Monday, August 10, 2009

Discussion on evolution, part 3

Again, the previous thread have exceeded 200 comments, I am putting a response below the fold.


"Maynard Smith credits August Weismann’s germ plasm theory as a key factor in the modern synthesis ..."

See? Impossible, in principle, from the git-go, and we aint just talkin some kinda candyass "methodology" here, eh, Eric? We're talkin about what is otologically IMPOSSIBLE.


Thatr reduction allowed a great deal of work to get done, and was later discarded when found insufficient.

Well, apparently you didn't read them very closely (or else just read them with a pre-formed conclusion in mind, which was unshakable. "Explanation" (whatever that is) is the sine qua non of a theory. Mebbe this article is more direct, eh?

"A scientific theory is used as a plausible general principle or body of principles offered to explain a phenomenon.[4]

A scientific theory is a deductive theory, in that, its content is based on some formal system of logic and that some of its elementary theorems are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.[3]"


Did you miss the phrase "explain a phenomenon"? Scientific theories do use some formmal processes in their efforts to explain. If no explanation if offered, there is no theory.

"In pedagogical contexts or in official pronouncements by official organizations of scientists a definition such as the following may be promulgated.

According to the United States National Academy of Sciences: Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory."

This causes the theory/non-theory distinction to much more closely follow the distinctions useful for consumers of science (e.g. should I believe something or not?)"

What this article calls "pedagogical" is more what I would call absurd brainwashing. This is definitely a thoroughly unique and unprecedented way to define "scientific theory," to say the least.


You have to ask yourself what level of evidence would be required to overthrow the theory? How ikely are we to discover that anthrax/measles/smallpox is not caused by pathogens (germ theory of disease)? Should consumers of science believe, and act, as if germs cause diseases? Would you be willing to accept that measles being caused by Morbillivirus is a fact?

"Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe..."

"Real world?" "Factual explanation?" And you claim that only "methodology," and not "ontology," is involved here?


You left out the rest of the quote.

It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.


Yes, the phenomenon of evolution is a fact. Yes, the theory of evolution is as facutal as atomic theory or germ theory.

I also note that this claim is made with specific reference to the "theory or biological evolution." They have now turned "theory" into fact, eh?

Evolution is a fact (we have measured all sorts of change) and a theory (explanations for why the change occurs, what it has meant for life, etc.).

This is really just incredible, ya know? Anyone with the least bit of sophisication with respect to the philosophy of science, or even used the least bit of critcal thought, would see the NAS claims as completely over the top on the propaganda scale.

An explantion becomes a theory when "no new evidence is likely to alter" it, at which point it is a "factual explanation" which serves as a "reliable account of the real world."

Simply incredible that NAS would promulgate that view. Are they actually retarded, I wonder?


I find it hard to believe you misunderstood a simple simile. Are you just trolling here, or so ideologically committed that you misunderstood a simile to be an equivalence?

One Brow said: "I don't see anything in this quote that equates to "unfortunate and misleading". I'm sure you had anopther quote in mind."

Then you are just as blind as every other devoted apologist I ever ran into, I guess. No doubt you missed the word "sadly." If you can't see where it was misleading (suggesting that development was irrelevant to evolution) then I really don't think there's anything you could see, unless mebbe you wanted to, ya know?


I think that putting development to the side was a limiting, necessary choice, and the "sadly" was a reflection on the current state of knowledge, and not the choice.

One Brow said: "of the various ways mutations are known to happen, none of them take the actual needs of the organism into account."

This appears to be claim of fact, eh, Eric? Or do you say that strictly as a "methodist," with no ontological intentions at all? If the latter, you might want to study the english language a little more, because that sho nuff aint the meaning you're conveying.


When I say "known to happen", that obviously refers to the limits of what is currently known, making the statement epistemological. Had I spoken 'all the ways a mutation can possibly happen', you would have a point. That you have trouble distinguishing them is not a failing of my English knowledge.

One Brow said: "I don't think he would argue that statement even after acknowledging the importance of development, for which he used the term "selected through their effect on development", as opposed to varying because of their development."

He might or might not argue it, I don't know (but, first, remember that Mayr is not Maynard Smith). I get the feeling that both you, Mayr, and possibly Maynard Smith are confusing genes with some kinda physical objects, as opposed to simply "packets of information," as they seen by George C. Williams (who is highly praised by Dawkins, Gould, Elridge, Maynard Smith (via Eldrige) and others here: http://www.edge.org/documents/ThirdCulture/h-Ch.1.html


True enough. I am sure that by "gene", he meant 'packet of knowledge on a DNA strand'. Many scientitsts probably do mean something broader than that.

As noted by Magulis, "The neo-Darwinists say that variation originates from random mutation, defining mutation as any genetic change." The close association, if not virtual identity, that the neo-darwinists once tried to make between "genes" and dna has vanished, but many still seem to think in those terms.

Old habits die hard.

If "genes" are simply the message, irrespective of the medium; if, indeed, genes are ONLY information, then certainly the "epigentic" means by which regulatory genes "choose" to express the dna is at bottom a form of "genetic mutation." This would seems to imply that, in Williams' view, genes vary "because of their development," to use your words.

I would agree, with the caveat that if we use a braod notion of 'gene', we should probably be careful to note which type of gene were are discussing in such a context.

You can speak of galaxies and particles of dust in the same terms, because they both have mass and charge and length and width. You can't do that with information and matter."

Very true.

I said: We have already agreed that the notion of "random mutation" is at bottom a metaphyisical one that cannot be proved or disproved. So why is not neo-darwinism, like ID theory, untestable and hence "not scientific," I wonder.

You responded: We did? I must have been off my feed that day/week/month

Musta been, yeah. This is was you said on April 27: Me: You repeatedly say that all heritable genetic variation has been shown to be random.
You: I certainly hope I have not, because such a statement would be unprovable

April 28: You: "As we have agreed (I think), there is no known test for randomness/design per se.

Your current (and former) ongoing assertions that the "randomness" of mutations can be, and has been, confirmed, seems to relax on occasion, such as on May 3 when you said: "Even if Dawkins is uncomfortable with it, adaptive mutation (which is not classical Lamarckism by any means) happens, and we know this because we have tested mechanisms to demonstrate it."

Are "adaptive mutations" consistent with the claim that all mutations are random? Doesn't seem to be.

Ya know, going through some of these old posts, I realize that you must, as is typical, I guess, have entirely different definitions for "ontological" and "epistemological" than I do. I really can't make a lick of sense of a statement like this: "Neo-Darwinism is dead, remember? Even when it was alive, the biological version relied on epistomological randomness, specifically of the type where mutations are not controlled by the organsim, not ontological randomness."


On an ontological level, most mutations would seem to be non-random, as I mentioned before. They happen for chemical reasons. There are probably a very few that happen for reasons like quantum fluctuation which might be ontologically random. Outside of that, on a metaphysical level, mutations are not random. I don't see anything in the above statements that disagree with this. Even then, this does not of course address unknown methods of variation.

Mutations are random in the sense that, of the known methods by which mutations happen, we have no mechanism that connects that mutation to the needs of the organism. They are random in that regard within the limits of our knowledge. They are also random in sense that we are unable to predict them through an insufficient knowledge of the actual chemical interactions involved along any particular strand of DNA inside a organism. So, random in those two ways.

It would be impossible to prove something is metaphysically random. Even for quantum effects, where we have the stongest evidence, this is a possibility that can be easily overturned. The most we can ever say in that regard is that we have data that resemebles a probablitliy distribution.

The word 'random does not mean 'every occurence is equally likely'. Adaptive mutations seem to mean that the probability curve is adjusted in favor of changes occuring at certain locations on the DNA strand.

I don't know what definitions you are using for ontological claims versus episemological claims. Ontology, to myu understanding, is soncerned with how things are, what their true nature is, while epistemology is concerned with what we can know about things and how we can know it. Do you mean something different?

This all gets quite tedious, eh, Eric?

Yes, it does.

The question was this: "So why is not neo-darwinism, like ID theory, untestable and hence "not scientific," I wonder."

Do you have a direct answer to that question, or not?


Since neo-Darwinism was falsified, it was obviously falsifiable. What could falsify ID?

Is your answer that neo-darwinism makes no claims about reality? If so, does ID make claims about reality, or is such a hypothesis merely "methodological." If they are different in this respect, HOW are they different. You seem to agree that it is not in the "testability" of the two, insofar as their basic premises go.

ID seems to make the claim that a designer is responsible, in part, for the structure of life. Materialism would make the claim no designer is involved in life. Both are equally untestable. Niether is a claim of neo-Darwinism or modern evolutionary theory, in that the 'randomness' present in neo-Darwinism and modern evolutionary theory is compatible with the existence of a designer. Both are claims made by various men, including scientists, when speaking about life outside the scientific literature. Neither claim belongs in a science classroom.

It seems obvious that both views feel compelled to deny that all evolution is (was) random, sensing intuitively that would be prohibitively improbable. Both insist that evolution is NOT random, but disagree on the reasons why this is so. Philosophically speaking, these two viewpoints, as they relate to living matter, seem come down to "vitalism" vs. "materialism."

I disagree. Yo can be a Lamarckian materialist, or a wiesmannian who accepts design.

It is in no means self-evident that such inferences are "unreasonable" or "unscientific" unless one merely defines them as such. One can, for example, say: "I define any inference of design to be both unreasonable and unscientific." But, of course, definitions are arbitrary, and do not dictate the reality of the matter.

I agree.

Again, as I have said before, I can assume (or infer) that an object has been designed without that assumption in any way affecting the way I try to analyze it or explain it. Such an assumption may assist my investigation, but it does not change my methodolgy. If I know nothing about the workings of machines motivated by internal combustion engines, for example, I still will not "understand" one until I know how all the parts interact with each other and what function they serve, which requires investigation (for me). I do not purport to "explain" anything by simply saying: "this machine was designed." Science is ultimately about explanations, not metaphyscial presumptions, although the latter may inform the former. An assumption of "vitalism" would not change that. We would never have, or even be expected to, explain the ultimate nature of the "vital force" to simply investigate the phenomena.

I agree. This is why the discussion does not belong in a science class.

The point I'm making is this: Whether one ultimately believes in or presupposes vitalism (lamarckism in evolutionary terms) or materialsim (darwinism) has nothing to do with science as such. The vociferious outcry that materialism must be taught as an underlying presupposition, but that any notion of vitalism cannot even be discussed as an alternative presupposition, is not "scientific" either.

As noted above, I disagree on the associaiton of vitalism to Lamarckism. Outside of that, I agree.

Lamarckism, whether true or not, whether ever irrefutably demonstrated or not, is NOT off limits to either scientific investigation nor is it inherently outside the realm of "scientific thinking." Of course, neo-darwinists have always thought otherwise, but, still....

That's why the once fruitful school is not bveing discarded.

One Brow said: "But the warping of space is a mechanism for the attrction of bodies. There is no more "spooky action at a distance", just local effects."

Heh, as if the "warping of space" isn't spooky? Seriously, what exactly is "space, and how can it "warp" as a practical matter? Of course, for Einstein, there is no "space" per se. Only space/time. Now, tell me, what is "space/time," apart from a verbalization of the mathematics involved (as was the Newtonian use of the concept of "attaction of matter to matter" to verbalize the mathematical relationship detected)?


I doubt I could, although physicists might be able to. At any rate, that's a new level of mechanism. Anytime you explain something, the explanation itself will open up new questions.

More "pedagogical information," from the AAAS, eh?

...

Well, they pack all the theory in there, eh, and simply call the theory "evolution" which is "described," not hypothesized, interpreted, or deduced. Random mutation (why not just say "mutation," I wonder?--Why does "random" ALWAYS have to be inserted as a qualifying adjective?). Common descent, natural selection, macro-evolution = micro-evolution, the whole 10 yards.


This is an obvious simplification.

I wonder if anyone who aint plumb stupid doubts any of this, eh? Lemme see here....

"Is there "evidence against" contemporary evolutionary theory? No.


Do yo know of some? Against, as in saying evolution didn't happen?

Is there a growing body of scientists who doubt that evolution happened? No...Of the few scientists who criticize contemporary evolutionary theory, most do no research in the field, and so their opinions have little significance for scientists who do."

Well, there ya have it, then, eh? All wrapped up in a ribbon.


Who are the evolutionary biologists who feel there is evidence against evolution?

Hmm, where to even start trying to intrepret and assess this curious brochure, eh? Well, in passing, one might note that the last sentence quoted claims that "that evolution by natural selection is how life on Earth arose."

If "arose" refers to abiogenesis, that seems to be wrong. If they meant 'grew from a small part of the planet to being universally present', that seems to be accurate, but a poor word choice. Looking at the context, I'm inclined to pick the latter.

What you, Eric, have called a "mechanism," this brochure calls "process" [they say "Natural selection is the process by which some traits succeed and others fail..."], so let's use that as a substitute synonmyn is the next sentence, which would then read: "Scientists no longer question the basic facts of evolution as a mechanism."

So the "mechanism" (which Gould said was the theoretical part) is now a "basic fact," eh?


I would say there is more to being a mechanism that there is to being a process. Photosynthesis is a completely factual process, but it explains nothing in and of itself. Natrual selection can be explained as a process only, or an a larger level as a mechanism.

The care and authority which went into this dubious publication makes it all the more appalling to a disintered observer.

You think you are disinterested?

Ironically, this brochure has the gall to say (addressing ID theory, of course): "Teaching
non-scientific concepts in science class will only confuse students about the processes,
nature, and limits of science."

The opposite is probably true. Perhaps teaching ID theory would be one way of unconfusing students who are exposed to such "non-scientific" concepts as are contained in this brochure and help them understand the true "nature and limits" of science.


If "ID theory" ever starts to accurately discuss the true nature and limits of science, perhaps.

Well, first, that a "scientific theory" is an "explantion." Just any old explanation? Naw, apparently only those that "are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them." [In the entire history of science has there been a single case of such an explanation?].

The atomic theory of matter. The germ theory of disease. Heliocentric theory.

As a side attribute, a scientific theory also allows us to make predictions, they say.

Do they have an example? Well, yeah, they have two, actually. " A good example is the theory of gravity." Hmm, and you say that Newton's explanation of "gravity" is simply a law, not a theory--I wonder who's right here, you, or them? Whichever, they say "Scientists then use the theory to make predictions about how gravity will function in different circumstances" (as Newtonians did for the "hundreds of years" this brochure brings up). Of course, you also keep saying that Einstein's relativistic view of Newton's mathematical formula was a mere "refinement" of Newton, so let's not quibble here, OK? (having made that request, I expect you to quibble, but I will wait and see about that).


The brochure does not reference a *Newtonian* theory of gravity, so what makes you think they are referring to Newton's Law? Theories have to acount for all of the available evidence, old, new, and yet-to-be-tested, to be viable.

Also, surely you are not confusing what I said about Newton's Laws of Motion and his Law of Gravity. I believe I was clear and held different opinions on that.

Of course their second example is evolutionary theory: "Evolution stands on an equally solid foundation of observation, experiment, and confirming evidence." I mean, like, really now, is this a joke? Are they really trying to compare the predictive power and confirming evidence for "explanantions" advanced by evolutionary theory to that afforded by the strict mathematical formulaes used for gravity?

Only a straight-up chump would fall for that claim, I figure, but that's not to say I haven't found many darwinist cheerleaders swallowin it hook, line, and sinker.


Only a straight-up chump would fail to see that there have been thousands of predictions upheld.

Read this brochure critically, Eric. Look at this sentence and then tell me that the "creationists" who said the term "evolution" was used in multiple, confusingly unspecified manners, are not worth trusting. "Evolution stands on an equally solid foundation of observation, experiment, and confirming evidence."

Didn't you claim that nobody would use the word "evolution" to mean the theoretical elements thereof in a teaching setting?


I certainly hope not. All high-school and above science class should include theory.

The equivocal use of terms to "explain" the topic of evolution as used here is simply a method of misleading students into an extremely mushy, uncritical "understanding" of the theoretical issues, as I see it? Is it intentional? Well, either that, or totally incompetent, as far as "teaching" methods go.

I don't find your analysis persuasive or factually based.

OF COURSE IT IS(!), according to the NAS: "For those who are studying the origin of life, the question is no longer whether life could have originated by chemical processes involving nonbiological components. The question instead has become which of many pathways might have been followed to produce the first cells." (Science and Creationism, 1999).

That sentence is not in the brochure you linked too. Pennock's statements in that don't necessarily have NAS agreement.

Why say that ID theory is "not science" if naturalistic processes could provide a basis for it, hmmmmm?

Creating a natrualistic basis does not rescue ID theory, because it makes no scientific claims.

I wonder if the authors of these pedagogical brochures, which stress natural selection as the virtually proven theory of evolution (remember, it's not even a theory unless it is doubtful that any new evidence could alter it), are familiar with the works of Masatochi Nei who wrote, just for example, a research paper called "The new mutation theory of phenotypic evolution."

I think they might respond: "As scientists gather new results and findings, they continue to refine their ideas. Explanations are altered or sometimes rejected when compelling contradictory evidence comes to light." Same answer for most of the quotes.

"This is the fundamental reason why we already have the well formulated 'Atomic Theory' but not yet a comparable 'Living Systems Theory.'"

No "theory" because it's all just too complex, eh? Like, whooda thunk, I ax ya?


Everyone. It's probably not possible to have a system as well-reduced as Atomic Theory.

208 comments:

1 – 200 of 208   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact."


Yes, the phenomenon of evolution is a fact. Yes, the theory of evolution is as facutal as atomic theory or germ theory.


Which is, like, how "factual," exactly, eh, Eric? Like 0%, ya mean? Or have you completely swallowed this misleading line of crap which claims that a theory is "fact?"

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "I think that putting development to the side was a limiting, necessary choice..."

Why in the world would it be "necessary?" It was far from "necessary," and in fact it is now known that is is necessary NOT to "put development aside" if one wants to understand evolution?

It was only "necessary" because of the absolute dogmatism the neo-darwinists gave to the Weismann barrier in their ideology. Even then, it wasn't necessary to put it aside, it was just totally irrevelant, given their metaphysical world-view.

You seem to be completely unwilling to examine the effect that metapyhsics has on "theory" and how theory then decides what is relevant for research, and which questions are actually "open" questions.

Why was it necessary?

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "I find it hard to believe you misunderstood a simple simile. Are you just trolling here, or so ideologically committed that you misunderstood a simile to be an equivalence?"

Where's the simile? No I don't see any "simile" with respect to the topic being addressed.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: ".....none of them take the actual needs of the organism into account."

I should have cut it down to this in the first place, given your response, Eric, which was: "When I say "known to happen", that obviously refers to the limits of what is currently known, making the statement epistemological. Had I spoken 'all the ways a mutation can possibly happen', you would have a point. That you have trouble distinguishing them is not a failing of my English knowledge."

The question is this: How do you KNOW what the variation "takes into account?"

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "Niether is a claim of neo-Darwinism or modern evolutionary theory, in that the 'randomness' present in neo-Darwinism and modern evolutionary theory is compatible with the existence of a designer."

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and once again, wrong. It is, and was, an ontological claim of neo-darwinism. I agree that you can look at it from another viewpoint, as the so-called "theistic darwinists have tried to do, but any such view would NOT be the neo-darwinistic view, period. Read some history. Read the writings of the founders. Read the explications of Mayr, Maynard Smith, Dawkins, Simpson, or any one else knowledgable about the theory.

Over and over they will assert and affirm that the whole purpose of neo-darwinism is to remove all traces of teleology (directed evolution, lamarckism, in a broad sense). They stand firmly opposed to any such view of both "reality" and "possibility." Your subjective viewpoint does not, and cannot, change the theory itself. You simply misunderstand it, wilfully, or not. YOU reject ontology in neo-darwinism, they don't. They insist on it.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "Also, surely you are not confusing what I said about Newton's Laws of Motion and his Law of Gravity. I believe I was clear and held different opinions on that."

NAS is talkin about what they call the "theory of gravity." That's all I'm talkin about here, too.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "Only a straight-up chump would fail to see that there have been thousands of predictions upheld."

Confirmation bias, anyone? I have a theory that all NBA games are rigged. Using this theory, I have successfully predicted the outsomes of over 10,000 NBA games in the last 10 years alone.

How about the predictions which fail, eh, Eric?

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "Creating a natrualistic basis does not rescue ID theory, because it makes no scientific claims."

Always heavy on the ipse dixit way of "proving" your point, eh, Eric?

Design by intelligence is the theory..ID. Why is this not a "naturalistic" possibility? Do you have an answer for that which includes an explanation of your reasons for makin it?

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "I think they might respond: "As scientists gather new results and findings, they continue to refine their ideas. Explanations are altered or sometimes rejected when compelling contradictory evidence comes to light." Same answer for most of the quotes."

Then they would admit is was never a "theory" to begin, I spoze, since it aint no theory unless it is unlikely to be altered by any new evidence. How could anyone know NOW what a theory is, if the likelihood of future events gives it it's current statis?

We've already been through the "atomic theory" is virtually certain and immutable claim before, eh, Eric? Once again, I can only say that you continue to display a strictly layman-like notion of what a "theory" is. I now officially give up on any hope of you ever seeing it otherwise. If I say "dogs exist," that would be a scientific theory that "dogs exist," given the way you talk.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "I don't know what definitions you are using for ontological claims versus episemological claims. Ontology, to myu understanding, is soncerned with how things are, what their true nature is, while epistemology is concerned with what we can know about things and how we can know it. Do you mean something different?"

Yeah, that's close enough. So let's look at it a minute. If I say "Houston is in Texas," that is, whether right or wrong, an ontological claim.

If you ask me "what state is Dallas in," and my answer is "I don't know," then I am making no ontological claim, simply acknowledging my ignorance. This is not really an example of an "epistemological" statement because it does not really raise questions about "how" and on what basis, I can legitimately claim to "know" something. Here I am simply claiming not to know.

If I say "all mutations are random, with respect to the needs of the organism," that is an ontological claim. If you ask me how I "know" this, then you are raising epistemological questions, but that does not make my original claim one of epistemology alone. I am basically making a claim of fact, whether I am right or wrong.

If you say "all mutations are random" and I ask you how you claim to "know" that, you might say, "I don't, I just felt like sayin it, for the hell of it." The "epistemological question has then been addressed, but it doesn't make the orginal claim "non-ontological." Had you said "I like to think that all mutations are random," then the only "ontological" aspect to your statement would be with respect to your preferences and/or thought processes. You would not even purport to be makin a claim about how things "really are" with respect to the randomness of mutations.

Anonymous said...

Let's refine this a little more. Suppose you ask me if mutations are random and I say "I have no way of knowing that."

There is an "ontological" aspect to this type of response. I am not simply saying that I don't know, but adding, as an onotological claim, something about what means and methods of "knowing" are even available to me. There may well be methods which are available to me, but of which I am unaware. If that were the case, the ontological aspect of my claim would be wrong (but it would still be ontological).

But, the ontological aspect aside, this is basically an epistemological claim about what I am capable of knowing. It does not purport to say anything about the "true" or "factual" nature of the relationshop between mutations and randomness. It just addresses my ability to know.

If I say "we have good reasons to believe that all mutations are random," then that too is basically making a epistemological claim. You may ask me what my "good reasons" are, and those reasons can then be independently assessed as to the issue of whether they are truly "good reasons."

But again, if I simply say, "all mutations are random," that is strictly an ontological claim, in and of itself. If you ask me how I "know" that, or why I believe it, I could give innumerable answers. Here's one I could give:

"Nature is all there is, and nature contains no possibility of purposeness. It follows that mutations MUST be random with respect to the needs of the organism" (although it may not be random in the sense that there can be a known deterministic cause of the mutation, such as radiation).

Now my "reasons" are not empirical ones. They are still "reasons," but they are metaphysical ones, based upon an ontological assumption about what is real (nature alone in this response, and what nature "is"--non-purposeful, and what nature implies about mutations in this account).

Anonymous said...

Of course the word "ontological" is seldom used to refer to routine claims of truth. Normally we would just refer to these as claims of fact (as opposed to, say, claims of opinion).

In philosophy, ontology generally refers to claims of what is "fundamentally" real, true, and existent in very general terms. Answers to questions of ontology (such as "only matter is real," or "mind is the only true substance") are necessarily metaphysical. They are essentially philosophical opinions (as opposed to empircally verified claims of "fact") which may be based on very elaborate chains of reasoning, which chains themselves may incorporate many claims of empirical fact, but they are still essentially "opinion" because they cannot be ultimately proven. In practice such "answers" are just "starting assumptions," axioms pertaining to "truth and reality," if you will. Such ontological starting points are metaphysical presuppositions. At least that's the way I kinda understand it.

Anonymous said...

Edit: I said "If I say "we have good reasons to believe that all mutations are random," then that too is basically making a epistemological claim."

I'm gittin all kinda confusin my own damn self here, eh? I meant to say: "....is basically making a ONTOLOGICAL claim" (not "epistemological").

One Brow said...

Which is, like, how "factual," exactly, eh, Eric? Like 0%, ya mean? Or have you completely swallowed this misleading line of crap which claims that a theory is "fact?"

How factual is the germ theory of disease? Factual enough to require surgeons and fast-food workers to wash their hands? I don't have a percentage factruality on germ theory, evolutionary theory, or atomic theory. I find them to be well-evidenced enough that we can and should adapt our laws and habits according to what they say.

One Brow said: "I think that putting development to the side was a limiting, necessary choice..."

Why in the world would it be "necessary?"


With the knowledge level of the time, studying population genetics and embryonic development holistically would not have produced results as quickly or effectively as studying them individually. First you study the parts, then you study the whole.

