Perhaps I'll be safe here (Page 10)

axocanth: "While we all know about the excited War against Evolution coming from the Creationist community, what about the Evolution community itself? Is Evolution really “A Theory” or are we dealing a collection of competing theories?"

- JX




I've been saying the same thing for years! -- there is no coherent body of knowledge claims, in my opinion, that can sensibly be called "THE theory of evolution".

One could be forgiven for thinking, reading the posts around here, that "THE theory of evolution" is simply anything that evolutionary biologists have to say on the topic of evolution.

That being the case, given that these biologists frequently say mutually contradictory things, with universal consensus obtaining on almost nothing, the theory is immediately seen to be internally inconsistent and thus FALSE.



Of course, there are no universally agreed upon criteria for individuating theories; how to distinguish one theory from another. As such, we have to follow our intuitions on these matters.

Needless to say, the scientistic cheerleaders invariably opt for claiming there is one and ONLY one theory. Gotta gild that lily, after all. Gotta present the appearance of a united front where no such unity exists.




"The justification for such claims would be easier if there were one set of propositions (presented preferably in axiomatic form) which could be termed THE theory of evolution. Unfortunately, there is not. Instead there are several, incomplete, partially incompatible versions of evolutionary theory currently extant."

-- David L. Hull (philosopher of biology)



"First, can we truly speak of THE theory of evolution? According to Mayr (1982 - "The Growth of Biological Thought" ) Darwin does not propose one but five theories: evolution as such, common descent, gradualism (the idea that species evolution occurs by means of cumulated minor modifications and not by "leaps" ), population speciation (the idea of a continuity between population and species, a population of living creatures which undergoes variation being considered as a "nascent species" ), and natural selection."

-- "The Philosophy of Science: A Companion", Barberousse, Bonnay & Cozic eds, p433



(emphasis in original in both cases)

axocanth: "Is it possible that the mainstream Theory of Evolutionary is having problems? Is it possible that “Anomalies” are popping up, too many to sweep under the rug? Is it possible that we are seeing the rise of Revolutionary Science, not just outside the Evolution camp but inside the camp as well??? Is it possible that we are seeing Kuhn’s “Structure…” ideas playing out in real time, right in front of our faces? Are we on the edge of an academic palace coup, a “Paradigm Fall”???"

- JX




Some hints . . .


"In contrast [to pheneticists], the transformed cladists have real doubts about the content of the underlying theory, and hold the revolutionary view that evolutionary theory is in a mess. For example, arguments over the tempo and mode of evolution have not been resolved, and rather than coming down in favor of punctuationism or gradualism, transformed cladists feel that theories of processes are underdetermined by patterns."

-- N. R. Scott-Ram, "Transformed Cladistics, Taxonomy and Evolution", p140



"For example, some supporters of the modern synthesis wrote off studies of evolutionary relatedness as mere stamp-collecting. For example, the British biologist couple, the Medawars, said that it is often the case that 'nothing of any importance turns on the allocation of one ancestry rather than another.' They took this view because they saw natural selection as something that could explain ALL evolutionary changes, regardless of particular patterns of relationship. In contrast, some cladists regarded natural selection as impotent in terms of its predictive power. They took the view that because it could potentially explain everything, it explained nothing. The American cladist Donn Rosen declared that there was 'no need to placate the ghost of neo-Darwiniasm; it will not haunt evolutionary theory for much longer'. "

- "Evolution: A Developmental Approach", Wallace Arthur, 162

axocanth: Finally (for now), that Guardian article you linked, which I've just scanned through, is a veritable treasure trove. Thanks!

I'd encourage everyone to take a look.

Back later . . .

axocanth: From the Guardian article that JX linked us to:


"From the start, there had always been dissenters. In 1959, the developmental biologist CH Waddington lamented that the modern synthesis had sidelined valuable theories in favour of “drastic simplifications which are liable to lead us to a false picture of how the evolutionary process works”. Privately, he complained that anyone working outside the new evolutionary “party line” – that is, anyone who didn’t embrace the modern synthesis – was ostracised."




