Original Message Follows:
=========================
evolution-digest Thursday, March 4 1999 Volume 01 : Number 1324
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 15:26:31 GMT
From: etlgycs@etluk.ericsson.se (Gary Collins)
Subject: Re: Def'n of Science
Vernon wrote:
> Brian wrote in response to Neal's
>
> > > You can know if something is testable or not by checking to see if
> > > *both* a verification scenario *and* and falsification scenario
> > > exist.
> > > Generally evolution education intoxicates students with verification
> > > scenarios and never even defines what the falsification scenario
> > > looks like. Consequently, no test could ever falsify evolution
> > > because falsification is undefined.
> >
> > This is illogical. Even if one granted the intoxication bit of
> > rhetoric, it doesn't follow that evolution cannot be falsified.
> > Many attempts to falsify evolution were made in the past.
> > Refer to a history of science book for details.
> >
> Karl Popper in 'The Logic of Scientific Discovery' drew a clear line of
> demarcation between science and metaphysical ideas. He maintained that
> all statements of empirical science must be capable of being finally
> decided with respect both to their truth and falsity. In a memorable
> quote, he says, "... it is not his possession of knowledge, of
> irrefutable truth, that makes the man of science, but his persistent and
> recklessly critical quest for truth." (p.281)
>
> As I understand the matter, it is widely acknowledged that an
> experiment to falsify the Theory of Evolution is impossible to devise.
> It is largely because of this that Popper, in his later years - bowing
> to intense pressure from the naturalist lobby - allowed 'scientific
> consensus' to overrule his earlier demand that 'falsifiability' be made
> the proper criterion of demarcation for any theory for which the claim
> 'scientific' is being made.
>
> Brian, I therefore find it hard to understand why you should label
> Neal's remarks 'illogical'.
>
> Vernon
>
> http://homepage.virgin.net/vernon.jenkins/index.htm
>
>
This is true, but not everyone agrees with Popper's views. Kuhn in particular
discounts falsificationism as it doesn't fit the observed history of the
progress of science. I am currently reading a book about the philosophy
of science - What is this thing called science? by A.F. Chalmers, which
looks at several different ideas. You might find it interesting. In
particular, it is noted that since all observation is theory-laden, it is
not actually possible to falsify anything with 100% certainty. You can
never be sure if the failure of your observation is due to a failure of
the hypothesis under test or to failure of some assumption which was made
when making the observation. The history of science yields examples of each
of these.
/Gary
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 08:58:00 -0800
From: Brian D Harper <bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Def'n of Science
At 03:13 PM 3/3/99 +0000, Vernon wrote:
>Brian wrote in response to Neal's
>
>> > You can know if something is testable or not by checking to see if
>> > *both* a verification scenario *and* and falsification scenario
>> > exist.
>> > Generally evolution education intoxicates students with verification
>> > scenarios and never even defines what the falsification scenario
>> > looks like. Consequently, no test could ever falsify evolution
>> > because falsification is undefined.
>>
>> This is illogical. Even if one granted the intoxication bit of
>> rhetoric, it doesn't follow that evolution cannot be falsified.
>> Many attempts to falsify evolution were made in the past.
>> Refer to a history of science book for details.
>>
VJ:===
>Karl Popper in 'The Logic of Scientific Discovery' drew a clear line of
>demarcation between science and metaphysical ideas. He maintained that
>all statements of empirical science must be capable of being finally
>decided with respect both to their truth and falsity. In a memorable
>quote, he says, "... it is not his possession of knowledge, of
>irrefutable truth, that makes the man of science, but his persistent and
>recklessly critical quest for truth." (p.281)
>
First let me say that I appreciate Gary's comments on this. In fact,
just this morning I was listening to one of Feynman's lectures
on physics (highly recomended) where he said something that is,
I believe, appropriate to the present discussion:
"Philosophers, incidentally, say a great deal about what is
_absolutely necessary_ for science, and it is always, so far
as one can see, rather naive, and probably wrong." -- Feynman.
Nevertheless, as an experimentalist, I find much sympathy with
Popper's views and, while this is certainly an interesting topic
of discussion, it really is beside the point in regard to why
I said Neal's statement was illogical. Neal claimed that there
was no test that could falsify evolution and that this was a
consequence of what students are taught. This is clearly an
illogical statement.
VJ:===
>As I understand the matter, it is widely acknowledged that an
>experiment to falsify the Theory of Evolution is impossible to devise.
>It is largely because of this that Popper, in his later years - bowing
>to intense pressure from the naturalist lobby - allowed 'scientific
>consensus' to overrule his earlier demand that 'falsifiability' be made
>the proper criterion of demarcation for any theory for which the claim
>'scientific' is being made.
