Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Verifying truth in science - is evolution faith-based?
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1 of 104 (287635)
02-17-2006 11:30 AM


In another topic about information Garrett made the claim that:
if the evidence infers a conclusion that isn't verifiable, you rely on faith
So I thought I'd start a topic on how conclusions can be verified, and I'm going to use murder as my analogy.
If we find a man in the room with a knife in the back, we generally infer that a murder has taken place. However, we need to verify it. How? We verify something by finding other evidence, independent of the first, that agrees with that conclusion.
So take the evolutionary time scale. One of the biggest criticisms that faces evolutionary time scales is that we cannot verify it. For example, the fossil record shows that the marsupial mammals and placental mammals diverged about 143-178 million years ago1.
How? From radiodating of the fossils. How do we verify this?
One way to do it is to attempt to calibrate a molecular clock based on a radiodating time. If this molecular clock gives us times similar to the radiodating times (for times other than the calibration time obviously) then this is considered verification of radiodating. It would be a tremendous coincidence if the two just happened to line up. It has been done 1 on several occasions.
There are many independent lines of enquiry that agree with the inferred conclusion that is evolution. Each one serves as a verification method. The (in)famous 29+ evidences (which is now the second result on google if you search for 29+) demonstrate many of these lines of enquiry.
I appreciate the topic appears to be wide, so I'll clarify:
off topic
1. Discussions about whether or not the 29+ evidences are right or not. A little discussion on them would probably be on topic, but we are going in the wrong direction if it becomes the central topic
2. Radiodating is wrong! Essentially the topic is about verification methods, and what they are. The dates and dating forum is the place for such rants.
on topic
1. Falsification, the opposite of verification, but I think its discussion is on topic here.
2. Using the above topics as examples. Eg, If radiodating is right, here is a method for verifying it. If radiodating is wrong, here is how to falsify it. Just be careful because that kind of thing can lead too far off the topic's path.
3. Philosophy/logic. Its popular here at the moment, and I think it would be interesting.

Kicking off the discussion

Garrett writes:
You can easily [verify] that your computer is on your desk by reaching out and touching it. However, it's not possible to [verify] that changes ABOVE the level of species can occur. Evolutionists would be the first to admit this since they take such great time to occur.
Garrett was talking about verification not proof, so I changed his words (as noted by square brackets). Of course we can not prove my desk is here (it could a complicated sequence of tactile, aural and visual hallucinations. I've neither smelled nor tasted it yet). Nor can we prove evolution at higher levels of taxa.
However, we can demonstrate many lines of evidence that infer evolution that agree with one another. Turning back to murder, if we had
1. DNA evidence,
2. fingerprint evidence,
3. a CCTV camera
4. a witness
5. a confession
6. no alibi
7. a bloody (victim's blood) weapon found at the suspect's house
8. a diary that details what the suspect was going to do, which matches up with what happened.
9. footprints that match the shoe size and type of the suspect
10. tyre tracks that match the suspect's vehicle,
11. which was caught on a speeding camera 200 metres from the location of the crime
12. The forensics pinpoint the time to within 20 minutes of the speed trap
13. etc
that suggested it was Greg Matthews then it would require FAITH that it wasn't him since it is unreasonable doubt, not reasonable doubt, to think such a thing.
As such when we have well over a dozen evidences that all point to the same conclusion of evolution it requires faith to not accept that conclusion, not vice versa.

1A molecular timescale for vertebrate evolution Sudhir Kumar & S. Blair Hedges

Is it Science? Seems to make sense.

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by rgb, posted 02-17-2006 1:16 PM Modulous has not replied
 Message 11 by Silent H, posted 02-18-2006 12:12 PM Modulous has not replied
 Message 14 by Garrett, posted 02-20-2006 10:04 AM Modulous has replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 104 (287638)
02-17-2006 11:33 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
rgb
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 104 (287678)
02-17-2006 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
02-17-2006 11:30 AM