It was far from "necessary," and in fact it is now known that is is necessary NOT to "put development aside" if one wants to understand evolution?

With our current level of knowledge, we can and have begun effectively integrating these two aspects of biology.

It was only "necessary" because of the absolute dogmatism the neo-darwinists gave to the Weismann barrier in their ideology. Even then, it wasn't necessary to put it aside, it was just totally irrevelant, given their metaphysical world-view.

Funding in embryology continued through the 1940s, 50s, 60s, 70s, etc. The results were not connected to evolution at that time, because we didn't understand enough to make a viable connection. It's not like embryology was ignored by all biologists.

You seem to be completely unwilling to examine the effect that metapyhsics has on "theory" and how theory then decides what is relevant for research, and which questions are actually "open" questions.

I disagree on the motives.

Where's the simile? No I don't see any "simile" with respect to the topic being addressed.

The phrase "as factual an explanation of the universe as" means that in any sense that germ theory or atomic theory might be considered factual, so should evolutionary theory.

The question is this: How do you KNOW what the variation "takes into account?"

Last I checked, there was no Intelligent Chemistry, so technically the known processes of mutation never take anything in account. I don't know if the wikipedia list is complete, but which of these causes do you see as taking teh needs of the organism into account?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation#Causes_of_mutation

One Brow said...

One Brow said: "Neither is a claim of neo-Darwinism or modern evolutionary theory, in that the 'randomness' present in neo-Darwinism and modern evolutionary theory is compatible with the existence of a designer."

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and once again, wrong. It is, and was, an ontological claim of neo-darwinism.


Not if neo-Darwinism is a scientific proposition.

Read the explications of Mayr, Maynard Smith, Dawkins, Simpson, or any one else knowledgable about the theory.

Why should I read only what the atheists say? Even when I have, they usually distinguish between what the science actually says and what they feel that means philosophically.

Over and over they will assert and affirm that the whole purpose of neo-darwinism is to remove all traces of teleology (directed evolution, lamarckism, in a broad sense).

There are other ways for a designer to be involved besides Lamarckian evolution. Lamarckian evoltuion does not require a designer. So, the question of the designer is different from the question of Lamarckism. As for a more general notion of teleology, the strongest statement is that they are trying to remove the need for teleology, and the perception that there is a need for teleology.

Plus, since mutations are chemically non-random, you can never defeat a front-loading argument for design.

They stand firmly opposed to any such view of both "reality" and "possibility." Your subjective viewpoint does not, and cannot, change the theory itself. You simply misunderstand it, wilfully, or not. YOU reject ontology in neo-darwinism, they don't. They insist on it.

I read them differently than you.

One Brow said: "Also, surely you are not confusing what I said about Newton's Laws of Motion and his Law of Gravity. I believe I was clear and held different opinions on that."

NAS is talkin about what they call the "theory of gravity." That's all I'm talkin about here, too.


I have said that before that Einstein's General Relativity was a wholesale re-invention of Newton's Law of Gravity, not adding some new terms into an established form. this is different from how his Special Relativity changed the Laws of Motion.

Confirmation bias, anyone? I have a theory that all NBA games are rigged. Using this theory, I have successfully predicted the outsomes of over 10,000 NBA games in the last 10 years alone.

How about the predictions which fail, eh, Eric?


A part of every science. Now, what are the predictions of ID?

One Brow said: "Creating a natrualistic basis does not rescue ID theory, because it makes no scientific claims."

Always heavy on the ipse dixit way of "proving" your point, eh, Eric?

Design by intelligence is the theory..ID.


What does this explain?

Why is this not a "naturalistic" possibility?

It is a possibility. It's just not a theory.

Do you have an answer for that which includes an explanation of your reasons for makin it?

Yes. ID tells us nothing about life. It adds no explanation of what we should or should not expect to see. It is compatible with everything.

One Brow said...

Then they would admit is was never a "theory" to begin, I spoze, since it aint no theory unless it is unlikely to be altered by any new evidence. How could anyone know NOW what a theory is, if the likelihood of future events gives it it's current statis?

As bodies of evidence build, any new theory has to accomodate all the old evidence. This can put considerable restrictions on the form a new theory can take, to the point that any attempt to replace a theory will look almost exactly like the old one.

We've already been through the "atomic theory" is virtually certain and immutable claim before, eh, Eric? Once again, I can only say that you continue to display a strictly layman-like notion of what a "theory" is.

I would counter that your notion of theory is far too formal for an empirical discipline.

If I say "all mutations are random, with respect to the needs of the organism," that is an ontological claim. If you ask me how I "know" this, then you are raising epistemological questions, but that does not make my original claim one of epistemology alone. I am basically making a claim of fact, whether I am right or wrong.

If you say "all mutations are random" and I ask you how you claim to "know" that, you might say, "I don't, I just felt like sayin it, for the hell of it." The "epistemological question has then been addressed, but it doesn't make the orginal claim "non-ontological." Had you said "I like to think that all mutations are random," then the only "ontological" aspect to your statement would be with respect to your preferences and/or thought processes. You would not even purport to be makin a claim about how things "really are" with respect to the randomness of mutations.


If you say, "all known mutation processes operate randomly with respect to the needs of the organism because there is no known mechanism that connects the mutation itself with what the organism needs", is that ontological or epistemological in your eyes?

Of course the word "ontological" is seldom used to refer to routine claims of truth. Normally we would just refer to these as claims of fact (as opposed to, say, claims of opinion).

In philosophy, ontology generally refers to claims of what is "fundamentally" real, true, and existent in very general terms. Answers to questions of ontology (such as "only matter is real," or "mind is the only true substance") are necessarily metaphysical. They are essentially philosophical opinions (as opposed to empircally verified claims of "fact") which may be based on very elaborate chains of reasoning, which chains themselves may incorporate many claims of empirical fact, but they are still essentially "opinion" because they cannot be ultimately proven. In practice such "answers" are just "starting assumptions," axioms pertaining to "truth and reality," if you will. Such ontological starting points are metaphysical presuppositions. At least that's the way I kinda understand it.


If that is the case, the statement "all mutations are random with respect to the needs of the organism" would not be ontological, because it is not a starting position. It is a conclusion based upon how mutations happen.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "How factual is the germ theory of disease? Factual enough to require surgeons and fast-food workers to wash their hands? I don't have a percentage factruality on germ theory, evolutionary theory, or atomic theory."

Years ago I quoted at length from Gould's attempt to articulate the distinction between fact and theory (which I didn't think was especially well-put, but it was OK). At the time you said you agreed with it, and that you understood it.

You didn't. I have since quoted many other authors on the distinction, and I could quote many more, no doubt. It wouldn't help any, I guess. It is a fundamental categorical error to confuse one's interpretation of that data with the data itself. As I said before: As I already said: "No wonder that those exposed to evolutionary teaching have a very confused notion about the distinction between theory and fact, eh?"

The Sharpshooters of the world are omnipresent, so this is nuthin new to me. I just find it surprising and disappointing that you, with your insight, fall for this bogus crap from the NAS. At some level I believe you are aware of the distinction, and know how to apply it, but you ignore that level of understanding when you think doing so will aid the "cause" of defeating ID.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "I would counter that your notion of theory is far too formal for an empirical discipline."

Hmm, and here I thought all "scientific" disciplines were supposed to be empirical, somehow, eh?

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "Not if neo-Darwinism is a scientific proposition."

Well, there ya go, then. It aint. At least not in certain aspects. It is a metaphysical doctrine in some regards, that's all I been tryin to tell ya.

Freudian physchology is considered to be an empirical scientific discipline by many. It aint. But if you assume all it's premises, and apply them selectively, it can seem to be an all-powerful, virtually indisputable predictive explanation, I spoze.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "I read them differently than you." Well, you're free to read them in any way that suits you, no question about that. Have you ever even investigated the way the vast (and I do mean vast) majority of historians and philsophers of science, and scientists themselves, read them. I spoze it wouldn't really matter to you, eh?

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: If you say, "all known mutation processes operate randomly with respect to the needs of the organism because there is no known mechanism that connects the mutation itself with what the organism needs", is that ontological or epistemological in your eyes?

In my view, that is an ontological claim with some (weak) epistemological basis for the claim added in. This part makes it ontological in nature: "all known mutation processes operate randomly..." An unqualified claim of fact is being made about how mutation processes "operate."

The latter, epistemological part is best read this way, I think: "[I conclude that this is the case because]there is no known mechanism that connects the mutation itself with what the organism needs." This is the disclosure of the epistemological basis for the ontological conclusion. This basically assumes that if one doesn't know a mechanism, then the pattern is known (to be random).

I would dispute the need to know a mechanism as an independent objection to the validity of the epistemological portion of the claim, but I won't elaborate now on that issue right now.

Even more dubious to me is the implied epistemological claim that if you don't know a process to be of character "y," then that is a sufficient basis to conclude that the process is "non-y."

Anonymous said...

Spoze you asked me if Dallas was in Texas,and my answer was: "I dunno, so that means it aint it Texas." I guess the implied epistemological premise here is that if it was in fact in Texas, I would know it.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "There are other ways for a designer to be involved besides Lamarckian evolution. Lamarckian evoltuion does not require a designer. So, the question of the designer is different from the question of Lamarckism."

I agree. As I said before, I don't even see the question as being directly related to God. You keep acting as though this is the only issue, but it aint. There are two basic types of teleogolgy, accordin to the philosophers I've read, to wit:

1. External (Platonic) teleology, which posits an agent that is directing processes toward a goal, and

2. Internal (Aristotlean) teleology which is inherent in "nature."

Type 1 would be one that is most analogous to the claim of a christian god as the "designer." Type 2 would be more lamarckian--Lamarck did not believe in a special creator, they say.

The neo-darwinists wanted to abolish(by fiat, essentially) ALL notions of teleology, whether internal or external, from evolution. That is why they insisted that mutations MUST be random. That is why you never see the formulation of neo-darwinism consisting of "natural selection acting upon mutations." It's always RANDOM mutations, not merely mutations, just in case someone might forget the agenda sometime.

They don't say "unpredictable" mutation (the mathematical sense of the word random which you insist they intended). Unpredictable mutations could by directed some or all of the time, just not in a predictable manner. That is NOT the sense they meant. They meant "random" in the everyday sense of the dictionary definition that I quoted--without purpose, aimless, etc. They are very clear about this, it's not a matter of "guessing" about what they intended to say.

Anonymous said...

I said: "Design by intelligence is the theory..ID.

You asked: What does this explain?

It "explains" the same thing that "random mutation" does in neo-darwinism, only in the opposite way. It posits that there is direction in evolution, which helps "explain" the complex functions which cells and organisms display in their adaption.

It is metaphysical in character? Sho nuff, just like random mutation is (when the theory states that all mutations are necessarily random). Is it unnecessary to the study of evolution? Sho nuff, just like the concept of "random mutation" is.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "I don't know if the wikipedia list is complete, but which of these causes do you see as taking teh needs of the organism into account?

Several comments:

1. You said you agreed with this statement: "If "genes" are simply the message, irrespective of the medium; if, indeed, genes are ONLY information, then certainly the "epigentic" means by which regulatory genes "choose" to express the dna is at bottom a form of "genetic mutation." This would seems to imply that, in Williams' view, genes vary "because of their development," to use your words."

The "choices" that on/off switch functioning that regulatory genes make do not appear to be arbitrary or random. They are not in the wiki list of "induced" chemical mutations, of course.

2. You said in another post: "Mutation that result from chemical interactions, copying errors, etc. happen in the realm of chemistry, and are determined by the properties of the chemicals involved. However, of the various ways mutations are known to happen, none of them take the actual needs of the organism into account."

You seem to be re-iterating that now, despite your agreement that matter and information (genes) are NOT in the same realm. Did "chemicals" write those words for you, Eric, cuz, ya know, there were chemical reaction goin on in your brain when they were written.

3. If I recall correctly you claimed you were NOT a reductionist. Yet you seem to proffer reductionistic claims as though there was simply nuthin to reflect on with respect to them. The reductionistic chemical determinism you presuppose reveals that. Zup wit dat?

4. You say you never heard of "chemical intelligence." I never heard of a car's steering wheel that was too bright either, but, guess what? Every time I turn mine clockwise, my car goes to the right. They must be smarter than they look, eh?

One Brow said...

Years ago I quoted at length from Gould's attempt to articulate the distinction between fact and theory (which I didn't think was especially well-put, but it was OK). At the time you said you agreed with it, and that you understood it.

You didn't. I have since quoted many other authors on the distinction, and I could quote many more, no doubt. It wouldn't help any, I guess. It is a fundamental categorical error to confuse one's interpretation of that data with the data itself. As I said before: As I already said: "No wonder that those exposed to evolutionary teaching have a very confused notion about the distinction between theory and fact, eh?"


You didn't answer the question, and seem to be intent on ducking it. How factual is the germ theory of disease? Is it factual enough to mandate certain behaviors based on its conclusions? Does that in any way change that it is still a theory? The germ theory of disease is not a fact. Evolutionary theory is not a fact. The behavuor of matter as if composed of atoms is not a fact. Despite, our society uses these theories as well-confirmed, reliable guides to existence. We treat them as if they are true.

The Sharpshooters of the world are omnipresent, so this is nuthin new to me. I just find it surprising and disappointing that you, with your insight, fall for this bogus crap from the NAS. At some level I believe you are aware of the distinction, and know how to apply it, but you ignore that level of understanding when you think doing so will aid the "cause" of defeating ID.

I would like to say I'm disappointed that that you went over-the-top in interpretation of a pamphlet, but it seems to be the nature of the your arguments on this topic lately. The funny part is I don't think you disagree with the actual sentence. I don't think you feel evolutionary theory is less factual than the germ theory of disease or atomic theory, but as soon as you see the word, you eyes just went red and you blocked out what was being said entirely, much like Sharpshooter.

One Brow said: "I would counter that your notion of theory is far too formal for an empirical discipline."

Hmm, and here I thought all "scientific" disciplines were supposed to be empirical, somehow, eh?


Yes. I think your notion of theory is far to formal for any scientific discipline (physics, chemistry, biology, geology, etc.). Of course, with 'scientific' in scare quotes, for all I know you could be talking about mathematics or epistemology, but I would characterize neither of those as scientific nor empirical.

One Brow said: "Not if neo-Darwinism is a scientific proposition."

Well, there ya go, then. It aint. At least not in certain aspects. It is a metaphysical doctrine in some regards, that's all I been tryin to tell ya.


I distinguish between the scientific and metaphysical positions.

Freudian physchology is considered to be an empirical scientific discipline by many. It aint. But if you assume all it's premises, and apply them selectively, it can seem to be an all-powerful, virtually indisputable predictive explanation, I spoze.

Postdictive, perhaps, but I don't recall Freudian psychology to be predictive in any significant way.

One Brow said: "I read them differently than you." Well, you're free to read them in any way that suits you, no question about that. Have you ever even investigated the way the vast (and I do mean vast) majority of historians and philsophers of science, and scientists themselves, read them. I spoze it wouldn't really matter to you, eh?

I have not found your interpretation of claims of historians, philosophers of science, or scientists to be a particularly accurate guide. As men, the proponent of neo-Darwinism made broadly philosophical claims. As scientists, they made scientific claims.

One Brow said...

One Brow said: If you say, "all known mutation processes operate randomly with respect to the needs of the organism because there is no known mechanism that connects the mutation itself with what the organism needs", is that ontological or epistemological in your eyes?

In my view, that is an ontological claim with some (weak) epistemological basis ...


Then perhaps this is one root source of contention. I have been referring to knowledge acquired through reasearch and investigation as epistemological knowledge, so I would have classified that statement as epistemological. Perhaps my terminology is in error. However, under that paradigm, it is ludicrous to say that you can't make ontological claims based on scientific research. 'The paper is yellow' becomes an ontological claim that can be easitly verified in a couple of different ways. I can certainly adapt to this usage, but you'llhave to realize that any previous statement about ontology will have to be re-examined.

Even more dubious to me is the implied epistemological claim that if you don't know a process to be of character "y," then that is a sufficient basis to conclude that the process is "non-y."

Since we are now treating 'random' as being an ontological state, is it a property, or the lack of the ability to apply a property? If you can't apply the property of 'directed', the event is random until the property 'directed' can be applied successfully. Random describes an ontological lack, not a presence.

I said: "Design by intelligence is the theory..ID.

You asked: What does this explain?

It "explains" the same thing that "random mutation" does in neo-darwinism, only in the opposite way.


No, it doesn't. Random mutation explains why primates don't create vitamin C. Random mutation explains why separate populations develop differently in near-identical environments, such as the fruit flies on the Hawaiian Islands. Random mutation explains Down's syndrome and Huntington's disease. Random mutation explains the the recurrent laryngeal nerve and spider pedipals. Design (of eitehr type) doesn't explain any of this.

It posits that there is direction in evolution, which helps "explain" the complex functions which cells and organisms display in their adaption.

Except, sometimes organisms get simpler as an adaptation, and design explains complexity no better than randomness.

One Brow said...

1. You said you agreed with this statement: "If "genes" are simply the message, irrespective of the medium; if, indeed, genes are ONLY information, then certainly the "epigentic" means by which regulatory genes "choose" to express the dna is at bottom a form of "genetic mutation." This would seems to imply that, in Williams' view, genes vary "because of their development," to use your words."

The "choices" that on/off switch functioning that regulatory genes make do not appear to be arbitrary or random. They are not in the wiki list of "induced" chemical mutations, of course.


I don't recall agreeing with that specific sentence. Mutations are changes in heretible material. Epigentic 'switches' are inherited in both directions, and activated in one direction based on environmental influences. So, the change in how the switch is activated is *not* a change in heritable material. Now, some sort of epigenetic changes, such as prions, would qualify as mutations (they are not switches of the sort discussed earlier). However, these changes are also unconnected to the needs of the organism, as far as it known, and thus random.

You seem to be re-iterating that now, despite your agreement that matter and information (genes) are NOT in the same realm.

As you keep emphasizing, neo-Darwinism concerned itself with random mutation, not random gene expression.

3. If I recall correctly you claimed you were NOT a reductionist. Yet you seem to proffer reductionistic claims as though there was simply nuthin to reflect on with respect to them. The reductionistic chemical determinism you presuppose reveals that. Zup wit dat?

I was talking about mutations, which is affects a couple of pieces on which the gen information supervenes.

4. You say you never heard of "chemical intelligence." I never heard of a car's steering wheel that was too bright either, but, guess what? Every time I turn mine clockwise, my car goes to the right. They must be smarter than they look, eh?

No scientific propostion, not even neo-Darwinism, can rule out the existence of the driver. This is not to be confused with the metaphysical proposition.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "If that is the case, the statement "all mutations are random with respect to the needs of the organism" would not be ontological, because it is not a starting position. It is a conclusion based upon how mutations happen."

Naw, it aint, not in the neo-darwinistic scheme anyways. There it is an a priori conclusion which is imposed upon any and all interpretations of the facts. Again, random mutation (of DNA) must be coupled with absolute genetic determinism in that scheme for it to accomplish it's intended purpose.

As I've said before, it could be that all "mutations" (we should be careful to define what "genetic mutations" actually are) are truly random. My point in this entire thread has not been to try to settle that as a factual matter. My point has consistently been about the metaphsyical aspect of the doctrine which claims, in advance, that all mutations MUST be random, in principle.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "You didn't answer the question, and seem to be intent on ducking it. How factual is the germ theory of disease?"

I thought I did answer the question, which is a confused one. It's like asking "how black is white?" The answer is 0%. Why would I say, black is just as white as is red, or any other color? They are trying to give the impression that there is a factual comparision to be made.

No theory is "factual." There is a distinction between theory and fact, and they are two entirely different concepts. The confused conflation of the two concepts is one thing that particularly bothers me about the NAS brochure. It's a polemic piece, designed to give a misleading impression of what evolutionary science is, how "certain" it is, and which tries to turn theory into fact.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "No, it doesn't. Random mutation explains why primates don't create vitamin C. Random mutation explains why separate populations develop differently in near-identical environments, such as the fruit flies on the Hawaiian Islands. Random mutation explains Down's syndrome and Huntington's disease."

Heh, I don't even know how to respond. Would "mutations" also explain these things if they were not random? Or is your point that mutations "explain" them better if they are seen as random, so only random mutations would do the job? How about beneficial mutations, would they also "have" to be random?

Mutation, by itself, explains nuthin. The ultimate source of variation, and the processes which trigger it, are varied and still not well understood. In a broad sense, mutation is simply synonymous with variation. "Variation," as a general term, "explains" nothing--it's just a broad general concept like "change." It's simply a tautology to say x is different from x-prime, because x changed.

The "explanation" you have in mind (I'm not sure what it is) would have to depend on a whole series of inferences, not simply pointing a finger at random mutations as the explanation. That would be like pointing to "intelligent design" as the explanation (it aint no explanation of anything in particular).

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "If you can't apply the property of 'directed', the event is random until the property 'directed' can be applied successfully. Random describes an ontological lack, not a presence."

Heh, that's a two way street, eh, Eric? I can just as easily say that a "directed" event is one that lacks randomness. Wordplay will not make one of the two the default position.

As one of many possible analogies, let's say a guy throws a baseball straight at your head (perhaps knowingly, perhaps carelessly) and hits you in the head with it. Now you are asked: Did he do that intentionally?

Let's say your answer is: "I don't know." Now, since an unintentional act is one which lack intents, and since you don't know that it was intentional, is the implied conclusion that therefore it was not, and could not have been, intentional?

I don't think so! Homey don't play dat.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "As men, the proponent of neo-Darwinism made broadly philosophical claims. As scientists, they made scientific claims."

Well, we agree on the fundamentals then. You want to insist that neo-darwinism *is* a science, and you therefore reject the very existence of the "non-scientific" elements which were built into it as a matter of historical fact.

You are free (and wise) to propose an amendment to neo-darwinist theory, one which, for example, eliminates the (metaphysical) theoretical axiom that all mutations are, and must of necessity be, random. That's fine, but it's not neo-darwinism. That is not the dogmatic theory that has been promoted almost as "known fact" for many decades, sorry.

One Brow said...

One Brow said: "It is a conclusion based upon how mutations happen."

Naw, it aint, not in the neo-darwinistic scheme anyways. There it is an a priori conclusion which is imposed upon any and all interpretations of the facts. Again, random mutation (of DNA) must be coupled with absolute genetic determinism in that scheme for it to accomplish it's intended purpose.


Well, I have agreed to alter that usage anyhow, and we already agree strict genetic determinism is no longer viable.

As I've said before, it could be that all "mutations" (we should be careful to define what "genetic mutations" actually are) are truly random. My point in this entire thread has not been to try to settle that as a factual matter. My point has consistently been about the metaphsyical aspect of the doctrine which claims, in advance, that all mutations MUST be random, in principle.

That's not part of the scientific formulation. You can't run an experiment on a principle.

One Brow said: "You didn't answer the question, and seem to be intent on ducking it. How factual is the germ theory of disease?"

I thought I did answer the question, which is a confused one. It's like asking "how black is white?" The answer is 0%. ... No theory is "factual." ... The confused conflation of the two concepts is one thing that particularly bothers me about the NAS brochure. It's a polemic piece, designed to give a misleading impression of what evolutionary science is, how "certain" it is, and which tries to turn theory into fact.


You skiped the rest. "Is it factual enough to mandate certain behaviors based on its conclusions? Does that in any way change that it is still a theory?" Your eagerness to distinguish theory from fact is beside the point. The pamphlet is saying that much of the knowledge we have of the parts of evolution that creationists tend to oppose is not speculation, not guessing, not pulled from thin air, but rather confirmed, reliable, and trustworthy.

So, is the germ theory of disease factual enough that we can rely upon it to require surgeons to wash hands?

One Brow said: "No, it doesn't. Random mutation explains ..."

Heh, I don't even know how to respond. Would "mutations" also explain these things if they were not random?


The existence of the mutations is observable, so it is a fact. Facts don't explain anything. You should know better than to confuse fact and theory.

The theory part is the randomness. Yes, randomness explains why mutations that seem to have no positive effect, and do nothing for the survival of the organism, occur. Now, what is the Lamarckian or ID explanation.

Or is your point that mutations "explain" them better if they are seen as random, so only random mutations would do the job? How about beneficial mutations, would they also "have" to be random?

They don't "have" to be anything. If beneficial mutations do not follow a random pattern, you should look for reasons they are not random.

Mutation, by itself, explains nuthin. The ultimate source of variation, and the processes which trigger it, are varied and still not well understood. In a broad sense, mutation is simply synonymous with variation. "Variation," as a general term, "explains" nothing--it's just a broad general concept like "change." It's simply a tautology to say x is different from x-prime, because x changed.

Exactly, because the mutation is a fact.

The "explanation" you have in mind (I'm not sure what it is) would have to depend on a whole series of inferences, not simply pointing a finger at random mutations as the explanation. That would be like pointing to "intelligent design" as the explanation (it aint no explanation of anything in particular).

'Randomness' is part of the explanation.

One Brow said...

One Brow said: "If you can't apply the property of 'directed', the event is random until the property 'directed' can be applied successfully. Random describes an ontological lack, not a presence."

Heh, that's a two way street, eh, Eric? I can just as easily say that a "directed" event is one that lacks randomness. Wordplay will not make one of the two the default position.

As one of many possible analogies, let's say a guy throws a baseball straight at your head (perhaps knowingly, perhaps carelessly) and hits you in the head with it. Now you are asked: Did he do that intentionally?

Let's say your answer is: "I don't know." Now, since an unintentional act is one which lack intents, and since you don't know that it was intentional, is the implied conclusion that therefore it was not, and could not have been, intentional?

I don't think so! Homey don't play dat.