Now compare with my own encapsulation of Thomas Kuhn's idea's on the previous page:


"A "paradigm" gains universal, or almost universal, acceptance (e.g. the theory of evolution itself and all its accoutrements). The paradigm virtually defines what science is; anyone denying the paradigm is liable to be charged with engaging in pseudoscience, not doing science at all."

axocanth: From the same article:

"Moczek’s own area of expertise is dung beetles, another remarkably plastic species."



So, a dung beetle walks into a bar and asks, "Is this stool free?"

axocanth: Same article . . .



"As recently as 1990, one of the most influential university evolution textbooks could claim that “the role of new mutations is not of immediate significance” – something that very few scientists then, or now, actually believe. Wars of ideas are not won with ideas alone.

To release biology from the legacy of the modern synthesis, explains Massimo Pigliucci, a former professor of evolution at Stony Brook University in New York, you need a range of tactics to spark a reckoning: “Persuasion, students taking up these ideas, funding, professorial positions.” You need hearts as well as minds. During a Q&A with Pigliucci at a conference in 2017, one audience member commented that the disagreement between EES proponents and more conservative biologists sometimes looked more like a culture war than a scientific disagreement. According to one attender, “Pigliucci basically said: ‘Sure, it’s a culture war, and we’re going to win it,’ and half the room burst out cheering.”





Compare with what I said on the previous page:


"We often hear it said--not necessarily by anyone here--that the only things that matter to (good!) scientists in proposing theories, appraising theories, or making knowledge claims in general, are evidence and logic.

Any such claim presupposes that the generation of scientific "knowledge"--genuine knowledge or that which is mistakenly TAKEN to be knowledge--is somehow "transcendent", blissfully detached from the social and cultural zeitgeist in which it is embedded."

axocanth: A couple of days ago I posted the following in response to JX Amaro's observations about the "bitterness and hostility" almost invariably directed at anyone who does not join in the chorus with the other applauding seals as songs of praise about science are sung.


QUOTE
The bitterness and hostility stopped amazing this old dog a long time ago. I sometimes wonder if one might be safer shouting insults about Muhammud in the middle of Mecca than to question scientistic dogma, especially with respect to the topic of evolution.

(The term "scientism", as I'm using it anyway, refers to the overzealous, religious-like, veneration of science.)

In places such as this, at least to begin with, I'm almost invariably marked as an enemy of science, a Creationist, or both (I'm neither). This is no doubt a result of certain skeptical remarks I make regarding the believability of scientific knowledge claims, and myths about science in general.

Justifying these claims with evidence and argumentation tends to have little or no effect on the thick thousands. You're not supposed to say "bad" things about science and that's that! Only a precious few are endowed with the sophistication to view matters more objectively . . . bless 'em all !
UNQUOTE






A case study
-----------------

Yesterday, in another thread in the science forum, the following transpired:

Topic: Science



1. Another member, who I shall neutrally refer to simply as "Sally", made the following claim with no supporting evidence:

"Scientific theories are testable. New evidence should be compatible with a theory. If it isn't, the theory is refined or rejected."

As anyone following recent thrilling events here in our own thread will be aware--especially the discussion of our post-Kuhnian understanding of science--the claim is false, demonstrably so. It it not the case that scientists invariably behave this way, indeed it's doubtful that scientists even TYPICALLY behave this way.

I pointed out that the claim was false, citing a standard textbook example as evidence.



2. Another science-glorification claim was made, also without any supporting evidence whatsoever, which was shown by myself--with evidence--to be challengeable at best, and false at worst.



3. I was accused of being "anti-science". Oh, and this post received a "like" from some other mindless cheerleader, as did several others.

Regrettably, the term "anti-science" tends to be thrown around as irresponsibly as the term "anti-semite" is by indoctrinated fanatics of another feather. Clearly, it is more important to some people that science be portrayed in a flattering, fawning manner than in an ACCURATE manner.



4. I was then educated on the "purity" of the scientific process. For a moment I thought Sally was talking about the Virgin Birth or something. I had to pinch myself.



5. Sally next told me that there is no dogma in science. True to form, not one scintilla of evidence was provided to support this.

