Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution: Science, Pseudo-Science, or Both?
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1327 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 16 of 198 (199041)
04-13-2005 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Sylas
04-12-2005 6:26 PM


quote:
Identifiying "pseudoscience" is a problem for philosophy of science, and it is not easy. There have been attempts to give formal definitions which can make a sharp distinction between science and pseudoscience; but it is widely felt that this is not really a sharp distinction at all.
  —Sylas
And this is exactly what I'm trying to understand -- I've been praying over and studying intently the history of science, and have noticed an interesting pattern.
quote:
When a theory is first brought forth, it usually makes a rather outstanding psuedo-scientific claims at first -- and then, with further testing, it seems to be wittled down and refined to a clearer scientific resolution closer to the truth.
In discussing this distinction between the initial claims of a theory when compared to its more formally tested conclusions, Karl Popper certainly comes to mind -- specifically the distinction he noted between science and psuedo-science.
As Phillip E. Johnon points out in his book Darwin on Trial:
quote:
Karl Popper provides the indispensible starting point for understanding the difference between science and pseudoscience. Popper spent his formative years in early twnetieth century Vienna, where intellectual life was dominated by science-based ideologies like Marxism and the psychoanalytic schools of Freud and Adler. These were widely held accepted as legitimate branches of natural science, and they attracted large followings among intellectuals because they appeared to have such immense explanatory power. Acceptance of either Marxism or psychoanalysis has, as Popper observed,
the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, opening your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirming instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refused to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still 'un-analyzed' crying aloud for treatment. . . .A Marxist could not open a newspaper without finding on every page confirming evidence for his interpretation of history; not only in the news, but also in its presentation -- which revealed the class bias of the paper -- and especially of course in what the paper did not say. The Freudian analysts emphasized that their theories were constantly verified by their 'clinical observatins.'

