Is Evolution an Essential Theory in Science?
Moderator: Moderators
-
youngborean
- Sage
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:28 pm
Is Evolution an Essential Theory in Science?
Post #1I am curious on how important the Theory of Evolution is to the Whole of science. Since most other disciplines of Science cross their own boundaries, such as the use of Chemistry and Physics in Biology, the usefulness of Taxonomy in identifiying Gross chemical operations (especially in the plant world) of organisms. Unlike many disciplines of Science, evolutionary biology seems to be isolated, with no interdisciplinary innovations. That being said, why is it such a big deal? Are there contributions that Evolutionary Biology has made to the rest of Science that I am not aware of? If there are, I would enjoy discussion. I don't see how this theory has progressed the rest of Science. To me personally it is centered in the past and not interested in the progressive revelation of the active intelligence. That's why I personally believe it would be better served to be taught as an art along with Archeology or Anthropology.
Post #31
Sorry I've been away for so long (not that anyone missed me. Of course not), but I've been getting too many notification e-mails lately.
Evolution is a part of science. It uses the scientific method, and uses observations on fossils, living animals today, bacteria, known history of certain animals (such as breeders of cattle, horses, dogs, cats, and other domesticated animals) and generations, and generations of short-lived creatures, such as species of flies. And you can't tell me that's empirical? Forgive me for not reading the previous posts, but why do you think evolution has to be a new branch of science? What would that do? It's already a part of biology.
A theory is an idea based on observations and a hypothesis. You don't also see that in order to obtain this evidence and record it, you would have to observe something, whether you see it, hear it, smell it or touch it. I'm sorry, but you don't seem to see that the scientific method is based on observations, and proposing hypotheses and ideas on those observations. Science is never proven, only disproven. Things are accurate when they comply with the proposed theory or have supporting evidence.youngborean wrote:1.OBSERVATION and PROOF
So your saying that because I believe there is not substantial evidence for the ToE to be elevated to Empirical Fact, that I should believe this about all unproven theories in science. I reject all theories of Science on observational grounds. Hence the word theory. In my mind, something becomes elevated to Empirical Data when the subsequent relevance is proven. So it is dependent on evidence.
The whole branch of biology relies heavily on the assumption that evolution is true. Genetics, reproduction, geneology and such rely on the assumption that these generations changed over time, as directed by what we know about evolution. That is a component of biology, so I don't see why evolution needs a new branch, except under biology itself.BASIS FOR A SCIENCE, SCIENCE FOR A BASIS.
It is the foundation for a whole new branch of Science – Evolutionary Biology.
They don't have to be. They are ideas in science that would explain certain things in our natural universe, but when you say that, you assume that we can't go anywhere else with these. Unfortunately, that's not true, as these explanations are related to other concepts or applications, one way or another, and we'll never stop finding new explanations for some of these things. We used to think the ideal gas law was completely true, but someone called Van Der Waal elaborated on it and said there were other things that needed to be considered.Nor are they the foundation for new types of Science.Does accepting the fusion theory for a star’s energy generation have a bearing on how science functions? What about accepting the theory that rain forms when water molecules, evaporated from the surface of a pond, condense around nuclei suspended in the sky?
All of these theories are by-products of the functioning of science. The functioning of science does not depend on any one of these theories.
Right but my question was not if Science gives rise to theory. It was whether or not a theory of evolution is itself Science. And if it is not itself Science, than can it be regarded as empirical data for a new branch of Science?Take away the germ theory of disease and science will not cease. Ditto ToE. However, each of these theories requires a process which we call science – for their creation and ongoing viability.
Evolution is a part of science. It uses the scientific method, and uses observations on fossils, living animals today, bacteria, known history of certain animals (such as breeders of cattle, horses, dogs, cats, and other domesticated animals) and generations, and generations of short-lived creatures, such as species of flies. And you can't tell me that's empirical? Forgive me for not reading the previous posts, but why do you think evolution has to be a new branch of science? What would that do? It's already a part of biology.
But a theory is based on explanations. Scientists don't wake up and arbitrarily decide they'll make up some silly idea and see that it works. If anything, they see something first and think about it, then generalize a statement about it, then go to make experiments to see that the statement is true, and some other possible explanations. The theory itself is the idea, but no scientific theory is usually ever complete without observations, explanations and support, to a certain extent.Exactly.Of course evolutionists have defined techniques. But a theory is not a defined technique. No theory is. A theory is an explanatory system and ToE is a theory.
No, genetics is a branch in biology. So how can no science depend on evolution? Genetics, heck the whole world of biology depends on evolution, as far as I'm concerned.Is this a new form of Science?And your idea that ToE depends on genetics but no science depends on ToE?
Well the theory that stars shine because of fusion reactions at their cores depends on physics but physics does not depend on the theory that stars shine because of fusion reactions at their cores.
I think you have theory mixed up with hypothesis. The hypothesis leads to what you call the empirical data and the other observations, as a hypothesis has an idea, although somewhat simplified, but after considering the conclusion of the empirical data, the theory is proposed, if at all possible. Do you seriously think they open up a new branch of science for every theory that exists? Why don't I see a branch of science called Schroedinger? It's called Quantum Mechanics, and includes other theories and principles, including Heisenberg's principles and Einstein's theory of relativity. I don't get your logic: you say theories are a part of science, but yet they aren't science. So you're a part of a human population, but you're not human?PHILOSOPHY, INTERPRETATION, SCIENCE (or SOME DATA IS NOT INTERPRETED?)I believe you have a good understanding of what science does in reality. But what is Science supposed to be? Our interpretations and creation of theories should remain theory until they can be elevated to the level of Empirical Data, thereby becoming the foundation for a new type of Science. Theories are a part of Science but are not Science in isolation.But exactly what was wrong with what ST88 said? Mind you, how ST88 said it was wrong?
Not only need science not be in the realm of hard core lab work, even when it is in that realm – interpretation is always the order of the day. Even in the hardcore lab, all that is done, observationally, is the collection of data. The observations still have to be interpreted. No “can leave room for” about it. Interpretation is always done.
And we are back to that notion that ToE depends on science but science does not depend on ToE. Thus you wrote “Mendel + Mendel + Mendel = Darwin” (where as “Darwin + Darwin + Darwin does not equal Mendel”).
Again, science doesn't prove. People fail to understand the distinction of true and false in science. It's not 100% true or 100% false; there's an accuracy factor involved, especially in experiments. That's why we calculate deviations and errors in experiments.I know nothing of the evidence for Stellar Energy generation or how it is taught, or what proof there is to it’s validity as the explanation and its reproducibility and relevance to Science as a whole.
Heisenberg Uncertainty principle. It states that the more certain we are of the location of an electron, the less certain we are of its velocity. The more certain we are of its velocity, the less certain we are of its location. It basically means we don't know exactly where an electron can be located because to do that, we would have to shine a light on it, but when we do, it bounces away. If genetics exist without evolution, how do you explain mutation, the change in organisms over generations and generations, why certain animals die while others live, even though the calculated probability (Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium and others. Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium states the allele frequency for a population without considering the effects of evolution, yet it has never been observed to be completely true in nature.) says they should all have an equal chance of living, why there is so much diversity in our forms, and the genetic information to go with it, and why the various forms of reproduction (distribution of genes, recombination, etc) exist?Which processes? I don’t agree. Chemical interaction has given rise to new areas of Physics by observing how chemicals interact.
