Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 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:   Relevance of origins to modern science
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(6)
Message 19 of 124 (707172)
09-24-2013 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Ra3MaN
09-24-2013 10:32 AM


Re: The answer is...
I would think that it is slightly biased. The reason being, in the discussion of most Scientific literature you would try to either relate (or appose) the empirical data to a current model, which you (the Scientist) may or may not be in favor of. So when Scientists infer according to how well the model fits with the darwinist ideal, this already prevents the inclusion of any other possibility.
I think I see what you're getting at, though you have a rather vague style of writing.
Your complaint, I think, is that each new piece of data is found a place and fitted into it according to evolutionary principles. We are, then, you suspect, in danger of circular reasoning --- we arrange the data in a Darwinian way, and then proudly point to how Darwinian the data looks.
Now, a few points:
(1) You talk as though this is unusual. It isn't. This is what Big Theories are for. Consider chemistry, for example. Chemists think that stuff is composed of molecules which are in turn composed of discrete units (atoms) which come in a finite number of known flavors (elements). So when you give an analytic chemist an unknown substance, what he does with it is try to find out how it fits into this Daltonian paradigm. That is, he tries (at the very least) to find out how many atoms there are, and which elements they are. How much time does he spend trying to find out if its actually continuous rather than discrete? None. Nor does he (nowadays) even dream of the possibility that it contains a previously unknown element.
To take another example, how much time do you think physicists spend checking that inertial mass is equivalent to gravitational mass? Do you suppose any physicist sits about worrying: "Well, this morning I've tested my favorite coffee mug, two pieces of toast, and the postman ... but is it enough?"
(2) Nonetheless, these Big Theories are tested --- not explicitly, but implicitly. They're tested by being used, which is what they're for. For example, the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass is tested --- by people using the principle to do engineering. Precisely because people regularly assume that if they know the weight of an object, they know what force will give it what acceleration, they'd find out if they were wrong, because the machines they built using that principle wouldn't work how they were supposed to.
Now in the same way evolutionary principles are tested by being used. It is perfectly true that when (for example) a paleontologist finds a new fossil, he tries to fit it into the evolutionary narrative. But the reason that he always succeeds is that the narrative is correct. If the fossils weren't consistent with evolution, paleontologists wouldn't be able to fit each fossil into the narrative, and in fact there wouldn't be a narrative. If in Haldane's famous words, there were "rabbits in the Cambrian", then that could not be fitted in, try as one might. So although paleontologists don't think of themselves as testing evolution, they in fact implicitly do so with every fossil they unearth. Precisely because the paleontologist assumes that every fossil can be fitted into the evolutionary narrative, he always tries to fit it into the narrative. If he kept on failing, he'd know that there was a problem with evolution.
(By analogy, if I tried to interpret a book on the assumption that it was written in English, and it was actually written in Afrikaans, I'd find out my mistake pretty damn quick, wouldn't I? And the same would be the case if paleontologists tried to read the fossil record on the assumption that it was "written" by evolution, and it wasn't.)
(3) And in this respect evolutionary biologists are peculiarly gifted. Physicists don't have a large religious sect hell-bent on proving that inertial and gravitational mass aren't the same, do they? But the lucky, lucky biologists have a large, powerful, well-funded group of opponents who would spend millions of dollars or give their eye-teeth to prove that there's something wrong with evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-24-2013 10:32 AM Ra3MaN has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 20 of 124 (707175)
09-24-2013 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Ra3MaN
09-24-2013 5:34 AM


I would like to pose, what i feel are two of the most important questions that determine whether scientifically explained origins are religious pursuits or not.
1) What significance does Cosmic/Chemical/Biological origins (And there connection) have, in our endeavors for modern Science?
-A case study for example: Can modern pharmacogenetics progress using genetic similarity alone?
-Also, Vaccine products can be identified using relatively short cladograms in e.g. viral genomes, why is it then necessary to have a whole tree of life?
But this is obviously a bad test.
To see why, consider this. Would you agree that it's a scientific fact that Saturn has rings? Or would you consider study of its rings to be a "religious pursuit"?
Obviously, you think it's science. And yet the fact that Saturn has rings has never done anyone any good and probably never will. So it would be simplistic and false to classify useful propositions as scientific, and useless propositions as religious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-24-2013 5:34 AM Ra3MaN has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-24-2013 12:41 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 22 of 124 (707177)
09-24-2013 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Ra3MaN
09-24-2013 12:05 PM


