At 05:04 PM 7/22/00 -0400, David wrote:
First of all, thanks for your reply. I found it very encouraging. Not that
we might actually agree on much :), but rather that we might at least
understand where we disagree.
Let me make a few general comments first. In that way I hope to limit
the specific interventions in the details below and thus, hopefully, to
avoid having this post grow exponentially.
I believe at its core, our disagreement is a very fundamental one. What
exactly is science? I've read some philosophy of science over the past
few years. Enough to convince me that a satisfactory answer to this
question, one that most everyone will agree with, is probably not possible.
This is the main point I had in mind when I wrote: "Actually, you'll find a
wealth of different opinions on this among physicists. If you really have a
complaint here then recognize it applies to all science." I believe you
misunderstood this to mean that I was agreeing with on there being a
problem. Actually, I think this is a healthy situation. There are no gurus
in long robs dictating to the faithful what science is.
I mentioned Popper previously, so let me give an example related to
Popper and our question above (what is science). I was recently reading
an interview with David Bohm. A question was put to him as to whether
he could, at that time, even imagine some way to test his theory. In a
nutshell, the answer basically was "no". They then got into Popper's
ideas on falsification and confirmation whereupon David said:
"If one says that Popper has given the absolute last word on what
science is, then why should I accept that?" -- David Bohm
A nice illustration of my point. Popper was not the high priest of
science. Many scientists and philosophers of science disagree
with him. Bohm certainly is not required to kneel and kiss his
ring :).
What I would invite you to do is take a look at a good philosophy
of science book. Specifically on this question of what science is.
As you look at the many different views try to see which, if any,
you are closest to. In my opinion, your view is so extreme as to
be almost positivistic. Particularly your statement about being
"observable by the five senses". Statements like this are almost
a signature of the positivist. There are practically no experiments
done today which would satisfy this condition.
My point about Pluto (I hope you don't think I was being tricky :)
was that (a) its orbital period is about 249 years and (b) it was
discovered in 1930. Thus, it has not made a complete orbit since
it was discovered. Thus, I believe if you are going to be consistent
with what you wrote, you have to say that the orbital period of
pluto being 249 years is not a scientific fact.
[if its any consolation, I had to face this question a long time ago
when I was debating on talk.origins as a creationist. For the record,
I stated that it was not a fact, though I felt a little uncomfortable
(i.e. silly:) in doing so]
About ID possibly satisfying your criteria as science, I cannot see
how this is possible. All of the things in question were intelligently
designed long ago. They were not observed, nor are they repeatable.
This is a general complaint that I have wrt at least some in the ID
community. They raise the net very high in the hopes of catching
the serve of their opponent, forgetting that they also have to
serve :).
Now to some details, I'll try to be brief. I'm going to cut some stuff. If
I cut something
you thought was important and is not addressed elsewhere, please let me know.
[...]
>It has been demonstrated innumerable times that ID (even where the source
>may not-yet-be scientifically-identified) can modify an existing,
>functioning coded program to add beneficial features (say, a spell-checker
>to NotePad). Here it appears to require a more reasonable 'faith' to
>accept the involvement of some yet-to-be-scientifically-identified
>'programer' than to presume the existence of some new
>yet-to-be-scientifically-identified natural force (duplicating
>'intelligence') as proposed by evolution. That this is the case, we cite
>Dr. Murray Eden's concluding remarks in Wistar Institute, Symposium
>Monograph No.5, MATHEMATICAL CHALLENGES TO THE NEO-DARWIN INTERPRETATION
>OF EVOLUTION, 1966. Here leading evolutionists (Medawar, Mayr, Wald,
>Lewontin, Fox, etc.) met with leading mathematicians (Eden,
>Schutzenberger, Ulam, etc.) specifically to attempt to derive
>mathematical support for the concept of evolution. Dr. Eden's summary is
>but one of several (unwelcome) conclusions.
>
> "It is our [mathematician] contention that if 'random' is given a
> serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view,
> the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate
> scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation
> of new natural laws -- physical, physico-chemical and biological."
This shows a common misunderstanding about evolution. If it really were a
random walk (with no selection)
then I would agree.
>[...]
DB:==
>> >While leading evolutionary gurus readily acknowledge the inability to
>> >adhere to the "testability" criteria of empirical science,
BH:==
>>Can you give the names of these gurus and where they acknowledge this?
It seems that you misinterpret all the following quotes. Then again, maybe
its me :).
We'll see.
DB:==
>This one's easy.
>
>"However, if we enlarge the methodology of science so as to include
>historical narratives, we can often explain unique events rather
>satisfactorily, and sometimes even make testable predictions." Dr. Ernst
>Mayr, NATURAL HISTORY, May 1997, Pgs. 8-12
Elsewhere you claim people like Mayr do not tell us how science is to be
modified. But here Mayr
is very clear on this. Inclusion of historical narratives. The result being
testable predictions.
