To Prove or Not to Prove
by MikeGeneOver at Allen MacNeill's class blog, there is a blog written by Hannah where she claims, "Scarcely anything in science will ever be proved or disproved."
A molecular biologist has joined the comments section to "correct" Hannah:
This is plainly false unless you are proposing new definitions for "proved" or "disproved." Do monkeys reproduce sexually? Yes. Science proved that. Do some bacteria reproduce by fission? Yes. Science proved that. Can white light be separated into its component colors? Yes. Science proved that. I could go on and on and on and on.
Let me give you some friendly advice, Hannah, at this early stage in our discussion. Re-read every sentence you type and ask yourself if you are distorting the truth to make your argument more compelling. If the latter, then rewrite the sentence. Hopefully, I do not need to explain why this is good practice.
Now, if you go over to this website and work your way through the links, you'll eventually find this page on Concepts for Grades 9-12. Scroll down to the section on "Nature of Scientific Concepts." And what do you find?
Science does not prove or conclude; science is always a work in progress.
The molecular biologist also used PubMed to find many places where scientists use the term "prove." Sure, just as the same type of search will uncover many places where they also use the term "theory."
June 30th, 2006 at 6:10 pm
The only quibble I'd have with Hannah's claim is that it isn't strong enough, when she says that things are scarcely proven. Rather, nothing in science is ever completely proven or disproven, assuming we're talking about empirical science (as Hannah clearly is). That's because empirical study is necessarily inferential, and you can't prove anything by inference, only reach more and more reasonable conclusions. Actual proof only occurs in philosophy and math. Now, one could point out that "proof" can also be used in a more relaxed sense to refer to a very high degree of certainty, and that if Hannah had meant that, then she'd be wrong, but it's hardly fair to pounce on somebody on the grounds that their words look stupid if taken to mean something other than how they were meant.
Comment by Deuce — June 30, 2006 @ 6:10 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
A fair point, Duece, but it seems that in criticisms of evolution, ID advocates continually return to the claim that evolution is just a theory, that it hasn't been proven, etc. - making very strongly supported scientific conclusions sound dubious when they aren't.
Hannah ignores the fact that some theories are so well-supported that they're treated as fact. While she's technically true, it's just plain silly for people to go around saying that gravity isn't proven; or that it's not proven that plants have chlorophyll; that my body is made of tiny molecules made out of O, C, N, P and other elements; or that we don't know what creates fossils or geological features; or that we don't know how nuclear reactions work; and on and on and on…
Technically, none of that is proven, but do we really talk that way?
Comment by Daniel — June 30, 2006 @ 6:40 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 7:12 pm
Gee, Daniel. I'd expect a molecular biologist to know the difference between phenomena and theories about phenomena. And I'd expect a molecular biologist NOT to misrepresent science to a student.
Maybe s/he (the biologist) really believes it. Wow… science education could be in way worse shape than we thought!
Comment by Joy — June 30, 2006 @ 7:12 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 7:28 pm
Oh, come on, do you honestly think she was trying to deny that there are theories that are extremely well-supported, like gravity? Of course she ignored the fact. It's such an obvious fact that she doesn't need to say it, because only the incredibly uncharitable would interpret her as denying it. What, is she supposed to put a few hundred obvious caveats after everything she says before she's allowed to say anything?
Comment by Deuce — June 30, 2006 @ 7:28 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
Thanks Mike, I set the record straight.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 30, 2006 @ 8:07 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 8:41 pm
I had a long discussion about proof in science here. Allow me to quote myself about why we can't prove things in science:
Comment by macht — June 30, 2006 @ 8:41 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 9:33 pm
It gets better folks. From the same molecular biologist:
So the molecular biologist informs everyone that "motivations are important" and cites this example as a rationalization for her focus on motivations. Is she going to focus on the motivations of the "Understanding Evolution for Teachers" page? Or is there some reason she selectively targets a student?
The molecular biologist cannot really know the "motivations" of another person unless that person explicitly lays their motivations on the table or the molecular biologist is a close friend of that person. In reality, the source of "information" for motivations is usually stereotype.
Comment by MikeGene — June 30, 2006 @ 9:33 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 9:38 pm
Daniel:
Well, if Hannah actually makes that point, you can pounce. But it's not right to simply "assume" that is where Hannah is headed because some stereotype tells us this.
Comment by MikeGene — June 30, 2006 @ 9:38 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 9:50 pm
If I had to question her motives in targeting a student, I would guess they would be that she is hoping a student wouldn't have taken a basic course in reasoning yet. You'd think that a professor at a university would know that appealing to motivation in order to dismiss (i.e., not take seriously) an argument is one of the oldest fallacies in the book.
Comment by macht — June 30, 2006 @ 9:50 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 9:52 pm
This fallacy, in case she is reading this.
Comment by macht — June 30, 2006 @ 9:52 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 9:55 pm
Oh, oh. Someone might also begin to question the motivations of PBS:
Comment by MikeGene — June 30, 2006 @ 9:55 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
Hmmm, I was assuming she was a professor, but maybe not.
Comment by macht — June 30, 2006 @ 9:56 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 10:09 pm
Hannah is a junior and triple major in Chemistry, Physics, and Mathematics at Cornell.
Despite this, it is apparent some people still think the girl doesn't much have much of a brain.
Hey Mike,
Thanks for taking an interest in the developments out there.
It might interest you, Rabia is making a statement that would warm a Bright's heart: Dawkins Fails to Deliver.
Sal
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — June 30, 2006 @ 10:09 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 10:22 pm
Hey Mike,
In fact, she made the inverse of that point. She pointed out that if a conclusion had to be actually proven in order to be taken seriously, then we wouldn't get anywhere in empirical science. Bringing up things like gravity, for which there is lots of evidence, would've actually strengthened her point, not weakened it.
Comment by Deuce — June 30, 2006 @ 10:22 pm
June 30th, 2006 at 10:45 pm
That's completely correct, Deuce. It isn't silly at all to say that gravity isn't proven, because … well … it isn't proven. That people "talk that way" says more about the way people talk (i.e., incorrectly) than about whether it is proven or not.
Comment by macht — June 30, 2006 @ 10:45 pm
July 1st, 2006 at 6:48 am
(sigh)
I have enjoyed reading this blog for many months, but the thought to join it has never entered my mind. But, finally, I've encountered a thread which prompts me that I simply *must* say something.
(sigh)
Anyway, it's this: you are *all* (that is, all those who are specifically commenting upon the question at hand, having to do with "to prove") wrong, in one way or another.
The incorrectness of these comments flows directly from the fact of misunderstanding the words 'to prove' and 'proof' and the concepts these words denote.
