Ship of Fools: What could DISPROVE Evolution?

Thread: What could DISPROVE Evolution? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030646

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

Prompted by this impressive about turn where Dawkins successfully justifies two totally opposing interpretations of the evidence about DNA in terms of Evolution, I'm wondering whether there is anything that could disprove Evolution.

Posted by Sergius-Melli (# 17462) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Prompted by this impressive about turn where Dawkins successfully justifies two totally opposing interpretations of the evidence about DNA in terms of Evolution, I'm wondering whether there is anything that could disprove Evolution.

To answer the question, before going of on a tangent:

Haldane's Rabbit might do the trick...

The link is one important point that should be raised more often in discussion with Dawkinist's - he has an amazing ability to quickly change his mind about things within a very short space of time... having overwhelmingly backed 'junk DNA' as evidence of evolution and his particular stance he manages to make a complete turn to adovcate that this DNA that actually has some purpose is evidence of his position - he is either a sloppy scientist in that he hasn't checked out anothers conclusions and seen if they are valid before pontificating to the world on his philosophy, bandwagoning because he seems to understand that his position is flawed, or... infact that is it actually in my opinion.

I've had my little rant on Dawkin's, to all the scientists who will take this thread where it should probably go, happy arguing!

[ 14. January 2013, 11:11: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

In 1900 the leader of the Conservative Party was Lord Salisbury. In 1950 it was Winston Churchill. In 1975 it was Edward Heath. In 2000 it was William Hague. Today it's David Cameron. That doesn't just disprove evolution: it shows that it's actually running backwards.

[ 14. January 2013, 11:14: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

I thought changing your mind when new evidence is discovered was how science worked. And a good thing too otherwise it would be a form of fundamentalism.

As far as I know evolution hasn't been proven. It's a theory that all the available evidence fits. I doubt it will ever be proven. Its a case of, "We've looked and this is the thing that is most likely after looking hard at the world we live on".

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

It's not quite the about turn it looks like. It remains true that "junk DNA", had it existed, would have been hard for a creationist to explain. That evolution could explain it does not mean that its existence was inevitable. Evolution might produce junk DNA; it might not. It is beginning to look like it didn't.

It's one hell of a jump from there to the idea that evolution is unfalsifiable. Haldane's Rabbit is the obvious one. A crow existing prior to basal archosaurs would be a bit of a bugger as well. Creationists understand this, hence the industry in bogus out of place artefacts, like Carl Baugh's laughable "fossil finger". http://paleo.cc/paluxy/finger.htm

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I thought changing your mind when new evidence is discovered was how science worked. And a good thing too otherwise it would be a form of fundamentalism.

As far as I know evolution hasn't been proven. It's a theory that all the available evidence fits. I doubt it will ever be proven. Its a case of, "We've looked and this is the thing that is most likely after looking hard at the world we live on".

Which is fine and good and exactly how science should work, and that is what I want all true, proper scientists to do. However…

In Dawkins’ case he gets no such treatment because he has used his scientific position to further a political and religious dogma, to deliberately go out of his way to offend people and to further his own agenda and financial position. He isn’t a proper scientist anymore, and hasn’t been for a while. He is a politician with an agenda; a businessman with a strategy.

He doesn’t get to change his position based on new evidence as he has nailed his colours very, very firmly to his own mast. Instead he gets to slip away quietly like any politician who has been found to have been wrong on a fundamental principle must do if they change it.

Unfair? Unjust? Yep. But if you live by the sword…

What disappoints me though is that it will merely give Creationist’s more scientific processes to distort in their stupid theology. We need to keep these people on the back foot, not let them get any kind of advantage anywhere.

[ 14. January 2013, 12:51: Message edited by: deano ]

Posted by iamchristianhearmeroar (# 15483) on :

All this shows is that we shouldn't bother to listen to Dawkins?!

Back to the OP, a pre-Cambrian rabbit suitably verified and preferably duplicated would certainly rock the foundations of the theory of evolution as it is currently understood. Whether that in itself would be sufficient to disprove evolution as a concept would remain to be seen. One or two counter examples are not always sufficient for the whole pack of cards to come tumbling down.

In a similar manner what would "disprove Christianity"? An authenticated sealed bone box marked "Yeshuah-bar-Yosef of Nazareth, born Bethlehem of Judea to Mary of Nazareth, died Jerusalem by Crucifixion" containing authenticated 2000 year old bones? It would rock Christianity to its core, but would it really disprove Christianity? Even if such a discovery were made it wouldn't necessarily stop my praying, reading my Bible, going to church or receiving the Sacrament...

