posted
Now words only mean one thing, Xap? And no, proof does not only mean one thing. Tell that to the lawyers. Nigh every field of inquiry has its own standards of proof. That you are too limited to understand the necessity of this isn't their fault.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: This comes about because science is a subset of reality that does not admit untestables.
I have to take issue with this statement. "Science" as a pure paradigm of viewing the universe with dispassionate, objective researchers reviewing one another's work simply does not exist. All of the advances made in science require faith of the exact same variety as religious faith. Hopefully this faith leads to one being able to successfully elucidate a testable theory and from thence to the acquisition of knowledge, but often it does not because the scientist in question has a flawed understanding of the phenomenon, or in other words his faith is vain- the little model of the phenomenon that he built in his head is wrong.
Let me give some examples of basic fundamental scientific assertions which are untestable or are still held in the face of evidence to the contrary:
1) Life originated by strictly materialistic, mechanical and chemical means.
There is absolutely no proof that this is the case. In fact, every theory of abiogenesis which has been proposed has run into insurmountable difficulties.
2) Evolution is driven solely by random mutation and natural selection.
We know that evolution can occur by these means, but are they really the sole driving factors? And if so, why isn't there overwhelming evidence of such in the fossil record? We know that according to the fossil record overwhelmingly a creature appears, remains unchanged in its skeletal structure for a million years, give or take, and then disappears to be replaced by a very different creature filling the same ecological niche. For this reason "punctuated equilibrium" has become a popular evolutionary paradigm. Well, punctuated equilibrium may very well be how evolution prceeds, but most rationally people would be loathe to accept a theory for which there is no evidence because the changes happen too quickly to be seen.
3) The big bang.
The big bang rests on essentially three pillars of astronomical observations: microwave background radiation, the redshift of light, and I forget the third.
At any rate, the redshift of light as evidence of a universe expanding in all directions has been shown to be a flawed assumption. Halton Arp has shown that quasars have a red shift which doesn't correspond to the standard assumptions. Mechanisms to account for the red shift have been proposed which do not require all matter to be moving away from us.
Without belaboring the point, I think you get the picture. Science is a great way for gaining knowledge about the universe, but it certainly must begin with faith, and there are certainly plenty of reasons to doubt what "science" declares to be true.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
First, I said it only admits falsifiables, that doesn't mean anything is provable other than the negation of a (truly) positive statement.
1) As has been noted, scientists don't agree on a method of abiogenesis, or even that such occured. This is a triumph of science, that it doesn't lock into some dogmatic theory absent good evidence. As for none of them being even somewhat plausible, its actually pretty plausible that random combination could have resulted in a reproducing amino acid sequence, or an RNA sequence that creates such. See here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html . Moreover, while there is no overarching theory, there are things we have observed which greatly suggests parts of theories. For instance, we have observed the natural formation. Of lipid envelopes identical to primitive cell membranes -- in fact, it happens all the time under certain common conditions. If, say, a randomly occuring reproducing molecule happened to fall into one of those, it would have a considerable advantage, being protected from the environment compared to its mates (but still able to receive material as the lipid membrane is not impermeable). There are other things, too, but while there is considerable debate on any overarching theory of how it happened (which will likely never be resolved, due to lack of evidence, funny how science allows for things like that), there is general acceptance that we've seen examples of things that are probable parts of any such event.
2) There's tons of evidence in the fossil record, where do you not see evidence? I'd like an example or two of places we're "missing evidence". In fact, by people who have actually studied the fossil record the evidence is generally considered overwhelming. Also, the currently most accepted version of evolutionary theory is not punctuated equilibrium in its original form, its a modified version which basically says, sometimes evolutions goes in fits and starts, sometimes it goes steadily. You want to know why it got modified (pretty much right after publication)? Because the evidence for periods of gradual evolution is huge (just as is the evidence for periods of little evolution and periods of rapid evolution).
3) Science doesn't declare the big bang to be true, it reserves that for things that its extremely confident of. Science is not extremely confident the big bang occurred, which is why there are an abundance of competing theories. Most consider the big bang the most likely one given the current evidence, but admit that the evidence is not conclusive.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: This is a triumph of science, that it doesn't lock into some dogmatic theory absent good evidence.
Well, I would disagree with this, but I certainly won't convince you because "science" is made up of millions of people all with different opinions on different matters. I would especially disagree with this as it touches matters of "consensus science". Twinky gave a good example of this earlier when he said
quote: There's more dissent on global warming than there is on evolution, and there's hardly any dissent on global warming. The scientific community doesn't really get much closer to consensus than this -- they may disagree about many particulars, but the premise is quite agreed upon.
Scientific consensus is absolutely irrelevant- indeed it is contrary to the very paradigm science is supposed to be built upon. Someone here posted a Michael Crichton essay on the matter which described it much more articulately than I could.
quote: If, say, a randomly occuring reproducing molecule happened to fall into one of those, it would have a considerable advantage, being protected from the environment compared to its mates (but still able to receive material as the lipid membrane is not impermeable).