>
I believe your understanding is lacking. The issue with Popper
was not evolution but natural selection. Popper wrote, for
example, in the same paper in which he discusses the falsifiability
of natural selection, the following regarding the testability
of the theory of evolution:
=====================
" The Mendelian underpinning of modern Darwinism has been well tested,
and so has the theory of evolution which says that all terrestrial
life has evolved from a few primitive unicellular organisms, possibly
even from one single organism."
- --Popper, "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind",
_Dialectica_, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355
=====================
And so we find that the author of your preferred demarcation scheme
disagrees with your conclusions. Would you like to retract?
Neal?
>Brian, I therefore find it hard to understand why you should label
>Neal's remarks 'illogical'.
>
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"He who establishes his arguments
by noise and command shows that
reason is weak" -- Montaigne
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 16:36:41 -0500
From: "Bodester" <jbode77@calvin.edu>
Subject: Re: Def'n of Science
>This view, that there are inherent limitations behind historical knowledge,
>sounds like something from the Scottish philosopher, David Hume. Hume used
>this to caution against the historical claims of the Bible.
Hume indeed had some intriguing stances. I haven't studied him in-depth but
at least know the basics. My personal stance on issues I would call an
interesting combination of Hume's empiricism, Descartes' rationalism, and
Reid's sensicalism. (Is that a word?)
>Being from Calvin College, Jason, how do you reconcile your caution
>regarding the historical claims of evolution science and the historical
>claims of the Bible?
I would place the Bible in a different category than evolution science. I
view the Bible as not meant to be a textbook. However I do think it's
historically accurate. To me the Bible is not human alone (thus "God's
word"), a category I WOULD place science in. As to Calvin College, I am
enjoying the liberal arts education as it gives me a background of so many
widely explored areas (outside of my interests in computer science and
math). I advocate a lot of caution in all areas of belief if possible, but
approach the Bible as highly credible.
Have any challenges for my thinking? Please do!
Jason
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 1999 14:20:27 -0800
From: Brian D Harper <bharper@postbox.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Subject: Re: Def'n of Science
At 03:14 PM 3/2/99 -0600, Neal wrote:
>On Tue, 02 Mar 1999 at 11:12:50 -0800 Brian D Harper wrote:
>
>>>[NR] Marxism and Freudianism, which came out about the same time as
>>>>>Darwinism,were originally thought to be sciences. But when it was
>>>realized that they weren't testable, they were relegated to the realm of
>>>philosophy.
>>>
>>
>>[BH] But Darwinism was not. Really, what's your point?
>>
>
>My point is that since the discovery of
>
>1)the pattern of punctuated equilibrium
>
>and
>
>2)several biological examples of irreducible complexity, including that of
>the bacteria's flagellum, which requires 50 proteins to form it's rotary
>motor--any fewer and you have a broken flagellum, not a reduced function
>flagellum
>
>the conditions of Darwin's falsification scenario have been met. Therefore
>*gradual* Darwinian macro-evolution should also be taught only in
>philosophy classes along with Marxism.
>
Thanks for this clarification. Several points:
1) It seems to me that you accept that the pattern of punctuated
equilibrium (PE) is real. But this pattern is a pattern of evolution.
Further, the pattern contains examples of macroscopic change.
Thus the pattern of punctuated equilibrium is a pattern which
contains examples of macroevolution. I take it then that you
agree that macroevolution is a fact but you are not happy with
the gradualist Darwinian explanation?
2) PE is not universal. I recall Nile's Eldredge complaining
about quotes being taken from his work which cull out examples
of PE yet fail to mention his examples of gradualistic evolution
which often appear adjacent to the quoted material. Anyway, as
someone else already pointed out, there are examples of both
punctuated and gradualistic evolution. The issue of contention,
as I understand it, is really the relative importance of natural
selection as opposed to other evolutionary mechanisms.
3) How is it that irreducible complexity (IC) rules out Darwinian
evolution? For one thing, IC is hardly new. For example, I can
show a passage from <The Guide to the Perplexed> by the Jewish
theologian Maimonides (1135-1204) which gives the argument from
design based upon irreducible complexity. If you are interested,
I can also give you a more recent example where James Clerk Maxwell (!)
gives the argument from design based on, get this :), irreducible
simplicity.
[...]
>>
>>[BH] I'm curious why the switch to PE? Is this an anticipated "naturalistic
>>mechanism of choice" to fill in the blank? If so, then this may be
>>a source of confusion. PE itself is not a mechanism but a pattern.
>>Mechanisms would be proposed in an attempt to explain this pattern.
>>The way to test PE is just to go and look for the pattern. If its
>>not there then PE has been falsified.
