The Duck Groomers
by MikeGeneIn my last posting, we saw that Kevin Zeigler placed great emphasis and significance on the fact that science has not discovered objective evidence for teleology in evolution. But as I noted, does this tell us more about evolution or more about the human construct we call science? Zeigler told us there was indeed a purpose behind his essay, but could science ever discover it?
Zeigler's essay contains a very telling sentence: "In our science, there is no mention of, or mechanism for achieving, any long-term metaphysical or teological goals of form, complexity, or intelligence"”as Gould has argued so eloquently." Note the sentence begins with "our science" but ends with an argument from Gould. The two seamlessly blur into each other. So when it comes to issues of teleology and ateleology, just how much has "our science" been shaped by people like Stephen Jay Gould?
Back in October, I suggested that people such as Gould and Dawkins have significantly shaped the science of our generation. For why are these two men so well known in "our science?" Is it because they are Nobel Laureates? No. Is it because they came up with a ground-breaking experiment that is taught in countless textbooks? No. Is it because they have conducted hundreds of studies and have added a mountain of new data for science? No.
Surely they have come up with ideas that have excited the scientific community (such as punctuated equilibria and the selfish gene), but they are so well known because they have added more - their prolific writing. In short, the two men are compelling story tellers and every social group is shaped and led by its story tellers. Their books have been read by tens of thousands of scientists as they lounge in their homes or travel to their conferences. The take home message behind these stories is always non-teleological to core, meaning these writers are in essence Duck Groomers. And as the neatly groomed, beautiful, decorated Duck preens before the readers, it is indeed difficult not to marvel at all the fine paddling and quacking.
For decades, teleologists have tried again and again to kill the Duck. And while the Duck has been declared dead a hundred times over, most in the scientific community smile at the pronouncements and continue to marvel at the resilience of The Duck. I too appreciate the Duck in all his feathered splendor. But as I'll show by considering some more of Zeigler's argument, it's just that this Duck reminds me more and more of a Rabbit.
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:05 am
Gould did significant empirical work with land snails. More importantly, his theoretical papers are highly cited in the scientific literature. That is the measure of scientific influence. Gould's popular writings are a valid extension of his scientific output.
Comment by Zachriel — April 2, 2008 @ 8:05 am
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:22 am
Here you hit the nail on the head. Teleologistcs started a cultural war in order to override secularism with their religion. Men like Gould and Dawkins have had their influence expanded by that cultural war because they provide culturally relevant writings in support of science. I think its true that their cultural impact has become as important if not more important than their scientific impact. Still, without scientific credentials their writings wouldn't have the cultural impact they have.
Also it should be noted that the only difference between a "Duck Groomer" and a "defender of truth" is perspective. Yet one is made to sound silly and frivolous while the other clearly seems important and even noble.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 2, 2008 @ 10:22 am
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:33 am
TB
Actually, it was secularism that sought a cultural war to override religion, in the mid nineteenth century.
To be a "defender of truth" you first have to know what the truth is. Science has never been concerned with the truth, and never will be. Science is about the best explanation with the given data at any given time.
So if Gould and Dawkins are simply "defenders of the best explanation with the given data at any given time", then I think it is rather apt to characterize them as simply grooming a worldview. Indeed, given the fluid nature of science, theirs is a worldview that requires constant grooming.
Comment by chunkdz — April 2, 2008 @ 11:33 am
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Since I do not believe secularism or science in any way speak against religion I have never seen their promotion as an attack on religion. However I realize some people think intellectual freedom, logic and reasoning are somehow an affront to their faith so I'm willing to simply agree to disagree on this point.
Wow, the only tool humanity has ever developed for discovering truth in the natural world and you claim it isn't even concerned about truth. Science is the search for truth. Now if you said science wasn't concerned about Meaning or Ultimate Truth or Absolute Truth or some other metaphysical concept then I would agree. However science is the only tool with a proven track record for discovering truth about nature. Statements like that show off exactly why scientists rightly put down creationist movements as harmful. You are directly challenging the very validity of the most successful truth discovering tool ever devised by mankind. You seem to think there is no truth other than Absolute Truth but outside of formalized systems absolute truth is just a fairy tale.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 2, 2008 @ 4:14 pm
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:48 pm
TB
I didn't say "attack". I used your term, "override". The distinction is important as the latter desciribes a desired shift in focus, rather than the destruction of the opposition.
