Turning a Hypothesis into History
by MikeGeneIn an interview with Richard Dawkins, Jim Holt writes:
"Why did humans lose their body hair? Why did they start walking on their hind legs? Why did they develop big brains? I think that the answer to all three questions is sexual selection," Dawkins said. Hairlessness advertises your health to potential mates, he explained. The less hair you have on your body, the less real estate you make available to lice and other ectoparasites. Of course, it was worth keeping the hair on our heads to protect against sunstroke, which can be very dangerous in Africa, where we evolved. As for the hair in our armpits and pubic regions, that was probably retained because it helps disseminate "pheromones," airborne scent signals that still play a bigger role in our sex lives than most of us realize. (It occurred to me that becoming hairless also meant we didn't have to spend all our leisure grooming one another to remove lice, like other primates, thereby freeing up time to create capitalism. But I kept this thought to myself.)
Let me offer some thoughts that I won't keep to myself. While there are many lessons to be derived from this hypothesis, for today, I will hit on one.
I would agree with Dawkins that humans evolved. After all, I have not heard a good creationist explanation for armpit and pubic hair. I would also agree that sexual selection occurs (although one evolutionary biologist declared that Darwin's theory of sexual selection is dead ). However, does the acknowledgement of human evolution and sexual selection mandate that we all must embrace Dawkins' hypothesis?
Of course not. What Dawkins offers is a hypothesis, otherwise known as an educated guess. And there are problems with the hypothesis. For example, how does such a generalized explanation work to explain such an unusual event "“ mammals losing their hair? Surely there are many other primates and mammals where hairlessness would also advertise their health to potential mates. Dawkins would need to explain why his hypothesis applies to the lineage that led to humans, but not chimps (etc.). Furthermore, less real estate available to lice and other ectoparasites means less need to groom, which means less opportunity to evolve social bonding, which is a problem for explaining such a thoroughly social being as a human.
Yet even if there were no problems with Dawkins' hypothesis, would we still be expected to embrace it as history? No. By its very nature, it remains a hypothesis and thus it is Dawkins' job to turn his hypothesis into history. As a skeptic, one acknowledges the hypothesis as a reasonable, even testable, speculation. But the proponent of the hypothesis has no epistemic justification for demanding others embrace it and insulting them if they don't. That would be an attempt to turn a hypothesis into history with the use of rhetoric and public intimidation.
At what point does any hypothesis become history? There is no objective standard or checklist. There is no AI program. Instead, what happens is the hypothesis is used to make predictions. Successful predictions become a track record of success. Humans are drawn to success and thus a consensus develops within a community. In other words, the transformation of a hypothesis is a squishy endeavor, depending on judgments of success, the accumulation of data that can be viewed as circumstantial evidence, and the extent to with which an idea becomes popular among a community of inquirers.
With judgments of success, we should be concerned about human psychology and our tendency to cherry pick and engage in revisionism. A proponent of a hypothesis is more likely to focus on the successes and remember only the successes. With circumstantial evidence, there is always of the Lesson of Microsporidia, where a hypothesis that was so strongly supported turned out to be fundamentally wrong. There is also the fact that data only become evidence as a function of mind. With consensus, we should be concerned about sociological factors and cultural reasons that may influence such mass agreement. Like I said, it's squishy.
In the end, the decision to turn a hypothesis into history is a function of our free will. There is no neuro-algorithm that will automatically transform the input of data into the output of belief. And there is no guarantee that belief must necessarily reflect actual history. With respect to any hypothesis about history, there will always be at least three options: 1) reject the hypothesis as wrong; 2) remain agnostic about the hypothesis; 3) embrace the hypothesis as history. Those who choose one of the options will plead their case and the circle continues.
July 10th, 2005 at 12:15 pm
The circle continues as long as the theory remains abstract and isolated from the real world. It is interaction with reality which has a filtering effect, separating out realistic hypotheses from more fanciful ones. Even historical theories have practical implications one way or another. Science is not solipsism.