I don't find the causes of the direction of a thrown ball to be an apt analogy for the causes of mutation, unless the thrower is under the age of one. A person throws a ball when they are trying to throw a ball. Chemical interactions don't intend to cause mutations.

One Brow said: "As men, the proponent of neo-Darwinism made broadly philosophical claims. As scientists, they made scientific claims."

Well, we agree on the fundamentals then. You want to insist that neo-darwinism *is* a science, and you therefore reject the very existence of the "non-scientific" elements which were built into it as a matter of historical fact.


I separate the scientific and the non-scientific components.

You are free (and wise) to propose an amendment to neo-darwinist theory, one which, for example, eliminates the (metaphysical) theoretical axiom that all mutations are, and must of necessity be, random. That's fine, but it's not neo-darwinism. That is not the dogmatic theory that has been promoted almost as "known fact" for many decades, sorry.

The randomness of mutations in neo-darwinism (the scientific parts) is not metaphysical. It is ontological, but the ontological knowledge comes from empirical studies, making it epistemological in nature.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "The randomness of mutations in neo-darwinism (the scientific parts) is not metaphysical. It is ontological, but the ontological knowledge comes from empirical studies, making it epistemological in nature."

Well, if I read you right, I kinda agree. At least you are distinguishing the empirical from the metaphysics now, it seems (since you put "the scienific part," presumably to be distinguished from the axiomatic part, in parentheses). No doubt some, or even most copying errors, etc., are likely to be random. But are you sayin that ALL mutations are random? If so, that would be an unwarranted, dogmatic assertion, in my book, and we're right back into metaphysics, i.e., right back to unadulterated neo-darwinism.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "I don't find the causes of the direction of a thrown ball to be an apt analogy for the causes of mutation, unless the thrower is under the age of one."

That's good, because I wasn't using it for an analogy for mutation. I was using it as analogy for the epistemological principle of "default assumptions" you were trying to assert.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "Yes, randomness explains why mutations that seem to have no positive effect, and do nothing for the survival of the organism, occur. Now, what is the Lamarckian or ID explanation."

Well, I spoze the lamarckian explanation is that not ALL mutation (variation) is necessarily random, eh? Neo-darwinists see it differently, as a matter of theoretical doctrine.

To quote Gould: "Wiesmann's strong anti-lamarckian argument does not rest on experiment or on an empirical observation at all."

http://books.google.com/books?id=nhIl7e61WOUC&pg=PP233&lpg=PP233&dq=August+Weismann+empirical+reasons&source=bl&ots=ZBpv10D_tG&sig=jMl5fuNIse6PxLD9jHP_mRqMgSU&hl=en&ei=XY2ESr29EIqMMebI9OoE&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Are you yourself claiming that ALL mutations have been shown to be random, eh, Eric?

Anonymous said...

Heh, Gould quotin Augie Weismann's own words on the topic, eh?:

"...objections which are based on our inability to demonstrate selection-value in individual cases, must collapse, as being of no weight...once it is established that natural selection is the only principle which has to be considered, it necessarily follows that the facts can be correctly explained by natural selection."

So, let's see here, eh? Empirical questions are of no weight and natural selection is the ONLY principle to be considered (once lamarckism is rejected), so natural selection can, by necessity, correctly explain it all!!

Now that's what I call science, sho nuff!

Anonymous said...

Kinda makes ya wonder why he spent so much time choppin tales offa mice, don't it? Mebbe he just liked doin it, I figure.

One Brow said...

Well, if I read you right, I kinda agree. At least you are distinguishing the empirical from the metaphysics now, it seems (since you put "the scienific part," presumably to be distinguished from the axiomatic part, in parentheses). No doubt some, or even most copying errors, etc., are likely to be random. But are you sayin that ALL mutations are random?

I agree that would be overstepping a little scientifically. All we can say is all known causes of mutation are random to the degree we can detect.

One Brow said: "I don't find the causes of the direction of a thrown ball to be an apt analogy for the causes of mutation, unless the thrower is under the age of one."

That's good, because I wasn't using it for an analogy for mutation. I was using it as analogy for the epistemological principle of "default assumptions" you were trying to assert.


Balls are thrown by people, you naturally there is a built-in assumption that people (over the age of 1, anyhow) do things deliberately. When you don't have an agent capable of design, you naturally have different default assumpiton about the actions of that agent than when you do have an agent capable of design.

One Brow said: "Yes, randomness explains why mutations that seem to have no positive effect, and do nothing for the survival of the organism, occur. Now, what is the Lamarckian or ID explanation."

Well, I spoze the lamarckian explanation is that not ALL mutation (variation) is necessarily random, eh?


So, we agree that randomness is appropriate at least some of the time. The next step would be to identify which mutations, under what ceircumstances, and in what ways the randomness is or is not appropriate.

To quote Gould: "Wiesmann's strong anti-lamarckian argument does not rest on experiment or on an empirical observation at all."

In Weissman's time, randomness was supprted by the idea of deleterious mutations, but there was no mechanism.

Are you yourself claiming that ALL mutations have been shown to be random, eh, Eric?

I would not know how to show something is random. You can only look to see if there is a connection that makes if non-random, or if the behavior is random. So far, of all the known mutations (DNA alterations, prions, etc.), none of the cuases of changes seem to be connected to the needs of the organism in any fashion we can devise. So, all known mutational causes are random with respect to the needs fo the organism.

So, let's see here, eh? Empirical questions are of no weight and natural selection is the ONLY principle to be considered (once lamarckism is rejected), so natural selection can, by necessity, correctly explain it all!!

Now that's what I call science, sho nuff!


Obviously, he was wrong.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "When you don't have an agent capable of design, you naturally have different default assumpiton about the actions of that agent than when you do have an agent capable of design." Heh, you're still missin the point, Eric, but, that aside, let's look at what you're sayin here.

If there is no agent, then there is no agent. Really!?

Two things:

1. Why assume their must be an agent for non-randomness? Is "intelligence" some kinda agent, ya figure?
2. Why assume that there is no agent to begin with? So you're sayin, like the neo-darwinists, that you assume, as a metaphysical matter, that there is no agent, and that your "explanation" of randomness necessarily follows therefrom, eh? Is that "scientific?"

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: " So far, of all the known mutations (DNA alterations, prions, etc.), none of the cuases of changes seem to be connected to the needs of the organism in any fashion we can devise. So, all known mutational causes are random with respect to the needs fo the organism."

What are you callin a "mutation" here? Some change to DNA only, that the idea?

Anonymous said...

Another question: Your statement appears to boil down, from an epistemological standpoint (just to avoid continuing confusion, keep in mind that I am not using "empistemological" as a synonym for "empirical"), to the claim that if we don't "know" something, then it does exist.

Anonymous said...

edit "doen't exist," I meant.

Anonymous said...

Spoze some baby turtle is hatched in the sand near the ocean, and that, in order to survive, it must head to the water. And, further suppose that it does that, invariably. What "agent" is directing it then?

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "Obviously, he was wrong."

Were the neo-darwinians also wrong to accept his germ theory as an absolute given, without empirical evidence, ya figure?

Anonymous said...

I really shouldn't say "without empirical evidence," I should say in the face of conflicting evidence, ya know? Aint there a lotta plants that, if ya cut off a branch or stem, and stick it in the ground, a whole new tree will grow?

How does one use the concept of the "immortal germ cell" to conclude that the whole history of life can be explained in terms on stictly random mutation (and selection), it light of that? Where is the strict separation of soma and germ cells in that case, I wonder?

One Brow said...

Two things:

1. Why assume their must be an agent for non-randomness? Is "intelligence" some kinda agent, ya figure?


Generally there is either an agent or a mechanism. I'm nor sure intelligence alone qualifies as an agent, but an intelligent desinger would.

2. Why assume that there is no agent to begin with?

For the same reason I assume there are no unicorns. Should evidence of the agent surface, you factor the agent into the process.

So you're sayin, like the neo-darwinists, that you assume, as a metaphysical matter, that there is no agent, and that your "explanation" of randomness necessarily follows therefrom, eh? Is that "scientific?"

Rather, as an empirical matter, absent the actions of an agent or mechanism, finding no particular pattern, knowing the (non-random) source of the mutations without knowing of a way they are connected to the needs of the organism, and knowing the deleterious and neutral mutations occur as well as beneficial ones, randomness is the best explanation.

One Brow said: " So far, of all the known mutations (DNA alterations, prions, etc.), none of the cuases of changes seem to be connected to the needs of the organism in any fashion we can devise. So, all known mutational causes are random with respect to the needs fo the organism."

What are you callin a "mutation" here? Some change to DNA only, that the idea?


A prion would be a change in the proteins within the cell, not the DNA. A mutation would be change in the information inherited. Many typs of epigenetic changes do not change the information inherited, which is shown when the changes later revert spontaniously after a few generations.

Another question: Your statement appears to boil down, from an epistemological standpoint (just to avoid continuing confusion, keep in mind that I am not using "empistemological" as a synonym for "empirical"), to the claim that if we don't "know" something, then it doesn't exist.

From a scientific standpoint, if we don't know (have evidence of) of it's existence, we can run an experiment to try to detect it. failing that, we treat it as if it does not exist.

Spoze some baby turtle is hatched in the sand near the ocean, and that, in order to survive, it must head to the water. And, further suppose that it does that, invariably. What "agent" is directing it then?

I'm not an expert in sea turtle biology. Off the top of my head, the two most obvious clues would be smell and going downhill. You could run experiments for each, if you were so inclined, as well as a dozen other things, and even combinations of different things.

One Brow said: "Obviously, he was wrong."

Were the neo-darwinians also wrong to accept his germ theory as an absolute given, without empirical evidence, ya figure?


Ultimaterly, yes. As I have said, I see it as a simplification that had to happen.

Anonymous said...

In a broad sense, Lamarckism simply posits that an organism's interaction with it's environment can trigger heritable changes.

Wiesmannians absolutely deny that this can ever happen. If an organism is born into a cold environment, for example, that will have absolutely no effect on whether it's offspring have more fur.

Of course, if we get past the strict genetic determinism that was crucial to the whole neo-darwinistic explanation, this aint so clear.

Given that regulatory genes can, in effect, "choose from" a vast variety of gene expressions, and somehow do make "choices," how can one say those choices are made independently of the environment of it's ancestors?

Why would one conclude, a priori, that is it impossible for the parent to transmit information to it's offspring through some molecular vehicle?

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "Off the top of my head, the two most obvious clues would be smell and going downhill. You could run experiments for each, if you were so inclined, as well as a dozen other things, and even combinations of different things."

Eric, this reductionistic "explanation" totally begs the question. How does the turtle "know" how to interpret smell or any other type of enviromental clues? How does it "know" that it should head for water to begin with? How does it know what end it is seeking? Is there some "agent" directing it?

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "Many typs of epigenetic changes do not change the information inherited, which is shown when the changes later revert spontaniously after a few generations."

Two questions:

1. You say "many" types, but not all types. Why do you nonetheless keep asserting that ALL known mutations are random?

2. How could "spontaneous reversion" possibly show that the information inherited was not initally changed?

One Brow said...

Given that regulatory genes can, in effect, "choose from" a vast variety of gene expressions, and somehow do make "choices," how can one say those choices are made independently of the environment of it's ancestors?

I don't think you can. However, these choices are being made in soma cells and not germ cells. That particular behavior does not break the Weissman barrier.

Why would one conclude, a priori, that is it impossible for the parent to transmit information to it's offspring through some molecular vehicle?

To keep the initial investigations simple.

Eric, this reductionistic "explanation" totally begs the question. How does the turtle "know" how to interpret smell or any other type of enviromental clues? How does it "know" that it should head for water to begin with? How does it know what end it is seeking? Is there some "agent" directing it?

Well, I can't give a detailed answer to the possible evolutionary origins of instinctual behaviors, which is what is sounds like you are discussing. I have seen papers and posts discussing this topic generally, if not turtles specifically. No doubt the protien interactions involved are remarkably complex.

One Brow said: "Many typs of epigenetic changes do not change the information inherited, which is shown when the changes later revert spontaniously after a few generations."

Two questions:

1. You say "many" types, but not all types. Why do you nonetheless keep asserting that ALL known mutations are random?


Not all epigenetic factors involve a change in heretible information. If under condition A your epigenetic machinery performs action A', and under condition B it performs B', and if you pass this ability on to your offspring, the the fact your machinery activated A' and your offspring's activatd B' is not a change in the information passed on. Your grand-offspring will still be able to activate A' and/or B'.

2. How could "spontaneous reversion" possibly show that the information inherited was not initally changed?

By its universality. If a small percentage change back to A' under the conditions favorable to A', while the majority of lines continue to B' even under changes that lead to A', then the heredity is changed. If every lineage goes back to A', its a programmed response.

Anonymous said...

Why don't baby turtles (to use my trivial example) move randomly? Why don't 25% each go in the general direction of north, south, east, or west? Why do they all head toward the water, whatever direction that may be?

It seems that turtles (and most other organisms) are "born with" some knowledge about the environment they are introduced to. If the environment can in no way influence the transmission of heritable information, how can this be?

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "Well, I can't give a detailed answer to the possible evolutionary origins of instinctual behaviors, which is what is sounds like you are discussing....No doubt the protien interactions involved are remarkably complex."

Once again, you seem to suggest that the "explanation" must somehow lie in "protein interactions." Even assuming a complete description of such complex interactions could be given, this would still simply beg the question, which is not about protein interactions to begin with.

Once again your materialistic determinism is showin, eh, Eric?

One Brow said...

If the environment can in no way influence the transmission of heritable information, how can this be?

It would surprise me if, even at the neo-Darwinistic heyday, people claimed that natural selection, which is environmentally generated, had no effect on heretible information.

Once again, you seem to suggest that the "explanation" must somehow lie in "protein interactions." Even assuming a complete description of such complex interactions could be given, this would still simply beg the question, which is not about protein interactions to begin with.

Do you have an alternative between "emergent phenomenon based on protien interactions" and "an angel shows them the way"? If the question is about how such instincts could develop evolutionarily, did I not aleady plead ignorance, but point to ongoing reasearch?

Once again your materialistic determinism is showin, eh, Eric?

I think that regardless of what other, non-material factors you think may or may not be involved, research would uncover that certain protiens are essential for this behavior to be exhibited. but the real answer will be in the research, of course.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: It would surprise me if, even at the neo-Darwinistic heyday, people claimed that natural selection, which is environmentally generated, had no effect on heretible information.

Are ya claimin now that natural selection creats variation? On that it changes what is already there? You always seem to miss or misinterpret the point, Eric. I don't know if it's just an attempt to be a wise-ass, unconscious evasion, an honest misapprehension, or what, but it really doesn't get us anywhere in tryin to discuss these things. Of course mebbe your main purpose in responding is not discussion so much as maintaining an adversarial position by engaging in some kinda verbal sparring, relevant or not.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "Do you have an alternative between "emergent phenomenon based on protien interactions" and "an angel shows them the way"?

Heh, false dichotomy, anyone? I'm tryin to discuss lamarckism vs wiesmannism (neo-darwinism) and you want to talk about angels. Lamarck was a strict materialist--he did not invoke "angels" for explanations.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: It would surprise me if, even at the neo-Darwinistic heyday, people claimed that natural selection, which is environmentally generated, had no effect on heretible information.

Wiesmann was an even more fanatical supporter of natural selection than Darwin, if that's possible, as the total explanation for all change. But even he insisted that all variation was strictly internal, and not in the least bit influenced by the environment. It is in fact this very assumption which led to embrace natural selection.

Beyond other inherent contractions, it is a naive personification/objectification to say that "natural selection" is in the environment, environmentally generated, and/or that it transmits heritable information.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "Well, I can't give a detailed answer to the possible evolutionary origins of instinctual behaviors..."

Mebbe I can help, eh? Looky here:

Once upon a time there was a turtle. Wait, let me correct that--two turtles, one male and one female. These two turtles came from bacteria, and they came with genes. Before them no turtle had ever had offspring before...no turtle had ever done anything actually, because before they simultaneously mutated off from another species, there were no turtles, see? Anyways....

Point is, they liked to git it on and ended up havin chillin. They had millions. Lot of them just up and died because, once they were hatched, they didn't head for water...they went out into the road and got run over, stuff like that. The onliest ones that survived were the ones who had genes, which the turtles came with, remember, which MADE them head straight for the water as soon as they were hatched. Those that didn't have them were mutations. Well, mebbe the ones who had them were mutations, either way. Point is, that when two turtles have millions of offspring, any old thing can happen with mutated genes, see?

Anyways, the survivin chillin passed on them same genes to every other turtle ever born, so now all turtles head straight for the water, see? Purty simple, actually.

One Brow said...

Are ya claimin now that natural selection creats variation?

No.

On that it changes what is already there?

It changes the percentages of different variants present.

You always seem to miss or misinterpret the point, Eric.

You asked how the environment could affect the turtles, I provided an answer that the even neo-Darwinists recognized one way the environment had an effect.

One Brow said: "Do you have an alternative between "emergent phenomenon based on protien interactions" and "an angel shows them the way"?

Heh, false dichotomy, anyone? I'm tryin to discuss lamarckism vs wiesmannism (neo-darwinism) and you want to talk about angels. Lamarck was a strict materialist--he did not invoke "angels" for explanations.


A materialist, Lamarckian explanation would still be an emergent phenomenon based on complex protein interactions, just as the Weissmanian approach was.

Beyond other inherent contractions, it is a naive personification/objectification to say that "natural selection" is in the environment, environmentally generated, and/or that it transmits heritable information.

Natural selection is entirely about the fitness of the animal in its environment, and affects transmission by altering the percentages of each variation over generations.

One Brow said: "Well, I can't give a detailed answer to the possible evolutionary origins of instinctual behaviors..."

Mebbe I can help, eh? Looky here:

...

Anyways, the survivin chillin passed on them same genes to every other turtle ever born, so now all turtles head straight for the water, see? Purty simple, actually.


Very amusing.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "You think you are disinterested?"

Yes, compared to you, at least, and compared to a great number of the evolutionary scientists who I have seen opine on this topic.

I don't advocate ID, nor do I advocate that it be taught in schools. Nor am I a militant atheist with an axe to grind. I'm not trying to deny that evolution occurred.

I don't have a dog in this fight, and I am disinterested in that sense. But that doesn't mean I am unconcerned with science being politicized and schoolchildren being misled as to the true nature of science as a by-product of an all-out propaganda campaign by academics. This lack of scientific integrity some of these polemicists are showing is equally disturbing to me.

For some time now, the evolutionary science community has, apparently to retalitate for questions raised against it, have been implementing a dubious strategy of calling (and teaching) evolution a "fact." They have no qualms about giving the impression that the theory and the "fact" are the same thing, or at least equally-well "proven." They frequently equivocate amongst the 3 meanings we have discussed, all with the apparent goal of giving a misleading impression to the unsophisticated while leaving themselve a manner of defending their deception by pointing it really doesn't mean what it appears to say. This is digusting. It could be expected from religious fanatics, mebbe, but I expect more from those entrusted with educating our younguns.

This is totally bogus, even if it were accurate. But it aint. I've already told you that I personally view neo-darwinism as basically a fairy tale, and I'm far from alone in that view. Neo-darwinism is still what's being taught, and basically what's being advanced as the "factual" theory in these brochures.

Schoolchildren will be continue to be misled about the nature of science, as a general enterprise and as a theoretical topic, if this kind of abuse persists.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "A materialist, Lamarckian explanation would still be an emergent phenomenon based on complex protein interactions, just as the Weissmanian approach was."

Again, you miss, or ignore, the question, which has nuthin to do with chemical materialism. The question was how animals come to be born with pre-existing knowledge of the external world if, as Weismann postulated, there is, and can be, no transfer of information about the environment via heredity.

Anonymous said...

If you want Wiesmann's answer to this question, it was apparently explained by his conclusion that, at one time in history, ALL variation was lamarckian in nature, but that things had since changed.

Anonymous said...

In your view, Eric, is lamarckism part of the theory of evolution?

Do you see the concept of (universal) random mutation as being fundamentally opposed to lamarckism?

One Brow said...

For some time now, the evolutionary science community has, apparently to retalitate for questions raised against it, have been implementing a dubious strategy of calling (and teaching) evolution a "fact." They have no qualms about giving the impression that the theory and the "fact" are the same thing, or at least equally-well "proven." They frequently equivocate amongst the 3 meanings we have discussed, all with the apparent goal of giving a misleading impression to the unsophisticated while leaving themselve a manner of defending their deception by pointing it really doesn't mean what it appears to say. This is digusting. It could be expected from religious fanatics, mebbe, but I expect more from those entrusted with educating our younguns.

What you see as confusing fact with theory, I see as emphasizing that scdientific theories are in many instances so well-confirmed and reliable that we can use them to guide our laws and behaviors, that in this respect we treat them as if theyr were facts. You rely on the germ theory of disease well enough that you don't dispute the need for hand-washing laws and procedures. I agree thaqt it is important to understand the difference between theory and fact, but it is just as important to understand the difference between theory and speculation.

This is totally bogus, even if it were accurate. But it aint. I've already told you that I personally view neo-darwinism as basically a fairy tale, and I'm far from alone in that view. Neo-darwinism is still what's being taught, and basically what's being advanced as the "factual" theory in these brochures.

Yes, it would be great if we could teach every high-school kid about all the details of epigenetics, prions, regions of increased genetic instability, etc. But the fact is, a high school biology curriculum is already filled, and the minds are still relatively inexperienced with nuance. So as a practival matter, you keep the initial subject simple. when you are teaching a high-school geometry, you don't discuss mathematical realism/Platonism/fictionalism. When you are teaching a high-school history class, you don't spend three class periods on the effects of various religious influences in Hitler's life. When you are teachinhg high-school biology, you teach a simple model of evolution that can be covered in an hour or two.

Schoolchildren will be continue to be misled about the nature of science, as a general enterprise and as a theoretical topic, if this kind of abuse persists.

Do you teach school?

Again, you miss, or ignore, the question, which has nuthin to do with chemical materialism. The question was how animals come to be born with pre-existing knowledge of the external world if, as Weismann postulated, there is, and can be, no transfer of information about the environment via heredity.

The answer was that natural selection indirectly transfers information about the environment via heredity.

In your view, Eric, is lamarckism part of the theory of evolution?

There are some known mechanisms (such as the allowance for increased mutation rates) that people descrivbe as Lamarckian. So the answer would be yes, in a limited fashion.

Do you see the concept of (universal) random mutation as being fundamentally opposed to lamarckism?

I see it as more of a land/sea issue. Most of the world ie land or sea, but there are thin stips wher they directly interact. Mostg of the notion of random mutation is opposed to most of the notions of lamarckism, but there are ways they can interact.

Also, to repeat, universal random mutation is only true until its not true anymore (that is, we discover a non-random mutational mechanism).

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "Again, you miss, or ignore, the question, which has nuthin to do with chemical materialism. The question was how animals come to be born with pre-existing knowledge of the external world if, as Weismann postulated, there is, and can be, no transfer of information about the environment via heredity.

The answer was that natural selection indirectly transfers information about the environment via heredity."

I saw that, it's just not an answer to the question. To begin with, I don't think it "indrectly transfers" anything--that is a confused notion. You are saying IF information about the environment is transmitted via heredity, THEN, natural selection.... That aint answerin the question.


Defenders of neo-darwinism often seem to have a vague, almost mystical, way of referring to natural selection as the answer to all questions. Just like the religious folk with their "God can do anything he wants" line of argument, neo-darwinists sometimes act like merely invoking the phrase "natural selection" should be sufficient to convince one that all questions have been answered, and all necessary explanations have been given.

Anonymous said...

My last statement is not meant to be confined to unsophisticated devotees, either. The NAS claim that life "arose" through natural selection is a perfect illustration of what I mean.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: Do you teach school?

Naw, but I spend the best part of every school day hangin round schoolyards, sellin crack to em, so I know what's goin on in their confused little minds, eh?

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "Also, to repeat, universal random mutation is only true until its not true anymore (that is, we discover a non-random mutational mechanism)."

Again, your epistemology is restated, but I disagree with it. Universal random mutation either is, or is not, true, and either has, or has not in the past, been true, whether human beings ever discover a mechanism to disprove it, or not.

Again, you start with the assumption that it is "true." This assumption is, as many have noted, the "cornerstone" of neo-darwinism (which parted paths with Darwin on this issue). Darwin, of course, did not use the phrase "random mutation," but rather "random variation." Given their deterministic genetics, the neo-darwinists mean exactly the same thing (i.e., that all heritable "variation" is random with respect to the needs of the organism).

I don't really understand your land/sea analogy. There is no way for univeral random variation to "interact with" any non-random variation, because then the randomness would not be universal and the entire notion would have to be abandoned.

I guess we are back to your fuzzy, "a thing can simultaneously be both x and not-x in the same sense" notion here, I dunno. I can't help but sense that you simply do not have a firm grasp of the concepts.

One Brow said...

I saw that, it's just not an answer to the question. To begin with, I don't think it "indrectly transfers" anything--that is a confused notion. You are saying IF information about the environment is transmitted via heredity, THEN, natural selection.... That aint answerin the question.

I am saying that information is not a commodity like mass or energy. You can only transfer mass by moving it. Information can be transferred in a variety of indirect ways. It can be encoded and decoded, revised, translated, etc. Yes, there is usually some loss of specificity. In the cxased of natural selection, the information is being translated into the more successful linages receiving preference, so the information that separates those lineages from other lineages receives preferential treatment. The transference of informaton is indirect and there is a great deal of loss along the way, but it does exist.

