The Science Delusion: has science become dogmatic?

[DonH56]

At my age, I'd require a guarantee that there would be no other consequences.

Well, @Sal1950 might guarantee that if you do enough, strong enough, often enough, you'd never know about any consequences... It's a theory hypothesis guess.

 

[MrPeabody]

@MrPeabody in science a theory has insurmontable evidence to support it even though it falls shot of a law. Newtons laws of motion can take specific inputs and give a certain output which will happen every time. With evolution we know it is happening but we don't know exactly what will happen next or when it will happen. The fuss with evolution is it conflicts with certain Christian religious beliefs such as the world is less than 10,000 years old. People with such beliefs should nevertheless be treated with respect even if their ideas appear to be wrong.

The point I tried to make, which I think you missed (it is hard to tell) is that when the word "theory" is used in connection with the word "evolution", by anyone who isn't just making stuff up as they go along, all that it is a linguistic convenience. Nothing more. All of this debate over what it means, for the body of knowledge for evolution to be classified as a theory per se, is misplaced and ultimately false. It means nothing at all, because all it is, is a linguistic convenience. End of story. That's all she wrote. There ain't no more, because that's all there is. It is a linguistic convenience, and not anything more than a linguistic convenience. All of the debate, that has taken for granted that there is more to it that this, has amounted to naught.

And please do not presume to explain the philosophy of science to me.

 

[Robin L]

Well, @Sal1950 might guarantee that if you do enough, strong enough, often enough, you'd never know about any consequences... It's a theory hypothesis guess.

In other weird news we find reports of potential cellular growth in aging brains from microdosing LSD:

" . . . The study, published last week in the journal Psychopharmacology, was merely a phase 1 clinical trial. That means that it was focused far more on safety than efficacy — by showing that LSD didn’t actively harm the volunteer participants, doctors may be able to move forward with the next phase of studies which are geared towards identifying the cognitive benefits — if any might exist — of LSD microdosing . . . "

Doctors Are Giving Alzheimer’s Patients LSD (futurism.com)

 

[tmtomh]

@MrPeabody in science a theory has insurmontable evidence to support it even though it falls shot of a law. Newtons laws of motion can take specific inputs and give a certain output which will happen every time. With evolution we know it is happening but we don't know exactly what will happen next or when it will happen. The fuss with evolution is it conflicts with certain Christian religious beliefs such as the world is less than 10,000 years old. People with such beliefs should nevertheless be treated with respect even if their ideas appear to be wrong.

I'm sorry but you're asserting the widely accepted existence of a fairly rigid hierarchy (or at least taxonomy) of terms to denote the level of validity/proof of scientific ideas - and I don't think your hierarchy/taxonomy is in fact widely accepted. Or to put it more crudely, I think you are proposing what @MrPeabody terms a philosophy of science which, as MrPeabody notes, is not correct.

Newton's laws of motion are only laws at a certain scale, which would seem to violate your claim for what makes something a law. Newton's laws of motion are positivistic, which is very convenient - but not every positivistic theory is a law, and not every law is positivistic.

Conversely, evolution is not merely "theory" rather than a law because "we don't know what will happen next or when it will happen." The essential quality of natural selection is that it proceeds by random mutation - and so this lack of positivistic knowledge you cite is not a bug, but rather a feature. The notion that if we compiled more evidence in support of evolution, we'd eventually "know what will happen and when" is literally nonsense, because of the randomness that lies at the heart of the mechanism. So it would be closer to correct to say that evolution by natural selection - aka random mutation resulting in some mutations reproducing more than others based on adaptation - is in fact a natural law.

Also, not for nothing, but "we don't know what will happen next or when it will happen" is also a nice (though of course way oversimplified) capsule summary of quantum mechanics. And while there is much we still don't know about that subject, one thing we do know - and which is supported by overwhelming evidence - is that this uncertainty lies at the heart of quantum mechanics. Nature is probabilistic and uncertainty is, again, a feature rather than a bug. (And BTW the overwhelming evidence in support of quantum mechanics also is what shows that Newton's laws are not quite exactly laws.)

Speaking of quantum mechanics, I won't pretend to have a solution to the terminological problem of "the theory of evolution," but I wonder if "the mechanism of evolution" might perhaps remove the strong connotation of "unproven hypothesis" in the phrase "the theory of evolution"?

 

[Ron Texas]

@MrPeabody I will in the future not presume to explain anything to you.

 

[Vasr]

Conversely, evolution is not merely "theory" rather than a law because "we don't know what will happen next or when it will happen." The essential quality of natural selection is that it proceeds by random mutation - and so this lack of positivistic knowledge you cite is not a bug, but rather a feature. The notion that if we compiled more evidence in support of evolution, we'd eventually "know what will happen and when" is literally nonsense, because of the randomness that lies at the heart of the mechanism. So it would be closer to correct to say that evolution by natural selection - aka random mutation resulting in some mutations reproducing more than others based on adaptation - is in fact a natural law.

Correct.

Certainty of non-deterministic behavior ≠ Uncertainty of deterministic behavior

 

[JustJones]

Many people think that if scientists find evidence that supports a hypothesis, the hypothesis is upgraded to a theory and if the theory if found to be correct, it is upgraded to a law. That is not how it works at all, though. In fact, facts, theories and laws — as well as hypotheses — are separate parts of the scientific method. Though they may evolve, they aren't upgraded to something else.

https://www.livescience.com/21457-what-is-a-law-in-science-definition-of-scientific-law.html

 

[JustJones]

Christian religious beliefs such as the world is less than 10,000 years old. People with such beliefs should nevertheless be treated with respect even if their ideas appear to be wrong.