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

What could disprove heliocentrism? Is it unfalsifiable? Does that render it untrue or meaningless?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
As far as I know evolution hasn't been proven.

It hasn't been proven to a standard that would satisfy a mathematician doing mathematics.
I'd say it's been sufficiently demonstrated by any standard that it's reasonable to apply to the subject matter.

[ 14. January 2013, 16:45: Message edited by: Dafyd ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's one hell of a jump from there to the idea that evolution is unfalsifiable. Haldane's Rabbit is the obvious one. A crow existing prior to basal archosaurs would be a bit of a bugger as well.

Up to a point. There's a distinction between disproving the currently accepted history of life and disproving evolution.

Also, a crow fossil in precambrian rock could also be interpreted as falsifying the theory that the rock in question is precambrian. Or as falsifying the claim that crow fossils can't get embedded in precambrian rock subsequent to the rock formation. The latter is probably the most sensible option should something of the sort turn up.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I thought changing your mind when new evidence is discovered was how science worked. And a good thing too otherwise it would be a form of fundamentalism.

I agree.

'Junk DNA' is going to be a problem for any explanatory theory. Something which apparently has no function or benefit is able to persist is a challenge. If junk DNA actually exists, nothing that Richard Dawkins has said on why it might be explicable on an evolutionary basis needs to be unsaid.

If there isn't any junk DNA, then there isn't a problem for evolution to explain here. No evolutionist needs to be embarrassed by something that once looked like a problem in need of explanation suddenly not being one.

Which seems to me to be what Richard Dawkins said in the debate. He says that a utility explanation for apparently junk DNA is what any Darwinian would "hope for" (not "expect" as the article ES links to has it, but "hope for"). Darwinians like to find that biological features are useful. That sort of explanation fits the evolutionary view very well. Evolution can cope with other sorts of explanation, but Darwinians would, in general, rather say "X exists because X is useful for...".

What could disprove (or at least discredit) evolution as a convincing explanation would be the widespread existence of features which had neither utility themselves, or any plausible explanation of who they could have arisen from changes driven by utility. Demonstrating that junk DNA is in fact useful is hardly evidence against evolution. All it does is move the class of DNA from the category of "this might be a problem, but we think we might have an explanation" to the category of "not a problem at all".

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

"Junk DNA" does nothing to disprove evolution. Evolution is not 100% efficient. There will be remnants of mutations which may not serve a function. This does more to hurt the Intelligent Design school, than the evolutionary school. I mean, as a designer, God is heavy on On The Job Training or a Hell of a practical joker.
Finding more of the DNA chain useful expands our understanding, not changes its direction.

Posted by Doublethink (# 1984) on :

Evolution provides a plausible explanation for how species change over time. To supersede it, you'd need a theory that better explains more of the ways that species change over time - wouldn't you ?

As I understand it; the fundamental prediction is that any mutation that gives a species more chance of successfully reproducing, is likely to become increasingly widespread in that species. Any other mutations that have no impact on successful reproduction or lack of same, will spread a lot if they are tied genetically to another trait that does increase reproduction chance, or at chance levels if not.

I am not aware of any other overarching theory that better explains species change over time - nor, tbh, am I familiar with the intelligent design arguments in this direction.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

As others have said, a single anomaly, or in fact a number of anomalies, would not cause evolution to be undermined. A widespread phenomenon might, but it's actually quite difficult to think of one, since evolution has been tested for a long time. Thus, suppose that more evidence for punctuated equilibrium should emerge - this would not throw evolution into crisis.

I think convergent evolution has been cited by some Christian palaeontologists as indicating some kind of 'direction', or inevitability, in evolution - see Conway Morris, and his book 'Life's Solution' - but this does not 'disprove' evolution at all.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

If something ever did disprove evolution, you can be damned sure it will be discovered by real scientists and not by "Intelligent Design" adherents.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

What would disprove evolution? The design plans,suitably verified to be of the right date. Of course, you'd also have to prove that the intelligent designer hadn't evolved either.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Perhaps a DNA strand with a copyright date? Say of about 4000 B.C.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

Slartibartfast's signature on a glacier?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Wonder if that has been done on Worth1000 yet?

[ 15. January 2013, 06:41: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
As far as I know evolution hasn't been proven.
It hasn't been proven to a standard that would satisfy a mathematician doing mathematics.
I'd say it's been sufficiently demonstrated by any standard that it's reasonable to apply to the subject matter.

Philosophically it has been shown that it is impossible to prove anything in science (you can thank Karl Popper for that one). That, of course, includes a proof that something is incorrect - you can not disprove a scientific theory any more than you can prove it.