It is this shift in focus that was the goal of the secularist movement of the 19th century.
Ouch. This from the person who criticized Mike Gene's 'duck groomer' characterization as "silly and frivolous". It took you less than six hours to come up with a "silly and frivolous" slogan of your own.
There's nothing to disagree with. It's simply a well documented fact that the secularist movement was designed to override religion.
Well, that goalpost is a little closer. Perhaps you should have characterized Gould and Dawkins as being "Defenders of the Search for Truth".
Recognizing the limitations of science is far from "challenging the very validity" of science. Hyperbole does not help your argument.
If you are prepared to apply the label "truth" to every currently supported hypothesis, then the word loses all of it's meaning.
3 and a half centuries ago you would have been arguing vehemently that maggots arising endogenously from rotten meat was the "truth", and that scientists that support this hypothesis were "defenders of truth".
Kinda "silly and frivolous sounding" when you put it in context, huh?
Comment by chunkdz — April 2, 2008 @ 5:48 pm
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Ok, in that case since I do not believe secularism or science in any way speak against religion I have never seen their promotion as an attempt to override religion. Wanting equal privilege for secularism is not an attempt to override religion, just a struggle for equality.
Bold statement, that means you can show me this well documented history, right? There is certainly an atheist movement today with that as a stated goal, perhaps you are confusing your movements?
This is nothing but grammatical nit-picking. These are identical statements. The meaning was clear, this is just an effort to muddle the issue.
I disagree. Truth is not Absolute Truth, but rather it is a warranted belief based on available evidence. If evidence supports a theory then that theory has some degree of truth as measured by its predictive power. If new evidence later disproves that theory then it leads to a new theory which has a greater degree of truth. I reject your black-and-white notion that there is only Absolute Truth and falsehood or that only an absolute definition of truth has any meaning.
Perhaps, the best reasoning at the time lead to a conclusion that we now know was incorrect. People at the time lacked the tools to collect enough evidence to claim a strong warrant for that belief, but it still might have been the most warranted belief. The scientific method did its job by holding this "truth" to investigation and eventually discovered that it had been wrong. Regardless of eventually being wrong, that belief may have been warranted at the time.
No one who supports Darwinism thinks that every aspect of our current understanding is Absolute Truth. Nothing in science is Absolute Truth, as I mentioned that concept is little more than a fairy tale. Many aspects will likely be proven wrong and many new mechanisms will be discovered. Regardless it is the most warranted viewpoint and thus as close to Absolute Truth as we can come with our current limited understanding. Its better to believe a falsehood due to legitimate warrant then to believe a falsehood due to wishful thinking or personal bias. The former is willing to change when new evidence arises, the later is dogma. This is why science is our best tool for finding truth.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 2, 2008 @ 7:13 pm
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Eppur si muove. The truth is not found in the tentatively held conclusions of science, but in the honest telling of what those scientific conclusions are. Whether the Earth actually moved or not, Galileo knew the scientific evidence, and to say otherwise would not have been the truth.
Comment by Zachriel — April 2, 2008 @ 7:26 pm
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Hi Zachriel,
I did not dispute any of this, thus it is not relevant. To undercut my point, you need to demonstrate a) Gould's writings do not advocate a non-teleological perspective or b) most scientists know of Gould's views through his snail research and theoretical papers instead of his popular writings. But even b) would not be all that powerful, because, as you mention, the papers are theoretical (professional grooming?).
Comment by MikeGene — April 2, 2008 @ 9:58 pm
April 2nd, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Hi Todd B.,
I'm not talking about the culture in general. As part of a larger culture, science exists as a subculture and this subculture has been significantly influenced by the popular writings of people like Gould and Dawkins.
As a Bunny Groomer, I take offense of the notion that Duck Groomers are silly and frivolous. As for Defenders of Truth, experience has taught me they tend corner the market on arrogance, self-righteousness, and anger.
Comment by MikeGene — April 2, 2008 @ 9:59 pm
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Hi Chunkdz:
Indeed. Consider this:
Of course, this was in the pre-Dover days when threatiness was thriving and science was nothing more than methodological naturalism. Perhaps another sign of the post-wedge world is a newly found desire among residents of another Trojan Horse to pronounce science as "the truth."
Anyway, speaking of truth, what about the following claim from scientist Keven Zeigler, all part of the "real objective truth" that comes from an "honest" understanding of Darwinian evolution: "we humans were not destined to evolve."
