I wanted to respond to a post over at Scott's place, but couldn't get the funky letters to download, so I couldn't get through the security. So I'll post it here. Scott is incensed at an article claiming (apparently) that evolution causes ethical lapses. While I didn't read the article, I do have some comments on Scott's post. And his subsequent post, too.
Scott, as you know I believe that science is empirical in its requirements, generating contingent data thought to be temporarily factual, and contrarily, that speculation is indeed metaphysical. So when when you say things such as, "the fact of evolution", and such as "Evolution in and of itself is not a belief system, and biology texts contain biology, not metaphysics", well, I don't think this is correct.
Evolution is a hypothesis, in my view, and since it is the only materialist hypothesis at the moment, it is the popular opinion of biological enthusiasts. However, until it is empirically proven, it is not scientifically qualified to be "fact", even a contingent fact.
Most biology in the texts I have seen is, in fact, science in the empirical sense, until you get to the section of the book on evolution, where speculation sets in.
Of specific interest to me is the contention that evolution (unproven) proves ethics, altruism and such. That is actually speculation-squared. There is nothing empirical about any of this. Not even close.
Used to be that scientists were folks who did science (adhered rigidly to standards and norms). Now it seems that science is whatever scientists do, and fact is whatever scientists speculate: relativism has taken hold. Relativism is an emergent property of the belief in evolution (don't deny it, you believe it, it shows). Relativism in the pursuit of and even the definition of science is a destructive element that undermines confidence in the minds of non-scientists.
Interestingly scientists in quantum physics claim that anyone who says they understand quantum mechanics - doesn't. That science is experimentally based. The experiments show a ragged concept of reality; the experiments continue and bafflement is an acceptable reaction, given the non-intuitive nature of the outcomes.
Contrast that to evolution, where the attitude is "it happened, get over it"... never mind any experiments. There is no experimental data to back it up. If there were, that news would eclipse the Obama revelations for some time to come. No doubt you will protest this characterization, but it is real.
Your enthusiasm for this hypothesis notwithstanding, it should not be called "fact" until it is empirically proven; it is a thought, and thoughts are metaphysical.
Oh and Scott, your use of the term "stem cell" is prejudicial, as I am sure you know. The conservatives and libertarians are FOR stem cell research; it is EMBRYONIC stem cell research that is ethically flawed and also experimentally negated... and the focus of political angst. I'm sure you knew that so why not admit it? I think it is defamatory to claim otherwise.
And Scott, there are rather more Anthropological Global Warming skeptics in the ranks of PhD's and legitimate scientists now (32,000) plus (650) than there are in the well-purged IPCC. Surely you know that it is ANTHROPOLOGICAL Global Warming that is objected to, so why not say that? I think it is defamatory to say otherwise.
Data is only valid if it is not molested by activists such as Hanson, and if it had been valid experimental, well calibrated, disinterestedly supervised data to start with.
Oh well. It's all really politics, not science. Evolution, embryonic stem cells, and AGW: all politics. That's the real problem. That and an abiding subcutanean distaste for things not liberal.
2 comments:
I'll begin with an acknowledgement of a point you made, and then serve it back at ya!....:)
OK, first of all it is true that the qualifiers 'embryonic' and 'anthropogenic' are what conservatives tend to find contentious with respect to stem cell research and global warming.
I concede the correction, and all I can say in my defense is that this is how these things are parsed in the popular culture. It's a 'shorthand' description that at its best is intellectually lazy, and at its worse deliberately prejudicial to those whose views require qualification. So, again, your point is well-taken.
But what about the word 'evolution'? How can I claim that the former is a fact, and you think it is not? Let me suggest to you that we are both guilty of a little intellectual laziness here. Evolution itself, as defined genetically, is simply a change in allele frequency within a population over time. It is manifestly a fact that this occurs. Since changes in allele frequency can lead to an overall shift in a population's phenotype, and since that can lead to reproductive isolation, it follows that the accumulation of such phenotypic changes (based on changes in the genotype) can lead to new species. And, of course, documented instances of speciation are in the literature. So, the claim that populations evolve genetically and that one possible consequence of such evolution is a new species are both correctly regarded as facts.
