Knowing When to Quit
by Steve PetermannI'm sure it is a very complicated process that determines how scientists know when to quit a particular theory. Theories don't die easily because scientists often have a lot invested in them. As Quine-Duhem showed (a fun example) it's not a simple matter to falsify a theory. As they suggest, it's easy to contrive adjuncts to the existing theory to prolong its life. However, at some point the contrivances become so mountainous that something happens. Scientists become disenchanted with it. One has to wonder if this is beginning to happening with the Darwinian theory of evolution.
The last hundred years has seen an explosion of details for the "simple" cells of biotic reality. No longer is the cell thought of as a glob of protoplasm. Instead the picture that is emerging is one of a remarkably complex system, with manufacturing facilities, transport, power production, mechanical devices, information systems, quality control, etc.
At some point, for some scientists, long before the death rattle of a theory, scientific intuition kicks in and those who are willing just don't buy the status quo anymore. After all isn't scientific intuition the life blood of new discovery? For those scientists who do follow that contrarian intuition they often face harrowing criticism from their peers. For the most part, as Kuhn claims, it takes a new generation of scientists who have no vested interest in the establishment to forge new ground. Perhaps in the case of many working scientists they don't really care about criticizing the Darwinian model because they just don't utilize it in their research. However, for many who are working "in the weeds" models like Darwinism are important. They are supposed to guide research to new discoveries. When they don't or repeatedly seem to be a waste of time, a nagging feeling must ensue that a new approach is necessary. They seem to know when to quit. I think we are seeing this happen as evidenced by Michael Shermer's report about prominent scientists like Provine and Margulis logging deep criticisms of the Darwinian model. And these are scientists who are no friend to ID. See here Many others, of course, like Michael Denton and James Shapiro who work "in the weeds" also point to the inadequacies of Darwinian theory.
Of course just because scientists know when to quit on a theory like Darwinism does not mean they must automatically jump the ateleological ship and join the ranks of ID explorers. Many do not for various reasons. I myself used to accept the model of Darwinian evolution but no longer do. Why? Because I have worked "in the weeds" of machine and system design for over 30 years. That work gives one a certain perspective on what is involved in the creation of machines and systems that pale in comparison with what we see in biotic life. Designing systems that work is not a simple matter. When one looks at the number of man hours and decisions required to design a nuclear submarine or the space shuttle it just seems ludicrous that biotic designs (like the human body) happened merely through chance and necessity. Granted this is an intuition, but I believe it is an intuition that the more we explore the amazing complexity of even simple biotic systems will nag those who are open minded.
Perhaps the Darwinian model will be supplanted by some other non-teleological model like self-organization, but that will not likely diminish the sense of awe that ensues as we probe biotic reality in its depth. Good scientists are an intuitive lot. They have to be. One has to wonder as the intricacies of biotic life continue to astound if many will know when to quit the non-teleological bias or at least begin to entertain the possibility that there is something much more profound going on.
March 29th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
Steve, you are involved in 'designing,' is that right? Can you please point out any theory/hypothesis of ID, preferably promoted by a leader in the IDM, that speaks of (the process of) 'designing?'
Certainly we know that designing happens by human beings. But it is likewise not those human beings who are designing biological things in the first place. Teleology and engineering go hand in hand - designing for a purpose. This is where, as a telic-thinking theist, you apparently differ from your telic-concerned non-theist comrades.
Let me also guess, you accept evolution, just not neo-Darwinian evolution.
Is it then Darwinism or rather evolution or evolutionism that you rail against?
One ought to read Max Weber (e.g. "Science as a Vocation," 1919) if they wish to expand their views on the 'disenchantment of the world,' which is said to be partly due to rationalisation and scientism.
Comment by g arago — March 29, 2006 @ 7:32 pm
March 29th, 2006 at 7:39 pm
Let me add the following: Michael Shermer's report about prominent scientists like Provine and Margulis logging deep criticisms of the Darwinian model. This is the article referred to above. You will find Provine's comments on page 8 and Margulis' on page 9.
Comment by bFast — March 29, 2006 @ 7:39 pm
March 29th, 2006 at 8:09 pm
Hi g arago,
ID is a nascent theory(hypothesis). It's main focus right now is design detection. This is a hefty challenge itself. Accordingly I don't think any prominent ID theorist has ventured into the process of design. Since I'm more interested in the natural theology aspect of ID, I have. However, since I'm not a biologist I can only offer a general speculation about possible aspects of design if one entertains ID. Here's a post I offered a while back on this.
If ID efforts of design detection eventually become well established, I would fully expect the next step would be a more indepth exploration of the design process. But that's a ways off.
