by the stubbornness shared by themselves and their religious counterparts. If a certain belief has been absorbed at an early age -- say the belief that science is privy to a unique and unchanging "Method" for generating knowledge of nature, perhaps first acquired while watching Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" or the like on television as a youngster -- then the belief is by now so firmly entrenched that it becomes almost impervious to attack. When challenged, the unapologetic believer is likely to stand firm, nay, stand LOYAL; his blithe disregard for the amount of evidence marshalled in rebuttal against him matched only by his insouciance at the flimsiness of his own case.

To exaggerate only slightly : "I've been told it's so and so it's so!"

Even more striking, not to mention frustrating, is the irrational and overwhelming reluctance to admit a fair hearing to any argument or evidence NO MATTER HOW COGENT from an uncredentialed cipher like myself, presumably on the grounds that everyone knows scientists are smarter than all the rest of us, and therefore it's quite inconceivable that said cipher could be right, while said scientific nabob is wrong, on any science-related matter. On the contrary, a person like myself presenting arguments which run counter to the ingrained orthodoxy of the scientistic fundamentalist is liable to be branded "anti-science", much as the religious loony confronted with distasteful counter-evidence is apt to allege Satanic interference and howl "Antichrist!".

I hasten to emphasize, firstly, that the views I present here tend to be fairly mainstream and raise few eyebrows in the philosophy of science -- I don't just make 'em up -- and secondly, that what shocks me is not the science fan being in possession of erroneous beliefs per se, for all of us surely hold many false beliefs, but rather the unwillingness to revise these beliefs when appropriate.

Anyhow, a close cousin to the myth of The Scientific Method in this regard -- i.e., a belief poorly supported by the facts but widely held and devilishly hard to dislodge in the mind of the dogmatic believer -- is that of cumulative growth in science.

This is not entirely surprising. We were all brought up, I daresay, on the standard party line to the effect that Einstein improved on Newton, who improved on Kepler, who improved on Copernicus, and so on and so forth. And the idea does undeniably hold a certain superficial plausibility. When subjected to scrutiny, however, it simply cannot be sensibly defended, no matter what you might have been told by Carl Sagan or some other seductive scientific pin-up decades ago.

Of course, the resistance mustered will vary according to the particular case in question. Even the most hardened science fan will sportingly concede that the theories of phlogiston, caloric, and the luminiferous aether, for example, were just plain wrong. This is, after all, quite consonant with the official party line. At the other end of the spectrum, though, any impertinent suggestion that Newton's physics were WRONG is bound to be greeted with heavy artillery.

A typical reaction >>> "Newton may have been partly wrong but his theory is still perfectly adequate for most purposes. It got us to the Moon!"

It certainly DID get us to the Moon, but this certainly DOESN'T entail that the theory was adjusted rather than abandoned by Einstein, and a fortiori, that the theory is true or approximately true. The confusion here, I suggest, derives from the failure to appreciate that even false theories make correct predictions. (A true theory, needless to say, would generate ONLY correct predictions). Consider, for illustrative purposes, a simple Mickey Mouse theory such as "All birds can fly". Now, whatever you happen to think of this theory - good or bad - I take it we can all agree that the theory gets A LOT of things right! It yields a multitude of accurate observational predictions. Abundant confirming evidence for your theory is all around; in fact, so long as you keep a safe distance from cassowaries, kiwis, penguins, Christmas turkeys, and their aeronautically-challenged brethren, you will find ONLY confirming evidence for your theory.

(We might also note in passing that the aforementioned theories of caloric, phlogiston, and the luminiferous aether - unanimously conceded to be false - also yielded accurate predictions, just like Newton's, just like most, or even all, other false theories.)

But the question remains : what truth value (T or F) must we assign to the bird theory -- and Newton's theory? (If you need help, ask a logician friend.)

Unfeasibly prolific writer and philosopher Nicholas Rescher, once again, hammers the point home below. In defending Newton, the well intentioned science fan through misplaced loyalty inadvertently ends up reducing noble scientific principles to an embarrassing and uninformative, "Yeah, but the theory is right about all the stuff it gets right ".

