Evolution: Science, Pseudo-Science, or Both?

That is the kind of question that shows someone has not though through the situations. The answer is that both are most likely right.The other point you have not covered in a way I can understand yet is your continual return to using the classification "Pseudo-science" as a source for scientific advancement yet you have not show a single case where that was apparent.For example: I've read that over about a dozen times and all I can get out of it is one "duh" attached to some gibberish.If, by the section 'was possibly some "larger claim" in evolutionary theory that was might be false' you mean that we will find things in the Theory of Evolution that are wrong, then of course. Big 'Duh". We hope and expect to find errors in EVERY scientific theory. That's how things progress.But then you go off into the part I can't interpret at all; "and that this was based on the patterns of science emerging from pseudo-science as knowledge and experimental menthods increasingly became better."For that to make some kind of sense you'd first need to show that there was some practiced psuedo-science. And thus far I have not seen any such exaples in any of your posts.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So Galileo developing a deeper understanding of true astronomy due to his desire to conduct astrology isn't considered a pseudo-scientific inspiration?Likewise, the alchemists of old developing a deeper understanding of of true chemistry due to their desire to turn lead into gold or produce an elixer of life isn't considered a pseudo-scientific inspiration?Or, for that matter, the researchers of the early dawn of the Industrial Age developing a deeper understanding of mechanics due to their desire to produce a perpetual motion engine isn't considered a pseudo-scientific inspiration?Even more, the various Christian researchers over the last 500 years developing a deeper understanding of the scientific method due to their desire to show God's orderly harmony throughout creation isn't considered a pseudo-scientific inspiration?What the? How can one not see this -- or make such baseless statements that I haven't clearly demonstrated any connection at all between the inspiration of pseudo-sceince and the final results of authentic science generated from their pseudo-scientific impulses.Furthermore, I've mentioned this before, but I'll run it past again:

quote:

---

Pseudoscience fails to meet the criteria met by science generally (including the scientific method), and can be identified by a combination of these characteristics:

​

1) by asserting claims or theories without first verifying them in experiments...

​

2) by asserting claims which cannot be verified...

​

3) by asserting claims without supporting experimental evidence...

​

4) by asserting claims which contradict experimentally established results...

​

5) by failing to provide an experimental possibility of reproducible results...

​

6) by failing to submit results to peer review prior to publicizing them (called "science by press conference")...

​

7) by claiming a theory predicts something that it does not...

​

8) by claiming a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict...

​

9) by asserting claims that violate falsifiability...

​

10) 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...

​

11) lack of progress toward additional evidence of its claims...

---

When Galileo was trying to prove Coperican heliocentric theories, he was trying to prove that the sun was the center of the universe -- not the solar system. Furthermore, he did employ Scriptures to prove his point.This falls under the following pseudo-scientific elements noted above:In asserting that astrology (which he praticed) could actually predict the behavior of people on earth he violated #7 by claiming his theory indirectly predicted something that it did not actually predict. This #7 point is also violated whenever Scriptures are invoked to validate its authenticity.Also, in asserting that the sun was the center of the universe he violated #8 by claiming his theory predicted something that it had not been shown to predict.In fact, in all these above cases, whether alchemists attempting to turn lead into gold, or researchers attempting to develop a perpectual motion engine, or even any Christian scientist attempting to prove God's existence by determining the natural laws of the universe -- all these things, according to the notes highlighted above (and generally accepted within the scientific community) seem to fall directly under these two categories of psuedo-science:

quote:

---

7) by claiming a theory predicts something that it does not...

​

8) by claiming a theory predicts something that it has not been shown to predict...

---

Does this clarify things better?This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-17-2005 03:36 PMThis message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-17-2005 03:39 PM

No, not really. Let me take this one example since it is typicl of all the ones you've raised.No, astrology was not pseudo-science. It is today, but was not at the time.But the methods that Galileo used were exactly the same as those used by modern science. He made observations. Then, regardless of what preconcieved notions he held, he based his conclusions on the results of those observations.Sorry but looking at the evidence I do not see where your assertion is at all valid.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

Punctuated Equilibira fits within Dawkins idea of gradualism as he explains in The Blind Watchmaker. Thus it is not an "either or" situation.