Is evolution faith-based? The answer is both yes and no.
Yes-
People often try to make a distinction between faith and trust, that one came out of thin air while the other is earned. Perhaps evolution is somewhere in between, but it is definitely leaning toward the faith side. Why? Confirmation of the theory of evolution depends on many disciplines in biology. Darwin made the first leap forward by comparing similar body parts of certain creatures. Later scientists made contributions by exploring the fossil record, genetic similarities and differences, fetal development, etc. But these disciplines have developed to a point where there is hardly anyone that specializes in more than a couple of these disciplines. In other words, the ones that confirm a finding when it is announced are the ones that specialize in that particular field. Specialists in other fields have to take their words for it. It's called having faith, or trust, depending on what you do for a living, in the scientific community.
No-
The details of evolutionary theory come about through aquiring data, evidence and reasonable interpretations of the findings based on past data and interpretations. This differs from methodology of the past where you'd make up an interpretation of the physical world and then try to hammer the evidence to fit your "theory". In other words, if you're a scientist and you specialize in a specific field of biology, you are required to have the data to back up your findings AND everyone else who also specializes in the field should be able to reproduce the results you've obtained.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 02-17-2006 11:30 AM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by PurpleYouko, posted 02-17-2006 1:42 PM rgb has not replied
 Message 5 by nator, posted 02-17-2006 2:21 PM rgb has not replied
 Message 6 by Chiroptera, posted 02-17-2006 4:01 PM rgb has not replied

  
PurpleYouko
Member
Posts: 714
From: Columbia Missouri
Joined: 11-11-2004


Message 4 of 104 (287681)
02-17-2006 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by rgb
02-17-2006 1:16 PM


Nice answer
That is a nice answer Blueredwhite.
However I will have to disagree on parts of the faith side.
these disciplines have developed to a point where there is hardly anyone that specializes in more than a couple of these disciplines. In other words, the ones that confirm a finding when it is announced are the ones that specialize in that particular field. Specialists in other fields have to take their words for it. It's called having faith, or trust
While it is true that each field has specialists who know their own area far better than those from other disciplines, any decent scientist has a certain amount of overlap into other areas and is able to follow the logic, workings and conclusions of specialists from those areas, once the research has been done.
It is far easier to understand something when it is fully explained than it is to pioneer the research yourself.
I also hold a distinction between faith and trust.
If I trust a scientist to get it right then I still want to see his/her workings so that I can follow his/her logic in reaching his/her conclusions. This does not diminish my trust but is just my way of attenpting to confirm the findings.
If I have absolute faith in a particular scientist then I have no reason to even bother with figuring it out for myself. I would just know that his/her conclusion was correct.
So I would say that within the scientific comunity and across disciplines there has to be "trust" but there certainly doesn't have to be "faith".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by rgb, posted 02-17-2006 1:16 PM rgb has not replied

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 5 of 104 (287700)
02-17-2006 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by rgb
02-17-2006 1:16 PM


quote:
In other words, the ones that confirm a finding when it is announced are the ones that specialize in that particular field. Specialists in other fields have to take their words for it. It's called having faith, or trust, depending on what you do for a living, in the scientific community.
Just because there are many specialties, sub-specialties, sub-sub- specialties, and so on within science, it does not mean theat there is not a LARGE amount of interdisciplinary work going on.
For example, my husband got his undergrad degree in Biopsychology, did some graduate work in Molecular Neurobiology, then moved on to study attention, visual perception and cognition, and working memory and aging. Now he is doing post-doctoral work in learning and congnition.
So, he went all the way from the micro-level, working with individual neurons, to the macro-level, working with people doing tasks and looking at both FMRI and behavioral data.
This is no different anywhere else in science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by rgb, posted 02-17-2006 1:16 PM rgb has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 104 (287765)
02-17-2006 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by rgb
02-17-2006 1:16 PM


quote:
In other words, the ones that confirm a finding when it is announced are the ones that specialize in that particular field. Specialists in other fields have to take their words for it.
This isn't quite true. As someone who went to graduate school studying physics, did some research in planetary sciences, and did some more graduate study in mathematics, I will say that only the most mediocre of researchers are stuck in their own sub-specialty. The best scientists are well-versed in several different fields, and even the average scientist knows enough about the other fields in his particular discipline that not only can she evaluate the different arguments but can pretty much spot crap when she sees it. In fact, as scraf mentioned about her husband, many researchers will do work in several different fields during their professional career.

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by rgb, posted 02-17-2006 1:16 PM rgb has not replied

  
rgb
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 104 (287890)
02-17-2006 7:40 PM