Newton was a genius. He needs no defense. And there's no disgrace in being wrong. It's when we hear nutters screaming about "TRUTH" in matters scientific that we should be worried.



"It may seem tempting to say that later theories simply provide localized readjustments and that the old theories continue to hold good provided only that we suitably restrict their domains of purported validity. On such a view, it is tempting to say: "Einstein's theory does not REPLACE Newton's; it does not actually disagree with Newton's at all but simply sets limits to the region of phenomena (large-scale, slow-moving objects) where Newton's theory works perfectly well." Such temptations must be resisted. To yield them is like saying that "All swans are white" is true all right; we just have to be cautious about its domain limitation and take care not to apply it in Australia. This sort of position comes down, in the final analysis, to the unhelpful truism that a theory works where a theory works. In science we do not seek local theories that unaccountably hold for limited parametric ranges, but global theories that accountably take special forms within delimited ranges. And just this makes scientific theories vulnerable."


(I would vociferously recommend Rescher's book "The Limits of Science" to any serious person genuinely concerned about getting science RIGHT, and as a corrective to the mindless, religious-like glorification of science through grotesquely exaggerated -- and demonstrably untrue -- claims (It's the Truth!! We have Proof!! ) of the type advanced in these forums on a distressingly frequent basis, often attaining degrees of absurdity for which any religious nut would be justifiably proud. Use the link below to read more. Start with pages 66 - 77)

http://books.google.com.tw/books?id=BmGixsEhO5gC&pg=PA69&lpg=PA69&dq=Rescher+It+may+seem+tempting+to+say+that+later+theories+simply+provide+localized+readjustments&source=bl&ots=be36tjusrY&sig=4mAHor8qxqNy-U8sFbMCY2_MRnM&hl=zh-
(Edited by CoIin)
9 years ago Report
0
Corwin
(Post deleted by CoIin 9 years ago)
Corwin
(Post deleted by CoIin 9 years ago)
Corwin
(Post deleted by CoIin 9 years ago)
CoIin
CoIin: Here's a nice characterization of the term "scientism" by Susan Haack:-

scientism : an exaggerated kind of deference toward science, an excessive readiness to accept as authoritative any claim made by the sciences, and to dismiss every kind of criticism of science or its practitioners as anti-scientific prejudice


I've said it before and I'll say it again now -- I am not anti-science; I am anti-scientism.

Quite simply, scientism is science worship, and I find it a deeply worrying trend. It exhibits many of the same disturbing features embodied in religious fanaticism, features which in addition to those listed above, I would include scorn and contempt for any belief system other than one's own, and, in the lower ranks, the refusal to be moved by any argument or evidence pertaining to science, no matter how compelling, which has not been endorsed by one's own priestly caste -- a paralysis of autonomous thought!

Richard Dawkins, to my mind at least, represents the epitome of scientism among the contemporary scientific elite : a grossly exaggerated confidence in his own claims compounded with utter disdain for heterodox opinions.

Fortunately, there is hope : the SCIENTISTIC ugliness of Dawkins can be contrasted with the SCIENTIFIC charm of a man like Stephen Jay Gould, the late arch rival of Dawkins, whose disarming modesty, cautious wisdom, keen intelligence, philosophical depth, and gentle tolerance for dissenting views I'm growing to admire enormously.

At a more pedestrian level, we see a similar melodrama played out here in the Wireclub schoolyard on a daily basis. The reflective wisdom of a minority of scientifically inclined members who I've come to respect regrettably tends to be drowned out in the cacophony of the scientistic hooligans.

Burning at the stake may be frowned upon these days, nevertheless, any heretic failing to toe the scientistic party line can expect to be taunted, ridiculed, mocked, insulted, harassed, belittled, bullied, humiliated and decorated with a crown of thorns.

Or worse.

So much for enlightenment.
(Edited by CoIin)
9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: The Evolution of Hypotheses
---------------------------------------------------

We're often told that what unites science, both across disciplines and through time, is Method. Science remains defined by its unique, rigid, and timeless method -- The Scientific Method -- even while empires rise and fall and theories come and go.