What you can do is compare two competing theories and ask "which has the greater power to explain the data?" and "what predictions do they make?" - and then test those predictions, if possible. Then, you can decide which theory is most likely to be closest to describing how things actually work.

And, even when you have a more accurate theory, there are times when the less accurate theory is still retained - eg: Newtonian mechanics are still used extensively despite the superiority of Relativity as a theory on the pragmatic grounds that in the vast majority of cases for everyday folk dealing with objects travelling much slower than light speed it is more than adequate.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Slartibartfast's signature on a glacier?

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Spigot:

quote:

I thought changing your mind when new evidence is discovered was how science worked. And a good thing too otherwise it would be a form of fundamentalism.

True, except Dawkin's isn't really a scientist - more a pseudo philosopher and parody of a bigot; a kind of self parody if you will.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Spigot:

quote:

I thought changing your mind when new evidence is discovered was how science worked. And a good thing too otherwise it would be a form of fundamentalism.

True, except Dawkin's isn't really a scientist - more a pseudo philosopher and parody of a bigot; a kind of self parody if you will.

Incorrect. His books 'The Selfish Gene' and 'The Extended Phenotype' are well-written summaries of certain ideas in evolutionary biology. He himself did research in ethology under Tinbergen, and has been a lecturer and then reader in zoology, at Oxford.

The fact that he has been involved in the atheist movement, and in various controversies, should not obscure his skills in science writing and science education.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

What would disprove it? Convincing evidence that the world is young. From what we know about how reprodcution works, modification through natural selection seems inevitable, so given enough time, speciation also seems inevitable.

"Junk DNA" is neither here nor there, not really relevant to the argument. And even if you don't like the word, there certainly is some DNA in our chromosomes that has no function. For example mutated and now unexpresible retrovirus genomes. Oer evolutionary time stuff like that can get recruited into new function - not quite the same thing.

[ 15. January 2013, 15:19: Message edited by: ken ]

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Quetza, yes to fair, in those earlier years he was interesting, good and challenging, but I fear those skills of scientific objectivity have left him as a parody of himself and a mirror of what he hates. there was always that element to his writing, but it never really felt like a crusade, even if he did make a poor theologian. If I'm honest about it, it rather sad to watch a good mind go to waste.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

No, he still writes well when he writes about biology. I think The Ancestor's Tale is one of his best books - maybe even the best from the point of view of giving an overview of the actual course of evolution - and it was written well into his "Devil#s Chaplain" period.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

And to say that Dawkins 'isn't really a scientist' is both absurd and incorrect. How can a former reader in zoology at Oxford University be classed like that?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

The problem with Dawkins is that he's a great scientist and he and his minions think that that makes him a great philosopher. Sagan had the same problem. They are both shit philosophers.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
If something ever did disprove evolution, you can be damned sure it will be discovered by real scientists and not by "Intelligent Design" adherents.

Please define the term "real scientists" (especially taking into account the context in which you have used it).

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
If something ever did disprove evolution, you can be damned sure it will be discovered by real scientists and not by "Intelligent Design" adherents.
Please define the term "real scientists" (especially taking into account the context in which you have used it).

People who are motivated by following the evidence, not by proving or supporting an a priori assumption, such as, oh, say, that God made everything.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The problem with Dawkins is that he's a great scientist and he and his minions think that that makes him a great philosopher.

Dawkins's a great popular science writer. As I understand it, he's as good a scientist as many other scientists who have less of a flair for a catchy writing style.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
If something ever did disprove evolution, you can be damned sure it will be discovered by real scientists and not by "Intelligent Design" adherents.
Please define the term "real scientists" (especially taking into account the context in which you have used it).
People who are motivated by following the evidence, not by proving or supporting an a priori assumption, such as, oh, say, that God made everything.

It's possible to be motivated by more than one thing at a time.

For me, Dawkins is a "real scientist". I wouldn't consider him to be an active research scientist - he's far to busy doing other things to find out new stuff. But, he is a great science communicator, and communicating science is a vital part of the scientific process.

The question is, how strong are his credentials as a philosopher? Because, it's when his writing and speaking moves from science to philosophy that he tends to trip up.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
People who are motivated by following the evidence, not by proving or supporting an a priori assumption, such as, oh, say, that God made everything.

But the theory that God (or rather an intelligence) made everything is no more an a priori assumption than the naturalistic idea that everything (especially the most complex of systems) must have self-assembled without any kind of intelligent guidance or input.