I responded with a lengthy list of quotes from distinguished scientists, copied from earlier in this thread, Nobel Prize-winners among them, stating what was obviously true to begin with: there IS dogma in science. "Obviously true", that is, except to those people under some kind of religious-like spell that precludes the possibility of objective, critical thought.

Sally's response was to mutter something about "cherry-picking". Evidence, apparently, even from Nobel Prize-winning scientists, is not to be taken seriously if it happens not to suit one's agenda, if it happens not to confirm the panegyric propaganda that one has been inculcated with since time immemorial.



6. Appeal was next made to "The Scientific Method", a semi-mythical beast the evidence for whose existence ranks on a par with Poseidon, or a Russian man who doesn't drink at least two bottles of vodka per day.



7. I was then told that I was a Creationist, leaving me wondering how that--even if it was true--would have any bearing on the validity of my arguments, and the saga continued . . .





Some lessons to be learned from this, boys and girls of Wireclub:


* A healthy scientific attitude, we are told, places the utmost emphasis on evidence: "Any claim made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence" -- a self-refuting maxim perhaps, though nonetheless endlessly invoked in the service of dismissing the unsupported claims of perceived enemies of science (e.g. nefarious Creationists).

The maxim itself, though, apparently does not apply to the glorification of science itself. Then, you can say anything you like. It matters not whether your claim is true, or even supported by facts; all that matters is "Science, rah rah rah! ".


* Why do people such as Sally habitually advance claims that are not only false, but OBVIOUSLY false and demonstrably false?

My suggestion is this: They have been TOLD these things, perhaps by one of the pin-up high priests of scientistic propaganda alluded to earlier in this thread: Dawkins, Krauss, deGrasse Tyson and their fellow televangelists. Not one second, not one neuron was sacrificed to pause and apply a little critical thought; to reflect on the plausibility of the claim; to compare the claim against the actual facts which are there for all to see.


* As a few other old hands on this site probably recognized years ago, the general rule of thumb is this: The number of "likes" that a post receives is directly proportional to the stupidity of that post.

Just say "big tits" or "science rah rah rah" and you'll have upthumbs oozing from every orifice before Richard Dawkins can say "I am the light and the truth".





P.S. If anyone "like"s this post, you will be shot and martyred.

axocanth: @ Whoever liked the post

Eat lead, ya dirty copper

axocanth: Talking of propaganda . . . here's another little nugget that keeps popping up.


"You obviously don't understand what "theory" means in science, you idiot. A theory is the highest level to which a claim can be elevated in science".



I'm paraphrasing, but the Youtuber I critiqued earlier in this thread says it explicitly, and it appears in these forums on a regular basis.


Well, folks, it sure sounds nice and reassuring, but it is never explained what this "highest level" amounts to. How are we to understand this?

A nice story perhaps, replete with explanations for this and that?

No doubt we all enjoy a nice bedtime story, though what principally concerns me is whether a claim is TRUE, or at the very least, that we have good reason to believe that it is true.


I happened to read just yesterday that someone had calculated the average lifespan of a scientific theory to be about fifteen years. I can't verify the claim myself, though it certainly sounds plausible enough. What we CAN say with certainty is that scientific theories tend not to last very long; 200 years, say, would be something of a Methuselah of a theory.


Now if this "highest level" is understood to be saying "the most likely claim in science to be true", then it is obviously false. Theories tend to be here today and gone by next Tuesday at the latest.


A far safer candidate for amaranthine truth would not be some grand all-encompassing explanatory THEORY, but rather a simple non-explanatory scientific statement such as:

* Copper conducts electricity

* The Earth is more massive than the Moon

* Cassowaries are indigenous to New Guinea.



And if this "highest level" pedestal that a scientific theory has purportedly attained has nothing to do with truth, um, why should anyone take it seriously as a more or less accurate account of how the world is?

axocanth: Since I've nothing better to do, how about we take a closer look--armed with our Kuhnian insights--at why the following claim is false. After all, it's a common enough claim; not only "Sally" asserts it. We'll call it SC:


SC: "Scientific theories are testable. New evidence should be compatible with a theory. If it isn't, the theory is refined or rejected".