As Johnson comments on Popper's observations, if wages fell this was because the capitalists were exploiting the workers (just as Marx predicted they would), and if wages rose this was because the capitalists were trying to save a rotten system with bribery (which was also what Marxism predicted).
Similarly, as Johnson comments on Popper's observations, a psychoanalyst could explain why a man would commit murder -- or; with equal facility, why the same man would sacrifice his own life to save another.
Popper effectively noted that a theory that appears to explain everything actually explains nothing -- and that a theory with genuine explanatory power makes risky predictions, predictions which exclude most possible outcomes. This is to say, as Johnson highlights repeatedly in his book, success in prediction is impressive only to the extent that failure was a real possibility.
Looking back through the history of scientific developments, noting the emergence of science from psuedo-science, a few theories come to mind -- theories which made extraordinary claims at first, but, after being tested and refined more, even though they were still found to be very usefull, were still nonetheless found to not contain as much truth as was intially claimed.
For another example, as Eric J. Lerner points out in his book The Big Bang Never Happened, even Big Bang cosmology may be somewhat indebted to ancient religious concepts of a creation ex nihilo. Although I would disagree with Eric J. Lerner's endorsement of the Steady State theory, I would nonetheless agree that faith in what the "myth" had to say may have nonetheless inspired generations of researchers to search for scientific answers to verify it.
Coming back to Johnson's thoughts on Popper, I also agree that Popper strongly opposed logical positivism -- that he recognized that to discard all metaphysics as meaningless could potentially make all knowledge impossible, including scientific knowledge.
First of all, universal statements, such as general scientific laws, are not verifiable. Skeptical philosophers -- especially David Hume -- have even questioned whether a series of factual observations could really establish the validity of a gernal law. As Johnson recollects about Hume, one thing may follow another again and again in our inevitably limited experience, but there is always the possibility that further observations will reveal exceptions that disprove the rule.
Discussing the dangers of verifiability should not simply be seen as one engaging in mere theoretical possibilties. Scientists were quite stunned to see the apparently invulnerable edifice of Newtonian physics crumble when modern techniques made it possible to make new kinds of observations.
Approaching this discussion from the other angle, however, it should be noted that Popper did believe that it was out of metaphysics (our imaginative conjectures of the world) that science had emerged.
To reiterate my previous claims, even modern day astronomers may owe an enomrous debt to the astrologers of the past in so far as their meticulous techniques were emulated to observe the "heavens". Furthermore, the mythological stories left behind by their psuedo-sciences, even though they were later rejected, provided ample inspiration for later generations to initially look deeper into the sky in order to find the real truth.
As Johnson recounts, Popper insisted that metaphysical doctrines are frequently meaningful and important. Although they may not be able to always be tested scientifically, they can nonetheless be criticized, and reasons given for preferring one metaphysical opinion over another.
Popper, even though he frequently scorned and ridiculed their usage of logic, still creditted pseudoscientists like Freud and Adler with valuable insights that might one day play their part in a genuine science of psychology.
His criticism was not that their theories were nonsense, but merely that they were deluded in thinking that they could "verify" those theories by clinical examinations that always allowed them to find exactly what they expected to find.
Jeremy Rifkin in his book The Biotech Century recalled the work of Otto Rank, a contemporary of Freud who had similar ideas. Rank suggested that our concepts of nature are supremely self-serving, reflecting our desire to make everything conform to our current image of ourselves. He believed that our concepts of nature tell us more about ourselves at any given moment of time than they do about nature itself.
Similarly, Historian of Science Robert Young of Cambridge University would agree with Rank. He argues that there is no neutral naturalism -- that when we pentrate to the core of our scientific beliefs, we find that they are as much influenced by our culture as all our other belief systems.
More to the point, as Rifkin recalls, anthropologist C.R. Hallpike of McMaster University in Canada contends that "the kinds of representation of nature. . . .that we construct" flow from the way "we interact with the physical environment of our fellows."
Coming back to Otto Rank, it should be noted that he suggested that Darwin's theory was simply the English bourgeosie looking into the mirror of nature and seeing their own behavior reflected there.
While I would disagree with this to some extent, because I believe evolution to be a fact and not just a theory, it does remain a fact that Darwin was product of his time -- and subject ot the flights and fanices that embroidered the Victorian landscape.
Like University of Connecticut historian John C. Greene note, "like every other scientist, Darwin approached nature, human nature, ans society with ideas derived from his culture."
If this is true, if we are to understand Darwin's theory, then it may also be necessary to understand the economic, social, and political environment that provided the imagery that he used to sketch his "creation"
