The Science Delusion: has science become dogmatic?

[Xulonn]

who have mutated to see only one primary color. That color is green.

Of course, there are at least three common emotions - at least in American culture - associated with the color green:

1. A lust for money: U.S. paper money is still mostly green, although those who pursue relationships for money are called gold diggers, and not green-diggers.

2. Jealousy/envy: The color green has been associated with jealousy dating back to the ancient Greeks. They believed jealousy occurred as result of the overproduction of bile, which turned human skin slightly green. I doubt that science has lent support to this hypothesis.

3. Environmentalist obsession with its actions and beliefs: This is another subject where many of the most ardent supporters have dipped into pseudoscience and conspiracy theories as much as the anti-environmentalists. Tis is a subject of which I am acutely aware, since I have degree in Conservation of Natural Resources from U.C. Berkeley that I earned back in 1976, just as environmentalism was growing rapidly and going mainstream.

So then, I am not a man from Mars, not little, not prone to jealousy, envy or lust for money, but yet I am still fairly green due to my rational environmental creds.

 

[Kal Rubinson]

So did color-blindness evolve to help humans hunt insects?

Possibly. When my oldest brother enlisted in the USAF (around 1951), he was encouraged to become a navigator/spotter because of his R/G colorblindness and, otherwise, excellent vision. They thought he could "see through" camouflage when hunting.

 

[Wes]

In science one starts with a hypothesis. If it can be proven it becomes a law or rule of science like the laws of motion. Sometimes a hypothesis like evolution can't reach the status of a rule or law. If insurmountable evidence is accumulated the hypothesis is elevated to a theory.

One may observe that many laws are enacted based on a hypothesis and not a theory or rule.

You've got this scrambled up.

For one thing, you can never prove a hypothesis, only dis-prove it.

You can say science starts with a hypothesis, but the real start is just an idea or question. You then transform that into a testable stmt. - hypothesis.

 

[Wes]

Possibly. When my oldest brother enlisted in the USAF (around 1951), he was encouraged to become a navigator/spotter because of his R/G colorblindness and, otherwise, excellent vision. They thought he could "see through" camouflage when hunting.

I'd bet on detection of camouflaged predators rather than insects.

Since humans and other mammals inherited color vision from reptiles, we'd need to look pretty far back to see the original adaptive value. Dunno re fish or amphibians.

 

[Ron Texas]

You've got this scrambled up.

For one thing, you can never prove a hypothesis, only dis-prove it.

You can say science starts with a hypothesis, but the real start is just an idea or question. You then transform that into a testable stmt. - hypothesis.

Is this about semantics? I'm not going to argue about it.

 

[Wes]

No it is not just semantics. You can do some reading if you want, and a wiki is likely adequate.

 

[JustJones]

In science one starts with a hypothesis. If it can be proven it becomes a law or rule of science like the laws of motion. Sometimes a hypothesis like evolution can't reach the status of a rule or law. If insurmountable evidence is accumulated the hypothesis is elevated to a theory.

One may observe that many laws are enacted based on a hypothesis and not a theory or rule.

For one thing evolution isn't a hypothesis it's a theory and it will never become a scientific law. The Theory of Evolution is the pinnacle of all modern biology it is more than facts or laws. You're confused about what hypothesis, theory, law and facts are in science. For example there is Newton's LAW of gravity it mathematically describes how two different bodies in the universe interact with each other. It doesn't tell us what gravity is or how it works, for that there's Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

 

[Wes]

Generally, yes

 

[j_j]

My biggest issue with Climate is the reporting on the news by non-scientists declared as experts by their station - “And now our resident expert [fill in name here] who covers climate science...”

Inevitably you will here these types of errors (lies?)
1. The Earth is warmer today than at any time in history.
Why can’t they say since 1880? Would that dilute the impact of what they’re trying to impress upon the viewer?

I take it you reject isotope measurements of arctic and antarctic ice, despite the fact there is evidence that works?

2. There are only x years left until their is no going back.
Going back for whom? We could nuke this planet into oblivion and it will be teaming with wildlife in a few million years.

3. We have to keep the Earth from warming another 1 degree centigrade or it will be to warm for humans.

2 is not necessarily wrong, we do not know the effects of methane clathrates and various chaotic attractors.
3 is properly stated as "human civilization as we know it will fail"

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

For one thing evolution isn't a hypothesis it's a theory and it will never become a scientific law. The Theory of Evolution is the pinnacle of all modern biology it is more than facts or laws. You're confused about what hypothesis, theory, law and facts are in science. For example there is Newton's LAW of gravity it mathematically describes how two different bodies in the universe interact with each other. It doesn't tell us what gravity is or how it works, for that there's Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

I'm late to this discussion and haven't read it all but I think you are confusing your "laws" here Scientific vs common language.
My understanding is that a scientific law is an observation of fact: the apple falls from the tree, living creatures evolve
The theory then explains that fact.

