Falsifiability? Let's not be Naive. (Page 9)

AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: I've warned in other places that one must be very cautious of scientists who are philosophically naive pontificating on "meta-scientific" issues, i.e., questions ABOUT science, as opposed to the nuts and bolt of any particular theory, when, in contrast, you'd be well advised to listen very carefully indeed.

(Meta-scientific issues include questions about demarcation [i.e., what, if anything, distinguishes science from non-science], method, evidence, confirmation, falsification, explanation, etc., etc.)

Richard Feynman was no doubt a physicist of the highest caliber. Unfortunately, like many scientists, he was embarrassingly clueless about the philosophy of science, and indeed, unabashedly hostile to it. The regrettable upshot is that Feynman and others like him (Dawkins, Krauss, etc.) have a disturbing tendency to perpetrate one screaming howler after another.

Let's hear what he has to say on falsification...



QUOTE
In general, we look for a new law by the following process: First we guess it; then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right; then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.
[...]
Now you see of course that with this method we can disprove any definite theory. We have a definite theory, a real guess, from which you can clearly compute consequences which could be compared to experiment and in principle we can get rid of any theory. You can always prove any definite theory wrong. Notice however that we never prove it right.
UNQUOTE


You can always prove any definite theory wrong, Prof Feynman tells us.

Faithful readers to this thread will now be aware that this is not only nonsense, but the reason why it is nonsense: the "Duhem-Quine thesis" (see previous pages).

Another Nobel Prize winner, Steven Weinberg, is not particularly enamoured by the philosophy of science, either. He is, however, unlike Feynman, somewhat well read on the topic, thus, far less naive.


"Pierre Duhem and W. V. O. Quine pointed out long ago that a scientific theory can never be absolutely ruled out by experimental data because there is always some way of manipulating the theory or the auxiliary assumptions to create an agreement between theory and experiment."
( -- Steven Weinberg, "Dreams of a Final Theory, p125)


Remember these "unknown forces" invoked by another member precisely in order to PROTECT evolutionary theory from refutation. This is the kind of thing Weinberg is talking about. This is the Duhem-Quine thesis in a nutshell.





Second point for today...

Feynman tells us above: "If it [a theory] disagrees with experiment, it is wrong."

In other words, Feynman is telling us a theory must "fit all the facts". Sound familiar?

More tripe! I've argued in this thread -- following Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend, and others -- that no interesting theory fits all the facts. Anomalies (i.e. fact-theory mismatches) are a run of the mill phenomenon throughout the sciences. Kuhn helped us to see that a great deal of what goes on in "normal science" (Kuhn jargon) is the attempt to assimilate recalcitrant data with theory: to MAKE awkward facts fit the theory.

Weinberg to the rescue again...

"Any theory like Newton's theory of gravitation that has an enormous scope of application is always plagued by experimental anomalies. There is no theory that is not contradicted by some experiment."
-- Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory, p93

4 years ago Report
0
theHating
theHating: So, what's the problem?
4 years ago Report
0
kittybobo34
kittybobo34: Amazing how some people talk and talk but say nothing, So Achilles hates evolutionary theory because it fits all the facts as we find them. Damn that must be tough! Perhaps he could simply find a fact that doesn't fit?
4 years ago Report
0
Angry Beaver
4 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: "So Achilles hates evolutionary theory because it fits all the facts as we find them." - KittyBobo

The first problem here, of course, is that you haven't been able to articulate "The Theory" that you defend with such religious-like fervor. But let's overlook that for now. Let sleeping phantoms lie.



"Perhaps he could simply find a fact that doesn't fit?" - KittyBobo


Entire books have been written on the manifold ways that orthodox evolutionary theory does not "fit all the facts" -- and no, they're not all the ravings of nefarious Creationist subversives. Ask and ye shall receive sources.

We touched on certain examples ourselves here (see previous pages). I've also adverted to the fact that evolutionary biologists routinely disagree with each other. In every such case thereof, one camp is effectively saying to the other, "Your theory does not fit the facts".

The problem is, however, I suspect introducing you to non-orthodox naysayers would be an exercise in futility, not at all unlike an attempt to persuade our resident religious apologists that their "benevolent God" theory is manifestly at odds with the maudlin facts of life.