As others have observed, Darwin constructed a theory of nature that, in its every particular, reinforced the operating assumptions of the Industrial Age he lived in.
For example, he saw the same principles of division of labor at work in nature. After reading Malthus, he came to realize that, as in human society, populations bred beyond their means, leaving survivors and losers in the effort to exist.
Likewise, in the first volume of A System of Synthetic Philosophy, entitled First Principles (1862), Spencer argued that all phenomena could be explained in terms of a lengthy process of evolution in things. This account of evolution provided a complete and 'predetermined' structure for the kind of variation noted by Darwin -- and Darwin's respect for Spencer was significant.
Darwin's descriptions relied heavily on machine imagery. He came to personally view livings things as the sum total of parts assembled. Even the origins of life were seen within the biological equivalent of nature’s assembly line (morphology from micro-organisms straight up to humanity).
In short, as others have pointed out, Darwin borrowed just about everything he experienced from the popular culture of his time and transposed them onto nature.
I confess that, as Sylas has pointed out, evolution is no longer percieved within the 19th century concept of linear progress -- the assembly line of life if you will. Rather, it seems to be a long-term tendency and a trend.
Yet it still in no way precludes crisis and lengthy setbacks. In fact, such crisis seem to be an unavoidable part of evolution. Although life continues to expand, it has also suffered repeated crisis and mass extinctions which continue to occur when one global ecosystem has reached its limits and collapses.
Obviously the theory has changed since Darwins' time. Yet, to some extent, people are still consistently seeing a pattern where our origins of life are seen within the similar context of the biological equivalent of the scientific method. In other words, the theory of evolution seems to be a mirror image of the scientific method broadcast over the origins of species -- noting an analogy between "trial and error" in contrast to "prediction and modification" or even "natural selection and mutation" -- it appears to be, at least on some level, exactly what a scientifically minded person would expect to find.
Edit: Spelling and page layout.
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-13-2005 07:57 PM
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-13-2005 07:59 PM
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-13-2005 08:02 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Sylas, posted 04-12-2005 6:26 PM Sylas has not replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1327 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 17 of 198 (199086)
04-13-2005 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Brad McFall
04-13-2005 6:24 PM


This is very interesting.
Could you tell me more about how Rene Thom related his notions of catastrophe theory in morphogenesis?
Also, could you tell me more about Faraday's thoughts regarding matter having been "thrown" into an electrotonic state?
Edit: corrected "electrotonic".
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-13-2005 08:46 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Brad McFall, posted 04-13-2005 6:24 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Brad McFall, posted 04-13-2005 9:37 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 18 of 198 (199090)
04-13-2005 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-13-2005 9:07 PM


it's electrotonic not electronic
quote:
Thom's theory is an attempt to describe, in a way that is impossible using differential calculus, those situations in which gradually changing forces lead to so-called catastrophes, or abrupt changes. The theory has widespread application in the physical and biological sciences and in the social sciences. Presented by Thom in Structural Stability and Morphogenesis (1972), the theory has since been developed by many mathematicians. However, writing in [6], Thom explains why the theory which was marked by enormous popular success has fallen from favour:-
It is a fact that catastrophe theory is dead. But one could say that it died of its own success. It was brought down by the extension from analytical (or algebraic) models to models that were only smooth. For as soon as it became clear that the theory did not permit quantitative prediction, all good minds ... decided it was of no value. When it comes down to it, this extension resulted from B Malgrange's extension of the preparation theorem.
Page Not Found - MacTutor History of Mathematics
I am uncertain this is the last word, even though Thom is dead. There is still a place for this work in extinctions but the math of death is hard just to think. The alternative to Thom in biology in France is COLLET who writes on lexicographic infinity and complexity in ways that Gladyshev would not like much. Collet respected Thom because the discretness of his math approach in biology did not seem to suggest forms (analyticity).
Maxwell wrote up Faraday's ideas and gave them an imaginary existence and equations but it was never applied. It seems that Herz discovery of em waves took physics down a different alley. I have analyzed it, perhaps incorrectly, to Farady's noticing that there was a bipolarity but no multipolarity. The enumeration of chemical combinations seems to be a reason it has not gotten a better hearing but the standard view is that the "line of force" does not exist so that then this notion would not. Ill edit some more here as well.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-16-2005 08:38 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-13-2005 9:07 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17815
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 19 of 198 (199134)
04-14-2005 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-12-2005 5:42 PM


