” Many of the most successful scientists in the world today are mathematically no more than semiliterate.”He is concerned that students who can’t hack math turn from science to easier pursuits.
But aren’t math and science both just extensions of logical thought? Why would math be more difficult than science for the uber rational? And of course it is the uber rational who inhabit the halls of theoretical evolutionary biology, right? Something doesn’t add up… (get it? Add… up).
” Far more important throughout the rest of science is the ability to form concepts, during which the researcher conjures images and processes by intuition.
Everyone sometimes daydreams like a scientist. Ramped up and disciplined, fantasies are the fountainhead of all creative thinking. Newton dreamed, Darwin dreamed, you dream. The images evoked are at first vague. They may shift in form and fade in and out. They grow a bit firmer when sketched as diagrams on pads of paper, and they take on life as real examples are sought and found.”
And you thought science was a discipline.
I’m sure that he is really referring to a small portion of science, not the part where inductive data is analyzed, hypotheses are deduced, experiments are designed for statistical integrity of analysis, then performed with disciplined rigor, finally generating data for statistical analysis, and articulating the findings of the experiment in terms of its statistical boundaries. He’s not referring to that part because evolutionists don’t do that part of science. Biologists who study living things rather than bone shards actually do those things, though, and they are the ones who produce progress in useful knowledge.
Here’s what a couple of other professors have to say regarding E O’s theory of math utility:
” There are those who differ. Lord Kelvin said “I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.” Even those who didn’t have much math sometimes wished that they did. Chuck Darwin said “I have deeply regretted that I did not proceed far enough at least to understand something of the great leading principles of mathematics; for men thus endowed seem to have an extra sense.I think that, even before higher math is required, a full study of logic should be required of all students entering any science or engineering. And philosophy, too. It should be as basic as English; students should be fully literate in logic and its applications. Only then should mathematics be required – and it should be required of all sciences just as it is in engineering.
E. O. Wilson would have benefited from having that extra sense. If he had it, he might not have suggested that ridiculous “gay uncle” theory, in which homosexuality pays for itself genetically thru gay men helping their siblings in ways that produce extra nieces and nephews. First, that doesn’t even happen – so much for field work. Second, it’s impossible. The relationship coefficients don’t work. Nephews and nieces are only half as closely related as your own kids, so you’d need four extra to break even, rather than two, as with your own kids. Maybe if Wilson had ever learned to divide by two, he wouldn’t have made this mistake.
Biology and softer-headed sciences such as anthropology are absolutely rife with innumerates, and there is a cost. If I hear one more person say that average growth rates were very low in the old stone age, a teeny tiny fraction of a percent [true], and so anatomically modern humans only left Africa after it filled up, which took a hundred thousand years, I’m gonna scream. If I hear another anthropologist say that she could understand how a small group could rapidly expand to fill New Zealand, but just can’t see how they could fill up the Americas, whole continents, in a thousand years – lady, they screwed, they had babies, and they walked. All it took was a weird, unacademic lifestyle in which you raised three kids – pretty easy to do in the Happy Hunting Ground.”
I personally don’t see how any person can consider himself educated without these fundamentals. That’s just my opinion, of course.
E O is right about one thing: mathematic literacy fades with disuse. However, the underlying principles, including those of calculus and differential equations and transforms and domain mapping and matrix manipulation as well as statistics, and so on, remain. And the literacy is accessible with some effort to re-study it a bit.
Finally, if E O’s defense of innumeracy is right, then it is nonsensical to compare evolutionary biological science with physics, as some proponents do. While I do recall that Einstein imagined riding on a light wave, he didn’t remain there long; he produced mathematics which is still being verified (non-falsified) experimentally. Let’s see E O or his evo cohorts match that.
11 comments:
You seem to lack a basic understanding of what these fields study. Evolution and biology deal with very complex systems, but the math involved is comparatively more simple because it deals with populations, systems, things that aren't very abstract and can be more intuitively understood and modeled algorithmically.
Physics by contrast deals in the very abstract. Physics works with fundamental components of nature, which means that the systems involved are simple compared to biological systems and can be modeled with partial differential equations. When you try to do that with the enormously complicated systems of biology, you lose a lot of accuracy, which is why biological models will also tend to be more algorithmic instead of elaborate equations.