>"During the 50-year life of The American Biology Teacher there has been a
>change in the general view of method in biological science. A brief look
>at this change and its possible consequences for biology education may
>interest those who are searching for ways to improve education at the high
>school and college levels. The change was from descriptive biology to
>hypothetico-deductive biology, that is to theoretical biology." Dr. Ralph
>Lewis, Prof. Emeritus, M.S.U., East Lansing, MI in "Biology: A
>Hypothetico-Deductive Science" published in THE AMERICAN BIOLOGY
>TEACHER, Vol. 50, No. 6, Sep't. 1998.
In other words, there has been a change *toward* rather than away from
other physical sciences. From what
you say later I'm suspecting maybe you were taking theoretical biology =
speculative biology, but this is
not what is meant here. Theoretical biology is much closer tied to
empiricism and mathematics.
>"Whether biology can be reduced to physical science is a question that has
>received much attention in recent decades." Dr. Francisco Ayala in his
>chapter in EVOLUTION AT A CROSSROADS; Depew & Webber, MIT Press, Pg. 65, 1985
I don't understand what this has to do with your point. Science is not
synonymous with reductionism.
I happen to be one who has the view that biology cannot be reduced to
physics and chemistry.
This doesn't mean biology is not a science, unless you define science =
physics + chemistry.
>"For the interpretative roll of conceptual models, on which Mayr and Stent
>place such great emphasis, is precisely what the progressive testing of
>hypotheses is supposed gradually to be eliminating from science, as the
>latter prosecutes its search for ever more comprehensive and basic
>Laws. Faced with a choice bestrewn this ideal of science and reality, it
>is clear, on Mayr's view, that we should reject the physicalist model of
>science that generates this dilemma." Concluding summary by editors Depew
>and Webber, EVOLUTION AT A CROSSROADS: THE NEW BIOLOGY AND THE NEW
>PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE; MIT Press, Pg. 223, 1985.
Rejecting the physicalist view may not be such a bad idea :). Mayr is not
the only one, nor is this
limited to evolutionary biology. The interview I referred to above has
David Bohm (physicist) also
rejecting this view.
>These are but a few examples. All from contexts discussing/explaining
>(in somewhat obscure language, but understandable to their peers) why
>conventional standards of science as currently presented in most all
>biology texts really do not apply to evolutionary concepts.
>
>
>[...skip...] While I didn't reference Popper, I appreciate your providing
>his following quote.
>
>"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."
>-- Karl Popper, "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind",
>_Dialectica_, vol. 32, no. 3-4, 1978, pp. 339-355
>
>As we are talking about possible 'uncertainties' in evolutionist's
>definitions, perhaps you could briefly indicate what he (evolutionists) mean:
>1) By the term "Darwinism" (what is the nature and extent of changes in
>the gene pool, does it go beyond biological variation)?
>2) By what precise criteria does he (you) define "theory" (is it
>physically well tested, speculative consensus, or other?)
>3) Popper appears to differentiate between "Darwinian" theory and the
>theory of "evolution". (What is the difference, if any, at the gene pool
>level?)
>4) And does the criteria you select for "theory" apply equally to both
>"Darwinism" and to "evolution"?
>
>I understand that "Darwinism" may apply to more detailed genetic changes
>while "evolution" (in this context) probably is used as some broader
>generalization. Hopefully, you can clear this up for me. As it is, I
>have trouble judging which, if either, qualifies as proper scientific
>'theory'.
I think your last sentence has the key idea. Evolution is much broader than
Darwinism. Another
way of saying it is that Darwinism is a theory which attempts to explain
the facts about how
evolution occurred. Since "the fact of evolution" seems to make some people
fidget, I've
started saying it a different way, "the facts about evolution occurred". It
is essential in science
to try to keep a distinction between the phenomena itself and the theories
which attempt to
explain that phenomena.
A good definition of theory would probably be lengthy. In science, it does
not mean speculative.
Quite the opposite. Basically, a theory is an interpretive or explanatory
framework that
encompasses a wide variety of otherwise seemingly disjoint data, phenomena etc.
[anyone have a better (short) definition?]
[...skipping some more...]
BH:==
>>Well, I believe there is a wealth of physical evidence that
>>macroevolution occurred. But this will depend on precisely what one means
>>by macroevolution. What do you mean by this term?
DB:==
>Brian, I'm glad you used the term "believe" .... but this is more a
>religious term than a scientific one.
Well, I believe this response fits in perfectly with our general discussion
about the meaning of
words. To illustrate, consider the way I used the word believe in the
previous sentence. Hopefully
you agree that I wasn't expressing a religious conviction :). The word
believe is commonly used
just like this. It is a conviction that there is strong evidence for
something. The conviction arises
not by faith but rather from having studied the evidence carefully.
I believe ( :-0 ) I'm going to call it quits here. There's a bit more but
I've grown weary of
typing.
Brian Harper
Associate Professor
Mechanical Engineering
The Ohio State University
"One never knows, do one?"
-- Fats Waller
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 12:54:08 EDT