It seems to me that your "pattern" represents a very selective view.
In the case of heliocentricity the "larger claim" is essentially a hold-over from the pre-existing view. It is a smaller step to move from holding that the Earth is the centre of the universe to the idea that the sun is, than it would be to even move to the idea that our solar system does to hold a privileged position let alone to the idea that there is no real centre.
The larger claims of Newtonian mechanics would presumably be to hold that the theory was universal. Yet to a very large extent this is true - it is only under some conditions that we must resort to Relativity or Quantum Mechanics.
Likewise chemical elements are universal. We sometimes discover or more usually synthesise elements predicted by the theory but not known in nature but a "different periodic table" is the stuff of bad (very bad) SF.
Darwin's claims are not so universal - while the principles may apply elsewhere they may only apply where the right conditions are found. Here on Earth, common ancestry - which surely counts as a larger claim - has been thoroughly confirmed. In the area of mechanism Darwin never claimed that Natural Selection was the only mechanism and the range of mechanisms included within evolution has been expanded (for instance the symbiotic theory's explanation of mitochondria).
Even if the supposed "pattern" did exist what larger claims are there that we can reasonably say has not been established ? And could they turn out to be badly wrong like the Heliocentric Universe or would they be more likely to be accurate except for special cases, more like Newton ?
Mayr identifies 5 major ideas (What Evolution is Box 5.1 p86):
1) The nonconstancy of species
2) Common Ancestry
3) No saltational change
4) Multiplication of species (i.e. branching evolution)
5) Natural selection
While 3 and - in principle 1 - might not apply in unusual cases none of these could even possibly be as wrong as the heliocentric universe. Biologists have been criticised for understating 4, for instance in the case of horse evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-12-2005 5:42 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-15-2005 11:50 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 39 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-16-2005 8:43 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 42 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-16-2005 12:55 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1327 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 20 of 198 (199409)
04-14-2005 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Loudmouth
04-13-2005 3:31 PM


quote:
Actually, you can turn lead into gold.
Yes. I know. But, even as you note below, researchers now employ particle accelerators and sometimes even nuclear reactors -- not laboratory tools, mineral acids, and alcohols.
As Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D. notes in her article "Is Alchemy Real?"
quote:
Before Chemistry was a science, there was Alchemy. One of the supreme quests of alchemy is to transmute lead into gold. Lead (atomic number 82) and gold (atomic number 79) are defined as elements by the number of protons they possess. Changing the element requires changing the atomic (proton) number. The number of protons cannot be altered by any chemical means. However, physics may be used to add or remove protons and thereby change one element into another. Because lead is stable, forcing it to release three protons requires a vast input of energy, such that the cost of transmuting it greatly surpasses the value of the resulting gold.
Helmenstine goes on to say:
quote:
Transmutation of lead into gold isn't just theoretically possible - it has been achieved! There are reports that Glenn Seaborg, 1951 Nobel Laureate in Chemistry, succeeded in transmuting a minute quantity of lead (possibly en route from bismuth, in 1980) into gold. There is an earlier report (1972) in which Soviet physicists at a nuclear research facility near Lake Baikal in Siberia accidentally discovered a reaction for turning lead into gold when they found the lead shielding of an experimental reactor had changed to gold.
A charged particle is accelerated using electrical and/or magnetic fields. In a linear accelerator, the charged particles drift through a series of charged tubes separated by gaps. Every time the particle emerges between gaps, it is accelerated by the potential difference between adjacent segments. In a circular accelerator, magnetic fields accelerate particles moving in circular paths. In either case, the accelerated particle impacts a target material, potentially knocking free protons or neutrons and making a new element or isotope. Nuclear reactors also may used for creating elements, although the conditions are less controlled.
quote:
It just happens to be a nuclear reaction instead of a chemical reaction.
Which is a perfect example of the separation and proper distinction between science and psudoscience as a result of further research into the phenomenon.
The alchemists of old were correct in noting that things indeed can be mixed together to create new and unique substances that had not been observed before. However, it was their pseudo-scientific impulses -- the belief that they could turn gold into lead for one example -- that ultimately drove them to look into these things further.
While it is admitted that the tools they had available to them were simply not powerful or accurate enough to produce the results that they desired to achieve, it seems to have nonetheless provided the impulse for later generations to give up their search for this level of transmutation on the purely chemical level and instead develop an entirely new scientific discipline when knowledge of the atomic structure become available and researchers actually had the tools available to transmute the elements on an atomic level.
In addition to this, as Larry Jones' Journey into Science article remarks, alchemists nonetheless set up many basic procedures that are easilly recognized to be genuinely scientific even though their impulse was initlaly pseudo-scientific:
quote:
The alchemist were a varied lot. Some were charlatans, some professed to be wizards, some were just con men. But most were early researchers. They worked with making glass, brick, pottery, and fermenting fruit juices (acid research).
Alchemist are given credit for three major contributions to science:
lab techniques
medicines
lab tools and supplies
Lab techniques: the alchemist attempted and developed the following procedures, still used today.
distillation — heating 2 or more liquids (mixed together) so that the liquid with the lowest boiling point (the most volatile or mot easily evaporated) is turned to vapor which is then condensed (returned to liquid state) and collected in another container
filtration — using some material which strains out solid particles from solution
crystallization — causing some solution to form crystals, usually by drying it
coagulation — causing a liquid to become a soft, semi-solid mass
evaporation — using heat to cause a liquid (or some part of liquid) to be changed into a vapor
extraction — removing one liquid or solid from another mixture by using solvents (substances that will dissolve another substance) that dissolves only one of the original substances, thus forming a separate layer or area where separation takes place.
Medicines — The alchemist had always sought a way of transforming people into more perfect human begins and becoming a doctor and learning the use of medicines helped. This helped the alchemist gain the confidence of the people as well as making a living.
Lab Tools and Supplies — A number of the tools we use in lab today were devised by the alchemist. Of great importance, mineral acids and alcohols were developed. The use of minerals in the lab was new. Before only plant and animal matter had been used. The significance of this is that minerals are usually present in large quantities, they are easily transported, and the properties do not change as rapidly as organic materials (long shelf life).
H2SO4 = Sulfuric Acid
HCl = Hydrochloric Acid
HNO3 = Nitric Acid
So, what were the three goals of these alchemist:
turn base metals into gold and silver with the Philosopher’s Stone (they thought they could use their early chemistry — mix materials to turn the metals into gold — they saw tin and copper mix to form bronze — but they couldn’t do it — we can transmute metals today (certain combinations only) but it cost more money than its worth)
cure sickness by using the Elixor of Life (aren’t we still looking for the cure-all)
prolong life using the Fountain of Youth (if you could live for a longer span, you would also need the cure-all for disease and plenty of gold)