Note, it's not "there is no scientific evidence that humans were destined to evolve." It's not "according to the rules of MN, we should assume humans were not destined to evolve." It's simply, "we humans were not destined to evolve." Such Truth. How did science find this Truth?
Comment by MikeGene — April 2, 2008 @ 11:09 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 3:13 am
MikeGene,
Find? It was just good old-fashioned smuggling. A time-tested method of getting things where they don't belong. Works splendid for drugs, guns, and atheism. (And theism too, let's be frank.)
Comment by nullasalus — April 3, 2008 @ 3:13 am
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:08 am
In the quoted section, you were referring to *scientific* influence. You said, "significantly shaped the *science* of our generation … so well known in 'our *science*' " A valid measure of *scientific* influence (shaping science and being known within science) is citation in the literature. Gould theoretical work is highly cited. Hence, the relevance.
More generally, a valid scientific hypothesis leads to empirical predictions. A particularly good hypothesis will generate entire new research efforts and even more hypotheses. (A great hypothesis will spawn entire new fields of inquiry.) Gould's work qualifies as particularly good.
Gould published in the scientific literature, and when he is cited, it is usually to his scientific papers. However, that does not mean someone couldn't write a popular book and propose a valid scientific hypothesis. But if Gould merely repackaged what was already known (professional grooming?), then his *scientific* influence would be minimal. But Gould proposed new scientific hypotheses. And it is these scientific hypotheses that "significantly shaped the *science* of our generation … so well known in 'our *science".
Comment by Zachriel — April 3, 2008 @ 8:08 am
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Todd,
Well, one of Holyoake's stated purposes was that politics should not allow religious influence, but should be entirely secular. Marginalizing the opposition from areas of public life is how "overriding" is done.
No, as I said there is a big distinction between a "Defender of Truth" and a "Defender of the Search for Truth". One actually knows the truth, and one is merely seeking the truth. Mine is an effort to clarify, not muddle.
That's called relative truth, and you're welcome to it. What's true today will likely not be true in a hundred years, or may even change by dinner time. And what's true to one scientist may even be untrue to another. Truth becomes merely a construct that is interchangeable with the word "belief". As in "The belief is that maggots arise endogenously from rotting meat", and "The truth is that maggots arise endogenously from rotting meat".
Your "Defenders of Truth" are nothing but "Defenders of Beliefs". Beliefs which, if history is any indication, are most probably NOT true.
So, now they are the "Defenders of Warranted Belief in Falsehood"
Good Lord!
Comment by chunkdz — April 3, 2008 @ 12:11 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Mike Gene,
Thanks for the link. Well written, balanced article, and I like the way the author sums things up.
Comment by chunkdz — April 3, 2008 @ 12:16 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Zachriel,
You confirm my point. Truth is of no consequence to science. Science is simply about the best explanation. But honesty has little to do with truth. Aristotle honestly believed that aphids generated from dewdrops. He was honest, but he sure didn't have any stranglehold on truth.
When two explanations are opposed to each other, (a la Dawkins and Gould) they can't both be true. And the fact is, science really doesn't care which one is true. Selfish genes, not selfish genes - the only thing science cares about is which explanation seems the best.
Perhaps they shoud not be called "Defenders of Truth", but "Defenders of Explanations".
Doesn't have the same ring, but at least it's honest!
Comment by chunkdz — April 3, 2008 @ 1:17 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Truth is of great importance to the vast majority of scientists, and to the scientific community as a whole. Honest reporting of results is an essential component of the scientific method.
It's a bit more than that. Inductions (and universal negatives) are never conclusive. Instead, science works by making specific and distinguishing predictions, hypothetico-deduction.
honest, free from fraud or deception : legitimate, truthful.
You are conflating different meanings of the word "truth". Aristotle may have been honest, but his belief concerning aphids was not *accurate*.
No, it's the hypothesis that can be determined to be most capable of making specific and distinguishing empirical predictions.
Comment by Zachriel — April 3, 2008 @ 2:33 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Sure. But even if the results are reported honestly and the scientific method is followed to the letter, science will still have no claim to truth. I hope you now understand my meaning.
Did you notice that I said "simply" But thanks for emphasizing my point.
No, I've been consistent. I'm speaking of objective truth, which is what Zeigler's essay spoke of.
Like I said, the one that seems best.