Furthermore, what if a scientist looked at the evidence and concluded that abiogenesis is just not a plausible theory, and therefore, by default, some kind of design causation had to be inferred? Are you suggesting that such a scientist is bogus?

(If you are suggesting that, then that is tantamount to saying that the naturalistic theory of origins is unfalsifiable, given that no alternative can be considered consistent with the scientific method. But an unfalsifiable theory is also unscientific.)

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
People who are motivated by following the evidence, not by proving or supporting an a priori assumption, such as, oh, say, that God made everything.
But the theory that God (or rather an intelligence) made everything is no more an a priori assumption than the naturalistic idea that everything (especially the most complex of systems) must have self-assembled without any kind of intelligent guidance or input.

Which is why an agnostic scientist's opinion is more likely to be valuable than a theist or atheist. Anyone with an agenda has their neutrality compromised.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I'm wondering whether there is anything that could disprove Evolution.

Why would you want to?

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

I think there is an implicit accusation in the OP that evolution is unfalsifiable and, hence, unscientific.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

I still don't understand the underlying need to make such accusations. What is the motivation? What are they trying to prove?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
People who are motivated by following the evidence, not by proving or supporting an a priori assumption, such as, oh, say, that God made everything.
But the theory that God (or rather an intelligence) made everything is no more an a priori assumption than the naturalistic idea that everything (especially the most complex of systems) must have self-assembled without any kind of intelligent guidance or input.
Which is why an agnostic scientist's opinion is more likely to be valuable than a theist or atheist. Anyone with an agenda has their neutrality compromised.

Even better, the recognition that science deals with the physical universe - matter, energy and fields. Questions relating to the existance (or otherwise) and nature of non-physical entities are beyond the ability of science to address.

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I'm wondering whether there is anything that could disprove Evolution.
Why would you want to?

For the very same reason that some people want to disprove creation.

Truth.

Or should we just accept that a particular theory should remain de facto unfalsifiable?

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

Bollocks. It is in principle falsifiable. Lots of possible observations would falsify it. If you want to falsify it, the off you toddle and actually make those observations.

Just like everything else from germ theory to general relativity.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
For the very same reason that some people want to disprove creation.

Truth.

What kind of creation are you talking about here? That God created everything in 6 days 6000 years ago - or something else?

I believe in creation.

I believe God created everything and S/he took billions of years to do it, using evolution to create life.

We have minds to discover the how of creation and to philosophise about the why. It's the 'why' that we take on faith, not the 'how' imo.

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

To those who accuse him of being a hate monger all I can say is I will continue to applaud whenever I see a clip of him arguing against those who preach that homosexuality is a sin, or getting a religious leader to admit that the punishment for apostasy is death in their country, or pointing out all the flaws in the arguments of people who want to see young earth creationism taught in school.

Shrug. I just have a different perspective I suppose.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Furthermore, what if a scientist looked at the evidence and concluded that abiogenesis is just not a plausible theory, and therefore, by default, some kind of design causation had to be inferred? Are you suggesting that such a scientist is bogus?

Yes, such a scientist would be bogus. Not for reaching her conclusion about abiogenesis (assuming that the strength of her observations actually supported her conclusion), but for assuming you can prove something "by default" through disproving something else.

This gets to the heart of the problem with "intelligent design" as a scientific theory. Its supporters don't seem to be interested in doing any research to support their hypothesis. They don't even seem to be interested in formulating the parameters of what such research would look like. Their assumption seems to be that if they can disprove [descent with modification/abiogenesis/general relativity/whatever] that their own pet theory will be accepted "by default".

There are no default prizes in science.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I'm wondering whether there is anything that could disprove Evolution.
Why would you want to?
For the very same reason that some people want to disprove creation.

Who would that be, then?

Certainly not Darwin, who merely observed the various animals of Madagascar (and later the world) and drew conclusions based on those observations. And certainly not the scientists who followed up his work, delving deeper into the biological mechanisms by which evolution works and expanding our knowledge.

None of them set out with the intention to disprove a literal interpretation of Genesis, it just so happened that that was a side effect of their findings.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This gets to the heart of the problem with "intelligent design" as a scientific theory. Its supporters don't seem to be interested in doing any research to support their hypothesis. They don't even seem to be interested in formulating the parameters of what such research would look like. Their assumption seems to be that if they can disprove [descent with modification/abiogenesis/general relativity/whatever] that their own pet theory will be accepted "by default".

Indeed. It's like a form of "God of the gaps", but where they're trying to create the gaps so they can wedge God into them!