Defenders of neo-darwinism often seem to have a vague, almost mystical, way of referring to natural selection as the answer to all questions. Just like the religious folk with their "God can do anything he wants" line of argument, neo-darwinists sometimes act like merely invoking the phrase "natural selection" should be sufficient to convince one that all questions have been answered, and all necessary explanations have been given.

I agree this is their tendency,and agree that there world view is insuffucient. As I stated, I was merely providing an example even they would recognize and acknowledge.

My last statement is not meant to be confined to unsophisticated devotees, either. The NAS claim that life "arose" through natural selection is a perfect illustration of what I mean.

Even the most contentious scientists recognize natural slection plays a significant role in life's history.

Naw, but I spend the best part of every school day hangin round schoolyards, sellin crack to em, so I know what's goin on in their confused little minds, eh?

Perhaps you should discuss your ideas on the improvement of the teaching of evolution in high-school with a high-school biology teacher?

Anonymous said...

In your view, Eric, is lamarckism part of the theory of evolution?

There are some known mechanisms (such as the allowance for increased mutation rates) that people descrivbe as Lamarckian. So the answer would be yes, in a limited fashion.
====

Well, as you have often suggested, you seem to equate anything that is "known" with what the "theory" says, predicts, etc. But if it is "known" that time and space is not absolute, then that does NOT change Newton's "theory" which said it was. If everything ever discovered served to retroactively revise the existing theory, then, needless to say, no scientific theory could EVER be disconfirmed or invalidated, only altered. Again, this seems to be your premise, repeatedly stated and implied, about what a scientific theory is. This view is mistaken, sorry. You don't seem to see that the fundamental underlying presuppositions are essential to a scientific theory, whether they are right or wrong.

Is your definition of science "all that is known," and your definition of a "scientific theory" merely an enumeration of all the "known things" which relate to it?

One Brow said...

Again, your epistemology is restated, but I disagree with it. Universal random mutation either is, or is not, true, and either has, or has not in the past, been true, whether human beings ever discover a mechanism to disprove it, or not.

However, in science class we knoly teach what we have uncovered, not what may or may not be disproven one day.

Again, you start with the assumption that it is "true."

No, I start with the assumption that a valid description of all known causes (a dozen or so) of mutation is in itself a reasonable statement to make, until a counter-example is found. Science does not deal in the "true".

I don't really understand your land/sea analogy. There is no way for univeral random variation to "interact with" any non-random variation, because then the randomness would not be universal and the entire notion would have to be abandoned.

As long as you insist that I am holding to some metaphysical truth when discussing the science, you will not see the analogy.

I guess we are back to your fuzzy, "a thing can simultaneously be both x and not-x in the same sense" notion here, I dunno. I can't help but sense that you simply do not have a firm grasp of the concepts.

Seeing the world in an all-or-nothing light does not firm your grasp of concepts. It just limits your vision.

One Brow said...

Well, as you have often suggested, you seem to equate anything that is "known" with what the "theory" says, predicts, etc.

Theories change to incorporate facts.

But if it is "known" that time and space is not absolute, then that does NOT change Newton's "theory" which said it was.

The universal reference of changes in time and space was a prediction of Newton's theory, not a starting point, and the predictions changed when the theory was modified, the modification being due to failed predictions.

If everything ever discovered served to retroactively revise the existing theory, then, needless to say, no scientific theory could EVER be disconfirmed or invalidated, only altered.

Some changes are more fundamental than others. Pre-cambrian rabbits would be so fundamental that it would require a revision/replacement of evolutionary theory. HGT does not.

You don't seem to see that the fundamental underlying presuppositions are essential to a scientific theory, whether they are right or wrong.

Yes, you think my definition of a theory is insufficeintly formal, I think yours is too formal. Under my definition, theories are rarfely overturned. Under your defintion, every single extant theory will be disproven within the next five years.

Is your definition of science "all that is known," and your definition of a "scientific theory" merely an enumeration of all the "known things" which relate to it?

Theories incorpate known things, mechanisms, experiements, tests, etc. to provide explanations.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "I am saying that information is not a commodity like mass or energy..."

That's fine, but it still doesn't address the question. Let's assume that a wasp is born with "genes" (information, if you will) that compel it to mechanistically dig holes, then put paralyzed prey, together with their eggs, into that hole, then cover it up.

Did this "information," which contains some vital information about the world, simply "arise" by chance, like monkeys hittin keys on a typewriter? Did that elaborate information get encoded into the genome by random mutation with no reference to what was in the world?, i.e., with NO existing "knowledge" that the world even contained diggable dirt, insects that could be paralyzed for refrigeration, that wasps reproduced by laying eggs, or any other clue about what was in the world?

Such "random mutations" would not only be ignorant of the objective, inanimate world "out there," but presumably would also lack knowledge of the life in (or soon to be in) the world, including the very organism in was "informing." Yet the monkeys type out gibberish which ends up "telling" that organism, in symbols which it can "read" not only how to do these things, but also that it is imperative for them to do them?

Then, once the monkeys are through, the all-powerful god (natural selection) "creates" and "determines" the fate of the wasp, that the idea?

Anonymous said...

"The universal reference of changes in time and space was a prediction of Newton's theory, not a starting point, and the predictions changed when the theory was modified, the modification being due to failed predictions."

Heh, I find this claim to be incomprehensible. Newton, like Gallileo, was well aware that motion was relative. The measurement of the rate of motion (speed) was therefore dependent upon the notions of both time and space. Newton saw the problem, and attempted to prove that motion was "absolute" by using his "bucket" thought experiment. He did not (and did not pretend to) "predict" that time and space were absolute. He had to posit these notions as an underlying assumption of his mechanics.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "The universal reference of changes in time and space was a prediction of Newton's theory, not a starting point, and the predictions changed when the theory was modified, the modification being due to failed predictions."


I'm sure you must be trying to say something coherent with this statement, Eric, but to me it only conveys your confusion about the relatiohshp between hypotheses and necessary deductions therefrom (which deductions can result in "predictions).

This portion, in particular, is totally circular and meaningless to me: "the predictions changed when the theory was modified, the modification being due to failed predictions."

To begin with, the predictions, using Newtonian assumptions, would NOT change if you changed the assumptions. If you changed the assumptions, you would simply be changing the theory, and might thereby generate predictions which conflicted with those generated by Newtonian theory. That said, the predictions generated by Newtonian theory (and the assumptions underlying it) would not be affected in the least.

Anonymous said...

I asked: "Did this "information," which contains some vital information about the world, simply "arise" by chance, like monkeys hittin keys on a typewriter?"

I mean, like, think about it, eh, Eric? Spoze you're new to town and you stop me on the street, asking where the Bank of Muscatel is.

So, I tellya: "Keep headin the way you're goin, for about a mile, to the third stoplight. Then turn left and it in the middle of the fifth block, on your left."

If I was also new to town, I could still tell you that, just makin it up as I went along, but the chances of it bein accurate would be quite slim.

But let's say I'm not only new in town, but I'm also not even from this planet, and that I have no idea what a stoplight is, what a mile is, what a bank is, what a block is, or anything else. Now I can't even "make it up," see? There would be no way for me to even communicate whimsical instructions to you, at least not any that you would comprehend.

Anonymous said...

Another example: You ask me how to get to Dallas, Texas, and tell me to be very precise about it.

I have no idea where Texas is, let alone Dallas, but since you're askin me for instructions, I figure I best give you some. So I say (just makin it all up, at random): "Go 10 degrees, 13 minutes, and 27 seconds east of true north for 517.3688 miles, then....."

How many times would you have to ask me, come back after finding you had been misdirected, and ask me again, and then get new random instructions from me, before I gave you the right directions to Dallas, ya figure?

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "When you are teachinhg high-school biology, you teach a simple model of evolution that can be covered in an hour or two."

Which is why, I suppose, that Einstein (or some genius, I forget exactly who) said that the first thing you have to do is to forget everything you're taught in school. Or why guys like Woese say evolution should not be taught in high school.

Either way, the "simple model" need not be taught as "fact." Do subtle nuances, created ad hoc when cornered by antagonists, such as methodological naturalism vs ontological naturalism (which is what is effectively "taught") distinction need to be explained, ya figure? Or would that just keep them from understanding the "simple model, which is fact," approach that the NAS seems to advance? NAS is definitely makin some bigtime ontological claims, as I read them, as you are, when you defend them.

Anonymous said...

What's wrong with methodological IDism, I wonder?

Looky here, we aint claimin that ID is an ontological fact. We just sayin that certain biological and evolutionary phenomena can best be studied and explained if we only look at the problems as engineers would, such as: What design methods the creation of this structure presuppose? What must the blueprint (which we don't expect to find, because we don't claim to be able to prove that it even exists) have looked like? Just kinda the same questions we might ask if we analyzed the Great Pyramids, and stuff, ya know?

Joe G said...

one brow:
Even the most contentious scientists recognize natural slection plays a significant role in life's history.

There isn't any evidence that natural selection plays anything but a very minor role in lefe's history.

And if we go by the evidence it doesn't contribute to anything but a wobbling stability.

One Brow said...

Joe G,

If Giuseppe Sermonti is not smart enough to recognize the effects of evolutionary arms races, of sexual selection overriding natural selection, etc., that's his problem. The truth is that there is no type for things to be brought back to.

Joe G said...

Evolutionary arms races are the minority. And they never seems to do anything to bring about new protein machinnery and new body plans.

Cooperation is the rule.

Sexual selection preserves the norm.

The type to be brought back to is the normal wild type.

And a geneticist knows more about this than you do.

The truth is no one knows where the information for form is.

No one knows if the transformations required are even possible.

One Brow said...

Did this "information," which contains some vital information about the world, simply "arise" by chance, like monkeys hittin keys on a typewriter?

No. Monkeys hitting keys on a typewritier don't engage in selection, suffer mass extinctions, etc.

Did that elaborate information get encoded into the genome by random mutation with no reference to what was in the world?, i.e., with NO existing "knowledge" ...

No. The information arose gradualy through feedback effects from various means of selection.

Then, once the monkeys are through, the all-powerful god (natural selection) "creates" and "determines" the fate of the wasp, that the idea?

Selection operates at the same time the monkeys do, shaping they beginning text their typing alters.

"The universal reference of changes in time and space was a prediction of Newton's theory, not a starting point, and the predictions changed when the theory was modified, the modification being due to failed predictions."

Heh, I find this claim to be incomprehensible.


Some more study on the issue may help that.

Newton, like Gallileo, was well aware that motion was relative.

I don't recall discussing motion. I mentioned distances (spatial and temporal).

He did not (and did not pretend to) "predict" that time and space were absolute. He had to posit these notions as an underlying assumption of his mechanics.

Again, the absoluteness is a prediction of the model more that the starting point. The starting point is that, in all the experiments Newton and his contemporaries could run or reference, the absoluteness of these measurements was not violoated, and of course the desire for simplicity in models. Newton could have added Einstein's factors to his laws of Motion, or indeed tens of thousands of other possible factors, but he had no experimental reason to do so.

This portion, in particular, is totally circular and meaningless to me: "the predictions changed when the theory was modified, the modification being due to failed predictions."

To begin with, the predictions, using Newtonian assumptions, would NOT change if you changed the assumptions. If you changed the assumptions, you would simply be changing the theory, and might thereby generate predictions which conflicted with those generated by Newtonian theory. That said, the predictions generated by Newtonian theory (and the assumptions underlying it) would not be affected in the least.


Again, you are using theory in a far more formal sense than I see science bloggers use the term. Science bloggers speak of modifying theories, not scrapping them and starting new ones to accomodate new evidence. Now, if you were referring to mathematical theories, you would be correct. any change to a mathem,atical theory creates a new theory. however, mathematics is a formal discipline, not an empirical one.

I asked: "Did this "information," which contains some vital information about the world, simply "arise" by chance, like monkeys hittin keys on a typewriter?"

... Now I can't even "make it up," see? There would be no way for me to even communicate whimsical instructions to you, at least not any that you would comprehend.


In the case of the wasp, there ancestors were extremely wasp-like creatures who had behaviors very close to today's wasps, who in turn ... . There are no aliens in the story, or even newcomers.

How many times would you have to ask me, come back after finding you had been misdirected, and ask me again, and then get new random instructions from me, before I gave you the right directions to Dallas, ya figure?

You forget I have a distance-from-Dallas device--unfortunately, it only tells me the distance in miles, and since I frequent dizzy spells, every three of miles or so I forget the direction I was heading. So, with or without valid directions, i eventually get to Dallas, and perhaps many other interesting places along the way.

One Brow said...

One Brow said: "When you are teachinhg high-school biology, you teach a simple model of evolution that can be covered in an hour or two."

Which is why, I suppose, that Einstein (or some genius, I forget exactly who) said that the first thing you have to do is to forget everything you're taught in school. Or why guys like Woese say evolution should not be taught in high school.


Absolutely. I took Calculus I & II as 100-level courses, 400-level courses, and 600-level courses. I took Algebra as a high-school course, a 300-level course, and a 600-level course. I agree with the first comment, in that all you remember is why you are doing this, not how. I disagree that this means you should not teach these subjects in high school, because lower-level courses are where you learn much of the applications, and help provide a mental framework on which to hang the higher-level knowledge.

Either way, the "simple model" need not be taught as "fact." Do subtle nuances, created ad hoc when cornered by antagonists, such as methodological naturalism vs ontological naturalism (which is what is effectively "taught") distinction need to be explained, ya figure? Or would that just keep them from understanding the "simple model, which is fact," approach that the NAS seems to advance? NAS is definitely makin some bigtime ontological claims, as I read them, as you are, when you defend them.

I notice that you have not felt the need to say hand-washing is unnecessary becasue the germ theory of disease is a theory. The NAs is trying to emphasize that theories can be well-tested, realiable, and verified. You don't like the words, but don't confuse that with what the words are saying. You'll note they did not say "as factual as the sun rising in the morning" or any other actual fact.

What's wrong with methodological IDism, I wonder?

Looky here, we aint claimin that ID is an ontological fact. We just sayin that certain biological and evolutionary phenomena can best be studied and explained if we only look at the problems as engineers would, such as: What design methods the creation of this structure presuppose? What must the blueprint (which we don't expect to find, because we don't claim to be able to prove that it even exists) have looked like? Just kinda the same questions we might ask if we analyzed the Great Pyramids, and stuff, ya know?


The determination of design for the pyramids is from analogy and history: we know people build things, and we have historical records documenting the building of some of the Pyramids. We have neither analogy nor history for living things. Failing that, we would need to have some sort of ID mechanism and a trace that mechanism would leave.

However, What do you think ID actually explains about certain specific biological features?

One Brow said...

Evolutionary arms races are the minority. And they never seems to do anything to bring about new protein machinnery and new body plans.

Of course not. They change old body plans gradually, to the point that after a billion generations or so the body plans are sometimes significantly altered. However, we still have the same basic body plan as any amphibian.

Cooperation is the rule.

Usually you see very little predator-prey cooperation.

Sexual selection preserves the norm.

Of course not. They change old body plans gradually, to the point that after a billion generations or so the body plans are sometimes significantly altered. However, we still have the same basic body plan as any amphibian.

The type to be brought back to is the normal wild type.

There is no meaningful biological interpretation of "type".

And a geneticist knows more about this than you do.

Everyone has knowledge I don't possess. Thei does not prevent them from having blind spots they impose upon themselves.

The truth is no one knows where the information for form is.

We know of many places this information resides.

No one knows if the transformations required are even possible.

They happened, so they obviously are possible.

Joe G said...

What about the fact that only life begets life?

Then we have design, which is a mechanism and counteflow is that trace.

And to refute the design inference all one has to do is step up and demonstrate that nature, operating freely can account for it.

Imagine that! All you have to do is to substantiate the claims made by your position and ID will fade away!

Joe G said...

1- Throwing time at something is not scientific

2- All living organisms do not fall into the "predator/ prey" cat.

3- No one knows where the information of form resides- no one.

If you think someone knows then please post a reference.

I know you can't.

4- We assume it happened. No one knows if the transformations required are even possible. No one- not you, not any biologist nor any other scientist.

Anonymous said...

One Brow quoted me: "Did this "information," which contains some vital information about the world, simply "arise" by chance, like monkeys hittin keys on a typewriter?"

Then said: "No. Monkeys hitting keys on a typewritier don't engage in selection, suffer mass extinctions, etc."

Eric, you keep suggesting that you think selection (and in this case, mass extinction) causes information to "arise." Can't you see that notion is nonsensical? Because you have this apparent misconception, I guess you can't even understand the question.

Don't feel alone, though, eh? NAS thinks life itself "arose" by natural selection.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "I notice that you have not felt the need to say hand-washing is unnecessary becasue the germ theory of disease is a theory. The NAs is trying to emphasize that theories can be well-tested, realiable, and verified."

Eric, there's no point in us discussing "theory" any further. Your notion of a "theory" is all-inclusive as to any claim made.

If I say "cats exist," that would be a "theory of cats" in your book, it seems.

If I expanded my "theory" by adding that "all cats are black," that too would simply be a (or rather THE) "theory of cats." If I saw a yellow cat and "expanded" my theory to say "All cats aint black," that too would be the theory of cats, and it would be the same theory as both (1) the theory which merely posited existence, and (2) the one which claimed they are all black. It has simply incorporated a new fact when it reverses itself about color. No matter what happens, the "theory of cats" endures, immutable, and anyone who has ever seen a cat can testify, from empirical verificaton, that my theory is "factual."

Observation is not an scientific theory. The fact that a phenomenon which we label "gravity" is observed to exist does not constitute a theory of gravity. Nor does it make any (actual scientific) theory a "factual" one.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "Now, if you were referring to mathematical theories, you would be correct. any change to a mathem,atical theory creates a new theory. however, mathematics is a formal discipline, not an empirical one."

Eric, logic is a formal system, but it's use is inherent in, and indispensable to, all "scientific theories" which purport to explain empirical phenomena. Once again, from wiki: "Theories may be expressed mathematically, symbolically, or in common language, but are generally expected to follow principles of rational thought or logic....A scientific theory is a deductive theory, in that, its content is based on some formal system of logic and that some of its elementary theorems are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory."

Think about it, eh? You insist that the ability to make predictions is an essential element of a scientific theory. Have you ever asked yourself how it is that any given theory can (meaningfully) "predict" anything? Predictions are simply conclusions which are necessary implied (and identified by inferential logic) by the premises of the theory. Without premises, without the necessary use of "formal" logic, there can be no theories under your own definition, because without them no "prediction" can be meaningful.

Anonymous said...

This may help you clarify just exactly what any particular theory is composed of (and what events might serve to "refute" it). "In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory."


Contradictory assumptions or conclusions (such as the conflicting contentions that (1) all variation is random vs. (2) not all variation is random) cannot BOTH be a part of the "same" theory.

Anonymous said...

I will try this one more time, but I really don't expect to communicate anything that you will agree with, Eric.

Let's say this is my "theory of evolution:"

1. Evolution occurred.

That's it, that's the theory. I will clarify that what I mean by "evolution" is change over time in the number and form of living things on this planet. Any questions?

Now, the ONLY thing that would be inconsistent with this "theory" would be the claim that "Evolution did not occur." Other than that, there is no content whatsover. Any particular claim, no matter how absurd, about "how" evolution occurred would not, and could not, be inconsistent with my theory. Indeed, all such claims implicitly adopt my theory by assuming that evolution did in fact occur.

This is NOT a scientific theory. There are not even two premises from which to draw even the simplest conclusion. There can be no predictions made by my theory, there can be no refutation (short of proof that evolution did not occur--i.e, that all life on this planet has been self-identical throughout history).

I can only assume that this is the "theory" which you have in mind when you talk about THE theory of evolution--i.e., that "evolution occurred." That is the reason why any and all speculations about the mechanics of evolution,no matter how contradictory, are equally acceptable to your notion of the "theory." They all accept your basic premise that "evolution occurred," and are therefore all equally compatible with your (hollow) "theory."

Anonymous said...

More from wiki, eh?: "Theories are intended to be an accurate, predictive description of the natural world. However, it is sometimes not clear whether the conclusions derived from the theory inform us about the nature of the world, or the nature of the theory."

This is the observation Patterson made, which I quoted (concerning computer-generated phlyogentic trees). I would go further and say that it is "often" not clear whether the conclusions derived from the theory inform us about the nature of the world, or the nature of the theory.

Once you have adopted a given theory as providing the (known, factual) explanatory premises for your area of interest, then all conclusions drawn will, if the raw data is least bit ambiguous, as it almost always is, be ones which can be made to conform to the theory.
This is apparently why PBS specials say, matter of factly, that is it "known for certain" that whales evolved from a dog whose fossil had something that looked kinda "whale-like" in it.

One Brow said...

What about the fact that only life begets life?

When life is present, only life can beget life. We have no experience when there are no living things present, and therefore no definitive answer.

Then we have design, which is a mechanism and counteflow is that trace.

By all means, describe the mechanism of design. How does it work?

And to refute the design inference all one has to do is step up and demonstrate that nature, operating freely can account for it.

I don't think you believe that the "can" part of your statement. Certainly, you ask for much stronger proof.

Imagine that! All you have to do is to substantiate the claims made by your position and ID will fade away!

ID is not motivated by scientific concerns, nor is it scientifically testable, therefore scientific knowledge will not eliminate it.

Throwing time at something is not scientific

Acknowledging the passage of time is.

All living organisms do not fall into the "predator/ prey" cat.

True. However, that is to what the term "evolutionary arms race" refers.

No one knows where the information of form resides- no one.

We know of many different places it resides. DNA code, protiens, RNA transcription, etc.

If you think someone knows then please post a reference.

Last I checked, PZ Myers had three or posts a month on various protien interactions and how they affect development. How many references do you want?

4- We assume it happened. No one knows if the transformations required are even possible. No one- not you, not any biologist nor any other scientist.

Actually, anytime someone makes a probability argument, they are acknowledging the improbable event is possible.

One Brow said...

Eric, you keep suggesting that you think selection (and in this case, mass extinction) causes information to "arise." Can't you see that notion is nonsensical? Because you have this apparent misconception, I guess you can't even understand the question.

Let's go back to your monkey example. Let's say there are 70 keys any particular monkey can hit on the typewriter. That's 343,000 thousands ways the first three keys can be struck. So, I take a 5 million monkeys, and let them type out three stokes each. Any piece of paper that doesn't have what I want, I pitch. I'll probably get 14 or 15 or so that are valid, once every two million times or so none of them will be valid. Then I copy the valid text, or the closeest thing, into the 5 million typewriters, and let the monkeys each hit another three keystrokes. Repeat over and over again. Eventually I get the text I want (accurate to withing one character out of two million) without forcing any monkey to hit any particular keystoke at any time. In case it's not clear, natural selcetion chooses the metaphorical valid text (that which survives). You don't need Lamarckian methods to transfer information from the environment to the genes, you just need a very high tolerance for failure.

One Brow said: "I notice that you have not felt the need to say hand-washing is unnecessary becasue the germ theory of disease is a theory. The NAs is trying to emphasize that theories can be well-tested, realiable, and verified."

Eric, there's no point in us discussing "theory" any further. Your notion of a "theory" is all-inclusive as to any claim made.


You still won't make even that caveat about hand-washing and the germ theory of disease. Wow.

Observation is not an scientific theory. The fact that a phenomenon which we label "gravity" is observed to exist does not constitute a theory of gravity. Nor does it make any (actual scientific) theory a "factual" one.

I agree. There is much more to a theory than observation. There is mechanism, prediction, and explanation, for example.

One Brow said...

One Brow said: "Now, if you were referring to mathematical theories, you would be correct. any change to a mathem,atical theory creates a new theory. however, mathematics is a formal discipline, not an empirical one."

Eric, logic is a formal system, but it's use is inherent in, and indispensable to, all "scientific theories" which purport to explain empirical phenomena.


I disagree. I see logic as being useful. but it's not indispensible. Besides, you don't even mention to which logic you refer. Classical, intuitionist, multi-valued, fuzzy, para-consistent, finite or some combination of them? Sonce all logics are formal systems, each of these is a completely separate field of logic, with it's own assumptions, understandings, roof methods, tautologies, etc.

Once again, from wiki: "Theories may be expressed mathematically, symbolically, or in common language, but are generally expected to follow principles of rational thought or logic....A scientific theory is a deductive theory, in that, its content is based on some formal system of logic and that some of its elementary theorems are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory."

From the same document: "Theories are distinct from theorems: theorems are derived deductively from theories according to a formal system of rules, generally as a first step in testing or applying the theory in a concrete situation. Theories are abstract and conceptual, and to this end they are never considered right or wrong. Instead, they are supported or challenged by observations in the world. They are 'rigorously tentative', meaning that they are proposed as true but expected to satisfy careful examination to account for the possibility of faulty inference or incorrect observation. Sometimes theories are falsified, meaning that an explicit set of observations contradicts some fundamental assumption of the theory, but more often theories are revised to conform to new observations, by restricting the class of phenomena the theory applies to or changing the assertions made. Sometimes a theory is set aside by scholars because there is no way to examine its assertions analytically; these may continue on in the popular imagination until some means of examination is found which either refutes or lends credence to the theory."

Scientific theories use some of the tools of formal theories, but they are not formal theories. Note one of the options it specifically discusses in changing a theory to meet new observations.

One Brow said...

Think about it, eh? You insist that the ability to make predictions is an essential element of a scientific theory. Have you ever asked yourself how it is that any given theory can (meaningfully) "predict" anything? Predictions are simply conclusions which are necessary implied (and identified by inferential logic) by the premises of the theory. Without premises, without the necessary use of "formal" logic, there can be no theories under your own definition, because without them no "prediction" can be meaningful.