'To prove' means to test something against some standard or criteria. 'Proof' is the result of that action; the 'proof' may affirm or deny (it may be positive of negative).
THEREFORE: Hannah spoke incorrectly when she said that "Scarcely anything in science will ever be proved or disproved." Or, at any rate, we should hope she spoke incorrectly — if by 'science' she refers to "modern science." If 'science' refers to "post-modern science," then she may well have been correct.
In Hannah's defence, we could note that the meme that "Scarcely anything in science will ever be proved or disproved" — which claim depends upon misunderstanding and/or misuse of the terms 'to prove' and 'proof' for its effectiveness — is actively encouraged by certain Defenders of Science. When it suits their rhetorical needs. This meme goes back at least as far as Isaac Asimov, with Richard Dawkins currently being one of its main propogators.
Not that the claim is false because Dawkins uses it for rhetorical effect when it suits his needs of the moment. It is false because it is false. It is false because the whole point of 'modern science' is to test hypotheses against some standard or criteria.
Comment by Ilion — July 1, 2006 @ 6:48 am
July 1st, 2006 at 8:58 am
While that is an ideal, in reality we see all sorts of theories in science that have been assumed true for such a long time that most scientists are no longer capable of questioning them. Such as:
The possibility that evolution is teleological, instead of an assumed totally blind process.
The possibility that mental phenomena and consciousness are not totally reducible to the brain.
The possibility that the universe in general, and life in particular is based on principles of organic wholes that are more than the sum of reductionistic parts.
The possibility that the extraordinarily well-documented evidence, both scientific and anectdotal, of psi experiences represents a real phenomena instead of mere wishful thinking, false memories, delusions and fraud.
Comment by MatthewCromer — July 1, 2006 @ 8:58 am
July 1st, 2006 at 10:22 am
So, this is a good lesson on writing, rhetoric and accuracy — it doesn't boost any case for intelligent design, nor does it call into question any of the proofs of evolution.
Comment by edarrell — July 1, 2006 @ 10:22 am
July 1st, 2006 at 10:59 am
In my comment to this thread early on, I said I'd expect a scientist to know the difference between phenomena and theories about phenomena. Gravity is a 'given' phenomenon in the universe, meaning its effects are readily observable (so we presume there's a cause). Even before humans existed and had a name for it - "Gravity" - every critter on the planet dealt with it automatically as a 'given'. It needs no proof and has never needed any proof.
The way it works is that someone observes gravity in action. They look through a telescope and see planets and moons moving, they get hit on the head by an apple, they see birds fly while rabbits don't, they notice that critters who walk off cliffs fall to the bottom. Every time (I hear cave men hunted with gravity). Eventually an observer with too many neurons and too much time on his hands is going to try his hand at formulating an explanation of gravity. That would be a theory.
"Proof" that is not exclusively mathematical (math does deal in proofs, so theories of gravity are often written in mathematical language) amounts to more observations to see if anything is observed that contradicts with the explanation. So unless we observe rocks floating or apples flying upwards, even the most primitive 'theories' of gravity will suffice for most practical purposes. If anybody cares about explanations for what is manifestly 'given'. Mathematical 'proofs' of mathematical language only tests the mathematical logic, and makes sure the theorist didn't start with 2+2=5 in the beginning (making the whole construct wrong). It doesn't say a thing about gravity.
Theories are tweaked or overthrown when new technologies allow new observations. Newton's workable theory gave way to Einstein's more accurate theory. Now we've deployed new technology to allow constant real-time observation that is supposed to give us the details of gravity waves (prediction). If we don't see 'em, Einstein's theory will need to give way. That's how science works. Meanwhile, gravity cares not one bit whether we can explain it to ourselves or not. It's still 'given' and needs no proof.
Comment by Joy — July 1, 2006 @ 10:59 am
July 1st, 2006 at 11:56 am
I think thats one way you can tell the difference between an evangelist (whether theistic or atheistic) and a truth seeker. The former likes to talk in absolutes in most areas . Well, at least when it comes to science. And as the late great Obi Wan Kenobi once said:
"Only the Sith deals in absolutes"
Comment by Guts — July 1, 2006 @ 11:56 am
July 1st, 2006 at 12:33 pm
edarrell:
Life doesn't need any proofs any more than gravity does. So. What are the phenomena (the 'givens') and what are the explanations (the theories/hypotheses) about them?
Given:
1. Life exists.
2. Life is mortal.
3. Life reproduces.
4. Life encodes its contributions to itself and its progeny by means of DNA.
Surmised from physical evidence related to 'givens':
1. Life forms change over generational time.
2. Life forms become more complex through this process.
Theory/hypotheses about the Givens:
Neodarwinism:
1. All life originated from a single common ancestor who spontaneously generated itself while inventing DNA, reproduction and death in the process.
2. The reason all life doesn't look the same is because of accidents in copying DNA for reproduction.
3. Life forms that do look similar look similar because they're more closely related in time to their similars than to their differents.
4. There are still 'primitive' life forms because inheritance is more reliable than not.
5. Unreliable inheritance (not-ness) is highly creative of information and complexity.
Design:
1. Life was created by an intelligent agent and put on the earth.
2. Life was created using DNA as the encoding structure for discrete inheritance.
3. Life strives - a vital function - to survive and reproduce, adapting to selective stresses (or losing the war) in a number of creative ways.
4. Life's adaptations to the world in which it exists and strives to survive and reproduce lead to ever more complex and creative life forms as well as increased data processing and sensory capabilities. Differential success leads in different directions.
5. Life by these means produced insatiably curious intelligent agents capable of cumulative knowledge - 'progress' - who have arrived at the threshold of creation themselves.
Both just-so story lines "work" fine for explaining what needs explaining for most people who are curious. Because the stories are about events so ancient they can't be physically observed or reproduced, they cannot be "proved" - the assertions are not 'givens', they're just story lines about 'givens'.
The only difference is in the philosophical baseline assumptions, and these will always be a matter of preference/cognitive predisposition/cultural milieu for the individual. One of the quirks of the way humans think is that they believe (though nobody knows why, really) that they can change the philosophical baseline assumptions of those who disagree just by insulting them or torturing them or hitting them over the head with clubs. Or, if that doesn't work, they can kill those who disagree under the misapprehension that new, younger people are "blank slates" in whom they can control philosophical baseline assumptions. It doesn't work, but they keep trying anyway.
Beliefs aren't 'givens', they're acquired by experience and learning. The sheer number of people who agree with a set of beliefs does not make that set of beliefs any more "true" than it ever was when nobody'd ever thought of 'em before. A 'given' is true even if nobody knows about it or believes in it. This really isn't that hard to understand.