They don't appear to be wrong they are wrong. There are people in my family who believe this. I don't ridicule them although the idea of a 10,000 year old Earth is ridiculous. They can believe what they want just don't try to teach it science class.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

Part of the problem I believe, is that the abbreviated term is used. It is more correctly the “theory of evolution by natural selection”.
This as I mentioned previously, makes it clearer that evolution is not the theory. Rather, natural selection is the theory that explains the fact of evolution.

 

[JustJones]

Natural selection is one of the mechanisms that support the theory of evolution, along with mutation, migration and genetic drift. There shouldn't be a problem with Theory of Evolution anymore than Germ Theory, General Relativity, Atomic Theory, etc...

 

[Ron Party]

Well, @Sal1950 might guarantee that if you do enough, strong enough, often enough, you'd never know about any consequences... It's a theory hypothesis guess.

As someone who lived in Berkeley for many years, and as someone truly "enjoyed" living in Berkeley, I fear Don may be right. Problem is, as Don wrote, I don't know

 

[MrPeabody]

@MrPeabody I will in the future not presume to explain anything to you.

Do I detect sarcasm? No matter. What I am curious to know, though, is whether you understood what I meant when I said that in the phrase "theory of evolution", that the use of the word "theory" is merely a linguistic convenience.

 

[Robin L]

As someone who lived in Berkeley for many years, and as someone truly "enjoyed" living in Berkeley, I fear Don may be right. Problem is, as Don wrote, I don't know

 

[richard12511]

Indeed, the cochlea evolved from the air bladder in fish. There are many tracks of evolution of organs that make it clear that there were a variety of small steps. Unlike what the anti-evolution frauds would tell you, no, the ear, eye, cochlea, etc did not evolve suddenly. Neither did the brain, or anything else. Each was a bunch of small steps. And, yes, each step in the evolution offered some advantage to the organism. In the case of the eye, the pigment in a euglena (single celled eukaryote) that allows it to flee away from light very nearly mimics one of our visual chemicals. The distinction between red and green is shown to be due to a mutation in mammals. Insects see a much wider spectrum in many more spectral channels. There are a few women (female-linked mutation) who can see 4 instead of 3 colors.

And so on. Every step of the way, for the eye, ear, heart, lungs, gills, ...

Man seeing another color that no-one else can see would be so frustrating. How would you describe it to others?

 

[j_j]

And in two short sentences you beautifully summed up why nothing has been done to stop CO2 emissions in thirty years. I don’t know if you were trying to make my point so eloquently, but thank you nonetheless.

A primary example of a vague, strangely inaccurate and confusing response intended to 'somehow win an argument'.

You have an opinion. I have science. G'day.

 

[j_j]

Man seeing another color that no-one else can see would be so frustrating. How would you describe it to others?

That is, in fact, a good point, in that the few women with this ability (it's x-linked, you have to have two 'x's to have it, and even having both kinds of gene isn't enough) were discounted for years by (mostly male) doctors.

 

[noobie1]

No one really disputes that evolution takes place in a smaller time scale within a single species ("microevolution"). The interesting question is whether a species can evolve into a completely different species given enough time.

I’ve seen this debate play out many times. At the end of the day, most people go with their worldview. If you believe the natural world is everything than evolution is likely your best explanation for how we came into being. If you believe there is an intelligent creator than you have more options.

 

[Sir Sanders Zingmore]

The universe is under no obligation to make sense to you...

https://www.abc.net.au/lateline/interview:-neil-degrasse-tyson,-astrophysicist/8595216

from the transcript:

EMMA ALBERICI: I wanted to ask you why you chose the particular quote you did to start the book. It reads - the universe is under no obligation to make sense to you. The quote is of course by famous scientist - you.

(Laughs)

NEIL DEGRASSE TYSON: Well, I just, there are other quotes from other scientists in the book, but the, my point there is so often you get people who maybe haven't studied science deeply or don't know what science is or how and why it works. They will invoke their own sort of sensory judgement as to whether they judge, they assess something to be true.

But science, when it reached maturity, I would say beginning 1600 and onward with the near simultaneously invention of the microscope and the telescope, enabling investigations into two completely different directions in the universe, we're taking in knowledge and insight and information that had no relationship to our five senses as we evolved in the plains of Africa.

Those senses that we developed were really good for knowing if the lion wants to chase you and then eat you. They're good for that but they're not good for the quantum physics or expanding universe or a big bang.

And so that's why I lead off by saying the universe is under no obligation to make sense to us. It's the observations that matter. Even if they conflict what feels right to you, we have learnt to trust the observations because that is the measure of reality.

 

[tmtomh]

No one really disputes that evolution takes place in a smaller time scale within a single species ("microevolution"). The interesting question is whether a species can evolve into a completely different species given enough time.

I’ve seen this debate play out many times. At the end of the day, most people go with their worldview. If you believe the natural world is everything than evolution is likely your best explanation for how we came into being. If you believe there is an intelligent creator than you have more options.

Oh for crying out loud - not this crypto-Creationist nonsense at ASR.

 

[j_j]

No one really disputes that evolution takes place in a smaller time scale within a single species ("microevolution"). The interesting question is whether a species can evolve into a completely different species given enough time.

"macro"evolution is nothing more or less than lots of "microevolution". Attempting to play semantics suggests a lack of understanding of the relevant time scales. From Euglena to Flatworm to Clam to higher animal to primate to Human, one can follow the eye, for instance. One can also observe the divergence between single eyes and compound eyes, the divergence between inverted and uninverted retina, and trace the basic proteins all the way back to the single celled euglena. There's your evidence for "macroevolution" right there in a chain of "micro evolutions". The old ridiculous nonsense about "part of an eye has no use" is just an excuse to ignore the evidence.

The ear follows. Muscles likewise. Mitochondria (and their similarity to BGA, vs. the similarity of animal cells to protista and back to archeobacteria, and on and on.