Evidence and Truth
by MikeGeneEvidence, evidence, evidence. Lots of people like to use this ill-defined and subjective concept to score points, as it allows people to sit in judgment, pronouncing whether or not some data are "evidence" or whether the evidence is "sufficient." It's quite the power-trip to sit in judgment not only of other people, but of Reality. Despite these problems, we cannot ignore the importance of evidence. For example, if we are to convict Jones for the murder of Smith, there had better be evidence to support this contention if we are going to take away Jones's freedom.
Yet this very example serves to make both points. Yes, evidence is important when making decisions about our natural and social world, but relying solely on the evidence may very well deliver only a superficial, or even false, understanding of the world. We know this simply from the fact that in court rooms around the world, judges and juries have followed the evidence before them to determine guilty people are innocent and innocent people are guilty. This holds true even if we rule out corruption and biases.
Consider some movie where you, the viewer, know that Jones killed Smith, because you watched it happen. Jones, of course, subjectively knows that he killed Smith. The police investigator doesn't know this, he simply believes that Jones killed Smith because of some clues. The investigator then privately confronts Jones and accuses him of murder. Jones, privately knowing the investigator is correct, simply replies, "There is no evidence and you can't prove it" and the investigator knows this is true.
Right there, in that scene, we see the difference between evidence and truth. Relying solely on the evidence may very well deliver only a superficial, or even false, understanding of the world.
June 15th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
We need a Logic that is capable of treating every possible mistake: And for sound effects, with rabbit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
Note: Logic is upper case!
Comment by Stephen — June 15, 2008 @ 7:51 pm
June 15th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Mike, let me suggest an alternative title for this thread:
Evidence, Shmevidence…
Comment by olegt — June 15, 2008 @ 8:01 pm
June 15th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Heya MG,
I respectfully submit: No, the investigator does not know this is true. Evidence clearly exists - there were clues. Those clues are evidence. They may not be enough evidence. They may not be the best evidence. But there is evidence.
I understand where you're going with this, of course. But I think the proper answer is to point out that evidence many times does exist in an inconclusive (albeit possibly strong) way - and is falsely rendered as there being 'no evidence'.
Comment by nullasalus — June 15, 2008 @ 8:26 pm
June 15th, 2008 at 9:16 pm
Hi olegt,
Nah. I would think that everyone who reads this blog understands the importance of evidence. I'm just encouraging people to think more critically about this concept, especially given the way this concept is often used as a club. Thus far, I have highlighted three aspects of evidence that are largely ignored in these debates.
1. Evidence is a mental construct and is thus partly subjective.
2. Evidence exists on different levels.
3. Evidence and truth are not necessarily tied together.
These are important caveats when trying to make a huge deal about "the evidence."
Comment by MikeGene — June 15, 2008 @ 9:16 pm
June 15th, 2008 at 9:22 pm
Hi nullasalus,
You are correct. I was thinking more along the lines when Jones says, "you can't prove it." In this case, Jones would know there isn't strong enough evidence for the investigator to convince a judge or jury. But of course this need not mean there is "no evidence" to support the investigator's belief.
Comment by MikeGene — June 15, 2008 @ 9:22 pm
June 15th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Mike Gene wrote:
Mike,
I think you're missing the whole point of the ongoing discussion about reason, evidence and doubt.
No one has claimed that evidence is the same thing as truth, or that evidence invariably leads to truth. No one has claimed that absolute certainty is possible via reason and evidence.
Consider the famous example of Descartes' demon. Starting from scratch, Descartes asked himself whether there was anything about the outside world of which he could be absolutely certain. He concluded that the answer was no. Why? Because everything we know about the outside world ultimately comes through our sense perceptions, and we have no guarantee that our sense perceptions are reliable.
This is where the demon comes in. Descartes asks us to imagine a superintelligent, superpowerful demon who is dedicated to the goal of deceiving us about the external world. The demon controls what we see, hear, feel, smell, taste, etc. If such a demon existed, he could make me
believe that I am sitting in front of my computer, when the computer doesn't even exist. He could make me believe that my cat is in her favorite spot on a pillow next to my computer monitor, when there really is not cat, no pillow, and no computer monitor. He could make me believe that there is a blog called Telic Thoughts, with a commenter who calls himself Mike Gene, when in reality there is no such thing as the Internet, blogs don't exist, and all of these things are illusions created by the demon's deft manipulations of my sense perceptions.