Comment by Joy — July 1, 2006 @ 12:33 pm
July 1st, 2006 at 2:37 pm
Deuce,
You're doing it too, by saying that gravity is a fact. It isn't, it's a theory. We just have so much experience with it, that we assume it to be proven. The same is true of evolution - it's such an obvious fact that we shouldn't need to emphasize that evolution is a theory.
So yes, you either treat evolution as a fact to the same extent that you treat gravity, or you treat them all as "just theories."
MikeGene:
Well, what sense was Hannah using it in? Because it certainly seemed to fit the stereotype comments about "proofs" and "theories" that the "teach the controversy"-talking points.
But heck, that was just my impression. Maybe she did mean something else, I'm not sure.
MikeGene:
Huh? …that sounds perfectly truthful and accurate. Or were you trying to be sarcastic?
Deuce:
I must have missed that. Sorry.
Guts:
Too true! I'll have to remember that Star Wars quote, that's a good one!
Comment by Daniel — July 1, 2006 @ 2:37 pm
July 1st, 2006 at 3:42 pm
Um… 'Gravity' is just a theory? Do you mean Albert Einstein's gravitational theory (derivation of GR)? If so, that's a semantic issue - you meant to say "current consensus gravitational theory" or "Einstein's theory of gravity" not gravity itself. Which is the given phenomenon - fact - the theory explains. If Einstein's completely wrong it won't effect gravity at all. Or do you not understand that? (Real question, I'm getting concerned).
I do not see how anyone could assert that gravity 'is' our definition of it. I see a finger-moon issue, but I'm sure Macht must have a formal fallacy to apply here. Did they really teach you that theories 'are' the phenomena they seek to explain?
Because if so, it'll never work. We'll all be killed.
Comment by Joy — July 1, 2006 @ 3:42 pm
July 1st, 2006 at 4:07 pm
I would actually argue that it is very difficult to separate facts from theories. We know that observations are theory-laden. This is most easily seen in the experiment where a ball is dropped from a tower. Does it fall in a straight line or does it fall in a parabola? The answer to this question is dependent on your theory about the earth's movement. In any case, the fact that the ball lands at the base of the tower can be explained in different ways, depending on what other theories we accept as true.
You could, maybe, say that it is a fact that when an apple detaches from a tree, it hits the ground. But who is to say that in a hundred years we won't have some scientific theory that will make us rethink that fact? (Just like the theory of heliocentrism made us rethink the shape of the movement of the apple.)
In other words, we usually call our observations "facts." But given that our observations can be interpretted and re-interpretted in light of new theories, it is difficult to separate the two.
Comment by macht — July 1, 2006 @ 4:07 pm
July 1st, 2006 at 4:28 pm
Really? I said that? Where? I believe I said that the theory of gravity was extremely well supported.
If you "assume it to be proven" then you are quite simply wrong, and guilty of conflationary thinking, as macht pointed out. If you have lots of evidence for something, it means that you have lots of evidence for it, period.
It's amazing. It's like you're having an entirely different conversation from the rest of us. Nobody but you has even brought up evolution, including Hannah. This argument you're responding to, that if something isn't proven, then it's "just a theory" and doesn't need to be taken seriously, is one that nobody has made. As I pointed out previously, Hannah was arguing the inverse of the argument you were responding to. Did you even read her post? If so, why are you sitting here arguing with phantoms, and criticizing her for things she didn't even suggest? Why should you be taken seriously as a good-faith conversationalist when you don't even bother to listen to what you're responding to, or even to figure out the rudiments of what was said?
Comment by Deuce — July 1, 2006 @ 4:28 pm
July 1st, 2006 at 4:35 pm
I just read Mike's IP and had to hurry and scroll down to reply:
Yeah!!! I used the word "prove" and Odd Digit was all over me like flies on sh-t about how science doesn't prove anything, and if I were only a scientist, I would know better than to use "prove." So I just had to laugh when I read that molecular biologist saying that "prove" is a very common, acceptable concept in science. Sheeshh!!! You think those scientists could make up their minds and let the rest of us know exactly what terminology is forbidden, and what is allowed.
Comment by Bilbo — July 1, 2006 @ 4:35 pm
July 1st, 2006 at 4:38 pm
I'm expressing my own reactions to the topic at hand, Hannah's comments. Am I not entitled to react differently?
I'd say the same thing about some of the comments that you and others have made in other threads. The point of such discussions is to try and come to understand radically different points of view, even if we still disagree in the end, IMO.
But if you don't want to take me seriously, then don't.
Macht:
Nice bit about theory-laden facts. I think that bridges what I was trying to say, and the accurate points of what Hannah and others here were trying to say nicely. Thanks for putting it much better than I did.
Comment by Daniel — July 1, 2006 @ 4:38 pm
July 1st, 2006 at 4:44 pm
In Hannah's defense, I believe that she is using the words "proof" and "prove" in their logical and mathematical senses, rather than the more colloquial senses with which most people use these terms. And I agree with her: one of the very first points I make in my lectures on introductory biology and evolution courses at Cornell is that science never "proves" anything (in the logical/mathematical sense), nor is science able to establish that something is "true" (when, by "true," one means "absolutely true in all possible cases").
I have written fairly extensively on these subjects at my blog:
http://evolutionlist.blogspot....
and at the course blog for Evolution & Design at Cornell:
http://evolutionanddesign.blog...
It has been a refreshing revelation to me that I find a good deal of common ground with Hannah, and that to date we have been able to conduct our discussions in an atmosphere of mutual respect and constructive criticism. And, contra Joy's assertions to the contrary (above), I have changed my mind on multiple occasions, when the evidence and logic of the argument have required that I do so to continue to think rationally. That's what scientists have to do all the time: if the data you collect contradict the predictions that flow from your hypotheses, you are required to modify or reject your hypotheses. That's why I have asserted on multiple occasions that I will consider ID as science when ID theorists stop being "theorists" (and, like William Dembski, stop publishing pointless screeds like this: http://www.designinference.com... ) or public relations broadsides like this: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2... , but rather do some actual science: make some observations, formulate an hypothesis, use it to make a testable (i.e. falsifiable) prediction, and then do the hard work of actually testing the prediction by manipulating the physical stuff, collecting the data, and analyzing it using standard analytic statistics, and then publish an account of their hypotheses, materials and methods, results, statistical analysis, and discussion of the meaning of the foregoing in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Yes, it's hard work and it takes a while to get reliable results, but that's what doing science is all about.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — July 1, 2006 @ 4:44 pm
July 1st, 2006 at 4:49 pm
No, you're not. You responded to arguments that nobody argued, which is bad enough. Even worse, you attributed these arguments to Hannah, and then criticized her for not providing caveats to arguments she never made in the first place. From where I'm standing, this makes it fairly clear that you aren't interested in understanding her, but are looking to nitpick, otherwise you would've tried to understand and respond to what was actually said.
