Evolution: Science, Pseudo-Science, or Both?

The main thrust of my inquiry is that the greater claims of many initial theories are often demonstrated to be inaccurate over time even though the smaller scale claims are often proven true and quite useful.For example, in the Middle Ages, skilled craftsmen and alchemists dreamed of turning lead into gold -- and of mixing chemicals with fire to discover the secret elixer that would guarantee ever-lasting life. While most scientifically minded indivuals would now scoff at these ideas today, it was still nonetheless these very same psuedo-scientific impulses which would ultimately open the path for dedicated men such as Francis Bacon to wittled away the myths from the pseudo-science. This is to say, from these very same pseudo-sciences emerged the modern day scientific disciplines of modern chemistry and medicine.Similarly, with the dawn of the Industrial Age, many researcher's dreams turned from alchemy and the elixer of life to that of perpetual motion. In fact, generations of inventors and machinists gave over their lives and their fortunes in their quest to build the perfect machine -- one that would run by itself, be totally self-contained, and thus live on forever. Again, while most scientifically minded indivuals would now scoff at this idea today, it was still nonetheless this very same psuedo-scientific impulse which would ultimately open the path for dedicated men such as James Clerk Maxwell to wittle away the myth from the pseudo-science. This is to say, from this very same pseudo-science emerged the modern day Laws of Thermodynamics of which we are all familiar with today.After having reviewed the history of the development of science, and praying strenuously to understand it, it seems to me that Darwin's theory of evolution of life is on par with what Galieo's heliocentric theory of our solar system once was -- that the theory of evolution is still emerging from psuedo-science.

quote:

---

When Galileo presented his heliocentric theory, he brought forth a great insight into the nature of our solar system. He presented a clear theory that could be easilly tested against the pattern of the planet's motions. When it was first presented, many within the church initally rejected it in favor of their understanding of the Scriptures. Having said this, however, although Galileo was initially correct in determining that the sun was indeed the center of the solar system, he was ultimately incorrect in asserting that the sun was the center of all the stars and indeed the entire universe -- and it took some time to test his theory to the point that this distinction could be clearly discerned.

---

In Galileo's theory, the smaller claim is true -- but the larger claim is not.Similarly (in my opinion):

quote:

---

When Darwin presented his theory of evolution, he brought forth a great insight into the nature of our biological life. He presented a clear theory that could be easilly tested against the pattern of speciation found within the various eco-systems. When it was first presented, many within the church initally rejected it in favor of their understanding of the Scriptures. Having said this, however, although Darwin was initially correct in determining that evolution was indeed the mechanism by which species could diversify, he was ultimately incorrect in asserting that evoltuion was the mechanism which explained the speciation of the entire spectrum of life from primitive organisms -- and it will take some time to test his theory to the point that this distinction can be clearly discerned.

---

In Darwin's theory, the smaller claim is certainly true -- but the larger claim, however, may possibly not be so.Based on the pattern noted above, do you feel that evolution is science, psuedo-science, or a science that is still slowly emerging from psuedo-science?Regardless of your answer, I would be interested in knowing why you feel this way. I have many thoughts that I would like to share on this concept. Released from PNT. --AdminEdits: to correct spelling.This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-12-2005 05:10 PMThis message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-12-2005 05:13 PM

quote:

---

You make an interesting point.
  —Sylas

---

Thank you.I guess I just wanted to note that, before I discuss this any further, my inquiry is more of a "general point" on the larger scale of the historical development of science.Although I highly appreciate the clarification of terms regarding the theory of evolution, I'm not really looking to get into the specific mechanisms behind evolution. As far as I'm concerned, at our present level of knowledge, the theory of evolution is more than adequate in explainng our origins.My inquiry is more about the development of science from the pseudo-scientific impulse that inspired the researchers to look further into the truth -- and the final conclusion that they arrived at after further testing in contrast to what they originally predicted.I think this is something that is potentially overlooked within scientific circles -- and I think it is very relevant to the whole question of what is considered "science" in the first place.

quote:

---

The other quibble is with the sweeping use of the term "pseudoscience". We don't normally call a research program "pseudoscience" just because it gets things wrong.
  —Sylas

---

But that's not what I'm saying.My point is that it is often very difficult to know for sure within one's own time if one is actually conducting valid research, invalid research, or a combination of both. Or, as previously noted, how does one discern the difference between science, psuedo-science, and science emerging from from psuedo-science?What I mean by this is that the alchemists and craftsmen of the Middle Ages certainly believed that they were conducting valid scientific research in their quest to produce the things that we would now in our modern day consider psuedo-science. They spent long hours gathering materials, mixing things, testing things, observing things -- and spent large sums of money in their quest.Actually, holmes echoed many of my thoughts from a different angle when he said the following:

quote:

---

The researches you discussed were not really pseudo-scientific. Generally we judge science by comparing it to modern scientific methodology. While we would view anyone pursuing a subject today as they did back then "pseudo-science", that was actually the science of the day.