In our hearts, none of us believe that Descartes' demon actually exists and is fooling us second by second. But we cannot prove it. Such a demon is logically possible. The only way to disprove the demon, therefore, would be through evidence. But the demon is part of the outside world, and any possible evidence about the demon must flow through the demon himself. Unless he makes a mistake that allows us to deduce his presence, there is no way that we can determine that he is there — or not there.
In the end, the only reliable truth that Descartes could ascertain as a foundation for the rest of knowledge was an internal fact: his famous deduction, "I think, therefore I am." (And even that is disputed by philosophers).
If certain knowledge is impossible, must we throw up our hands and give up? Of course not. We can tentatively assume that the demon (or its modern-day equivalent, the Matrix) is not there, and that our senses, albeit imperfect, are nevertheless conduits for information about an objective world "out there."
Even if we take that assumption as a given, perfect certainty is still not possible. Our information is imperfect. Some facts will be missing; others will be wrong. Our reasoning is flawed. Even the best minds of history have made glaring logical errors, as we can see in hindsight. Any human who believes that she is impervious to mistakes is deluded. We try to come as close as we can to objective truth, knowing that we may be mistaken.
Are there any other avenues to certainty? What about intuition? Nope — it's flawed. We may get some ideas via intuition that turn out to be true, but we end up determining their truth by testing them against logic and evidence. Revelation? Nope. Same problem as intuition. Coin flips? Nope. Chicken entrails? Nope. The feeling of certainty itself is notoriously unreliable.
So to return to your statement:
Absolutely, but how else can we even come close to attaining certainty?
In the end, a wise person must either choose to remain agnostic on an issue, or else to tentatively hold the position that seems best supported by evidence and reason, with the understanding that it may be overturned by new evidence or a better argument. What else can she do? Any suggestions, Mike?
And if reason and evidence are the most powerful means we have of approximating truth, then why shouldn't we make a big deal about them?
Comment by robin — June 15, 2008 @ 9:43 pm
June 15th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Hi All.
Thank you Robin for taking the time and effort to go through the whole our senses could be illusions thing.
I have been tempted to do it myself, but was too lazy. I just did the shorthand of writing "I think, therefore I am" in hopes that people understand the details surrounding that.
Yes, I don't know the Truth.
I suspect no one else knows the Truth either.
All we can do is our best using the tools at our disposal.
Tools like logic (little "L") and evidence.
Assuming everyone else has similar feelings as I do, we all dislike having doubts. We feel better when we think we know what we are doing is right. It's hard work to continually question every move. It is very tempting to let someone else tell us what to do. If we could only find someone or something to trust so we don't have to worry as much.
It is not hard to understand how the Jim Jones and even the Pol Pots of the world can get so many devote followers.
Now who wants to try to explain to me that the Ultimate Truth is that I should let Jesus into my heart and trust in him?
Ok, maybe not that far in one step. How about suggesting that I shouldn't rely exclusively on logic and evidence but follow my feelings instead. After all, don't we all feel our life has purpose? There MUST be something to that, right?
Sorry, thinking for myself is about the only thing I can trust.
Show me the evidence and/or give me something I can understand (logic).
Otherwise, it is of no practical value.
Of course, there is always the option of trying to force knees to bend (one of Joy's sayings). I think there might be a movement or two that is trying to accomplish that through majority rule.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 15, 2008 @ 11:01 pm
June 16th, 2008 at 12:09 am
Hi Robin,
Excellent. And I'm simply adding that a reliance on the evidence may very well deliver only a superficial, or even false, understanding of the world.
I like my example better because this stuff happens countless times every day. And we don't need to talk about movies and murders, because we all know there are many, many truths about our own lives that leave no evidence. For example, no matter how much I commit myself to gathering evidence and following reason, I know it would be useless to proclaim what you, as part of physical reality, were doing and thinking last Tuesday. Give it a few more days or weeks, and this aspect of our physical reality may even be lost even from your mind. Truth can vanish.
Nope. We've hit the limitations of being human. What we can do is this"¦..
Make a big deal all you want. Just don't try to bury or obscure the three caveats when making such a big deal:
1. Evidence is a mental construct and is thus partly subjective.
2. Evidence exists on different levels.
3. Evidence and truth are not necessarily tied together.
"True wisdom comes to each of us when we realize how little we understand about life, ourselves, and the world around us."
Comment by MikeGene — June 16, 2008 @ 12:09 am
June 16th, 2008 at 1:30 am
Mike wrote:
Mike,
I definitely agree with principles 1 and 3, as you've worded them, and I think my comments show that. (Where we might still differ is in the application of these principles, though that remains to be seen. Maybe we can discuss some situations in which these principles would apply.)