Comment by chunkdz — April 3, 2008 @ 3:08 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Zachriel's point is exactly the point I was trying to make, the truth of a theory is measured by its ability to make predictions. It has nothing to do with "honesty" or personal belief. Its not relative truth in the modern liberal "everyone's beliefs are true" sense of the term. Rather its a real, empirical and testable form of truth and science has the only strong claim to this truth. Its just not your "absolute truth" which is simply an imaginary concept. Religion, philosophy, science, none of these can give us your imaginary "absolute truth," it simply doesn't exist.
Given you definition of "truth means absolute truth" you are, in effect, saying "science has no claim to imaginary make-believe land," so I guess I agree with you.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 3, 2008 @ 3:41 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Todd B:
Todd, do you have opinions about anything or does your life consist of only what you are able to base on research results? Very little day to day activity correlates to predictions based on science. The arts, politics, local matters, morality, literature… The list is long of issues having their own truths. Scientism can be a bore.
Comment by Bradford — April 3, 2008 @ 4:01 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Of course I have opinions, and I'm sure some of them are even completely unjustified. You are correct that most human behavior is more about instinct than any form of truth or science. Most of our behavior goes unexamined. I agree that many things other than science are very important and meaningful. I even agree that the word "truth" can have its meaning overloaded so that it becomes a genre specific jargon and its meaning must be placed in context. Above I have provided a definition of truth and provided a context in which I think that definition is meaningful. Perhaps we should always call this usage "empirical truth" and always call those other usages by names like "artistic truth" or "philosophical truth." Regardless, outside of formalized systems there is no genre I know of where "absolute truth" is anything but a fairy tale and by no measure is it correct to make the claim "science is not concerned with truth" using the definition of truth I have outlined.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 3, 2008 @ 4:17 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 4:19 pm
The truth is that the Earth moves.
Comment by Zachriel — April 3, 2008 @ 4:19 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 4:25 pm
For what it is worth, this thread's discussion is why I tend to use the specific scratches T-r-u-t-h when I am talking about it "in the modern liberal everyone's beliefs are true sense of the term."
Since no one knows the Truth, then, for all practical purposes, there are multiple Truths.
Which may help to explain why I say…
"Science is not about the search for Truth, but for the search for useable knowledge."
Feel free to use or disparage this point of view of mine as desired.
Comment by Thought Provoker — April 3, 2008 @ 4:25 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Todd B:
The theory that the sun goes around the earth makes predictions, confirms observations and explains empirical experience. The theory that aphids generate from dew does the same work, as does the theory that mice generate from dirty underwear. Thus each of these theories were 'the one and only big-t True Truth' for all the generations of humans for whom they made predictions, confirmed observations and explained empirical experience. Right?
Thus big-t True Truth becomes falsehood, myth, stupidity and imagination as soon as another big-t True Truth is accepted (usually upon new evidence from new observations made with new tools), right?
How, exactly, is this not "modern liberal" relative truth? The label 'science' stuck to the jar?
There are people in this world who live and die by big-t True Truths that bear a lot more resemblance to old True Truths than new True Truths because they have no telescopes, no astronomy, no knowledge of what highly technological First World White Guys believe today to be big-t True Truth. Their truth is every bit as true for them as your truth is for you. That YOU and your friends think otherwise means precisely zip to any of them, since they never heard of you and don't care what you think.
Thus big-t True Truth is whatever someone believes it to be, and that's post-modernism in all its relative glory. Worse, you pronounce actual and/or absolute big-t True Truth to be non-existent because YOU don't believe there is such a thing. Why in the world should anybody believe you have any way of knowing that? Because YOU wrote 'science' on the label stuck to the jar?
This is totally whack. You tell us that the 'only' True Truth is what science tells us today, even if it turns out not to be true truth tomorrow. Then you tell us that there's no such thing as actual or absolute True Truth (because science's truths aren't actual or absolute). Yet the FACT of the matter is that science is not chartered or qualified to rule on whether or not absolute or actual Truth exists, because science doesn't deal in metaphysics. Any metaphysician can call your bluff on this, because metaphysicists *are* chartered and qualified to rule on such questions.
Doesn't mean any of them are right, of course, it just means your metaphysics is no more valid than anybody else's metaphysics. And science can't help you out on that.
Comment by Joy — April 3, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 4:51 pm
TB
So far the only one to mention absolute truth is you. But thanks for making up a definition and attributing it to me.