I never made the point that Mendel+ Mendel+ Mendel+ Mendel+ Mendel+ Mendel= Darwin as proof that Darwinism or the ToE is not Science. It was only brought up to make the simple point that Genetic experiments exist in the absence of the ToE and, the ToE is not a necessary precursor to understand them nor does it effect the study or validity of genetics. Your statement that Chemistry is not a Science is not the correct representation of the use of that model or what I was saying.
Why should science be shamed if it's not suppose to do that? It doesn't prove, only support with evidence. It's sad that people still don't understand this aspect of science.But as I understand in you’re explanation, they have all converged on the truth of fusion. I don’t know the reason or proof for this, but if there isn’t proof then that would be a shame.
I've already explained this. If evolution is a theory, it has already been subjected to observations, records and data obtained from those, as well as experiments.EVOLUTION AS PHILOSOPHY
And no experiment has been done to elevate it from theory to empirical data. Thereby, becoming the foundation for a new branch of Science. This basis for my point.
A lot of people see it as part of culture, but they don't understand it. Of course, when you do a scientific experiment, it does have slight cultural influences, due to the people doing the experiment, but it's results are not influenced by it, nor should it be. So there is a minimal tolerance of culture in scientific experiments, and even in evolution, it's minimal.The fact that it has permeated into culture. As you call it mainstream.
Big bang theory and abiogenesis could be concerned with interpretation. Then there's stuff about black holes, and other things related to outer space and the universe. I'm not too sure what you mean by interpretation, as I take it as an explanation for the meaning of something.INTERPRETATION
Not the only Science concerned with interpretation. Evolutionary biology is the only Science solely devoted to interpretation. Name me something else that an evolutionary biologist does that is not another Scientific discipline.
The data comes from the observations. Now I don't know what you're going to say about generating new observations, but that just comes from seeing or perceiving it, which is the way in which we obtain our data. I wouldn't like to call it new data, since it's already there, we just need to see it, or find ways of seeing it, and eventually, interpreting it, which is through observation.Science to me also includes the generation of new data.Interpretation cannot be done on non-existent data or observations. Hence to interpret, ToE must have data to deal with in the first place. Thus ToE, like all other sciences, deals with data and observation.
Science does deal with interpretation. We don't just take data and throw them on the stairs and hope somebody would clean it. Give me an example of science in which no interpretation is used.But is not exclusively relegated to it.All of science deals with interpretation.
Evolution, as a science is not proven, only supported. That above example was used as an analogy that you can disbelieve certain things all you want, but if it is true, it's true, whether you like it or not. Evolution has data, observations and experiments behind it, whether you like to believe it or not. Read the previous rebuttals on this post for the examples.But I agree that the Earth is round, does that prove that there is adequate evidence to prove evolution.
Theory isn't exactly random. At least the not so casual definition isn't random. It's based on logic, to a certain extent, especially in math and it says certain things that should happen, but other, more recent experiments could elaborate on them. I should have mentioned this earlier, but the experiments in science are continuous. Just because we've derived a theory from a set of experiments (meaning there is data, observations and experiments before and after the theory) and a hypothesis doesn't necessarily mean it's over yet. Further experiments may refine the theory, yet it doesn't completely reject the theory--maybe polishes, but it wouldn't usually be disproven.It is a choice. However it is presented as a choice between empirical data and theoretical in education. Not theoretical versus theoretical.
Doesn't need to be proven, read previous rebuttals on this post. Chloroplasts and Mitochondria are not mechanisms of evolution. They may have been changed through evolution, or their genetic material varied, but it is the genetics (nucleus, DNA, chromosomes and such) that are the mechanisms behind evolution. They cause the genetic variation seen in the species to happen, and the generations and generations of species, as well as the driving force of genetic variation, which are acted upon by natural selection. For where should the proteins and materials for building the Chloroplasts and Mitochondria be, if there were no instructions (from the DNA) for building them? You can have enzymes, RNA and all the other necessary components for building materials, but without the proper sequence or instructions, the materials for other organelles cannot be created. Of course, this is when the cell and its organelles would have developed, but see below for more details.UNREALISTIC EXPECTATIONS.
This is where you totally loose me. I never stated that Mito and Chloroplasts don’t exist. I only stated that the mechanism for their existence, which was the greatest mechanism of evolution of all time (if true) has yet to be proven.
The engulfed bacteria can survive if their membrane has the ability to survive beingin the other organism. This is probably an example of symbiosis, as the larger organism provides nourishment for the bacteria, and the bacteria probably do what they do best in that organism (synthesis of certain materials, expelling of certain required substances, or other things) that could be good for that organism. That isn't to say that these types of organisms evolve by whether the bacteria are useful or not; this type of relationship would depend on whether the bacteria actually do anything beneficial, and whether or not the organism and the bacteria will survive better in that particular environment.No just the reaction that you are proposing or in Biology, the Mechanism of engulfing bacteria and incorporating them as functioning parts of your cell.
I often think of that too, but people believe in it because they misunderstand the fact that it is a science. It's not supposed to be a religion, and it isn't, as people are still researching it and working on it, and coming up with better experiments to provide better support.But this is the problem. Although Jose has pointed out that the ideal is not to call anything Truth (calling things truth is for the religious), that is not the reality. There are numerous people who believe that evolution is true, without knowing all or many times any of the evidence. These people believe the things that they do not know or understand by faith in the authority of the presenter. This is a testament not only to its power as a philosophy, but makes me believe that it has become a religion.
Complexity means bugger all. That just means we don't yet understand it, either because we don't have enough information, we haven't thought of better experiments, or lack of valuable evidence (soft-bodied organisms that don't get preserved in rock). Putting together an adequate periodic table of elements used to be complex, but now we can look at it and easily see how the elements fit together. It may be too complex for most people that aren't knowledgeable in science, but that doesn't mean it's not workable.That is my point. The evidence is to complex to say that a theory should be elevated to a new branch of Science.
OBSERVATION and EXPECTATIONS
Evolution can explain why the probabilities for certain phenotypes in genetics aren't always true, and why Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium doesn't work in nature. You misunderstand people wanting to have their theories correct. In fact, it's the other way around: the scientific method was designed to disprove (as opposed to proving) the hypothesis in order to find out what could be right. By disproving, we narrow down the possibilities that could be true. It's easier to disprove than to prove because in disproving, you only need to find one thing wrong with an idea to say it is wrong. To prove something, it must apply to absolutely everything. That's not to say that if evolution were to be disproven, that creationism is automatically correct. It just means we have to formulate another hypothesis or look over the results again.This is a bit of a jump. I think this basic principle applies across the board. Any theory created from data should be scrutinized before it is used as the foundation for a new branch of Science. I believe that the evidence holds for Chemistry because of it’s interaction with the development of Physics and it reproducibility in a controlled environment. Evolutionary biology produces no unique data that can’t be generated in any other scientific discipline. However, I believe it is a common occurance for men to want their theories to be right. My point was to ask where Evolution should be taught. I find the most compelling evidence for it being a philosophy in the words that you said.