And of what exactly does this putative Method consist, the inquisitive reader may beseech with a peremptory poke ? Well, the precise details will depend on who you ask, and perhaps the day of the week and the colour of Colonel Jessup's underwear too, but whatever formulation you're given will almost certainly include talk of "hypotheses".

And what, pray tell, is a hypothesis? Surely no one says it more eloquently than John Stuart Mill (writing in the 19th century):-

"An hypothesis is any supposition which we make (either without actual evidence, or on evidence avowedly insufficient) in order to endeavour to deduce from it conclusions in accordance with facts which are known to be real; under the idea that if the conclusions to which the hypothesis leads are known truths, the hypothesis itself either must be, or at least is likely to be, true."

In a video on the previous page, we see physics legend Richard Feynman -- obviously echoing Karl Popper -- describe a hypothesis as a "guess", or what we might more charitably term an "educated guess" acknowledging the tacit knowledge that the seasoned scientist undoubtedly possesses.

A hypothesis (I refuse on pain of death to write "an" hypothesis ), then, is not DERIVED from the data or evidence, but if it is able to account for the data, and perhaps other data for which it was not originally conceived, scientists may feel justified in drawing an inference to its truth or approximate truth.

Science without hypotheses is unthinkable.

Or is it?

"A discovery in mathematics, or a successful induction of facts, when once completed, cannot be too soon given to the world. But ... an hypothesis is a work of fancy, useless in science, and fit only for the amusement of a vacant hour." (Henry Brougham, 1803)

This may come as news to some, but current respectability notwithstanding, hypotheses were a hideous anathema to exponents of The Scientific Method until well into the 19th century and beyond. Mr Brougham's remarks are by no means misrepresentative; you'll find similar sentiments replete in the writings of Newton, Mill, and their inductivist cohorts.

Hypotheses in science, until fairly recently, then, aroused about as much enthusiasm among methodological puritans as, say, gay marriage rights do today in our more zealous friends in the Religion Forum.

A timeless method, you say?
(Edited by CoIin)
9 years ago Report
0
Bourbaki
Bourbaki: I'd much like to see you write about the interplay between mathematics, science, and philosophy.
9 years ago Report
2
sprocket girl
sprocket girl: i saw maths mentioned... first i ran then i cried then recalled that maths are absolute.

but a very smart guy (who happened to never comb his hair) said maths are only absolute if we first agree upon the rules.

example: 2+2 only = 4 if we are all in agreement that + means plus and has no actual value. if infact + has a value then 2+2 is dependent upon said value and becomes multiplycation, assuming we agree upon those rules.

now, not saying science is wrong on evolution or anything but to me this poses a question that i simply am too uneducated to even guess at. if at some relatively simply level of science we have accepted a minor theory based on our perception of it and in fact we are wrong, would that not lead to all later theories being percieved accurate but infact incorrect. of course i once read perception is reality so i digress.

in the end i accept things evolve and or change to fit their needs and environment but i doubt all the research in this area is anywhere close to accurate. of course somehow (unrelated) man split the atom. so, obviously scientists know more than little valueless me. still for me to accept evolution entirely is a stretch. while i buy into micro evolution. on a big scale that everything came from single cell organisms is kinda stretching the absolutes they have.

also on a minor note, my largest confusion in evolution is that some things which evolved we have both the evolved species and the primitive one. but as to other things we have only the new species. also when placing bones of extinct things scientists use logic and perception of life as we know it. so for example dinos look a lot like rhinos in many cases but in fact besides the ones found whole the others contain many speculations that they were somewhat like what we percieve and know. back to evolution, the issue with trout evolving from salmon for example lies with common sense to me. scientifically it makes sense cause yep trouts are much like salmons but one question, when they both share and survive in the same water, what was the purpose of salmon evolving to a smaller more sensitive less tough species? anyone who fishes knows handling a trout (simply touching it) can kill it. while a salmon unless during spawn is pretty tough critter.

anyhow my main point is sure we accept science that works but we should keep searching and questioning the rest. what seems most logical is not by any means certainly correct.
9 years ago Report
1
sprocket girl
sprocket girl: one last note if trout evolved from salmon then infact they evolved to be the prey of that which they evolved from which further clouds my thoughts.