(see two posts above)




The situation being described above is that where an awkward fact--an "anomaly" in Kuhn's jargon--sits uncomfortably with a theory. As we've seen, this is a routine occurrence in science; no interesting theory fits all the facts snugly; all major theories are plagued with anomalies.

And as we've discussed, there are various options available to the scientist in such cases. These include:

(i) Declare the theory to be false and reject it.

(ii) Reconcile the anomaly with the theory by tweaking the theory.

(iii) Reconcile the anomaly with the theory by tweaking the background assumptions, often referred to as "auxiliary hypotheses".

(iv) Do nothing.




The first thing to note is that SC assumes--entirely implausibly--that all scientists will react in precisely the same way! With a major theory such as general relativity, say, or the theory of evolution, boasting who knows how many thousands of professional adherents, it is simply not realistic to suggest that ALL scientists will react to a fact-theory mismatch IN THE SAME WAY.

How many times do I have to say this??!! -- scientists are a heterogeneous bunch!



Second thing to note is that SC recognizes only two of the above options: (i) and (ii). It's an "either-or" false dichotomy. There are not only two options.

It is indeed possible that a few scientists, though probably VERY few, will lose confidence in the theory and reject it, as (i) prescribes. If there's one lesson we've learned from the historical studies of Kuhn and others, though, it is that scientists, on the whole, do NOT reject a major theory/paradigm in the absence of an alternative to nail their colors to.

(ii) is also a viable option; tweak or "refine" the theory. A famous example is provided by Albert Einstein adding a "cosmological constant" to his general theory of relativity upon realizing that the theory implied an expanding universe -- what he later called his greatest blunder.




But SC neglects (iii) and (iv) entirely.


(iii), as we've seen, is extremely common in science; it's what Kuhn refers to as the one of the main tasks of "normal science". Take our standard 19th century example of the planet Uranus behaving in a manner inimical to Newtonian theory. An unknown planet was postulated in an attempt to account for this anomaly, subsequently discovered, and we call it Neptune.

Here we see that the theory was not "refined", but rather left untouched. What was amended was the erroneous background assumption--the auxiliary hypothesis--that there are only seven planets in the solar system.



(iv) --doing nothing--is common enough too. Analogously to the above, Uranus was not the only planet misbehaving; Mercury was too. Yes, attempts were made to assimilate the anomaly into the paradigm but met with no success. Thereafter, scientists just kinda scratched their heads for many decades wondering what was to be done about recalcitrant Mercury. Newtonian theory, however, was not rejected.

Another lesson we've learned from Kuhn is that, by and large, scientists do not regard such anomalies (like Uranus and Mercury) as refutations. Rather, they are "puzzles" that must be integrated into the paradigm somehow. Kuhn chooses the word "puzzle" judiciously; just like a crossword puzzle, it is assumed that a solution exists, and that solution is to be provided by the paradigm itself.

If you can't figure out the solution to a given crossword clue, that's YOUR problem, not the crossword's problem.

And as we hear Richard Dawkins explicitly assert in the video I posted on page 9, whenever natural selection theory is at odds with the facts, and you can't figure out some way to reconcile the two, "That's YOUR problem, not natural selection's problem".

Falsification? Pfft! Don't be silly!





In summary, then, why is SC false?

* False dichotomy - there are not only two options.

* Assumption of homogeneity - scientists do not, en bloc, react the same way to anomalous data.

* Naiveté - As history bears witness, scientists do not, as a whole, reject a major theory just because of an awkward fact or two, moreover, they NEVER do so until an alternative research program presents itself.


What do you expect? Do themselves out of a job?






Finally, if you find my ugly face less than trustworthy, here's Harpy saying pretty much the same thing (page 9):

"The best theory provides the best matches. You don't throw out a theory that is manifestly far better than any other alternative because something doesn't fit. Modifications of the theory, corrections of the data, unknown factors are all possible answers. Until a better theory comes along, which people WILL be working on, you go with the best and assume that some sort of answer will be forthcoming."

axocanth: Oh, and next time you hear the oft-repeated boast that the theory of evolution, unlike Creationism, say, is falsifiable: the discovery of a pre-Cambrian fossil rabbit would "knock it dead", or some similar hyperbole, bear in mind what was said above, and ask yourself:


Q1 : Of all the thousands of evolutionary biologists around the world, is it even remotely likely that they would all react in exactly the same way?