Comment by Steve Petermann — March 29, 2006 @ 8:09 pm
March 29th, 2006 at 8:23 pm
g arago,
Forgot to comment on this:
I am an evolutionist (change over time with some form of descent). It's the only thing that makes sense to me. What I am critical of is the non-teleology which seems intrinsic to Darwinism. In my view that has not been demonstrated scientifically and is really contrary to our experience.
Comment by Steve Petermann — March 29, 2006 @ 8:23 pm
March 30th, 2006 at 2:14 am
If Darwinism was only a scientific theory I think it would have been left behind years ago, but its philosophical impacts seems to be the main reason that allows it to adhere to the current scientific mainstream for such a long time. Leaving Darwinism and adopting a new theory will not be as easy as it would be in any other field of science. Imagine of a day that Dawkins will announce the public:
"hey folks, we re-checked our math and it seems that Darwinian mechanisms can't be the driving force behind the evolution. We are looking for some new mechanisms and ID is our highest-priority choice"
For me the above is only a dream. Even somehow Dawkins or any other Darwinist could figure out the fact I don't believe that he would share it with the rest. I think we must wait for a new generation of rebel scientists that dare to overtly share their doubts with their colleagues as well as the public.
Comment by Farshad — March 30, 2006 @ 2:14 am
March 30th, 2006 at 10:35 am
I find it ironic that you described Margulis' comments as anti-Darwinian when she said "I am definitely a Darwinist." Provine's comments seem to be aimed at his belief that inbreeding is much more significant than others recognize. While these scientists are exploring ideas which could enrich our understanding of how life evolves, there is nothing there which should give IDists any comfort. The fact that evolutionary scientists are bubbling with ideas is an indication of how vital the field is, not that its in its imaginary death throes (as creationists have been proclaiming for over a century). In contrast, this is the kind of "idea" coming from the ID camp. I know that there are very few straws for IDists to grasp, but if I were in your camp, I'd be trying to come up with something of substance rather than fantasizing about evolutionary theory collapsing.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 30, 2006 @ 10:35 am
March 30th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
"Perhaps the Darwinian model will be supplanted by some other non-teleological model like self-organization"
I don't think that self-organization is as non-teleological as its proponents put forth.
Comment by johnnyb — March 30, 2006 @ 12:06 pm
March 30th, 2006 at 12:18 pm
Hi johnnyb,
I think the key word in their description is "self". I agree with you that it is still an open question whether emergence is telic or not. Just to use an analogy is the emergence of mind telic or not(i.e purposeful or not)? For those who postulate that self-organization is "lawlike" it is hard to image how they could still maintain that human beings are anthing more than manifestations of law, that is chance and necessity machines.
Comment by Steve Petermann — March 30, 2006 @ 12:18 pm
March 30th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
Aagcobb: "I'd be trying to come up with something of substance rather than fantasizing about evolutionary theory collapsing."
You should really be trying to read his article all the way through; or at least pay attention to what he's actually saying.
You're making the assertion. Find one point in his original article where he fantasizes about evolutionary theory collapsing. If you meant to say Darwinian evolutionary theory, then say it. As opposed to expanding his article to evolution in general.
Comment by Doug — March 30, 2006 @ 3:19 pm
March 30th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Aagcobb:
Please read what Margulis said in context. She clearly states "I am not a neo-Darwinist." The difference between being a Darwinist and a Neo-Darwinist, if I understand correctly is that a Darwinist believes that Natural Selection plays a vital role in the development of the diversity of life, a neo-Darwinist would say that the mechanisms of Random Mutation + Natural Selection (with all of it's subtlties and sub-theories) explains all of life. As Natural Selection requires some sort of variation upon which to work, and as the only naturalistic (non-telic) source of that variation which is on the table is random mutation, one might wonder what Margulis means when she says that she is not a neo-Darwinist.
I, for one, see that natural selection has played a significant role in the development of all of the varieties of life on earth. I agree with Yockey that the two tools of reproduction + natural selection are a strong enough force to protect all useful data from deterioration over 3.5 billion years. That's a lot of power for a little theory. I am not, however, a neo-Darwinist. I do not believe that random mutation is in any way adequate to provide all of the novelty that we see in life. If not random mutation, all other sources of that novelty that I can think of are, well, telic.
Comment by bFast — March 30, 2006 @ 3:23 pm
March 30th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
Hi Doug,
Doug, there are no other evolutionary theories than those which have developed from Darwin's theory, only vague notions that nonhuman intelligent agents somehow played a role in the development of life on earth.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 30, 2006 @ 3:40 pm
March 30th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
Hi bFast
You're right about one thing; there's a lot more to mainstream evolutionary theory than random mutations. The fact that you can't think of any other explanation than intelligent intervention isn't of any particular import, however.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 30, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
March 30th, 2006 at 3:47 pm
On the contrary, it's extremely important. It may not be to you, because you have a belief, but that is really whats not important.