​

I guess this is to say science was being practiced while scientific methodology was still under construction. Thus there should be a bit of sympathy for what they were doing, and that is besides the fact that they were starting with "black boxes" of phenomenon.

​

With our knowledge of chemistry it might be ludicrous to think of changing lead to gold by mixing some substances together, but back then they certainly knew you could get different substances by mixing to other substances together, or heating them in some way, so it all made sense... even from a scientific view.
  —holmes

---

Within this sense, it is usually only in retrospect that one can see the difference between the actual science and the psuedo-scientific impulse that initially caused them to engage in their research.Again, to recall the former example, the alchemists of the Middle Ages knew that by "mixing stuff together" they could indeed get new substances -- but they didn't know the limits of what they could produce by doing this. Even though they were truly engaging in scientific research, the impulse (or inspiration) for their research was often psuedo-scientific.

quote:

---

Galileo was not a "pseudoscientist" for failing to figure out all modern cosmology.
  —Silas

---

But I'm not saying that Galileo was a pseudoscientist for failing to figure out all modern cosmology. I'm suggesting that the inspiration behind Galileo's search for the truth was initially pseudo-scientific.I'm not suggesting this is neccesarilly a bad thing.For example, at least in one sense, 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". In addition to this, the mythological stories left behind by the original psuedo-sciences, even though they were later rejected, nonetheless provided ample inspiration for later generations to initially look deeper into the sky in order to find the real truth.If one retraces the refinements of Galileo's heliocentric observations leading back to Copernican theories, one will also note that healthy dosages of psuedo-scientific impulses were the original inspirations behind their search.For example, as Sachiko Kusukawa (and the Department of History and Philosophy of Science of the University of Cambridge) note in regards to Copernicus:

quote:

---

Copernicus too lived in an age when astronomy and astrology were inextricably connected. Astronomy was generally seen as a theoretical underpinning of astrology, problems and events in the one, having serious implications for the other. Both areas, however, seemed to be far from perfect.

​

At Cracow, Copernicus learnt astrology as well as astronomy. He studied the Alfonsine Tables, read the works of Peurbach and Regiomontanus, who, inspired by ancient astronomy, sought to reform theoretical astronomy, fully aware that improvement in astronomy would lead to improvement in its practice, astrology.

​

One of his teachers at Cracow, John of Gogw, wrote on the astrological consequences of a planetary conjunction. The University of Bologna, since 1404, required its professor of mathematics and astrology to issue annual prognostications. Thus Domenico Maria issued prognostications, which gave for the following year the date of Easter, phases of the moon, weather forecasts, times of eclipses (if any), various auspicious and ominous dates, and general predictions for the year.

​

Copernicus thus lived in a time when astronomical events were impregnated with astrological meanings.

​

He was equally aware of criticisms of astrology, such as the famous attack in Giovanni Pico della Mirandola's Disputations against Divinatory Astrology (Disputationes adversus Astrologiam Divinatricem, 1496).

​

In book X, chapter 4, of this work Pico pointed out that ancients and moderns disagreed over the ordering of Mercury and Venus, which suggested that the basis for gauging planetary influences was shaky. Copernicus settled the ordering of planets in the De Revolutionibus (book I, chapter 10).

​

By 1535, Copernicus had an established reputation for his accurate computations, and his almanac prepared for 1536 was circulating as the best one available.

​

Reforms in astronomy implied improvement in astrology, and some contemporaries looked to the De Revolutionibus with that result in mind.

​

So in 1541, Reiner Gemma Frisius (1508-55) wrote how the De Revolutionibus was an eagerly awaited work from a skilled mathematician which would hopefully end the astronomical errors and uncertainties that beset the astrologer.

​

For others, the attraction of the book lay in its tables, which in turn had astrological implications.
  —Sachiko Kusukawa