Q2 : Is such a discovery more likely to be viewed as a refutation, or a "puzzle" to be solved?

Q3 : Is it even remotely plausible that all evolutionary biologists around the world would, en masse, announce "Turns out evolution is a lot of crap. Looks like we're out of a job, boys".



Let's not be naive, lovely people.

And do me a favor, next time you hear someone like Richard Dawkins say something like the above, don't just take his word for it uncritically . . . THINK !!!

JX Amaro:
Re: Kuhn and Popper at Milliways

Milliways, for those who don’t know, is Douglas Adams’ Restaurant at the End of the Universe.

Reading, Axo’s above comments brought some thoughts to mind, so I thought I would share them for the benefit (?) of anyone reading. They are as follow (and if I am factually wrong on anything, or if I have misunderstood a doctrine, I am ALWAYS glad to be corrected).

In the “philosophy of science” theater, it seems to me that Popper is the heroic dramatist. For Popper, if I understand him, Science is a world of Great Men who postulate theories open to falsification. If the theory survives the falsification gauntlet, it becomes accepted as True and statutes are erected to honor the Great Man. The successful Scientist, as such, is the Man of Triumph worthy of the laurel of Caesar. (This, of course, might explain why so many of these “scientists” comport themselves with a huffy arrogance worthy of Caesar fresh off the conquest of Gaul.)

Kuhn, on the other hand, is the tragedian. Every theory, no matter how ingenious or “elegant,” is DOOMED to fail. The world of Science is nothing but a blood-splattered, mass grave site under a dark and gloomy sky. The motto of the successful Scientist, relative to Kuhn, might read something like: “I came; I saw; I conquered; then I was rejected, insulted and dropped like a bad habit into the dustbin of history.”

It seems that the average person, ignorant of the “philosophy of science,” just assumes the Popper version – the saints of science with their infallible theories guaranteed by a fool-proof scientific method.

History, though, demonstrates otherwise. Frankly, the half-life of a scientific theory is getting shorter and shorter these days. Back in the good old days, Aristotle could write up his ideas on the geocentric earth or biology and rest his head thinking the last word had been said on the subjects and die a happy man. The geocentric earth lasted until Galileo, and his biology was still in use, I think, as late as the Age of Thomas Jefferson. But alas, they crashed.

Time, it would seem, is on Kuhn’s side.

Ah, it’s hard not to have a little sympathy for that devil, Thomas Kuhn. Though the very Face of Evil to the Cult of Science, it would seem that as Disaster Area finished their gig, with the Universe set to explode momentarily, old Popper would have to turn to Kuhn and raise his vodka martini and concede: “Thomas, I think you were right. I was but a mythologist of Science.” He smiles and winks. “But you have to admit, it was a pretty good myth!”
Kuhn looks on blankly, without comment.
Somewhat drunk, Feyerabend then stumbles up to the table. “Hey guys. Remember the good old days when Science was liberating people from the tyranny of the Church? Then we,” he looks coldly at Popper, “well some of us, stood up against the tyranny of Scientism.”
Kuhn smiles pleasantly and points. “Look. I think the sun is about to explode.”

Meanwhile, Darwin, Marx, Freud and Einstein are at another table commiserating.
Marx: “I really thought I had it!”
Darwin: “You and me both, bro.”
Einstein: “Damn it, I should have stuck with my Unified Field Theory!”
Freud: “I should have stuck with cocaine. By the way, anyone got some?”

And then the world came to an end.

TheloniousSphereMonk: That's some bombastic literary style you got going there, but concerning the half-life of theories I'm just wondering what's been thrown out lately??

axocanth: JX (above)

Love your post above. You should be a writer!


Ok, then, some background . . .

Karl Popper was one of the most influential philosophers of science of the 20th century. He does indeed paint what we might call a "heroic" picture of science. Little wonder, then, some of his ideas are so popular within the scientific community itself, especially his notion of "falsifiability" as a demarcation criterion to distinguish science from nonscience (i.e., metaphysics, pseudoscience, or whatever).