Comment by Guts — March 30, 2006 @ 3:47 pm
March 30th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Hi Guts,
Please, explain to me why the limits of what bFast can think of are so important; is he that great a thinker?
Comment by Aagcobb — March 30, 2006 @ 4:22 pm
March 30th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
Margulis thinks that the major source of variation is symbiogenesis — one organism (usually the host) acquiring genetic material from its symbiant. She thinks that random mutation, and other neo-Darwinian sources of variation play a secondary, and usually minor role.
Comment by Bilbo — March 30, 2006 @ 4:56 pm
March 30th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
There are plenty of people that agree with him, on this very site, that non-telic naturalistic mechanisms alone are insufficient and that there is a better way of thinking about these things. Why do you think that just because that is unimportant to you, that it should be unimportant for everyone?
Comment by Guts — March 30, 2006 @ 4:59 pm
March 30th, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Hi Guts,
The limits of what anonymous internet bloggers can think of don't carry a lot of weight with scientists; they are more interested in verifiable, empirical evidence. I freely admit that my personal opinions aren't worth the electrons I'm wasting to print them, either. Even in a courtroom, as an attorney my personal opinion of how a judge should rule isn't worth the paper its printed on if I can't support it with evidence, case precedent, or statutory or administrative law.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 30, 2006 @ 5:09 pm
March 30th, 2006 at 5:18 pm
Of course it does. I know a few scientists who have walked away with something meaningful from anonymous internet ID articles.
Comment by Guts — March 30, 2006 @ 5:18 pm
March 30th, 2006 at 5:27 pm
Guts says
specifics?
Comment by Aagcobb — March 30, 2006 @ 5:27 pm
March 30th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
James Shapiro for example, references Mike's hobby:
http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.ed...
Comment by Guts — March 30, 2006 @ 5:39 pm
March 30th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Bilbo:
Thanks, Bilbo, this is helpful. (A lot more helpful than most of this thread.) I assume that symbiogenesis and Horizontal Gene Transfer are tightly related phenomenon. I have some understanding of HGT, but have little specific understanding of symbiogeneis.
What Aagcobb doesn't understand in his determination to see others as wacked, is that I see HGT as potentially a variant of RM+NS. Either HGT is in itself a random exchange of DNA between species or there is a specific mechanism that has developed, ostensibly by RM+NS which regulates which DNA is transferred. In any case all we have in this context is effectively a larger gene pool — the pool of the genes in all organisms which are cooperating in HGT, rather than the pool of the organisms in one species. We still have only two primary mechanisms Random Mutation which is the source of all things new and Natural Selection which decides which new things flourish, and which are extinguished.
Aagcobb, just because I summarize the theory of evolution down to RM+NS, that doesn't mean that my view of neo-Darwinian evolution is all that shallow. Please don't take every little variant on the theme: genetic drift, punctuated equilibrium, population genetics, HGT, sexual selection and the many other views and twists on RM+NS as somehow new theories. Though I am familiar with all of these, they are all encompassed by RM+NS as far as I can see.
Comment by bFast — March 30, 2006 @ 6:31 pm
March 30th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
bFast,
Things like symbiogenesis and HGT (or LGT — Lateral Gene Transfer?) may play a very important role for Mike Gene's hypothesis of Front Loaded Evolution. If the initial seeding of Earth 3.5 - 3.8 billion years ago was the only intelligent intervention event, then the designer(s) may have designed the organisms to interact with each other in a way that would produce more complex organisms. Think of them as modular units that can be used to build more complex structures.
Comment by Bilbo — March 30, 2006 @ 7:09 pm
March 30th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
Aagcobb,
Since you seem very interested in semantic precision could you explain what you mean by "Darwin's theory" Are we only talking about "descent with modification and natural selection" If so then that does not preclude versions of ID. Or does it mean something more? For instance are you including some metaphysical causal supposition?
Comment by Steve Petermann — March 30, 2006 @ 9:22 pm
March 31st, 2006 at 1:09 am
Bilbo, I recognize that HGT, LGT, may be something more viralent than mere RM+NS, which is why I said, "ostensibly by RM+NS". Though I see something attractive in PEH, and theories that suggest that there was only one intervention. However, I doubt, personally, that all of nature could have been pulled of by a pre-arranged strategy already fully loaded into life by time the first one happened. It seems to me that creative events happened. For instance, I see the cambrian explosion as one such event.
Comment by bFast — March 31, 2006 @ 1:09 am
March 31st, 2006 at 2:43 pm
bFast,
You may be right. I'll let you take that up with Mike Gene. Meanwhile, it is interesting that Margulis's theory and LGT would fit in nicely with his hypothesis.