Comment by Deuce — July 1, 2006 @ 4:49 pm
July 1st, 2006 at 4:55 pm
Hi, Dr. MacNeill, I think you'll see that everybody in this thread actually agrees with this statement. What's happened is that some people didn't bother to read what she actaully said, and are criticizing her as if she said something different (that something being what they apparently assumed an IDist would say).
Comment by Deuce — July 1, 2006 @ 4:55 pm
July 1st, 2006 at 4:59 pm
Bilbo:
Here's a good rule of thumb. If you use the word, you are using it wrong, and are a dunce for not knowing the scientific way to use it. If the person disagreeing with you uses it, they are using it right.
Comment by Deuce — July 1, 2006 @ 4:59 pm
July 1st, 2006 at 5:10 pm
Hey, that's you're opinion - but to correct you, I wasn't criticizing what she said, I was criticizing what I thought she might have been alluding to. I nowhere said that her position was completely untenable, I just took what she said and commented on how I thought that related to a common tactic of ID proponents. I did not say that she was explicitly using such a tactic - the truth is, I don't know the complete back-story to what she said.
But you aren't all that interested in what I have to say, are you? That's fine - don't read my comments then.
Comment by Daniel — July 1, 2006 @ 5:10 pm
July 1st, 2006 at 5:27 pm
Hey, Joy, Macht, I'll help you out with what you're trying to get across by giving a quick definitional manual:
theory - A theory is a proposition about the world that our minds have arrived at. As propositions, theories have the property of being either true or false. Theories are not identical to the things they describe. For instance, the theory of gravity is not the same thing as gravity. Gravity is a physical phenomenon, and has physical properties such as exerting force over empty space. Assuming that it exists, it exists regardless of whether or not we have a theory about it. The theory of gravity is a non-physical entity, having the property either of being true or of being false.
fact - A fact is a proposition that is true, independently of whether or not our minds have found the proposition yet. Theories may also be facts, but we can never have rational warrant for being certain that any particular theory is a fact by inference alone. To put it another way, a proposition that our minds have discovered may have the property of being true, and may therefore be a fact, but certainty that a proposition is a fact cannot be warranted through inference, because all inferential arguments are non sequiters. Since all empirically derived conclusions are inferences, it follows that we can never have warrant for certainty that any theory of empirical science is a fact.
Comment by Deuce — July 1, 2006 @ 5:27 pm
July 1st, 2006 at 5:36 pm
Well, that's bad form, and it's extremely aggravating to be on the receiving end.
She gave the backstory in her post though, and was pretty explicit about which argument she was making. And you did start with "Hannah ignores the fact…", which suggests that you were criticizing her for that argument.
Frustrating feeling, isn't it? At least I'm responding to what I saw you say, and not to where I imagine somebody with the views I think you have might go. Imagine how frustrating that would be.
Comment by Deuce — July 1, 2006 @ 5:36 pm
July 1st, 2006 at 5:46 pm
Why? It's something that many IDers do do, it aggravates me, and besides, I didn't say that I knew she had such an agenda - I specifically said she ignored or left a qualifying comment in her postings, not that she was blatantly incorrect. Why is that bad form?
It seems to me you're reading into what I'm saying, which would qualify as "bad form," as you seem to describe it.
Again, I someone upthread already pointed that out, and I apologized for having missed those comments of hers. What more do you want me to do?
Actually, I'm beginning to want an apology for you missing my apology!
(just kidding)
Ah, but it certainly seems to me that you are doing just that.
But no, I'm not all that frustrated with you, I just have a different point of view.
Comment by Daniel — July 1, 2006 @ 5:46 pm
July 1st, 2006 at 5:48 pm
Oops… sorry for the grammatical errors. I have to remember to use the preview option.:idea:
Comment by Daniel — July 1, 2006 @ 5:48 pm
July 1st, 2006 at 6:30 pm
Because your objection that she ignored or left out that qualifier only makes sense on the assumption that she had, in fact, argued that evolution is only a theory and therefore need not be taken seriously. What she actually argued was that you don't need absolute proof to take a theory seriously, so her mentioning well-supported theories like gravity wouldn't have been a qualifier to her argument at all, but just further confirmation of the point she was trying to make.
Comment by Deuce — July 1, 2006 @ 6:30 pm
July 1st, 2006 at 7:14 pm
Good greeblies! I have been concerned with indications that science education at the university level (undergrad and post-grad) may be in dire trouble. It would appear that the basics of philosophy of science and the 'rules' of logic are not being taught, and wondered if this were a general situation or just a problem at Cornell.
But this [non]logic is so bad it doesn't rise to the level of wrong. Please tell me this guy isn't going into science!
Comment by Joy — July 1, 2006 @ 7:14 pm
July 1st, 2006 at 8:39 pm
There's a 30 minute timer on the edit function, just letting everyone know.
Comment by Guts — July 1, 2006 @ 8:39 pm
July 2nd, 2006 at 9:26 am
Ilion:
And you said it well. Welcome out from the shadows you lurker. Does it seem to you as if no one listened? Did you get banned over at ARN?
Comment by Mung — July 2, 2006 @ 9:26 am
July 2nd, 2006 at 12:22 pm
Allen MacNeill:
Hi, Dr. MacNeill. Thanks for posting in defense of your student against the scarecrow being burned here. I also appreciate your stated ability to change your mind about things given enough evidence. In my experience of what could be termed "transitional states" of theoretical frameworks, I've noticed that it's usually the gratuitous insertion of politics into the pot that makes a mess of the stew. It's not an actual 'scientific' consideration in the first place, and has very little to do with anything "rational." CYA mostly, and it's a big corrupter wherever it's applied.
Politics is known to be petty and arbitrary, imposing interpretations of data from outside as well as inside of science. Outside influence is the situation we see in the global warming debate, for instance. Where 'good' consensus science gets muzzled due to particular political policies the real findings might compromise. It's an 'argument from authority' scientists can't do much about if they value their jobs, because the authority currently has political power to wield.
The NDE vs. ID situation is the inside version. Some scientists have banked their bids for fame and fortune on [scientifically] authoritarian arguments, so are heavily invested in an ideological outcome. It should come as no surprise that the ideology of evangelical atheists is as disconcerting to many of us as the Sharia pretentions of the Wedgies ever were. Here the issues of relative fact are subservient to a larger political agenda that doesn't have current authoritarian status either way - theocracy or scientocracy. It's all about power and will-to-power from any direction, and it's still corruption.