again i am too uneducated to know for certainty what if anything this shows. simple logic would say it does not show evolution to be for survival. unless infact salmon evolved to trout to actually feed the less evolved species which seems like design not evolution.
9 years ago Report
0
orkanen
orkanen: Trouts swim in fresh and brackish water, salmons live salt water too. Anyhow, both seem to be capable of growing to approximately the same size, 40 - 50kg. Food availability is much higher in salt water, so faster growth is natural.
9 years ago Report
0
sprocket girl
sprocket girl: not dispute how big they can get but the record salmon in alaska is 92lbs so in that scale... the record trout is 46 so half the size of 40kg.. they may be able to get that big but obviously if they do no one is catching anything close.

so again my pondering is why did a salmon who lives in fresh or salt water evolve into a lesser survival smaller species that lives in fresh water only. is the food of its predecessor and is smaller by everything i can find besides that post here. also, makes no sense that a fish to survive evolved into a more fragile fish it eats. not saying it didnt evolve as they say... simply from my observation salmon devolved. if that is a word.

science folks are like Bible folks they do anything to make their side right regardless of logic... not all do this but many many do. not suggesting orkananen did this.. he didnt! he simply shared more info which actually for me leads to more questions. seems salmon are more likely to survive since they can adapt to fresh and salt water, tho i believe they can only spawn in fresh, where as trout have a small picky environment with a tiny range of even water temp.

both it seems are capable of reaching the same size but that leads me to wonder why does one reach its size while the other which is supposedly the evolved species fail to even get close to it's size in the wild?

who knows just for me i have doubts on the accuracy of all this evolution stuff. i will buy things evolve and adapt. adaptation i am certain of. but i think why and how is where science is way off.

of course i am young and always told i am wrong... so dismiss my thoughts if anyone wants. i am a big girl being wrong doesnt upset me. i actually would rather be wrong and question what i am told then blindly follow like a sheep. just cause science thanks its logical doesnt make it so.

i am with colin in that i love science but scientism is complete hog wash!
9 years ago Report
0
orkanen
orkanen: I'm afraid I can't say much on the evolution of either salmon or trout. I am however able to describe what to do with suitable specimens of either. Including butter, parsley, salt, pepper and a cast iron frying pan on a log fire. What I did prior to last post was checking what Wikipedia said, then forward it.

I have heard an explanation concerning differences, which goes like this. Any trait not necessary for the survival of a species, if costly, reduces the chance of procreation. I will extrapolate from this. If trout come from salmon, and a group of "before trout" became isolated for a longer period of time, those individuals, best suited for the new environment, would have been most likely to procreate, and thus, the group ends up as trout. It's called adaptation to its present environment. Yes I know, it was a very simplistic explanation.

I admit to accepting the Theory of Evolution for many reasons, but that is a subject I'll leave out for now.
9 years ago Report
1
sprocket girl
sprocket girl: that actually clarifies... cause i had not concidered two things one... we have trout now where we placed them. thus, i am clueless as to where they may have needed to be trout and not salmon. this could explain a lot.

most of the world only has trout because we farm them... so, maybe they evolved in a location salmon simply could not survive or adapted if the case.

mostly i strongly agree about what should be done with both

really i accept evolution just question parts of it. i find i am in a small group that questions both creation and evolution... and at the same time accepts both in a way. of course creationism says evolution is wrong but a creator does not have to lay out his blue prints and certainly man is wrong so so often. that even if creator did lay out plans the recording of them can be inacurate. i would say the same about science.

philosophy interests me a lot and i do accept perception as playing into what we believe. if our perceptions are false so would be our truths... hmmm idk
evolution seems most logical but to think it is without flaw is something i am unable to do, maybe with further education my perspective will change this view.

mostly i am sure i am wrong as often or more than i am right.. not sure others arent just like me in that area.
9 years ago Report
0
orkanen
orkanen: I dismiss Creationism, simply because it isn't falsifiable. It's not a Scientific Theory, despite Creationists pretending it to be one. Look at the driving forces for the appearance of new species, and you will understand why. Science only deals with the natural world, ruling Creationism out.