I don't deny the fact that scientists are usually well versed in other disciplines other than their own supposed specialties. I also don't deny the fact that I could be totally out of touch with reality. What I'm saying is that the theory of evolution covers so many disciplines, or rather so many disciplines are required to confirm the theory, that it is very unlikely for any one person or group to be so well versed in all the fields involved to understand completely every new finding and interpretation. And once that happens, a bastardized cross-breed of faith and trust is required to fully acknowledge that the theory is confirmed by genetics, geology, cosmology, etc.
Edited
I recall reading about a formal debate between a creationist and an astronomer on the age of the universe. The creationist started asking the astronomer questions about geology, probably knowing that the general public have trouble understanding the concept of specialty, and the astronomer's best answer was something like "I trust geologists...." I just think it's unreasonable to ask or demand that every member of the scientific community know absolutely everything about the vast pool of scientific knowledge about such a theory.
This message has been edited by blueredwhite, 02-17-2006 07:46 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Chiroptera, posted 02-17-2006 7:49 PM rgb has not replied
 Message 9 by SuperNintendo Chalmers, posted 02-17-2006 7:50 PM rgb has not replied
 Message 10 by jar, posted 02-17-2006 8:33 PM rgb has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 104 (287898)
02-17-2006 7:49 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by rgb
02-17-2006 7:40 PM


quote:
What I'm saying is that the theory of evolution covers so many disciplines, or rather so many disciplines are required to confirm the theory, that it is very unlikely for any one person or group to be so well versed in all the fields involved to understand completely every new finding and interpretation.
I still don't understand why this is a problem.
-
quote:
And once that happens, a bastardized cross-breed of faith and trust is required to fully acknowledge that the theory is confirmed by genetics, geology, cosmology, etc.
That is an interesting opinion, but why do you hold it?

"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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by rgb, posted 02-17-2006 7:40 PM rgb has not replied

  
SuperNintendo Chalmers
Member (Idle past 5833 days)
Posts: 772
From: Bartlett, IL, USA
Joined: 12-27-2005


Message 9 of 104 (287901)
02-17-2006 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by rgb
02-17-2006 7:40 PM


Here's the key - IT WORKS
I work for a software company. Our deveopers don't have know how transistors work or about electron potential wells to make our products work.
Similarly, things like anti-biotics just work! Which should be proof enough that evolution is solid.
The proof is in the pudding!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by rgb, posted 02-17-2006 7:40 PM rgb has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 10 of 104 (287932)
02-17-2006 8:33 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by rgb
02-17-2006 7:40 PM


Sorry but just NO Faith required at all.
I don't deny the fact that scientists are usually well versed in other disciplines other than their own supposed specialties. I also don't deny the fact that I could be totally out of touch with reality. What I'm saying is that the theory of evolution covers so many disciplines, or rather so many disciplines are required to confirm the theory, that it is very unlikely for any one person or group to be so well versed in all the fields involved to understand completely every new finding and interpretation. And once that happens, a bastardized cross-breed of faith and trust is required to fully acknowledge that the theory is confirmed by genetics, geology, cosmology, etc.
It's not a matter that so many disciplines are required to confirm the theory. That's not the case at all.
The thing that adds overwhelming weight to the TOE is that every discipline DOES support it. It was well supported with the publication of Origin of the Species. Since then new technologies have been developed.
Guess what?
They supported the TOE.
Since then many new discoveries have been made.
Guess what?
They supported the TOE.
One other thing.
In 2000 years not one supporting fact, evidence or technology has come along to support ID or Creationism.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by rgb, posted 02-17-2006 7:40 PM rgb has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 11 of 104 (288081)
02-18-2006 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
02-17-2006 11:30 AM


I agree that the answer is both yes and no, and for similar though not exactly the same reasons as brw.
To hold evolutionary theory as some sort of fact is definitely an act of faith. It requires faith in assumptions about the methodology of science, the results of that methodology, and most importantly the completeness of the data to give us a picture of what happened over time for all living entities.
Even held tentatively there is still a sense of faith in the same things mentioned above, though one could consider it more along the lines of trust and one understands that there is a limit to that trust and so does not misplace it to the degree of superstition.
The greater difference (between evo and creo or id) comes in with regard to how evidence is handled. While there is an element of faith toward the end of evo (how strong the conclusion may be held), there is an element of faith at the beginning of creo and id which must be held and reinforced through to the end. Thus evidence is handled in a deductive, rather than inductive way, which makes it more problematic.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 02-17-2006 11:30 AM Modulous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by NosyNed, posted 02-18-2006 2:05 PM Silent H has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 12 of 104 (288116)
02-18-2006 2:05 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Silent H
02-18-2006 12:12 PM