---

My apologies -- I stand corrected. I'm not sure why I was thinking Dawkins when I meant to type Mayr. Anyway, being more specific, what would you make of this statement here by Walter Giberti?

quote:

---

In a recent book, Ernst Mayr criticized Gould’s interpretation of punctuated equilibrium. Mayr stated: The claim has been made by some authors (Gould, 1971) that the occurrence of punctuated equilibria is in conflict with gradual Darwinian evolution. This is not correct. Even punctuated equilibria, which, at first sight, seems to support saltationism and discontinuity, are in fact strictly populational phenomena, and therefore gradual. They are in no respect whatsoever in conflict with the evolutionary synthesis.

---

Walter explains his perspective on it within the article I've cited. But I'd be interested in hearing your perspective please.This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-17-2005 03:57 PM

The statement quoted by Giberti agrees with Dawkin's assessment. It clearly states that there is no conflict. So I don't know why substituting Mayr for Dawkins helps you in the slightest.

I'm not so sure. What Mayr is saying if I understood him was that punc eq is conceptually NOT based on populations but on species but that ultra-Darwinism(or more narrowly geneic selectionism) can trump ANY theoretical position of population thinking seems suspect. I thought *that* is what Mayr meant. First use population thinking before you use species rate thinking. This does not mean that "Dakwins' gradualism" wont survive within that view of Mayr but I dont see it prima facie supproting RD's point of view.Sure species are made of populations but Mayr is arguing for a specific view on the synthesis that vindicates his view between Fisher and Wright say.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-17-2005 04:20 PM

quote:

---

No, astrology was not pseudo-science. It is today, but was not at the time.

---

Yes. I agree with you 100%. Astrology was not considered a pseudo-science at the time of Galileo.

quote:

---

But the methods that Galileo used were exactly the same as those used by modern science. He made observations. Then, regardless of what preconcieved notions he held, he based his conclusions on the results of those observations.

---

But it was his preconceived notions that inspired him to search out for the truth using genuinely authentic science. The "science" of "his day" -- even though, in "retrospect", it was later proven to be a "pseudo-science" -- it still nonetheless inspired him to search more deeply for the truth.It is in this way that authentic science emerged from the shackles of pseudo-science.PaulK, I'm not trying to be obstinant or argumentative here. Goodness gracious, I'm just trying to display this pattern as carefully as I can.According to his post, crashfrog seems to have picked up on what I am implying with simple clarity:

quote:

---

I guess, unlike others, I don't find this to be a contentious position. Stradonitz developed the ring structure of Benzene after dreaming of an ouroboros. Sometimes scientists get ideas from science fiction. I heard of a guy that invented a new kind of wheel from reading Ezekiel. Any old thing might turn out to be the inspiration for scientific thought.

---

Although all these examples are excellent, the one concerning the predictive nature of science fiction is a nearly flawless example of what I'm trying to convey.Science fiction seems to have predicted the technological and scientific marvels of the atomic age and space ages. For example, Karel Capek coined the word robot in his play R.U.R. (1921) and discussed the atomic bomb in his novel Krakatit (1924).In the former Soviet Union, science fiction began receiving much attention and encouragement as early as the 1920's. In 1928, the Russian author Maxim Gorki praised science fiction for displaying "the amazing ability of our thoughts to look far ahead of actual events."As time went on, science fiction's popularity grew immensely as genuine developments in nuclear energy and space exploration showed that much science fiction was more realisitc than people originally believed it to be.Some would ask whether science fiction actually predicted these things or whether it simply inspired others to emulate its claim.I think Edward Willett captures some of these thoughts succinctly in his article Science Fiction Prophecies:

quote:

---

The Shape of Things to Come was the actual title of a book by H. G. Wells, one of two famous SF writers (though the term "science fiction" had yet to be invented) of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. (The other was French writer Jules Verne.) Wells was concerned with the problems of society; The Shape of Thing to Come envisioned major wars fought in the 20th century, a distressingly accurate prediction. Jules Verne's stories were more conventional adventures that took readers Around the World in 80 Days, From the Earth to the Moon and, of course, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, which featured a high-tech submarine.

​

Neither Wells nor Verne, despite their influence, is considered the "father of science fiction." That title belongs to Hugo Gernsback. In 1911 he filled a few empty pages in the radio magazine he published with a short story: Ralph 124C 41+: A Romance of the Year 2660. Gernsback's prose was abominable, but he wasn't really interested in writing: his interest was scientific prediction.