But I'm not sure what you mean by #2, "Evidence exists on different levels." Could you elaborate?
Comment by robin — June 16, 2008 @ 1:30 am
June 16th, 2008 at 1:32 am
Mike
I am late into this discussion. What is the alternative to evidence when trying to decide whether something is true? Guesswork?
Comment by Mark Frank — June 16, 2008 @ 1:32 am
June 16th, 2008 at 1:36 am
The post at the top of the page could be part of Philip Johnson's explanation of how Intelligent Design depends on a postmodern denial of absolute truth.
Comment by steve — June 16, 2008 @ 1:36 am
June 16th, 2008 at 1:53 am
Mark Frank asked:
Mark,
In this comment, I asked Mike:
Mike's response:
Comment by robin — June 16, 2008 @ 1:53 am
June 16th, 2008 at 2:17 am
Mike,
I think we all understand the limits of being human and understand that following the evidence might lead to a superficial, or even false, understanding of the world. But that doesn't change the fact that this superficial potentially false understanding is the most warranted understanding available to us. Reaching the most warranted conclusion is, in my mind, a more noble goal than trying to reach an unobtainable absolute truth. One accepts the limitations of being human and still strives for as much knowledge as possible while the other is just chasing windmills. In my opinion, accepting knowledge by revelation or by faith is an attempt to move beyond the limits of warranted belief and to move closer to that elusive absolute truth. I lack the training to philosophy to express these as more than mere opinions though.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — June 16, 2008 @ 2:17 am
June 16th, 2008 at 5:15 am
I would like to echo Mark Frank
What else are you suggesting we use, Mike?
Comment by The Pixie — June 16, 2008 @ 5:15 am
June 16th, 2008 at 6:55 am
Mike of course is not suggesting evidence lacks utility but it is worth bearing in mind that conclusions are limited by its availability and the subjective lens through which people view it.
Comment by Bradford — June 16, 2008 @ 6:55 am
June 16th, 2008 at 7:18 am
When we say "evidence" we at the same time imply certain reference framework where it promotes/demotes specific argument or position. Therefore evidence taken out of context is meaningless and it does not deliver any (true or false) understanding of the world. It is our adopted context (world-view) that determines how, what and which combination of data are taken as evidence to support it.
Comment by inunison — June 16, 2008 @ 7:18 am
June 16th, 2008 at 7:19 am
Bradford,
Like we didn't know any of that. I guess we'll be more careful with evidence from now on. Thanks to MikeGene for opening our eyes and stuff.
Comment by olegt — June 16, 2008 @ 7:19 am
June 16th, 2008 at 8:44 am
Hi All,
Allow me to repeat the salient portion of my previous comment in case people missed it…
I think, therefore I am.
I don't know the Truth.
I suspect no one else knows the Truth either.
All we can do is our best using the tools at our disposal.
Tools like logic and evidence.
Assuming everyone else has similar feelings as I do, we all dislike having doubts. We feel better when we think we know what we are doing is right. However, it's hard work to continually question every move.
Is anyone suggesting that we shouldn't do the hard work of relying exclusively on logic and evidence but, instead, let our feelings help us remove our doubts?
Sorry, thinking and truly understanding is about the only thing I can trust.
Show me the evidence and/or give me something I can understand (logic).
Otherwise, it is of no practical value.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 16, 2008 @ 8:44 am
June 16th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Hi Robin,
Since evidence is a mental construct that depends on subjectivity, not all data have the equivalent ability to be perceived as evidence by all people. Here is a recent, more lengthy elaboration.
Hi Mark and Pixie,
Trying to play chess?
I never said or implied an alternative existed. I'm simply highlighting the caveats. Is there a problem with that? Does it somehow trouble you to do so?
Hi Steve,
Does this somehow invalidate any of the points in the post at the top of the page?
Hi Todd and olegt,
Very good. Since we all understand and agree, I'll try to remember to remind people of these important caveats at appropriate, future opportunities.
Comment by MikeGene — June 16, 2008 @ 9:04 am
June 16th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Mike, did you seriously expect that someone—anyone!—would disagree with the caveats? Are we that stupid?
Comment by olegt — June 16, 2008 @ 9:51 am
June 16th, 2008 at 10:02 am
Hi olegt,
Nope, I could not envision how any rational person could disagree. Not in this context, that is. When it comes to other contexts, we'll see how strongly folks are committed to keeping these caveats from being buried or obscured.
Gotta run.