Philosophy can be interesting, when rooted in facts. I've seen it abused far too much. See otherwise my previous paragraph.

As for being wrong and right, enjoy Topic: Science I've certainly had my laughs so far.
9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: @ Sprocket Girl and Orkanen

Glad to see you both thinking about evolutionary theory (ET). I don't particularly care if a person accepts or rejects the theory as long as they are able to rationally justify their choice. What we must NOT do, and what almost everyone else DOES do (regardless of their inevitable protests to the contrary), I believe, is accept it unreflectively due simply to social pressure, for fear of scorn or fear of appearing foolish.



In this post, I'd like to address Orkanen's comment above:-

"I dismiss Creationism, simply because it isn't falsifiable. It's not a Scientific Theory, despite Creationists pretending it to be one."

There's a great deal we could discuss here: (i) Is it true that Creationism is not falsifiable? (ii) Is it true that evolutionary theory IS falsifiable? Furthermore, clearly Orkanen has taken falsifiability to be the demarcation criterion for a scientific theory: if it's not falsifiable, it's not scientific. Is this indeed the case? Says who? (iii) Who has the final word on this?

Beginning with (i), I'd first ask Orkanen: if Creationism is indeed unfalsifiable as you claim, why do I see you in other threads rebuking certain religious posters that, say, the Earth is NOT six thousand (or whatever) years old? Apparently you feel their young Earth claim is not only falsiFIABLE, but that it has already been definitively falsiFIED. Isn't the age of the Earth part of the Creationist package? If so, is it falsifiable or not? You can't have it both ways.

Of course, we often see the religious assailants of ET perpetrate precisely the same fallacy; on the one hand claiming ET is unfalsifiable, while on the other adducing evidence which purportedly disproves the theory!

Well, then, perhaps what Ork wants to say is that although certain INDIVIDUAL Creationist claims might be falsifiable, the theory (whatever that is) as a whole is not.

But then, moving onto (ii), I'd have to ask whether ET as a whole is falsifiable or not. I don't think it is, regardless of how we construe "falsifiable" (see below). If I'm right in this, and we adopt Orkanen's criterion of falsifiability to distinguish that which is scientific from that which is not, then we'd have to conclude that ET is not a scientific theory either!

And what do we mean by "falsifiable" anyway? If we mean "potentially able to be shown with logical certainty to be untrue" then ET and every other scientific theory must be said to be unfalsifiable (and I'll be happy to explain why). If, on the other hand, we take falsifiability to be an "attitude", that is, particular scientists declare that given certain observations or findings they would renounce the theory (Dawkins and his pre-Cambrian rabbit) then we see immediately that falsifiability refers simply to one person's promise and not an intrinsic property of the theory itself.

For more on this, I'd invite anyone interested to review the first two pages of this thread. Also, take a look at my exchange with CrisC on pages 80-81 of the thread linked below:-

Topic: Science


Finally, readers might like to reflect on these remarks from philosopher of science, Elliott Sober:-

"Creationists often talk of 'testing evolutionary theory', and biologists sometimes talk this way as well. The context of their remarks sometimes reveals which specific proposition the authors have in mind, but often this is not the case. It is important to recognize that the phrase 'evolutionary theory' is too vague when the subject of testing is broached. There are a number of propositions that evolutionary biologists take seriously. The first step should be to specify which of these is to be the focus."
(Edited by CoIin)
9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: Bourbaki suggested above that we might explore " the interplay between mathematics, science, and philosophy".

Explore we shall. (well, logic instead of maths anyway. I still haven't figured out how to squeeze mathematics into the picture )

The example below might help illustrate some of the difficulties encountered when we make the move from the abstract (or is it? ) realm of mathematics and logic, where everything is nice and orderly and well behaved, to the real world of science where things are infinitely more recalcitrant.

The precision loving mathematician abhors the fuzziness of real world science, whereas the scientist may scorn the impracticality of mathematics. Myriad differences notwithstanding, they can both agree, however, that philosophers are worthy only of contempt.

Well, anyway, down to business. We've talked a lot about falsification in this thread. Put your thinking caps on, friends and lovers, ponder a deliberately simple Mickey Mouse example, and let's attempt the vault from logical theory to scientific practice.