quote:
Well, actually, scientists are working on changing the chemistry of the cell (ie DNA sequence) to lengthen a person's life.
Yes. I know.
quote:
It may not require fire, but manipulation of the chemistry of life may in fact result in ever-lasting life.
Yes. And the manipulation of the chemistry of life may in fact not result in ever-lasting life upon further research. It is entirely possible that in future years people might even scoff at this "primitive" idea as being one of the major "pseudo-sciences" of the 21st century.
In short, for all we know right now, this example may in fact be a perfect example of a modern day pseudo-scientific "impulse" for questing after knowledge.
But, even if the manipulation of the chemistry of life doesn't result in ever-lasting life, the world will most likely still greatly benfit from the "inspiration" behind those who engaged in research -- even if they prove it to not nearly as close to the truth as they originally believed.
quote:
Why were these pursuits pseudo-scientific?
I think I've explained the distinction clearly at this point. Please review some of the information that I've outlined and quoted already.
If you still disagree with me, then let me know and we can discuss it further. I may be misunderstanding it. But, then again, maybe others here are misunderstanding this.
Perhaps a further discussion will help all of us understand the distinction between science and pseudo-science a bit better.
quote:
A pseudoscience is a methodology that does not rely on testable natural mechanisms. For instance, including supernatural forces to describe a natural phenomena is the hallmark of a pseudoscience. Zeus hurling lightning or God supernaturally pouring water from windows in heaven are two perfect examples of pseudoscience. Less extreme pseudosciences are ghost hunting and ESP research, both of which use untestable mechanisms to explain phenomena. Some ESP research is trying to be scientific, but the use of ad hoc hypotheses weakens it's hold on scientific methodology.
Actually, this definition of pseudo-science that you've provided seems to be too restrictive. To put it simply, researchers can very easilly engage in actual science based on a pseudo-scientific impulse.
To express it more technically, consider its definition amongst various on-line dictionaries:
quote:
Dictionary
pseudoscience (s'd-s'əns)
n.
A theory, methodology, or practice that is considered to be without scientific foundation.
pseu'dosci'entif'ic (-ən-tĭf'ĭk) adj.
pseu'dosci'entist n.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright 2004, 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Science
pseudoscience (sooh-doh-seye-uhns)
A system of theories or assertions about the natural world that claim or appear to be scientific but that, in fact, are not. For example, astronomy is a science, but astrology is generally viewed as a pseudoscience.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition Edited by E.D. Hirsch, Jr., Joseph F. Kett, and James Trefil. Copyright 2002 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
WordNetNote: The noun pseudoscience has one meaning:
Meaning #1: an activity resembling science but based on fallacious assumptions
--------------------------------------------------------------------
WordNet 1.7.1 Copyright 2001 by Princeton University. All rights reserved.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Wikipedia
pseudoscience
A pseudoscience is any body of knowledge purported to be scientific or supported by science but which fails to comply with the scientific method. Pseudoscience is a kind of counterfeit or masquerade of science which makes use of some of the superficial trappings of science but does not involve the substance of science.
Advocacy of pseudoscience may occur for a number of reasons, ranging from simple naivet about the nature of science and the scientific method, to deliberate deception for financial or political benefit.
Some people consider some or all forms of pseudoscience to be harmless entertainment. Others, such as Richard Dawkins, consider all forms of pseudoscience to be harmful, whether or not they result in immediate harm to their followers.
Classifying pseudoscience
Pseudoscience fails to meet the criteria met by science generally (including the scientific method), and can be identified by a combination of these characteristics:
by asserting claims or theories without first verifying them in experiments
by asserting claims which cannot be verified
by asserting claims without supporting experimental evidence;
by asserting claims which contradict experimentally established results;
by failing to provide an experimental possibility of reproducible results;
by failing to submit results to peer review prior to publicizing them (called "science by press conference")
by claiming a theory predicts something that it does not;
by claiming a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict;
by asserting claims that violate falsifiability; or
by violating Occam's Razor (the controversial principle of choosing the explanation that requires the fewest additional assumptions when multiple viable explanations are possible); the more egregious the violation, the more likely.
lack of progress toward additional evidence of its claims
Pseudoscience is distinguishable from revelation, theology or spirituality in that it claims to offer insight into the physical world by "scientific" means. Systems of thought that rely upon "divine" or "inspired" knowledge are not considered pseudoscience if they do not claim to be scientific or to overturn well-established science. There are also bodies of practical knowledge that are not claimed to be scientific. These are not pseudoscience.
Pseudoscience is also distinguishable from misleading statements in some Popular science, where commonly held beliefs are thought to meet the criteria of science, but often don't. The issue is muddled, however, because it is believed that "pop" science blurs the divide between science and pseudoscience among the general public.
Pseudoscience contrasted with protoscience
Pseudoscience also differs from protoscience. Protoscience is a term sometimes used to describe a hypothesis that has not yet been tested adequately by the scientific method, but which is otherwise consistent with existing science or which, where inconsistent, offers reasonable account of the inconsistency.
Pseudoscience, in contrast, is characteristically wanting adequate tests or the possibility of them, occasionally untestable in principle, and its supporters are frequently strident in insisting that existing scientific results are wrong. Pseudoscience is often unresponsive to ordinary scientific procedures (e.g., peer review, publication in standard journals). In some cases, no one applying scientific methods could disprove a pseudoscientific hypothesis (i.e. untestable claims) and failure to do so is often cited as evidence of the truth of the pseudoscience.
The boundaries between pseudoscience, protoscience, and "real" science are often unclear to non-specialist observers. They can even be obscure to experts. Many people have tried to offer objective criteria for the term, with mixed success. Often the term is used simply as a pejorative to express the speaker's low opinion of a given field, regardless of any objective measures.
If the claims of a given pseudoscience can be experimentally tested it may be real science, however odd, astonishing, or intuitively unacceptable. If they cannot be tested, it is likely pseudoscience. If the claims made are inconsistent with existing experimental results or established theory, it is often presumed to be pseudoscience. Conversely, if the claims of any given "science" cannot be experimentally tested it may not be a real science, however obvious or intuitively acceptable.
quote:
So how was Galileo's Theory pseudoscience? Even within the quote it says "He presented a clear theory that could be easilly tested against the pattern of the planet's motions." This means that Galileo was doing science, not pseudoscience. His theory was completely testable through nature instead of the pseudoscientific method of revelation through interpreted scripture.
Yes. But I didn't say Galileo was engaging in pseudo-scientific research. I've said repeatedly that the inspiration behind his search was astrology -- a discipline which is qualitatively considered pseudo-science by todays standards.
quote:
The real pseudoscience was using Scripture and spiritual revelation to describe nature, the same pseudoscience being used by creationists today.
But wasn't Darwin's inspiration behind his development of the theory of evolution his concern that he thought there was just "too much misery in the world"?
quote:
I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent and omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidae with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of Caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice.
Charles Darwin
Other examples he pointed to included "ants making slaves" and "the young cuckoo ejecting its foster-brother." These apparent cruel inconsistencies within the universe severely contrasted against Darwin's concept of God as being ultimately benevolent.
If I recall correctly, it was pseudo-scientific reasons like this one (among a few others others) that deeply inspired Darwin to explain the speciation of all life from primitive cells by purely mechanical means so that his concept of God as good and benevolent could be reconciled with the existence of evil. In other words, he seem to have been engaging in a scientific attempt at theodicy though naturalistic explanations that separate God's immediate hand on his creation so that God would be effectively immune to the blaim that many often ascribed to the creator.
Edit: Spelling and page layout.
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-14-2005 04:57 PM
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-16-2005 06:08 AM
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-16-2005 06:18 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Loudmouth, posted 04-13-2005 3:31 PM Loudmouth has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 04-14-2005 6:02 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied
 Message 22 by mick, posted 04-14-2005 6:11 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 21 of 198 (199414)
04-14-2005 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-14-2005 5:52 PM