Post #32
You've made this kind of statement several times. If I understand it correctly, it's actually backwards--based on the definition of "theory" as used in conversational English, not the definition of "theory" as used in science. The way science works is that data are gathered first. Observations are made. These are the Empirical Data. It is then up to the scientist(s) to interpret the data, and try to figure out what mechanisms could give rise to those particular observations. The first explanation, or model, is called an hypothesis. After an explanation has been tested numerous times, and has not been ruled out, it is called a theory.youngborean wrote:Our interpretations and creation of theories should remain theory until they can be elevated to the level of Empirical Data...
The theory of evolution is an explanation of the facts that we find in the world.
If people do not want to accept this explanation, they don't need to. However, it is important that they realize that this explanation is extremely robust, and ties together a vast array of data from many different fields. Remember, as Theodosius Dobzhansky put it, "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
If you don't like the idea that ancient archeabacteria and eubacteria formed a symbiotic relationship (perhaps initially similar to a mycobacterial infection of a human, today), and you think that there are too many steps between that and the development of current-day eukaryotes, that's fine. It's good to be skeptical. To treat it scientficially, however, it is necessary to go to the next step. Rather than say "therefore creation is more likely," look at the data that the hypothesis seeks to explain, and develop a better hypothesis. If you think there are holes in the explanation, identify those holes and ask how they can be explained. In general, this is how scientists approach this issue. The as-yet-unexplained holes become the subjects of research.
Always, however, it is necessary to collect empirical data, and then use the data to build the explanatory theory. It doesn't go the other way around.
In conversational English, it seems like it should go the other way around, because "theory" is used synonymously with "guess." This is where people commonly get mixed up. If evolution is "just a theory," (and they think we mean just a guess), then why is it taught at all? We should be teaching facts in science classes, not guesses. Unless this terminology gets straightened out, and unless people see that science is the process of interpreting data (not memorizing facts), the confusion will continue.
Panza llena, corazon contento
To youngborean
Post #33To youngborean,
First of all my (partial) apologies.
Youngborean:- Next time could you keep it short. It is too time consuming to try and think about everything at once. Thank you for your interest.
My long essay was a response to reading several from you in which you argued points I disagreed with. I am notorious for writing long essays, although I do not always do it. I enjoy the essays – perhaps a little too much (lack of sleep, slow at doing jobs around the house etc.). Some do get annoyed at me for the long essays.
Should it happen again, just pick out a section or a point and reply to that – if you feel like replying. That is fine, and if you make it clear that you do not have the time for detail then everyone will understand your (or my) constraints.
In the interest of a short reply I shall explain where I am coming from, and shall address only a couple of areas in your post – namely the area I titled “INTERPRETATION” and the last portion.
WHAT IS ToE?
ToE is just a naturalistic theory which explains patterns in life we observe today and patterns in life we observe from the fossil record. By naturalistic, I mean that it appeals to laws, principles and ideas which we know about. It relies for its creation, and survival on this process loosely described as the “scientific method”. It both explains data which is collected within its explanatory scope, and it uses that data to confirm, modify or reject itself. It is concerned with two questions:-
1) verification of its central claim – that life has changed over time and
2) discovery of the processes by which it operates.
In all of these aspects, ToE in no different to any other branch of science or scientific theory.
ToE really got underway with Darwin. He had a problem to solve – namely the naturalistic origin of the patterns in life then perceived by naturalists. He never did solve the mystery of the origin of species but he found a natural theory of evolution which relied on observational data and which:-
1) verified (not proved) the idea of a natural origin and
2) offered a mechanism for the central process.
This is no different to the astronomers in the early to mid 20th century who had a problem to solve – namely the natural origin of a star’s energy. They solved it. They
1) verified the notion of a natural origin and
2) offered a mechanism for the central process.
INTERPRETATION
I wrote a section which I titled “INETERPRETATION”. In your response you said several things which warrant reply.
Youngborean:- Evolutionary biology is the only Science solely devoted to interpretation.
This makes little sense to me. Evolutionary biologists construct hypotheses, they have theories, they collect data and confirm these – accept them, modify them, reject them, depending on what they find.
This is all conventional science. What else do scientists do other than
construct theories, test them and confirm, modify or reject them, depending on the results? All scientists interpret all the data they collect.
So why is this all something new when evolutionary biologists do it?
A chemist does this and you accept it. An evolutionary biologist does it and you argue that it is unique to evolutionary biology and makes the field suspect.
Youngborean:- Name me something else that an evolutionary biologist does that is not another Scientific discipline.
Well they have their own definitions that do not fall into the domain of another discipline. They collect data relevant to their own questions that are not relevant to other disciplines.
And if ToE relies on biology, genetics, chemistry and so is suspect because of this sole reliance on other sciences, then similarly the theory that stars shine via nuclear reactions at their cores relies solely on physics. Therefore this theory must be suspect. Meteorological theories rely solely on physics and chemistry. Therefore, like ToE they too are suspect?
Youngborean:- Science to me also includes the generation of new data.
What do you mean by the generation of new data? I am unsure and so will have to take a bit of a punt.
Evolutionists certainly undertake observations (generate new data?) unique to their field of enquiry and they are doing it all the time. This is no different to chemists and physicists.
So a chemist does it and you see no problem. An evolutionist does it and you appear unaware.
Roland:- All of science deals with interpretation.
Youngborean:- But is not exclusively relegated to it.
I fail to see how any scientist can just collect data then do nothing with it. All data is interpreted.
I fail to see how an evolutionist can do interpretation with out first collecting data. I mean you have to have something to interpret.
Youngborean:- But I agree that the Earth is round, does that prove that there is adequate evidence to prove evolution.
When I wrote this I was not arguing that our agreement on the shape of the earth should prove evolution. I was arguing in response to your:-
Youngborean:- Evolutionary biology is unique in science in that it seems to be only concerned with interpretation. Very few scientists I know and have worked with would be happy with something that is not a "fact" in their results.
Even “facts” are ultimately interpretations. The shape of the earth is a “fact” derived from a specific set of experiments (observations, data) but people can still disagree as to the shape of the earth.
It is not the case that poor old ToE is doomed to wander in the field of interpretation only, for ever and ever, while all other sciences go out, generate new data and thereby collect facts. The data is the one thing in science that is always close to fact – providing the observer was not drunk or the measuring device was not in error. (Theories can also be considered close to fact if they have so much evidence (data) going for them.) But that data still has to be interpreted. Its interpretation can confirm the underlying theory. If this happens enough, then the theory can be considered a fact. That data still had to be interpreted nevertheless.
Roland:- If you accept naturalistic theories over supernatural theories as explanations for some unseen and unobservable processes then it really is a choice you make.
Same data – different choices of interpretation.
Youngborean:- It is a choice. However it is presented as a choice between empirical data and theoretical in education. Not theoretical versus theoretical.