Consider the god of the gaps argument. Religious people single out the gaps to justify why whole evolutionary thoery is inaccurate and built on assumptions. While non-relgious say that we don't know how, but it happened that way. Furthermore, a gap such as "what cause the big bang?" could remain unanswered. Saying that "we are trying to find out" is a useful defense to state, but it is also a cop-out and be compared to the the notion that rainbow ponies kicked nothing out of equilibrum and formed the universe via big bang.
Well, no. There's no comparison.
Suppose I've lost my spectacles, so I look for them. Someone comes along and asks "Where are your spectacles, Dr A?"
Now, if I reply: "I don't know, but I'm trying to find out", is that really to be compared to the notion that rainbow ponies kicked my spectacles into nonexistence?
Of course not. Because "I don't know, but I'm trying to find out" is a known, verifiable truth. Whereas the bit about rainbow ponies is a bit of crazy speculation.
---
P.S: If you really didn't know that the Big Bang has nothing to do with the theory of evolution, then you do now, because I just told you.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-24-2013 12:05 PM Ra3MaN has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-24-2013 12:38 PM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 28 of 124 (707184)
09-24-2013 12:47 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by Ra3MaN
09-24-2013 12:32 PM


Re: The role of religion in science
Science also relies on Belief, (scientific) Scripture, dogma, revelation (Primordial soup became us). The Jewish lineage is alive today and their account is too, the arabic people are around, so is there historical artifacts... there has to be evidence in order to substantiate your belief otherwise why would anyone believe it?
Well, quite. And this is the difference between scientific and religious belief. I believe (scientific belief) that lead has a greater density than water. And I can test this belief. If, on the other hand, someone comes up to me and says "There is no god but Allah, and Mohammad is his prophet", then how do I set about testing it? I can just choose to believe or not believe, whereas I can't choose to believe that lead floats in water.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-24-2013 12:32 PM Ra3MaN has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 29 of 124 (707185)
09-24-2013 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by Ra3MaN
09-24-2013 12:38 PM


haha , relative to a big bang, if your spectacles are outside of your reality, then I bet you would not be able to find them, no matter how hard you looked. Who can know what is outside of matter, time and space?
And it is also true that we may never know what made the Big Bang go bang. Nonetheless, the statement: "We don't know, we're trying to find out" is not equivalent to the statement: "It was caused by rainbow ponies". Because the former is definitely true, and the latter is not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-24-2013 12:38 PM Ra3MaN has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 31 of 124 (707193)
09-24-2013 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Ra3MaN
09-24-2013 12:05 PM


haha, wow that is distasteful Scientific language. I guess the goal of the origin studies is to allow people to be answerable to no-one. You are already well on your way
Er ... but did you not notice that you're responding to someone who calls himself "Catholic Scientist"?
He believes that he is answerable to his God. Lots of the pro-evolution posters on this forum believe that they are answerable to God. The guy (Percy) who set up this forum believes in God. But because Catholic Scientist used the word "fuck" you combine the strawman fallacy with the genetic fallacy, and write: "I guess the goal of the origin studies is to allow people to be answerable to no-one." Because one person who actually believes in God used the word "fuck", you feel entitled to write that stuff.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-24-2013 12:05 PM Ra3MaN has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-26-2013 4:17 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 39 of 124 (707258)
09-25-2013 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by Ra3MaN
09-25-2013 6:26 AM


A really scary thing that I can't get my head around, is that neither of us can perform in situ studies to show bio divergence, or stellar formation and the like.
And yet it is possible to find out about the past.
For example, I feel as certain as certain can be (don't you?) that ceratopsians such as Triceratops once lived and walked the Earth. To disbelieve it would verge on paranoia --- it would be to suspect that the fossil record is a lie.
Without any "in situ studies" I feel more certain of that than I do of some propositions that can be tested in the present, such as that the latest heart-disease drug has fewer side effects than the last one, or that the Higgs boson really exists.
If we want to know how certain a thing is, we have to look at the evidence on which it's founded, it would be crude and misleading just to suppose that our knowledge of present things must necessarily be more certain than our knowledge of past things.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-25-2013 6:26 AM Ra3MaN has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-26-2013 4:57 AM Dr Adequate has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 49 of 124 (707324)
09-26-2013 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Ra3MaN
09-26-2013 4:57 AM


