Unwarranted conclusions in Evolution Theory

Interesting site. Will have to peruse it when I have more time."I do not see, at the margins, a clear distinction between living and non-living systems. One can identify what is clearly living, but such definitions fail in hard cases."That would be why scientists have given characteristics of living things. Hard cases? Example would help. And at the margins, it is not rigoursly defined by above said characteristics?"My concern was not that I could not understand - it was that the writer did not understand the implications of what they were actually saying."Ooops. Sorry.Have you read 1984 by George Orwell. It postulated that by decreasing vocabulary it would actually limit the thinking of Oceania's citizens. Having more words do not limit, I think, it expands thought. Sure it might limit what you can call an object or concept, but it allows room for more expansion. That is the beauty of our langauge, it grows to incorporate new ideas and concepts. The Chinese langaust is a pretty limiting one, but English is very flexible.I would agree with you in a given context but not as a generality.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

I hope you know more than I do at probability, becuase I do think this is where it is heading too.Guess, I have to go and pull out my books with probability in them, in preparation.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

"I do understand that this was not addressed to me, however I do feel that I should ask about it. I actually have two questions. First: What is life? Second: What "substance" defines life?"First off, there is no simple definition that we can apply to life. If anyone tries to "define" life then we seriously limit life.This is why we give "characteristics" to living things. By observing these characteristics we can deduce whether something is living or non-living. It is the consensus of scientists to accept the characterisitcs for establishing whether something is living. You can find these listed in any standard college text of biology.Substance that defines life, again there is nothing that can define life, yet life can be present on this substance. I believe DNA or RNA[in some cases] has the code of life on it. Without DNA or RNA life would not be ocurring. This is what I was trying to establish.

Peter, you use the phrase "unwarranted conclusion" a lot: it has become quite your catchphrase. I am interested in it, as your use of it suggests that you hold to some definable standard of inference.I have read your posts which use this term in some detail and can find no consistent application of a standard, yet the continued and systematic use of the term suggests that you regard it as in some way a significant thing to say, and also that its significance derives from some manner of objective standard.Could you more explicit on this? What "warrants" a conclusion for you?

dear Pamboli,An 'unwarranted conclusion' is a conlusion that goes way beyond the evidence. So, in fact it is speculation. There is nothing inherently wrong with speculation but do not bring it as fact. Often even the speculation are based upon assumptions. Presenting speculations as facts, that's what I object to as a scientist. It has nothing in common with science.best wishes,
Peter

"Having more words do not limit, I think, it expands thought. Sure it might limit what you can call an object or concept, but it allows room for more expansion. That is the beauty of our langauge it grows to incorporate new ideas and concepts. The Chinese langaust is a pretty limiting one, but English is very flexible."Having many words isn't nearly as important as having the right words. Simply put, that is the problem with English and many other languages. For instance I read The Republic by Plato and had to do a report on it. The copy that I had contained interesting footnotes on the translation. To make a long story not quite as long, there was a word in Greek, Techne. In order to define it for our language, I would have to use at least five or six other words. Techne is a very encompassing term and fits in many situations and expresses a variety of meanings at once. English lacks words such as Techne. It focuses in so far that we often exclude many valueable things. Words such as life are a fundamental problem in science. To take a concept from Mister P..., it enhances our understanding, yet limits it at the same time, or something like that. When we develop words like life and gene, we miss one extremely valuable thing: That everything is made of matter and therefore related. This is a fundamental concept that seems to slip through the cracks far too often.

When I asked those questions ("What is life?" and "What 'substance' defines life?") I was playing the role of lawyer. I already knew what your answer would be. I simply wanted to illustrate a point, which you stated quite clearly: "First off, there is no simple definition that we can apply to life. If anyone tries to "define" life then we seriously limit life." When I think of evolution, I think it pointless to discuss only what is commonly referred to as "life". This definition is far too narrow (See post 36) and excludes many principles that are essential to understanding evolution. We focus in too much and miss the big picture. It is most comparable to an impressionist painting: Up close it is ugly and incomprehensible, but from farther away it is beautiful and makes perfect, or near perfect, sense.[This message has been edited by octipice, 09-24-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
... an 'unwarranted conclusion' is a conlusion that goes way beyond the evidence.

---

Whoa! You lost in me technicalities there. "Way beyond?" What's all that about then?

quote:

---

So, in fact it is speculation. There is nothing inherently wrong with speculation but do not bring it as fact. Often even the speculation are based upon assumptions. Presenting speculations as facts, that's what I object to as a scientist. It has nothing in common with science.