Theory : All You Need to Know About Falsification in 30 Seconds
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A universal claim of the form : "All Xs are Ys" (S1)
is falsified by a statement such as : "There is an X that is not Y" (S2)

(And if we ask Bourbaki nicely, I trust he'd be happy to translate the above into formal logic complete with upside-down "A"s, reverse "E"s and other horrors )

It should be obvious, I think, that both statements cannot be true. If S2 is true then we must assign a value of false to S1. Under the doctrine of falsification, S1 is falsified by S2 and must be abandoned as a potentially true hypothesis.

And that's that! You may now don your silly robe and graduate cumma laude sumthin' or other.


But just what are Xs and Ys? What exactly are we talking about here?

Well, thus far, X and Y are nothing more than VARIABLES. They are uninterpreted symbols, which is to say, they are symbols with no semantic content. They're the kind of beasts that drive nerdy mathematicians up the wall .

But science isn't much interested in uninterpreted symbols.

Quite so! Roll up your sleeves, then, and let's transport ourselves to the real world. Consider the claim:-

S3 : All ravens are black

"Raven" and "black", of course, are a lot more than just uninterpreted symbols. Raven and black are meaningful terms, both concerning objects and properties we take to exist in physical reality.

A claim/hypothesis/theory/law/wotevah-you-wanna-call-it-guvnor such as S3 is presumably the result of numerous observations of particular ravens, all of which were black, from which we inductively generalize to a (tentative ) hypothesis or law concerning ALL ravens.

But then we receive word of reports from darkest New Guinea that some intrepid David Attenborough wannabe has discovered a raven that is not black, or perhaps a population of non-black ravens. It would then appear that:-

S4 : There is at least one raven that is not black


Question : Is S3 definitively falsified? Must S3 be abandoned in accordance with our strict falsificationist doctrine on the grounds that it has been disproven?


Does one's ATTITUDE to the S3 hypothesis have any bearing on all this? What if it's very important to you, for whatever reasons, that S3 NOT be disproven? Say, for example, the holy book of the religion to which Vincent is a devout believer explicitly states that all ravens are black. Or suppose that Valerie's science research grant depends on all ravens being black. Do you think Vincent and Valerie might be noticeably less cavalier than the rest of us about dropping S3.

What say you, sons and daughters of Wireclub?


"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and so far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality" - Albert Einstein
9 years ago Report
0
orkanen
orkanen: I say Creationism is not falsifiable because the underlying mechanisms it represents are not presently testable. Until someone presents a way to test magic, it will remain so.

The claim behind the "theory" is that an intelligent entity created all "kinds" as is. Under scrutiny, the intelligent entity is always the Christian god. No one has so far produced conclusive tests to demonstrate how the driving force (god) of this "theory" works. Neither has anyone defined what a "kind" is. I experience that they continuously refuse to do so, I suggest for fear it will be used against them.

Science deals with the natural world. Creationism is rooted in religion, or magic if you will. Thus, not falsifiable.
9 years ago Report
0
CoIin
CoIin: Hi Ork

Fair enough, but a few immediate thoughts:-

1. Do you admit that certain claims made by Creationists (e.g. age of the Earth) are falsifiable? But the entire package is unfalsifiable?

And what of evolutionary theory? Are its claims individually falsifiable? Can the entire package be falsified en bloc as Dawkins would rather naively have us believe?


2. In your second paragraph, perhaps unknowingly, you switch from talk of falsification to verification. (and that's ok )

I readily agree that there has not been, and perhaps CANNOT BE, any conclusive demonstration of the underlying entities and mechanisms (i.e. God et al) of the Creationist scenario. But is science any different? The underlying mechanisms (forces, etc) and entities (quarks, etc) which scientists invoke in their theories as causes for observable phenomena are -- in your own words -- UNDERLYING, i.e. we can't see them. If we could see them we wouldn't need to construct theories about them.

I agree, the Creationists cannot prove their theory. But can scientists prove theirs?


3. I'll take your word that Creationists can't agree on what a "kind" is. But are all scientists agreed on what a "species" is?