​

He was remarkably good at it. Microfiche, skywriting, solar power, holograms, fax machines and even aluminum foil were all part of Ralph's daily life--but certainly not yet part of the daily lives of Gernsback's readers. And then there was the "parabolic wave reflector": today we know it as radar.

​

The success of Ralph 124C 41+ led Gernsback to found Amazing Stories in 1926. That was the first science fiction magazine, and that's why the awards for the year's best science fiction, handed out at WorldCon, are called "Hugos."

---

Willet goes on to say:

quote:

---

Another famous example is communications satellites. SF writer Arthur C. Clarke came up with the idea in the 1940s. Today we take them for granted.

​

Robert Heinlein wrote a story called Waldo about an enormous man, trapped in orbit, who manipulated things through remote machines. Today, remote manipulators of this sort, used for handling hazardous materials, are called "waldoes." (Heinlein also invented the water bed in an SF story, by the way.)

​

Space exploration, of course, has always been a big SF topic. It's been said that many, maybe even most, of the engineers and scientists who worked on the Apollo program were inspired as youngsters by Heinlein's stories about the colonization of the moon and the planets. But while the concept of space travel was popularized by SF, the details have sometimes been a bit fuzzy. Which leads us to the flip side of SF predictions: the misses.

​

Jules Verne's predicted that the first trip to the moon would be launched from Florida: unfortunately, he had his moon-explorers fired out of a giant cannon.

---

He also notes prior to his conclusion:

quote:

---

Arthur C. Clarke, in 2001: A Space Odyssey, foresaw giant orbiting space stations and a lunar colony, served by commercial flights, by the turn of the century. We're not going to make it..

​

Today, SF is still making predictions. Hot topics in the field right now include...

​

Virtual Reality. Just about every story set in the future today includes some reference to computer-generated reality.

​

Nanotechnology. Tiny robots able to perform incredible tasks from cleaning out clogged arteries to retrieving inaccessible mineral resources make frequent appearances in today's SF.

​

Genetic engineering. Is a human still a human when he's been genetically engineered to have gills and webbed feet, or elongated for living in zero gravity? Is such engineering of humans ethical?

​

Mars. Basically, we're all agreed: it's time to go there.

​

Cyberspace. Canadian William Gibson wrote a novel called Neuromancer in the mid-1980s that pictured a dark, gritty future where people battled for power inside the world's interlinked computer systems, a realm he called cyberspace. That gave birth to several similar novels and short stories by various people, and the new sub-genre was promptly labelled "cyberpunk" by the SF community. The term has since taken on a life of its own and has now made its way into mainstream thought, even appearing in TIME Magzine.

​

Which, oddly enough, ties back into Heinlein and an earlier generation of writers' predictions that came true (and others, like global thermonuclear war, which, fortunately, did not). SF, though it looks to the future, is firmly rooted in present-day knowledge and concerns. As a result, its predictions can actually influence the future, whether through Heinlein-inspired aeronautical engineers or by imbedding the concepts of cyberspace firmly in the world's collective consciousness. Its effect can be active--convincing a generation that it is possible to put humans on the moon--or reactive, warning us against the dangers of overpopulation, pollution, or even virtual reality.

​

And best of all, it can do all these things while entertaining us with terrific writing and a terrific story.

​

Can your favorite fiction genre claim as much?

---

I'll be honest in admitting that I do not know what Willet's position is concenring matters of faith. However, "belief" in God per se is not what I'm trying to establish anyway.My own thoughts on the matter is that the point of scientific investigation should not be to reject metaphysical doctrines out of hand -- but to attempt where possible to transform them into theories that can be empirically tested.That, and that it is often from metaphysics (the imaginitive conjectures of our mind) that truly authentic science has often emerged.Do you understand what I'm saying now? This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-17-2005 06:56 PM