I agree it is possible to cast the making of predictions into that paradigm generally. I'm not sure if it is essential, but I suspect not. Either way, the use of some tools from formal theories does not make the whole a formal theory.

Contradictory assumptions or conclusions (such as the conflicting contentions that (1) all variation is random vs. (2) not all variation is random) cannot BOTH be a part of the "same" theory.

It can if the logic used is paraconsistent and/or multdimensional, although I do not use paraconsistent logics to discuss science.

Let's say this is my "theory of evolution:"

1. Evolution occurred.

...

This is NOT a scientific theory.


I agree.

That is the reason why any and all speculations about the mechanics of evolution,no matter how contradictory, are equally acceptable to your notion of the "theory." They all accept your basic premise that "evolution occurred," and are therefore all equally compatible with your (hollow) "theory."

I don't think I accept "any and all speculations", and I certainly can't think of any mutually contradictory premises I accept.

This is the observation Patterson made, which I quoted (concerning computer-generated phlyogentic trees). I would go further and say that it is "often" not clear whether the conclusions derived from the theory inform us about the nature of the world, or the nature of the theory.

Ultimately, the predictive ower is the only test.

Once you have adopted a given theory as providing the (known, factual) explanatory premises for your area of interest, then all conclusions drawn will, if the raw data is least bit ambiguous, as it almost always is, be ones which can be made to conform to the theory.
This is apparently why PBS specials say, matter of factly, that is it "known for certain" that whales evolved from a dog whose fossil had something that looked kinda "whale-like" in it.


Do you feel there is something specific that is ambiguous regard whale evloution?

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "You still won't make even that caveat about hand-washing and the germ theory of disease. Wow."

You miss the point, Eric, which I didn't make that explicit, I guess. What, exactly, are you even referring to when you use the phrase "germ theory of disease." The "theory" that germs can cause disease, that the idea? That's not a scientific theory any more than is my grand theory that:

1. Cats exist, and
2. They aint all black.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "Note one of the options it specifically discusses in changing a theory to meet new observations."

Exactly, you change the theory, now you have a new theory. I can buy a new car, and still choose to refer to it as "my car" like I did the old one, but that doesn't make them the same car. They're still two different vehicles, ya know?

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "Do you feel there is something specific that is ambiguous regard whale evloution?"

Of course I do. Do you think there is nuthin abiguous, and that the transformation of a dog into a whale is a proven fact (known for certain)?

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "I disagree. I see logic as being useful. but it's not indispensible."

Well, fine see it any ole woo way ya want. But if logic is not indispensable to your concept of a scientific theory, don't never go round sayin ID aint scientific no more, I would suggest.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "Eventually I get the text I want...In case it's not clear, natural selcetion chooses the metaphorical valid text (that which survives). You don't need Lamarckian methods to transfer information from the environment to the genes, you just need a very high tolerance for failure.

You still don't seem to even understand the question, Eric, which is about the source of variation, not natural selection, and how "genes" can give instructions which presuppose knowledge of the world if it just spits out random instructions.

Your analogy fails insofar as you talk about "natural selection" getting the text it wants. Does natural selection dictate what it wants? For what purpose does natural selection "want" something?

You talk about 5 million monkeys hittin keys in sequences of 3, heh...what can I say about that?

This seems to be your scenario:

Natural selection says: I want genes which

1. make a wasp paralzye, but not kill, prey;
2. Dig a hole
3. Check the hole for any dangers, then
4. If none, put it eggs in the hole, and then
5. Cover up the hole so it will not be discovered by would-be predators.

I want this because it will enhance survival and reproduction rates for wasps, so, I'm tellin ya, DNA, ya best git to crackin on typin out random letters until you've done this.

DNA: Well, OK, then...I don't know what "dig" means, what a hole is, what "paralyze, but not kill" means, or nuthin, but I don't need to. Certainly I will randomly create these exact instructions that presuppose knowledge about the world, if that's what you want...you're the boss, after all.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "You don't need Lamarckian methods to transfer information from the environment to the genes, you just need a very high tolerance for failure."

The old "anything is possible with infinite time and infinite variasion" argument, eh, Eric?
Kinda like "God can do anything he wants," as I see it.

It is theoretically "possible" for some person to pick the winning lottery number in every state every week for 50 years. Since this is "possible," I don't NEED any hypothesis that mebbe the game is rigged, see? Possibility is tantamount to "actually explains it all" if I have some personal reason for "explaining" something that I want to contend actually happened. Like, if I was the guy who rigged all the state lotteries, and got filthy rich, I would simply say: "It's not theoretically impossible, so go away and leave me be. If that aint good enough, Imma hafta haul out my sawwed-off and throw it down on your sorry ass...Now, GIT!"

Anonymous said...

Hay, there, Imma gene. Lemme tell ya a lil bit about myself, OK?

I give instructions. Instructions which can be read and understood by certain molecules who know my code. I don't really understand the language I'm usin, but them guys readin it do, so that's all that matters. Main thing is, they do what I tell em to do. Now, I don't know how to tell them anything, in particular, because I'm like a monkey at a typewriter, but if I happen to accidently type "After you're born, matured, and ready to lay eggs, first thing to do is dig a hole...more on this topic later," then these slaves will do it---they will dig a hole, just like I told them. On the other hand, if I just randomly type out this istruction, "eyrz ppox qqbc ltiymbsrt" then they will go do that, just because I tell em to, see? The chumps.

Anonymous said...

Dogs to whales, eh? Well, let's see here....

"The traditional theory of cetacean evolution was that whales were related to the mesonychids, an extinct order of carnivorous ungulates (hoofed animals), which looked rather like wolves with hooves and were a sister group of artiodactyls. These animals possessed unusual triangular teeth that are similar to those of whales. For this reason, scientists had long believed that whales evolved from a form of mesonychid"

These wolves have triangular teeth, kinda like whales so....aint nuthin ambiguous about it, them wolves turned into whales. Well, hold on a second....

"The skeletons of Pakicetus demonstrate that whales did not derive directly from mesonychids."

Well, here's another skeleton which unambigiously proves that the first conclusion was, well, ambiguous, ya might say. How does this skeleton "demonstrate" anything, I wonder? Let's see here....

"pakicetids are hoofed-mammals that...looked rather like dogs with hoofed feet and long, thick tails. They have been linked to whales by their ears: the structure of the auditory bulla is formed from the ectotympanic bone only."

Well, that absolutely clinches it then, eh? It aint the teeth, its the ear which proves that a different kinda dog became a whale...well mebbe the dog first became a deer, then the deer became a whale, because looky here:

"Thewissen has since found the same ear structure in fossils of a small deer-like creature, Indohyus, which lived about 48 million years ago in Kashmir."

Why would a dog and a deer have an ear structure like a whale, I wonder? "It was initially thought that the ears of Pakicetus were adapted for underwater hearing, but, as would be expected from the anatomy of the rest of this creature, the ears of Pakicetus are specialized for hearing on land..."

Well, that dog probably just knew it would come in handy once he turned into a whale, I figure.

Anonymous said...

When I was a kid, I knew another kid, Biscuit, who had six fingers (well, 5 fingers and a thumb, to be exact). His Pappy had run off with the fat lady from the circus, and he had never even seen him, but I did.

Many years later, in Mississippi, I seen an old man sittin on a porch who had 6 fingers. I knew it instantly: This was Biscuit's pappy! I said: "I hope ya liked rollin round with the fat lady, because Biscuit never even knowwed his own Pappy, all onna counta her."

He obviously knew exactly what I was talkin about, so I just left it be, after that.

One Brow said...

One Brow said: "You still won't make even that caveat about hand-washing and the germ theory of disease. Wow."

You miss the point, Eric, which I didn't make that explicit, I guess. What, exactly, are you even referring to when you use the phrase "germ theory of disease." The "theory" that germs can cause disease, that the idea?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory

It's certainly not a fact, or at least not just a fact. Don't take my word for it, check around. Let me know if you find a science blogger who refers to it as a fact, not a theory.

That's not a scientific theory any more than is my grand theory that:

1. Cats exist, and
2. They aint all black.


If you don't understand why the germ theory of disease is a theory, I really can't take your criticisms of my understanding of scientific theories seriously anymore.

One Brow said: "Note one of the options it specifically discusses in changing a theory to meet new observations."

Exactly, you change the theory, now you have a new theory. I can buy a new car, and still choose to refer to it as "my car" like I did the old one, but that doesn't make them the same car. They're still two different vehicles, ya know?


That's not how scientists use the term theory, though. Germ theory, evolutionary theory, atomic theory all change regularly. Under you idea, you would treat evolutionary theory on July 1 2008 as being a different theory from evolutionary theory on August 1 2008. Scientists don't use the term that way.

One Brow said: "Do you feel there is something specific that is ambiguous regard whale evloution?"

Of course I do. Do you think there is nuthin abiguous, and that the transformation of a dog into a whale is a proven fact (known for certain)?


I think the transformation of a dog into a whale is a description of magical thinking, or sloppy English. Scientifically, fact does not mean "known for certain". I thought you knew that.

One Brow said: "I disagree. I see logic as being useful. but it's not indispensible."

Well, fine see it any ole woo way ya want. But if logic is not indispensable to your concept of a scientific theory, don't never go round sayin ID aint scientific no more, I would suggest.


I don't recall seeing an issue with the logical validity of ID, so it is not logic that prevents ID from being science regardless. As an aside, "validity" refers to following the proper forms of logic, not the soundness of the idea.

One Brow said...

One Brow said: "Eventually I get the text I want...In case it's not clear, natural selcetion chooses the metaphorical valid text (that which survives). You don't need Lamarckian methods to transfer information from the environment to the genes, you just need a very high tolerance for failure.

You still don't seem to even understand the question, Eric, which is about the source of variation, not natural selection, and how "genes" can give instructions which presuppose knowledge of the world if it just spits out random instructions.

Your analogy fails insofar as you talk about "natural selection" getting the text it wants. Does natural selection dictate what it wants? For what purpose does natural selection "want" something?


I just told you, the "want" of natural selection is better survival. The source of the variation is the metaphorical typing by the monkeys. The information is the selective action applied to the variation. The reason it works is the high tolerance for failure.

You talk about 5 million monkeys hittin keys in sequences of 3, heh...what can I say about that?

This seems to be your scenario:

Natural selection says: I want genes which

1. make a wasp paralzye, but not kill, prey;
2. Dig a hole
3. Check the hole for any dangers, then
4. If none, put it eggs in the hole, and then
5. Cover up the hole so it will not be discovered by would-be predators.

I want this because it will enhance survival and reproduction rates for wasps, so, I'm tellin ya, DNA, ya best git to crackin on typin out random letters until you've done this.

DNA: Well, OK, then...I don't know what "dig" means, what a hole is, what "paralyze, but not kill" means, or nuthin, but I don't need to. Certainly I will randomly create these exact instructions that presuppose knowledge about the world, if that's what you want...you're the boss, after all.


Actually, it's more like DNA: Here's a whole mess of behaviors, where some wasps dig and some don't, some kill and some paralyze, some check the hole and some don't, etc., and you get to choose which ones go forward.

Of course, with a lot more gradation and build-up over time. And that's just the neo-Darwinian version, we know of many more types of interactions today.

One Brow said...

One Brow said: "You don't need Lamarckian methods to transfer information from the environment to the genes, you just need a very high tolerance for failure."

The old "anything is possible with infinite time and infinite variasion" argument, eh, Eric?
Kinda like "God can do anything he wants," as I see it.

It is theoretically "possible" for some person to pick the winning lottery number in every state every week for 50 years. Since this is "possible," I don't NEED any hypothesis that mebbe the game is rigged, see? Possibility is tantamount to "actually explains it all" if I have some personal reason for "explaining" something that I want to contend actually happened. Like, if I was the guy who rigged all the state lotteries, and got filthy rich, I would simply say: "It's not theoretically impossible, so go away and leave me be. If that aint good enough, Imma hafta haul out my sawwed-off and throw it down on your sorry ass...Now, GIT!"


You're going to pull out one of those nonesense probability arguments now? Really? Sorry, but no. Building a better hole than the next wasp is not liike hitting a lottery. It's more like you hit a pick 3, have a thousand kids, and one of them hits a Pick 3, has a thousand kids, etc.

Hay, there, Imma gene. Lemme tell ya a lil bit about myself, OK?

I give instructions. Instructions which can be read and understood by certain molecules who know my code. I don't really understand the language I'm usin, but them guys readin it do, so that's all that matters. Main thing is, they do what I tell em to do. Now, I don't know how to tell them anything, in particular, because I'm like a monkey at a typewriter, but if I happen to accidently type "After you're born, matured, and ready to lay eggs, first thing to do is dig a hole...more on this topic later," then these slaves will do it---they will dig a hole, just like I told them. On the other hand, if I just randomly type out this istruction, "eyrz ppox qqbc ltiymbsrt" then they will go do that, just because I tell em to, see? The chumps.


Yep.

Dogs to whales, eh?

Sorry, I probably overreached there, no doubt. Of course there are questions in the evoltuion of whales, and probably always will be.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "Actually, it's more like DNA: Here's a whole mess of behaviors, where some wasps dig and some don't, some kill and some paralyze, some check the hole and some don't, etc., and you get to choose which ones go forward."

Well, I still don't think you even see the question. The problem with always starting with "natural selection" as the basic explanation for all things is that it starts in the middle, not the beginning. Everything necessary for it's application (what little there might be) is presupposed as a given, and never really analyzed.

Darwin said he had no way of explaining the origin of instincts (although he did take a lamarckian view that a "habit" of the parents could be passed on to the offspring via heredity), but he did think that, once instincts were established, natural selection could affect instinctive behaviors.

The "communication" between so-called genes and the molecules which form organisms of "information" depends on both (1) a means of communication and (2) NEW information if there is to be any change. All the vast, complex information we now see operating in organims of every type came from a bacteria, that's the idea? The means of communication came from...where? Mew information just keeps on arriving on the scene due to...what? Not natural selection, that's for sure.

DNA just up and gives natural selection a "whole mess of behaviors," willy-nilly, to work with, eh? Of course even assuming that doesn't help much unless you assume that "behaviors" are strictly and rigidly controlled by DNA.

The original question was about lamarckism and Weismann's theory (which changed Darwin's idea on the topic). Weismann and the neo-darwinists needed a dogma which would (1) allow (in their minds) them to assume that natural selection explains everything and (2) permit them to use a totally mechanistic "explanation." They couldn't do that if the source of new information was not divorced from any notion of self-determination (or even "participation) by the organism's "system" in generating variation. If the "information" which somehow gets incorporated into the communication process comes, in part, from what an existing organism "learns" about it's environment, then natural selection would be reduced to a secondary role--a conception that Wiesmann felt obligated to destroy, facts or no facts, experiments, or no experiments.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "If you don't understand why the germ theory of disease is a theory, I really can't take your criticisms of my understanding of scientific theories seriously anymore....It's certainly not a fact, or at least not just a fact. Don't take my word for it, check around. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory

Heh, well I find your assertions rather strange, given the fact that the first sentence of the wiki article you cited says:

"The germ theory of disease, also called the pathogenic theory of medicine, is a theory that proposes that microorganisms are the cause of many diseases."

It goes on to contrast this hypothesis with the "ancient view" that disease is spontaneously generated. In this sense, the "germ theory" is about the equivalent of the ancient greek Democritus' "atomic theory."

The way NAS, and you, are using the term "germ theory," simply demonstrates one more reason that such explanations of what a "scientific explanation" is are (1) naive, (2) confusing, and (3) full of equivocation.

Three "theories" which I have proposed:

1. The earth revolves around the sun, and the sun does not revolve around the earth (sometimes called the "copernican theory," even though I should git the credit).

2. Things fall to earth (my theory of gravity)

3. Evolution occurred.

What wiki refers to as a "theory" is really just an ontological hypothesis. In and of itself, it is NOT a scientific theory, and more than the three I cited above.

Anonymous said...

Edit: "...any (not and) more than the three I cited above.

Anonymous said...

Oops, I forgot to include Howlin Wolf's venerable "theory of heavenly motion," which is almost universally agreed upon, these here days. How could I? So make that 4 theories, not just 3.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "Under you idea, you would treat evolutionary theory on July 1 2008 as being a different theory from evolutionary theory on August 1 2008. Scientists don't use the term that way."

No, I wouldn't, at least not unless one or more of it's fundamental assumptions have been (or, more likely, arguably should be, in light of new evidence and/or new theoretical hypotheses that are superior) changed. Routine experimental research is not "part of" the theory, whatever the findings. Each new finding does not somehow "get incorporated into," and therefore "alter," the theory, although it does indeed add to the base of empirical knowledge.

Of course, many scientists who I have quoted in these threads claim there is no generally accepted "theory of evolution," per se. Just an ongoing research program with many competing hypotheses being advanced as possible general explanations. If your definition of the theory of evolution is simply the proposition that "evolution occurred," then of course these scientists would be misinformed and wrong in their claim that there is no "theory of evolution" which has been established as viable.

Anonymous said...

One fundamental assumption of neo-darwinism, derived from Wiesmann's conclusions based on his "germ theory," was that development is totally irrelevant to evolution. I believe that fundamental assumption has now been widely rejected, and for that (and other) reasons, the "modern synthetic" theory has been rejected. Whether or not it has been "replaced" by a new theory is debatable, at best.

Anonymous said...

Another fundamental assumption of the modern synthetic theory is that micro and macro evolution are basically the same process, explained by the same mechanism (natural selection acting on random genetic changes). Although widely accepted (on faith) for many decades, there has never been any demonstration of this assumption, and many (such as Gould) have begun to seriously question, and doubt, it, best I can tell.

Population genetics, which redefined the term "evolution" to suit its premises and theoretical approach, does not, and, from my understanding, cannot, be applied on an inter-species basis, and is confined to a theoretical mathematical analysis of possible explanations for observable changes within a species. It does not even attempt to explain "macro-evolution," it just assumes that macro-evolution "must be" more of the same type of thing which it is designed to study.

Anonymous said...

To elaborate on my exclusion of research from the realm of theory (I know you do not see it this way), looky here.

Any data derived from empirical studies is NOT self-explanatory. The "explanation" comes from a long chain of (often implicit) deduction, based upon a whole host of assumptions and any proposed conclusion is always subject to debate about the proper application of the deductive process and/or the assumptions made.

The facts are the facts. In the initial Cairns experiment, for example, it was presumably a fact that bacteria initally lacking the genetic ability to digest lactose developed the capacity to do so when that was the only source of nourishment available to it.

Now what does this "fact" prove or establish? Highly debatable, as evidenced by years of debate over the conflicting conclusions drawn.

A general theory undertakes to provide a plausible explanation of all the known relevant facts. A given fact is (highly dependent upon one's interpretation of that fact, of course) presumably either: (1) consistent with, and perhaps even necessarily implied by, the prevailing theory; (2) inconsistent with the prevailing theory, or (3) not really relevant to any fundamental theoretical concerns.

It is the theoretist's job to "explain" the facts, as he interprets them, not the researcher's (although the reseacher is free to offer his opinions on this topic). The point is that if facts are inconsistent with the theory, then they must be explained by some ad hoc revision to the theory (which "supplements" the main theory), or else the theory must be changed to accomodate the new facts. The facts, on their own, neither create nor modify theoretical explanations.

Anonymous said...

Take the church-sanctioned aristotlean/ptolemic theory of planetary motion, for example. Among other things, this theory posited that:

1. All heavenly motion was uniformly circular, and
2. The earth is stationary, with the heavens rotating around it.

Now some fool comes along and sez: Uniformly circular, eh? Sure don't look that way. For the last month or two, Mars has turned around and gone backwards.

Now what? Abandon the basic premise that all motion is uniformly circular? Unthinkable! We never said that the "circular motion" was all in one circle for the same object, did we? Well, did we now? Naw. Looky here: Our theory is the same, and it aint changed at all because we figured out that this here gizmo, which we call an epicycle, is just makin mars look like it aint goin in no circle.

That went on for centuries, with more and more epicycles, and other gizmos, bein postulated to keep the basic premises of the theory "the same." Course, they weren't "the same," in substance, even if they were as a matter of ambiguous semantics. Guys like Kepler and Copernicus got fed up with the extensive resort to ad hoc revisions which, in essence, betrayed all the fundamental notions (the spirit of) the theory as originated. So they finally just chucked the premises. Heresy then was treated about the same way as it is now, there's just a different set of enforcment officers for orthodoxy, that's all. Gallileo found out that commitin heresy aint nuthin nice, and there's a price to pay for such audacity.

Anonymous said...

I look at certain hypotheses, such as the Baldwin effect and Waddington's notion of "genetic assimilation" as bein the equivalent of ptolemic epicycles. They are attempts to show that, as Lamarck claimed, learned traits can become fixed as a hereditary matter, but they insisted on attempting to do this by claiming they were only slightly compromising, but not really contradicting, fundamental neo-darwinistic premises such as random mutation, strictly mechanistic genetic operation, and natural selection as the KING of explanatory principles. This attempt to deviate from, while simultaneously affirming fealty to, the fundamental notions of neo-darwinism simply gave their ultimate explanations with the appearance of vague incoherency.

Anonymous said...

One big problem with the NAS brochure which I have criticized is that they specifically undertake to explain the notion of a "scientific theory," as contrasted with other possible "non-scientific" useages of the word "theory," while failing miserably to adequately do so.

Their attempts are so wrong as to be laughable if one simply viewed this masterpiece as a product of ignorance. I don't see it that way. I see it as what can only be a deliberate attempt to mislead and deceive by trying, through use of blatant equivocation and other sophistic tactics, to give the impression that the "scientific" theory of evolution is a virtual fact. They aren't that stupid, just short on scientific objectivity and intellectual scruples. I know of no other self-proclaimed "science," whether it be physics, geology, chemistry, or whatever, that has vigorously undertaken to promote it's theories as "fact." This is especially curious when "the theory of evolution," if that is taken to mean the modern synthetic theory, as it appears to be presented, is crumbling all around them. Maybe the two things are not unrelated, ya know?

Anonymous said...

You refer me to "science bloggers" to find the proper meaning and useage of the concept of a "scientific theory." I have indeed seen a few such blogs dutifully reciting the wording offered by the NAS in its brochure, like they would the "talking points" of their favored political party.

On the other hand, I have seen other bloggers, such as the one I cited (forget his name now), ridicule this notion of what a "scientific theory" is, which conclusion is backed up by a scholarly analysis of what a scientific theory "truly" is in his blog entry on the topic. Of course, you dismiss such academic efforts as "ignorant."

Anonymous said...

Ken Miller jumps on the design bandwagon, eh:?

"Brown University biologist Kenneth Miller has to hand one victory to the “intelligent design” crowd. They know how to frame an issue....He points out that structural and molecular biologists routinely speak of the design of proteins, signaling pathways, and cellular structures. He also notes that the human body bears the hallmarks of design, from the ball sockets that allows hips and shoulders to rotate to the “s” curve of the spine that allows for upright walking.

“There is, indeed, a design to life... Scientists should embrace this concept of ‘design,’ and in so doing, claim for science the sense of orderly rationality in nature to which the anti-evolution movement has long appealed.”

http://www.physorg.com/news122479031.html

One Brow said...

Well, I still don't think you even see the question. The problem with always starting with "natural selection" as the basic explanation for all things is that it starts in the middle, not the beginning. Everything necessary for it's application (what little there might be) is presupposed as a given, and never really analyzed.

Evolution is the study of how life changes. No matter how far back you go, evolutionarily speaking, there will be behaviors there that already exist.

The "communication" between so-called genes and the molecules which form organisms of "information" depends on both (1) a means of communication and (2) NEW information if there is to be any change. All the vast, complex information we now see operating in organims of every type came from a bacteria, that's the idea? The means of communication came from...where? Mew information just keeps on arriving on the scene due to...what? Not natural selection, that's for sure.

Probaly not "a" bacteria. It's a net, not a tree. The "communication" probably existed before life did.

DNA just up and gives natural selection a "whole mess of behaviors," willy-nilly, to work with, eh? Of course even assuming that doesn't help much unless you assume that "behaviors" are strictly and rigidly controlled by DNA.

When I first started the description, I mentioned that even a neo-Darwinisn can explain how the information got transferred. I chose that paradigm becuase it is simple and restrictive. I don't recall endorsing their view as the most nearly correct view..

The way NAS, and you, are using the term "germ theory," simply demonstrates one more reason that such explanations of what a "scientific explanation" is are (1) naive, (2) confusing, and (3) full of equivocation.

...

What wiki refers to as a "theory" is really just an ontological hypothesis. In and of itself, it is NOT a scientific theory, and more than the three I cited above.


The germ theory of disease contains a lot more than the statement germs cause disease.

One Brow said: "Under you idea, you would treat evolutionary theory on July 1 2008 as being a different theory from evolutionary theory on August 1 2008. Scientists don't use the term that way."

No, I wouldn't, at least not unless one or more of it's fundamental assumptions have been (or, more likely, arguably should be, in light of new evidence and/or new theoretical hypotheses that are superior) changed.


Scientitst's don't seem to use the term that way. For example, take Koch's posulates.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koch%27s_Postulates

One of the four had to be dropped. No one called it a new germ theory of disease.

Routine experimental research is not "part of" the theory, whatever the findings.

Actually, it is. Scientific theories fold in the fact and observations as well as the explantions.

Of course, many scientists who I have quoted in these threads claim there is no generally accepted "theory of evolution," per se. Just an ongoing research program with many competing hypotheses being advanced as possible general explanations. If your definition of the theory of evolution is simply the proposition that "evolution occurred," then of course these scientists would be misinformed and wrong in their claim that there is no "theory of evolution" which has been established as viable.

