What's the best strategy for defending evolution?

So you don't have faith in the scientific method?
You don't believe in electrons and neutrons even though you have never seen one? That would be nice, but as noted before, that is the quest of scientists and not all have the inclination or the qualifications to do so. My point is not that the scientific system is perfect, as you seem to infer, but rather that it is currently superior to all alternatives. The scientific method is the mechanism for approaching the task you set, so everyone would do well to understand how it works. Its quite possible that many scientific ideas are currently 'wrong' in some way. But they can only be proven wrong through the scientific method, and it will be only a matter of time until they are exposed. My point was not that science is infallible, but rather that one of the greatest incentives for scientists is the chance to show another scientist was wrong.This message has been edited by EZscience, 03-01-2006 01:49 PM

You seriously need to chill out. I have great trust in the scientific method. Its what I use. It does however have real limitations. The method itself has changed over time and may still.I still have no idea what an electron actually is, nor am I certain exactly what a neutron is. They are both concepts we use. Very very useful concepts. Agreed. Again, this is a frightening vision of science.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Hi Iano,You're actually making two different points. One is that science isn't the only path to knowledge. No argument there. But when the type of knowledge you're interested in is how the physical world works then you can't beat science's track record. Current in wires may actually be a mere reflection of some underlying reality that we can't detect (a la Plato), but it was science that figured it out and harnessed it for use in your computer.Your other point attempts an analogy between science and religion: But this is just an analogy. You can draw similar analogies for plumbing, electrical wiring and accounting. And all of these things, similar to science, have an empirical, factual basis. Science is no more religion than plumbing. One can convert from Christianity to Buddhism with no ill effects, but it wouldn't be wise to convert from double-entry-bookeeping-ism to just-spend-the-money-ism, or from gravity-ism to I-can-fly-ism. I can break all 10 commandments tomorrow, and if I'm careful enough there will be no ill-effects in this world. But science has an empirical foundation so real that to ignore it is to take your life in your hands. It is not religion.People can choose to take scientists' word for what science says, or they can learn the science for themselves, or they can not learn science and reject it for flimsy religious reasons. It's up to each individual. You can't force someone to believe something.But it is an incorrect and hollow criticism, not to mention ambiguous, to say that science's weakness is that it establishes artificial boundaries that are unquantifiable as to sufficiency, whatever that might mean. Maybe an example would help make clear what you mean.--Percy

As to what, exactly? "Objective truth or fact"? Could you define those terms, please?

Sorry. I find it difficult to 'chill' when there are unsubstantiated attacks on the scientific method. That's the sort of thing I come here to debunk. I prefer your concept of 'sustained outrage'. Now I'm curious. What on earth is frightening about it?
I find it re-assuring. The bulk of scientific theory in most fields is, at this point in time, resting on a pretty solid foundation of evidence. The most important advances will come when someone finds fault with either some of the evidence itself, or some of the inferences or models constructed to explain patterns in the evidence.
Nothing causes more stagnation in a field of research than a bunch of scientisits who all agree with each other.
The layman looks at argument among scientists and erroniously concludes "apparently, they all know nothing". Someone familiar with scientific endeavor concludes "apparently, there are more than one possible explanation for certain observations and these need to be resolved by further experimentation / observation".

Notice it was against authority. Iano is not an authority. Heheheh... that's kind of the point. You seem to be more aggressive than necessary, given that he's not really in a position to be dictating what science is. As the question of the topic is best strategy for defending evolution, I guess I'd suggest not getting carried away. The major satisfaction in science is not proving someone else wrong, and I'd hope that wasn't someone's reason as it could lead to real bad science, or frustration.It's great when scientists push borders, but I've never seen an advantage in conflict. In fact I don't see how agreement causes stagnation, unless it is the kind of agreement where scientists stick by each other and a specific theory, and oppose questions. I agree. Of course I am also troubled by the layman who looks at an abstract, some popular press regarding science, and erroniously concludes scientists definitely know something and now they do too.

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

Hello, iano.You seem to be saying, "We can't really be sure we know anything. Therefore, we should accept the dogma presented in a particular religious text as interpreted by a particular religious sect." But you usually seem to be more intelligent than this, so I suspect that I am having trouble grasping the point you have been trying to make since you arrived here.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

I won't be around long more at EvC CP. Time for other things. So maybe you could do me a favour and answer the question asked in my last post. I'm a bit long in the tooth here to be deflected by the old "fling religion at him - that'll throw him off the scent trick" I don't know much about US high school education but swallowing that such students can form anything other than pseudo-objective decisions about evolution (be it true or not) by being introduced to some basic concepts that would eventually be applied in direct study of its inner workings, is proving a tad difficult for me.If I don't talk to you again here then goodbye for now. It was pleasant to ding-doing with you. Hope things have settled out a bit on the Phd front (and that mom loves you still)Iano

