Re: [asa] historical versus experimental sciences

Cameron -

1st I should withdraw my comment about your view in my response this a.m. to Moorad. That was sent before I read your post below.

& to parallel your 1st sentence, I have never deinied that evolutionary theory & big bang cosmology are primarily historical sciences. (Strictly speaking a distinction between cosmogony, cosmography & cosmology is appropriate, the latter term encompassing the 1st 2. But since all astronomical observations are of the past - our observations of galaxies don't give us their t = 2009 AD positions but their distribution on our past light cone - this doesn't affect the historical character of the whole.) & the parallel you sketch between evolutionary biology & big bang cosmology has some merit.

There are, however, differences. It's true that our understanding of big bang cosmology has been by inference from theories established in our local space-time neighborhood. That means, inter alia, that succesful cosmological theorizing is not just a matter of speculating about the universe as a whole. In fact I've used that fact to suggest that in a similar way a theology of creation ought to proceed from considerations about divine action "here & now" to cosmic & biological origins rather than the other way around. (http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/Astronomy-Cosmology/GlaubundDenken1997Murphy.html#FROM%20THE%20SMALL%20CATECHISM ) But the influence can go the other way too because the very early stages of a hot big bang, if it indeed happened, provide conditions for particle physics & field theory beyond anything that can be produced with particle accelerators or even ultra-high energy cosmic rays. E.g., if the particles we observe came from such a big bang then the observed ratio of baryons to photons in the MWB and the ratio of antinucleons to nucleons tells us something about the strong interaction & puts constraints on possible grand unified theories. It seems to me that there's no realistic parallel here with evolutionary biology, in large part because we can't pinpoint Darwin's hypothetical "warm little pond" where life first arose on earth.

OTOH there's an aspect of evolutionary biology that doesn't seem to have any parallel in physics. Absent any evolutionary understanding, the many relationships between genes & proteins in different organisms - bacteria, fruit flies, mice, humans &c - would have to be seen just as dumb luck. & in that case there would be no compelling reason to expect any further relationships beyond the ones we've stumbled across. But evolutionary theory tells us that there should - indeed must - be such relationships, & thus provides motivation to look for them. The biologists may provide other arguments as well but I think this shows that the relationship between the historical & the experimental science is not all one way.

& it's also important to note that while evolutionary biology & physical cosmology theories are both primarily historical sciences, their theories do not just deal with the past. Both of these theories hold that evolution (biological & cosmic) is still going on & have implications for the future. Of course we won't be around to see what (if anything) inhabits the earth in 10^7 A.D. or whether the universe will still be expanding in 10^10 A.D., and speculation has to be recognized for what it is. But speculation that starts with theories that are well supported by past & present data isn't the same thing as fantasy.

Shalom
George
http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm

----- Original Message -----
From: "Cameron Wybrow" <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>
To: "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 1:22 AM
Subject: Re: [asa] historical versus experimental sciences