>>
>
>Punctuated Equilibrium *is* a pattern. But to date there is not even one
>proposal for a testable mechanism that could have caused the PE pattern.
>
I'm curious where you got this idea. If you are really interested
in learning what some of the mechanisms are that may account for
PE, I highly recommend <Reinventing Darwin> by Niles Eldredge.
NR:===
>So without a testable mechanism, PE, and the macro-evolution it implies,
>does not qualify as science.
Oops, I'm getting confused here. Above you wrote about the discovery
of the pattern of PE as if you believed that such a pattern exists.
Can you clarify? Are you saying that the discovery of this pattern
is not scientific if the mechanism is not known? If so, then what
I consider to be the greatest discovery in the history of science,
Newton's universal law of gravity, is also not science. Newton did
not have a mechanism for it, nor would he even speculate (publicly)
what that mechanism might be.
NR:===
>Give me a testable mechanism by which the PE
>pattern occurred (please include the falsification scenario) and then we
>can agree that macro-evolution is part of science.
>
Read Eldredge if you are really interested.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Applied Mechanics
The Ohio State University
"He who establishes his arguments
by noise and command shows that
reason is weak" -- Montaigne
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 16:14:14 -0700
From: "John W. Burgeson" <johnburgeson@juno.com>
Subject: Re: Kevin (I think) said recently:
I said I'd let kevin have the last word on his prior assertions.
That's still true.
Kevin also wrote, on another subject, " So you're not too busy to make
assinine statements... ."
To which I reply that debating with people who lack basic civility and
adapt a patronizing attitude is simply not an interesting thing for me to
do.
There are ways to debate issues; calling your adversary's intelligence or
education into question is not the way I will pursue. When it is done to
me, I prefer to simply walk away rather than defending myself against
claims made by someone who does not even know me.
Burgy
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 17:10:55 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Kevin (I think) said recently:
>I said I'd let kevin have the last word on his prior assertions.
>
And he has contradicted himself with this most recent of his posts.
>
>That's still true.
>
Since you have proven that it was indeed NOT true, why should we continue to
believe you?
>
>Kevin also wrote, on another subject, " So you're not too busy to make
>assinine statements... ."
>
In point of fact it was the same subject: your continued refusal to back up
your own claims as well as your continued refusal to admit when those claims
are wrong.
>
>To which I reply that debating with people who lack basic civility and
>adapt a patronizing attitude is simply not an interesting thing for me to
>do.
>
By refusing to support or otherwise defend your claims, it was in fact you
who had adopted a patronizing attitude. In breaking off the discussion by
implying that you were too busy to waste time on my "absurdity", it was in
fact you who had abandoned any pretense of civility. So in fact you must
find it a very interesting thing to do.
>
>There are ways to debate issues....
>
And part of the correct way is to provide arguments that support your claims
when asked to do so. Simply stating a claim as if it were absolutely true,
without providing any supporting arguments to demonstrate that truth, is not
debating, it is demagoguery.
>
>...calling your adversary's intelligence or
>education into question is not the way I will pursue.
>
First of all, I said it was your claim that was assinine, not you. Since
even highly educated and extremely intelligent people can say assinine
things on occasion, labeling what they say assinine is not a reflection on
either their education or their intelligence. Secondly, people have
occasionally been taught bad stuff, even in college. That they believe it
is no reflection on their intelligence, unless they refuse to consider the
possibility that what they were taught was wrong. That it was taught to
them by a college professor, however, is no guarantee that it is not
assinine. Thirdly, if my referring to your claims as assinine in fact
constitutes a personal attack be me on your education and/or intelligence,
then you labeling my claims as absurd would also constitute a personal
attack be you on my education and/or intelligence. As such, what you claim
in the above quote is patently false since you yourself have engaged in the
same activity you have accussed me of.
Regardless of whatever crimes I may or may not be guilty of, at least I am
not a hypocrite.
>
>When it is done to
>me, I prefer to simply walk away rather than defending myself against
>claims made by someone who does not even know me.
>
And as always you missed the point. I did not ask you to defend yourself
against my claims; I asked you to defend your own claims. The problem seems
to be that you cannot separate your claims from yourself as a person. I am
responding to your claims, not to my opinion of you; I am critiquing the
validity of your claims, not of you as a person. Yet you seem to consider
any challenge of your claims as a personal attack on yourself. If you
cannot learn the difference and thus behave properly, then you have no
business being on this list. However, if you would like to debate your
claims in proper fashion, which includes offering support for your claims
rather than just dogmatically asserting them, I would be happy to take up
the challenge.