Wasn't Galileo simply following in the footsteps of a long line of thinkers exploring the heliocentric universe? Far from psuedo-science I would say it was classic science, first making observations and then seeing where those observation led. There was no hint of astrology, it was simply a matter of the observations supported the helicentric system and did not support the universe revolving around the earth.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-14-2005 5:52 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-14-2005 6:49 PM jar has replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4976 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 22 of 198 (199419)
04-14-2005 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-14-2005 5:52 PM


You've given us lots of definitions of pseudoscience.
Your original point was that Darwinism specifically is still in the realm of pseudoscience.
Please can you substantiate this argument by giving specific examples from evolutionary biology that you consider to be pseudoscientific? That way, we can move beyond dictionary quoting.
mick

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-14-2005 5:52 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Brad McFall, posted 04-14-2005 6:44 PM mick has replied
 Message 26 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-14-2005 6:58 PM mick has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 23 of 198 (199436)
04-14-2005 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by mick
04-14-2005 6:11 PM


I would say Wright's "adaptive landscape". Fisher probably and Provine recently have said that it is "unintelligable" and yet Will Provine has documented many instances where evolutionary biologists have used it and taught it. I tend to think Fisher and Provine mistaken but this would bring evos a long way baby if I am correct else it seems to fit MD's pattern of pseudo, evos using something "that doesnt even begin to work"(Provine in the Sewall Wright biography), to think they were doing something and investigating evolution therethrough despite it even after Will denied it. The only alternative is to assert that Will is correct and not only were they (some evos) NOT doing science but that use of the adaptive landscape fails. That is what I disagree with but if that was consenus I would not have this point. I think I do.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-14-2005 05:45 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by mick, posted 04-14-2005 6:11 PM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by mick, posted 04-14-2005 6:50 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1327 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 24 of 198 (199437)
04-14-2005 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by jar
04-14-2005 6:02 PM


quote:
Wasn't Galileo simply following in the footsteps of a long line of thinkers exploring the heliocentric universe?
Really?
quote:
Far from psuedo-science I would say it was classic science, first making observations and then seeing where those observation led. There was no hint of astrology, it was simply a matter of the observations supported the helicentric system and did not support the universe revolving around the earth.
Have you read post #14 yet?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by jar, posted 04-14-2005 6:02 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 04-14-2005 7:03 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4976 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 25 of 198 (199438)
04-14-2005 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Brad McFall
04-14-2005 6:44 PM


yeah, i've often thought that the adaptive landscape is just a good excuse for drawing complicated-looking 3d graphs
Like any graph, it's an aid to thought. It's an aid to understanding a multidimentional problem (this is why the "landscape" is so often drawn in 3d, because it just happens to be the number of dimensions our brain can comprehend from paper).
But I'm not sure it's an accepted part of evolutionary theory rather than just a convenient way of thinking about a multidimensional problem. I mean I'm not sure that biologists are using this idea to generate hypotheses all that often. Rather to interpret the results of their hypotheses in an intelligible way.
[added in edit - Brad, please could you provide the Provine reference? I haven't read it]
This message has been edited by mick, 04-14-2005 05:52 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Brad McFall, posted 04-14-2005 6:44 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Brad McFall, posted 04-14-2005 9:56 PM mick has not replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1327 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 26 of 198 (199441)
04-14-2005 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by mick
04-14-2005 6:11 PM


quote:
You've given us lots of definitions of pseudoscience.
Which were called for in order to substantiate the original premise of this argument.
quote:
Your original point was that Darwinism specifically is still in the realm of pseudoscience.
Yes and no.
My orignal point was that Darwinism could possibly still be in the realm of pseudo-science -- and that we would have no way of knowing this in our modern time.
quote:
Please can you substantiate this argument by giving specific examples from evolutionary biology that you consider to be pseudoscientific? That way, we can move beyond dictionary quoting.
Why?
I've already admitted that, according to our current level of knowledge, the thoery of evolution more than adequately explains our origins on a purely materialistic level.
If, after having exlained all this, you are still asking me for examples of things within the theory of evolution that might be considered pseudo-scinetific -- so that you can display the awesome amount of evidence that supports evolution -- then I suspect that you are completely misunderstanding the original clearly stated intention behind my posting this.
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-14-2005 06:02 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by mick, posted 04-14-2005 6:11 PM mick has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by mick, posted 04-27-2005 6:32 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 27 of 198 (199442)
04-14-2005 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-14-2005 6:49 PM


Have you read post #14 yet?
Yup. That's why I'm replying.
I think you may be making some errors related to the sequence of events that led to Galileo's pronouncements. He was not the originator of the heliocentric theory but only the person who finally developed the equipment that allowed verification of the predictions that resulted from that theory.
You might have a better case comparing Kepler's theories to pseudo-sciece, but not Galileo's.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-14-2005 6:49 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-14-2005 7:22 PM jar has replied