So basically, your problem is that you really don't understand how each field of science is specialized to the phenomena it studies.
aveskde said,
“You seem to lack a basic understanding of what these fields study. Evolution and biology deal with very complex systems, but the math involved is comparatively more simple because it deals with populations, systems, things that aren't very abstract and can be more intuitively understood and modeled algorithmically.”
Seriously? When evolutionists repeatedly compare themselves to physicists in order to co-opt their aura of scientific accuracy and respectability?
Let’s take a closer look (ignoring your insult): upon what known relationship is the algorithm for the future evolution of the common cockroach based? Or contrarily is that to intuited, not placed into an algorithm? Why so, if so? I’ll wait, you can answer when you have time.
“Physics by contrast deals in the very abstract. Physics works with fundamental components of nature, which means that the systems involved are simple compared to biological systems and can be modeled with partial differential equations. When you try to do that with the enormously complicated systems of biology, you lose a lot of accuracy, which is why biological models will also tend to be more algorithmic instead of elaborate equations.”
Your charge of ignorance is rejected, and replaced with a counter charge of failure to understand the difference between biology, which studies living things, and evolution, which studies historical records and should be termed a natural history pursuit, not a science. Science presupposes that cause and effect can be determined deductively from existing inductive data, and further that the effect can be shown to be actual via replication of the cause experimentally, replicably and falsifiably. Evolution, like all historical pursuits, cannot do that. Biology, forward looking study of living things, can do that and does do that. Evolution has no predictive power for living things. Evolution is not biology, under the definition of biology.
BTW, physics deals with actual physical phenomena, which are deducible and measurable for cause/effect. That is hardly abstract, unless you don't care for math being used in deduction. String theory is debatable as to whether it is even a science because it cannot directly be experimentally tested for cause/effect. Many physicists consider it to be more of a mathematical philosophy.
Further, the use of evolution as a meaningful science by Atheist philosophers renders evolution to be a weak philosophy, not a science.
”So basically, your problem is that you really don't understand how each field of science is specialized to the phenomena it studies.”
Actually the problem is the oversimplified understanding which you project, yourself.
aveskde said...
You seem to lack a basic understanding of what these fields study.
As if on queue, out comes the "you don't understand" gambit. If I had a quarter for every time a reasoned argument was met with such obfuscation, I'd be rich.
Physics by contrast deals in the very abstract
You are joking, right?
Let's consult the book of words:
noun: The science that deals with matter, energy, motion, and force.
That's abstract? I guess you must be referring to string theory, which is nothing more than Materialist metaphysics; which is ironic being that the claim not to believe in anything that can't be examined, but postulate for more dimensions --and even further ironic since they adamantly deny a deity could exist extra-dimensionally.
Seriously? When evolutionists repeatedly compare themselves to physicists in order to co-opt their aura of scientific accuracy and respectability?
That really doesn't matter to the topic at hand.
Let’s take a closer look (ignoring your insult): upon what known relationship is the algorithm for the future evolution of the common cockroach based? Or contrarily is that to intuited, not placed into an algorithm? Why so, if so? I’ll wait, you can answer when you have time.
Populations of an organism are tested based on their ability to survive, meaning environmental selection exists against their bodies and metabolism, their ability to reproduce, meaning the ability to maintain population and pass on traits encoded via organic molecules, and some degree of mutation.
A simple algorithm would therefore compare each organism to its environment, kill those which are least suited, each organism would pair and mate afterwards, passing on their traits to a succeeding generation, and then repeat.
Your charge of ignorance is rejected, and replaced with a counter charge of failure to understand the difference between biology, which studies living things, and evolution, which studies historical records and should be termed a natural history pursuit, not a science.
You do realize that implying that evolution isn't really a science really damages your credibility?
Anyhow, evolution is a subset of the science of biology. Or, you could say biology is a subset of evolution, depending on your perspective.
Evolution, like all historical pursuits, cannot do that.
Can and has. Whether we're talking about in the field observations of evolution in action amongst animal species, or by controlled experiments where bacterial evolve a new trait, or computer simulations where animals are evolved in a physics engine.