We are speaking about "real objective truth", which scientist Kevin Zeigler says is only attainable through science. You don't seem to disagree.
Comment by chunkdz — April 3, 2008 @ 4:51 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 5:12 pm
I have elsewhere expressed my disagreement with Zeigler's equation of "real objective truth" with "true nature of reality". But then you also say,
When you phrase a statement like that, you are clearly equivocating.
objective: phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers.
As to "objective truth", the modifier "objective" substantially changes the meaning of the term.
Comment by Zachriel — April 3, 2008 @ 5:12 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Zachriel,
Only if you had a different meaning in mind already.
I stand by my statement. Truth is of no consequence to science, because science proceeds just fine without ever finding the truth. Truth is not a goal for science, nor is truth something to which science asymptotically approaches.
If a particular hypothesis ever actually ended up correlating to a particular truth, science could never definitively prove it. Such a hypothesis would simply be the best explanation - or not, if some other data led to another better explanation.
Comment by chunkdz — April 3, 2008 @ 5:53 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:07 pm
Then please provide your definition of "truth", because when I read it, it comes out 'pink unicorn'.
Your insistence on the use of a particular buzz-word is a sure sign of equivocation. When a question of meaning arises, most people just restate their ideas in different terms in order to avoid confusion, assuming they think the idea is of more value than the buzz-word.
truth: the state of being the case : fact; a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true.
I am aware that science does not determine any absolute truth about the natural world. Rather, it makes increasingly accurate approximations. However, some facts are so well-established that to deny them would be untruthful.
Comment by Zachriel — April 3, 2008 @ 7:07 pm
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:34 pm
Obviously you either didn't read or understand a thing I said if you think that is the definition of truth I provided above. A truth with predicts can be measured by its predictive power. More accurate predictions means more true. Many people's different beliefs might have some element of truth, that doesn't make them all equally true.
I am not trying to imply the universe has no absolute truth, only that we cannot know it. Any claim to know absolute truth is nothing but fairy tales. There are many good reasons to hold this view. The second law of thermal dynamics implies that we can never know everything about a system that we ourselves are a part of. Information is lost in the process of gathering information. Likewise the Heisenberg uncertainty principle ensures we can never have absolute knowledge about anything. The speed of light limits the radius at which we can observe information so we could never observe far enough fast enough to know everything. Time slows inside super massive black holes so we can never know what's in their center since it would take the age of the universe long to look into the middle. There are lots of good philosophical and scientific reasons to believe that knowing everything about anything is impossible. But all these theories and concepts could be wrong, perhaps it is possible for humans to ascend to godhood. Maybe we can ride our pink unicorns to the land of infinite knowledge! Then we can have absolute truth, otherwise empirical truth is the best we can hope for.
It seems that perhaps it's Joy's metaphysics and not my empirical truth that match the modern liberal "everything is true" definition of truth.
Then please define your definition of truth. Based on what you have said it surely sounds like absolute truth to me, but I must admit you have left me to guess at your true meaning rather than spelling out a definition that would justify your statements.
So you claim above that you are not talking about "absolute truth" (well, not exactly, you don't deny it you just point out you never used that exact term). Then you say things like "science could never definitively prove it." I can only assume that by "definitively prove" you mean "discover absolute truth." Science cannot discover absolute truth. Religion cannot discover absolute truth. The very idea is a fairy tale. The inability to discover absolute truth in no way effects the function of either science or religion. Both manage to be meaningful in the absence of absolute truth. But as Zachriel points out science has made ever more accurate approximations. Its predictive power is constantly increasing and we have no other tool with that property.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 3, 2008 @ 8:34 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 11:03 am
Zachriel,
Umm, the "buzz-word" in question was brought up by Todd, who was touting scientists as "defenders of truth".
So what was your definition?
Hmmm. So to be a defender of truth, you merely have to make a judgement, a proposition, or defend an idea that is accepted as true?
Hey, that makes me a "Defender of Truth" too! As well as Billy Graham, Bono, George Bush, William Dembski, and Al Gore's housekeeping staff.
It seems that you and Todd are so willing to water down the meaning of truth that scientists become merely "Defenders of Currently Accepted Opinions That May Be True or May Be False Who Cares".
Wow. Suddenly the label "Duck Groomers" actually seems regal by comparison.
Comment by chunkdz — April 4, 2008 @ 11:03 am
April 4th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Todd,
Then call them "Defenders of Ever More Accurate Approximations".