Posted by George Spigot (# 253) on :

Of course he can also be a reactionary, misogynist prick at times.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I still don't understand the underlying need to make such accusations. What is the motivation? What are they trying to prove?

I think the motivation, for many, is fear.
Plenty of theists are able to join acceptance of evolution with belief in their deities, including Christians, so it is not a compatibility issue. They can coexist.
Fear if people accept evolution, they will have no need for God.

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Of course he can also be a reactionary, misogynist prick at times.

Who, God?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Surely, ID is in no shape or form, a scientific theory. It seems to me to be largely parasitic upon genuine scientific disciplines, such as biology, geology, paleontology, and so on, in that it takes information from them, and uses that to argue against evolution. Some of it is quite ridiculous, see the ignoble episode of 'human teeth' found near dinosaur tracks.

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/tooth.htm

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I think there is an implicit accusation in the OP that evolution is unfalsifiable and, hence, unscientific.

Which would be a noddy-level idea of what "scientific" might mean.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Surely, ID is in no shape or form, a scientific theory. It seems to me to be largely parasitic upon genuine scientific disciplines, such as biology, geology, paleontology, and so on, in that it takes information from them, and uses that to argue against evolution.

Pretty much. Also its never clearly explained - there is a lot of handwaving and assertion that certain thiongs are impossible, but no real detailed description of why they think that. It looks like an attempt to pull the wool over they eyes of people who will accept it uncritically.

And it is crap theology. In some ones much crappier theology than YEC. YEC implies that the universe is a fake, a sort of stage set, a virtual reality in the mind of God. At least that is compatible with belief in an omnipotent, eternal, creator God. And also with doing science if you can persuade yourself that you are studying an idea in the mind of God rather than a real external world - which is a sort of theism, if not particularly a Christian one (and ought to cause literalists trouble when reading 1 John!)

But ID implies that God is not really the eternal omnipotent creator God, because he made made lots of little mistakes when creating the world and living things, he left lots of loose ends lying around, and if you look hard enough you can find them and unravel the story.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, I have seen both YEC and ID described as failed science, and failed theism.

Posted by deano (# 12063) on :

quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
People who are motivated by following the evidence, not by proving or supporting an a priori assumption, such as, oh, say, that God made everything.
But the theory that God (or rather an intelligence) made everything is no more an a priori assumption than the naturalistic idea that everything (especially the most complex of systems) must have self-assembled without any kind of intelligent guidance or input.
Which is why an agnostic scientist's opinion is more likely to be valuable than a theist or atheist. Anyone with an agenda has their neutrality compromised.

Which is also why scientists publish their work for scrutiny be their peers - peer review. So if a theist has written something, it can be critiqued for objectivity by an atheist. It all works out.

Which works out quite neatly as Dawkins has avoided having to produce much peer-reviewed work by writing "Popular" books which don't come under the same level of scrutiny.

Even Harvard biologist Professor Edward Wilson say's he isn't a proper scientist for these reasons...

quote:
I hesitate to do this because he's such a popular guy, but Dawkins is not a scientist. He's a writer on science and he hasn't participated in research directly or published in peer-reviewed journals for a long time. In other words, there is no Wilson-versus-Dawkins controversy: it's Wilson versus … well, I could give you a goodly list of other scientists doing peer-reviewed research.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's possible to be motivated by more than one thing at a time.

Certainly. But if you're motivated to make the evidence point to a conclusion you determined in advance, you're not doing science.

quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But the theory that God (or rather an intelligence) made everything is no more an a priori assumption than the naturalistic idea that everything (especially the most complex of systems) must have self-assembled without any kind of intelligent guidance or input.

I don't know that anybody makes that assumption, do they? Science is the attempt to describe and explain the world around us based ultimately on verifiable, objective (or as objective as we can determine) observations. "God did it" is not a verifiable observation. God is not part of science.

quote:
Furthermore, what if a scientist looked at the evidence and concluded that abiogenesis is just not a plausible theory, and therefore, by default, some kind of design causation had to be inferred? Are you suggesting that such a scientist is bogus?

I'd suggest what he's doing isn't science. "There's no way that could have happened" is not a scientific hypothesis, and in general it's the sort of thing which, when said, tends to get disproved 10 years later.

quote:
(If you are suggesting that, then that is tantamount to saying that the naturalistic theory of origins is unfalsifiable, given that no alternative can be considered consistent with the scientific method. But an unfalsifiable theory is also unscientific.)

Naturalism isn't a theory. It's a methodology.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It's like a form of "God of the gaps", but where they're trying to create the gaps so they can wedge God into them!

Well said, sir.