Comment by MikeGene — June 16, 2008 @ 10:02 am
June 16th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Bradford writes:
And Inunison adds:
These are valid points. In science especially when we speak of evidence, we are really speaking about data — observations of phenomenon in the lab or the natural world about which hypotheses are formed and tested and all that. Unfortunately, this data doesn't come to us with little labels attached telling the observer what it is be taken as evidence for or whether it is evidence for anything in particular at all. Rather the observer, in this example the scientist, assigns evidential value on the observation of this data based on other considerations and background principles, and worldviews definitely come into play here. If the scientist absolutely believes that nature is a completely closed system of natural cause and effect, then no data she observes will ever be construed as evidence forsomething beyond nature. By the same token, another scientist, looking at the very same data might firmly believe that there is a supernatural realm and a God who certainly could have the power to intervene in the course of events in the cosmos and might take the very same data as evidence for this possibility.
But if it really is the case that the first scientist's belief is the Truth –that is the naturalistic view represents or conforms to the way things really are — then the second scientist's connection of the data to theism is wrong no matter what. Of course, the opposite case is also true.
This is where, I think, a lot of the discussions about so-called methodological naturalism get de-railed. One can not simply stipulate there is "no evidence" for anything beyond nature and then construct a scientific process built on that stipulation and expect the results derived from it to conform to the way things really are each and every time. If some features of the way things really are fall beyond the boundaries of the stipulation, then any claims that this data or that data provides the evidence to confirm the stipulated worldview are simply wrong.
Scientist and philosophers need to tread carefully in the arena of "evidence".
Comment by DonaldM — June 16, 2008 @ 10:09 am
June 16th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Huh? I keep rereading that first quote, and every time you seem to be arguing for not relying solely on evidence. Now you seem to be admitting there is no alternative to doing just that. Perhaps you could state this more clearly: Do you think we should rely solely on evidence and if not, then what else can we use?
Whether in science or in law, all we have to go on is the evidence. Of course that is sometimes incomplete, and of course we sometimes get it wrong. If you have a better way of doing it, please present it. Otherwise, learn to live with it like the rest of us.
Comment by The Pixie — June 16, 2008 @ 10:12 am
June 16th, 2008 at 10:59 am
DonaldM
This is where methodological naturalism comes to the fore. If both sides propose a definite hypothesis, predictions can be drawn and these matched against the real world. A hypothesis that fails that can be rejected from science (though it might still be true).
Of course not! Consider ghosts for example. Science does not stipulate that there is no evidence for ghosts, just because they are supernatural. What science say is if you want ghost-theory to be accepted in science, you have to follow the rules of science; hypothesis-prediction-testing. If you can do that for ghost-theory, then ghost-theory will become part of science (and we will stop labelling ghosts as supernatural).
Comment by The Pixie — June 16, 2008 @ 10:59 am
June 16th, 2008 at 11:00 am
Hey all,
I think its pretty clear what Mike is trying to do here. He's not saying in any way that evidence is not important or that it should be disregarded, but instead we should be mindful and aware of our own preconceptions and biases as we interpret said evidence and data and as we formulate our conclusions.
Comment by Kuma — June 16, 2008 @ 11:00 am
June 16th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Kuma, we're all well aware of that. Here's Richard Feynman in Cargo Cult Science:
I don't need Mike Gene to remind me of things I've been adhering to throughout my career.
Comment by olegt — June 16, 2008 @ 11:58 am
June 16th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Olegt said:
and
You sure about that, Olegt? Because you certainly didn't seem that aware of it when you mockingly stated in your first post to this thread:
Comment by Doug — June 16, 2008 @ 12:15 pm
June 16th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
Kuma, Doug, Braford, Inunison, Donald, etc.,
I've been half awaiting a parsing worthy of the ghosts of Smokey to show us why Mike didn't really mean what we and Oleg agree he said.
Comment by Pez — June 16, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
June 16th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
Perhaps I would augment this by saying the immediately available evidence or the immediate absence of certain evidence may very well deliver only superficial, or even false, understanding of the world….
Let us reviews some anecdotes of science:
1. Epicyicles and retrograde motion: the natural perception was a geocentric universe (after all we don't "feel" like we're in motion), the immediate perceptions led to epicycles and circular orbits. It was copernicus, galileo, kepler who helped set the world straight. It was a counter intuitive result. Kepler was a Chrisitian, an astrologist, and a numerologist. He arrived at celestial mechanics partly because of his "insights" in astrology and numerology….:-)
2. Universal gravitation — what causes apples to fall also holds the moon in the sky. The immediate evidence could easily be misinterpreted. Newton had headaches and nervous breakdowns before the eventual vindication of the theory.