What most people, including scientists themselves, seem unaware of, though, is that Popper's core ideas were discredited 60 years ago or more, thanks to a "historical turn" in the philosophy of science which decided to take a look at the actual facts of scientific history. And Popper's ideas DO NOT FIT these facts!



What were Popper's core ideas then?


1. Confirming evidence is cheap! We should not be impressed by claims of "mountains" of confirming evidence; psychoanalysis boasts mountains of it, so do Marxists, and so do evolutionary theorists for that matter.


2. Popper noticed that no matter WHAT evidence came to light, the Marxist, the Adlerian, or the Freudian would invariably smile and say "That's perfectly in accordance with my theory".


PAUSE: Ask yourselves what evolutionists do in the same situation. Compare the latest comment in that other thread I mentioned above:

"Axo, mentioned Punctuated evolution as if it were a separate theory. It's just as much a part of TOE as gradual. Both are components given the situation posed by nature." - kittybobo34



3. What distinguishes good science, on Popper's view, is not supposed mountains of confirming evidence, but its openness to falsification.

Scientists, on Popper's account, subject their theories to "severe tests". Scientists lay their necks on the chopping block, as it were, almost begging the executioner to lop their head off. Much as "Sally" said a few posts ago:

"Scientific theories are testable. New evidence should be compatible with a theory. If it isn't, the theory is refined or rejected".



The above is the part of Popper's philosophy that we still hear frequently rehashed today, even though known to be false. Less well known is, and never rehashed by scientists, is:


4. Scientific theories--due to the intractability of the problem of induction--are never confirmed to ANY degree!

No, your ears are not playing tricks on you. You heard right! Forget all that talk of mountains of evidence to support evolutionary theory or whatever: Scientific theories have NO evidence to support them. The most we can ever say of a scientific theory is that it has not yet been shown to be false.

Popper uses another term "corroboration"--not to be confused with "confirmation"--to describe a theory that has survived these "severe tests". Such a theory is said to be "highly corroborated".

We never have ANY reason to think a scientific theory is true!

So, JX, your comment -- "If the theory survives the falsification gauntlet, it becomes accepted as True" -- is no part of Popper's philosophy. The rest of your post is spot on!






Now, why have these ideas been rejected?


* As history bears witness time and time again, and as we've seen above (orbit of Mercury, etc.), scientists do NOT abandon their theories in the face of contrary evidence.


* Scientists are NOT constantly subjecting their theories to severe tests. Perhaps one of these days, the people who say things like "The theory of evolution has been tested for 150 years now, and has passed every test with flying colors" will tell us where these "tests" are carried out. A top secret location in New Mexico perhaps?




* Contrary or awkward evidence/facts/data are generally not viewed as refutations at all. They are regarded as anomalies, which are "puzzles" waiting to be solved, waiting to be assimilated into the paradigm.

Just think of Dawkins in the video again: "If you can't find some way to reconcile awkward facts with the theory, that's YOUR problem".

In other words, the paradigm is not under test at all. The paradigm is largely taken for granted.


* Even if scientists were so inclined, their theories could not be falsified anyway. Scientific theories CANNOT be falsified. Some way can always be found to defend a theory.

So next time you hear someone say "[X] is unfalsifiable so it's not science", you'll know what to say.




"It seems that the average person, ignorant of the “philosophy of science,” just assumes the Popper version – the saints of science with their infallible theories guaranteed by a fool-proof scientific method. History, though, demonstrates otherwise." - JX

Quite so! (except for the "infallible" bit)

TheloniousSphereMonk: Figures you'd like that style.

TheloniousSphereMonk: Sorry, but my pov is skewed having grown up reading the watchtower.

axocanth: Thelonious

You're most welcome, if you have doubts on any of the above, to raise your views for discussion.







re: " . . . .but concerning the half-life of theories I'm just wondering what's been thrown out lately?"


A few questions first:

Q1: Over the last century, say, how many professional boxers can you name? (I could probably manage about ten)

Q2: How many of those you name were champions? (Ali, Tyson?)

Q3: For every boxer you named, how many professionals do you think there were that you, or the rest of us, have never heard of?