Your final statement ushers in thoughts of my quarks thread. Science deals with the natural world, you say? Ok, but scientists often invoke that which is not observable to explain that which is. No one is ever likely to see God. No one is ever likely to see a quark either.

Should science restrict its TRUTH claims to the level of the observable - the EMPIRICAL? Or are scientists justified in making truth claims about what goes on behind the scenes -- stuff that we don't, indeed CAN'T, experience.

Welcome to the realism vs antirealisn brouhaha.
(Edited by CoIin)
9 years ago Report
0
orkanen
orkanen: I'll be brief and to the point:

1a) As I have understood, the Creationist claim is that everything living appeared as found today, as created by an intelligent entity (God). This also includes extinct beings. Added later was acceptance for minor adaptations, but limiting it to not produce new "kinds". A "kind" would be a cat, a dog, a camel, a wolf, a cow. As such, both domestic cats and Bengal Tigers are cats, and neither will ever give birth to dogs. I accept that adaptation is falsifiable, but it's taken from Theory of Evolution, the very Scientific Theory it's proponents oppose.

1b) I have mentioned a few times before, the Theory of Evolution is extremely vast, encompassing quite a few genres within Science. During its 150 year discourse (actually more than 2.000 years), details have been discarded and replaced by, or added to former descriptions. An example here would be Speciation by Punctuated Equilibrium, an addition to Gradual Evolution, to explain why new species "suddenly" appear without apparent transitions. In theory, the theory itself, being a claim that "this is how it happens" is highly falsifiable in that the Precambrian rabbit would require a different explanation. In reality, it would most likely be altered to fit the new facts, maintaining any detail that still fits the whole picture.

2b) We could remain on topic, as it were. Abiogenesis is within the realm of theoretical Science, stipulating on the origin of life as we know it. Hypotheses are shown to be testable. Whether or not results are truly facts, remains to be seen. The theory "Life can arise from non life, given the right circumstances" has been given credibility in that what is believed to be the recreated early earth in a test tube, where more complex organic molecules have arisen from simpler ones. Efforts are done to discover credible paths to proto life.

2a) As for Creationists, what they do is demand equal respect for their claim. No testing, no investigation whatsoever, outside of twisting what's found in the Bible, and quote mining what prominent Scientists state.

3a) Those who professionally stick to sorting animals by "kind" are deliberately vague when defining what its parameters are. Amateur debaters tend to slip up, sometimes defining "kind" as a group of animals, like birds, a class of animals, like cats, and occasionally by appearance, like the two species of giant tortoise still in existence.

"Species" is defined as the lowest taxonomic rank, and the most basic category of biological classification, as well as an individual belonging to a group of organisms, or the entire group itself, with common characteristics, which usually are capable of mating to produce fertile offspring. Horses and donkeys can mate and produce mules, which are infertile, thus both Horses and donkeys are separate species.

However, speciation is fluid. I am fond of ring species, where two close groups can produce fertile offspring, but where the end groups cannot, even if they share the same habitat. Where one separates such groups into species is above my understanding on the subject.

I've heard some claim wolves (Canis Lupus) and dogs (Canis Lupus Familiaris) to be two separate species, but so long as they are of fairly equal size, they can mate and produce a wolf, not quite as shy as the initial wolf, but fertile non the less. Looking at Great Danes and Chihuahuas, mating with positive results may require some minor effort. See otherwise former paragraph.

3b) One example of a theoretical Theory is mentioned above, in Abiogenesis. Quarks are, if they exist, too small to be observed directly. Where hypothesises are formulated, tests being run give repeatable results, so there must be something producing them, be they the fruits of the afore mentioned hypothesises or something else. So long as nothing new is identified, I'll stay with Abiogenesis, String Theory, Photon Theory, despite untenable efforts, and Quark Theory. If however something new comes up, toppling one or more, I'll say "Okay, so it wasn't like that after all", and accept whatever new that arises. I don't have the knowledge to decide either way.
(Edited by orkanen)
9 years ago Report
1
Bourbaki
Bourbaki: So many words, so little content...
9 years ago Report
0