Differences of degree and semantics
There seems to be a clear intuitive difference between trust and faith. I think that must be remembered.
Perhaps the real difference is the degree of trust/faith (whatever). If I buy a used car based on how good the salesman tells me it is that indicates a high degree of trust. If I first take it to an independent mechanic who's skills I know then I have much, much less faith/trust in the salesman. If I also drive it myself, use whatever I know to poke around then there is less trust/faith involved.
With the evolutionary explanation for current life I can look at all sorts of different things and review proponents and opponents to make up my own mind to arrive at a conclusion with as much or as little faith/trust as I am willing to spend time on.
If one side allows me to keep digging deeper and deeper (poking around) and I keep getting consistent answers I start to give them more trust (my independent mechanic). If the other seems to run short of explanatory power almost immediately I begin to wonder (my plaid clad used car salesmen).
It is easy for me to pick between the two. In spite of some saying they have studied both sides for a long time it is apparent to me that they haven't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Silent H, posted 02-18-2006 12:12 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Silent H, posted 02-19-2006 5:18 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 13 of 104 (288300)
02-19-2006 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by NosyNed
02-18-2006 2:05 PM


Re: Differences of degree and semantics
It is easy for me to pick between the two. In spite of some saying they have studied both sides for a long time it is apparent to me that they haven't.
You make an excellent point and it mirrors something I mentioned to rand in a creo thread. There is a long history of purely deductive mechanisms tied to wholly religious dogma, failing to deliver useful results. On the other hand inductive mechanisms tied to no conclusive dogma, has a long history of producing useful results.
So in this case I agree that I'd place more trust in the inductive system, rather than the deductive system. And of course those that place trust in the latter system are doing so on faith, rather than "reason".
My explanation was not so much discussing the personal level, but the state of the science in and of itself.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by NosyNed, posted 02-18-2006 2:05 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Garrett
Member (Idle past 6165 days)
Posts: 111
From: Dallas, TX
Joined: 02-10-2006


Message 14 of 104 (288593)
02-20-2006 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
02-17-2006 11:30 AM


Sorry for the delayed response...I was put on timeout by the admin staff. Somewhere Serling smiles.
You seem to use the term "faith" to mean belief counter to the evidence. I take faith to mean belief based on logical evidence, but lacking empirical truth. I think my use of the term faith actually parallels quite closely what you describe when you list evidences that lead toward a conclusion. I think it's largely a matter of semantics. If you define "faith" as a belief that cannot be rationally proven, then macroevolution does indeed require faith. Although there is a large quantity of supporting evidence (when viewed from an evolutionary viewpoint), it is only rationally supported and not rationally proven. So, according to the traditional definition of faith, we have a fit.
In other words, our argument actually seems to be over what "faith" means, not if it's required to accept macroevolution. Belief without proof is faith. Belief, even with strong supporting evidence, is still faith when proof is not available.
You seem to think that verification in a scientific sense is the same as truth. Verification in a scientific sense is not proof, so changing my quote to read verification rather than proof is disingeneous. From wikipedia:
"Scientific method does not aim to give an ultimate answer. Its iterative and recursive nature implies that it will never come to an end, so any answer it gives is provisional. Hence it cannot prove or verify anything in a strong sense. However, if a theory passed many experimental tests without being disproved, it is usually considered superior to any theory that has not yet been put to a test."
The most you could ever assert about macroevolution, therefore, is that it is the superior scientfic model available at this time. It's not, however, proven.
Further, by arguing that your computer may not be on your desk because you could be hallucinating or imagining it, undermines your whole argument. Either there is objective reality or there is not (not to mention, hallucination could be falsified by having other people view the computer). If not, then any logical evidence you provide for macroevolution similarly could be false. The fossil record could be a hallucination, for instance. Science would be pointless if it didn't start with the assumption that reality exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 02-17-2006 11:30 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Percy, posted 02-20-2006 10:49 AM Garrett has replied
 Message 19 by Modulous, posted 02-20-2006 2:38 PM Garrett has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 15 of 104 (288614)
02-20-2006 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Garrett
02-20-2006 10:04 AM


Garrett writes:
The most you could ever assert about macroevolution, therefore, is that it is the superior scientfic model available at this time. It's not, however, proven.
The significance and correctness of your conclusion that macroevolution is not proven depends upon how you define "proven". If by proven you mean demonstrated beyond doubt, then macroevolution is not proven, but then neither is any other scientific theory, so your conclusion isn't significant or useful.
But if by proven you mean broadly supported by evidence and widely accepted among the relevant community of scientists, then macroevolution is proven, just like many other theories, and your conclusion is incorrect.
--Percy
This message has been edited by Percy, 02-20-2006 10:49 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Garrett, posted 02-20-2006 10:04 AM Garrett has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Garrett, posted 02-20-2006 11:49 AM Percy has replied
 Message 21 by robinrohan, posted 02-21-2006 3:05 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 83 by Garrett, posted 04-27-2007 3:12 PM Percy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024