"Defenders of Truth" is just meaningless. As you've defined it, either everyone is a "Defender of Truth", or nobody is a "Defender of Truth".
Comment by chunkdz — April 4, 2008 @ 11:14 am
April 4th, 2008 at 11:37 am
Of note, Todd used scare-quotes. From context, he appears to be referring to the defense of scientific integrity. Then adding a bit of equivocation, you responded with this:
Instead of referring to scientific integrity, you are conflating that with the concept that scientific conclusions are tentative and always subject to revision in the light of new evidence. The rest of your comment is an extension of this semantic confusion.
Comment by Zachriel — April 4, 2008 @ 11:37 am
April 4th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Zach,
Actually, the rule regarding context is that you should read the entire thread. The discussion was never about scientific integrity. The discussion was always about the popular writings of Dawkins and Gould, which as Mike pointed out are always "non-teleological to the core", and represent little more than "duck grooming".
To this Todd responds that these men are no mere duck groomers, but "defenders of truth".
Now, explain to me what non-teleological pop science has to do with scientific integrity - much less the "defense of truth".
Comment by chunkdz — April 4, 2008 @ 12:04 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
The fact that scientific conclusions are tentative and always subject to revision in the light of new evidence is evidence that the concern for truth has a very narrow focus, namely efforts centered around the hypothesis in question. Chunkdz is essentially correct in that a very narrow focus does not necessarily address broader frameworks that could be true or false. It is not a matter of lack of integrity. It is more that science is not directed toward a resolution of broader truths.
Comment by Bradford — April 4, 2008 @ 12:12 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
I was responding directly to your fallacious comments.
So the thread does concern scientific integrity.
I already pointed out that Gould is a highly cited scientist, a valid measure of scientific influence. The Theory of Evolution is a robust, non-telic, scientific explanation of biological diversity. There is no equivalent telic theory.
Comment by Zachriel — April 4, 2008 @ 12:22 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Bradford,
While this is evident, I'd further define it to say that a very narrow focus (a particular hypothesis) does not even address whether the hypothesis in question is true. Only whether it is false.
So if even a narrow hypothesis cannot be determined to be true, (only "false" or "not false"), then what brazen hubris allows someone to equate the defense of the non-teleological perspective with the "defense of truth"
Comment by chunkdz — April 4, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 12:27 pm
The truth matters. If Galileo uncovers evidence that the Earth moves, you might minimize it. But when others try to suppress the truth, then the truth should be defended. When people substitute "intelligent design" for "creationism", then lie about it, in order to sneak the teaching of religious doctrines into the public schools in the guise of teaching children science, then the truth needs to be brought to light. Eppur si muove.
Comment by Zachriel — April 4, 2008 @ 12:27 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
*Falsified*, a quite different concept. Every empirical test carries with it a variety of considerations. Even the most direct falsification is also tentative and subject to revision in the light of new evidence.
As you have read the entire thread, you know that I have already answered this question.
Comment by Zachriel — April 4, 2008 @ 12:33 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Bradford: The fact that scientific conclusions are tentative and always subject to revision in the light of new evidence is evidence that the concern for truth has a very narrow focus, namely efforts centered around the hypothesis in question.
Why would I want to do that? Of course the truth matters.
Agreed.
This is all ancient history and unfortunately that subset of IDists has no copyrite on lying. I've seen enough of that in discussion groups from all sides.
Comment by Bradford — April 4, 2008 @ 12:39 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Yes, 2005
BCE. Not long after the Latins arrived in Italy.Comment by Zachriel — April 4, 2008 @ 12:50 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Zach,
Beautifully put. Yet remarkably, science works just fine with or without it.
In the words of one physics professor and member of the Ohio science advisory board,
Comment by chunkdz — April 4, 2008 @ 1:16 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
"Truth" has several related meanings, and I notice that you have yet to admit to such distinctions. In the phrase "the truth matters", "truth" refers to the philosophical concept. In Singham's "To be valid, science does not have to be true", "true" refers to some absolute reality that may exist independently of our empirical investigations. Being a nuclear physicist, this is a common distinction"”a field where existence itself may not be a binary property.
As I have pointed out this distinction to you several times, your continued insistence on the use of a particular buzz-word is an indication that the idea you are purportedly attempting to communicate is subservient to the equivocation.