You confuse two things here, IMO – “theory” and “data”. Empirical data is not theory. It is data. Data is never theory. Data is observation. Theories are tools which guide our data collection, explain the data, are tested by the data.
So, comparing “apples with apples”, it cannot be a choice between “empirical data and theoretical”. It is a choice between interpretation and interpretation or theory and theory.
PHILOSOPHY or SCIENCE
Near the end of your post you write:-
My point was to ask where Evolution should be taught. I find the most compelling evidence for it being a philosophy in the words that you said.
You offer many reasons for this, some of which I shall briefly explore below.
Evolution a philosophy?
Yes and no!
The rest of science a philosophy?
Yes and no!
Taking away from God.
Clearly ToE has an enormous impact on our thinking as to our place in the universe. Hence a study of the impact of ToE on the thinking of humanity is enormously important and can be contemplated in arts classes.
However, this is no different to Heliocentricm – do you really wish for our models of the solar system to be taught as philosophy given that they had an enormous impact on humanity’s idea of its place in the universe? And obviously such models still have that impact since most humans (in the west), barring a few Biblical literalists, accept the naturalistic theories which have no reliance on the Bible (the sacred text of the west).
Science in general. With the explosion of science, beginning some 150 years ago, actions and processes that were once deemed to be the province of the gods, no longer were deemed to be such. They became the province of the human mind to know and control. Effectively the gods were pushed out.
So put all of science into the humanities for this reason – not just ToE?
At day’s end, ToE is no different to the rest of science in that it attempts to understand one aspect of the observable, material universe using ideas that are comprehended by the human mind. This is not philosophy. It never was. It is science. It always was.
The impact of ToE, like the impact of science in general, is a legitimate part of philosophy. It always was. And like the rest of science, ToE uses this thing called the “scientific method”. This method has its own assumptions which are rightly questioned and analyzed in philosophical discourse. However, philosophers questioning the “scientific method” does not stop chemists from working. Why should it stop evolutionists?
Uncertainty, assumption, wanting theories to be correct etc.
You make it sound as if assumption, uncertainty, wanting theories to be correct etc, are in someway unique to ToE. Or if not unique to ToE, then characteristic of ToE but not characteristic of other sciences. Thus you write:-
You claim that you aren’t a scientist. Yet this statement sounds kind of scientific. What is your statement really saying? That “when fossils a and b are run through machine c we arrive at a date of d assuming e,f, and g.” Why do you choose not to present it this way? You do not know the extensive details of the science. Neither do I. You have expectations for proof and faith that the standards applied in interpretation are equivalent to the methodology. Because my expectations are stricter than yours as to what can be stated as empirical fact in no way negates them based on complexity.
No, I am not a scientist. But why should only scientists be able to make statements that sound like science. (I got that one from a scientific journal, Nature. I could not understand the whole article by a long shot. I understood enough though, to know what was being reported and what it meant. That statement was really a one sentence synopsis of the article in which controlled lab work was described by which new data was collected which provided a possible, but partial solution to the question:- “If insects evolved from crustaceans which both the fossil record and molecular data suggest, then how could that event have occurred?”)
Your statement about “fossils a and b [being] run through a machine c [and arriving] at a date d assuming e, f, and g”. You ask why did I choose not to present it this way?
Why shouldn’t I?
(Actually they were not using fossils to extract a date. Rather they were using extant organisms to answer an outstanding evolutionary puzzle – “How could insects evolve from crustaceans?”)
I gather, with your analogy, you are talking about dating strata, using fossils.
Machine “c” is the theory which began to be constructed in the early days of geology (before ToE), which was subsequently confirmed and extended with the advent of absolute dating systems, which said that similar strata contained similar fossils. Thus, if you were unsure of the relative or absolute age of a particular stratum but could locate a fossil associated with it, then you would know the date. All scientific theories are these “machines” if you like.
Fossils “a” and “b” are just observation points. They are data. All scientific theories rely on data for their construction, verification or abandonment.
Assumptions “e”, “f” and “g” are the suppositions made, from which the machines are partly built or the data collected. All scientific theories have underlying assumptions. These assumptions have associated degrees of certainty. Some assumptions are certain. Others are less certain. Data collection relies on its own set of assumptions.
Inference “d” or deduction “d” is just the output. Many scientific theories are used to inform us of something we cannot otherwise know. Results/outputs are deduced or inferred, using theories and the deductive or inferential system.
Thus we can observe relative humidity (h), wind velocity (w), temperature (t), and put these into a machine (c) – a theory about the danger posed by any fire starting on a particular type of day, and deduce a number (d), indicating the danger posed by any fire.
Observations (h), (w) and (t) are all made, with underlying assumptions attached - concerning the adequacy of the measuring devices, for example. Theory/machine (c) has its own assumptions, for example, that terrain can be ignored, as can dew point, fuel moisture etc.
So why is the implication that all this is a problem for ToE but not so much for the rest of science? If ToE is philosophy on these grounds, then so is the rest of science.
Or are you arguing that this is a bigger problem for ToE, or that ToE is more “guilty” of it in some way. If so, then beyond the assertion, you have not demonstrated that this is so, IMHO.
You wrote:- “You do not know the extensive details of the science. Neither do I.[/b]
But if you can classify ToE as philosophy on these grounds then the rest of science must get classified the same – surely.
You wrote:- “You have expectations for proof and faith that the standards applied in interpretation are equivalent to the methodology”.
Again, why is this only a problem for ToE such that only it becomes philosophy and not the rest of science? I would have thought that expectations and standards of interpretation are an issue for all science.
If you are arguing that these are an issue for all of science but only ToE has the problem in all cases then I would argue that you are making an unsupported assertion. And again I would ask the question, just how much mainstream literature do you read? If there is any you do read, then what is its quality? Again I am not meaning to be disparaging by these questions. However, those experiments I briefly mentioned are examples of what is done and what has always been done – namely tightly controlled experiments the interpretation of which is well constrained by the data.
You are free to disagree with the interpretation. But that you disagree hardly means that you have demonstrated that the supposed inadequacies of ToE are unique to it, more problematical for it etc. As mentioned earlier, the existence of flat earthers hardly means that theories concerning the shape of the earth or its position in space must therefore be philosophical, are doubtful in some way, or that these theories have associated issues that do not occur with all other sciences. And the position of the earth in space was one of those theories that certainly changed our view of ourselves in a fundamental way.
I am not suggesting that all evolutionary interpretations are sound and well constrained by the data. Often evolutionists do stray, terribly. Often they do not. But again, this is the case with all of science. Hence my question re your reading.
A year ago I got into a long argument (many biiig posts) with a guy who argued that ToE was not really science because many theories could fit the one data set. Against this he claimed, studies in say, gravity, were scientific because only one theory could fit any data set, given the precision with which gravitational phenomena could be measured. It was simple enough to provide him with a link to competing theories.
Anyway youngborean, I shall leave it at this for now.
Regards, Roland
First of all my (partial) apologies.
Youngborean:- Next time could you keep it short. It is too time consuming to try and think about everything at once. Thank you for your interest.