Take you pick. This is all ancient history.
BTW, physics deals with actual physical phenomena, which are deducible and measurable for cause/effect. That is hardly abstract, unless you don't care for math being used in deduction.
Abstract means a field or subject dealing in models which represent something indirectly. Like Bohr's model of the atom, or Newtonian gravity.
Physics is abstract because you only rarely get to directly represent something, a particular phenomenon, and instead peel away layers of the onion with mathematical models which often only simulate the phenomenon under specific circumstances.
You are joking, right?
Let's consult the book of words:
noun: The science that deals with matter, energy, motion, and force.
That's abstract?
Yes, it is entirely abstract, because each of those things is modeled indirectly by simple theories which only cover certain facets. Indeed, in physics there are often multiple models for explaining a single phenomenon, with each model only working under a certain range of limitations and assumptions.
For example Newtonian motion versus quantum motion.
In biology, there is only one theory of evolution, and when modeling evolution you don't need to change theories when the population gets too big.
As if on queue, out comes the "you don't understand" gambit. If I had a quarter for every time a reasoned argument was met with such obfuscation, I'd be rich.
Confidence often begets a lack of understanding.
Stan,
>Further, the use of evolution as a meaningful science by Atheist philosophers renders evolution to be a weak philosophy, not a science.
You are mixing up illegitimate usage of evolution as a metaphysic, vs the science of evolution itself.
Evolution (by which I mean common descent) is very good at making predictions, not about what future species will develop, but about where stuff will be found in the ground.
To take your long-ago example of a baseball diamond being found by future archeologists and concluding that it must be for fertility rites, what they would do in that case is say "If this was used for fertility rites, we should find X when we dig over there. If it was used for a game, we should find Y when we dig over here."
And then they will dig and perhaps confirm their predictions.
That's what the theory of common descent has done, and it has passed every test hurtled at it. It is very good at making predictions of that sort.
Now, that it is also used, incorrectly, as a general metaphysic (as Feser says, "Here, as pretty much everywhere else, evolution itself solves every problem and wipes the tear from every eye") is no mark against evolution, but rather against the shitty reasoning skills of the New Atheists and their ilk.
Martin,
You are right, I constructed that sentence poorly and directed it improperly. I said,
"Further, the use of evolution as a meaningful science by Atheist philosophers renders evolution to be a weak philosophy, not a science."
It should have read more like this:
"Further, the use of evolution as a philosophical supporting Truth by Atheist philosophers reflects on the weakness of Atheist philosophy, by not admitting to the limitations of evolution as a science which is not predictive of actual future events as are hard sciences."
I should read Feser; I don't go there because I spend my time going to Atheist places and looking for trouble. Too much time, in fact.
>I should read Feser; I don't go there because I spend my time going to Atheist places and looking for trouble
Yes indeed. He only gives you more ammunition for that pastime, and much better ammunition.
From his perspective, the fundamental disagreement can be boiled down to a rejection of final causes. If final causes are real, then so is Aristotelianism, and so is monotheism.
Evolution presupposes final causes (for evolution to even work, reproduction must be taking place, and reproduction is an example of a final cause, or goal directedness). Therefore, evolution presupposes Aristotelianism. And therefore evolution presupposes theism.
Or that is one argument that can be made. There simply is no need to get involved in anti-evolutionary stuff, when evolution could be seen (from the Aristotelian angle) as a confirmation of final causality and hence theism over atheism.
Feser really is the best at getting to the fundamental issues.
I would start with his excellent series of posts on Alex Rosenberg, a philosopher who defends eliminative materialism: http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2009/12/rosenberg-on-naturalism.html
A couple of interesting reads:
A physicist and a mathematician comment on the current evolution theory brouhaha.
A physiologist recommends an all-new “Integrative Synthesis” to replace the old Modern Synthesis Evolution theory.
Hello everyone,
I'm clearly seeing a tendency here.
Each time I see a logically sound, and correct implementation of the scientific method, regarding the changing of scientific paradigms, is due to an integrative, "holistic" approach of the empirical phenomena in hand.
Like, for example, the unified field theory.
These suggestions seem to be going in the right direction, in unison, metaphorically speaking.
Kind Regards.
Post a Comment