Dunno why I tripped into this thread Percy. I've been around the block on this subject and shouldn't have really gotten involved without figuring to stick around to make a go of it. I see you've a PotM for it so if I may, I'll take the opportunity of the extra reads it may get just to say caio to the congregation here gathered.Thanks firstly to yourself as representitive of Admin in general. It's a fantastic site in so many ways and those who make it so have reason to be justifiably proud of the way it runs and what it attempts to achieve. Technically, operationally, moderationally etc. are all top drawer stuff. It has been a rivetting place to spend time.But it would be nothing without the folk here and it is that which I have enjoyed most and found most compelling. I take leave with a much better appreciation of the myriad of views that people can hold and the reasons why it is you hold them. Given the general background worldviews on display, I very often times could not but stand mouth agape at the skill with which you've presented your worldview-derived positions. Not that I'd go so far as to mention that fact of course - if there is one flaw with EvC it is the difficulty with which one tells ones opponant that they have made a brilliant point (or that they have missed a glaring flaw in ones own position!). It probably has less to do with a flaw in EvC and more that I've got some more growing up to do. Be that as it may.Thanks for your time EvC-ers. It really has been eye-opening in many ways. If I have learned anything, it has been about the people-behind-the-positions. Humanity is truly a beautiful thing to behold even in its fallen state and it is here that I have received another powerful glimpse of why God sent his son to die for it. Because we're worth it.If ever comes a point when your wandering around Heaven and you've got a bit of eternity on your hands, then do look me up will ya? We'll have a bit of a smile about this time of our lives. And I promise I won't say "I told you so"Many thanks,IanThis message has been edited by iano, 02-Mar-2006 02:58 AM

Oh, I get it now. You're not saying that evolution is hard; you're just saying that American kids are mouth-breathing dumbasses.Gotcha. Much clearer, now.

Take care, iano. Sorry to see you go. It's been a pleasure all around, I'm sure. Drop back in as the occasion chances.

Before you go...The appointment of moderators is an informal process. In the Admin forum someone might mention that someone might make a good moderator, and someone else might agree, and then something might happen soon, or it might happen later, or nothing might happen. The busier the moderator team the more motivated they are to bring in new moderators.About a week ago I mentioned that I thought you might make a good moderator, and there seemed to be general agreement. Being very busy I took no action, but now you're sort of forcing my hand. If you think I might be able to persuade you to accept the role, please send email to Admin. I usually check email at least every other day.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

quote:

---

There have been some absolutely fascinating discoveries in evolution and developmental biology lately, why not make documentaries about stuff like that? I'm sure there is a market for this stuff, its just that people don't know they can become interested in it.

---

They are there.It's called "PBS".

quote:

---

So maybe you could do me a favour and answer the question asked in my last post.

---

Since you are leaving I would prefer to give you the last word. But if you insist:

quote:

---

I don't know much about US high school education but swallowing that such students can form anything other than pseudo-objective decisions about evolution (be it true or not) by being introduced to some basic concepts that would eventually be applied in direct study of its inner workings, is proving a tad difficult for me.

---

And I don't know much about Irish high schools students, but I find it difficult to swallow the idea that they can form anything other than pseudo-objective decisions about the composition and state of the earth's core, how the sun is powered, or whether the Second Punic War took place.It is true that high school students (and most other people) do not have access to the actual seismic data, the actual spectroscopic data, or the actual historical documents, the training to critically examine them and determine their reliability, or the ability to put them into context with other data and to properly interpret them.One can argue that no one can be certain of anything outside of a very small bubble of direct experience. It is an interesting problem when one first confronts basic epistemological questions; however, most people don't let themselves become paralized by it (well, okay, I did) and eventually move on to other interesting questions.However, you do not seem to be saying that no one can be certain of anything outside of a very small bubble of direct experience. You seem to mostly have a problem with one particular model that contradicts a literal account of a particular religious sect's sacred scriptures. Theories and beliefs that are consistent with those scriptures seem to get a pass from you; in fact, you don't seem to apply the same skepticism to the tenets held by that religious sect.That is why it is hard to take seriously the concerns about "evolutionary brainwashing" or the "uncritical acceptance of the dogma of evolutionist 'experts'". Those raising these concerns only seem to raise them when it comes to protecting their own idiosyncratic beliefs; in fact, here in the US those pushing these concerns have shown themselves quite happy with the uncritical acceptance of dogma as long as it is their own religious and political dogma that is being accepted.Now a general discussion of epistemological questions might be interesting indeed; however, you haven't really given a good reason why the focus should be narrowed to the theory of evolution.-

quote:

---

If I don't talk to you again here then goodbye for now.

---

I am sincerely sorry to see you go. However I understand; I had to go AWOL for a few months, and one's interests do change over time. As others have said, I hope to see again from time to time.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

Actually, to be frank, I don't care if people accept evolution or not.

​

They might be better off not accepting it. It might get twisted around and perverted into another version of "social Darwinism." We don't want that.

---

Then they'd better not accept anything, because anything can get twisted around and perverted.Best to just stay ignorant of everything.