They, too, are convinced that their theory "fits all the facts". They, too, just like you, see EVERYTHING as confirming evidence and NOTHING as disconfirming or problematic in the slightest.

You have a lot more in common with these "brainwashed fools" (as they are routinely referred to) than you recognize, Kitty.
4 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: "So, what's the problem?" - TheHating


The problem, or one of them at least, is that KittyBobo -- and countless other frothing Darwinians like her -- habitually disseminates misinformation and hyperbolic propaganda. And no one, including herself and excepting myself, seems remotely bothered that she does so.

You get all hot and flustered when the Creationists do it, don't you? But the crazed disciples of ToE are to be held to a different standard?
(Edited by AchillesSinatra)
4 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: Anyone out there who, like myself, is unable to stomach the simpleminded pablum of a Richard Dawkins or a Lawrence Krauss, might share my own delight in a science writer of the sophistication of John Ziman -- a distinguished physicist himself who later took a profound interest in the philosophy of science..


Ziman has the following to say on our topic at hand:


"It turns out, in practice, that almost every theory is to some extent 'falsified' by the relevant observations."
(-- John Ziman, "Reliable Knowledge", p35)


In other words, Ziman astutely observes, there are no (or almost no) scientific theories of any interest that "fit all the facts". All significant theories are born into an ocean of anomalies; instances of theory NOT sitting well with facts.

And presumably the reason Ziman uses inverted commas around the word "falsified" is that a man of his sophistication would be quite aware that there are no definitive or logical falsifications in empirical science, despite what you might hear from the incompetent; Dawkins, say.
4 years ago Report
0
theHating
theHating: Why don't brown rats have nipples?
4 years ago Report
0
Angry Beaver
Angry Beaver: Someone nicked em!
4 years ago Report
0
kittybobo34
kittybobo34: The ToE, has the advantage of fitting the facts of many science disciplines, Geology, Paleontology, Nuclear physics, biology, zoology, and anthropology because people are animals too.
4 years ago Report
0
theHating
4 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: @ TheHating

If it was up to me I'd award a Golden Crocoduck of my own to the narrator of your video -- apparently going by the name "Potholer54".

David Berlinski, the object of Potholer's scorn for the first few minutes of the video, is a polymath scholar of remarkable breadth, knowledge, insight, and sophistication. Your man sets out with one obvious intention: to make him look a fool.

I suspect that's what you'd like to see happen yourself, not because you're capable of appraising the arguments and find them wanting, but simply because you don't like what Berlinski is saying.

I've tried to draw attention to this worrying state of affairs before: the high priests of evolution have done a superb job of convincing the masses that any evolutionary skeptic must be somehow defective or deficient in some way -- "stupid, ignorant, insane, or wicked" in Dawkins' words.

Berlinski may well be wrong on certain matters. If he is, however, it will not be because of stupidity, ignorance, or a failure to grasp the fundamentals of evolutionary theory, as your Potholer tries very hard to portray.

How well does your man succeed, then?

Potholer -- barely containing his giggles -- sets the trend for his strawman tactics in the opening seconds by suggesting Berlinski believes that "evolution requires turning cows into whales".

Er, no. Berlinski does not believe this. And if you were familiar with his work, you'd know it.

First point to note here, if you watch the original Berlinski video (also available on Youtube) you'll find that immediately prior to Potholer's edited clip thereof, Berlinski speaks of the "proverbial" cow.

Now I wonder why Potholer chose to edit that out.... Any ideas?

In another Berlinski video interview (can't remember which one) he's quite explicit on this point. I can only paraphrase from memory...

"I hasten to add I'm talking here -- as if it needed saying -- of a vaguely cow-like creature, not a modern day cow. Because every time I say "cow" you can rest assured some frothing Darwinian will leap up and scream, "Did you hear what he said!!??? That idiot thinks the ToE holds that whales evolved from cows!!!"

Potholer makes the same mistake: treating a highly sophisticated man as a fool. And apparently you do, too.

In a similar vein, you may also recall that just a few days ago in another thread here, in a conversation with yourself, I remarked that Blackshoes and Zeffur take offence at the suggestion that humans evolved from "ape-like creatures". I deliberately avoided saying "apes". And why was I being so careful in the wording? Because if I'd said "apes".... well, you know what would've happened.