My long essay was a response to reading several from you in which you argued points I disagreed with. I am notorious for writing long essays, although I do not always do it. I enjoy the essays – perhaps a little too much (lack of sleep, slow at doing jobs around the house etc.). Some do get annoyed at me for the long essays.
Should it happen again, just pick out a section or a point and reply to that – if you feel like replying. That is fine, and if you make it clear that you do not have the time for detail then everyone will understand your (or my) constraints.
In the interest of a short reply I shall explain where I am coming from, and shall address only a couple of areas in your post – namely the area I titled “INTERPRETATION” and the last portion.
WHAT IS ToE?
ToE is just a naturalistic theory which explains patterns in life we observe today and patterns in life we observe from the fossil record. By naturalistic, I mean that it appeals to laws, principles and ideas which we know about. It relies for its creation, and survival on this process loosely described as the “scientific method”. It both explains data which is collected within its explanatory scope, and it uses that data to confirm, modify or reject itself. It is concerned with two questions:-
1) verification of its central claim – that life has changed over time and
2) discovery of the processes by which it operates.
In all of these aspects, ToE in no different to any other branch of science or scientific theory.
ToE really got underway with Darwin. He had a problem to solve – namely the naturalistic origin of the patterns in life then perceived by naturalists. He never did solve the mystery of the origin of species but he found a natural theory of evolution which relied on observational data and which:-
1) verified (not proved) the idea of a natural origin and
2) offered a mechanism for the central process.
This is no different to the astronomers in the early to mid 20th century who had a problem to solve – namely the natural origin of a star’s energy. They solved it. They
1) verified the notion of a natural origin and
2) offered a mechanism for the central process.
INTERPRETATION
I wrote a section which I titled “INETERPRETATION”. In your response you said several things which warrant reply.
Youngborean:- Evolutionary biology is the only Science solely devoted to interpretation.
This makes little sense to me. Evolutionary biologists construct hypotheses, they have theories, they collect data and confirm these – accept them, modify them, reject them, depending on what they find.
This is all conventional science. What else do scientists do other than
construct theories, test them and confirm, modify or reject them, depending on the results? All scientists interpret all the data they collect.
So why is this all something new when evolutionary biologists do it?
A chemist does this and you accept it. An evolutionary biologist does it and you argue that it is unique to evolutionary biology and makes the field suspect.
Youngborean:- Name me something else that an evolutionary biologist does that is not another Scientific discipline.
Well they have their own definitions that do not fall into the domain of another discipline. They collect data relevant to their own questions that are not relevant to other disciplines.
And if ToE relies on biology, genetics, chemistry and so is suspect because of this sole reliance on other sciences, then similarly the theory that stars shine via nuclear reactions at their cores relies solely on physics. Therefore this theory must be suspect. Meteorological theories rely solely on physics and chemistry. Therefore, like ToE they too are suspect?
Youngborean:- Science to me also includes the generation of new data.
What do you mean by the generation of new data? I am unsure and so will have to take a bit of a punt.
Evolutionists certainly undertake observations (generate new data?) unique to their field of enquiry and they are doing it all the time. This is no different to chemists and physicists.
So a chemist does it and you see no problem. An evolutionist does it and you appear unaware.
Roland:- All of science deals with interpretation.
Youngborean:- But is not exclusively relegated to it.
I fail to see how any scientist can just collect data then do nothing with it. All data is interpreted.
I fail to see how an evolutionist can do interpretation with out first collecting data. I mean you have to have something to interpret.
Youngborean:- But I agree that the Earth is round, does that prove that there is adequate evidence to prove evolution.
When I wrote this I was not arguing that our agreement on the shape of the earth should prove evolution. I was arguing in response to your:-
Youngborean:- Evolutionary biology is unique in science in that it seems to be only concerned with interpretation. Very few scientists I know and have worked with would be happy with something that is not a "fact" in their results.
Even “facts” are ultimately interpretations. The shape of the earth is a “fact” derived from a specific set of experiments (observations, data) but people can still disagree as to the shape of the earth.
It is not the case that poor old ToE is doomed to wander in the field of interpretation only, for ever and ever, while all other sciences go out, generate new data and thereby collect facts. The data is the one thing in science that is always close to fact – providing the observer was not drunk or the measuring device was not in error. (Theories can also be considered close to fact if they have so much evidence (data) going for them.) But that data still has to be interpreted. Its interpretation can confirm the underlying theory. If this happens enough, then the theory can be considered a fact. That data still had to be interpreted nevertheless.
Roland:- If you accept naturalistic theories over supernatural theories as explanations for some unseen and unobservable processes then it really is a choice you make.
Same data – different choices of interpretation.
Youngborean:- It is a choice. However it is presented as a choice between empirical data and theoretical in education. Not theoretical versus theoretical.
You confuse two things here, IMO – “theory” and “data”. Empirical data is not theory. It is data. Data is never theory. Data is observation. Theories are tools which guide our data collection, explain the data, are tested by the data.
So, comparing “apples with apples”, it cannot be a choice between “empirical data and theoretical”. It is a choice between interpretation and interpretation or theory and theory.
PHILOSOPHY or SCIENCE
Near the end of your post you write:-
My point was to ask where Evolution should be taught. I find the most compelling evidence for it being a philosophy in the words that you said.
You offer many reasons for this, some of which I shall briefly explore below.
Evolution a philosophy?
Yes and no!
The rest of science a philosophy?
Yes and no!
Taking away from God.
Clearly ToE has an enormous impact on our thinking as to our place in the universe. Hence a study of the impact of ToE on the thinking of humanity is enormously important and can be contemplated in arts classes.
However, this is no different to Heliocentricm – do you really wish for our models of the solar system to be taught as philosophy given that they had an enormous impact on humanity’s idea of its place in the universe? And obviously such models still have that impact since most humans (in the west), barring a few Biblical literalists, accept the naturalistic theories which have no reliance on the Bible (the sacred text of the west).
Science in general. With the explosion of science, beginning some 150 years ago, actions and processes that were once deemed to be the province of the gods, no longer were deemed to be such. They became the province of the human mind to know and control. Effectively the gods were pushed out.
So put all of science into the humanities for this reason – not just ToE?
At day’s end, ToE is no different to the rest of science in that it attempts to understand one aspect of the observable, material universe using ideas that are comprehended by the human mind. This is not philosophy. It never was. It is science. It always was.
The impact of ToE, like the impact of science in general, is a legitimate part of philosophy. It always was. And like the rest of science, ToE uses this thing called the “scientific method”. This method has its own assumptions which are rightly questioned and analyzed in philosophical discourse. However, philosophers questioning the “scientific method” does not stop chemists from working. Why should it stop evolutionists?
Uncertainty, assumption, wanting theories to be correct etc.
You make it sound as if assumption, uncertainty, wanting theories to be correct etc, are in someway unique to ToE. Or if not unique to ToE, then characteristic of ToE but not characteristic of other sciences. Thus you write:-
You claim that you aren’t a scientist. Yet this statement sounds kind of scientific. What is your statement really saying? That “when fossils a and b are run through machine c we arrive at a date of d assuming e,f, and g.” Why do you choose not to present it this way? You do not know the extensive details of the science. Neither do I. You have expectations for proof and faith that the standards applied in interpretation are equivalent to the methodology. Because my expectations are stricter than yours as to what can be stated as empirical fact in no way negates them based on complexity.