3. germ theory and immunization and biogenesis — spontaneous generation seemed reasonable in light of the poorly controlled lab conditions, further it was serendipitous that Pasteur's swan flasks worked since he didn't generate enough heat with his burners to actually kill the bacteria, he should have lost his famous challenge, but he lucked out.
Finally, and most outrageously, was the hypothesis of exposing people to elements of what causes disease in order to generate immunity. 
The immediate evidence would suggest that's the last thing you would want to do. The practioners, the physicians at the time scoffed at the idea of immunization. They refused to entertain what appeared to be obviously crackpot science….by the way, it was serendipitous accident that led to the discovery of immunization.
4. For those willing, there is an amusing anectdote where the remarkable equations of Electromagnetic Theory by a theorist Maxwell were greeted with intense disdain by the "practitioners". Bruce Hunt of Johns Hopkins wrote the article: Practice vs. Theory. Maxwell's theory predicted invisible entitities which could be created and detected at a distance. Of course this sort of black magic seemed preposterous until Hertz successfully demonstrated radio waves years after Maxwell passed away….Oddly Maxwell's major work fell into the hands of an unemployed telegrapher named Oliver Heavyside. It had mistakes in it. It was serendipity that the work didn't get lost or destroyed…..
5. Matterwave hypothesis — DeBroglie hypothesized (with no direct evidence) that matter is a wave. So distasteful was the idea that his PhD advisors were reluctant to grant him a PhD. Because of an accidental explosion in the laboratory of Davisson and Germer and the oxidation of their nickel specimen and the fortuitous levels of voltage in their experiment, DeBroglie's hypothesis was vindicated and DeBroglie won the Nobel (despite almost being deprived of a PhD)! Serendipity to the max…..
6. Rutherford scattering — the father of nuclear physics got a break because of serendipitous set of events inconsistent with the prevailing assumptions and available evidence. The prevailing assumptions and available evidence almost stopped investigation of the clues that would break open the case:
Serendipity!
7. Special and General Relativity — the presumption of Euclidean Geometry, Galilean Transformations, and the extrapolation of newtonian and classical mechanics was pervasive. It is hard to think of physics in 4-diminsions, but Minkowski (Einstein's teacher) pioneered the idea. But that wasn't the end of remarkable things. The idea of space being "curved"
or time-dilation 
or space contraction :shock:. All these ideas resist the immediate "evidence" available. We had the serendipitous fact of eclipses which allowed confirmation of general relativity. We did not have extremely fast particle accelerators or clocks to directly measure special relativity at the time. Not to mention it seemed uncanny that the notion of non-Euclidean geometry fell upon several mathematicians independently at the same time prior to Einstein….
8. Quantum Mechanics — too many things to describe. Sometimes hypotheses were just pulled out of the air in desperation, and then later vindicated. I will mention Planck:
Plank's act of dispair and the birth of "Planck's constant" was the birth of quantum mechanics.
[in passing, I mention]
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 16, 2008 @ 12:40 pm
June 16th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Pixie writes:
The problem I see with this reasoning is that it is tantamount to saying that science can only work ifnaturalism (or something like it) is true. It makes science a correlate of philosophical naturalism, which I think restricts science itself. As you know, I've long maintained that MN=PN. I just don't see any way around that.
The other problem I see here is that this is the same as saying that in order for something to be considered "explained" in scientific terms, those explanations must refer only to natural causes — even if that isn't the real explanation. In other words, given two explanations for the same phenomenon, one natural, one not, under the stipulations of MN, we are forced to first choose between them as if they were in competition and secondly give preference to the naturalistic explanation as if it were the only option. Since we're discussing evidence here, where is the evidence that this must always be the case?
Put differently, unless we know a priori that the cosmos really is a completely closed system of natural cause and effect, the stipulation of MN arbitrarily restricts the explanatory resources of science and arbitrarily eliminates from consideration what may in fact be the correct explanation for a given observation. Under such rules, science can hardly be said to deliver the truth about a given matter, or be a correlate of nature or self correcting. Also, it completely restricts how evidence must be viewed each and every time. In effect it is saying that even though evidence in the form of observations and data does not come with a label attached telling the observer what it is evidence for, as far as science is concerned we know that the data must be evidence for some natural cause or other and could not possibly be anything else. How then to distinguish between MN and PN? I see no way and I don't think that is where science should be. It certainly mucks up the whole concept of evidence, which is what this thread is about.
Comment by DonaldM — June 16, 2008 @ 1:14 pm
June 16th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
DonaldM
I would say it can only work where naturalism is true. If a supernatural agent is involved, science will flounder. For areas where no supernatural agent is involved science will (probably) do fine.