Potholer then proceeds with his strawman mauling fun....

We are told (2:10) -- "By the way, I know Berlinski CLAIMS not to be a Creationist...." with the obvious implication that Berlinski is a liar -- just like all the rest of 'em!

Again, anyone familiar with Berlinski's work -- and I know him pretty well -- would be aware that he is not a religious man (he describes himself as a secular Jew), let alone a proponent of Creationism or Intelligent Design. He has stated this explicitly innumerable times. (Want links? Quotes?) Not that it makes any difference, of course. Any Darwinian naysayer must be discredited and silenced one way or another, eh?


What Potholer says next is true: Berlinski does indeed have certain links to the Discovery Institute. So do other non-religious heterodox voices, Michael Denton, for example.

How do we explain these links if they're not advocating Creationism, you might well ask? Well, you try writing a book attacking Darwinism and try to find a publisher. You might find the Discovery Institute far more receptive to your cause than most.

Hey, if the Discovery Institute coughed up the dough, I'd do it, too. Not because I'm sympathetic to Creationism or ID, but simply because I feel Darwinian hegemony is not only a load of crap, but has attained an intolerable level of dogmatism. The more deeply entrenched the dogma, the more it requires a salutary jab in the ribs.

And hey, what if Berlinski WAS a Creationist? What possible relevance would that have to the validity of his arguments?

You seem to enjoy learning about common logical fallacies, TheHating. Well, this one goes under the name of the "genetic fallacy", namely, an argument stands or falls on its own merits, not on its "genesis" or source. To dismiss an argument wholly on the grounds that it is advanced by a woman, or a man, or a Jew, or an Australian ... or a Creationist, is to run afoul of the genetic fallacy.


I could go on and on exposing Potholer's spurious refutations and strawman pummeling. But it would take forever. And I suspect it would have no persuasive effect in any case.


Just one last thing, though. See roughly 9:30 - 11:00. Potholer, when somewhat rashly, qua non-mathematician, challenges a bona fide mathematician (Berlinski), he makes precisely the same mistake that Richard Dawkins does in one of his odious books (can't remember which one ).

Dawkins "demonstrates" the staggering power of natural selection with the help of a Shakespeare line, specifically "Methinks it is like a weasel".

Now, Dawkins explains patiently, with a program that generates random sequences of letters and spaces -- 28 in total -- the chances of coming up with an exact match for "methinks..." are clearly astronomically slim, so slim as to be virtually impossible in practice.

But, the good professor continues, natural selection is not like that. What natural selection does -- by analogy -- is wait till the initial "M" is generated and RETAINS it. Then we wait till an "e" is added and retained, and so forth, until we end up with the entire quote in a perfectly reasonable number of iterations.

Voila! Chalk one up for the Darwinians!


Just one problem, though. The process Dawkins (and Potholer 9:30 -- 11:00) is describing IS NOT A DARWINIAN PROCESS!!

Natural selection, we are told, is non-teleological; it has no goals or ends. It is completely blind.

By contrast, the process Dawkins (and Potholer) describes DOES have an end in mind, namely the generation of "Methinks it is like a weasel" (or, in Potholer's case, the sequence [1,2,3 ...20] ), and moves systematically towards achieving this end.

Berlinski points this out with his customary clarity and mathematical rigor in his collection "The Deniable Darwin and Other Essays". One of the most fascinating parts of the book is an exchange between Berlinski and his critics, many of whom are high profile evolutionary potatoes.

What I found quite staggering was -- in general -- the lameness of their responses, and their failure to grasp what appears to be a fairly elementary error in thinking.
(Edited by AchillesSinatra)
4 years ago Report
0
kittybobo34
kittybobo34: Who told you natural selection is blind? Mutations are blind (random), natural selection pushes in a specific direction.
4 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: "... natural selection pushes in a specific direction." - KittyBobo

Oh yeah? You mean it aims towards a specific target, like say, the ring-tailed lemur? (which would be exactly analogous to Dawkins and his "methinks..." )



Or what DO you mean?
(Edited by AchillesSinatra)
4 years ago Report
0
kittybobo34
kittybobo34: The target as you say would change depending on the conditions, natural selection is driven by a host of local issues, weather, competition, niches, etc..
4 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: So is there a specific target or not?