Science done 'right' is never going to prove or disprove anyone's belief/disbelief in gods/God. Our theoretics about evolution will not make religions go away or validate atheism. In certain areas of physical and biological science the appearance of design - which even Dawkins admits is present - is taken seriously enough to guide investigative directions. Which may or may not work out long term, but it's not forbidden or censored. "Random" doesn't add to our knowledge, and it makes no testable predictions. I see it as a gratuitous and unjustified qualifier added in the 1930s for ideological reasons. It can go away now that we know more.
Comment by Joy — July 2, 2006 @ 12:22 pm
July 2nd, 2006 at 3:27 pm
"Does it seem to you as if no one listened?"
Sure (I mean, just look at the comments since). But I don't expect much differently.
People don't really like to think, despite that that's our claim to fame. People really don't like to learn something contrary to what they "know" (even when they are shown that what they "know" is false) — not infrequently, the one who shows that the "knowledge" isn't is thereby the bad guy.
"Did you get banned over at ARN?"
Heavens no! Why would anyone want to ban me?
There are many reasons working together which explain why I haven't been very active at ARN.
Part of it is that I have been increasingly busy at work doing (and learning) interesting things related to my craft*. In fact, I'm at work at this very moment — though, since I am here on my own time and any work I happen to produce this afternoon is my personal (and secret, since no one will know I've done so) gift to the company, it's quite all right that I'm not, in fact, working at the moment.
Part of it is that I have a very low tolerance for irrationality and illogic which refuses to be corrected — which may not bode well were I to care deeply about participating in this blog. I mean, considering that one the "members" of the blog (though, I think not a "charter member") is a font of irrationality and illogic who refuses to lay it aside. You know how it will go … I will be the bad guy, even though I will have said nothing insulting or offensive, but rather will have taken exception to insulting and/or offensive (and probably totally irrelevant to whatever thread) remarks.
Part of it is that I get tired of being "misrepresented" — and extremely tired of correcting "misrepresentations" (whether concerning myself or others), especially the same repeatedly — and many of the threads I was most recently active in need to have some intentional "misrepresentations" corrected. I'm lazy.
* What I'm working on at the moment is trying to put the finishing touches on a roll-your-own control (it inherits ultimately from the ListView) that is going to be wayyy cool. I plan to eventually write an article on the control (which article will include the source) to submit to The Code Project (http://www.thecodeproject.com/) I'll be sure to send you a link to the article once it's published.
Comment by Ilion — July 2, 2006 @ 3:27 pm
July 2nd, 2006 at 7:27 pm
Joy wrote:
"'Random' doesn't add to our knowledge, and it makes no testable predictions."
Indeed, although many scientists use the term "random" all the time (as do many mathematicians), the definition of this term is extraordinarily difficult to pin down. In many cases it is used as shorthand for "not intended or purposeful", in which case describing the genetic variation that is the raw material for natural selection as "random" is to "front-load" a conclusion. That is, if one assumes that the mutations and recombinations that produce genetic variations are "not intended or purposeful" and then later claim that natural selection is "not intended or purposeful" as a result, is simply a case of "getting out what you put in" and adds no additional analytical nor predictive power to one's conclusions.
Back in the day when the only things flipping coins were humans, the results of coin flips could be cited as "random." However, it is now possible to build mechanisms that will flip coins in such a way as to land on particular surfaces (i.e. "heads" or "tails") with astonishing precision. Furthermore, the "random number generators" used in cryptography, Fourier analyses, statistics, and many other applications are (as any computer programmer could tell you) actually "pseudorandom." Radioactive decay is still touted as "genuinely" random, but such an assertion ignores the fact that such randomicity is an inextricable part of what is perhaps the most precise process we know of: the extraordinary precision of radioactive half-lives, upon which such technologies as radioactive dating and "atomic clocks" are based.
And so I tend to avoid using the term "random" when describing such things as the various genetic and developmental mechanisms that produce the variation that Darwin proposed as one of the prerequisites of natural selection. In a recent post to The Evolution List (see: http://evolutionlist.blogspot....), in fact, I have pointed out that such variation is almost certainly not "random" if by that term one means "the result of pure combinatorial processes, without modification by interaction with environmental forces." This is also why evolutionary biologists and other scientists are increasingly turning from "classical" statistics (such as those formulated by R. A. Fisher and others) to Bayesian statistics, which take into account the peculiar nature of what appear to be "random" processes.
A much more interesting question is whether we can substitute the term "non-forward looking" or "non-anticipatory" for the term "random," at least in the case of evolution by natural selection. This would be entirely in line with the informal and formal "no magic" rules prevalent in most of the natural sciences, in which it is assumed that to anticipate the future may be possible (and would certainly be advantageous, Cassandra notwithstanding), but that actually "seeing" into the future and adjusting the present to correspond with it is quite literally impossible…for natural entities and processes, anyway (as far as we can tell).
Substituting the term "non-forward looking" or "non-anticipatory" for the term "random," would also overtly reveal the underlying assumptions of non-teleology upon which much of evolutionary theory (and virtually all of the rest of natural science) is based. It would also make such assumptions testable, as the primary difference between "anticipatory" and "non-anticipatory" variation would be the speed with which such variation can be marshalled in the process of adaptation by natural selection. In doing this, we just might be able to leave the concept of "randomicity" behind, in much the same way that we left the concept of "teleology in nature" behind a few centuries ago.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — July 2, 2006 @ 7:27 pm
July 2nd, 2006 at 7:45 pm
Deuce provided what I assume is an unintentionally very revealing insight into why so many people misunderstand what science (including evolutionary biology) is all about, and what kinds of things it can and cannot do. The definitions that Deuce provided for "theory" and for "fact" are so far from what all of the scientists of my acquaintance mean by those terms that I think a little "defining" from the science side is in order.
In the natural sciences, "facts" are the direct empirical observations of natural objects and processes that we make using our senses (augmented in many cases today by technologies, such as microscopes, scintillation counters, etc.). Facts are therefore never "right" or "wrong," they simply "are." That is, if a "fact" (i.e. a direct observation of a natural object or process) contradicts another "fact" (i.e. another direct observation of a natural object or process), neither of these contradictory "facts" can be thrown out or considered "false." Instead, we must collect many more such "facts" about the objects and/or processes under investigation to determine if there is some generalization about them that can explain why such observations can be contradictory in this way.
Therefore, "facts" defined in this sense are as "true" as anything ever gets in science; they are the things we can count, measure, record, and correlate with hypotheses, theories, and so forth.