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I think there is an implicit accusation in the OP that evolution is unfalsifiable and, hence, unscientific.
Which would be a noddy-level idea of what "scientific" might mean.

Karl Popper, surely?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I think there is an implicit accusation in the OP that evolution is unfalsifiable and, hence, unscientific.
Which would be a noddy-level idea of what "scientific" might mean.
Karl Popper, surely?

The noddy-level version of what Popper actually wrote. Popper was reacting against the positivism prevalent in science at the time, by pointing out that no amount of accumulated data in agreement with the predictions of a hypothesis can prove it, however a relatively small body of data that a hypothesis fails to predict or explain is sufficient to make that hypothesis untenable. His proposal was that the best way to test a hypothesis was to develop tests that push the edge of the explanatory power of the hypothesis (ie: apply it to situations increasingly further from the data set used to develop the hypothesis), which is where contrary results are more likely to occur. That isn't always easy, and for practical reasons some of the tests one would like to do are impossible. You can't test evolution by running multiple identical worlds and confirming that after 4.5 billion years you get life forms that resemble each other on anything other than the smallest scales - and then you get people shouting that your experiments with bacteria in petri dishes is "micro-evolution" and doesn't say anything about "macro-evolution" (just showing that you just can't satisfy some people).

Popper quite rightly recognised that "this hypothesis is false" is itself a hypothesis, one that can't be proved ... so a hypothesis can not be falsified any more than it can be proved.

[I'd originally put "just proving that you just can't satisfy some people" but thought "prove" was too strong a word inviting people to produce contradictory evidence in good-old Popperian fashion!]

[ 17. January 2013, 06:08: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Even better, the recognition that science deals with the physical universe - matter, energy and fields. Questions relating to the existance (or otherwise) and nature of non-physical entities are beyond the ability of science to address.

This may be tangential, or maybe not, but how does this relate (if at all) to Feyerabend's view that science is not a special form of knowledge and is to be seen as the contemporary ideology or religion which is uncontestably reliable just as religions were in their day of (relative) indisputability?

That being 'unscientific' is the heresy (my analogy) against institutionalised science which does not, according to Feyerabend (Against Method) have an objective and intrinsically reliable scientific method, and that all attempts to characterise scientific methods have failed.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It's possible to be motivated by more than one thing at a time.
Certainly. But if you're motivated to make the evidence point to a conclusion you determined in advance, you're not doing science.

That's a bit idealistic. For example, Isaac Newton's response when confronted with refractory evidence was to maintain that the measurements must have been done wrong. Or else, that God was stepping in to make the necessary adjustments. I don't think Newton was the first or last 'scientist' to believe that his hypothesis must be right and any contrary evidence must be wrong. Science doesn't grant a magical dispensation from human error. It's just that the nature of the subject matter and the techniques involved mean that it's easier to clear the error out of the way.

I wouldn't say ID is not science. It's just really badly done science.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
This may be tangential, or maybe not, but how does this relate (if at all) to Feyerabend's view that science is not a special form of knowledge and is to be seen as the contemporary ideology or religion which is uncontestably reliable just as religions were in their day of (relative) indisputability?

That being 'unscientific' is the heresy (my analogy) against institutionalised science which does not, according to Feyerabend (Against Method) have an objective and intrinsically reliable scientific method, and that all attempts to characterise scientific methods have failed.

I haven't read much Feyerabend. I think it's ok to say that the sciences do not form a single body of specially reliable knowledge with a single distinct methodology. But Feyerabend is often taken as saying that they do not amount to any form of knowledge about anything objective at all. And that seems wrong.

It may be true that physics is not utterly reliable. There may not be a sharp cut off with physics, chemistry and biology on one side of a line and, say, economics and cultural anthropology on the other. But it might still be true that physics is more reliable than economics.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I wouldn't say ID is not science. It's just really badly done science.

What research do they do, besides comb science journals for "mistakes" to expose?

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

Feyerabend's brilliant. He is to Karl Popper what the Sex Pistols were to the Carpenters.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Feyerabend's brilliant. He is to Karl Popper what the Sex Pistols were to the Carpenters.

Loud, angry, and out of tune?

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Feyerabend's brilliant. He is to Karl Popper what the Sex Pistols were to the Carpenters.
Loud, angry, and out of tune?

More or less, yes. Definitely out of tune. His approach to scientific method was "anything goes". Which, taken to extremes, might have scientists saying "Tell you what, let's see what happens if I dip this neutron in some jam". But which also has a certain appeal to it.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I wouldn't say ID is not science. It's just really badly done science.
What research do they do, besides comb science journals for "mistakes" to expose?