Yes, this is true. But (1) science has managed to do a lot even so and (2) what is the alternative?
Tell me more about these explanations. Do they both make bold predictions? Do the predictions hold out? That is what the competition is about - to make more exhaustive and more accurate predictions. If the supernatural explanation makes no predictions, and the natural one makes good predictions, then yes, we will reject the supernatural one in favour of the natural. And we might be wrong to do that, but at least we have a good model, rather than an unknown one.
Science can only strive towards a perfect model of the universe, not truth. It certainly is self-correcting - see Salvador's posts for some great examples of that.
Comment by The Pixie — June 16, 2008 @ 1:47 pm
June 16th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
hey Olegt, Pez,
Look, I know absolutly nothing about you other than what you write here or in other blogs that I may run into your posts. I've only been frequenting this blog for the last month and a half or so and am not really familiar with your respective personalities and professions outside this blog. I'm no scientist but I do find these discussions entertaing and often informative on both sides of the debate.
If you honestly adhere to the quote you provided me, than that is great and I hope you continue to do well in your field of choice . I mean that. I have no dog in the fight of ID VS. non-ID (science has no bearing on my spiritual views, it just shows me the underlying beauty of the universe) I just like the discussion.
I just tried to clarify what I saw as an OBVIOUS misinterprtation of the OP for the benefit of others. As I said I'm not a scientist, I am an artist by trade so if I make some mistakes in this regards you'll have to forgive me, I'm learning as I go.
So at this point I'm not sure why the defensive posturing when you obviously knew intimately what was being said in the OP. Why the anger?
Comment by Kuma — June 16, 2008 @ 2:08 pm
June 16th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Hi Kuma,
My comment was ridiculously incoherent.
By "we" I meant you, inunison, etc., and me - the people not claiming that Mike is denying the validity and necessity of evidence and who thought his point was obvious.
I included Oleg because he appears to agree with Mike and the other ID proponents on this issue.
I referred to the parsing of words because I expect(ed) that tactic to be used to support a poor and ungracious reading of the OP as it so often is around here.
Sorry it was so cryptic.
Comment by Pez — June 16, 2008 @ 2:24 pm
June 16th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Beat me to it, Pez.
At first I was confused a tad by the wording, but eventually figured it out.
Comment by Doug — June 16, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
June 16th, 2008 at 2:34 pm
For an interesting perspective on how "evidence" was handled by great scientists of the past, the following should be deeply amusing:
The Birth of a New Physics
Here are some of the chapters of some of Kepler's writings that led to breakthroughs in celestial mechanics, a major area of physics:
In order to justify the relationship of human music to planetary motion, Kepler put forward the elements of what we now know is celestial mechanics….
For those that can read music, see the musical scores inherent to each planet which Kepler "scientifically" derived from the evidence.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 16, 2008 @ 2:34 pm
June 16th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Hey Pez
No problems here:smile:
I was just clarifying my personal position in regards to the responses my post recieved.
Thanks though for explaining yourself further, it is appreciated!
Comment by Kuma — June 16, 2008 @ 2:36 pm
June 16th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
Sal, you're not suggesting that musical tones were used as evidence in favor of the Copernican system, are you? If not, then how is this story relevant?
Comment by olegt — June 16, 2008 @ 2:42 pm
June 16th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Even with misinterpretation of evidence from peculiar world views, fruitful science can emerge.
There might be misinterpretations of scientific "evidence" that still might have fruitful elements.
Let's say ID is a misinterpretation of the evidence. There is a chance something salvageable from the enterprise could still remain….not the least of which is Darwinian theories and naturalistic OOL are being shown to have some serious theoretical and empirical challenges.
Kepler, by all counts is viewed as great scientist. "Evidence" for him led to different conclusions than it did for others. The most central conclusion he sought (regarding the relationship of music and planetary orbits) are now only viewed with amusement. It was his secondary thesis of eliptical motion that remains to this day.
I would augment Mike's thesis:
to:
Kepler was extremely lucky because the evidence in hand gave him a false assumption about the relationship of music to planetary orbits.
Kepler had insufficient evidence for the number of planets and moons. Kepler thought there were only 6 planets. I think the discovery of certain planets and moons blew apart his original thesis!