Thank you Brad for the clarification.Apparently I was wrong.I thought that there was some greater discussion going on between proponents of punctuated equilibria and gradualism.During speciation, a new species diverges from its parent species as a small isolated population.According to the gradualist model, species descended from a common ancestor diverge more and more in morphology as they acquire unique adaptations.According to proponents of the punctuated equilibrium model, a new species changes most as it buds from the parents' lineage and then changes little for the rest of its existence.Is this accurate?In addition to this, what about Daniel C. Dennett?According to Veronica Broden, he has some interesting ideas which he emphasizes are strongly opposed to Stephen J. Gould’s. Their debate has a lot of highly relevant material which also illustrates a more subjective side of science.What is often difficult to ascertain is whether the debate is about ego rather than about ‘facts’ of philosophy or science.According to some, the conflict that the two have can be seen to be fundamentally about sociobiology; the assumption that patterns of social behaviour among all animals (including humans) are genetically based and adaptive.Dennett, like Richard Dawkins, is apparently a firm believer in the all-encompassing power of natural selection and adaptationism. Gould is apparently a ‘pluralist’ -— criticizing biological determinism, saying natural selection is important, but not the only significant force at work in evolution.Gould appears to further insist that evolution has little to do with progress, and emphasizes historical contingency.Dennett is a philosopher whom Gould (biologist/paleontologist) calls (among other things) a Darwinian fundamentalist, engaged in an effort to "revolutionize" the study of human behaviour along a Darwinian straight and narrow under the name of evolutionary psychology."According to Dennett, Gould is a myth- his reputation over time has become far above and outside what he really is, (like Santa Claus or Albert Einstein, Dennett says). He is a Refuter of Orthodox Darwinism, grasping for ‘higher meaning’. Both have written things which seem to their opponents to be unforgivable oversimplifications or flights of windy rhetoric.Certainly, if this above information is accurate, it seems to suggest more of a heated scientific dialectic between gradualism and punctuated equilibrium than a peaceful one -- albeit, more on a philosphical level than a biological one.This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-17-2005 07:03 PM

Are you still addressing me? It's hard to tell sometimes from your posts who you are addressing? I understand what you're trying to say, I simply think that your connection with pseudo-science is wrong.There's no doubt that ideas can be inspired by almost anything. I'll readily agree with that but still disagree with how you're connecting pseudo-science into the thread.I think by making the connection as you have you miss both the wonder and the message of many of the advances we have made.The key is that inspiration is only a starting point, one that even more often turns out to be a mistake. The real advances we have made over the years are usually accompanied by a chorus of "That's funny?"It's that two step process; first there is the ability to recognize something out of the ordinary. But then the real work starts. When you concentrate on issues such as Pseudo-science (or even inspiration) you miss the value of the scientific method. It's designed to take inspiration as a starting point and then to provided a structure for moving it to something that can actually be used.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Quick note: jar, I usually reply to everyone like I'm in a general audience whenever I post -- it assumes that anyone who reads it will have read through the entire thread to see how the discourse has flowed.Also, I usually quote the phrase of the person that I'm responding to -- but I certainly don't mind others answering my questions that weren't specifically directed toward them. Also, I'm still not sure how to put the poster's name in the quote yet using the html (if it even works?). Maybe I'll start putting poster's names inside the quotes form here on in.I'll respond to your other good points in a bit.

_{There is a peek button. Click on it and learn all the secrets.}

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

From Gould's The Strucutre of Evolutionary Theory page 777

quote:

---

During speciation, a new species diverges from its parent species as a small isolated population.

---

using this figure 9-6 that depends on what the strech between the two parts of the branching system that enter this triangle means. I think new tools of spatial analysis following Croizat's method are determinative here. They have not been formed in the literature. People have different opinions.

quote:

---

According to the gradualist model, species descended from a common ancestor diverge more and more in morphology as they acquire unique adaptations.

---

I think it was Mayr's place that the area of this traingle is determined by population phenomena but Gould's space is that species can be treated as if they were individuals such that the connection ACROSS the triangle is with some relative frequency mediated by species level phenomena. I took it Dawkins' thought would have been that the small first extension of the root"" system into the triangle is determinative of the whole process of higher hierarchicalization THAT OCCURS IN TIME as the bradytelic populations would have become horotelic.

quote:

---

According to proponents of the punctuated equilibrium model, a new species changes most as it buds from the parents' lineage and then changes little for the rest of its existence.

---

The problem is that if one admits design into the topology of a lineage (parent vs decendent without an explict genetical hypothesis) then there are three concepts that play into the diagramatic view of the history (creation ex nihlio, common descent, natural purpose) but the literature generally only approves of substituting common descent for ex nihlio excuses for the artificiality. Common descent however creates situtations where ex nihlio might be reintroduced should the artificiality succeed economically in advancing social hierarchies. It all gets quite complicated when one thinks beyond the mere names of the lineages. So if genic selectionism out survies pun eq it might not be that the larger conceptual scope of PE gave anything but an appearence still under test and Mayr would be correct. I dont think this will happen. PE still insists however that "stasis IS data" but the current relations depend on there being NO NEW SPATIAL ANALYSIS TOOLS than already exist. I doubt that is what is happening either.

quote:

---

Is this accurate?