---

As Thomas Knierim recalled, in 1514 Copernicus put forward his alternative model, referred to as the heliocentric system -- in which the sun was believed to be at the center of the universe (and that all planets, including earth, revolved around it). One of Copernicus' great insights was his observation that the further apart a planet is from the sun, the longer it takes to complete a revolution. He also had the great insight that the phenomenological movement of the sun was most likely caused by the earth rotating around its north-to-south axis.Copernicus carefully noted that these supposed complex and convoluted planetary motions still had one main weakness: they did not account for the observed backward motion of Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn -- nor did they account for the the fact that Mercury and Venus never moved more than a certain distance from the sun. With these great insights, Copernicus effectively eliminated the necessity of Ptolemy's obscure epicycles -- something in whch Ptolemy actually beleived reflected the real motion of the planets. In other words, Ptolemy really believed that these planets travelled in wild and twisted almost pretzel-like revolutions around the earth.Having said this, as noted above, even with this great insight there were still some psuedo-scientific astrological inspirations clinging to Copernicus' theory. For one, as noted above, he believed the sun was the center of the entire universe -- the concept of a solar system has not been fully developed yet.Likewise, as David Plant notes, Copernicus was not particularly interested in observing the sky but he was devoted to Pythagorean mathematics. This is to say, Copernicus believed that the harmony of the universe revealed itself through the perfect geometry of planetary orbits.As Nick Campion notes, the main contribution of the Pythagoreans to astronomy was made by Philolaus (5th c B.C.), a pupil of Pythagoras, and the ‘Philolaic’ system was to influence European astronomy up to the 17th century. Philolaus said that the earth and all the planets, including the Sun, orbited a central fire, the ‘watch tower of Zeus’, a system which explained how, if all planetary orbits moved in perfect circles in perfect motion, then their orbits were seen to be irregular from the earth. The Pythagorean belief in perfection was in direct contradiction of observable fact as far as planetary orbits were concerned, and the attempt to reconcile fact with theory was to be the main headache of astronomers until the discoveries of Kepler and Newton.This is to say that, certainly within astrological circles at least, the elliptical orbits of the planets was to be avoided if one were to retain well ordered and asthetically pleasing beauty of the "heavens". In reponse to this, Copernicus concluded that the only way to 'save the phenomena' of perfect circles and uniform speeds was to place the Sun at the centre of the solar system and let the planets revolve around it, just as Aristarchus had suggested long ago. Since Copernicus assumed that the orbits of the planets are circular his scheme still needed epicycles to make it work, but the simulation was certainly much more precise. For the first time, tables of planetary motion could be calculated from heliocentric principles. Furthermore, these tables proved more accurate than those based on the Ptolemaic system.To briefly sum this up in regards to Copernicus: In this way, one can see how science was certainly emerging from psuedo-science -- but that, within Copernicus' own time, it was extremely hard to determine what was simply employing or inspired by pseudo-science and what was actually employing or inspired by authentic science. It wasn't until, in retrospect, that, after more scientific discoveries were brought forth and analysed, one was able to clearly discern between the two.And, as will be explained below in regards to Kepler's, Brahe's, and Galileo's later contributions, this scientific dialectic within astronomy took a considerable amount of time to figure out.When one comes to Kepler, one sees a Pythagorean inspiration that eclipses the astrological inspiration behind Copernicus' search for scientific truth.

quote:

---

There were only six planets known in Kepler's time: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. Kepler wondered why only six? Why not twenty, or a hundred? Why did they have the spacing between their orbits that Copernicus had deduced? No one has ever asked such questions before. There were known to be five regular "platonic" solids, whose sides were regular polygons, as known to the ancient Greek mathematicians after the time of Pythagoras. Kepler thought the two numbers were connected, that the reason there were only six planets was because there were only five regular solids, and that these solids, inscribed or nested one within another, would specify the distances of the planets from the Sun. In these perfect forms, he believed he had recognized the invisible supporting structures for the spheres of the six planets. He called this revelation The Cosmic Mystery. The connection between the solids of Pythagoras and the disposition of the planets could admit but one explanation: the Hand of God, Geometer.

​

Carl Sagan -- Cosmos
  —Carl Sagan

---

Kepler's inspiration, as Carl Sagan notes in his book Cosmos, was quite literally a model of the universe which displayed a cube, within a sphere, with a tetrahedron inscribed in it, another sphere inside it with a dodecahedron inscribed, a sphere with an icosahedron inscribed inside, and finally a sphere with an octahedron inscribed. In his thoughts, each of these celestial spheres had a planet embedded within them, and thus defined the planet's orbit.To his disappointment, Kepler's attempts to fix the orbits of the planets within a set of polyhedrons never worked out. However, this realization was a direct consequence of his failed attempt to fit the planetary orbits within polyhedra -- which is good. Kepler's willingness to abandon his most cherished theory in the face of precise observational evidence indicates that he had a very modern attitude to scientific research.Like previous astronomers, Kepler initially believed that celestial objects moved in perfect circles. These models were consistent with observations and with the "Platonic idea" that the sphere was the perfect shape. However, after spending twenty years doing calculations with Tycho Brahe's data, Kepler concluded that this model of planetary motion was inconsistent with the data of Tycho Brahe. Using Tycho's data, Kepler was able to formulate Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion in which planets move in ellipses, not circles -- a remarkable discovery based solely on experimental mathematical models being matched up concisely with their empirical observation.

quote:

---

He was a scientist, making important progress which others continue to refine.
  —Sylas

---

Coming to Galileo, 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.As Culture and Cosmos Vol. 7 No. 1 aptly notes:

quote:

---

Galileo was the last of the long line of distinguished astronomer-astrologers to flourish in the courts of Europe before the two disciplines parted company in the western world in the mid seventeenth-century.

---

Or, as Nick Kollerstrom details even further:

quote:

---

Galileo, like Kepler, was a mathematicus, a term which had a threefold meaning as referring to mathematics, astrology and astronomy. In 1881 Favaro composed his essay, Galileo Astrologo, which concluded:

​

It seems to me impossible to have the slightest doubt that Galileo was involved with astrology, indeed, that he was famous for his great ability in that art, so that distinguished people consulted him with complete confidence, in many cases asking for horoscopes and predictions.