"Theories," by contrast, are the generalizations that we formulate to explain the "facts" that we have observed. Theories, therefore, are not identical to facts, they are of necessity inferred from facts. As I have pointed out in a post at The Evolution List (see: http://evolutionlist.blogspot.... ) inference is qtuie literally not about "truth," it is about "confidence," that is, our ability to be reasonably confident about the generalizations that we formulate on the basis of empirically derived "facts."
And so, "theories" literally cannot be "facts," although they are inferred from them. this means that the "theories" of universal gravitation (a la Newton) and general relativity (a la Einstein) and evolution by natural selection (a la Darwin) are not absolutely "true," although the observations upon which they are based may be.
This is one of the most important ways in which science differs from revealed religion. The latter is "true" literally by definition, and cannot possibly be modified as a result. Intellectually satisfying to some, but utterly useless as a tool for understanding or manipulating the natural world, and therefore totally outside the domain of the natural sciences by definition. Science therefore isn't anti-religion. On the contrary, religion is simply irrelevent in science and vice-versa.
Comment by Allen_MacNeill — July 2, 2006 @ 7:45 pm
July 2nd, 2006 at 10:32 pm
I think that would be brilliant.
Salvador
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — July 2, 2006 @ 10:32 pm
July 3rd, 2006 at 12:09 am
Allen_MacNeill
The Dinosaurs were never directly empirically observed. dinosaur bones have been which would make them facts (I guess) but Dinosaurs (the living walking kind) would seem to be just a theory - or a deception by the devil. if I've understood your ideas about facts and theory rightly.
What about the inside of my scull "“ is it a fact that I have a brain or is it just a theory? The technologies are available so I could settle the issue once and for all "“ if I had the money, time or inclination but why not just be generous and call it a fact. To paraphrase Rorty: Facts are whatever my peers will let me get away with believing, after all"¦
Comment by de_nacisse — July 3, 2006 @ 12:09 am
July 3rd, 2006 at 12:23 am
But then, again, you yourself don't even understand the words 'to prove' and 'proof,' such that you imagine there are some logical and/or mathematical senses to the concepts distinct from "the more colloquial senses with which most people use these terms." You so misunderstand these terms that you imagine it is a true statement to say that "Scarcely anything in science will ever be proved or disproved," when the fact of the matter (and of language) is that were this statement true then there would be no point at all in "doing science."
You also seem to believe that there are degrees of trueness — such that one may intelligibly say:
There is 'true' and there is 'not-true;' it's a binary distinction. To speak of "absolutely true" is redundant. To speak as though to distinguish "absolutely true" from "non-absolutely true" is speak of the impossible, for there is no such thing as "non-absolutely true."
The reason that 'science' is unable to establish that something is true has nothing to do with an imaginary distinction between non-existant "relative truth" and "absolute truth," but is rather due to the nature of 'science.' 'Science' doesn't start with truth; therefore where 'science' ends up may be true or may be not-true, but 'science' cannot distinguish. One needs something more, or at least other, that 'science' for that task.
Perhaps the scientists of your acquaintance no more understand 'fact' and 'theory' than you do 'to prove' and 'proof' (or 'true'). Or, perhaps (this is the one I'm betting on) you and the scientists of your acquaintance no more understand the nature of reality and knowledge and the relationship between the two than you understand 'to prove' and 'proof.'
This is what Deuce said:
There is no such thing as "direct empirical observations of natural objects and processes that we make using our senses …" All 'empirical' observations are made via our senses; they are all indirect. We directly observe our own minds, we directly observe that we experience sensations; we infer or assume that these sensations are caused by something which is not ourselves; we do not directly observe the 'empirical' objects and events which we infer from these sensations.
Therefore, on the basis of our interpretations of these sensations — which are not themselves the 'empirical' objects and events that we infer or assume to be the cause of them — we (as minds) create propositions about this infered 'empirical' world which exists apart from, or "outside of," ourselves.
We call many of these propositions 'facts,' especially those which seem "basic," that is, which seem to not require some other proposition to support them logically. We generally assume that these propositions are true and the assumption generally "works;" but we have no independent means of verification. That is, we do not know for a fact that our propositions (even the ones we call 'facts') are, in fact, true.
Deuce said: "A fact is a proposition that is true, independently of whether or not our minds have found the proposition yet."
Allen MacNeill disputes: "… "facts" are the direct empirical observations of natural objects and processes … Facts are therefore never "right" or "wrong," they simply "are."" [BTW, Deuce did not say "right" or "wrong;" he said "true," the converse of which is "not-true" or "false"]
Deuce is correct; Allen MacNeill doesn't understand what he's (either one of the hes) talking about.
Everything we know or think we know about "the real world" is via inference, expressed as a proposition. If there is some "fact" in "the real world," a rock say (btw, rocks don't *really* exist, but that's a whole 'nother issue), we know it, can know it, only when we have the proposition that it exists. Whether the rock exists independently of our proposition that it exists is another proposition.
Allen MacNeill goes on to say that: "Facts are therefore never "right" or "wrong," they simply "are." That is, if a "fact" (i.e. a direct observation of a natural object or process) contradicts another "fact" (i.e. another direct observation of a natural object or process), neither of these contradictory "facts" can be thrown out or considered "false.""
'Facts' are true (or put another way, "they simply "are."" so there is at least one correct statement), but the problem is that we employ the term 'fact' for propositions that we do not know for a fact to be true. If a "fact" contradicts another "fact" then it is a fact that at least one of these "facts" is not an actual fact, and never was.
Allen MacNeill believes, incorrectly, that "fact" refers to the inferred "thing out there" of which we are entertaining a proposition. In his defence, most people think that. But the belief is still wrong. AND, even in his own statement (quoted here), we can see, if we are willing, the falseness of this belief — A "thing out there" which "simply is" cannot contradict another "thing out there" which "simply is;" both have the property of "is-ness" (existence) and neither is a proposition. Propositions may contradict other propositions, but "things out there" which "simply are" are not propositions, they are the (inferred) things to which the propositions refer.
In attempting to justify the illogical claim that neither of a set of contradictory statements is to be considered "false," Allen MacNeill goes on to say that: "Instead, we must collect many more such "facts" about the objects and/or processes under investigation to determine if there is some generalization about them that can explain why such observations can be contradictory in this way."
We already *know* "why such observations can be contradictory in this way." It's because "such observations" are (and must always be) inferences — we do not directly observe, we infer; these "observations" are really statements about something else. Statements may, and often do, contradict other statements. Our knowledge of the non-trivial is generally incomplete; we infer from incomplete knowledge, the capacity for error is built into the process from the start.
Now, my point in all this is that in disputing Deuce, Allen MacNeill is wrong in the generality and when he is not wrong in the detail he but restates what Deuce said, though phrased so as to seem to say something in disagreement.