---

it is fairly so/such as, unless Gould is mistaken with, TSETp888
It is also possible that fractal geometries build allometric correlations but this depends then on thier being a conflict contra Paulk.

quote:

---

In addition to this, what about Daniel C. Dennett?

---

Dennett's book "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" page 307-8

quote:

---

We have answerd our second question. We are finally ready to tackle first base: why would this thesis be of great importance, whichever way it came out? Gould thinks that the hypothesis of "radical contingency" will upset our equianimity, but why?

​

We talk about the "march from monad to man (old-style language again) as though evolution followed continuous pathways of progress along unbroken lineages. Nothing could be further from reality[Gould 1989b, p 14]

​

What could not be further from reality?...There aren't global pathways of progress, but there is incessant local improvement...Can it be that Gould thinks his thesis of radical contingency would refute the core Darwinian idea that evolution is an algorithmic process? That is my tentative conclusion.

---

I can say a few things . I dont think Dennett was correct to assert that Gould usurped micro mechans but I also dont tend to think along species selection lines. Gould's problem is that he claimed to have read Panbiogeography in grad school. Nelson's closer reading than Gould's failed to reproduce in the abreviation Croizat called for a means to acquireing new tools in spatial analysis for the synthetic practice in taxonomy so "what" Gould refers to here that Dennet is asking about is based on there being NOTHING CROIZAT WISE EVER AVAILABLE TO BIOLOGY IN THE FUTURE ( that Nelson's worrying about circle vs star systematists is as far as it will go classification wise when discussing form making and translation in space). That's how it was that Gould could make the transition to the sentence "Nothing could be further from reality" AND confuse Dennet enough that D wrote about it. Gould read Croizat quite well indeed! But DD misplaces this conceptually as an issue about progress. Yes, that is true but not in what Gould is doing for Gould refuses to accept progress except as a nationalistic pasttime. So Dennet misses the point that there MIGHT be global (panbiogeographic) pathways some of which are progressive as to natural purposes and others which might not be artfical but introduce in Desgin after some monod to man continuum ex nihlio but this is only because of his algorithmic position (not sociobiology) for he did not use discussions in the history of biology which it seems Gould is or had done. This does not mean that contingency is out of the picture however. The abbreviated form of Croizat's method might accomplish that but the method as it still stands is incredibly sharp as to matching earth and life that unless we decide some specifics on MATHEMATICAL CONTINUA in Dennet's "what?" of Gould there will still be but a linguistic error here rather than an issue of abduction of mathmatical induction. I dont think that meant that radical contingency would refute an algorithmic process for Gould is simply espousing the probabilitic nature of current evolutionary theory but on an expanded hierarchial set of levels. Contingency will show up MORE in man-made use of evolutionary theory than as props for old style thinking (sic). I have ideas about the analytic nature of this all that would change the discussion as if true but that is contingent on me be correct only.The crucial diagram is on page 668 of Gould's where Gould discusses Grantham's 95 paper for invoking species selection in hierarchical models.The difference between Gould and me is in thinking about cross level effects as potentials or things. As for what the community of evos are doing enmass I am not longer the person to think of as asking as I have not been circulating among 'em since the 80s. The analysis however is not really all that difficult and anyone with a mind can figure this stuff out.

quote:

---

I thought that there was some greater discussion going on between proponents of punctuated equilibria and gradualism.

---

I can construct one. I havent done a literature search or used Science Citation on it.This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 04-18-2005 03:22 PM

ahhhh...I see. thank you.

Really I don't know why you go on with these trivial and well-known facts aboute Kekule and Capek when they really have nothing to do with your supposed point.Where's this supposed pattern of theories includng "larger claims" that turn out to be false ?

The main dispuste over PE is over whether it is a radical departure from neo-Darwinian ideas or not. Gould sometimes claimed that it was and was criticised for doing so by Dawkins, Mayr, Dennet and others. Dennet's main complaint about Gould is that he did make overblown claims that PE represented a departure from the neo-Darwinian theory.Generally speaking it seems to be agreed that some evolution happens according to PE while some is more gradualistic.Gould's idea about contingency are a different issue.