​

The letters by Galileo to his astrological colleagues have been lost and we only have the replies, as likewise the most famous charts composed by him have been lost, however some twenty-five charts drawn up by him do remain, plus several instances of his chart analyses. The book from which he learnt his astrology while at Pisa may have been Porphyry's Introductio in Ptolemaei opus de effectibus astrorum of which a copy annotated in his hand remains at Florence.

---

Contrary to the portrayal of the dedicated scientist looking past myths to find the scientific truth, Galileo, quite possibly not intentional at that, appears to have fathered a brand new branch of astronomy mostly out of his desire to pursue his astrological pseudo-science. In addition to this, his trial by the church, contrary to the original intent of suppressing his endorsment of Copernican theories, seems to have forced the heliocentric theory more out into the open than ever before. It is in this way that many feel that the inital building blocks of modern astronomy are highly indebted to astrological pseudo-science -- even though astrology has long been left behind with the emergence of astronomy from within it.Consequently, it wasn't until much later that the concept of the "solar system" as being distinct from the universe was even theorized.As the National Academy of Sciences has noted:

quote:

---

Contemporary planetary scientists strive to answer questions akin to those that have perplexed scientists, philosophers, religious leaders, and lay people since ancient times: What are the planets like? How did the Earth, Sun, Moon, and planets come into existence? What are the laws and physical processes that shaped the past evolution of Earth and its sister planets and govern their behavior today? How did life arise on Earth, and, more significantly, is it unique? With the growth in scientific knowledge over the centuries, the questions have certainly changed in emphasis; for example, 400 years ago, few would have used the phrase "solar system" or asked about its evolution. A basic reason for asking these questions is curiosity, but the answers often benefit humanity in both intellectual and applied ways.

---

Edit: spelling and page layout.This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-13-2005 08:42 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 PMThis message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-13-2005 07:59 PMThis message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-13-2005 08:02 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

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 PMThis message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-16-2005 06:08 AMThis message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-16-2005 06:18 AM

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?

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

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: 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 PMThis message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-14-2005 07:40 PMThis message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-14-2005 08:52 PMThis message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-14-2005 08:53 PM

quote:

---

Two points.

---

quote:

---

First, while astrology is considered a pseudo-science today, I would not say that it was pseudo-science at the time.

---

Yes. That's exactly what I've been getting at.

quote:

---

But regardless, even if he held some opinions that derived from astrology, his technique and method were classic science just as practiced today.

---

Which is exactly what I've been saying: science can emerge from a psuedo-scientific inspiration.

quote:

---

He made observation and his conclusions were based on the evidence gathered.

---

Yes. Exactly.

quote:

---

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.

---

Noting some minor exceptions, I generally very much agree.

quote:

---

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.

---

Amen brother.

quote:

---

remember, alchemy and astrology were simply wrong.

---

Alchemy -- mostly wrong.Astrology -- totally wrong.

quote:

---

It's not that they were pseudo-sciences at the time, given the knowledge, techinques and equipment of the period.

---

Indeed, they were considered "authentic science" at the time based on their current level of knowledge.

quote:

---

And as they were falsified, they were dropped.

---

Yes, by using the scientific method they were effectively falsified (or significantly modified in alchemy's case).

quote:

---

It was only when they WERE falsified that they moved from the realm of science to pseudo-science.

---

Exactly.Only in retrospect, as they were further and further contrasted from modern knowledge, could they be considered pseudo-science.

quote:

---

If what you're saying is that, there may come a time when the expanding scope of our body of evidence contradicts rather than supports evolution; and at that time continued support of evolutionary theory is unscientific particularly in the light of a competing future theory that works better - I don't think anyone will disagree with you.

---

Thank you.Again, just for clarification, I'm looking at the overall paradigm or inspiration behind the search for truth -- not so much the experiments that were performed to test the hypothesis.In other words, I'm looking at the theory itself which inspired people to search -- almost more than the evidence itself. As noted many times, Galileo seems most likely to have been inspired by his pursuit for astrological knowledge when he yeilded valid astronomical observations that confirmed Coperinicus.The raw data that he produced was kept because it was valid within astronomical circles even though the theory (paradigm, inspiration, impulse, whatever you like to call it) of astrology was ultimately left behind -- and left for pseudo-scientists to practice outside and separately from the discipline of astronomy.Even more so, just to be clear, I personally don't think that certain aspects of the theory of evolution will ever be completely undermined regardless of any future evidence that is brought forth. Various evolutionary claims are observable, demonstrated, and repeatedly reproduciable facts.For example, when I browse talk origins from time to time, I periodically come across the following words written by R. C. Lewontin (they are broken down into stages to show the development of his very logical sequence):

quote:

---

R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981)

---

quote:

---

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution.