Many scientists do refer the Theory of Evolution as extent, including all the majore scientific organizations. That some scientists use the term differently is a sign they are independent thinkers, but says little else.

One Brow said...

One fundamental assumption of neo-darwinism, ... was that development is totally irrelevant to evolution. ... the "modern synthetic" theory has been rejected. Whether or not it has been "replaced" by a new theory is debatable, at best.

The replacement is mostly additions to the consturctive aspects of the modern synthetic theory and removal of the negative proclamations therefrom, from what I can tell. Just about no one thinks populations genetics is just wrong, or that natural selection plays no part in evolution.

Another fundamental assumption of the modern synthetic theory is that micro and macro evolution are basically the same process, explained by the same mechanism (natural selection acting on random genetic changes). Although widely accepted (on faith) for many decades, there has never been any demonstration of this assumption, and many (such as Gould) have begun to seriously question, and doubt, it, best I can tell.

My annual post lists largely accepted mechanisms that operate solely above the level of species (macroevolution).

To elaborate on my exclusion of research from the realm of theory (I know you do not see it this way), looky here.

I agreed with your description. I just don't think it supports your contention that scientists don't think of facts as being part of their theories.

Take the church-sanctioned aristotlean/ptolemic theory of planetary motion, for example. Among other things, this theory posited that:

...

That went on for centuries, with more and more epicycles, and other gizmos, bein postulated to keep the basic premises of the theory "the same."


If the epicycles are part of the theory, with which I think you would agree, why exclude from teh theory the data that forces the epicycles?

I look at certain hypotheses, such as the Baldwin effect and Waddington's notion of "genetic assimilation" as bein the equivalent of ptolemic epicycles. They are attempts to show that, as Lamarck claimed, learned traits can become fixed as a hereditary matter, but they insisted on attempting to do this by claiming they were only slightly compromising, but not really contradicting, fundamental neo-darwinistic premises such as random mutation, strictly mechanistic genetic operation, and natural selection as the KING of explanatory principles. This attempt to deviate from, while simultaneously affirming fealty to, the fundamental notions of neo-darwinism simply gave their ultimate explanations with the appearance of vague incoherency.

Waddington gave evidence for genetic assimilation through experiementation, although ti's hard to say how much of a role it might play naturally. The Baldwin effect seems trickier.

I know of no other self-proclaimed "science," whether it be physics, geology, chemistry, or whatever, that has vigorously undertaken to promote it's theories as "fact."

The NAS brochure did not say the evoltuionary theory was fact. It said as facutal as germ theory or atomic theory. It's a simile.

You refer me to "science bloggers" to find the proper meaning and useage of the concept of a "scientific theory." I have indeed seen a few such blogs dutifully reciting the wording offered by the NAS in its brochure, like they would the "talking points" of their favored political party.

Because they wouldn't be simply in agreement, so it must be "dutifully"?

On the other hand, I have seen other bloggers, such as the one I cited (forget his name now), ridicule this notion of what a "scientific theory" is, which conclusion is backed up by a scholarly analysis of what a scientific theory "truly" is in his blog entry on the topic. Of course, you dismiss such academic efforts as "ignorant."

Scientists are a contentious lot.

Ken Miller jumps on the design bandwagon, eh:?

Well, not in any fashion that the ID movement would approve of. However, his metaphysical notion of design was the central idea in Finding Darwin's God, so this is not a surprise.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "If the epicycles are part of the theory, with which I think you would agree, why exclude from teh theory the data that forces the epicycles?"

Because the theory must explain the facts, it is not the facts. To quote Gould on the topic" "facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts....Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred."

Creationist like to equivocate on the use of the word theory by claiming that evolution is "just a theory" (in the sense of "guess" or idle "speculation." Some activist scientists have apparently learned from them. "Atomic theory" can be, and sometimes is, used at an absract (contentless, and far as specific propositions go) way of identifying a subject matter. In this sense it is often applied to mere hypothesis (i.e, assertions without any explanatory content), especially at a stage when there is no evidence to support the hypothesis. Hence, the ancients "an "atomic theory," a germ theory, and even "evolutionary theory" which were basically devoid of any specific theoretical content. At one time, the very concept of evolution was a "theory" in this sense--a mere hypothesis with no specific "mechanisms" or any other particular content.

Used this way, the "theory of evolution" merely boils down to what you have already admitted is not a "scientific theory," that is, the mere assertion (hypothesis) that "evolution occurred." NAS can only be using the term in this sense to have any hope of defending their statements on the topic. But they do NOT make that clear. No theory is "factual" in any sense, so what you are calling a "simile" is itself totally misleading (as you have apparently been misled).

Anonymous said...

What NAS is doing, is calling gravity (as a raw, unexplained, phenomenon) a "fact" and doing the same with evolution. Then they claim that the "theory of gravity" (apparently with theory being used in the "hypothesis only" sense) is therefore "factual," and trying to (verbally) turn theory into fact. This is totally wrong, and, as I said, cannot have been done unintentionally.

It seems that even sophisticated people like you fall for this (presumably because you have faith in the expertise and integrity of NAS), and then believe the fact is the theory and that the theory is fact.

No theoretical scientist (as opposed to run of the mill research scientists) assumes or argues that the facts are "part of" the theory, and certainly no philospher of science would ever make such a claim.

Anonymous said...

Doug Futuyma on the topic:

"in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena." In contrast, he says:

"the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact...Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality."


Ya see where he's sayin "begin as a hypothesis?" What's kinda funny is that as much as guys like Gould try to make a clear distinction between theory and fact, those with a certain disposition will come away with the impression that the theory IS a fact. I remember when you paraphrased Gould's definition of a fact, by inserting "the theory of evolution" for fact.

He said: "In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." He was trying to make the point that even facts cannot be viewed as absolute truths. You then said that "the theory of evolution has been confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent," as I recall.

Anonymous said...

Your homey at talk origins, Larry Moran, quotes this guy on the topic:

"Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution."
- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434


Remember the 3 "meanings" of evolution we discussed, with the first being "change over time?" Nobody, not even creationists, as far as I know, denies that, in this sense, evolution occurred, and is a "fact." But Campbell is saying that it no longer appropriate (as it might have been in ancient times) to apply the term "theory" to this proposition. Yet that is apparently what NAS did, appropriateness be damned.

Worse yet, after first identifying "natural selection" as the "process" of evolution, they make the flat claim that: "Scientists no longer question the basic facts of evolution as a process." Just another way of trying to imply that the theory itself is a fact (which Gould, and every other honest scientist, denies). Conceptually, scientific theories simply are not facts, any more than cats are dogs.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "If the epicycles are part of the theory, with which I think you would agree...

Well, as I tried to say in that post, yeah, I agree, but, then again, I really don't agree. They are not really part of the theory, as originally stated, and are not faithful to the spirit of the original theory. In that sense, they are not part of the (original) theory. But, yeah, they are part of the "new and improved" theory, which tries to explain the phenomena. It's just not the same theory, even if someone wants to "pretend" that it is.

All motion was "necessarily circular" for metaphysical reasons, i.e, the heavens were quintessential (the 5th essence) and sui generis. They were "perfect" because made so by God, and circular motion is the "perfect" motion. Therefore they HAD to be circular. Once you start tampering with this "perfection" by adding on tons of deviations from a circular direction to take off (circularly, again, of course) in new directions all the time, you have betrayed your basic premise, whether you admit it, or not. Obviously the Scholars did NOT admit that...any more than Dawkins would admit that theism could be a reasonable position. They would therefore insist that it was "the same" theory all along, and that nothing about the general theory was different, or had changed.

I see you as wanting to assign the same notion of continuity and immutablility to what you call "THE" theory of evolution. On the other hand, you are always quick to suggest that if some aspect of previously accepted theory has been rejected, then that is "old news" and no longer represents THE theory. This, of course, suggests that the contents of THE theory are constantly changing...and yet it still the "same theory" in your mind, somehow. I don't get it. I really think that for you, THE theory is simply that "evolution occurred," which never changes. Beyond that, the only contents of THE theory are those hypotheses which you personally agree with, and the second you stop agreeing, at that instant they are no longer part of THE theory.

Anonymous said...

Denton, one of, if not the, original modern advocates of intelligent design theory, has apparently changed his tune, for good reason. His first book (what was it--theory in crisis?) was primarily a forceful criticism of the notion that the fundamental assumptions of the neo-darwinistic (modern synthetic) theory of evolution could adequately explain evolution as an historical event. Basically he fell prey to the seemingly ever-present false dictohomy that it has to be either (1) neo-darwinsim, or (2) design.

However, after the completion of the genome project (or whatever it was called) and the identification of some of the so-called "junk DNA" as highly specialized "regulators" of the implementation of DNA coding, and after the near universal hox genes, shared by virtually every living creature, were identified, he believed (as Gould, and others before him, had suggested in the '80's) that mechanisms for change that were at least somewhat plausible had been uncovered. Gould was probably thinking more in terms of evolution via development with "phenotypical plasticity," but it's all kinda the same thing---some process(es) which, whether explained by "emergent" features of strictly materialistic conglomerates or by some other means, gave some possibility of "direction," "internal control," and/or adjustment via feedback to the process of evolution.

My point is not really about Denton, per se, it is that these discoveries completely undermined some of the more dogmatic and metaphysical absolutes of neo-darwinism. The "theory of evolution," has, in my view, radically changed as a result of these discoveries. There may or may not be a new theory which has emerged, but the old theory must be rejected. That doesn't mean that any of the empirical findings must be rejected, or course. They remain unscathed, although the interpretation of their "meaning" may have to be re-evaluated in light of the new discoveries. This does not mean that natural selection plays "no part" in evolution either (although more and more theorists seem to be giving it less and less prominence as much more than a conservative--as opposed to "creative"--factor in evolution).

My basic theme throughout these threads has been that any "theory" of evolution must have some basic, axiomatic premises to it which imply certain consequences. If those basic premises are falsified, then that particular theory is also falsified. It does not, as Gould noted, mean that evolution has been disproven. The theory is NOT the fact.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "Evolution is the study of how life changes. No matter how far back you go, evolutionarily speaking, there will be behaviors there that already exist."

Yeah, and no matter how far back you go, neo-darwinism purports to "explain" everything that happened thereafter. That's what you seem to overlook. Let's start with the LUCA. Now, from there, how do you get instinctive behavior in wasps which presupposes "knowledge" of the environment? From there, how does new information, of a highly complex nature, arise? From there, how do the means of transmitting that new information from DNA to RNA to enzyme (or whatever the hypothetical process is) develop? Again, not by natural selction, that's for sure.

Anonymous said...

"Again, not by natural selction, that's for sure." The claims of NAS to the contrary notwithstanding.

Anonymous said...

I found some elucidation of the word usage involved in the confusing "explanatons" from the NAS which makes it clear how they are using such terms as "atomic" theory, and that use equivocal meanings of "theory" from sentence to sentence, paragraph to paragraph, with the end result being an incoherent picture that is confusing at best, misleading at worst.

It is clear that, they will shift from a simple meaning (when claiming that a theory is beyond challenge) and conflate that with the meaning of theory (as in "scientific theory").

At one second, they use "atomic theory" to simply mean the "theory" matter is composed of atoms, and "cell theory" to mean the "theory" that living things are made of cells. It is in this (non-scientific) sense that they use the term "theory" to illustrate that some "theories" will are "not likely to be altered by further evidence."

Here is an excerpt from a jewel entitled "Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?":

"Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms..."

This is immediately after they have just given a "formal scientific of theory," which is:

"It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence."

"comprehensive explanation," eh? Clearly the "theory" that living cells are made of matter" is a simple ontological hypothesis and NOT a (scientific) theory by their own definition. But as soon as they give this definition, they claim: "Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially." This clearly suggests that they are referring to the "formal scientific theories" they just finished defining, which they aint. More about this NAS entry in the next post.

http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

Anonymous said...

They do not quit until they THOROUGHLY conflate the distinct notions of theory and fact, even going so far as to use the (in this context) oxyomoronic phrase "scientific fact." For example:

"However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact."

So the "fact" is the occurrence of evolution, which occurrence they call (contrary to their own definition) a "scientific explanation." And scientists call their "theories" (scientific explanations) "facts," eh? Completely wrong, on a normative basis (although, on a descriptive basis, a few naive scientists here and there may actually call a theory a fact--especially if they have been "taught" by NAS brochures).

One can argue that high school kids need not be exposed to sophisticated concepts involving the philosophy of science in order to be introduced to scientific subjects like chemistry and biology, and I agree. But if one is gunna purport to "explain" the difference between theory and fact to them, it is criminal to do it in a deliberately misleading way. Better to say nuthin than to mislead and confuse, for "brainwashing" purposes. Brutally objectionable, unless of course, you are a neo-darwinian sophistic cheerleader, who cares not for either truth or accuracy, but merely promotion of your creed and the destruction of your "creationist enemies."

Anonymous said...

With respect to ID theory, which is often objected to on the grounds that it is not science, and can't be tested, NAS appears to reject it on the ground that it IS science, just "bad science" which has been disproven by modern science." For example:

"However, the claims of intelligent design creationists are disproven by the findings of modern biology. Biologists have examined each of the molecular systems claimed to be the products of design and have shown how they could have arisen through natural processes."

http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/IntelligentDesign.html

Of course in other brochures, they claim it is not science.

They also set up a straw man, here, essentially using "neo-darwinistic theory" as a term identical to "natural processes." Johnson, for one, makes it very clear that his objections are to the claim that neo-darwinistic theory "explains" the history of evolution. He confines his criticism to those prevailing assumptions, freely acknowledging that a better naturalistic theory could be developed which was plausible and/or convincing. Needless to say, the mere theoretical possibility that certain events "could have" happened as explained by neo-darwinism hardly makes a contrary claim one which has been "disproven by modern science." The fallacious logic here is appalling.

One Brow said...

One Brow said: "If the epicycles are part of the theory, with which I think you would agree, why exclude from teh theory the data that forces the epicycles?"

Because the theory must explain the facts, it is not the facts.


The theory is not *just* the facts, but the facts are a part of the theory. There was nothing about Ptolemic astonomy that forced the exstence of epicycles, except for the need to incorporate facts. Theories without facts are abstract fictions.

To quote Gould on the topic" "facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts....Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred."

Nothing in Gould's quote exclude facts from being part of the theories.

Used this way, the "theory of evolution" merely boils down to what you have already admitted is not a "scientific theory," that is, the mere assertion (hypothesis) that "evolution occurred." NAS can only be using the term in this sense to have any hope of defending their statements on the topic.

You are just wrong here. Evolutionary theory is overflowing with mechanisms, explanations, predictions, interconnections, etc. It is far from an empty shell. Natural selection and population genetics was the first to start to fill it out, but hardly the last.

No theory is "factual" in any sense, so what you are calling a "simile" is itself totally misleading (as you have apparently been misled).

This coming from the poster who is so determined that theories can't be factual he won't even acknowledge that the germ theory of disease is so reliable as to justify making requirements for hand-washing. Theories can be factual in the sense that they provide reliable, trustworthy guidance which it is perverse to dissent from (paraphrasing Gould). Gould know the Theory of Evolution was not a fact, he also said it was so well-confirmed that withholding dissent was perverse. Your focus on the former only is mere denialism.

What NAS is doing, is calling gravity (as a raw, unexplained, phenomenon) a "fact" and doing the same with evolution. Then they claim that the "theory of gravity" (apparently with theory being used in the "hypothesis only" sense) is therefore "factual," and trying to (verbally) turn theory into fact. This is totally wrong, and, as I said, cannot have been done unintentionally.

You are well aware that there is gravity, the fact, and evolution, the fact, as well as the fact-based, highly tested Theories of Gravity and Evolution. Your distinction are arbitrary and not supported by general scientiifc usage.

It seems that even sophisticated people like you fall for this (presumably because you have faith in the expertise and integrity of NAS), and then believe the fact is the theory and that the theory is fact.

I don't believe you really think this. We have been over this ground too often, and you are too intelligent to misunderstand so completely. Stop wasting electrons on it.

No theoretical scientist (as opposed to run of the mill research scientists) assumes or argues that the facts are "part of" the theory, and certainly no philospher of science would ever make such a claim.

That's a lot of certainty. I looked up ten different web pages, and none said facts were not a part of theories. If you really want to go with that, though, you can't claim epicycles are part of Ptolemic astronomy, beause epicycles only result after facts are incorporated.

One Brow said...

Doug Futuyma on the topic:

...

Ya see where he's sayin "begin as a hypothesis?" What's kinda funny is that as much as guys like Gould try to make a clear distinction between theory and fact, those with a certain disposition will come away with the impression that the theory IS a fact.


Didn't you just tell me theoretical scientists don't say facts are part of theories, and then include Futuyma basically treating the fact as a part of the theory? Self-contradicitons don't help you, even when you try to cast them as errors.

I remember when you paraphrased Gould's definition of a fact, by inserting "the theory of evolution" for fact.

He said: "In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." He was trying to make the point that even facts cannot be viewed as absolute truths. You then said that "the theory of evolution has been confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent," as I recall.


It is possible for mechanisms to be so established that it is perverse to withhold consent, but that does not make these mechanisms fact. The difference between fact and theory is not "rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty", because you can be certain of theories just like you can be certain of facts. Natural selection is not a fact, but it is an observed, verified, certain mechanism. The fecal-oral transmission of germs is not a fact but a confirmed, verifed, certain mechanism.

"Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution."
- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434

Remember the 3 "meanings" of evolution we discussed, with the first being "change over time?" Nobody, not even creationists, as far as I know, denies that, in this sense, evolution occurred, and is a "fact." But Campbell is saying that it no longer appropriate (as it might have been in ancient times) to apply the term "theory" to this proposition. Yet that is apparently what NAS did, appropriateness be damned.


So, now you're saying that the NAS erred by saying evolution was a theory, instead just plain fact?

Worse yet, after first identifying "natural selection" as the "process" of evolution, they make the flat claim that: "Scientists no longer question the basic facts of evolution as a process." Just another way of trying to imply that the theory itself is a fact (which Gould, and every other honest scientist, denies). Conceptually, scientific theories simply are not facts, any more than cats are dogs.

Evolution as a process is built upon a variety of facts, despite your insistence on keeping the two separated. Theories without facts say nothing about reality.

One Brow said...

They are not really part of the theory, as originally stated, ... But, yeah, they are part of the "new and improved" theory, which tries to explain the phenomena. It's just not the same theory, even if someone wants to "pretend" that it is.

If facts were not part of the theory, neither were the epicycles that derived from them. They were at best applications of the theory.

This, of course, suggests that the contents of THE theory are constantly changing...and yet it still the "same theory" in your mind, somehow. I don't get it. I really think that for you, THE theory is simply that "evolution occurred," which never changes. Beyond that, the only contents of THE theory are those hypotheses which you personally agree with,...

It's not about what I personally agree with, it's about the hypotheses that have become individual theories due to being confirmed.

My point is not really about Denton, per se, it is that these discoveries completely undermined some of the more dogmatic and metaphysical absolutes of neo-darwinism. The "theory of evolution," has, in my view, radically changed as a result of these discoveries.

Again, you are conflating the scientific theory with the metaphysical theory espoused by some scientists. There were five basic points:

1. All evolutionary phenomena can be explained in a way consistent with known genetic mechanisms and the observational evidence of naturalists. Refuted
2. Evolution is gradual: small genetic changes, recombination ordered by natural selection. Discontinuities amongst species (or other taxa) are explained as originating gradually through geographical separation and extinction (not saltation). As far as is known, true for every multicellur animal
3. Selection is overwhelmingly the main mechanism of change; even slight advantages are important when continued. The object of selection is the phenotype in its surrounding environment. Generally accepted, rarely disputed. At the very least, few scientists dispute slection is a major factor
4. The primacy of population thinking: the genetic diversity carried in natural populations is a key factor in evolution. Still accepted
5. In palaeontology, the ability to explain historical observations by extrapolation from micro to macro-evolution is proposed. Refuted, in that addiitonal mechanisms were added, but true in that microevolutionary aspects are still thought to affect macroevolution

Of the five, only one is no longer relevent to evolution. Just like the loss of one of Koch's postulates was not considered a wholesale rejection of germ theory, the loss of one postulate is not a wholesale rejection of neo-Darwinism. It has been modified and added to.

My basic theme throughout these threads has been that any "theory" of evolution must have some basic, axiomatic premises to it which imply certain consequences.

Except, that's a description of a foraml theory, not a scientific theory.

Yeah, and no matter how far back you go, neo-darwinism purports to "explain" everything that happened thereafter.

That's already been refuted.

Let's start with the LUCA.

The one we agree does not exist?

Now, from there, how do you get instinctive behavior in wasps which presupposes "knowledge" of the environment? From there, how does new information, of a highly complex nature, arise? From there, how do the means of transmitting that new information from DNA to RNA to enzyme (or whatever the hypothetical process is) develop?

Instincts are highly complex action/reaction cycles. Basic action/recation cycles are present in the very first living things. You seem to think there is some qualitative difference, but I see only a quantitative difference.

Again, not by natural selction, that's for sure.

Prove it.

Anonymous said...

In other literature, NAS actually describes (more or less) the generally accepted definition of a "scientific theory" (which, in their terms, is simply reduced to the term "theory" with out the use of "scientific" as a modifier. For example:

"Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses....They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences."

Here they also freely concede that: "In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence."

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=6024&page=2

But this was their 1999 version of opposition to creationism, which apparently they later felt was not sufficiently persuasive as a proproganda tool. So, they went plumb over the top in their 2008 version, it seems.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "Nothing in Gould's quote exclude facts from being part of the theories."

Of course there is--facts and theories are categorically two different things. He explicitly says:

"Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."

There are (1) facts and (2) theories which "explain" (not "are" or "contain") those facts. An explanation is not the "data," it merely refers to the data, by way of trying to explain it.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "You are just wrong here. Evolutionary theory is overflowing with mechanisms, explanations, predictions, interconnections, etc. It is far from an empty shell. Natural selection and population genetics was the first to start to fill it out, but hardly the last."

I agree with this statement, so I don't know why you would say I'm wrong, unless you completely miss the point, which you apparently do. Of course evolutionary theory, properly speaking, attempts to be a comprehensive explanation. My point is about the equivocal and misleading way in which NAS uses the term "theory" when it suits their purposes to do so. They are using it (not consistently) in the way you just described it--although they do give the appearance that they are.

You'll probably never see this point, Eric. In my experience, much of the evidence you use to convince yourself of things you wish to believe depends on routine equivocation and reliance on sloppy semantics as "proof."

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "Gould know the Theory of Evolution was not a fact, he also said it was so well-confirmed that withholding dissent was perverse."

Really!? Where did he say that? I defy to to support that claim with a quote from Gould. Gould knows better than to say that, but you don't, so you think it's what he "must" have said.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "Your focus on the former only is mere denialism."

Find the quote where Gould said what you claim before deciding who the "denialist" is, eh, Eric?

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: " I looked up ten different web pages, and none said facts were not a part of theories. If you really want to go with that, though, you can't claim epicycles are part of Ptolemic astronomy, beause epicycles only result after facts are incorporated."

I am trying to clarify some concepts for you, Eric, but your preconceptions seem to make this an impossible task. Did you find any websites that said "facts are part of the theory?"

Epicyles are definitely part of the THEORY of ptolemic astronomy. They are not "part" of the orbit of the planet mars (the data). "Plolemic astronomy" does NOT exist in the world, it is a theory, and not "part of" the emipircally observed world. This is the distinction (between theory and fact--data--that you seem to be unable to make).

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "Your distinction are arbitrary and not supported by general scientiifc usage."

Eric, I'm not even talking about a descriptive matter of what is sometimes said by some "scientific bloggers." These distinctions are critical to the proper understanding of the concepts, not arbitrary. I am talking about proper useage, not vulgar (mis)usage (to the extent it exists). Just read some respected scientific theoreticians and philosophers on the topic, if you haven't already. It might prove enlightening to you, ya know?

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "Didn't you just tell me theoretical scientists don't say facts are part of theories (yes, I did), and then include Futuyma basically treating the fact as a part of the theory? (no, he did not do that) Self-contradicitons don't help you, even when you try to cast them as errors.

Eric the point is that the term theory can be used to refer to 7 or 8 different concepts. Only one of those meanings of "theory" corresponds to a "scientific" theory. I am talking about semantical equivocation, you are trying to talk about ontological reality--which is why we're talking past each other. You can't seem to even grasp that there is a distinction between semantics and the concepts which one may try, with more or less semantical success, to unequivocally communicate to another party.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "So, now you're saying that the NAS erred by saying evolution was a theory, instead just plain fact."

If you really care to understand what I'm saying, then I would suggest you re-read my posts with more care. The term "theory" is sometimes used as an abstract generic reference to a subject matter, but that is not a "scientific theory." Same deal when (in other form of useage of the term theory) it is used to refer to a naked ontological hypothesis, devoid of specific theoretical content. You just can't seem to grasp these distinctions, and act as though the term "theory" HAS to be intended to mean the exact same thing by every person who uses it, every time they use it.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "Except, that's a description of a foraml theory, not a scientific theory."

You simply reiterate your ill-founded assertions regardless of any argument or authority to the contrary which I give you, Eric. We've been over this before, so I won't do it again. I will merely note your continuing penchant for trying to resolve substantive conceptual matters by resort to (dubious) semantical (definitional) claims.

I have come to gather that, just as you conceive the theory to be the facts, you also think that the linguistic definition is (or determines) the ontological/conceptual reality of the object/concept under review. This makes it easy to "win" every argument, to "prove every point, by simply invoking an idiosyncratic definition and then sayin: "That's my story, and I'm stickin to it."