No, I am not a scientist. But why should only scientists be able to make statements that sound like science. (I got that one from a scientific journal, Nature. I could not understand the whole article by a long shot. I understood enough though, to know what was being reported and what it meant. That statement was really a one sentence synopsis of the article in which controlled lab work was described by which new data was collected which provided a possible, but partial solution to the question:- “If insects evolved from crustaceans which both the fossil record and molecular data suggest, then how could that event have occurred?”)
Your statement about “fossils a and b [being] run through a machine c [and arriving] at a date d assuming e, f, and g”. You ask why did I choose not to present it this way?
Why shouldn’t I?
(Actually they were not using fossils to extract a date. Rather they were using extant organisms to answer an outstanding evolutionary puzzle – “How could insects evolve from crustaceans?”)
I gather, with your analogy, you are talking about dating strata, using fossils.
Machine “c” is the theory which began to be constructed in the early days of geology (before ToE), which was subsequently confirmed and extended with the advent of absolute dating systems, which said that similar strata contained similar fossils. Thus, if you were unsure of the relative or absolute age of a particular stratum but could locate a fossil associated with it, then you would know the date. All scientific theories are these “machines” if you like.
Fossils “a” and “b” are just observation points. They are data. All scientific theories rely on data for their construction, verification or abandonment.
Assumptions “e”, “f” and “g” are the suppositions made, from which the machines are partly built or the data collected. All scientific theories have underlying assumptions. These assumptions have associated degrees of certainty. Some assumptions are certain. Others are less certain. Data collection relies on its own set of assumptions.
Inference “d” or deduction “d” is just the output. Many scientific theories are used to inform us of something we cannot otherwise know. Results/outputs are deduced or inferred, using theories and the deductive or inferential system.
Thus we can observe relative humidity (h), wind velocity (w), temperature (t), and put these into a machine (c) – a theory about the danger posed by any fire starting on a particular type of day, and deduce a number (d), indicating the danger posed by any fire.
Observations (h), (w) and (t) are all made, with underlying assumptions attached - concerning the adequacy of the measuring devices, for example. Theory/machine (c) has its own assumptions, for example, that terrain can be ignored, as can dew point, fuel moisture etc.
So why is the implication that all this is a problem for ToE but not so much for the rest of science? If ToE is philosophy on these grounds, then so is the rest of science.
Or are you arguing that this is a bigger problem for ToE, or that ToE is more “guilty” of it in some way. If so, then beyond the assertion, you have not demonstrated that this is so, IMHO.
You wrote:- “You do not know the extensive details of the science. Neither do I.[/b]
But if you can classify ToE as philosophy on these grounds then the rest of science must get classified the same – surely.
You wrote:- “You have expectations for proof and faith that the standards applied in interpretation are equivalent to the methodology”.
Again, why is this only a problem for ToE such that only it becomes philosophy and not the rest of science? I would have thought that expectations and standards of interpretation are an issue for all science.
If you are arguing that these are an issue for all of science but only ToE has the problem in all cases then I would argue that you are making an unsupported assertion. And again I would ask the question, just how much mainstream literature do you read? If there is any you do read, then what is its quality? Again I am not meaning to be disparaging by these questions. However, those experiments I briefly mentioned are examples of what is done and what has always been done – namely tightly controlled experiments the interpretation of which is well constrained by the data.
You are free to disagree with the interpretation. But that you disagree hardly means that you have demonstrated that the supposed inadequacies of ToE are unique to it, more problematical for it etc. As mentioned earlier, the existence of flat earthers hardly means that theories concerning the shape of the earth or its position in space must therefore be philosophical, are doubtful in some way, or that these theories have associated issues that do not occur with all other sciences. And the position of the earth in space was one of those theories that certainly changed our view of ourselves in a fundamental way.
I am not suggesting that all evolutionary interpretations are sound and well constrained by the data. Often evolutionists do stray, terribly. Often they do not. But again, this is the case with all of science. Hence my question re your reading.
A year ago I got into a long argument (many biiig posts) with a guy who argued that ToE was not really science because many theories could fit the one data set. Against this he claimed, studies in say, gravity, were scientific because only one theory could fit any data set, given the precision with which gravitational phenomena could be measured. It was simple enough to provide him with a link to competing theories.
Anyway youngborean, I shall leave it at this for now.
Regards, Roland
-
youngborean
- Sage
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:28 pm
Post #34
Hey Roland,
My point does apply on a level to all Science. However, there are characteristics that are unique to Evolutionary biology apart from the Rest of Physical Sciences. I was wondering why the standards of education have elevated this particular theory to the level of foundational truth for a new branch of Science. The simplify that all Science is interpretation, although it bears a lot of truth in my mind does not explain this phenomenon. If that were the case, then all act using some sort of deductive logic would be Science (Yes this is very close to the etymology of the word). I am only looking at a point in our education system, where most universities will teach Anthropolgy, Physcology and Archeology as an Art and Biology, Chemistry and Physics as Sciences. My question is where Evolutionary Biology Fits? My belief is that the seeming reasons for these differences would make me believe that evolutionary biology fits more closely with these disciplines that are taught in art. Like I said earlier, I believe an Art is the ablity to use a Science. I believe that the theory of Evolution is masterful at this, but there are no processes that I can think of that are Exclusive to evolutionary biology, because Data gathering exists in Arts and Sciences. There are no techniques of Evolutionary biology that are new. You don't need a controlled environment to study Evolutionary Biology (simply because you can piece togehter data from other controlled environments like physics labs and palentology labs) but you do need Controlled (scientific) data. Your point is valid, but it doesn't really help my question of why does Evolutionary Biology get this special treatment?
My point does apply on a level to all Science. However, there are characteristics that are unique to Evolutionary biology apart from the Rest of Physical Sciences. I was wondering why the standards of education have elevated this particular theory to the level of foundational truth for a new branch of Science. The simplify that all Science is interpretation, although it bears a lot of truth in my mind does not explain this phenomenon. If that were the case, then all act using some sort of deductive logic would be Science (Yes this is very close to the etymology of the word). I am only looking at a point in our education system, where most universities will teach Anthropolgy, Physcology and Archeology as an Art and Biology, Chemistry and Physics as Sciences. My question is where Evolutionary Biology Fits? My belief is that the seeming reasons for these differences would make me believe that evolutionary biology fits more closely with these disciplines that are taught in art. Like I said earlier, I believe an Art is the ablity to use a Science. I believe that the theory of Evolution is masterful at this, but there are no processes that I can think of that are Exclusive to evolutionary biology, because Data gathering exists in Arts and Sciences. There are no techniques of Evolutionary biology that are new. You don't need a controlled environment to study Evolutionary Biology (simply because you can piece togehter data from other controlled environments like physics labs and palentology labs) but you do need Controlled (scientific) data. Your point is valid, but it doesn't really help my question of why does Evolutionary Biology get this special treatment?
