Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution: Science, Pseudo-Science, or Both?
Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1336 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 1 of 5 (198664)
04-12-2005 2:06 PM


Thoughts about science in regards to our origins and the theory of evolution...
I've been praying over and studying intently the history of science, and have noticed an interesting pattern.
When a theory is first brought forth, it usually makes 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 wihtout finsing 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 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 eleixer 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 wittled 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.
I suppose one could go on with this.
For 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.
For example, 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 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" -- which is exactly how some view the theory.
More to the point, it could be claimed that life is just like one big experiment -- which is exactly how a scientifically minded person might view the origins of all species on earth. In other words, for some people, ascribing God's creative process to purely evolutionary methods seem to render the divine within the context of the Great Experimenter -- albeit, an experimenter who apparently already knew the outcome of the experiment?
Some would even suggest that the theory of evolution is nothing more than the deification of the scientific method. While I would not whoeheartedly agree with this assertion, I would admit that there could yet be found some truth in it.
In the end, taking any stand against the claims of evolution could also apparently be seen as taking a stand against the scientific method itself. And, in so far as the theistic evolutionist is concerned, taking any stand against the claims of the theory of evolution could also apparently be seen as taking a stand against God himself -- or at least a denial of how God worked in the past.
After having reviewed the history of the development of science, and praying strenusously to understand it, it seems to me that Darwin's theory of evolution of life is on par with Galieo's heliocentric theory of our solar system.
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.
The smaller claim is true. 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 fossil record. 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.
The smaller claim is certainly true. The larger claim, however, may possibly not be so.
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-12-2005 01:19 PM
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-12-2005 02:41 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 04-12-2005 3:51 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 5 (198718)
04-12-2005 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-12-2005 2:06 PM


Re: Thoughts about science in regards to our origins and the theory of evolution...
This is a pretty nice essay but a pretty poor opening post. At 2300 words it is too long by at least 1500 words, it touches on a number of subtopics (too broad a focus), and at the end it isn't clear what your position is. How about this instead:
I believe that Darwin was ultimately incorrect in asserting that evolution was the mechanism which explained the speciation of the entire spectrum of life from primitive organisms. Evolution has not been tested to the point where this can be considered established.
How's that?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-12-2005 2:06 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-12-2005 3:55 PM Admin has replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1336 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 3 of 5 (198719)
04-12-2005 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
04-12-2005 3:51 PM


Re: Thoughts about science in regards to our origins and the theory of evolution...
That sounds good.
Would I be able to post extra thoughts after that which reflected the details I've mentioned above?
I felt, although long, that the examples really explained well my own position on the topic.
Edit: It's important to note that I don't necessarilly think that the theory of evolution can't explain our origins -- because I think it is possible for evolution to do this based on our current level of knowledge.
However, with more research and as more information becomes available, I do ultimately think that the theory of evolution will eventually falsify it's own greater claim of common decent for all life from primordial primitive organisms.
The main thrust of my post is that (over time) the greater claims of many theories are often demonstrated to be inaccurate even though the smaller scale claims are often proven true and quite useful.
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-12-2005 03:10 PM
This message has been edited by Magisterium Devolver, 04-12-2005 03:12 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 04-12-2005 3:51 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 04-12-2005 4:23 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 4 of 5 (198734)
04-12-2005 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Mr. Ex Nihilo
04-12-2005 3:55 PM


Re: Thoughts about science in regards to our origins and the theory of evolution...
Magisterium Devolver writes:
The main thrust of my post is that (over time) the greater claims of many theories are often demonstrated to be inaccurate even though the smaller scale claims are often proven true and quite useful.
This is a broader and more intriguing topic. Let me suggest that you post a new message to this thread by taking the text of your opening post and trimming it down to around 500 words. Clearly state in the opening what you just said above that I quoted, then follow it with a couple of examples, of which evolution can be one if you choose. If we can get a good opening post I'll release it to the [forum=-11] forum. All the things you're leaving out can be introduced as needed during the ensuing discussion.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-12-2005 3:55 PM Mr. Ex Nihilo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Mr. Ex Nihilo, posted 04-12-2005 5:34 PM Admin has not replied

Mr. Ex Nihilo
Member (Idle past 1336 days)
Posts: 712
Joined: 04-12-2005


Message 5 of 5 (198768)
04-12-2005 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Admin
04-12-2005 4:23 PM


Re: Thoughts about science in regards to our origins and the theory of evolution...
Ok...It's been trimmed down and placed as a new thread here in the Proposed New Topics.
Note: I think this is kind of cool that a kind of "peer-review" happens before one can have their post placed into the main forum area. Very nice.

The main thrust of my inquiry is that (over time) 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 wittled 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 strenusously to understand it, it seems to me that Darwin's theory of evolution of life is on par with Galieo's heliocentric theory of our solar system once was -- 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 to Is It Science? --Admin
This message has been edited by Admin, 04-12-2005 04:41 PM
This message has been edited by Admin, 04-13-2005 08:34 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 04-12-2005 4:23 PM Admin 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