It's sometimes said that science makes guesses, but tests the guess empirically. As far as I can see, ID just makes guesses, and as you say, looks for mistakes that scientists have made, so they can crow.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I wouldn't say ID is not science. It's just really badly done science.
What research do they do, besides comb science journals for "mistakes" to expose?

(Short answer: I don't know. I read about Behe's black box and decided it wasn't a serious intellectual enterprise.)
Someone doesn't have to be doing empirical research to do science. (The scientific community as a whole has to be doing empirical research somewhere, but not any given individual.) Up until the Large Hadron Collider was built, nobody doing fundamental particle physics could do any empirical research into it.

I would think it's easier just to show the intellectual flaws in ID, than to construct a non-ad hoc definition of proper science and show that all the right things qualify and ID doesn't.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Feyerabend's brilliant. He is to Karl Popper what the Sex Pistols were to the Carpenters.
Loud, angry, and out of tune?

Is it that his criticisms are invalid; or just that his work does not help the process of science; or something else?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I wouldn't say ID is not science. It's just really badly done science.
What research do they do, besides comb science journals for "mistakes" to expose?
(Short answer: I don't know. I read about Behe's black box and decided it wasn't a serious intellectual enterprise.)
Someone doesn't have to be doing empirical research to do science. (The scientific community as a whole has to be doing empirical research somewhere, but not any given individual.) Up until the Large Hadron Collider was built, nobody doing fundamental particle physics could do any empirical research into it.

I would think it's easier just to show the intellectual flaws in ID, than to construct a non-ad hoc definition of proper science and show that all the right things qualify and ID doesn't.

Surely in the end, science does test its hypotheses. This may take a long time, and there may be periods of purely abstract mathematical or theoretical work, but in the end, science rests on observations and hypotheses, with consequent predictions (of further observations) and testing.

If ID does this, please show me where.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I would think it's easier just to show the intellectual flaws in ID, than to construct a non-ad hoc definition of proper science and show that all the right things qualify and ID doesn't.

ID is nothing but flaws. ID does nothing besides point to things its target audience either does not understand or care about and then misrepresent them; or point to a an error and say "AHA! One person was wrong, therefore the rest is bollocks."
ID is ignorant in its best intentions, dishonest in its worst.

[ 18. January 2013, 02:00: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by The Great Gumby (# 10989) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I would think it's easier just to show the intellectual flaws in ID, than to construct a non-ad hoc definition of proper science and show that all the right things qualify and ID doesn't.
ID is nothing but flaws. ID does nothing besides point to things its target audience either does not understand or care about and then misrepresent them; or point to a an error and say "AHA! One person was wrong, therefore the rest is bollocks."
ID is ignorant in its best intentions, dishonest in its worst.

ID reminds me most of a Conspiracy Theory. Like 9/11 "Troofers", IDers devote all their energy to finding what they perceive or can spin as flaws or gaps in the "official story", and then hammer on those repeatedly as proof that it's all a lie. But they never offer a coherent alternative explanation, just repeated assertions of their bottom line ("It was staged" v "Goddidit") in slightly different forms.

They apply different standards of proof and evidence, depending on who proposed an explanation and whether it fits with their prior assumptions. If the standards they apply to the evolutionary model were turned on the laughable areas of ID and "Creation Science" (a near-perfect oxymoron), their pet subject and hobby horse would disappear completely.

ID is the very antithesis of science, and we shouldn't be afraid to say so.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Feyerabend's brilliant. He is to Karl Popper what the Sex Pistols were to the Carpenters.
Loud, angry, and out of tune?
Is it that his criticisms are invalid; or just that his work does not help the process of science; or something else?

Far from invalid, in my opinion. I think Feyerabend was a far more acute observer of how science is done than Popper ever was. Popper wanted to see science as neat and tidy: scientists coolly considering evidence, nudging nearer to an unattainable "truth" by disproving theories and formulating new ones according to the available evidence. Feyerabend saw no such unity of method, and certainly didn't see the doing of science as either cool or rational. He saw scientists as passionate advocates of their own views, even in the face of the evidence. Against Method observes that there is no one thing that can be called "scientific method" before going on to suggest that there should be no one thing that can be called "scientific method". Feyerabend was a science anarchist. Scientists mostly hate him. They prefer Popper's fantasy.

Take the present discussion. About thirty years ago I remember seeing a tv documentary in which several prominent scientists derided - literally laughed at - the idea that a comet or asteroid impact might have wiped out the dinosaurs. This was despite an already large, and increasing, body of evidence that suggested that was what had happened.