​

It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old.

​

It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old.

​

It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago.

​

It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now.

---

All these above observations are clearly, repeatedly, demonstrated facts that I have no doubt will ever be drastically modified by any future evidence. While it may be true that future evidence could possibly tweak these statements slightly (and I admit I may be wrong), I still nonetheless seriously doubt that there will be any major revisions to the initial clarity of these points above.Having said this, however, as Lewontin continues with his list of facts, the last two seem to be less factual than the previous observations.For example, the very next fact reads as follows:

quote:

---

It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms.

---

Actually...no...this isn't a fact.First of all, if abiogenesis is correct, then not all living forms come from previous living forms -- especially since the first living cells are theorized under abiogenesis to have somehow arose from non-living organic compounds when the proper conditions were met.Admittedly, abiogenesis, being the more tentative of the two theories, is more about the origin of life -- whereas evolution, on the other hand, is technically more definitively about what happened after life arose on earth -- nonetheless, these two statements seem to contradict each other at least as far as our inital origins are concerned.Reiterated again, if one of the various theories of abiogeneis is correct, then it is simply not a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms.Likewise, when we come to the next fact as presented by Lewontin, we see another possible error cropping into the logical sequence.It reads as follows:

quote:

---

Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans.

---

But if one has already noted that all living forms may not have actually arose from other living forms, how does one go one step further and definitively conclude that it is a "fact" that all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different?

quote:

---

No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

---

There seems to be a few gaps in the logical sequence here -- and one doesn't have to invoke Scriptures to take note of it either.

quote:

---

That's really the neat thing about science - expanding knowledge leaves theories in the dust, even the ones we support so stridently. No theory is truly immune from the passage of time, or more accurately, our ever-expanding knowledge about the universe.

---

I agree -- and this is why I truly love science.But this brings me back to my original statement said long ago in the OP of this thread:

quote:

---

After having reviewed the history of the development of science, and praying strenuously to understand it, it seems to me that Darwin's theory of evolution of life is on par with what Galieo's heliocentric theory of our solar system once was -- that the theory of evolution is still emerging from psuedo-science.

​

When Galileo presented his heliocentric theory, he brought forth a great insight into the nature of our solar system. He presented a clear theory that could be easilly tested against the pattern of the planet's motions. When it was first presented, many within the church initally rejected it in favor of their understanding of the Scriptures. Having said this, however, although Galileo was initially correct in determining that the sun was indeed the center of the solar system, he was ultimately incorrect in asserting that the sun was the center of all the stars and indeed the entire universe -- and it took some time to test his theory to the point that this distinction could be clearly discerned.

​

In Galileo's theory, the smaller claim is true -- but the larger claim is not.

​

Similarly (in my opinion):

​

When Darwin presented his theory of evolution, he brought forth a great insight into the nature of our biological life. He presented a clear theory that could be easilly tested against the pattern of speciation found within the various eco-systems. When it was first presented, many within the church initally rejected it in favor of their understanding of the Scriptures. Having said this, however, although Darwin was initially correct in determining that evolution was indeed the mechanism by which species could diversify, he was ultimately incorrect in asserting that evoltuion was the mechanism which explained the speciation of the entire spectrum of life from primitive organisms -- and it will take some time to test his theory to the point that this distinction can be clearly discerned.

​

In Darwin's theory, the smaller claim is certainly true -- but the larger claim, however, may possibly not be so.

---

quote:

---

It's really quite romantic in a way. (In the meantime, however, evolution is still the most accurate model we have about the history and diversity of life on Earth.)

---

Remember: I don't think that the theory of evolution cannot account for the speciation of life on earth -- because I think that evolution is a fact. This is to say, I feel that it is the best scientific theory based on totally naturalistic causes according to our current level of knowledge.In regards to the above quote comparing Galileo's theory of heliocentrism to Darwin's theory of evolution, I'm not stating it as a fact. I'm stating it as a risky prediction -- and it's a risky prediction that is based on the previous developments of science where the initial grander claims of the pseudo-scientific theories were scientically proven ultimately incorrect even though the peripheral minor claims of the scientific experimentation conducted were indeed ultimately beneficial and condusive to further research within authentically scientific fields.

quote:

---

That's very interesting. I am starting to wonder who you really are.

---

Is this a good thing?I'm not really anyone special -- certainly not anyone that would be recognized within the scientific field.Who do you think I am?

quote:

---

It seems to me that your "pattern" represents a very selective view.

---

I admit I could very well be innacurately selecting the improper analogy for this discourse. However, I think I've laid out a fairly solid foundation for the possibility of drawing this general conclusion.

quote:

---

In the case of heliocentricity the "larger claim" is essentially a hold-over from the pre-existing view.