Obviously, when we read a book about boxing it is the champions that are emphasized. Who wants to hear about the nobodies?



Next question: Choose any area of cutting-edge area of science you like. Do you know of any situation where there is not an alternative explanation or ten vying for attention?

How many (mutually incompatible) interpretations/theories are there, say, of quantum mechanics? I'd guess at least a dozen. Given that they are all mutually incompatible, applying basic logic, what is the maximum number that can be TRUE?

(For the logically-impaired the answer is "one".)

Simple logic, alone, guarantees that there will be far more false theories than true ones.



You want abandoned theories? Look to the science journals themselves, not the history books or the Discovery Channel showcases.




Now, the overzealous defender of science can easily block the above through redefinition. That is to say, for any theory-like beastie that is adduced as evidence from a science journal, and is referred to as a "theory" by all concerned, he can just say:

"That's not a theory, you idiot! You don't understand what "theory" means in science! A theory must be highly confirmed! A theory must stand the test of time!"



We saw Harpy do the same thing earlier in the thread to defend his claim that good scientists always go with the evidence. If you define "scientist" in such a way that "going with the evidence" is part of the definition, then obviously we're not going to find any scientists who do NOT go with the evidence.

Likewise, if you define "theory" in such a manner that "standing the test of time" is part of the definition, we're not going to find any theories that did NOT stand the test of time.

TheloniousSphereMonk: *gives consideration to the above*

axocanth: Ok, so to objectively test a claim such as "Theories are long lived" we'd need to do the following:

1. Agree on what "long lived" means.

2. Agree on criteria for identifying a "theory". I'd suggest if it is referred to by scientists themselves as a "theory" then it has every right to be granted "theory" status.


The essential thing, though, to avoid arguing in a vacuous circle, our criteria for "theoryhood" must make no reference to longevity.

Notice that my own criterion makes no such reference.

axocanth: Just one more thing . . .

Kuhn, on the other hand, is the tragedian. Every theory, no matter how ingenious or “elegant,” is DOOMED to fail. The world of Science is nothing but a blood-splattered, mass grave site under a dark and gloomy sky. The motto of the successful Scientist, relative to Kuhn, might read something like: “I came; I saw; I conquered; then I was rejected, insulted and dropped like a bad habit into the dustbin of history.”

- JX




It seems obvious that science, or at least certain areas of science, is making progress in some way or another. I can't think of anyone who denies this. The tricky question, though, is "What is the nature of this progress?".


A pragmatist (e.g. Larry Laudan) might argue for an increase in problem solving and practical applications.

Kuhn, himself, argues that scientific progress--at least in normal science--takes the form of increased "puzzle-solving". He doesn't deny progress per se; he denies progress towards TRUTH.



Progress towards truth, though perhaps "obvious" to the uninitiated, becomes far less obvious after scrutinizing the facts more closely.

For example, we started off with a finite cosmos under Aristotle et al. Then the universe became infinite with Newton. These days, it seems like it's back to being finite again.

It's hard to see how this kind of thing can be described as a "march towards truth".

axocanth: Oh, I spoke too soon. regarding . . .


"Meanwhile, Darwin, Marx, Freud and Einstein are at another table commiserating.
Marx: “I really thought I had it!”
Darwin: “You and me both, bro.”
Einstein: “Damn it, I should have stuck with my Unified Field Theory!”
Freud: “I should have stuck with cocaine. By the way, anyone got some?” "

- JX





This raises the interesting question of whether scientists believe that their own theories are LITERALLY true or not.

Your conversation above assumes that they DO believe their own theories are true, and in the case of Marx, Darwin, and Freud, I have little doubt that they did.




The topic of scientific realism vs antirealism has come up many times in this thread. Many scientists are themselves aware of the antirealist arguments (dismal history of failed theories, etc.) and explicitly adopt a more cautious ANTIREALIST attitude to their own theories.



Einstein presents an interesting case. In his early years--as he admits himself--he was enormously influenced, as were many other scientists of the period, by Ernst Mach. Yes, the "Mach One" dude.


Mach represented the scientific antirealist par excellence. Science, on his account, describes only OBSERVABLE reality. Any talk of the unobservable realm, though heuristically useful perhaps, IS NOT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY.