If so, give me an example.

If not, Dawkins (as well as Potholer) and his "methinks" is a case of disanalogy: it is not a Darwinian process.

Right?
(Edited by AchillesSinatra)
4 years ago Report
0
kittybobo34
kittybobo34: WHen you say target, that sounds like a destination, selection pushes in a direction which changes like the wind. Most times its survivability, but not always, Take deer for example, the males expend a huge amount of energy building antlers, which they use to fight each other, then drop those horns during the winter. There sex is the dominant driver of natural selection rather than simple survival.
4 years ago Report
0
kittybobo34
kittybobo34: sorry got to run
4 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: "selection pushes in a direction which changes like the wind" - KittyBobo


Er, that sounds to me an awful lot like saying "it HAS no direction". In other words, it is aimless; literally it HAS no aim. It's just kinda drifting here and there like a vagrant wanderer.

And that, in turn, sounds an awful lot like evolutionary orthodoxy.

This all sits very awkwardly with what you said about four posts ago, viz. "natural selection pushes in a specific direction."

4 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: S J Gould famously stated that, in his view, if we were to start the ball rolling all over again, so to speak, evolution would follow quite different paths.

So whence cometh this "specific direction" you speak of?
4 years ago Report
0
theHating
theHating: Use it or lose it.
4 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: "natural selection pushes in a specific direction." - KittyBobo

"Who told you natural selection is blind?" - KittyBobo


Just about everyone I've heard or read. And a little googling does nothing to suggest I have been misunderstanding orthodox evolutionary doctrine.

E;g. (from "The Logic of Science" website)...


"One of the central tenets of evolutionary biology is the concept that evolution is blind. In other words, it has not foresight or goal.

[...]

"It may seem like I have digressed from my thesis, but this is all important groundwork for understanding blind evolution. They key here is that evolution has no foresight or direction. In other words, it has no goal or endpoint in mind. In each generation, it simply adapts populations to their current environment, but if that environment changes, then an adaptation that has been useful for thousands of generations can suddenly be detrimental."

[...]

"Therefore, it is incorrect to describe evolution as having a “direction” because it is simply responding to the current conditions."


http://thelogicofscience.com/2015/03/29/evolution-is-blind/



Readers are welcome to do their own research.

4 years ago Report
0
kittybobo34
kittybobo34: Achilles,, perhaps I misunderstood your term " blind" To me that means without direction. Natural selection provides the direction. However what is driving natural selection isn't always obvious.
In humans we have circumvented natural selection. We have eliminated the predators, and the medical issues. In affect created our own version of Natural Selection, based more in the cultural arena.
4 years ago Report
1
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: @ Kitty

Enough has been said already on blindness and direction. Readers may come to their own conclusions.


Re: "In humans we have circumvented natural selection."

If what you say is true, then the obvious conclusion to draw is that Darwinian-based evolutionary theory is false.

Darwin's theory (and not forgetting poor old Wallace) is a general theory that purportedly applies to ALL species, and that includes us. If we're not doing what the theory says we should be doing, then the theory is false.

But, but.... savvy readers will now know that even in the face of what appears to be a clear refutation, i.e., even when a theory prima facie "does not fit the facts", it can always be protected from falsification.

(See, for example, Weinberg on the Duhem-Quine thesis at the top of this page)

And here's another splendid opportunity to marvel at the Duhem-Quine thesis in action. Kitty can either:

1. Concede that Darwinian-based evolutionary theory is false. (Don't hold your breath, folks)

or

2. Protect her pet theory from falsification in a more or less ad hoc manner, perhaps by appeal to more "unknown forces" or the "genetic eddy of niches".

4 years ago Report
0
kittybobo34
kittybobo34: Well, if you keep in mind natural selection is a combination of many forces.. Humans have circumvented the more common ones like predators, disease, weather, but added newer ones like war, and economics. So one could say our species is expanding biologically in many directions. We have extremes in shapes, sizes, and intelligence. This is a common thing for successful species, they expand and eventually diversify. Example donkeys and horses, camels and llamas.
With the coming environmental disasters things may change for humans too.

So the final answer Achilles, Yes the theory still fits the facts
4 years ago Report
0