But, as both of us should know full well, this is not the sense of the word 'evolution' that tends to be controversial. Even YEC acknowledge such changes, within supposed limits that they curiously are never able to specify.
Evolutionary skeptics argue, however, that there is a qualitative difference between this 'evolution' which is admitted to be true by all informed parties, and the sort that points to an old Earth and the essential unity of life's diversity sprung from a common ancestor. They claim that the former ('microevolution') is a fact, while the latter ('macroevolution') is in principle unobservable, not scientific etc.
Now, my take is slightly different: I agree that the former is a fact, and I think that while speciation events in the past are not observable, that they are reasonable inferences given the vast amount of data we have from different lines of research, data which is remarkably convergent. But the scientific community doesn't claim that this model is a fact. They call it a theory, and the FULL name of this theory is 'the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection', which I refer to by the acronym TENS. Now, it is prejudicial to evolution advocates to conflate the word 'evolution' with TENS to make it appear as if evolution itself is theoretical. But it happens all the time, even when evolutionary biologists talk about it, because they say 'evolution' as a sort of lazy shorthand, when what they mean is 'TENS'.
So, I'll plead guilty to a prejudicial elision or two with respect to stem cells and global warming if you'll acknowledge a vital distinction where evolution itself is concerned....:)
And, as I hope you know, theories are actually far more useful in science than mere facts, and we scientists don't use the word 'theory' to mean a hunch or a guess. To us folk, a 'theory' is a well-tested idea with much explanatory and predictive power that has survived many attempts to falsify it. Biologists like me accept TENS provisionally as the best fit to its data, and thus the most productive and useful model to operate within. It is true that this amounts to nothing more than an opinion for the individual scientist, but consider the potential career benefit to any individual scientist who could debunk all or even part of the present model. The model remains dominant not because we slavishly accept it, but because we haven't yet figured out a way to meaningfully falsify it. Until we do, it will remain the leading natural explanation for the diversity and distribution of life over time and space. If a better model comes along that explains a greater number of observations, it will eventually supplant TENS, and that would be great. That's not politics, that's just the way science is.
Hello Scott,
I think that the word "theory" has been abused to the point that other more specific words should be used. For example many folks seem to use "theory" when they mean "hypothesis". Massimo had a good thread on this some time back. The word "theory" can be found in use for meanings from "hypothesis" to "law", and it is just bound to cause confusion.
And if the vital distinction you mention refers to the difference between macro and micro evolution, then of course I admit to that distinction. And I admit that the chihuahua is likely not to breed to the great dane, yet I know that left to themselves, dogs revert to the "yellow dog" type after several generations of indiscriminate breeding between varying types of dogs. So there seems to be a countervailing pressure to revert to type that is more powerful than the pressure to leave type. This process has a name that I can't conjure at the moment.
And if you mean that convergent inferences form a convenient model, one that has no material challenger, certainly I acknowledge that.
It is the declaration that evolution is "fact, get over it", that is incorrect, prejudicial and intended to support an aggressive worldview, not science. I know you are not concerned by this, and believe that it is actually outside science (it is, unless some scientist... like Dawkins ... says it). I am familiar with people who are infatuated with Dawkins and are intellectually seduced by his perversions of the reality of the status of evolutionary thought. A person in my family cannot think straight because of this very thing. It is an insidious abuse of a supposed rational scientific status by an unscrupulous irrational agent.
Now, I know that 2009 will bring some new definitions of evolution, and the definitions will change as more is known about epi-genetics. So I am not too concerned about definitions at this point except about defining anything as truth in this environment where so much more is unknown than is known.
So one difference here is that I am concerned with overall worldviews and that they are rationally established, and that fallacy is purged from them.
I think your concern seems to be more restricted to science as a subset of total reality, its teaching and development.
Perhaps that is not the whole story or not correct at all. But assuming it is a valid view, would that not lead to the dominion of science over the other aspects of life? A scientific morality, etc.? Maybe I have it all wrong, straighten me out where I need it!
Post a Comment