In other words, you are not to believe that atoms are REAL; they are merely "useful fictions".



Indeed, in Einstein's early papers, you will often see phrases such as "a heuristic approach", suggesting that these ideas were not to be taken LITERALLY, not to be understood as a description of unobservable reality.

Later in life, it seems he underwent a kind of conversion from antirealism to realism.


"In particular, following his conversion [from antirealism to realism], Einstein wanted to claim genuine reality for the central theoretical entities of his general theory, the four-dimensional space-time manifold, and associated tensor fields. This is a serious business for if we grant his claim, then not only do space and time cease to be real, but so do virtually all of the usual dynamical qualities."

-- Arthur Fine, "The Natural Ontological Attitude"





Niels Bohr, and his fellow Copenhagen acolytes were even more explicit. "There is no quantum world!"

That is to say, Bohr et al are telling us that their theory--quantum mechanics--is a marvelous tool, but not to be understood as being LITERALLY TRUE.

axocanth: Something I posted in another thread:



I must say it's always a delight, for me anyway, to read JX Amaro's posts, not only for their wit, intelligence and creativity, but particularly to see someone here actually doing some autonomous thinking!



"At this point, I could go on and on about the brainwashed zombies of Scientism and crackpot Scientistas barking at the moon, but I wouldn’t want to blow my trumpet too loudly in anyone’s face. I can’t speak for Axo; but I, JX, am all for Science looking at the world and trying to understand how things work. What I am opposed to is the de facto religion of Scientism promoting and enforcing pseudo-scientific dogmas while burning skeptical heretics at the stake through marginalization and character/career destruction." - JX



Well said, sir! I couldn't agree more.

Likewise, regardless of how others may perceive me, I don't see myself as anti-science at all. What makes me uncomfortable is the way that overzealous defenders of science--amply represented here--seem to have their critical capacities numbed by passion, the way they simply regurgitate what they've been told about science without for one second stopping to examine the plausibility of these claims.


Now, who wants to be a "brainwashed zombie", folks? Is JX Amaro exaggerating here? Is this just so much more anti-science rhetoric?


Let me give you just one example to ponder. It must have been about ten years now since, on another site, I first heard the claim:

"Science does not address 'why' questions".


I almost choked on my Heineken! The claim is false. The claim is OBVIOUSLY false. It's hard to think of a claim that could be MORE obviously false!

I'll give you two minutes to think about it. But this is precisely the problem JX and I are alluding to: it seems the faithful never DO take a little time to think about it!

Since my first encounter, I have heard this claim repeated over and over. Indeed, what brought it to mind was this comment posted a few hours ago in Belgian's own thread:


"Moreover science tends to be factual and tends to explain the "HOW" not the "WHY" "

(typos corrected by myself)



Clearly, then, given the commonness of the claim, it does not represent an original thought of BelgianStrider or any of the other thousands who rehash it. There must be someone out there, a Dawkins or a deGrasse Tyson perhaps, telling people this.

And what's so disturbing in all this is that the scientistic footsoldiers can be convinced so easily of a statement that is so screamingly obviously false.


Indeed, I sometimes suspect that were Richard Dawkins to announce that the word "science" contains 13 letters including two "Q"s, internet forums within a few days would be full of brainwashed zombies confirming it.


Just stop and THINK, folks. Just coz Richard Dawkins or whoever says it is so, does not make it so.

axocanth: Science doesn't address 'why' questions, eh?


Um, how about:

* Why is Japan frequently hit by devastating earthquakes while Scotland almost never is?

* Why does ice float on water?

* Why do some materials conduct electricity better than others?

* Why do polar bears have white fur?

* Why is the sky blue?

* Why do fools fall in love?

* Why does Vianna not love me?

* Why do brainwashed zombies believe everything Richard Dawkins says?



Let's see how many YOU can come up with now.

TheloniousSphereMonk: True, but just coz Dawkins says it's so does make a decent bet. I put my bet on the current consensus among scientists on almost all things. I am a sheep, afterall

TheloniousSphereMonk: Carry on being the goat, somebody's gotta.