Some time after that, scientific orthodoxy flipped on its head and within a year or two it had become obvious that what had done for the dinos was a comet or asteroid. More to the point, most scientists seemed abruptly to forget that they had ever believed anything different.

You could see this as a Kuhnian paradigm shift. You could see it as Feyerabend's scientific anarchy in action (people holding on to their outdated theories, partly because there were reputations at stake). But there's no way you can fit it into the Popperian view.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, Kuhn and Feyerabend between them showed science not to be a cool disinterested pursuit of truth, but a sociological phenomenon, which involves groups of people with their own self-interest to maintain, and using all kinds of scrambled non-methods (like guessing). There is also the interesting idea that scientists are very concerned to preserve their own mythology, but then this is probably true of all professions. But F. was also a sort of eliminative materialist - well, nobody's perfect.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, Kuhn and Feyerabend between them showed science not to be a cool disinterested pursuit of truth, but a sociological phenomenon, which involves groups of people with their own self-interest to maintain, and using all kinds of scrambled non-methods (like guessing). There is also the interesting idea that scientists are very concerned to preserve their own mythology, but then this is probably true of all professions. But F. was also a sort of eliminative materialist - well, nobody's perfect.

"Showed" is a little strong. And the great thing about science is that even when some people entrench around their pet theories, others come along with better evidence and better theories and knock the old guard off their thrones. Let's see that happen with ID.

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

Kuhn's 'revolutions' I find valuable in understanding the progress of science and what it takes for a theory to be accepted or discarded by the relevant science community

I still do not know what do do with Feyerabend. How does it help in understanding science's role in society, or in a science community's assessment of their part in society.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Kuhn's 'revolutions' I find valuable in understanding the progress of science and what it takes for a theory to be accepted or discarded by the relevant science community

It is a pretty good description of the development of physics and related studies up to Kuhn's time. But the history of biology worked very differently.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Latchkey Kid:
Kuhn's 'revolutions' I find valuable in understanding the progress of science and what it takes for a theory to be accepted or discarded by the relevant science community

I still do not know what do do with Feyerabend. How does it help in understanding science's role in society, or in a science community's assessment of their part in society.

I didn't think that F. was so concerned with the sociological nature of science, as with the idealization of scientific method, which, he argued, concealed a kind of dog's breakfast of intuition, guessing, and various tricks and cheats. He also seemed to debunk various concepts such as falsification, and claimed that new ideas in science often don't fit the 'facts' at all. I don't really know if he was intent on being a sort of trickster figure, i.e. getting up people's noses, but probably some of his points are both provocative and insightful. I suppose he is really saying that there are no rules for doing science, but scientists pretend that there are.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Damn, the guillotine got me. I have a vague memory that F. also defended things like astrology, as he thought that science was given far too exalted and privileged a position in society, and therefore, we should defend stuff like astrology, which is considered unscientific and naff.

On a purely personal note, I think this is also good for irritating atheists! On another forum, I recommended that schools should teach astrology, rain-dancing and witchcraft, and the replies were suitably apoplectic. Moi, a troll? Non.

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
On another forum, I recommended that schools should teach astrology, rain-dancing and witchcraft, and the replies were suitably apoplectic. Moi, a troll? Non.

Thanks for a good laugh; I'll definitely remember that idea when I want to wind certain people up!

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
On a purely personal note, I think this is also good for irritating atheists! On another forum, I recommended that schools should teach astrology, rain-dancing and witchcraft, and the replies were suitably apoplectic. Moi, a troll? Non.

Funny, I use the same recommendation to irritate theists, especially Christians, when they suggest teaching creationism/ID. Same reaction.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I'm wondering whether there is anything that could disprove Evolution.
Why would you want to?

Because there would be no better way for a scientist to go down in the history books and win fame and fortune than by disproving evolution. Almost any biologist, paleontologist, botanist, or other student of the biological sciences who thought they could disprove evolution would do so.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Although in reality, a scientist who manages to 'disprove' evolution (or, rather, identify some serious inconsistencies within the theory of evolution and postulate an alternative theory that better explains the data) would find themselves ridiculed by the scientific community as a crackpot, unable to get a position in a university, trying to make ends meet from sales of books popularising his ideas (mostly bought by those with a religious reason to see evolution disproved) and appearances on Jerry Springer ... and, 50 years or more after his death in poverty and disgrace grudgingly accepted as a genius.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

There is the difference between creationism and science. Science self corrects at a much faster rate. 50 years is a blink compared to 2000.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0