|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: redgreenvines]
#10177385 - 04/16/09 11:46 AM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
redgreenvines said: you can watch speciation through the records up to the present, you just can't predict evolution or watch things evolve in real time, since it is generational. evolution becomes obvious in retrospect.
the fallacy here is that engineering is a predictive scientific application, and mr. mushrooms is showing that evolution is not a science of that type. it is not mathematically predictive.
however, something is very wrong about the vigor with which he is defending very odd positions in peripheral issues. we have to face it. many scientists are crack pots and mistakes can be made while picking lab assistants, and then one thing leads to another then this!
Great points, redgreenvines. Ruse contains predictability within falsifiability (Popper's main point). I hope my motives are clearer after my reply to John.
--------------------
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10177407 - 04/16/09 11:52 AM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I want to quickly add two things as an addendum.
1) The obvious conclusion anyone would make after observing different species on islands and mainlands is exactly what Darwin hypothesized. Whether the obvious conclusion is correct or not is another matter entirely.
2) I truly appreciate the civility that this conversation has engendered. I'd like to think we're all peers on this (even Ice ). There's been no shouting or name-calling. Just great conversation. I can almost picture us having this conversation around a campfire with a few beers in our hands.
It's great.
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10178641 - 04/16/09 03:32 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said: But the point remains, zouden, if these "facts" are as objective as we say they are, the acceptance should be immediate. It isn't. Why? Because scientists, whose opinions comprise science, aren't always as objective as they should be. Thus, we get faulty science. You say temporarily. Good. That's the party line again. But I assure you that if you, or any other scientist were presented with hard, cold objective facts contrary to the evolutionary paradigm, you wouldn't automatically change your opinion. There are a number of reasons for this. Unfamiliarity with philosophical evidence being one.
I can provide plenty of examples where objective facts are immediately accepted, even when they're contradictory to the prevailing view. We could spend the rest of the thread coming up with example and counter-example. The flaws you're talking about don't apply to everyone who works in science, so really, all you've done is pointed out that humans tend to be stubborn. This isn't news to anyone. I'll repeat the 'party line' again - facts speak for themselves, and people will eventually be convinced. It doesn't matter that it's not instantaneous. We still have no better alternative than the scientific method.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10178798 - 04/16/09 04:01 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr. Mushrooms said: 2) Evolution is a historical reconstruction. It always relies on data subject to interpretation. It isn't, to borrow a phrase, operational science. Operational science relies on direct observation. I can pour liquid acetic acid in a cup, add sodium bicarbonate, and the chemical reaction will produce carbon dioxide gas. Evolution, as the ultimate explanation of life, could falsify my ideas by doing two things: creating life by simulating the conditions under which life arose (as zouden said, the rna world hypothesis is the prevailing view. So don't talk about it. Do it! Results so far? Nada) or create AI. It is in this way my ideas are true science. In the words of Popper, they contain the ability to be falsified. Either of these two tests within operational science would satisfy. I'm still waiting.
You're arguing that there's observational science, and operational science. The difference being, with the latter we can perform experiments like a chemical reaction on the bench. I disagree that's there's a distinction. With 'observational' science, you still make predictions and test them with experiments, but it's less obvious. For example, evolution predicts that you'd never find a possum fossil in rock dating from the Triassic era, and every time someone digs up a fossil, it's an experiment that tests that prediction.
Creating theories and testing them with observations is the same as devising experiments and performing them.
Quote:
As I explained, fossils are historical artifacts subject to interpretation. We "see" fossils and we tell ourselves a story because that's what evolution is--a story. Forensics works the same way, John. I mention this because of your keen legal mind. Police detectives assemble a series of facts and construct a story. Sometimes the story is mere circumstantial evidence. It can get you convicted though, can't it? That is absolutely, unequivocally not the same as an eyewitness. A credible eyewitness will destroy a circumstantial case before the judge's and jury's eyes. Why? Because they have direct observation on their side. We don't have that and we won't have that with fossils, not now, not ever.
This isn't law, it's science. We have much higher standards. An eyewitness won't cut it, and science doesn't care about 'direct observation'. Any observation is only as good as your tools. In that sense, nothing is direct.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10181621 - 04/16/09 11:09 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
I could respond in kind but decline as I've made my rebuttal within my previous replies. Any exchange at this point will detract from the focus of the thread.
Thanks for explaining your view.
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10182325 - 04/17/09 01:15 AM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
Mr. Mushrooms
Spore Print Collector
Registered: 05/25/08
Posts: 13,018
Loc: Registered: 6/04/02
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: zouden]
#10200545 - 04/20/09 09:28 AM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Thanks.
Dr. Ruse continues. He breaks apart the value system that promotes science into epistemic and non-epistemic (cultural) values. He says that Darwin did what he could to satisfy the epistemic values known in 1859, but that certain persons, Peirce and Carlyle, did not appreciate his ethos.
"Many of Charles Darwin's cultural values--religion, progress, industrialism--were precisely those of Erasmus Darwin." (his grampa)
In some ways, evolution would be accepted, but the actual mechanism, natural selection, was received with less enthusiasm. Natural selection, "needed help," i.e. Lamarckism, saltationism, etc.
Quote:
It was not just the epistemic inadequacy of the Origin that was at work here: people like Gray were open in their religious motives. But the epistemic shortcomings of Darwin's evolutionism was a major factor, perhaps more so, or in more direct ways, than it would be today. In our modern age of quarks, black holes, cyberspace and other intuitively strange entities raw empiricism--the insistence that one have a physical, hands-on picture of reality--in generally not rated that highly.... At the time of the Origin, however, the call to provide direct sensed evidence was heard repeatedly, especially in the circles of British science. "I never satisfy myself until I can make a mechanical model of a thing" (Thomson 1884, 131)
And this was the problem: no one sees evolution actually occurring before their eyes.
Now I know you disagree, but the point is made, again. Direct observation of evolution, given its nature, is impossible. Some may call this approach to science naive. Then again, those satisfied with eloquent extrapolation rather than readily observed data carry with them the burden of proof. As philosophy often requires direct observation, my continual refusal to accept historical stories as quantifiable fact is to be expected, valid or not.
Ruse then launches into objectivity and subjectivity. I'll save that for the next post.
--------------------
|
zouden
Neuroscientist
Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
|
Re: Why evolution isn't a scientific theory. [Re: Mr. Mushrooms]
#10202297 - 04/20/09 03:22 PM (14 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
>Direct observation of evolution, given its nature, is impossible.
That's not what's implied by the excerpt above. Ruse says that no one had seen evolution before their eyes, and that limited its acceptance, which is true. But since then, evolution has been observed.
-------------------- I know... that just the smallest part of the world belongs to me You know... I'm not a blind man but truth is the hardest thing to see
|
|