---

Yes -- a pre-existing view that had its original basis in Ptolemy's cosmology.And why did Ptolemy engage in his observations?Ellie Crystal appears to outline Ptolemy's reasons for engaging in his observations fairly well:

quote:

---

Ptolemy worked from the data of past astrologers to map over one thousand stars. He compiled a list of 48 constellations, and, for the most part, described the longitude and latitude lines of the earth. He was a believer that the earth was the center of the universe and worked to advance this theory. His effort in this area was in his thirteen volume work called the Almagest.

---

She then proceeds to outline Ptolemy's thoughts based on his own words recorded within his own works:

quote:

---

The Ptolemaic system is explained why some planets seemed to move backwards for periods of time in their orbit around earth. He theorized that each planet also revolved in a smaller circle as well as a larger one. This was called the "epicycle." This theory would survive for 1400 years, until it was finally accepted that the earth was itself another planet in orbit around the sun.

---

She then outlines Ptolemy's thoughts as he clearly expressed them from his individual works -- the reason why he was trying to understand the orbits of the planets in the first place:

quote:

---

The first book defined Ptolemy's reasoning for practicing astrology as well as astronomy, for by this time, there were many who opposed astrology. He said that it should not be abandoned merely because there are a few people who abuse it. This book also deals with the various alignments of planets, the moon, and the sun. Ptolemy describes in detail which positions are favorable and which are not. He also explained the signs, when they begin, and why they begin there.

​

The second book of the Tetrabiblos describes astrology as it relates to countries. Ptolemy makes the point that astrological events of countries and race supersede those of the individual. He details which planets rule over which country, and makes the distinction between human signs and animal signs. He notes that human signs cause things to happen to humans and animal signs affect animals. Finally, Ptolemy explains how the planets affect earth. For example, Saturn was thought to cause cold, floods, poverty, and death. Mars caused war and drought. Comets and shooting stars were thought to also affect the weather.

​

The third book dealt with the individual. The Tetrabiblos examined conception and birth, saying that it was better to work with the conception date and that this date should be known by observation. Several key factors were involved with this aspect of astrology. The sign that was rising at the time of conception, the moon's phase, and the movements of the planets were all taken into consideration. The father's influence was shown through the sun and Saturn, while the mother's was shown through the moon and Venus.

​

Finally, the forth book of the Tetrabiblos handled matters of occupation, marriage, children, travel, and 'houses' of the zodiac. The particular angles of various planets were used to calculate these things.

---

If my "pattern" represents a very selective view, it seems odd that the origins of astronomy are so deeply engrained within layer upon layer of pseudo-scientific astrological thinking.My point is not that being inspired by pseudo-science is bad.My point is that the inspiration of pseudo-scientific thinking has often, contrary to claims of the opposite, been the impulse to look more deeply into the nature of the universe.This can be both bad and good. It is especially bad when pseudo-science is being employed to validate pseudo-science.But whenever true science is employed when testing their pseudo-scientific hypothesis, the pseudo-science can (and has) led to the emergence of truly scientific discoveries.

quote:

---

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.

---

Yes. Exactly.It definitely is a smaller step to move from holding that the earth is the centre of the universe to the idea that the sun is.Likewise, it definitely is a vastly larger step to even move to the idea that our solar system does not hold a privileged position let alone to the idea that there is no real centre.The minor claim of Galileo proved to ultimately be true -- but the greater claim of Galileo fell far from the original prediction. In other words, the greater prediction ultimately failed with more observations over time and further research conducted in regards to these new observations.Not only did Galileo and company not have the precise enough tools and knowledge to accurately discern this greater distinction within their respected eras, they generally hadn't even thought of the theoretical possibility of the "solar system" as being something distinct within the greater Milky Way galaxy -- or that galaxies formed clusters or superclusters of galaxies -- or that clusters and superclusters of galaxies (with potentially billions of solar systems) made up the entirety of the universe.It was simply totally beyond their scope to discern exactly how it all worked out -- because all they had was a simple "working model" of geocentricity (and later, with Copernicus, heliocentricity) fundamentally based on Ptolemy's astrological paradigm, a paradigm based on phenomenological observations coupled with a pseudo-scientific inspiration to search for the truth.[/b]

quote:

---

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.