This is what Deuce said:
Again, Deuce is correct, and Allen MacNeill's disputation is pointless, when it isn't outright false.
Theories are propositions about other propositions. They are indeed "generalizations that we formulate to explain" propositions we think (correctly or not) to be 'facts.' Deuce did not say that "theories are identical to facts," he said "theories may also be facts" (which is true).
There is no such thing as "empirically derived "facts"" as Allen MacNeill is attempting to use the word 'fact.' There are propositions about an inferred reality which is not ourselves. These propositions (and the very inference that there is a reality which is not ourselves) may be true or may be false; but we have no independent means of verification.
We know that we ourselves exist. We know a few logical truths. We know a few mathematical truths. Most everything else that we call 'true' is an inference and an assumption.
'Facts' are propositions which are true. That we often refer to propositions which we simply cannot know to be true as "factual" does not change the fact that 'facts' are propositions which are true.
'Theories' are propositions. As such, they may be true or they may be false. THEREFORE, since ALL theories are propositions and since SOME theories may be true, it is the truth that SOME theories (the ones which are true) are indeed literally facts.
There is no such this as "absolutely true" in contradistinction to "relatively true." There is only 'true.' Some theories are true, some theories are not true. "Science" can't tell the difference, and generally doesn't care anyway so long as the theory seems to "work" or at least isn't too embarrassingly obviously false.
Oh, please! Spare us the Dawkins-bilge, especially the irrationality (or do I repeat myself?) of trying to set up "Science," which isn't even about truth and generally isn't all that concerned with truth, as some sort of Ãber-truth.
You're apparently a Defender of Science, so it stands to reason that you no more understand "revealed religion" than you do 'science' (the real stuff, not that goddess who calls herself "Science") or the relationship between knowledge and reality.
'Science' is at best a tool. In the hands of Defenders of Science it's no better than a toy for little boys. Little boys "do science;" men (and women … adults) "do theology" (or, if 'theology' is too strong a word for the reader, he may pretend I wrote 'philosophy') for "intellectual satisfaction."
"Revealed religion" can and does change (and, of course, Defenders of Science will call that a flaw, when it suits the rhetorical need). It's the "revelation" which generally isn't subject to change. Our understanding of the revelation changes — generally growing more robust, generally seeing things which were there all along and seem so obvious after the fact. What "revealed religion" almost never does is contradict an earlier understanding of the revelation. To understand more deeply is vastly different from contradiction.
"Intellectual satisfaction?" Whatever could that be? What's the point of "intellectual satisfaction" if intellects are illusions? What's the point of "understanding or manipulating the natural world" when there can be no such thing as "understanding?" Termites "manipulat[e] the natural world," but so what?
Defenders of Science can be such amazing, and periodically amusing, persons.
Comment by Ilion — July 3, 2006 @ 12:23 am
July 3rd, 2006 at 1:31 am
Deuce : "fact - A fact is a proposition that is true, independently of whether or not our minds have found the proposition yet"¦."
USA is neighboring Canada"¦ Ford makes cars"¦telicthougts is a blog"¦ all depend on human (I assume that's the "˜our' you mean) minds discovering/creating (finding) them. I don't think the "˜independently of whether or not our minds have found the proposition yet' is right"¦ much of the truths (facts) in reality are mind-dependent.
Comment by de_nacisse — July 3, 2006 @ 1:31 am
July 3rd, 2006 at 1:43 am
I think you're getting the wrong idea about what I meant. I'm certainly not denying that minds can cause things to happen. I and my compadres made it so that Telic Thoughts is a blog, but if I believe that Telic Thoughts is not a blog, it doesn't cease to be a blog. The truth of the proposition Telic Thoughts is a blog is not dependent on me believing that it is so. The proposition is false only if the bloggers don't actually blog, and the site is taken down. I was simply denying that truth is relative or subjective (something isn't true or false just because you believe it to be true or false). Henry Ford himself could've disbelieved that he was a carmaker, but he would've been wrong, since he did in fact make cars.
Comment by Deuce — July 3, 2006 @ 1:43 am
July 3rd, 2006 at 12:34 pm
I don't think that I have ever seen the word "fact" used in a scientific paper–it is not a word that scientists normally use in scientific discourse, and it does not really have an accepted scientific meaning. As Allen MacNeill points out, scientists concern themselves with observations and theories. Observations are always individual, e.g. "I dropped a 1 gram weight on Monday, June 3 at 10:00 am and observed it to fall to the floor." A theory is a generalization and/or explanation that encompasses a set of observations and predicts future observations, e.g. "objects fall when dropped," or "there is a universal attractive force between masses." An experiment, of course, is an observation made under particular defined conditions contrived for the purpose. Observations and theories are very different things and are mutually exclusive–an observation is never a theory, and a theory never becomes an observation. So an observation is about as close as science ever gets to a "fact," although some scientists, speaking informally, might also apply the word "fact" to a theory that has withstood a large number of experimental tests and is almost universally believed to be correct.
Comment by trrll — July 3, 2006 @ 12:34 pm
July 3rd, 2006 at 12:47 pm
This is quibbling about words. If we regard all observations as "indirect," because they are made by our senses, then we render the term "direct observation" meaningless. But there is a useful distinction to be made, because some observations are more direct than others–for example, the distinction between those observations that we make personally with our own senses, and those that we learn about second-hand, or that we infer based upon other observations that we do make personally. So if it makes you more comforatable, feel free to assume that when somebody says "direct observation," they are using it as a kind of shorthand to mean "as close to direct as possible."
Comment by trrll — July 3, 2006 @ 12:47 pm
July 3rd, 2006 at 1:57 pm
Deuce
Once minds cause things the truth is then somewhat independent of minds (more or less)"¦
But if Henry Ford believed he was not a carmaker (because he came to think it was an impossible or immoral task) and started making bicycles instead then his belief that he was not a carmaker would have determined reality. Or if you had thought Telic Thoughts ought not to exist (after a threatening e-mail from Dawkins or something) then possibly your believing (fearing) would have determined reality "“ so truth Is dependent on subjective states initially because minds can cause things (or fail to cause things) to happen.
So the things we now know about Ford and Telic Thoughts are epistemically objective but they were ontologically subjective, which would seem to make statements like facts/truths are non-subjective or non-relative somewhat dubious?
