Turning a Hypothesis into History Part II
by MikeGeneIn my previous entry, I used a particular hypothesis from Richard Dawkins to drive home a larger point. I argued there is no objective criterion that is used to convert a hypothesis into history. On the contrary, the transformation is ultimately a decision. We can try to make the decision as objective as possible by appealing to evidence and the consensus of a community, but it nevertheless remains less than objective. Unfortunately, it can be worse than this.
In my previous entry, I cited two reasons to be skeptical of Dawkins' hypothesis about the evolution of hairlessness. However, I also noted that we did not need these reasons in order to excuse ourselves from accepting the hypothesis. Because the hypothesis is only a hypothesis, the burden is on its proponents to come up with powerful reasons to coax the skeptic into reaching the decision to turn the hypothesis into history.
Yet imagine that a follower of Dawkins was a True Believer in this hypothesis. He then confronts the skeptic as follows: "Look, we know that humans evolved. We know that during this evolution, they lost most of their hair/fur. We also know that sexual selection is common place in evolution. Thus, your skepticism is misguided."
Of course, the conclusion does not follow. Skepticism is not misguided; it is required. Without it, there is no reason to do any further science, as we need only deduce this particular piece of history from the general principles of evolution. The True Believer is thus converting his hypothesis into history by converting science into philosophy.
But it can get much worse if the skeptic is an ID evolutionist. At this point, the True Believer dips deeply from the well of rhetoric. His argument continues: "What do you want? A video tape of the actual evolution in progress? Of course we don't have every little detail figured out, but at least we have a scientific, testable hypothesis. After all, what does ID have to say about this? Nothing? I thought so. Face it, you reject this scientific hypothesis simply because it causes discomfort to your religious views. Don't worry, I don't expect you to admit this as we all know ID has nothing to do with religion [wink, wink]."
Since the scientific hypothesis about history is testable, the skeptic can wait to see the test results. And even if the test results support the hypothesis, we are still faced with the decision between a supported hypothesis and a belief about history. Y'see, despite the appeal to general principles and the added avalanche of rhetoric, the point remains that the original hypothesis remains only a hypothesis and does not mandate that all reasonable people embrace it.
If these points ring true for you, simply change the topic slightly. Instead of arguing about the evolution of hairlessness in humans, imagine the argument is about the evolution of a molecular machine. And instead of appealing to the commonality of sexual selection, substitute the commonality of things like natural selection and cooption. Does the demand that we all convert hypothesis into history suddenly become reasonable? Or does the same basic problem remain?
July 16th, 2005 at 10:12 am
I still don't see that you're taking into consideration the idea of weighing hypotheses in the light of their consistency with verifiable, objective evidence (as opposed to weighing them solely in the light of dogmatic beliefs and/or personal opinions and/or psychosocial pressures unrelated to actual scientific merit).
Let's try a different tack. Just for the sake of argument, let me go to the opposite extreme, and claim that all scientific conclusions are equally valid, and that each of us should just believe whatever seems right in his own eyes, and nobody should tell anyone else that their view is not scientific. After all, there's no objective criteria for determining what happened in the past - and the past begins with the passing of each moment of the present, so technically it's all in the past.
What's wrong with my view?
Comment by Mark Nutter — July 16, 2005 @ 10:12 am
July 16th, 2005 at 7:11 pm
You can weigh hypotheses in light of their consistency with verifiable, objective evidence. But what does that mean? Say we have three hypotheses about history "“ A, B, and C. Hypothesis A is consistent with 4 facts, Hypothesis B is consistent with 6 facts, and Hypothesis C is consistent with 8 facts. Is Hypothesis C history? Or is it merely the best, currently supported hypothesis? Also, competition between A, B, and C is a competition between what our limited mentalities can envision, where neither A, B, or C may reflect history as it was.
Furthermore, I'm not sure there is such an animal as "verifiable, objective evidence." Data are verifiable and objective, but to convert data into evidence, we require concepts that interpret the data such that our minds "see" evidence. If you can't get your mind around a concept, you won't ever see how data relates to it as evidence.
Yes, that's the other extreme. What's wrong? All views are not equally well supported or equally deficient. But the issue is not about things being equal or supported. The issue is at what point do we convert a hypothesis into a belief about history.
Comment by MikeGene — July 16, 2005 @ 7:11 pm
July 16th, 2005 at 8:03 pm
I guess I'm just not following your argument. To me, if you have an explanation that accounts for the observed phenomena in a reasonable manner without significant lacunae or inconsistencies, and no one else has an explanation that accounts for the same phenomena (or a superset of the phenomena) more concisely and/or elegantly and/or with fewer lacunae/inconsistencies, then it seems reasonable to say, "This is the best explanation we've found so far." I don't really grasp the concept of "converting a hypothesis into a belief about history" and I'm unsure where such a practice belongs in science. The scientific method, as I see it, is among other things a kind of feedback mechanism, and the successive approximation seems to me to be the wisest approach. Science should be less a matter of "this is history" and more a matter of "this is the best explanation we've found so far." But assuming that history is an objective reality, and that science can approach it, won't that ultimately result in convergence on the actual history? If we find the explanation that accounts for the observed phenomena in the most reasonable manner, most concisely, with the fewest lacunae and inconsistencies and the greatest elegance, is that not the most reliable means available for "converting hypothesis to history"
Comment by Mark Nutter — July 16, 2005 @ 8:03 pm
July 17th, 2005 at 11:59 am
Hi Mark,
I agree. The problem comes if you want to go further than this and expect people to treat the best explanation as one that truly reflects what happened.
You obviously grasp it, as the following is your rationale behind such a conversion:
Intuitively, it would seem so. But at what point does the "approximation" get close enough to history that we can declare it actual history?
If we "find?" You are assuming the ability to step back from everything and make a passive, objective assessment. Most reasonable. Most concise. Fewest lacunae and inconsistencies. Greatest elegance. Those are all judgment calls largely indebted to intuition. What's more, in the 1980s, the notion that microsporidia were primitive organisms would have passed your test with flying colors. Yet it was wrong.
Let's deal with Dawkins' hypothesis about the evolution of hairlessness. Do you expect everyone to embrace the hypothesis as a truth statement about our history?
Comment by MikeGene — July 17, 2005 @ 11:59 am
July 17th, 2005 at 5:39 pm
As regard's Dawkins' hypothesis, I have two questions:
1) what alternative explanations are there?
2) what objective evidence is there which is more consistent with the alternative explanation(s) than it is with Dawkins' explanation?
Comment by Mark Nutter — July 17, 2005 @ 5:39 pm
July 17th, 2005 at 7:33 pm
I don't know.
I don't know.
So let's say there is currently no alternative explanation. Does that mean I am supposed to accept Dawkins' hypothesis?
Comment by MikeGene — July 17, 2005 @ 7:33 pm
July 18th, 2005 at 11:30 am
It means you're supposed to say you haven't got a better one, I suppose.
Comment by Mark Nutter — July 18, 2005 @ 11:30 am
July 18th, 2005 at 12:19 pm
Which is fine. Yet it would be intellectually irresponsible to demand that I embrace Dawkins' belief about history simply because of this.
Comment by MikeGene — July 18, 2005 @ 12:19 pm