---

And yet, as John Charles Webb Jr. points out, in Isaac Newton's universe there were only three dimensions: length, breadth and width. This is to say, length, breadth and width were considered to be "constants" (unchanging) and the only variable was motion.It is interesting to note that these three dimensions could not be interpreted by elementary two dimensional geometry -- and that Newton created calculus for this very reason. Here is clearly an example of someone generating a truly scientific method of determining comlex data based on faulty assumptions that the universe only worked in three physical dimensions.The concept of time, in Newton's universe, was simply a measuring device which Newton called a "duration" -- not something which could be physically and tangiably warped by gravitational fields.Furthermore, the transmission of light, in Newton's cosmology, was considered instantaneous if I recall corectly. The later implications of the discovery that light had a rapid yet ultimately finite velocity totally changed how people viewed the universe. Whereas in Newton's era the light from something 1,000 light years away was beleived to be immediately experienced in "real time" -- so that one could claim that the whole universe moved as a single entity -- yet it is now known today that light travels only roughly 300,000 kilometers per second in a vaccuum.The difference between an infinite velocity and a velocity of merely 300,000 kps is still an infinite difference. In Newton's time one could reasonably look at the stars and think that everything was created less than 6000 years ago -- since the light was assumed to be reaching us instantaneously. However, knowing that light is limited in velocity, this knowledge alone almost totally demolishes any arguments for a young universe.In addition to all this, Newton's own search for truth was again based on pseudo-science. A strange yet reclusive figure, Isaac Newton was a Christian who studied the Scriptures daily and believed that God created everything, including the Scriptures themselves.He believed that the Scriptures were true in every respect -- and throughout his life he continually tested Scriptural truth against the physical truths of experimental and theoretical science and never observed a contradiction, at least according to his many biographers.Newton's writings reflected his belief that his scientific work was a method by which to reinforce belief in Scriptural truth. After he completed his monumental Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, he began to devote more and more of his time to researching the Scriptures, eventually writing a book he believed unlocked the prophecies contained in Daniel and the Apocalypse, two Scriptural books which he viewed as intertwined.The great bulk of his writing went unpublished -- even though according to one writer, Newton believed that a scientist who had the ability to explain the workings of the world and did not explain and share it with mankind, was denying God one form of adoration.Admittedly, as John Maynard Keynes noted, Newton’s writings showed him to be rather eccentric in his Christian theology. For example, at a time when the trinity was more or less accepted as fact in theological circles, Newton wrote voluminously to support his belief that the theory was fraudulent.Here is what Keynes had to say about Newton:

quote:

---

. . . (Newton) looked on the whole universe and all that is in it as a riddle, as a secret which could be read by applying pure thought to certain evidence, certain mystic clues which God had laid about the world to allow a sort of philosopher’s treasure hunt to the esoteric brotherhood. He believed that these clues were to be found partly in the evidence of the heavens and in the constitution of elements (and that is what gives the false suggestion of his being an experimental natural philosopher), but also partly in certain papers and traditions handed down by the brethren in an unbroken chain back to the original cryptic revelation in Babylonia. He regarded the universe as a cryptogram set by the Almightyjust as he himself wrapt the discovery of the calculus in a cryptogram when he communicated with Leibnitz. By pure thought, by concentration of mind, the riddle, he believed, would be revealed to the initiate.

---

So, again, although Newton certainly employed authentic science in his search for the truth, he was nonetheless certainly inspired by pseudo-science in the form of Scriptures to search even more for the truth -- and he beleived that the Scriptures held the key which unlocked the truth.To be continued...This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-15-2005 10:55 PMThis message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-16-2005 06:05 AM

quote:

---

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.

---

Yes...and in determining a more valid approach to "chemistry", the world of science owes a great deal to the pseudo-scientific impulses behind Francis Bacon's genuine science. The founder of modern science was a Christian that beleived in the pseudo-scientific Scriptures -- and the foundation of his thinking was solidly rooted in pseudo-scientific Christian doctrine.A recent book made the connection between Bacon and the Scriptures clear. John Henry, a science history professor at Edinburgh University, has just written (2002) a biography of Bacon called Knowledge is Power: How Magic, the Government and an Apocalyptic Vision Inspired Francis Bacon to Create Modern Science.Henry claimed that Sir Francis Bacon, who according to traditional wisdom invented modern science, was motivated by magic, government, and apocalyptic vision.In this sense, "magic" is read "Christian faith", "government" is read "knowledge for practical good of mankind", and "apocalyptic vision" read a literal belief in the prophecy of Daniel 12:4:

quote:

---

Many will go to and fro, and knowledge will be increased

---

In a review of the book in the August 22, 2002 issue of Nature, Alan Stewart states:

quote:

---

Bacon firmly believed that he was living in the era in which the scriptures predicted that knowledge would increase beyond all recognition. Had not the past decades seen crucial advances in learning, warfare and navigation, in the form (respectively) of the printing press, gunpowder and the magnetic compass, he asked? Part of his Instauratio Magna was entitled Parasceve, the Greek word for preparation, but particularly the day of preparation for the Sabbath, the ultimate Sabbath of the Day of Judgement. What else can the prophet mean... in speaking about the last times? Bacon asked rhetorically in his Refutation of Philosophies in 1608. Does he not imply that the passing to and fro or perambulation of the round earth and the increase or multiplication of science were destined to the same age and century?

---

Stewart continues,

quote:

---

Perhaps the most compelling section of the book deals with Bacon's ‘magic’, by which Henry means religion. Here he makes a more convincing case than many for the profoundly religious underpinning of Bacon’s philosophical project.