Comment by de_nacisse — July 3, 2006 @ 1:57 pm
July 3rd, 2006 at 3:37 pm
"A much more interesting question is whether we can substitute the term "non-forward looking" or "non-anticipatory" for the term "random," at least in the case of evolution by natural selection. This would be entirely in line with the informal and formal "no magic" rules prevalent in most of the natural sciences, in which it is assumed that to anticipate the future may be possible (and would certainly be advantageous, Cassandra notwithstanding), but that actually "seeing" into the future and adjusting the present to correspond with it is quite literally impossible"¦for natural entities and processes, anyway (as far as we can tell).""”Allen MacNeill
I don't know about the "case of evolution by natural selection," and I don't know why any designer should restrict himself to the "informal and formal "˜no magic' rules prevalent in most of the natural sciences." Since those "rules" are not "prevalent" in other natural sciences, by admission.
Are there some natural sciences that are "magical"? Insofar as they don't accept the "rules"?
It fascinates me endlessly: Where do these "˜rules" come from? Who is deciding upon these "rules"? And why should I GAS about these "rules"?
My suspicion is that these "rules" are made up on the fly as certain "difficulties" present themselves. Such as the difficulty that some sciences, such as design, do not accept the "non-anticipatory" rule.
Actually, the rule is pure fiction for everyone who accepts that prediction is important in all sciences.
The very idea that anticipating, predicting the future on the basis of what is known about the present, and changing the ever-present according to the prediction, is"¦ what?
Intelligence?!
So the "rule" is that intelligence is "magic"!
LOL Science is all about magic!
Any system, such as oursleves, that operates on the basis of an internal model is anticipatory. Very interesting subject, in design science, but so simply eliminated upon the invocation of a "rule."
Comment by Rock — July 3, 2006 @ 3:37 pm
July 3rd, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Dr. MacNeil, I'm sorry to say, you seem to be using the word "fact" in an inconsistent and unintelligible way, sometimes using it to refer to the thing observed, sometimes using it to refer to the observation. Once you unravel these incoherencies, you're left with the same definitions I gave.
There are several things wrong here. First of all, you appear to be conflating observations with the objects that are observed, and then you are attributing the properties of both to what you are calling "facts". The objects observed "simply are" and are not true or false, whereas observations are propositional relations, which can indeed be true or false (What's with the substitution of "right" and "wrong", btw?). Example: Jeff examines the sun and the earth, and makes the "direct observation" that the sun goes around the earth. The sun and the earth "just are", and are neither true nor false. The sun goes around the earth is a proposition, however, and is false.
The other major problem here is your reference to facts being "direct empirical observations". There is no such thing. As the Jeff example above demonstrates, there is a layer of interpretation between the observed object(s) (the sun and earth) and the proposition arrived at by observing (The sun goes around the earth.).
This again makes no sense. First, only propositions, those things that are either true or false, can contradict, and directly above you said that facts aren't true or false, when seemingly conflating them with the objects observed. Second, the very definition of a contradiction is a pair of propositions that cannot both be true, because the each entails the falsehood of the other. To suggest that when two propositions contradict, neither might be false, is to suggest that each proposition is both true and not true at the same time, which is yet another contradiction. The physical entities observed, on the other hand, are not propositions, and it makes no sense to say that they contradict.
If inference is about confidence in our generalizations rather than truth, then the question arises, what about our generalizations is inference supposed to make us confidence in? That they make us feel good? That they make us sound smart? That they make good doorstops? No, clearly, the only answer that makes sense is that inference makes us reasonably confident that our generalizations are true, or contain part of the truth, which means that inference is about truth after all. In fact, give any other answer to that question, and you've completely deconstructed and subjectivized science.
I can't help but notice the scare quotes you've been using around the word "true" throughout, both when talking about science and religion. Religious claims are either true or false, not true by definition, just like theories. Repeatedly, it seems that you are attempting to altogether delegitimize the ideas of true and false in order to squeeze out the notion of science that you want, resulting in a post-modernist, subjectivist "science" that is not only irrational, but even anti-rational, where logical norms (like the non-contradiction principle) are ignored, and theories are believed based on criteria unrelated to the truth. To then turn around and try to present "science" so defined as a superior way of understanding the world just doesn't make sense, not least because to understand something is know the truth about it, and "science" by this definition isn't even about truth.
Comment by Deuce — July 3, 2006 @ 3:38 pm
July 3rd, 2006 at 4:01 pm
de_nacisse:
For the sake of clarity, it is vitally important that you note distinctions where distinctions exist. If Henry Ford believed he was not a carmaker, his belief would be false until such time as he stopped actually making cars. The proposition Henry Ford is a carmaker is true or false by virtue of whether or not Henry Ford makes cars, not the other way around. Now, the belief that he's not a carmaker may cause action that causes a changes the reality, such that it becomes false that Henry Ford is a carmaker. However, the causation whereby Ford's belief causes a change in the physical reality, and the "causation" whereby the reality determines the truth of Ford's belief, are two completely different kinds of things, and they shouldn't be conflated. The belief in itself doesn't determine external reality.
Comment by Deuce — July 3, 2006 @ 4:01 pm
July 3rd, 2006 at 4:44 pm
Allen MacNeill:
Wow. I bet you don't even see how using the word 'random' to mean "not intended or purposeful" front-loads the entire set of possible conclusions one is allowed to reach. While excluding an entire set of possible conclusions that might be a whole lot more useful (in the predictive sense of how theories are supposed to work). I don't think I've ever seen the metaphysical bias of neodarwinism expressed so succinctly.
While I've got you 'fessing up, what is the scientific reason that biological variation needs to have a a priori qualifier that means "not intended or purposeful?" Methodological naturalism works as well with purposeful phenomena as accidents. In fact, it works better with what can be readily replicated and observed - regularities, law and predictable cause and effects - than with freak occurrences.
Double wow. There's nothing random about decay. It is an effect with a cause - there is no effect we know of that exists in reality that occurs without cause. That's a bit arbitrary of an assumption too, but it is necessary to the practice of science. What we cannot do is know the nuclear state of any individual atom in an observable clump of matter. IOW, we do not directly observe atoms or any of their pieces-parts. We infer their existence from their effects.
The cause of decay events is the inherent instability of the isotope's symmetry. We can't predict which atoms will decay at any given time because we're not looking at 'em (not monitoring internal instability of individual atoms). But because the effect of the inherent instability follows a quantifiable pattern, we can predict with accuracy that half of the atoms in a given concentration will have decayed in this amount of time. Useful knowledge. Who cares which atom is decaying one moment to the next? That isn't such useful knowledge, so we don't bother.
Why? It's still the same unwarranted a priori assumption. A lot of evolution looks lately to involve in-house developments that aren't particularly subject to selection. That arise by processes that aren't particularly random. Why does this half of evolution need to be minimized so irrationally, and subjected to a metaphysical imposition for that purpose?
Comment by Joy — July 3, 2006 @ 4:44 pm
July 3rd, 2006 at 5:33 pm
Hi Allen,