  
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1327 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 28 of 198 (199445)
04-14-2005 7:22 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by jar
04-14-2005 7:03 PM


quote:
I think you may be making some errors related to the sequence of events that led to Galileo's pronouncements.
Well that's entirely possible.
However, I think I have displayed a progression of the science of astonomy emerging from (and being influenced by) the pseudo-science of astrology.
Likewise, Galileo did actualy do astrological readings for others -- and he may have very well continued in the refinement of astrology into astronomy for this very reason. Considering he was a contemporary of Kepler, it seems highly likely -- especially since a copy of Introductio in Ptolemaei opus de effectibus astrorum annotated in his hand still remains today at Florence.
Do you understand what I'm saying?
He added explanatory notes to the book and supplied it with critical comments -- essentially providing interlinear explanations for words or phrases within the book.
Why would he do this?
To me it seems highly likely that Galileo's inspiration for examining the heavens was to refine his astronomical knowledge in order to make more accurate astrological predictions.
quote:
He was not the originator of the heliocentric theory but only the person who finally developed the equipment that allowed verification of the predictions that resulted from that theory.
As I said before, the observations of the heavens which he carried out with his telescope certainly led to the discovery of mountains on the moon, the satellites of Jupiter and to Galileo's own increased adherence and refinement of the Copernican system.
Within his time, Galileo was sure that the earth revolved around the sun, and he even noticed that the milky way resolved into stars when he gazed at them through the telescope -- yet, at the same time, attached to this knowledge was an echo of the same astrological reasonings that, along with his friend and colleague Johannes Kepler, inspired many of his searches into the nature of the solar system.
Edit:
Again, as Nicholas Kollerstrom notes:
1) Galileo was a mathematicus as then included astronomy, astrology and mathematics.
2) He lectured at Padua, a college having centuries of tradition of teaching medical students how to cast horoscopes.
3) Galileo cast horoscopes for his daughters, for Sagredo and for the Medicis, and for these he wrote out character-interpretations as remain.
4) The 1604 summons and condemnation by the Venetian Holy Office (discovered by Poppi) concerned an undue fatalism in his astrological predictions, which the Church would not endure.
5) His correspondence indicates that he could be uncertain about aspects of chart interpetation, and sought guidance from colleagues.
6) Galileo's horoscopes for his own nativity offer the sole reliable evidence for his date of birth.
It is also interesting to note, as put forth by Kollerstrom, that a recent academic debate (Biagioli-Westman) has focussed on the 'astrologico-dynastic encounter' whereby Galileo's dedication of the Jupiter moons to the Medici family hinged upon the dominant position of Jupiter in Cosimo II's horoscope, outlined in the Sidereus Nuncius foreword.
Galileo actually discussed with a correspondent in 1611 the question of the 'influence' of these 'Medici planets' as compared with the main body of Jupiter, surmising that such smaller bodies had a more "intellectial" rather than "emotional" influence.
Furthermore, as noted by the above authour, there is no clear evidence that Galileo became sceptical over astrology in later life. His Dialogue attacked those astrologers who were only wise after the event -- only those astrologers who did not make "genuine predictions", which again seems to affirm his genuine belief in what he was trying to predict base on astrological pseudo-science.
The opinion that the Dialogue's denial of lunar influence upon the tides expressed a scepticism over astrology is now understood to be without foundation. As Galileo came more and more under pressure, he finally presented the erroneous theory that the tides were caused by the turning of the earth per se. This easily disprovable theory was said to be the absolute secure proof of the Copernican system.
Furthermore, Galileo fought very hard not only for the Copernican system -- but also for several hypotheses that were out of date and represented a significant adherance to the old system.
For example, his already mentioned erroneous explanation of the tides was used as his major proof for the Copernican system, even though it was untenable and Kepler had discovered the real cause of the tides in the power of attraction of the moon.
In 1611, Galileo got into an argument on sunspots with the Jesuit Father Christopher Scheiner. Scheiner claimed he had discovered sunspots first and that they were small planets orbiting the sun. The dispute dragged on interminably and grew ever more rancorous.
Likewise, in 1618, Galileo explained some visible comets in a fiery work as reflexions of light, so that nobody believed the Jesuit astronomer Grassi, who realised that the comets were flying bodies. While the church scientists maintained that comets originated beyond the moon, Galileo's theory held (mistakenly) that they emanated from the earth's atmosphere.
Finally, Galileo was not a non-Christian scientist of the Enlightenment, but a convinced Catholic. It was indeed his endeavour to show the compatibility of his teachings with the Scriptures that, among other things, brought him into conflict with the Catholic establishment.
People can become obstinant on these points if they so desire. They can attempt to re-image Galileo as a totally data-orientated researcher totally divorsed from any pseudo-scientific influence or inspiration all they want to.
Yet, as more and more evidence comes forward, it becomes clearer that he was indeed engaged in astrological research -- and that his discoveries and insights, while highly scientific, were still nonethless most likely the due to his interest in the heavens for rather pseudo-scientific reasons.
When one couples this with his character as a deeply believing scientist, one notes that Galileo could not live with a discrepancy between science and faith -- which seemed to arise when he started to interpret the Scriptures. In fact, his attempts to interpret the Scriptures, as already noted above, were one of the main reasons which led to the trial.
People can say what they want, but his entire life seems to be heavily steeped in pseudo-science in many ways. But, then again, I'm not saying that Galileo was conducting pseudo-science when engaging his experiements.
My point is that Galileo was heavilly infleunced by pseudo-science to look deeper into the nature of reality -- and this his engaging in authentic scientific experiments was highly likely conducted to refine his pseudo-scientific practices.
Despite all the claims to the contrary, I've yet to see anyone present anything which reasonably reduces this highly probable inspiration and intention which Galileo most likely held.
Edit: Spelling.
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-14-2005 06:23 PM
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-14-2005 07:40 PM
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-14-2005 08:52 PM
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-14-2005 08:53 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by jar, posted 04-14-2005 7:03 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by jar, posted 04-14-2005 9:53 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 29 of 198 (199476)
04-14-2005 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-14-2005 7:22 PM