---

Notice that neither Stewart nor Henry are Christian apologists, but both here recognize that Bacon's belief in the Scriptures had a direct impact on the scientific revolution.Just as astrology deeply influenced Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo, like a spark to a fuse, the Scriptures ignited in Bacon’s mind a dream of a new instrument, a Novum Organum, that could lead to an increase of knowledge -- just as he believed the Scriptures "predicted" for the "last days".In regards to Francis Bacon's influence on Darwin, it is interesting to note that opposite the title page of Darwin’s Origin of Species appears the following quotation:

quote:

---

To conclude, therefore, let no man think or maintain that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God’s word, or in the book of God’s works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavor an endless progress or proficience in both.

---

The author is Francis Bacon, and the quotation is from his 1605 book The Advancement of Learning. Here is the classical statement that there are two ways of understanding the character of God, through the Scriptures, and through the world he has made.This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-16-2005 07:45 AMThis message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-16-2005 07:46 AM

Thank you for the clarification.

quote:

---

Darwin's claims are not so universal -

---

But they are universal to the extent that our origins are seen within the microcosm of our own human existence here on earth. One can speculate about the possibility of life elsewhere in the universe -- but this is merely speculation.While I reject the anthropic principle's claim on scientific grounds that the universe must have been designed for us to have come here -- and for the universe to work the way if does -- I nonetheless respect its peripheral inference (insofar as its predictive power seems to indicate) that there is a high probability that no other forms of DNA-based life will likely be found elsewhere in the universe.

quote:

---

- while the principles may apply elsewhere they may only apply where the right conditions are found.

---

And this "assumes" that all life is DNA based at that -- which may ultimately be proven wrong with further inquiry and research.Of course we have no scientific reasons to think that life is anything but DNA-based -- aside from the functiionally infinite possibilities that are implied by the vast sixe of the universe -- but the possibility still remains open and cannot be excluded from genuine scientific inquiry.

quote:

---

Here on Earth, common ancestry - which surely counts as a larger claim - has been thoroughly confirmed.

---

But it has not been confirmed. It has been clearly displayed to be the most probable theoretical model using solid materialistic assumptions -- which is the explanatory filter of those who are searching for its confirmation.It still remains possible that "common ancestry" for all life may yet be proven wrong with further scientific research.For example, on the one hand, it still remains possible that that there were many periods in earth's history for abiogensis to occur -- thus starting many new braches of life forms which nonetheless derived their characteristics by the same process of mutation and natural selection that the very first organisms were modified by.On the other hand, some metaphysical causality still remains entirely within the scope of the discussion -- to exclude it limits the genuinely theoretical possibilities set before us. The main thrust of my OP was to display that pseudo-science and metaphysics can (and cerainly do) play a significant role in the formation of our ideas concerning the nature of scientific truth.In saying this, I'm by no means suggesting that the theory of evolution should be rejected because of these simple "possibilities". Despite the theoretical possibilities, the theory of evolution still remains the most prominent explanation based on purely naturalistic causes.Yet, even in the potential case of the larger claims of evolutionary predictions being somehow proven wrong in the future, this by no means would necessarilly relegate the entire theory into a pseudo-science.For example, although evolution necessitates more than a few predictions (such as that we should never find a whale with both front flippers and separate front limbs -- or that a mutant or fossil bird with both front wings and, separately, front limbs), finding such a thing should not necessarilly be seen as falsifying evolutionary theories. Rather, I'm rather sure that many would simply attempt to modify existing theories in such as way that they could now accomodate the new evidence.It is true to say that, if such things were discovered, the old paradigm would need to be significantly modified. However, I don't see how it would utterly devastate the theory altogether -- for there is simply too much useful knowledge already acquired by the lesser claims of evolution. It would simply invalidate some of the greater claims while leaving the genuine scientific facts of evolution in tact.In other words, in this hypothetical future situation, the grander claims could possibly be considered by some to be nothing more than a relic of primitive evolutionary predictions -- a pseudo-scientific explanation -- but the minor claims, which have been verified over and over and over again, would remain steadfastly within the realm of scientific inquiry and remain very useful to everyone.

quote:

---

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).

---

Could you explain this further?

quote:

---

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 ?

---

This is an excellent question. I honestly don't know for sure since I'm only specualting. But, if I'm to keep within the spirit of Popper's risky prediction, then I suspect that a few very specific outcomes could result.First of all, Einstein's theory of relativity did not just have only minor implications in only special cases. True, in simple terms, the mass of the object travelling near the speed of light approaces an infinite mass.But, more importantly for the purpose of this discussion, in providing a genuine mechanism for why the speed of light was indeed limited (as people already knew before Einstein), it essentially destroyed Newton's concept of a universe that could have once been considered only 6000 years old with purely astrophysical reasoning alone.In regards to evolutionary theory, if many of the major predictions of evolution were proven to be demonstatably erroneus, the basic concepts of natural selection and mutation would still provide a tremendous tool for explaining the speciation of life on earth -- although "common anscestry" might go into the realm of pseudo-science, just as Galileo's concept of the "heliocentric universe" did long ago.

quote:

---

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.

---

Could you explain this further?