I have spoken my peace and will say no more. I will not respond further to
anything Burgy has to say on this subject, unless he wishes to debate the
issue at hand. If, however, Burgy instead choses to respond to the comments
made in this post, then we will know that it is not true what he says about
giving me the last word.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 18:02:46 -0700
From: "Kevin O'Brien" <Cuchulaine@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: Re: Def'n of Science
Greetings Gary:
For the most part I agree with what you say, but there was one passage with
which I do not. At one point you say:
>
>In particular, it is noted that since all observation is theory-laden, it
is
>not actually possible to falsify anything with 100% certainty. You can
>never be sure if the failure of your observation is due to a failure of
>the hypothesis under test or to failure of some assumption which was made
>when making the observation.
>
In point of fact you can often be sure. I think I understand what you mean
by "theory-laden". Scientists will use theories to determine what
observations/experiments should be done. But far more often than not the
observations give results that directly contradict the theory. This is
usually not due to a badly designed observation, but to a badly designed
theory. I agree that 100% certainty is not possible, but show me a human
endeavor where it is possible.
Let my try to illustrate this with a couple of examples.
Example 1: Hypothesis -- Drug X does not inhibit the activity of enzyme E.
Experiment -- Take two flasks each containing an equal volume of a solution
of E; make sure that both volumes have the same concentration of enzyme. To
one flask add X; to the other flask add an equal volume of water to make
sure the concentrations in both flasks remain the same. Incubate both
flasks in the same 37 degree waterbath for one hour. Then remove
equal-volume aliquotes from both flasks and test the activity of E. If the
results are the same for both flasks, then the hypothesis has been verified.
If, however, the activity of the flask that contained X is significantly
lower than that of the flask that had water added to it, then the hypothesis
has been refuted. And 100% certainty is not needed, because the
experimental design eliminates having to make "assumptions" about what is
going on.
Example 2: Hypothesis -- Drug X kills cancer cells, but has no affect on
normal cells. Experiment -- Take a batch of cells and split them in half.
Transform one group so that it becomes cancerous. Split the cancerous group
into two more groups, one of which will get X, the other straight media.
Split the normal group into two groups as well, one of which will get X, the
other straight media. Count the number of cells in each group. Incubate
the cells for 72 hours in a tissue culture incubator, then count them again.
The normal-media group will provide your baseline results. The hypothesis
will be verified if there are significantly fewer cells in the cancerous-X
group (compared to the normal-media group), but there is no significant loss
of cells in either the cancerous-media group or the normal-X group. The
hypothesis will be refuted, however, if there either is no significant cell
loss in the cancerous-X group, or there is significant cell loss in the
normal-X group, or both, but there is no significant cell loss in the
cancerous-media group. Ambiguous results would include no significant cell
loss in normal-X but significant cell loss in both cancerous groups, or
significant cell loss in all groups, or significant cell loss in the
normal-media group but not in any other group. Again, the way the
experiment was set up eliminates observational "assumptions" and yields
results that can be considered as close to being 100% certain as it is
possible to get.
Kevin L. O'Brien
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 20:39:43 -0600
From: "Karen G. Jensen" <kjensen@calweb.com>
Subject: Re: Flood Model and dinosaur tracks
>> >sorting hypothesis like size and differential mobility. It simply cannot be
>> >explained using flood geology.
>> >
>>
>> Unless you recognize that pregnant female dinosaurs would have to drop
>> their eggs at some time during a stressful year, that the nest sites were
>> water-laid, indicating inundation of the areas, and that the multiple
>> layers show repeated inundations.
>
>What does that mean, the nest sites were "water-laid"? They obviously weren't
>built underwater, were they?
No. I meant that the sediments in which they made the nests were water-laid.
You seem to be suggesting that during the flood,
>pregnant dinosaurs built nesting sites to drop their eggs, or perhaps that
>while
>swimming desperately to avoid drowning, they dropped their eggs and the flood
>somehow floated in nesting material underneath them. What exactly are you
>suggesting?
I am not aware of "nesting material", only of depressions with mounded
sides in which the eggs were laid.
I hadn't thought that they would release their eggs into the water, but I
suppose that could happen under duress. Some of the egg layers are strewn
with broken shell fragments, but that doesn't tell us whether the eggs
broke on the ground or not.
Yes, they show repeated inundations, since the nesting sites were
>covered, and then a new one built over the top in the next strata, but
>they had to
>be built while the ground was solid.
Yes, and I think an important question is how well-drained the sediments
were -- are most of the nests in sandy sediments, which would be "solid"
soon after the tide receeded, and could solidify more as the hours passed?
Are some in fine silt which would be expected to remain muddy for many
hours and days?
In a flood model, this means this seems
>impossible to justify.
>
OK. No harm in considering various possibilities -- multiple working
hypotheses.
Thanks for your good questions.
Karen
------------------------------
End of evolution-digest V1 #1324
********************************