So Darwin's theory of natural selection is the theory that explains the observed fact of evolution.

Theories are falsifiable, that's how science progresses

 

[pkane]

Unlikely. It is highly likely that it is not adaptive at all, and was selected against.

There are 4 or 5 factors that drive micro-evolution (depending on whether you are talking about gene or genotype frequencies) and selection is only one of them. For more excitement apply strong directional selection at one locus in one direction, and strong directional selection in the other "direction" at another locus nearby on the same chromosome.

Or selection can be frequency or density dependent.

So color blindness is not adaptive.

How about golden ears? That seems like it would be, considering the enormous evolutionary pressure on any audiophile individual to hear differences where none exist. An audiophile that doesn't express this feature is quickly expelled from the social group to live out the remainder of his days shunned as a pariah in an outcast community called ASR. He subsists on cheap audio equipment from Topping and clings to science in a last-ditch effort to prove his worth against the large population of gifted, music-loving, golden-eared audiophiles. Natural selection at its best....

 

[Robin L]

So color blindness is not adaptive.

How about golden ears? That seems like it would be, considering the enormous evolutionary pressure on any audiophile individual to hear differences where none exist. An audiophile that doesn't express this feature is quickly expelled from the social group to live out the remainder of his days shunned as a pariah in an outcast community called ASR. He subsists on cheap audio equipment from Topping and clings to science in a last-ditch effort to prove his worth against the large population of gifted, music-loving, golden-eared audiophiles. Natural selection at its best....

I think it has to do with locating where the sound of snapped twig came from, or the fall of a rock. Sonic events happening where our sensitivity is highest to begin with. The "golden ear" mutation requires extended exposure to excessive quantities of money.

 

[Ron Texas]

For one thing evolution isn't a hypothesis it's a theory and it will never become a scientific law. The Theory of Evolution is the pinnacle of all modern biology it is more than facts or laws. You're confused about what hypothesis, theory, law and facts are in science. For example there is Newton's LAW of gravity it mathematically describes how two different bodies in the universe interact with each other. It doesn't tell us what gravity is or how it works, for that there's Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

You are correct. I carelessly managed to not say what I intended to say and have gone back and edited my post.

 

[Wes]

I think it has to do with locating where the sound of snapped twig came from, or the fall of a rock. Sonic events happening where our sensitivity is highest to begin with. The "golden ear" mutation requires extended exposure to excessive quantities of money.

yes, and we see sound localization abilities in many animals - owls may be best studied

color blindness may not be adaptive - we always need to be careful about making up "adaptive stories" about a trait

 

[Wes]

So, we've got Law, Theory, Hypothesis and Fact...

While we already be in need of a taxonomist, I just want to note that noooobody has mentioned Empirical Generalization yet

 

[SimpleTheater]

I take it you reject isotope measurements of arctic and antarctic ice, despite the fact there is evidence that works?

I reject the incorrect statement that it is warmer now than at any other time in history, when the facts are conclusive that isn’t true.

 

[SimpleTheater]

2 is not necessarily wrong, we do not know the effects of methane clathrates and various chaotic attractors.

Than it shouldn’t be stated as fact. The other issue is that has been said since 2012, which if true, we should just give up.

3 is properly stated as "human civilization as we know it will fail"

1 degree Celsius warmer than today will not be the end of human civilization. The earth has been far warmer for much of its history.

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-hottest-earths-ever-been



Even during just the last 800,000 years (humans have been around for 3 million years) it’s been warmer.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GlobalWarming/page3.php



The key is slowing and then stopping the rate of warming, but arbitrary temperature “lines in the sand” will inevitably be crossed and when mankind doesn’t die off, the skeptics will have the rhetorical upper hand

 

[j_j]

Suit yourself. I don't think you understand all of the feedback mechanisms, especially those involving the arctic free of ice.

 

[Inner Space]

3 is properly stated as "human civilization as we know it will fail"

1 degree Celsius warmer than today will not be the end of human civilization. The earth has been far warmer for much of its history ... Even during just the last 800,000 years (humans have been around for 3 million years) it’s been warmer.

Surely the key words in the sentence you quoted were "as we know it" - i.e. based on agriculture and legislated water rights. The climate in deep prehistory doesn't matter. What matters is the last 5,000 to 10,000 years, when the neolithic started and hunter-gatherers became sedentary farmers. That climate was cool and stable by prior standards. To be exact we could say, "We are already outside the envelope in which all of human civilization - as we know it - evolved, and another one degree Celsius will put us even further away."

 

[Sal1950]

OTOH. as a male with deuteranopia, I cannot tell if my audio device is in circuit or in bypass because it uses a red/green LED as an indicator. Every day is a blind test of my hearing!

Kal, in my experience, extended recreational use of various hallucinogenic drugs can bring about a permanent change in the perception of color.
You might try a few "trips" to see how it affects your sight issues during some initial experiments.
Unless you've already "been there, done that".