Comment by Zachriel — April 4, 2008 @ 2:26 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Zachriel, you predictably brought up two incidents in a discussion of untruth, one of which (Galileo) took place centuries ago and the other in 2005 AD, in an effort to point fingers at IDists or Christians. Just to be accurate during that time period there have been a great many more incidents involving scientists, mathematicians and others with no ties either to ID or Christianity. Is it necessary to draw up a long list or is there some point to critics' obsession with exclusionary examples?
Comment by Bradford — April 4, 2008 @ 2:39 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
I provided a definition of truth. The provided definition of truth judges truth by its predictive powers. I also acknowledged that there are other definitions of truth applicable to other contexts. You are now mixing those multiple definitions to attack a straw man.
Actually what I specifically said was that the only difference between those two statements was perspective. Give my definition of truth they are 100% defending truth. If instead your perspective sees only Absolute Truth and falsehood then given that absolute truth is unobtainable all positions become equally viable so you might say they are just grooming a duck.
I think Zachriel has adequately explained the faults in your reasoning so I won't bother to repeat what he has said.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 4, 2008 @ 3:14 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
From dictionary reference:
truth:
1. the true or actual state of a matter: He tried to find out the truth.
2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: the truth of a statement.
3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.
4. the state or character of being true.
5. actuality or actual existence.
6. an obvious or accepted fact; truism; platitude.
7. honesty; integrity; truthfulness.
8. (often initial capital letter) ideal or fundamental reality apart from and transcending perceived experience: the basic truths of life.
9. agreement with a standard or original.
10. accuracy, as of position or adjustment.
11. Archaic. fidelity or constancy.
"”Idiom12. in truth, in reality; in fact; actually: In truth, moral decay hastened the decline of the Roman Empire.
Comment by Bradford — April 4, 2008 @ 3:33 pm
April 4th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Bradford,
Given those definitions I would argue that only the truth I defined above can meaningfully satisfy definitions 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 10. Further I am arguing that "empirical truth" is our only proven tool for satisfying these definitions. #3 is the formalized system definition which I explicitly exempted as an exception. #7 is the subjective "I really believed it" definition which I also exclude as applying to a different context (art, philosophy, etc). This definition has no predictive power. #8 is the "absolute truth" concept which I claim we cannot know. #9 is the "we all agree" version of truth which also doesn't fit the context or definition I provided. It also has no predictive power. #11 seems like an archaic version of #7. So excluding definitions that only apply to math, philosophy, or art I think my definition holds very nicely.
Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 4, 2008 @ 8:21 pm
April 5th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Zachriel
No, you are the one who used the words "scientific influence," not me.
What I wrote is this: "Back in October, I suggested that people such as Gould and Dawkins have significantly shaped the science of our generation. For why are these two men so well known in "our science?""
You take sentence fragments out of their context to make your point appear relevant (and, as a bonus, you get to quote me while evading the question).
Are you trying to tell me that up and coming grad students in neuroscience were introduced to Gould through his technical papers instead of his popular writings? Are you trying to tell me that post-docs in biochemistry were introduced to Gould through his technical papers instead of his popular writings?
For that matter, why have you ignored the writing of Zeigler himself? He writes, "In our science, there is no mention of, or mechanism forachieving, any long-term metaphysical or teological goals of form, complexity, or intelligence"”as Gould has argued so eloquently." Can you cite the paper, from the peer-reviewed technical literature, where Gould so eloquently makes the anti-teleological argument? My guess is that Ziegler has Gould's popular writings in mind. This guess is supported by a) the use of the adjective eloquent (commonly applied to Gould's popular writings), b) the fact that Zeigler appeals to one such argument two sentences later as an "obvious point" made by "Numerous science writers," and c) Ziegler does not reference Gould's work and is writing for a journal whose readers are more likely to know Gould from his popular writings than any technical paper.
I'm not sure why you insist on being contentious about this point. Science writers such as Gould and Dawkins have been immensely popular among the reading audience interested in science. And a significant chunk of that reading audience would be undergrads, grad students, and post docs who go on to become scientists of all varieties (where science is what scientists do). So like I said, "Back in October, I suggested that people such as Gould and Dawkins have significantly shaped the science of our generation." After all, "For why are these two men so well known in "our science?""
[As an interesting tangent, Gould himself was once asked, "How do you respond to criticisms that you are a "popularizer" and not a serious scientist?"
Here's his reply:
]
Comment by MikeGene — April 5, 2008 @ 3:38 pm