Comment by Bilbo — March 31, 2006 @ 2:43 pm
April 4th, 2006 at 9:31 am
Steve,
Just the same suppositions all other scientific theories use. I might propose, for example, that hurricanes are intelligently directed by God, as Pat Robertson has, but since there is no way to test that belief, its not a scientific theory. Its a perfectly respectable theological belief to think that humans evolved because God intended them to, but unless you can develop a testable hypothesis concerning how he caused it, its theology, not science. Thus ID is no more scientific then Robertson's Intelligent Meteorology.
Comment by Aagcobb — April 4, 2006 @ 9:31 am
April 4th, 2006 at 10:34 am
Hello bFast,
Thats good to know; so many IDists/creationists present misleading information about mainstream evolutionary theory to their readers, knowing they lack the education to critique their anti-evolutionary arguments.
Comment by Aagcobb — April 4, 2006 @ 10:34 am
April 4th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
Aagcobb,
But your argument would equally apply to the claim of many Darwinians that evoution is unguided and purposeless. Is that a scientific statement that can be tested? If it can, I'd like to see the details. If it can't then when those Darwinists claim that ID is pseudoscience they also apply that to their position.
Comment by Steve Petermann — April 4, 2006 @ 12:00 pm
April 4th, 2006 at 2:23 pm
Hi Steve,
Within the realm of scientific inquiry, as far as we can tell, it is unguided and purposeless, just as, as far as we can tell, Katrina did not intend to flood New Orleans or destroy Gulf Coast casinos in Mississippi. The realm of scientific inquiry, however, does not encompass all of reality, but only that portion which is subject to empirical testing. Both evolution and Katrina may in fact play a role in God's plans, but science has no tools with which it can test such proposals. To the extent that persons say evolution is ultimately unguided and purposeless because there is no God, they have stepped beyond the realm of scientific inquiry.
Comment by Aagcobb — April 4, 2006 @ 2:23 pm
April 4th, 2006 at 2:54 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
What is it that you are basing your "as far as we can tell" on? Do you have some method of detecting what is "unguided and purposeless"
Well I guess that's the rub isn't it? Science detects intent in other realms of inquiry from artifacts in forensics, archaeology, and cognitive science. Why is it unreasonable to attempt to detect it from other artifacts. One doesn't have to postulate something supernatural to do that.
Why is it necessary to add "because there is no God" to that statement? Is there anything wrong with "To the extent that persons say evolution is ultimately unguided and purposeless, they have stepped beyond the realm of scientific inquiry."
Comment by Steve Petermann — April 4, 2006 @ 2:54 pm
April 4th, 2006 at 3:19 pm
Hi Steve,
No, but this is what I was talking about regarding basic suppositions of science. Humans spent thousands of years speculating that invisible, inhuman intelligent agents were responsible for virtually all observable phenomenon. Once science abandoned that approach and developed models based on what could be observed and tested, humanity made more progress in understanding the universe and improving the human condition in a few centuries than had been made in the previous 10,000 years.
But they postulate something; usually a human being with known abilities. IDism won't commit to anything, so how can it be tested?
If you are proposing that the evolution of life on earth has been guided to achieve a purpose for the last few billion years, something had to have a purpose and provide guidance. If thats not God, its something so godlike as to make the distinction meaningless.
Comment by Aagcobb — April 4, 2006 @ 3:19 pm
April 4th, 2006 at 5:06 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
I see no reason why ID explorations at this point in history should truncate scientific exploration. After all, if scientists sympathetic to ID don't produce useful results they won't keep their jobs long. Of course this means that ID must eventually facilitate results or it won't stick around long.
By making predictions that pan out. To do that, obviously, some assumptions must be made about what intelligence, per se, means. If an empty alien space ship was found, scientists wouldn't just throw up their hands because they didn't have direct experience with that alien intelligence. They would, of course, forge ahead to make inferences based on what we know of intentionality from our perspective. If those inferences didn't pan out (we couldn't figure out how it worked or what its purpose was) then it would be a show stopper, at least at this point in our human history.
Comment by Steve Petermann — April 4, 2006 @ 5:06 pm
April 5th, 2006 at 9:50 am
Hi Steve,
As a science that would be true; as a socio-political movement it can linger on the same way "scientific creationism" has.
Difference is, an alien space ship is a direct product of alien technology, designed for a known purpose: space travel. No living organism is the direct product of the ID, but instead is hypothesized to be the distant descendant of an unknown designed organism, designed for an unknown purpose, which featured unknown designed structures. If we had an alien space craft, we would learn a lot about the aliens just be reverse engineering it; the mere fact they designed a space craft and traveled to earth tells us a lot about them. In contrast, there is no equivalent product of the ID to study.
Comment by Aagcobb — April 5, 2006 @ 9:50 am