---

So what is the difference between speculation and warranted inference? What is way beyond the evidence?I suspect it means little more than "that which Peter B will not accept" and the whole parading of the phrase as some meaningful insight into logical is no more than a pose.But perhaps I'm wrong? Perhaps you have some carefully worked out understanding of where the limits of inference lie? Care to share it?Seriously, it's an important question, and if you are going to point out fallacies and "unwarranted" inferences you have to be a bit whiter than white yourself. Otherwise one reasonably hold that in many cases your cries of "unwarranted" are - how could one put it - unwarranted?

dear Pamboli,Imagine, you find two tracks of footprints next to each other printed in the sand. One track comprises small footprints, the other track are footprints twice as large. The conclusion would be that the tracks were left behind by two bipedal organisms. An unwarranted conlusion would be that the prints were left by two walking bipedals, a child and an adult. Another unwarranted conclusion would be that they were left by two bimorphic bipedals, a man with large and a wife with small prints. Maybe this analogy gives you an impression on conclusions and unwarranted conclusions.Best wishes
Peter

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
dear Pamboli,

​

Imagine, you find two tracks of footprints next to each other printed in the sand. One track comprises small footprints, the other track are footprints twice as large. The conclusion would be that the tracks were left behind by two bipedal organisms. An unwarranted conlusion would be that the prints were left by two walking bipedals, a child and an adult. Another unwarranted conclusion would be that they were left by two bimorphic bipedals, a man with large and a wife with small prints. Maybe this analogy gives you an impression on conclusions and unwarranted conclusions.

​

Best wishes
Peter

---

It gives me the impression that you don't understand the subject matter. Bipedalism can be inferred from the pattern of the prints, just as can the quadrapedalism and the particular gait of the quadraped. Age can be inferred somewhat from the relative sizes of the prints, though less firmly. That the two prints are mother and child is a guess, and I think a good one, as they are travelling together. They could be aunt and niece, or just friends of the family though. I don't see what difference it makes. The dimorphism....? Well, since virtually every other mammal on the planet is dimorphic between the sexes with males larger, is this really such a long shot?------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Imagine, you find two tracks of footprints next to each other printed in the sand.

---

I don't want to imagine anything, thank you very much. I want some information on the systemics of your inferential strategy, not fairytales about footprints.You wave the phrase "unwarranted" around like some banner of logic to which your fellow creationists should rally: but in reality, you appear to have no substance to back it up. It's all just a question of what Peter thinks isn't it? [B][QUOTE]One track comprises small footprints, the other track are footprints twice as large. The conclusion would be that the tracks were left behind by two bipedal organisms.[/B][/QUOTE]This is your standard of argument? Seriously?So what information have you provided that tells me I could infer bipedalism? From the details you give they could could be two sets of millipede tracks!From that point on, naturally, the post is utterly meaningless as an illustration. Not that an illustration was required, simply an explanation of your view of the limits of inference.Working in the field of molecular biology, as you do with such success, surely you have given a great deal of thought to the limits of inference, as much of your study is required to infer structures from indirect observations?I trust your published work is to a considerably higher standard.[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 09-24-2002]

I would agree with most of your post. But in translations you do lose words. I am merely talking within one language.Yes, I think that by me calling an object a "cat" there is not other name we can call it. But I believe that we ourselves, and not the language have the power to expand or limit ourselves. More on this if asked. Basically, we can choose to grow and learn more and more and thus expand, or we can choose to be content or apathetic and not grow anymore, thereby limiting ourselves.To thy ownself by true. You have a choice.Does anyone out there agree with this?------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

I agree. It is good that we have people in here like you that play the lawyer. It keeps me on my toes and accountable for every word that I say.You have posted some pretty thoughtful posts, and thanks. Keep posting."and excludes many principles that are essential to understanding evolution"Other prinicpiles? Such as emotions, intelligence, or what other principles are you referring to. INtersted in this one,I would agree, if you focus on the trees you will not see the glorious forest in front of you,------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

dear Pamboli,Excellent reply. You recognized all conclusion as unwarranted. Indeed, there was not enough evidence/information to any of the three conclusions. You helped me demonstrating that data are usually subject to a paradigm and interpreted accordingly.
As mentioned before, there is nothing inherently wrong with interpretations of data as long as these interpretations are NOT presented as fact. ONLY THE DATA ARE FACT.Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 09-24-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
You helped me demonstrating that data are usually subject to a paradigm and interpreted accordingly.
As mentioned before, there is nothing inherently wrong with interpretations of data as long as these interpretations are NOT presented as fact. ONLY THE DATA ARE FACT.

---

So nice to meet a fellow skeptic, but you seem hopelessly confused. If only the data are fact, how did you warrant the conclusion that the observed phenomena were footprints, even more so "tracks" which suggests an inferred sequence of footprints?How do you warrant any statement of observation you have ever posted on the forum?If, indeed, you hold to the extreme position that science is incapable of inferring anyhting about an external world (as was held to an extent by Wittgenstein and Russell) it is no wonder your letter to Nature was rejected, as you cannot have anything to say.Remember - there is no data, only inferences. Saying that something is data is to conclude something about it? How do you warrant that conclusion?I don't think you have followed this through at all. I still get the impression that all this "unwarranted" stuff is little more than special pleading for those cases that Peter doesn't like.