Yes, you are definitely correct, but how far back can we really know? How many people were falsely convicted of crimes they didn't commit based on evidence. I have to say, since better forensics that number is less but these cases are weeks or years old as opposed to millions and billions, with high error margins.
Well, "how far back" is the wrong question. I'm far more certain of the ceratopsians than I am of what I ate for lunch on Monday, because I have no evidence on the latter point except my memory, which is unreliable. The fact that the ceratopsians lived longer ago than last Monday is neither here nor there.
What we have to do is look at the quality of the evidence. So, for example, we know that human memory, and mine in particular, is unreliable. So all the extant evidence that I ate a cheese sandwich on Monday (my memory) is only about 75% trustworthy. On the other hand, it seems to be 100% true that you don't get a skeleton without there having been a living creature that it's a skeleton of, hence my confidence that there were once living ceratopsians. The existence of bones is therefore very good quality evidence.
You mention wrongful convictions. Overwhelmingly, when you look at how these happened, they were based on eyewitness testimony, which is notoriously hopelessly unreliable. We know that that is poor-quality evidence. Unfortunately, when I say "we" I am not necessarily including the average jury.
I can believe that. The fact: found a skeleton in layers of sediment. When it walked the earth is an inference, how it died is an inference, how it lived is an inference. what is more, all these are based on other inference, such as varve inference, ice layer inference, radioactive isotope degradation inference, etc...
Well, some historical inferences are more certain than others. It depends on the certainty of the principles on which the inferences are based.
Again: it is apparently 100% true that you don't get a skeleton without there having once been a living creature. That is such a certain regularity in nature that we are completely entitled to infer the living creature from the bones. Or to take another example, it is apparently 100% true that if an animal has broad flat blunt teeth well-adapted for grinding, it's a vegetarian. So we infer that Triceratops was vegetarian, and we are well-justified in doing so.
Is inference upon inference really empirical science, or just making jigsaw puzzle pieces fit?
Yes, that's empirical science. Inference on inference, that's really what it's all about.
For example, every time we know how an apple came into existence, we find that it grew on a tree. We therefore infer a general rule that apples grow on trees. So then when I see a particular apple in a supermarket, even though I wasn't there to see it grow, I infer from this general rule that that particular apple grew on a tree (a historical inference). I infer the past history of the apple, I infer the tree, I infer the blossom, I infer the ripening of the fruit. It's an inference piled on an inference, but is it wrong? Is it unscientific?
If that sort of thing wasn't legitimate, then science would be impossible. Indeed, everyday life would be impossible and everyday events would be incomprehensible.
I will try to get to your other posts, you are really wise.... I am learning a lot from you.
Well, I've spent a long time thinking about this sort of question.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-26-2013 4:57 AM Ra3MaN has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 50 of 124 (707328)
09-26-2013 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Ra3MaN
09-26-2013 4:17 AM


I was wrong to Judge. I was more referring to his disregard for other people regarding their beliefs. This could include anyone, even his superiors even a Catholic god. Technically he is disregarding anyone how has opposing beliefs. profanity is a simple substitute for a well thought out challenge/insult in my opinion.
Well, I think he's explained himself very well. And he's right. Crude, but right. You can't suppress the truth just because it might upset someone. There are (still) people who believe on religious grounds that the Earth is flat. Does that mean that we should shut up about the evidence that it's an oblate spheroid? No, let us rather say along with Catholic Scientist: "Fuck 'em". We don't have to be mean to them, we don't have to call them names, and we don't have to say to their faces: "Fuck you". And yet we shouldn't have to keep quiet about what shape the Earth is just to protect their delicate sensibilities. If a true thing is true, then we should say it, even though this demonstrates "disregard for other people regarding their beliefs".
I guess this is a separate topic, but in terms of evolution, who does man answer to? private message me....
OK.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Ra3MaN, posted 09-26-2013 4:17 AM Ra3MaN has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-26-2013 12:31 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 116 of 124 (707876)
10-01-2013 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Ra3MaN
10-01-2013 7:08 AM


Doesn't being Atheist mean that you can hold you own e.g. moral standards, as a result of there being no God?
Theists can also hold their own moral standards. The difference is that theists can then attribute their own moral standards to God, saying: "God wants me to stone you to death/burn you alive/blow you up" rather than saying "I want to". Whether or not there is a God, it is evident that his usual role is not so much as a source of human morality as a scapegoat for it.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Ra3MaN, posted 10-01-2013 7:08 AM Ra3MaN has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 275 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 123 of 124 (707926)
10-02-2013 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Ra3MaN
10-01-2013 7:08 AM


What do you think an Atheistic world will look like?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Ra3MaN, posted 10-01-2013 7:08 AM Ra3MaN 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