Post #35
youngborean wrote:I believe you have a good understanding of what science does in reality. But what is Science supposed to be? Our interpretations and creation of theories should remain theory until they can be elevated to the level of Empirical Data, thereby becoming the foundation for a new type of Science. Theories are a part of Science but are not Science in isolation.
Perhaps it would help to use some examples. What are the relationships of living things? The idea of creation makes no predictions. Each "kind" simply is, since each was created independently. However, if living things are the descendents of previously-living things, then there should be similarities and differences in their DNA. Just like my DNA sequence is very similar to my sister's, but somewhat more different from someone from another country, organisms that are more closely related are expected to have DNA sequences that are more similar than those of organisms that are distantly related. OK, let's test this idea.youngborean wrote:Not the only Science concerned with interpretation. Evolutionary biology is the only Science solely devoted to interpretation. Name me something else that an evolutionary biologist does that is not another Scientific discipline.
...
Science to me also includes the generation of new data.
Evolutionary biologists use the tools of molecular biology to determine DNA sequences. These sequences are new data. Within the limits of experimental error, they are the Empirical Facts. The next step, once we have the data, is to determine the similarities and differences. This isn't quite as simple as just counting them, but counting is fairly close. Then, make a diagram that illustrates the differences and similarities pictorially, rather than in a table of numbers. What we get are things like these:
A diagram for different species of yeast
A diagram for different species of the bacteria, Lactobacillus
A diagram for many species of bacteria
A diagram for all living things (but, in the interest of being able to read it, showing only a very few of them)
These diagrams, or "trees" are just pictorial representations of the numbers of DNA sequence differences between organisms. As such, they are another type of Empirical Data, just presented in pictorial form. These are among the kinds of new data that evolutionary biologists generate. Many evolutionary biologists do quite different things, and generate quite different data, but this is one example that addressess your concern.
The question now arises: how do we interpret these findings? What models can we envision that would explain how this pattern of relationships came to be? The creation model is that god created things this way. This isn't a very useful model, because we can't test it. It also brings in religion, which is problematical in that there are many other religions that would offer different supernatural origins. Alternatively, we can apply our knowledge of how genetic inheritance works, how mutations work, how natural selection works, etc., and suggest that these different species are actually genetically related to each other. That is, the pattern of relationships is explained by the theory of evolution.
Hopefully, this example offers some insight into a couple of things. Evolutionary biologists generate data. In this case, it's DNA sequence data. Then, like any scientists, they interpret the data and develop explanatory hypotheses. In this case, the best explanation is evolution--a hypothesis that has been tested sufficiently often and sufficiently rigorously that it has been elevated to the level of a theory (which is as high as you can go in this business).
But it is not taught as an empirical truth. It is taught in the context of information that leads to that particular hypothesis. For example: both mitochondria and chloroplasts contain DNA, and produce their own proteins (some of them). The DNA sequences of their genomes are most similar to those of bacteria, of specific groups that "make sense" (eg. chloroplasts are most closely related to photosynthetic cyanobacteria). Given these data, what scientific hypotheses can we develop to explain them? We could hypothesize that god created them that way, but we can't test that hypothesis, so it doesn't lead anywhere. We could also hypothesize that these organelles arose by endosymbiosis. At present, this is the best hypothesis available, so the textbooks usually say that scientists think that this is their origin. If it seems unlikely, and if it seems that such endosymbiotic events should occur more rarely than once every few billion years, then it is necessary not simply to say "the hypothesis is no good," but to develop an alternate hypothesis that is better.youngborean wrote:rjw wrote:This one is very much a matter of personal opinion as to what one sees as acceptable evidence. Nevertheless, while I sympathize with some of your requirements, I do think you are being a very unrealistic.
I would love to see a good cell theory experiment too. I do not know whether one exists or not. I am a layman, not a scientist like Jose or yourself.
You are correct in that if the foundation is shaky then the edifice may collapse. However, the lack of a good cell experiment does not necessarily make the foundation shaky. It just means that the experiment has not been done yet for one reason or another.
You write that you “don’t just want the Mito or Chloroplasts, [you] want the evolution of all organelles into a single cell”.
But isn’t this just denial of existing evidence (Mito and Chloroplasts) and requiring instead that everything be demonstrated?
If so then your demand becomes unreasonable, surely. I could deny every naturalistic theory in every field on precisely those grounds, namely:-
a) denial of existing evidence and
This is where you totally loose me. I never stated that Mito and Chloroplasts don’t exist. I only stated that the mechanism for their existence, which was the greatest mechanism of evolution of all time (if true) has yet to be proven.
If it is taught as empirical truth, then yes.rjw wrote:b) in its place demanding that everything be demonstrated and hence explained by that theory.
Panza llena, corazon contento
Post #36
Evolutionary Biology fits, usually, in biology. Sometimes, it is a separate department. Sometimes, it is an interdepartmental program. At my university, it is a program within biology. Of course, Anthro, Psych, and Archeology are all sciences, too--though Anthro and Psych can span a great distance from natural sciences to social sciences.youngborean wrote:I am only looking at a point in our education system, where most universities will teach Anthropolgy, Physcology and Archeology as an Art and Biology, Chemistry and Physics as Sciences. My question is where Evolutionary Biology Fits?
In general, Evolutionary Biology has developed into its own discipline, with hundreds of scientists in this field.
Panza llena, corazon contento
-
youngborean
- Sage
- Posts: 800
- Joined: Wed Sep 08, 2004 2:28 pm
Post #37
I disagree with this statement. Because wouldn't everyone's answer for why they believe in Evolution be similar to yours, Jose? But everyone does not say, "I believe in Evolution because it is the model with the most evidence." (Excuse me if I paraphrase) Instead we have a great multitude of people that believe in evolution without knowing all the evidence. Therefore it has gone into the realm of Religion in that it has a group of people that support it buy Faith. Not only that, but "Social Scientists", like Anthropologists and Arheologists, teach the theory of Evolution without having a Natural Science background. Granted, everyone in the above category could be hearing the Teachers incorrectly, or the theory has been elevated from theory to Empirical Truth in education. If it truly had the integrity in education that you suggest then it would require that everyone who supported it was aware of all of the evidence good or bad, or like you, recognized that by what they know it seems best. That is not the case, so there is an issue in Education. I think it starts in the assumption that the theory in itself has gone through the rigors that should be demanded of a theory before it is accepted as foundational truth for other disciplines.But it is not taught as an empirical truth.
Post #38
Not relevant.I disagree with this statement. Because wouldn't everyone's answer for why they believe in Evolution be similar to yours, Jose? But everyone does not say, "I believe in Evolution because it is the model with the most evidence." (Excuse me if I paraphrase) Instead we have a great multitude of people that believe in evolution without knowing all the evidence. Therefore it has gone into the realm of Religion in that it has a group of people that support it buy Faith.
I doubt you're a doctor, and I doubt that most everyone is a doctor. Is medicine then a religion?
I doubt most everyone has taken higher level physics. Is nuclear fusion a religion? Is Quantum Theory?
In fact, at this moment, I'm willing to say that I doubt most anyone has taken hardly anything in regards to science, so chemistry, biology, physics, history, etc...So that must also be religion?