Comment by Mark Nutter — July 10, 2005 @ 12:15 pm
July 10th, 2005 at 5:31 pm
Hmm. This hypothesis thing is all very well. However, suppose for a minute that the ball was on the other foot - and that humans were much hairier than other primates. I suspect it would be just as possible to construct a plausible-sounding "hypothesis" to explain this state of affairs. As is pointed out, the "fewer ecto-parasites" part of the hypothesis could just as easily mitigate against evolution towards social creatures.
As I think is hinted at in the original post, part of the problem with darwinism is that as a whole theory it is so plastic. The "hypotheses" (like this one) often can't be demonstrated in a lab, and often propose one mechanism when a case could just as easily be made for an alternative one that would have led in a completely different direction.
I also wonder: in a world in which there are many and varied complex challenges to survival, is it really plausible that subtle differences would have such a significant effect on populations? Has anybody done proper modelling of this to show whether it could be the case?
Comment by Exile From Groggs — July 10, 2005 @ 5:31 pm
July 11th, 2005 at 8:24 am
Hi Mark,
The filter of reality is only as effective as our ability to recognize it at work. The filter works fairly well in the present (as it interfaces with the near future), for here our recognition can ideally consist of observations. But with history, we move beyond the observation into the realm of perception. You say that historical theories have practical implications. Yes, but a practical implication is not the same as experiencing reality.
Science is not solipsism, but not all science is the same. The physicist views biology as soft science, the biologist views psychology as soft science, and the psychologist views history as part of the humanities department. And we already know that science is limited by its methods and instruments. For example, science, working with the filter of reality, cannot tell us whether or not God exists.
Comment by MikeGene — July 11, 2005 @ 8:24 am
July 11th, 2005 at 12:28 pm
Scientific theories compete with one another. The "filtering" effect of reality manifests itself in that theories that are consistent with reality are going to be more successful in predicting observations that are consistent with what we actually observe, directly or indirectly. At the level of the individual researcher, I agree, the "filter" is more dependent on our individual ability to recognize it at work. But in the larger domain of science, the peer review process works to reduce the dependence on individual recognition. Your Microsporidia example is a good illustration of the self-correcting nature of the scientific process–even when it goes astray, feedback from critical observation helps filter out false perceptions and conclusions (eventually :).
But science is rooted in real-world fact and observation, not in "free will" or personal preference. Where direct observation is impossible, conclusions should be based on the inferences that are consistent with the greatest number of facts that are observable. To do otherwise would be less than scientific.
Comment by Mark Nutter — July 11, 2005 @ 12:28 pm
July 12th, 2005 at 8:20 am
Yet we still don't know when the hypothesis becomes history. You write, "conclusions should be based on the inferences that are consistent with the greatest number of facts that are observable." 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?
Furthermore, how do we know that competition between A, B, and C is not influenced by factors other than the filter of reality?
Also, competition between A, B, and C is a competition between what out limited mentalities can envision, where neither A, B, or C may reflect history as it was.
And yes, the Lesson of Microsproridia shows that science is responsive to feedback from reality (we both agree science is not solipsism). Our view of microsporidian history in 1987 was quite different than the view in 2005. But the lesson teaches us that it could again be quite different in 2025.
Comment by MikeGene — July 12, 2005 @ 8:20 am
July 18th, 2005 at 12:50 am
"Hypothesis" does not mean "educated guess" beyond the fifth grade.
Here, try this definition: "Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations. "
You can find it here:
Comment by edarrell — July 18, 2005 @ 12:50 am
July 18th, 2005 at 12:50 am
Oh, good grief. Find the definition here
Comment by edarrell — July 18, 2005 @ 12:50 am
July 18th, 2005 at 2:02 am
In other words - an educated guess.
Comment by MikeGene — July 18, 2005 @ 2:02 am