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "Again, you are conflating the scientific theory with the metaphysical theory espoused by some scientists. There were five basic points:

Those are the 5 things you read at the wiki site, that's all. That you have very little insight into the historical and theoretical bases of neo-darwinism has already been amply demonstrated. I can remember you claiming that nothing about neo-darwinism claimed that mutation had to be random. I knew then that you had no extended idea of the development, origin, and history of the neo-darwinistic theory, nor of its expressed postulates, as promulagated by its adherents and proponents, over the last 70-80 years.

2. The sine qua non of neo-darwinism (as opposed to say, lamarckism or vitalism) is the INSISTENCE, as a basic axiom, that all mutation is random. Yes, this is a metaphysical claim, but it was nonetheless incorporated into the "scientific theory," as such things invariably are. It would a huge error to say that scientific theories contain no metaphysical assumptions, because they all do, in one form or another. The trick is simply to identify what the express or implied metaphysical claims are, and then acknowledge that they are not "empirically" derived. The errors (as Dennett said) arise when people claim that there "are no metaphysical assumptions" in my theory. That's what you seem to think is possible when you suggest that the "scientific theory" is distinct from any and all metaphysical assumptions.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "Again, not by natural selction, that's for sure.

Prove it."

What is there to prove? Darwin knew and said it, and so does every other rational person who understands what "natural selection" is intended to mean. It does NOT create information, life, variation, or anything else (NAS's mis-statements to the contrary notwithstanding). That's inherent in the very concept, and there is no need for proof (although those who misunderstand the concept my think there is, and demand proof).

Do you think "natural selection" is a gene, or an organism, or some type of all-powerful supernatural agent that "creates" (rather than "selects from") variation?

Anonymous said...

Let me give a simple example. A theoretical explanation can, of course, assume certain things to be true, as a matter of fact, or otherwise. In fact it has to do this. But, that said:

1. It cannot assume or "incorporate" the very fact is trying to explain as a fact, and

2. The "explanation" itself is something distinct from the premises upon which it relies.

For instance, Einstein may have started with the seemingly self-contradictory "fact" that we measure the speed of light to be the same, regardless of the relative motion of either the source or reciever. This is a "fact." It is a fact which seems to requires a theoretical explanation to be comprehensible (in light of our notion of, and acquaintance with the everyday perception that speeds of moving objects are additive, not constant, with respect to a stationary observer).

For example, if we, on the ground, see a guy on a train going north at the rate of 500 miles per hour throw a baseball at 100 miles/hour in a northerly direction, the ball will appear to be moving at 600 mph in a northerly direction to us. Conversely, if he throws the ball to the south, the ball will appear to be moving 400 mph (in a northerly direction) to us.

So how can we explain the results we get when we measure the speed of light? Here's where the (hypothetical) explanation, which is not, in itself, either an empirical fact or the fact to be explained, comes in.

Einstein says: Well, suppose that from the source's frame of reference, our measuring sticks shrunk and our clocks slowed down when we measured light, and that this distortion was caused by the motion itself. Let's further assume that, from our perspective, the measuring sticks and clocks on the sources frame of reference did the same. Then we could see why both frames of reference would measure the speed the same. So this is (or could be) the explanation.

It should be easy to see that the "theory" is not an empirical fact, but that is it rather a theoretical construct. The is true even though the theory necessarily refers to "factual" things (like clocks and measuring sticks), those "facts" are not "part of" the theory, they're such clocks and sticks, not "the special theory of relativity." It should also be easy to see that the (non-additive) measurment of the speed of light, the fact that Einstein is attempting to theoretically explain, is NOT the theory.

Anonymous said...

Edit: this was poorly phrased in my last post: "1. It cannot assume or "incorporate" the very fact is trying to explain as a fact."

It does "assume" it as a fact (which is why it is something that needs to be explained) but it does not "incorporate" it as "part of" the theory. It just tries to explain it. The theory may, in a very limited sense, "incorporate" factual assumptions about the existence of clocks, yardsticks, but those facts are merely presupposed referrents, not the theory, i.e., not what "explains" the phenomenon and not what "solves" the apparent problem.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said; One Brow said: "Gould know the Theory of Evolution was not a fact, he also said it was so well-confirmed that withholding dissent was perverse."


I guess that's what he was tryin to say in the other part I quoted, eh? To wit:

Evolutionists have been very clear about this distinction of fact and theory from the very beginning, if only because we have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred."

So the very "theory of evolution" which he claims falls far short of giving a complete understanding is also a "fact" by his definition? He is saying that the "fact" is that "evolution occurred," not that the theory itself meets his definition of a fact. I will wait until your search for a contradictory quote from Gould is complete to see if we should reevaluate what he clearly says here.

Anonymous said...

For what its worth, I recently read a paper by a physicist who claimed that the distortion of length which Einstein postulated has never been measured or observed (while noting that effects on clocks have been). Whether this is true or not, I don't personally know, but I will take the physicists word for it, at this point. This particular physicist was offering an alternate explanation for the facts Einstein was trying to explain in this respect, and I have seen others do the same (offer alternative, purportedly superior, explanations for some relativistic explanations of phenonemena).

The theory of relativity is, and will always remain, a "theory," no matter how many observations made be made that appear to be consistent with the conclusions it implies. It will never be a "fact." As I have already noted, even the NAS (in it's more candid moments) acknowledges this, when they say: "In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence."

Anonymous said...

Back to Einstein: One of his fundamental axioms (a metaphysical one) was the nothing could exceed the speed of light---that this is an absolute, unbreakable barrier according to his theory. He didn't have to posit this, he could have, for example, claimed that the notion of extention is absolutely immutable, that a yard always a true yard, no matter how fast you may be going. He still could have explained the problem, but, in that case, the maximum speed of light would also have to be variable, and not fixed at 186,000/miles per second.

Physicists have, of course, noted apparent violations of the "speed limit" law, which cannot be easily explained. There are cases where particles appear to tranverse space instaneously (at at infinite speed, if you will), and even where a particle appears to arrive at a location "before" it gets there (whatever that means).

But the point is that his theory contains (and must contain) some postulated (not empirically observed) metaphysical premises. If it didn't, nothing could be deduced from it.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "Natural selection is not a fact, but it is an observed, verified, certain mechanism."

Yeah, one reason that it not a "fact" (at least in the empirical sense) is because it is merely an abstract (mental) concept, not a "thing." But let's look beyond that. In what sense is natural selection a part of the "theory" of evolution?

Well, we have talked about scientific theories as being "explanations" of the facts. But, more specifically, scientific explanations (theories) deal in "causal" explanations. They attempt to answer the question: What factor or factors "cause" X, or Y to occur as it does?

Of great debate and uncertainty within the realm of modern evolutionary theory is the extent and degree that "natural selection" causes change. Once virtually the only (and virtually omnipotent) explanatory "cause," natural selection is being seen more and more as having a secondary, or even peripheral, influence on the course of evolutionary events. It's theoretical role is therefore far from "certain" (as we presume fact to be). Asking whether "natural selection occurs," is an entirely different question than asking "exactly what about the occurence (or existence) of natural selection causes evolution, and to what extent?" The latter is the theoretical question, the former is a mere "existential" (although the use of that term is rather oxymoronic in this context) question, which does not direct itself to the theory, or theoretical question, per se.

We are, after all, discussing the general topic of "scientific theories" here, what they are, what they are composed of, and how they are identified as such.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "the loss of one postulate is not a wholesale rejection of neo-Darwinism. It has been modified and added to." Without agreeing with your assessment of what neo-darwinism, as a theory, has lost, I would refer you to a statement of Popper's:

"Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers—for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status."

This is quoted from the wiki entry on "scientific theory." Given your statements in this thread, I would expect you to disagree with the majority of virtually every paragraph in it. I would nonetheless urge you to read it carefully and reflectfully, and then articulate your specific reasons for rejecting the elucidation of "scientific theory" which is presented there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Anonymous said...

I asked: "Now, from there, how do you get instinctive behavior in wasps which presupposes "knowledge" of the environment? From there, how does new information, of a highly complex nature, arise? From there, how do the means of transmitting that new information from DNA to RNA to enzyme (or whatever the hypothetical process is) develop?"

You answered: "Instincts are highly complex action/reaction cycles. Basic action/recation cycles are present in the very first living things. You seem to think there is some qualitative difference, but I see only a quantitative difference."

Do you think about these things, Eric, or do you just make a statement like this, and then simply eliminate the question from further occupation of your mind, satisified that it has been fully answered?

What, pray-tell, does that sentence "explain," and in what way does it answer the question? Assuming that "instincts highly complex action/reaction cycles," what does that even mean? Action of what? Reaction of what? Action of what? I'm assuming that you don't literally mean that an instinct *is* a cycle, but rather that itis the result of some cyclical pattern of cause and effect.

Anonymous said...

If you read the wiki article on scientific theory, you will see a reference to Stephen Pepper and his analysis of basic "world-views," each of which is based upon a "root metaphor," he claims. According to wiki, the chosen root metaphor "constrains how scientists theorize and model a phenomenon and thus arrive at testable hypotheses." At the time he wrote the book referred to, he claimed that there were four "adequate" world views, to wit:

1. Mechanism
2. Formalism
3. Organicism
4. Contextualism

Each of these are either synthetic or analytic in methodology, and either integrative or dispersive in character. Each has it's own "root metaphor," upon which the general world view is based. Each has its own set of postulated ontological categories to work with. Each has its own notion of causality and theory of truth (epistemology). He claims that any attempt to merge two or more of these "world-views" will only lead to confusion and contradiction, so that they are, in effect, mutually exclusive.

He says: "By a root metaphor, I mean an area of empirical observation which is the point of origin for a world hypothesis. When anyone has a problem before [her or] him and is at a loss how to handle it, [s]he looks about in [her or] his available experience for some analogy that might suggest a solution....The adequacy of the hypothesis then depends on the capacity of the categories to render interpretations of the features of our world with precision and unrestricted scope."

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/gthursby/0000/wldhyp.htm

He says that the first category, "mechanism," for example, uses the machine as it root metaphor as it's basis for interpreting and understanding the world. It's methodology is analytic, it's causality is deterministic, it's epistemological criterion is basically one of correspondence and it's ontology is basically nominalistic (proposing that only particulars "really" exist). I bring this world view up, in particular, mainly because it seems to fit you (and neo-darwinistic theorists).

In contrast, another of Pepper's "world-views," organicism, might seem to fit a lamarckian approach to evolutionary theory. According to Pepper, the root metaphor of organicism is the
process of organic development, as in living,
growing, organic systems. It's methodology is synthetic, it's causality tends to be teleological, it's epistemological criterion is coherence, and it's ontology is holistic (the "system" is the ultimate reality, not the particulars).

Reflection upon such analyses and considerations may help one understand what Dennet was trying to say when claiming there is no "value-free" science and that metaphysical baggage is always taken along for the ride (examined, or not).

Anonymous said...

There is a wiki entry for Pepper's book, "World hypotheses" which was subtitled "a study in evidence," which futher elaborates on Dennet's (Pepper's) point about metaphysical baggage. It says:

"In World Hypotheses, Pepper demonstrates the error of Logical Positivism, that there is no such thing as data free from interpretation, and that root metaphors are necessary in epistemology. In other words, objectivity is a myth because there is no such thing as pure, objective fact. Consequently, an analysis is necessary to understand how to interpret these 'facts.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Hypotheses

You may, or may not, find this to be a topic of further interest to you, I dunno. Kuhn is said to have based a lot of his thought on Pepper's analysis.

Anonymous said...

"Consequently, an analysis is necessary to understand how to interpret these 'facts.'"

I think most philosophers would agree that Gould's distinction of fact (the world's data) and theory is OK, so far as it goes, but certainly not complete, and possibly misleading. No "facts" are apparently from the "data" without the intermediate process of interpretation. It is actually our interpretations of data which are the so-called "facts" and it is those interpretations which we want to explain when constructing a theory.

Anonymous said...

Edit: Meant to say "no facts are apparent" (not apparently).

One Brow said...

But this was their 1999 version of opposition to creationism, which apparently they later felt was not sufficiently persuasive as a proproganda tool. So, they went plumb over the top in their 2008 version, it seems.

They did not claim the theory of evolution was a fact in the 2008 version.

One Brow said: "Nothing in Gould's quote exclude facts from being part of the theories."

Of course there is--facts and theories are categorically two different things.


You can be categorically different with one category being subsumed in another category. Saying someone is African is different from saying they are Egyptian, but the second is still contained in the first.

There are (1) facts and (2) theories which "explain" (not "are" or "contain") those facts. An explanation is not the "data," it merely refers to the data, by way of trying to explain it.

The explanantions that result from the theory can only be in the theory if the facts themsleves are.

Of course evolutionary theory, properly speaking, attempts to be a comprehensive explanation. My point is about the equivocal and misleading way in which NAS uses the term "theory" when it suits their purposes to do so. They are using it (not consistently) in the way you just described it--although they do give the appearance that they are.

??? I didn't get that sentence.

One Brow said: "Gould know the Theory of Evolution was not a fact, he also said it was so well-confirmed that withholding dissent was perverse."

Really!? Where did he say that? I defy to to support that claim with a quote from Gould. Gould knows better than to say that, but you don't, so you think it's what he "must" have said.


Sorry, I probably meant to put in "part of the Theory". Brain hiccup. Gould said that no biologist doubted its existence or importance of this theoretical mechanism.

However, why would you claim "Gould knows better than to say that'? Surely you're aware Gould felt theories could be so well-supported that it would be perverse to deny them.

One Brow said...

One Brow said: " I looked up ten different web pages, and none said facts were not a part of theories. If you really want to go with that, though, you can't claim epicycles are part of Ptolemic astronomy, beause epicycles only result after facts are incorporated."

I am trying to clarify some concepts for you, Eric, but your preconceptions seem to make this an impossible task.


Yeah, I have trouble with incorrect clarifications.

Did you find any websites that said "facts are part of the theory?"

I found none either way.

Epicyles are definitely part of the THEORY of ptolemic astronomy.

Epicycles are not predicted by Ptolemic astronomy sans the observations that require them.

They are not "part" of the orbit of the planet mars (the data). "Plolemic astronomy" does NOT exist in the world, it is a theory, and not "part of" the emipircally observed world. This is the distinction (between theory and fact--data--that you seem to be unable to make).

No, I agree with that paragraph. The disagreement is a distinction you are not making.

Just read some respected scientific theoreticians and philosophers on the topic, if you haven't already. It might prove enlightening to you, ya know?

You have a link to one that explicitly supports your view? The NAS pamphlet you quoted, and the book it is based on, support mine explicitly.

One Brow said: "Didn't you just tell me theoretical scientists don't say facts are part of theories (yes, I did), and then include Futuyma basically treating the fact as a part of the theory? (no, he did not do that) Self-contradicitons don't help you, even when you try to cast them as errors.

Futuyma described evolution as going from hypothesis to fact. However, a hypothesis is in the class of items as a theory, it's a statement of principles that may or may not include facts. As much as you dislike my formulation, I would think you would like Futuyma's even less.

Eric the point is that the term theory can be used to refer to 7 or 8 different concepts. Only one of those meanings of "theory" corresponds to a "scientific" theory. I am talking about semantical equivocation, you are trying to talk about ontological reality--which is why we're talking past each other. You can't seem to even grasp that there is a distinction between semantics and the concepts which one may try, with more or less semantical success, to unequivocally communicate to another party.

I ffind your continued attempts to tell me what I understand patronizing and ill-founded. Further, I would find this discussion of the contents of a theory to be neither semantical nor ontological, because we are discussing types of knowledge and how to classify them, it would be epistemological. Saying that a particular fact, or facts in general, are a part of theories affexts no sort of meaningful ontology, but there are discussion neither ontological nor semantical.

If you really care to understand what I'm saying, then I would suggest you re-read my posts with more care.

When you understand what I am posting better, perhaps your impression of my reading of your posts will improve.

One Brow said...

The term "theory" is sometimes used as an abstract generic reference to a subject matter, but that is not a "scientific theory."

I agree. This is why I find your insistence on treating scientific theories as if they were generic, fact-free references objectionable.

Same deal when (in other form of useage of the term theory) it is used to refer to a naked ontological hypothesis, devoid of specific theoretical content.

I don't know anyone who uses it that way.

You simply reiterate your ill-founded assertions regardless of any argument or authority to the contrary which I give you, Eric. We've been over this before, so I won't do it again. I will merely note your continuing penchant for trying to resolve substantive conceptual matters by resort to (dubious) semantical (definitional) claims.

Well, if you really have trouble understanding the difference between Formalwissenschaft and Naturalwissenschaft, and you keep on insisting as referring that my notion, my penchant, or my semantics, it's your problem.

I have come to gather that, just as you conceive the theory to be the facts,

Really, after all this time, all the denials, all the corrections, all the explanations, that's just rude and insulting.

you also think that the linguistic definition is (or determines) the ontological/conceptual reality of the object/concept under review.

I that that formal systems and sciences are fundamentally different, irreconciable, and incompatible. You can use both, but they don't mix, like oil and vinegar. My position is hardly unique. Your apparent ignorance thereof is not persuasive.

I can remember you claiming that nothing about neo-darwinism claimed that mutation had to be random.

They are not random, but chemically determined.

I knew then that you had no extended idea of the development, origin, and history of the neo-darwinistic theory, nor of its expressed postulates, as promulagated by its adherents and proponents, over the last 70-80 years.

Your inability to disguish between the metaphysical randomness and the biological randomness has lead you to many erroneous conclusions concerning me.

One Brow said...

2. The sine qua non of neo-darwinism (as opposed to say, lamarckism or vitalism) is the INSISTENCE, as a basic axiom, that all mutation is random.

Only with respect ot the needs of the organism.

Yes, this is a metaphysical claim,

Your can't arbitrarily re-define biological (epistemological) randomness to be metaphysical. Arbitrary semantical changes don't impress you, why would you think they impress me?

but it was nonetheless incorporated into the "scientific theory," as such things invariably are. It would a huge error to say that scientific theories contain no metaphysical assumptions, because they all do, in one form or another.

They do not, however, contain this particular one.

That's what you seem to think is possible when you suggest that the "scientific theory" is distinct from any and all metaphysical assumptions.

I didn't say "any and all metaphysical assumptions".

What is there to prove? Darwin knew and said it, and so does every other rational person who understands what "natural selection" is intended to mean. It does NOT create information, life, variation, or anything else (NAS's mis-statements to the contrary notwithstanding).

Not on it's own. It does create it as part of the process.

That's inherent in the very concept, and there is no need for proof (although those who misunderstand the concept my think there is, and demand proof).

No proof. Got it.

Do you think "natural selection" is a gene, or an organism, or some type of all-powerful supernatural agent that "creates" (rather than "selects from") variation?

Nope.

Let me give a simple example. A theoretical explanation can, of course, assume certain things to be true, as a matter of fact, or otherwise. In fact it has to do this. But, that said:

1. It cannot "incorporate" the very fact is trying to explain as a fact, and

2. The "explanation" itself is something distinct from the premises upon which it relies.


So, you decide to put the explanation outside the thoery after all. I'm comfortable with that view, actually. Epicycles were the explanation of Ptolemic astronomy, as you have just described it, not part of the theory. It's not how I would use it, but it is at least consistent.

One Brow said...

For what its worth, I recently read a paper by a physicist who claimed that the distortion of length which Einstein postulated has never been measured or observed (while noting that effects on clocks have been). Whether this is true or not, I don't personally know, but I will take the physicists word for it, at this point.

The difficulty of accelerating a yardstick to .1c and then measuring it would be considerable. YOu can see the effect on clocks because they can be accelerated and decelerated, and record the passage. Yardsticks can't.

The theory of relativity is, and will always remain, a "theory," no matter how many observations made be made that appear to be consistent with the conclusions it implies. It will never be a "fact." As I have already noted, even the NAS (in it's more candid moments) acknowledges this, when they say: "In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence."

Do you think this changes the level of certainty regarding the theory?

Back to Einstein: One of his fundamental axioms (a metaphysical one) was the nothing could exceed the speed of light---...But the point is that his theory contains (and must contain) some postulated (not empirically observed) metaphysical premises. If it didn't, nothing could be deduced from it.

That statement is not metaphysical, but epistemological, being based on experiemental observation.

Yeah, one reason that it not a "fact" (at least in the empirical sense) is because it is merely an abstract (mental) concept, not a "thing." But let's look beyond that. In what sense is natural selection a part of the "theory" of evolution?... It's theoretical role is therefore far from "certain" (as we presume fact to be).

Since when is the theoretical role of fact a certain thing? That's a very ignorant statement to make.

Asking whether "natural selection occurs," is an entirely different question than asking "exactly what about the occurence (or existence) of natural selection causes evolution, and to what extent?" The latter is the theoretical question,

They are both theoretical questions. Natural selection is a mechanism, a theory, and will always be such. It will never be fact. Facts and theories are different things, remember?

One Brow said...

"Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers—for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status."

The inclusion of new mechanisms is not an ad hoc reinterpretation.

This is quoted from the wiki entry on "scientific theory." Given your statements in this thread, I would expect you to disagree with the majority of virtually every paragraph in it.

That you so expect is your ignorance.

Do you think about these things, Eric, or do you just make a statement like this, and then simply eliminate the question from further occupation of your mind, satisified that it has been fully answered?

From what I can tell, I put more though into my answers than you do into the reading of them.

Assuming that "instincts highly complex action/reaction cycles," what does that even mean? Action of what? Reaction of what? Action of what? I'm assuming that you don't literally mean that an instinct *is* a cycle, but rather that itis the result of some cyclical pattern of cause and effect.

Different instinctual behaviors will be reactions to different events. Envronmental and internal stimuli trigger events. I don't pretend to have all the details. I'm still waiting to hear the qualitative difference between the active/reactive cycle of an ameoba and a wasp.



The difficulty of accelerating a yardstick to .1c and then measuring it would be considerable. YOu can see the effect on clocks because they can be accelerated and decelerated, and record the passage. Yardsticks can't.

I bring this world view up, in particular, mainly because it seems to fit you (and neo-darwinistic theorists).

As usual, I find your determination of me incorrect.

Anonymous said...

Same deal when (in other form of useage of the term theory) it is used to refer to a naked ontological hypothesis, devoid of specific theoretical content.

I don't know anyone who uses it that way.

NAS does. They imply that "germ theory" is the "theory" (which it aint, at least not in the sense of a scientific theory, which they are referring to) that germs can cause disease. They do the same with atomic theory, evolutionary theory, and ptolemic theory.

Its like my "theory of cats," when used this way. It is the deliberate equivocation that is bothersome here, not the mere fact that they are using loose language (hypothesis is the more appropriate term here, although "theory" is sometimes substituted in informal discourse).

=====

Of course evolutionary theory, properly speaking, attempts to be a comprehensive explanation. My point is about the equivocal and misleading way in which NAS uses the term "theory" when it suits their purposes to do so. They are using it (not consistently) in the way you just described it--although they do give the appearance that they are.

??? I didn't get that sentence.

It contains a typo, but I don't know if that's the reason you don't get it. I meant to say: "They are NOT using it (consistently) in the way you just described it--although they do give the appearance that they are."

They try to give the impression that theories are fact (or factual) by equivocal use of the term "theory."

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "Well, if you really have trouble understanding the difference between Formalwissenschaft and Naturalwissenschaft, and you keep on insisting as referring that my notion, my penchant, or my semantics, it's your problem."

I understand the difference, but not the conclusions you appear to draw from your definition of (or distinction between) the two.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "I that that formal systems and sciences are fundamentally different, irreconciable, and incompatible. You can use both, but they don't mix, like oil and vinegar. My position is hardly unique. Your apparent ignorance thereof is not persuasive."

This illustrates my point. Read the wiki page on "scientific theory" and tell me where they are wrong. If you are claiming that you can't mix "math" or "logic" with an empirical science, then you best quit toutin population genetics as "scientific" and every other empirical scientific discipline, for that matter. Although science must use inductive logic in drawing its ultimate (inconclusive) conclusions, it uses deductive logic in its attempts to "falsify" theories, and in every other aspect of its analysis.

Anonymous said...

I said: I can remember you claiming that nothing about neo-darwinism claimed that mutation had to be random.

You responded: They are not random, but chemically determined.

Another perfect example of your penchant for equivocation which allows you to choose between asserting that mutations are random or non-random, depending on the point you want to "prove" at any given moment.

Random with respect to the needs of the organism does NOT mean "not chemically determined" but when I am talking about the first meaning, you talk about the second meaning, and pretend we are using the term in the same way, in an attempt to say that I am wrong in my chosen useage. Is it just all a "word game" for you, Eric?

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "Do you think this changes the level of certainty regarding the theory?"

Yeah (and no). No in the sense that there is no "certainty" about the matter, either before or after extensive experimentation. Yes, in the sense that the more that attempts falsify a theory fail to do so, the more subjective confidence one may place in the theory (with respect to it's internal consistency and coherence, anyway). As noted, ptolemic astronomy was, and is, a powerful model for predictive purposes, but that says nothing, per se, about how "factual" it is.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "Your can't arbitrarily re-define biological (epistemological) randomness to be metaphysical."

No, I can't. And likewise, you can't arbitrarily redefine the ontological notion of randomness (with respect to the needs of the organism) which neo-darwinism has espoused from it's inception as merely a reference to "epistemological" randomness.

Lewontin, seein that the word "random," standing alone, might be misinterpeted as mere epistemological randomness, suggested that the term "capricious" was more appropriate. He was talkin about "nature" as a whole at the time, I think, but his observations would apply to what the neo-darwinists INTENDED "random" to mean in the context of their theory as well.

Anonymous said...