We have an ironic situation:
1. insufficient evidence
2. false conclusions from insufficient evidence, inspired by mysticism, numerology, and astrology
3. true conclusions (Kepler's laws, non-relativisitc approximations for celestial mechanics) derived in support of false conclusions derived from insufficient evidence and mysticism
I merely introduced an added twist to Mike's original hypothesis.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 16, 2008 @ 3:19 pm
June 16th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
I think Salvador presents a great example with Kepler of how it does not matter when you get your ideas from. Kekule is said to have got the structure of benzene from a dream, much of Newton's ideas were founded in mystism (not for nothing is Dembski the Newton of information science). It really does not matter where the original hypothesis comes from. What is important to science is what you do with it. If you go down the hypothesis-prediction-testing road (like Kepler, Kekule and Newton) and your hypothesis is sound, you arrive at science.
Comment by The Pixie — June 16, 2008 @ 3:43 pm
June 16th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Well said, The Pixie,
A little off-topic, but does everyone agree with The Pixie that a scientist's motivations and the sources of his inspiration do not disqualify his conclusions? Even if the scientist is an atheist looking to put nails in God's coffin or whether he is a YEC (or merely suspected so until he can prove otherwise) do we all agree we can discount his motivations and merely question the results?
Comment by Pez — June 16, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
June 16th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
If only Koons knew what he was opening with that dust jacket blurb.
Comment by Doug — June 16, 2008 @ 4:02 pm
June 16th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
as I said, I would agument this to say
This was definitely the case as with classical physics. Classical physics was the common sense interpretation of the facts, and was phenomenally successful with its predictions. It was hard to doubt it could possibly be wrong.
There were at first hints, and then the eventually the floodgates opened and then classical physics was dethroned (not destroyed, but dethroned) by relativity and quantum mechanics. The amazing thing is that sometimes it was one lab, one thinker, one experiment, one fortuitious accident that would be the catalyst of a major change in thinking…..
Sometimes the clues were gathered by people who weren't even looking for them. Some of the major clues that were discovered after it was suggested to look for them were:
1. confirmation of general relativity through the fortuitous provision of eclipses
2. compton scattering
etc.
But there were plenty that just happened by plain serendipity.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 16, 2008 @ 4:57 pm
June 16th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
This is an intriguing discussion that fortunately did not get bogged down in post-modernism.
My own view (biased by engineering training) was to see us in the middle of an "automated" world full of machinery, assembly plants, and factories. I have to admit, I do like Mike's analogy better since it more broadly describes our predicament.
Sal, I enjoyed your little whirlwind tour throughout the history of science, especially Kepler's music-planetary orbit analogy. I wonder if anyone compiled a list of scientific discoveries made by accident?
To build on Sal's line of thought, it would seem that scientists are being encouraged to think "mechanically", or IOW, thinking outside the box is discouraged. I don't know how one would demonstrate this, but I wonder how, or even if, this line of thinking "stunts" the rate of scientific discovery (hard to do since we're right in the middle of the process).
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — June 16, 2008 @ 5:59 pm
June 16th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
JJS wrote:
I can't imagine why you would think this, given the accolades and rewards (and grants) showered upon scientists who make creative and original discoveries.
Comment by robin — June 16, 2008 @ 6:06 pm
June 16th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Pez:
No, it doesn't matter where the inspiration comes from, so long as the science that follows it up is solid. I thought Einstein demonstrated that pretty well when he was just a lowly patent clerk.
Comment by Joy — June 16, 2008 @ 6:27 pm
June 16th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
robin, I did not mean to imply that all creativity in science was squelched (first word that came to my mind, honest!:grin:). However, I do wonder how much creativity we have lost in not considering "outside the box" thinking (and by outside the box, I do mean, in part, including design inferences as a legitimate assumption/starting point) on a more broad spectrum. This "loss in creativity" may be near impossible to measure presently and may take several decades (maybe even centuries) before we can look back and analyse it properly.
Comment by JJS P.Eng. — June 16, 2008 @ 6:50 pm
June 16th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Pez asked:
Yes.
Having said that, we may still object to the motivations or the methods on other grounds. The conclusions drawn by Nazi doctors from their ghastly experiments on concentration camp prisoners stand or fall strictly on their scientific merit, but I think you all would agree with me that the experiments should never have been done.
Comment by robin — June 16, 2008 @ 7:01 pm
June 16th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Hi all,
Motivations are relatively unimportant in the situations where someone (even a lowly patent clerk) presents defendable hypotheses and then defends them with solid science.
It is a different story when propositions are vague and ill-defined along with a request/demand that the propositions be given the benefit of the doubt.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 16, 2008 @ 7:08 pm
June 16th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
TP:
For Einstein it was all a matter of the equations. They either 'work' or they don't. It was many years before direct tests could be engineered to check his math. It was the math that won, or there never would have been a test.