Simply because every person on the street can't sit down and give you a half-hour explanation on the basics of evolution, does not make it religion by a long shot. It is more likely an indication that not everyone has spent a good deal of time in biology, then an indication that it is a religion.
Post #39
Thank you, Nyril. I couldn't have said it better, myself.
This, really, is the issue, isn't it? It's not a question of whether ToE is a philosophy or a religion, or requires faith to "believe in" it. It's really a question of what the evidence is. It's a question of what the theory really says, not what its religious detractors say that it says--for the two are often very different. These are more useful issues to explore. Where should we start?
It's a good paraphrase. You're right that most people don't say it that way. They typically accept that what is taught in science classes usually is the theories that have the most evidence. They typically accept that the amount of evidence that they have considered, at one time or another, is sufficient to give them confidence that the theory is supported by evidence. It's not a matter of "believing in" evolution. It's simply a matter of accepting that there is evidence, and that this theory explains it. The alternative, of course, is that god did it--for which there is no evidence, and for which a great many people are therefore highly skeptical.youngborean wrote:But everyone does not say, "I believe in Evolution because it is the model with the most evidence." (Excuse me if I paraphrase) Instead we have a great multitude of people that believe in evolution without knowing all the evidence.
It would be great if everyone who teaches knew 100% of everything they teach about! Regrettably, that's not possible. There's just too much known for anyone to master all of it, especially in the limited time available if we want to spend more time teaching before we die. So, there is an issue in education, all right, but it's very hard to see how to solve it. As one who is involved in teacher training in our state, I have seen the tension between training teachers more fully, and training them efficiently enough that they actually make it into the classroom. State legislation actually limits the training available. The great need for additional teachers has also generated newer, less-training routes to certification. If you can offer suggestions for how to improve this situation, please do. It's a real difficulty.youngborean wrote:If it truly had the integrity in education that you suggest then it would require that everyone who supported it was aware of all of the evidence good or bad, or like you, recognized that by what they know it seems best. That is not the case, so there is an issue in Education.
...by which you imply that it has not? In 150 years of testing, and serious efforts to disprove it, it is still possible that it has not been tested rigorously? It might be interesting to suggest that critics might want to be "aware of all of the evidence good or bad" before reaching such hasty conclusions. Just as you can complain that the theory shouldn't be taught without understanding what it really is and what evidence supports it, we can also say that a critic shouldn't complain about the theory unless they understand what it really is and what evidence supports it.youngborean wrote:I think it starts in the assumption that the theory in itself has gone through the rigors that should be demanded of a theory before it is accepted as foundational truth for other disciplines.
This, really, is the issue, isn't it? It's not a question of whether ToE is a philosophy or a religion, or requires faith to "believe in" it. It's really a question of what the evidence is. It's a question of what the theory really says, not what its religious detractors say that it says--for the two are often very different. These are more useful issues to explore. Where should we start?
Panza llena, corazon contento
Post #40
Hello youngborean,
I do not understand your problem with ToE. And some of your argument I do not understand.
What gives me problems is this:-
I was wondering why the standards of education have elevated this particular theory to the level of foundational truth for a new branch of Science.
What do you mean by “foundational truth”?
As far as I see, ToE gets no treatment above and beyond that of any other science.
Researchers consider that evolution has happened and is happening and so there are a set of questions which are asked and problems to be solved. How is this different to any other science?
I do not know if, in Australia, all universities teach archaeology, psychology, and anthropology in their arts faculties but I suspect that many do. But this does not mean that they are not full blown sciences and are not taught as such. I suspect that many universities teach these courses in science faculties while others teach them in both.
If archaeology, psychology, and anthropology are taught in arts faculties then in what sense are they not taught as sciences in the manner that physics and chemistry are taught as sciences in their science faculties?
I suspect that these sciences are taught in arts faculties because they have an intimate relationship with the human affairs and the humanities, and humanities are generally taught in arts faculties. However, ToE does not have an intimate relationship with human affairs until it gets into the realms of anthropology and archaeology. At that point ToE does move into the arts faculties. Until then it rightfully remains in the science faculties. As argued on my other postings, I do not see that your other objections stand either – IMHO. Hence there is no reason to shift ToE. And if one did, then like the others, it would still be a science.
As an example of your other objections, you write:-
… there are no processes that I can think of that are Exclusive to evolutionary biology, because Data gathering exists in Arts and Sciences. There are no techniques of Evolutionary biology that are new.
If data gathering occur in both arts and science then that objection can be dismissed. You cannot point the finger at ToE if it is a “problem” that occurs everywhere else.
There are no new techniques? ToE has its definitions that do not occur elsewhere in other sciences. I mentioned a couple in my previous post.
Cladistics, a method of defining relationships amongst organisms, arose, I think, out of the need to place a degree of objectivity into evolutionary family trees.
You don't need a controlled environment to study Evolutionary Biology (simply because you can piece togehter data from other controlled environments like physics labs and palentology labs) but you do need Controlled (scientific) data.
I do not understand what you are arguing here. Could you explain further?
Regards, Roland
I do not understand your problem with ToE. And some of your argument I do not understand.
What gives me problems is this:-
I was wondering why the standards of education have elevated this particular theory to the level of foundational truth for a new branch of Science.
What do you mean by “foundational truth”?
As far as I see, ToE gets no treatment above and beyond that of any other science.
Researchers consider that evolution has happened and is happening and so there are a set of questions which are asked and problems to be solved. How is this different to any other science?
I do not know if, in Australia, all universities teach archaeology, psychology, and anthropology in their arts faculties but I suspect that many do. But this does not mean that they are not full blown sciences and are not taught as such. I suspect that many universities teach these courses in science faculties while others teach them in both.
If archaeology, psychology, and anthropology are taught in arts faculties then in what sense are they not taught as sciences in the manner that physics and chemistry are taught as sciences in their science faculties?
I suspect that these sciences are taught in arts faculties because they have an intimate relationship with the human affairs and the humanities, and humanities are generally taught in arts faculties. However, ToE does not have an intimate relationship with human affairs until it gets into the realms of anthropology and archaeology. At that point ToE does move into the arts faculties. Until then it rightfully remains in the science faculties. As argued on my other postings, I do not see that your other objections stand either – IMHO. Hence there is no reason to shift ToE. And if one did, then like the others, it would still be a science.
As an example of your other objections, you write:-
… there are no processes that I can think of that are Exclusive to evolutionary biology, because Data gathering exists in Arts and Sciences. There are no techniques of Evolutionary biology that are new.
If data gathering occur in both arts and science then that objection can be dismissed. You cannot point the finger at ToE if it is a “problem” that occurs everywhere else.
There are no new techniques? ToE has its definitions that do not occur elsewhere in other sciences. I mentioned a couple in my previous post.
Cladistics, a method of defining relationships amongst organisms, arose, I think, out of the need to place a degree of objectivity into evolutionary family trees.
You don't need a controlled environment to study Evolutionary Biology (simply because you can piece togehter data from other controlled environments like physics labs and palentology labs) but you do need Controlled (scientific) data.
I do not understand what you are arguing here. Could you explain further?
Regards, Roland