Its getting that "randomly occuring reproducing molecule" that's the rub.
quote: There's tons of evidence in the fossil record, where do you not see evidence?
Again, I disagree. Give me an example. The common textbook ones are crap. Take the beloved horse development, for example, which requires alternating fossils from different continents and which generally starts with eohippus which is essentially a modern hyrax and likely has nothing at all to do with horse development.
So give me an example- where is there a clear set of a fossil line leading to a modern creature without huge developmental gaps?
quote: Science doesn't declare the big bang to be true, it reserves that for things that its extremely confident of.
Come on now, even granting that "science" is too nebulous for consensus of opinion on anything, the big bang is taught nearly universally as the way things really happened. Stephen Hawking and his ilk are so confident of it that they can declare without blushing that they know exactly how everything unfolded beginning at 10^-43 seconds after the big bang.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
And I think you're letting what you want Hawking to be like interfere with what he actually says. Hawking's papers that talk about what happens after the Big Bang predicate on the assumption that the Big Bang happened. It is called a working argument. You might also notice that in the popular books he publishes and the survey papers he presents multiple possible scenarios for the creation (or lack thereof) of the universe.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Amusingly, Jacare, *I* posted the link to Crichton's talk.
Heh, I guess you didn't buy his arguments.
quote: I posted a link to hundreds of examples in this recent thread
The transition from reptiles to mammals is reasonable. I can buy that one. Other links are much more tenuous, and of course we can pull a strong anthropic principle here and say: If the fossil record provides such strong evidence then why was punctuated equilibrium proposed by many of the folks who study these things? Clearly they felt the need to explain the lack of fossil evidence.
quote: And I think you're letting what you want Hawking to be like interfere with what he actually says.
I don't think so. I just finished listening to a series of Hawking lectures at Cambridge. He certainly presents various ideas, but he presents them as a sort of evolution of ideas leading to our current (correct) understanding of the universe (which of course includes the big bang). In fact, he even goes so far as to crack that the "God of the gaps" folks are rapidly running out of gaps for God to fill.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, he believes the Big Bang is the most likely theory, as do most scientists. However, most scientists (at least those I've run into, and this is from my reading of Hawking as well) also believe the evidence is not sufficient to completely rule out other theories, and that new evidence could very well propel one of them to the forefront.
Sort of like how people tend to come to consensus about the results of cliffhangers in TV shows even when the evidence is ambiguous.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jacare, none of your "basic fundamental scientific assertions" are relevent to the study of Evolution.
quote:1) Life originated by strictly materialistic, mechanical and chemical means.
How the current multiplicity of species arose is not necassarily connected to how the first life appeared.
quote:2) Evolution is driven solely by random mutation and natural selection.
We know that evolution can occur by these means, but are they really the sole driving factors?
Nobody says they are, they're just the only ones we can come up with and substantiate.
quote: 3) The big bang.
The big bang rests on essentially three pillars of astronomical observations: microwave background radiation, the redshift of light, and I forget the third.
Jacare, you yourself pointed out at least one scientist that does not believe the Big Bang is a "basic fundamental scientific assertions." So what's your point?
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now words only mean one thing, Xap? And no, proof does not only mean one thing. Tell that to the lawyers. Nigh every field of inquiry has its own standards of proof. That you are too limited to understand the necessity of this isn't their fault.
Firstly, who is "too limited to understand" is really not an acceptable (or useful) line of argument to justify claims of any sort. Presumably none of us are too limited to understand.
As to the point, we are talking about the concepts, not the words, and one concept cannot simultaneously be two different things. Proof could mean something else to science, but then it's not talking about the concept of proof we were talking about - namely, whether it is known with certainty to be true.
And because we were discussing the difference in provability between science and religion, it would not be right or fair to religion to use some sort of science-specific standard of proof. Religion isn't testable by scientific standards of "proof" any more than science is testable by religions standards of "proof". But when we apply a fair standard, whether or not we can actually (in reality!) prove with certainty that a given theory is false, much of both science AND religion are not falsifiable.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm talking about the scientific sense of proof, which is sufficiently complete to be useful. I don't know why you're talking about a definition of proof which is so unuseful that it can be applied as a differentiating criteria to almost nothing, and certainly nothing among the things we're talking about.
I used to think philosophy majors got taught the concept of useful concepts.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now, Science doesn't admit that any beliefs about the past can be proved true (as that's just silly), but in the domain of Science they can certainly be proven false.
The key point of this statement is that it contains within it both the reason for science's usefulness and an explanation of its own limitations. Fugu even emphasized the latter part when he originally posted the statement.