But… but… it's failing at the last just like its incompatible evil twin, the Standard Model. They just cannot be reconciled. "Consensus" may someday settle on an entirely theoretical GUT that looks a lot like one of the string theories. It will not have much hope of ever being confirmed or disqualified.
Biology is much different on the evolutionary front, dealing entirely with what came from OOL whatever that might have entailed. It's always seemed to me that a design approach to the evidence gifts us with a lot more practical knowledge than an approach that sees nothing but random chance sifted over eons. Storytelling is a fine enough art form, but the storytellers should at least understand that they're telling tall tales. That's not science.
Comment by Joy — June 16, 2008 @ 7:31 pm
June 16th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
Sal, inspiration is different from evidence. It doesn't matter that Kepler was thinking about musical notes and it doesn't matter that Mendeleev played cards. Positive evidence for a theory arises when its predictions—which must be different from that of its competitors—match experimental data.
First positive evidence for general relativity came from the calculated precession of Mercury's perihelion: it matched the observed value. Newtonian mechanics predicted no precession at all.
Eddington's measurement of light bending by the Sun was a second piece of evidence. Again, Einstein's relativity predicted a value that differed (by a factor of 2) from that calculated in the framework of classical mechanics. The experimental confirmation made Einstein world famous.
However, I should point out that experimental tests didn't stop there. Gravitational red shift of light was measured in 1959. Later measurements of the rotation period of a binary pulsar again showed a slowing down (due to emission of gravitational waves) that matched the calculated value. And there have been even more experimental tests. Evidence is constantly collected and re-evaluated. "Fortuitous" is just not the right word.
Comment by olegt — June 16, 2008 @ 7:33 pm
June 16th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Hi Joy,
Can't mathematical models be looked at as just story-telling using formulas?
Understand that as an engineer I find mathematical models very compelling and usually quite convincing.
But honestly, Maxwell's equations would be so much meaningless circular logic if it didn't match observations as well as it does.
Both mathematical and non-mathematical models are based on assumptions.
That is all part and parcel with making proposals clear. The Mainstream Evolutionary Theory rises and falls on assumptions of the existence and ability of randomness.
You and I think the assumption is suspect.
I suggest the MET story is rather consistent and complete. Much more so than the popular alternatives.
Sure, I happen to think there is a Third Choice that is better. But that is my bias.
Comment by Thought Provoker — June 16, 2008 @ 7:51 pm
June 16th, 2008 at 9:00 pm
TP:
Of course they can. That's string theory and MWI in a nutshell. It's a leftover loyalty to something remotely resembling realism that makes 'em want to demonstrate evidence for - or against - a theory. Theories are thought-products. My point is that we may be at the end of our evidence rope. At least, in physics. In biology we've more than enough rope to hang ourselves with, and there will always be more, as far as we can see.
And that (along with uniformitarianism and assumed "eternity" of time to deal with) is Mainstream Evolutionary Theory's failing. What bugs me is that the failure's fan club can't seem to incorporate anything more (already amply evident), and science won't just leave 'em behind as the antiques they truly are.
Get over it. They lost. More is indeed going on, as evidence has long held forth. Most of the nameless, faceless Culture Warriors you meet on debate sites like this never got past high school biology - never had a single further course in the field. If there weren't such a SciBlogs free-for-all over who's the biggest assh*le of the bunch, they'd all be doing real science instead.
Comment by Joy — June 16, 2008 @ 9:00 pm
June 17th, 2008 at 8:02 am
Huh? Common sense is that a wagon stops when it isn't being pulled. Common sense is that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. Common sense is that projectiles go forward until they drop to the ground. Common sense says the Earth is fixed. Common sense says that the Moon's movement has nothing to do with an apple falling.
Your common sense notions of a cloudy Earth pictured from space are a result of acculturation, not innate knowledge or everyday experience. It is, however, a profound and tangible confirmation of science.
Comment by Zachriel — June 17, 2008 @ 8:02 am
June 17th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Pixie writes:
I don't want to stray too far from the OP here. My point with the examples I used was to say that evidence is not evidence per se, but that data is assigned evidentiary status by the investigator and many factors, including worldviews, come into play here. In science, MN stipulates that all data must be taken as evidence for some natural cause or phenomenon…whether or not that really is the case. This makes any claims about what there is or is not evidence for (intelligent design, for example) rather suspect, since an entire class of causal possibilities is ruled out before investigation even begins. That's really my point.
The other questions you ask, while interesting ones to be sure, stray from this point.
Comment by DonaldM — June 17, 2008 @ 9:49 am