Two points.
First, while astrology is considered a pseudo-science today, I would not say that it was pseudo-science at the time. But regardless, even if he held some opinions that derived from astrology, his technique and method were classic science just as practiced today. He made observation and his conclusions were based on the evidence gathered. He went a step further and subjected his assertions to independent peer review. He published his findings, made his tools available to others and subjected his ideas to criticism.
If we look at the general output of his work we find the same techniques used in much that he did, from drawing to mathematics to paralax; all show that he used the classic scientific method.
remember, alchemy and astrology were simply wrong. It's not that they were pseudo-sciences at the time, given the knowledge, techinques and equipment of the period. And as they were falsified, they were dropped. It was only when they WERE falsified that they moved from the realm of science to pseudo-science.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-14-2005 7:22 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-14-2005 10:14 PM jar has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 30 of 198 (199478)
04-14-2005 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by mick
04-14-2005 6:50 PM


It seems Will could not get the info on maths out of Wright in the early 80s and wrote up his conclusions in 86.
Page Not Found - University of Chicago Press
I was in Africa with a grad student studying electric fish and learning more about the landscape related to forms than I had found in New Jersey then.
Gould in his last big book
Subjects and Series | Harvard University Press
seems to support this analysis of Will's (I was amazed at how conservative Gould was on
quote:
In this paper Wright developed and generalized the method of path coefficients. He showed that with systems of independent causes, the correlation between each independent cause and the effect was equal to the path coefficient, and in a connected chain of causes all acting in a linear fashion, the degree of determination of the effect must be a product of the component degrees of determination. In other words, the path coefficients for the entire chain of causes was the product of all the path coefficients in the chain. He showed how, in a general way, one must take into account causes that act nonadditively, as in the cases of causes with multiplicative effects or of correlated causes causes. Nonlinear relations between causes defeated the possibility of calculating the path coefficient of a chain of causes by the product of the component path coefficients, and Wright avoided this situation.
Chapter 5 page 138 op cit
this) but just as I got back from fighting off the psychiatrists in Florida, Simon gave me his paper that he wrote with Stu
quote:
Despite the limitations of the adaptive landscape metaphor
(is largely a reference to Will's analysis).
right as it was being published and I talked with Dr.Kauffman
about actual infinty and his cycles of rxns, but I did not find it very interesting (the paper with Dr. Levin)because they did not advance the notion of "mutatioin" in the process of working up their application off Wright's. Simon was visibly taken aback by my lack of interest but I had just been involuntarily confined against my will because I DID UNDERSTAND that stuff, so I wanted to see progress. I didnt see it.
Judging from the citiations
http://gunther.smeal.psu.edu/context/7283/0
Wright s metaphor saw a recent revival when sufficiently simple models of fitness landscapes became available
of this later 80s paper alone I think the landscape still has some life untainted by doctors against jesus. Will was analyzing science before this date. He got stuck on /with non-linear maths.
It is true that there arent a lot of theoretical biologists. That is why I am not one of my own kind but rather a c/e commentator and how it happens that this tension has not been resolved as of it/yet.
Will used this analysis to argue against any development from the adaptive landscape but you see Gladyshev has reasonably argued etc
EvC Forum: GP Gladyshev's paper (s)or mine?
down to the supramolecular level of organization that these nonlinear situations though they MIGHT apply need not for some progress to be made. Will apparently conflated quantum teleportation with orthogonal symmetries under the use of phase transitions to claim that the recursivity of Wright could not attend to natural cases of nonlinear relations AT THE PHENOTYPIC level of selection!!!!!!!! But if Will had the relation (relation of fish phenotype to ecology say , which I KNOW he had wrong) wrong phenetically he would never get the invariant set correct genomically. Instead he attempts a detailed discussion of Dobshanky and Kimura rather than attend to WHY it was that Wright said Will was barking up the same tree Feynmann slept under at Cornell on his first day here(non linear situation does not defeat the tension between Wright and Fisher!).
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-16-2005 08:45 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by mick, posted 04-14-2005 6:50 PM mick has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024