Just as there are truths in math that cannot be proven within a consistent framework of math, there are truths about the world that cannot be proven by science. Good scientists admit that readily. If something is proven by some other method (reliable witness testimony, for example), that proof will not be accepted as a scientific proof. But it may be accepted by some scientists as another form of proof.
Indeed I did not. I thought his points -- particularly his examples of cases where dissenting scientists are ostracized -- were valid, but I also think that he overreached and it hurt his argument. I think that on the subject of consensus in the scientific community he pretty much threw the baby out with the bathwater.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
My stance on this is simple - it's all faith.
No one was here 6000 years ago, or 6 million, or 6 billion. The scientific method can't prove how life began or evolved. Somewhere, somehow, you've got to take something on faith.
Either your faith is in punctuated equilibrium, or any of the other myriads of theories that abound or your faith is in what the Bible says. Or some combination of the two.
As for me - I have no idea exactly how old the earth is. I don't know the exact processes of how life began. I don't know how many changes have taken place in organisms since the beginning or the manner in which those changes occurred.
I choose to believe God created the universe and everything in it, and that some things are beyond my understanding.
What bothers me is people who insist that belief in molecules-to-man evolution is not faith. Of course it is. No one can scientifically prove that man evolved from some collection of amnio acids in a primordial pool, no more than I can scientifically prove God created Eve from Adam's rib.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing is, most scientists don't "believe" in their theories in the sense you believe in creation. They consider a theory (about the past) most likely because of the available evidence, and in most cases change the nature of their theory, sometimes to extremes, as new evidence presents itself. Someone thinking gradual evolution was the only process moves to thinking its punctuated equilibrium or something else because of evidence.
Scientifically speaking, this evidence only points to one thing right now, evolution.
That said, science makes no claim about being able to prove or disprove ultimate truth. As far as science is concerned, the world could have been created six thousand years ago, or five minutes ago, the evidence for both of those is just about the same: nil. Does this mean there's something wrong with believing that? Not really. Does this mean there's something wrong with teaching either one in a science classroom? Most definitely.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That said, science makes no claim about being able to prove or disprove ultimate truth.
Of course, some scientists do make claims that science is able to prove or disprove ultimate truth.
I've heard many times from many scientists how evolution has "proven" we evolved from chance, with no direction from God. How science has "proven" that miracles don't happen, as if an understanding that predictable laws govern the normal behavior of Nature wasn't essential to recognizing something as miraculous in the first place.
Further, many science teachers do not stress the limitations of science. Especially in pre-college science courses, I was taught many things as fact that turned out to be incorrect, with no mention that this was our current understanding of things.
I don't hold that against science, but it does make me skeptical of the actions of many scientists.
I can't say it doesn't happen, but I'm fairly confident its but a small minority. Many of the biggest popular science authors (such as, say, Feinman and Hawking) make quite the opposite point.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: For instance, there is nothing testable about the theory that life evolved, because you cannot test the truth of claims about the past. (The past may have not even ever really existed as far as we know. Or the laws may have radically changed for no known reason at any point.)
Xaposert.This is more than a little absurdist nitpicking. Of course, science and scientists generally make assumptions or postulates in their theory. One (usually unspoken) assumption is that the past exists or existed, and that there are inanimate objects, people and other living organisms that exist and existed, seperate entities from the conscious entity perceiving them. Philosohers before and after Descarte's famous "Cogito, ergo sum--I think, therefore I am" statement have tried to completely refute the solipsistic argument, and for the most part have failed. Yet most intelligent people dismiss solipsism as fantasy, including most religious believers (at least in the West.) I assume you do as well. As well, most intelligent people assume the past existed in some sense, and that there is some continuity between the past and the present. And yes, God or unknown natural processes could change the laws of physics repeatedly. So what? Almost nobody (aside from some eastern mystics) believe these ideas. Why bring them up as an argument? Also, I am aware of Kuhn's arguments about paradigm shifts. It is human nature to be lazy and not change paradigms and POVs, especially as you age. Scientists have to struggle to overcome this. It doesn't imply that rejected ideas have any merit. Most don't.
quote:Never argue with a pedant over definitions. It wastes your time and annoys the pedant.
About faith versus proof : Suppose for a moment I accept that science is a question of faith. I submit that it is a much more useful faith than belief in a Creator, or even an intelligent designer (who, on the face of it, is not very bright). You can make predictions with evolutionary theory; you cannot do so with creationism, in any of its variants.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: And yes, God or unknown natural processes could change the laws of physics repeatedly. So what? Almost nobody (aside from some eastern mystics) believe these ideas.
*joins the "almost nobody" camp*
(Possibly only once, not repeatedly. But maybe repeatedly. As Belle said, I wasn't there. )
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I thought his points -- particularly his examples of cases where dissenting scientists are ostracized -- were valid, but I also think that he overreached and it hurt his argument. I think that on the subject of consensus in the scientific community he pretty much threw the baby out with the bathwater.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
)