> George (and whoever else is interested):
>
> I have never denied for a moment that scientists do or should seek a
> comprehensive theoretical vision.
>
> I did not deny that evolutionary theory provides a comprehensive theoretical
> vision of a sort for biologists.
>
> What I am saying is that evolutionary theory provides a comprehensive
> theoretical vision in a different way than do most comprehensive theories in
> other scientific fields. It provides the sort of comprehensive theoretical
> vision that a historical theory can provide.
>
> Let me elaborate.
>
> Take a look at your field, physics. Look at all the subfields of physics
> that existed before the Big Bang theory. There was celestial mechanics.
> There was ballistics. There was electromagnetic theory. There was nuclear
> physics. Etc. Each of these fields has generated a great deal of empirical
> knowledge about how the world works -- Kepler's Laws and Newton's Laws and
> Boyle's Law and the "right thumb rule" and the fact of radioactive
> half-lives and the divisibility of the atom into smaller particles and the
> ambiguous wave/particle behaviour of electromagnetic radiation and so on.
> Each of these fields might also be said to have an overarching theory of
> some sort: for celestial mechanics, Newton's laws (later modified and
> adjusted by Laplace, etc.); for nuclear physics, the proton/neutron model of
> the nucleus of the atom; etc. Note that all of these theories are
> "ahistorical" theories. They are not about how atoms first appeared in the
> universe, or about when and where the laws of celestial mechanics started
> operating. The overarching theories in each of these earlier areas of
> physics are not "origins" theories.
>
> Now let's look at the Big Bang cosmology. In some sense it might be seen as
> an overarching theory of all of physical nature, in that puts together
> fundamental principles derived from nuclear physics, relativity,
> gravitational theory, etc., to explain the origin of everything. But note
> two things: (1) It is derived in a sense from the data and theoretical
> achievements of those other theories -- the Big Bang is inferred because of
> what we have learned from the other areas of physics (e.g. we know the
> significance of the cosmic background radiation only because we know a great
> deal about the causes and wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation, and we
> did not derive our knowledge of these things from the existence of the Big
> Bang, but from years of experimental work here on earth); (2) The Big Bang
> is a "historical" theory, i.e., a theory which purports to explain the
> present configuration of all or part of the universe in terms of unique past
> events.
>
> What conclusion do I draw from this? (1) Suppose that somehow the Big Bang
> theory were disproved tomorrow. (Invent any reason you find plausible.)
> Would nuclear physics, relativity theory, electromagnetic theory, our
> understanding of light and gravity and friction all grind to a halt, unable
> to progress further? Or perhaps even lose their theoretical coherence
> entirely? I would venture to guess that they would not. I would say that
> the Big Bang theory is dependent upon them, and not the other way around.
> Just as a Broadway musical might bomb, without endangering the future of
> drama, dance or song, so the Big Bang theory could be wrong without
> endangering most of the (non-cosmological) theory and practice of physics.
> (I don't say that there would be *no* repercussions for the various fields,
> but I don't think all research and teaching in most fields would have to
> shut down because of the crisis.) (2) If the Big Bang theory collapsed, we
> would lose our main understanding of the *origin* of the universe, but we
> would not lose (for the most part) our understanding of the general laws by
> which it was governed. We would still know vastly more about the actual
> workings of nature than Aristotle knew, or Aquinas knew, or Newton knew, or
> even Laplace and Lavoisier knew. We would lose the greatest part of our
> "historical" knowledge of the universe, but only a very small part of our
> ahistorical knowledge of the universe.
>
> Now, let's move to biology and Darwinian evolution. Think of all the
> subfields of biology: cell biology, molecular biology, ecology, botany,
> zoology, physiology (plant, animal, etc.), genetics, paleontology,
> evolutionary biology, etc. Now of these fields, only two are *inherently*
> (as opposed to essentially) connected with evolutionary theory --
> paleontology, and evolutionary biology itself. These two areas of biology
> are *inherently* historical; all of the other areas of biology are, at least
> in principle, capable of being conducted in an ahistorical manner, as
> electromagnetic theory, atomic theory, etc. are conducted. So one can study
> all the parts of the cell, their structures and functions and interactions;
> one can study the molecular biology that lies behind inheritance, in terms
> of chemical operations governed by eternal laws of charge, attraction and
> repulsion; one can study ecology in terms of qualitative and quantitative
> relationships between predator and prey, competing predators, competing
> plant species, alteration of ecosystems due to changes in global
> temperature. In all these cases we can learn a huge amount about nature
> without knowing how it (cells, genomes or ecosystems) came to be.
>
> Of course, we can then borrow information and insights from all of the
> different subfields of biology, and synthesize them into a historical theory
> of biological origins, e.g., Darwinian evolution. That theory would then
> serve as an overarching theory of biology in the same sense that the Big
> Bang theory would serve as an overarching theory of physics, integrating
> many of the results by projecting various mechanisms back in time toward an
> origin point (in the case of biology, the origin of life itself), and
> providing a "history of life". There would thus be a parallel between
> macroevolutionary theory and the Big Bang. But note again: (1) If
> macroevolution were proved false tomorrow (Cambrian rabbits, or whatever it
> would take in your eyes to disprove it), huge portions of the biological
> subsciences would survive, in whole or in part. Paleontology would be
> severely damaged, and evolutionary biology itself would be ruined; but most
> fields would carry on fine, having a solid base of knowledge and
> experimental methods even without evolution as an overarching narrative.
> The study of cells would go on -- there are still all kinds of things we
> don't know about the function of the various organelles in a cell. The
> study of genetics would go on -- there are still millions of knockout
> experiments waiting to be performed, so that we can determine what each
> little piece of DNA is doing. The study of embryology would go on -- we
> still are far from having a complete account of the formation of a human
> body in the womb. The study of ecology would go on -- we still have only a
> sketchy idea of the true complexity of ecological interactions. Etc. (2)
> We would lose our understanding of origins, i.e., a historical
> understanding, but we would not lose all our ahistorical understanding of
> how living nature works. We would not even lose the majority of it.
>
> What am I driving at? It is this: the proper parallel is *not* between
> macroevolutionary theory and Newton's laws, or the germ theory of disease,