One of his fundamental axioms (a metaphysical one) was the nothing could exceed the speed of light---

"That statement is not metaphysical, but epistemological, being based on experiemental observation."

Eric, this is where you are just wrong, in my opinion. You fail to discern the utter circularity of such a claim for one thing. How you arrive at your your measurement of the speed of light is itself in issue. The issue of how--with what kinda clocks and measurin sticks--immutable, absolute ones, or variable ones, arises, and this issue must be resolved before you can assess the proper "meaning" of your measurment.

Secondly, no matter how many times you measured the speed of light, no such measurement could "tell" you that the speed you measured couldn't possibly be exceeded. That is merely a theoretical axiom.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "They are both theoretical questions. Natural selection is a mechanism, a theory, and will always be such. It will never be fact. Facts and theories are different things, remember?"

More equivocation involving the term "theory," eh? Natural selection is NOT a theory in the sense of a "scientific theory." As I have noted, it is an abstract, mental concept, not a thing, and some people might therefore say it is "theorectical" (although I wouldn't characterize it as such). This is just more quibbling, in any event. You either see the point I was making about the "theoretical" aspect of natural selection, or you don't. If you don't, it's probably just because you would rather stop trying to understand as soon as you see what you percieve to be a basis for some semantical quibble. The quibble-fodder becomes paramount, and the point gets lost or ignored.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: " I'm still waiting to hear the qualitative difference between the active/reactive cycle of an ameoba and a wasp."

Well, I'm still waitin for some eludication of what that's even supposed to mean. Until then, I can't really address it. I can't see where such a claim is even relevant to the question, which was about lamarckian (as opposed to random) presuppositions about the source of genetic variation. And, your reference to an unspecified "process" notwithstanding, I am unable to comprehend any suggestion that natural selection does (or can) do anything to create genetic novelty. Such a claim contradicts the very concept of "natural selection," as I understand it.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "I'm still waiting to hear the qualitative difference between the active/reactive cycle of an ameoba and a wasp."

One of Pepper's "world hypothesis" categories, which I didn't go into is formalism, which has "similarity" as it's root metaphor. To oversimplify, in this view, similarity is the primary way to understand reality--similar things belong in similar classes and are the same things, in that respect.

Your question strikes me as one that might be asked by a formalist, somehow. I don't even know what you're talking about, but let's assume that their is no "qualitative difference" between one active/reactive cycle and another. Then, so what? What would that explain about wasps diggin holes for their eggs, etc.? How would this rule in the darwinian notion of blind random mutation and rule out any lamarckian notion that an organism can somehow "learn" from it's environment and that some of the information gained can be transmitted to offspring?

Anonymous said...

This question was imprecise: "How would this rule in the darwinian notion of blind random mutation and rule out any lamarckian notion that an organism can somehow "learn" from it's environment and that some of the information gained can be transmitted to offspring?"

I shouldn't have said "darwinian," because Darwin himself proposed a lamarckian answer to the question, i.e., that the acquired habits of the parents could be hereditarily transmitted to the offspring. Neo-darwinian (Weissmannian) is what I should've said.

Anonymous said...

I said: "Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers—for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by reinterpreting the theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status."

You responded: "The inclusion of new mechanisms is not an ad hoc reinterpretation."

Is it the introduction of an ad hoc auxiliary assumption? If neo-darwinism started out with the assertion that all inheritance was strictly gene-centric and strictly deterministic and that later turns out to be false, how is the original theory "saved." If it asserts, a priori, that development cannot influence evoluton and that later turns out to be false, how is it saved? If it posits that evolutionary change is gradual and always ongoing (uniformitarian) but punctuated equilibrium appears more likely, how is it saved?

The easy answer for you is that neo-darwinism has not been saved, it has been abandoned. OK, so what the all-encompassing theory with univeral applicability now, with respect to putative "evolutionary theory?"

A long list of proposed "mechanisms" each of which may interact with each other in unspecified ways and each of which "may" play some role (undefined in quantitative terms) in "causing" evolution does not make a "scientific theory." It merely constitutes a summary of research results and hypotheses derived therefrom which are in need of an all-encompassing theory. It is not a theory of physical mechanics to vaguely say that a variety of diverse "forces," acting in unspecified, ununited ways, somehow "cause" physical changes.

Anonymous said...

If want to say that scientists "study" evolution, then of course I would agree with you. If you want to call this study, or the data derived therefrom, "evolutionary theory," then I would disagree. That is not a theory, at least not a "scientific theory."

Anonymous said...

After Gould formulated his PE theory (which Mayr said revealed conclusions not predicted by, and totally unexpected by neo-darwinian theory, such as long-term stasis among species), he tried to retain the "darwinian" tag by insisting that "darwinism" did not require gradual change. He said this even though he knew that Darwin insisted that his theory, if accurate, had to assume gradual change. Gould pointed out that Huxley and other strongly advised him to drop "gradualness" as a essential element of his theory, but he refused. Gould's point was apparently that he "should have" listened to Huxley, and that he "could have" taken Huxley's advise and still have a viable theory, so, in true revisionist form, non-gradualism was not really non-darwinian. This is the kind of thing Popper presumably had in mind when he talked about "admirers" reinterpreting a theory, ad hoc.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "The difficulty of accelerating a yardstick to .1c and then measuring it would be considerable. YOu can see the effect on clocks because they can be accelerated and decelerated, and record the passage. Yardsticks can't."

Well, Eric, I don't think that's the reason that the postulated foreshortening of length in the direction of motion aint been seen, eh?

For one thing, we don't have to accelerate anything. We only need relative motion between us and some measurable object. Remember, the distortion to be observed is NOT within our own frame of reference (say the earth), but in the other (relatively) moving object. And secondly, a "yardstick" is simply an example. It is not only a yardstick which should display this distortion, but the object itself and everything traveling with it.

One Brow said...

Anonymous said...

I was a little grumpy yesterday. Sorry.

NAS does. They imply that "germ theory" is the "theory" (which it aint, at least not in the sense of a scientific theory, which they are referring to) that germs can cause disease. They do the same with atomic theory, evolutionary theory, and ptolemic theory.

Germs causing disease *is* a theory. When you say 'only/mostly people infected with the varicella virus show this particular list of symptoms we call chickenpox", that is a fact. We you say that the virus invades the cells and causes the disease, that is a mechanism, an explanation, a theory. After all this time, all these pages, all those times when you have repeated this distinction to me, how can you misunderstand this?

It is the deliberate equivocation that is bothersome here, not the mere fact that they are using loose language (hypothesis is the more appropriate term here, although "theory" is sometimes substituted in informal discourse).

The only difference between hypothesis and theory is level of confirmation/confidence/certainty.

I meant to say: "They are NOT using it (consistently) in the way you just described it--although they do give the appearance that they are."

They try to give the impression that theories are fact (or factual) by equivocal use of the term "theory."


By "factual", they mean 'certain, reliable, trustworthy, and should be considered an accurate depiciton of reality', as far as I can tell. However, let me ask you this: what advantage can be gained by saying evoltuion is a fact as opposed to a theory that is not already true anyhow?

One Brow said: "Well, if you really have trouble understanding the difference between Formalwissenschaft and Naturalwissenschaft, and you keep on insisting as referring that my notion, my penchant, or my semantics, it's your problem."

I understand the difference, but not the conclusions you appear to draw from your definition of (or distinction between) the two.


OK, I can work with that. You seem intent on defining scientific theories as being highly abstracted and generally disconnect from the facts. Theories are then combined with facts to make predicitnos and interpretations, and basically accepted rejected as an entirety, because any untrue conclusion casts doubt on the whole theory. If ind that to be characteristic of formal theories. I see scientific theories as being reasonable approximations that generally hold true, that incorporate facts as well as mechanisms and explanations, and that can be expanded with new mechanisms as these new mechanisms are discovered.

This illustrates my point. Read the wiki page on "scientific theory" and tell me where they are wrong.

We have quoted different parts of that page against each other.

If you are claiming that you can't mix "math" or "logic" with an empirical science, then you best quit toutin population genetics as "scientific" and every other empirical scientific discipline, for that matter. Although science must use inductive logic in drawing its ultimate (inconclusive) conclusions, it uses deductive logic in its attempts to "falsify" theories, and in every other aspect of its analysis.

Actually, I would say that the math in science is a usefull tool, but is not integral to the science itself. Even the deuctive logic of science is often highly informal, without the science suffering. Again, it's like salad dressing: different salads may call for different proportions of oil and vinegar.

One Brow said...

I said: I can remember you claiming that nothing about neo-darwinism claimed that mutation had to be random.

You responded: They are not random, but chemically determined.

Another perfect example of your penchant for equivocation which allows you to choose between asserting that mutations are random or non-random, depending on the point you want to "prove" at any given moment.


To be clear: the metaphysical status of mutaitons is non-random. All known mutations are random, as best we can tell, with regard to the needs of the organism. However, "the needs of the organism' is an epistemological construct, not a metaphysical property. So, any time you try to discuss the centrality of the metaphysical randomness of mutations, I will respond they are not random ion that sense, and that metaphysical randomness is not a part of neo-Darwinism and was never a central requirement thereof.

Is it just all a "word game" for you, Eric?

Metaphysical randomness implies design via front-loading, for example, is impossible. I see that as an unscientific statement. Epistemological randomness is viewable from within methodological naturalism, regardless of your metaphysical views. I do not think this distinction is mere semantics when we are discussing the metaphysical foundations or implications of a theory.

One Brow said: "Do you think this changes the level of certainty regarding the theory?"

Yeah (and no). No in the sense that there is no "certainty" about the matter, either before or after extensive experimentation. Yes, in the sense that the more that attempts falsify a theory fail to do so, the more subjective confidence one may place in the theory (with respect to it's internal consistency and coherence, anyway). As noted, ptolemic astronomy was, and is, a powerful model for predictive purposes, but that says nothing, per se, about how "factual" it is.


If Ptolemic astronomy had remained a powerful predictive theory, it would not have been supplanted. It ws because, even after adding several rounds of epicycles, new anomolies kept arising, while the much more parsimonious heliocentric ellipses explained the data and was validated by further observations. If we waqnted to use Ptolemic constructs to explain planetary motion today, we could, but it would still have to match the prediction of GR down to the current level of data, and would probably still need corrections for new observations.

Also, it really seems you regard theories as being less certain than facts. If so, you missed the whole point of Gould's essay. You can be just as certain of a theory as you can of any given fact. Both can be confirmed to the point where it is not reasonable to doubt them. Both are still provisional and subject to further invesitigation.

No, I can't. And likewise, you can't arbitrarily redefine the ontological notion of randomness (with respect to the needs of the organism) which neo-darwinism has espoused from it's inception as merely a reference to "epistemological" randomness.

The randomness of the mutation is ontological (being a description of a property of the randomness) and epistemological (this property resulting from an invesigation of knowledge and circumstance, as opposed innate). That is how you wanted the terms to be used, by my understanding.

One Brow said...

"That statement is not metaphysical, but epistemological, being based on experiemental observation."

Eric, this is where you are just wrong, in my opinion. You fail to discern the utter circularity of such a claim for one thing. How you arrive at your your measurement of the speed of light is itself in issue. The issue of how--with what kinda clocks and measurin sticks--immutable, absolute ones, or variable ones, arises, and this issue must be resolved before you can assess the proper "meaning" of your measurment.

Secondly, no matter how many times you measured the speed of light, no such measurement could "tell" you that the speed you measured couldn't possibly be exceeded. That is merely a theoretical axiom.


The specfic axioms used in constucting a model of special relativity (among the general physics axioms) were the indistinguishability of inertial frames and the *constancy*, not maximality, of the speed of light. Both were the result of experiemtns design to detect them. Maximality of c is a currently untestable prediciton of the equations, not an axiom. Special relativity was an entirely epistemological construct.

I would even agree that as an untestable prediction, saying teh speed of light is a maximum speed is not strictly scientific.

Aintnuthin said: Asking whether "natural selection occurs," is an entirely different question than asking "exactly what about the occurence (or existence) of natural selection causes evolution, and to what extent?" The latter is the theoretical question,

One Brow said: "They are both theoretical questions. Natural selection is a mechanism, a theory, and will always be such. It will never be fact. Facts and theories are different things, remember?"

More equivocation involving the term "theory," eh? Natural selection is NOT a theory in the sense of a "scientific theory."


Name one property of scientific theories that is not true of natural selection, in your mind.

As I have noted, it is an abstract, mental concept, not a thing, and some people might therefore say it is "theorectical" (although I wouldn't characterize it as such). This is just more quibbling, in any event. You either see the point I was making about the "theoretical" aspect of natural selection, or you don't.

I see the point you are trying to make. I disagree with, and you usage does not seem consistent with how the scientists I read use the term. Mechanisms and explanations are theoretical constructs, not factual constructs. Natural selection is a mechanism, and thus theoretical.

One Brow said: " I'm still waiting to hear the qualitative difference between the active/reactive cycle of an ameoba and a wasp."

Well, I'm still waitin for some eludication of what that's even supposed to mean. Until then, I can't really address it. I can't see where such a claim is even relevant to the question, which was about lamarckian (as opposed to random) presuppositions about the source of genetic variation.


I don't see the need to have a special explanation for the instincts of a wasp, because they are more complex versions of the action/reaction cycle similar to what you see in an amoeba, refined through billions of years iof variation and selection.

And, your reference to an unspecified "process" notwithstanding, I am unable to comprehend any suggestion that natural selection does (or can) do anything to create genetic novelty. Such a claim contradicts the very concept of "natural selection," as I understand it.

Not novelty, but useful information. The novelty is created by mutations (whether in DNA or otherwise). The useful information is sifted out by selection.

One Brow said...

One Brow said: "I'm still waiting to hear the qualitative difference between the active/reactive cycle of an ameoba and a wasp."

One of Pepper's "world hypothesis" categories, which I didn't go into is formalism, which has "similarity" as it's root metaphor. To oversimplify, in this view, similarity is the primary way to understand reality--similar things belong in similar classes and are the same things, in that respect.


I did a little research, and I presume you mean formism.

How would this rule in the darwinian notion of blind random mutation and rule out any lamarckian notion that an organism can somehow "learn" from it's environment and that some of the information gained can be transmitted to offspring?

It doesn't. I don't think you can use the existence of instinct to 'rule in' Weissmanism over Lamarckism (there are other reasons for that). Also, it's not really learning, in that every ancestor of the wasp followed exactly what the reaction cycle dictated. The information comes from a failure rate well over 99.9% in the long term. Instincts are compatible with Weissmanism, but they do not favor it.

You responded: "The inclusion of new mechanisms is not an ad hoc reinterpretation."

Is it the introduction of an ad hoc auxiliary assumption?


No. An ad-hoc auxilliary assumption would be a third level of epicycle, after two levels are insufficient. The theory didn't have it before, but it didn't really change anything. I'm sure with a billion level of epicycles you could still find make Ptolemic astronomy fit the known data.

If neo-darwinism started out with the assertion that all inheritance was strictly gene-centric and strictly deterministic and that later turns out to be false, how is the original theory "saved."

By adding the new mechanism for inheritence (you seem to be using gene in a different sense than earioer, BTW). Genuinely new mechanisms do not necessarily strengthen or weaken a theory, the proof is in the preditiveness.

If it asserts, a priori, that development cannot influence evoluton and that later turns out to be false, how is it saved? If it posits that evolutionary change is gradual and always ongoing (uniformitarian) but punctuated equilibrium appears more likely, how is it saved?

That would be, and was, fatal to neo-Darwinism (but not evolution).

A long list of proposed "mechanisms" each of which may interact with each other in unspecified ways and each of which "may" play some role (undefined in quantitative terms) in "causing" evolution does not make a "scientific theory."

What is the maximal list size?

It merely constitutes a summary of research results and hypotheses derived therefrom which are in need of an all-encompassing theory. It is not a theory of physical mechanics to vaguely say that a variety of diverse "forces," acting in unspecified, ununited ways, somehow "cause" physical changes.

You think your description is not true of physics, sans the "vague" part? Even then, physics is vague in many areas. Evolution is also vague and not vague in many areas.

If want to say that scientists "study" evolution, then of course I would agree with you. If you want to call this study, or the data derived therefrom, "evolutionary theory," then I would disagree. That is not a theory, at least not a "scientific theory."

I agree study, and the results thereof, do not make a theory in and of themselves.

After Gould formulated his PE theory ... he tried to retain the "darwinian" tag by insisting that "darwinism" did not require gradual change. ... This is the kind of thing Popper presumably had in mind when he talked about "admirers" reinterpreting a theory, ad hoc.

Gould PE theory does have gradual change, just not as gradual as neo-Darwinian. I think that Gould was correct in saying that Darwin never ruled out the possibility of times of stasis, but I could be wrong.

One Brow said...

Well, Eric, I don't think that's the reason that the postulated foreshortening of length in the direction of motion aint been seen, eh?

For one thing, we don't have to accelerate anything. We only need relative motion between us and some measurable object.


However, we can only see foreshortening by comparison of the object in the .1c or so reference frame to it, or an identical copy, in our inertial reference frame, and the object so accelerated has to be large enough to overcome the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle with regard to measurement error. I don't know if that is even possible today.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "Germs causing disease *is* a theory."

Yeah, and a hunch *is* a theory, under one useage of the term, so what?

How can you continue to miss my point about misleading equivocation, I wonder? Neither of the above is a "scientific theory," in the sense NAS defines the term elsewhere and in the sense it is trying to misleadingly convey in their anti-creationist pamphlet. That's the point.

Let's look again at how wiki defines the "germ theory of disease:" "The germ theory of disease is a theory that proposes that microorganisms are the cause of many diseases."

Used in this sense, it is a mere hypothesis devoid of any broad explanatory content. The corresponding definition of "evolutionary theory" that they are using is that "evolution occurred." You have already conceded that this is NOT a scientific theory, so what do you persist?

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "The only difference between hypothesis and theory is level of confirmation/confidence/certainty"

The onliest difference, eh? Ya think? That aint what wiki says.

"Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory...In common usage in the 21st century, a hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit requires evaluation. For proper evaluation, the framer of a hypothesis needs to define specifics in operational terms... Normally, scientific hypotheses have the form of a mathematical model...Any useful hypothesis will enable predictions by reasoning (including deductive reasoning)."

Given all of that, the suggestion that atoms exist or that evolution occurred wouldn't even qualify as a hypothesis. I spoze it would in this sense, though (also from wiki): "People refer to a trial solution to a problem as a hypothesis — often called an "educated guess."

Either way, it aint no scientific theory, and more than the level of confidence/certainly/confirmation distinguishes the two. You can call an "educated guess" a theory, if you want, you can call it a "hypothesis," if you want. Whatever you call it, it will NOT be a scientific theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "Also, it really seems you regard theories as being less certain than facts. If so, you missed the whole point of Gould's essay. You can be just as certain of a theory as you can of any given fact. Both can be confirmed to the point where it is not reasonable to doubt them. Both are still provisional and subject to further invesitigation."

Sure, you can be (subjectively) just as certain that God exists as you can be that you, yourself exist. But is such "certainty" justified? I completely disagree with what you think is "the whole point" of Gould's essay. He expressly, specifically, emphatically, and repeatedly says otherwise, at least with respect to the "theory of evolution." I don't see how you can read it in precisely the opposite way that I do. Did you ever find the quote I defied you to find?

Anonymous said...

You should read what Pepper says about utter skepticsim and dogmatism. He claims both are simply a self-contradictory attempt to avoid uncertainty and are based on faith. Basically he defines a dogmatist as one who claims certainty beyond his evidential grounds for doing so.

One can declare his absolute "certainty" until the cows come home, but it really will not add one ounce of additional evidence for his claims.

One Brow said...

How can you continue to miss my point about misleading equivocation, I wonder?

I'm not. I just think you are wrong.

Let's look again at how wiki defines the "germ theory of disease:" "The germ theory of disease is a theory that proposes that microorganisms are the cause of many diseases."

Used in this sense, it is a mere hypothesis devoid of any broad explanatory content.


It's a one-sentence summary of a long list of diseases to which the theory applies, the germs that cause them, the methos the germs have for entering and multiplying within the body, etc.

The corresponding definition of "evolutionary theory" that they are using is that "evolution occurred." You have already conceded that this is NOT a scientific theory, so what do you persist?

The are not the same. When you say 'evolution occured', that means you can look at a population, make measurements and gather data, and then look at a descendent populaiton, take similar measurements and get different results. I agree that is all fact, no explanation, no mechanism, no theory. The equivlent for germ would be to look at people with and without, say, chickenpox, and note the relative density of the varicella virus in their bloodstream. That would be all fact, no explanation, no mechanism, no theory.

As soon as you say 'varicella caused the chickenpox', you have entered the realm of theory, dipped a toe in so to speak. Of course, the real theory comes in how the virus is spread between people, what it does in the body, what the body does in response, etc. The equivalent for evolution is not 'evolution happened', but 'the difference is a result of (for example) genetic drift'. This is also a statement of theory.

I don't understand why you don'ty see the difference in the statements discussed in those paragraphs, or if you do see it, why you don't think the second statements are theory as scientists and thje wiki entries use the term, while those in the first paragraph are not.

The onliest difference, eh? Ya think? That aint what wiki says.

"Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously in common and informal usage, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory...In common usage in the 21st century, a hypothesis refers to a provisional idea whose merit requires evaluation. For proper evaluation, the framer of a hypothesis needs to define specifics in operational terms... Normally, scientific hypotheses have the form of a mathematical model...Any useful hypothesis will enable predictions by reasoning (including deductive reasoning)."


Outside of the "provisional" aspect, which part of that is not true of a theory?

Given all of that, the suggestion that atoms exist or that evolution occurred wouldn't even qualify as a hypothesis.

I agree. Nor would the statement sick people have lots of germs.

Either way, it aint no scientific theory, and more than the level of confidence/certainly/confirmation distinguishes the two.

OK. What else?

An unsupported object of the factual type is a speculation. An unsupported object of the theoretical type is a hypothesis.

You can call an "educated guess" a theory, if you want, you can call it a "hypothesis," if you want. Whatever you call it, it will NOT be a scientific theory.

Absolutely. When it ceases to be a guess, it can be a theory. Not before.

One Brow said...

Sure, you can be (subjectively) just as certain that God exists as you can be that you, yourself exist.

Neither position is scientific, though, and of course we were discussing science.

Did you ever find the quote I defied you to find?

You mean, the one I admitted I misunderstood? Or, the one where Gould does in fact refer to a particular theory as being accepted every biologist?

You should read what Pepper says about utter skepticsim and dogmatism.

I read a summary and agreed with what I read.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "To be clear: the metaphysical status of mutaitons is non-random."

Well, that is a statement of *your* metaphysics, which is fine, but we aint talkin about that. We are talkin about the metaphysical status of randomness as such is incorporated into the neo-darwinistic paradigm. There the randomness of mutations is ontological, i.e, it is the way things "are," is the sense of being capricious, and not a mere matter of "unpredictability" from an epistemological standpoint. They never say (and will never say) that whether or not a particular mutation is "directed," and produced because the organism needs it, can, and does happen, but that we simply can't predict when it will occur for that reason. Their metaphysical (ontological) stance is that no mutation is EVER produced because it would benefit the organism, not that it happens in some fashion which is unpredictable to us.

Anonymous said...

One Brow said: "Metaphysical randomness implies design via front-loading, for example, is impossible."

I'm really having trouble understanding what you mean by all you say about (and the distinctions you are trying to draw between) metaphysical and empistemological randomness.

But if I read this statement right, then you are in 100% agreement with the neo-darwinists, and you too adopt their metaphysics on this count, if you agree with it. If you reject it, OK, but, again, then you're just expressing your disagreement with the position of neo-darwinism on this issue. Their claim and presupposition is that design via front-loading is indeed impossible--not within the realm of possibility. That is an ontological stance and it is metaphysical in character.

One Brow said...

Well, that is a statement of *your* metaphysics, which is fine, but we aint talkin about that. We are talkin about the metaphysical status of randomness as such is incorporated into the neo-darwinistic paradigm.

I am fairly sure that would be unknown, at least initially. It was probably a decade before they discovered the metaphysical, chemical causes of mutation.

There the randomness of mutations is ontological, i.e, it is the way things "are," is the sense of being capricious, and not a mere matter of "unpredictability" from an epistemological standpoint.

The capriciousness is also from an epistemological viewpoint. They had little data on the metaphysical nature of the changes.

They never say (and will never say) that whether or not a particular mutation is "directed," and produced because the organism needs it, can, and does happen, but that we simply can't predict when it will occur for that reason. Their metaphysical (ontological) stance is that no mutation is EVER produced because it would benefit the organism, not that it happens in some fashion which is unpredictable to us.

I would still refer to that as an epistemological statement, because it rests on epistemological notions like 'benefit the organism'.

One Brow said...

I'm really having trouble understanding what you mean by all you say about (and the distinctions you are trying to draw between) metaphysical and empistemological randomness.

Metaphysical would describe the basic nature of an event. Chemical changes would be predicable, not random, and the basic nature of most mutations are changes in chemistry.

Terms like 'benefit the organism' or 'harm the organism' are values that can be attached to the same mutation in different environments. Since they are not basic to the nature of the change, but must be assigned in accordance with knowledge of the environment, I consider those labels epistemological.

Their claim and presupposition is that design via front-loading is indeed impossible--not within the realm of possibility. That is an ontological stance and it is metaphysical in character.

I agree the stance is metaphysical. However, you won't it in scientific papers or talks. I can't even see how you could formulate a testable hyp0osthesis or form a speculation based on that. It was help by many scientists (and not held by other neo-Darwinists), but it was not part of neo-Darwinism per se.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 208   Newer› Newest»