> or atomic theory, or any of the other theories with which Ken Miller and
> others have compared with Darwin's. The proper parallel would be between
> macroevolutionary theory and the Big Bang theory. Both are historical
> theories. Both draw upon knowledge gained from various subfields (of
> biology and physics). Both could be falsified without destroying most of
> the knowledge of nature accumulated by the various subfields. Their
> falsification would have some important consequences, but science would not
> grind to a halt in either biology or physics. In some fields of biology and
> physics, the loss would not even be noticed.
>
> On the other hand, if, as I said before, it could be proved that there was
> no such thing as atoms (I have no idea how it could be proved, but say that
> it could), what would happen to science? The entire chemistry curriculum
> from elementary grades through grad school is predicated on the existence of
> atoms. Chemistry would become unintelligible, hence no longer a science,
> but merely a series of pragmatic recipes for cooking substances. And
> without atoms, and hence without electrons with rising and falling energy
> levels, how would we explain electromagnetic radiation? Where does it come
> from? And how would we explain friction? Etc. Physics would thus also be
> unintelligible. Biology too would be unintelligible, since it depends upon
> understanding macromolecules which are presumed to be made up of atoms.
>
> The inference I draw is this: overarching theories of an *ahistorical*
> nature -- theories of gravity, light, electromagnetism, atoms, molecular
> biology and so on -- cannot be overthrown without causing life-threatening
> damage to at least one major subfield of science. Overarching theories of a
> *historical* nature -- Big Bang, Steady State, Darwinian macroevolution --
> can be overthrown without life-threatening damage to any subfield of
> science -- except those subfields which are directly built upon that
> historical theory. The difference in "amount of damage caused" is due to
> the derivative and secondary nature of historical theories.
>
> Final restatement:
>
> Am I arguing that scientists should therefore eschew historical theorizing?
> Not at all. But the proponents of particular historical theories, whether
> Big Bang or Darwinian macroevolution, should not declare in alarmist tones
> that if their theory is challenged, all of science is on the line, that
> obscurantism and religious fanaticism will win and that America will sink
> into medieval backwardness and poverty, overwhelmed by the superior science
> of the Japanese and Europeans and Chinese and others who accept these
> historical theories. That is simply hyperbole. I don't know whether the
> people who employ this hyperbole actually believe it (in which case they
> reveal astoundingly bad practical judgment) or whether they are deliberately
> exaggerating for partisan purposes (i.e., are not being scientifically
> honest). Either way, such hyperbole should be rejected.
>
> Am I saying that science should rest satisfied with scattered bits of
> empirical knowledge, and not try to build up a coherent picture? Not at
> all. Newtonian dynamics built up such a coherent picture. It did not
> depend at all on the historical truth of the Big Bang theory. Atomic theory
> (Dalton, Lavoisier, Mendeleev, Bohr, etc.) built up such a coherent theory.
> It did not depend at all on the historical truth of the Big Bang theory.
> The germ theory of disease established a large, coherent picture of the
> nature, spread and control of disease. It did not depend upon the
> historical truth of evolutionary theory. Molecular biology has now built up
> an impressive and coherent theory of the activities of the cell, which does
> not depend upon the historical truth of evolutionary theory. Etc. Large
> and coherent views of nature there can be, and must be, in science. But to
> use that truth to give Darwinian macroevolution a free pass is to abuse a
> good principle. There is no reason that Darwinian theory must be doggedly
> maintained *merely* because it is the only overarching historical theory
> that biology has. Even if biology had to go for a time without an
> overarching *historical* theory, the individual subsciences of biology could
> do quite well with *ahistorical* overarching theories. About the historical
> origins of life and species, I for one am quite willing to remain a patient
> agnostic. I'm in no hurry to decide what drives evolution. I'd much rather
> have a far better understanding of the everyday mechanics of this
> phenomenon -- life -- of which evolution is supposed to be the grand
> historical explanation. I see that as the primary task of biology. (Just
> as I see the primary task of physics as to lay out the laws by which the
> universe is governed, not to explain the origin of the universe.)
>
> Footnote: our modern concern with "history" itself has a history. The
> notion that we can understand something only when we know its historical
> origins is not a notion that has been held at all times and places. Plato
> and Aristotle were uninterested in historical explanations for phenomena.
> So were the medievals, and most of the early modern philosophers and
> scientists. Our current infatuation with "history" dates from about the
> 18th century. Prior to that time, history was thought to be the realm of
> the unique, the accidental, the merely contingent; and it was believed that
> of merely contingent events there could be no scientific (universal,
> generalizable) knowledge. Thus, two notions which have been at various
> times almost deified by the academic and scientific worlds, the notion of
> "scientific history" (which the German historians pushed hard for in the
> 19th century) and the notion of "historical sciences" (evolutionary theory,
> etc.) would have been oxymorons, unintelligible to most of the learned men
> of all times and places prior to the European Enlightenment. Does this
> prove anything? Maybe not, but I think it is food for thought.
>
> Cameron.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "George Murphy" <GMURPHY10@neo.rr.com>
> To: "Merv Bitikofer" <mrb22667@kansas.net>; "Dennis Venema"
> <Dennis.Venema@twu.ca>
> Cc: "Cameron Wybrow" <wybrowc@sympatico.ca>; "asa" <asa@calvin.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 10:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [asa] historical versus experimental sciences
>
>
>>A lot of physicists & chemists could do their work without any reference to
>>the theoretical frameworks of relativity or quantum mechanics, so the
>>contrast with biology isn't all that dramatic. But this isn't the most
>>serious misunderstanding here. The real question should be whether or not
>>we're interested in finding any approximation to a comprehensive truth
>>about the physical world. If we are, large theories like relativity &
>>quantum mechanics are needed. & if our understanding is to include
>>biological phenomena and the history of life on earth, evolution with
>>natural selection as its primary mechanism is the best theory we currently
>>have. Downplaying its significance because a person can work on some
>>limited class of biological phenomena without referring to it shows
>>ignorance of what science is all about.
>>
>> Shalom
>> George
>> http://home.roadrunner.com/~scitheologyglm
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Jul 30 12:51:05 2009