Those bogus textbook sticker arguments…

Posted by PZ Myers on February 21, 2005 09:13 AM

The usual creationist suspects are babbling in the comments to my article on textbook stickers, and throwing aside the usual empty apologetics and assertions that they are promoting secular atheism and weird claims about Jefferson and bizarre ideas that Einstein 'proved' Newton wrong, the only interesting argument is that scientists ought not to be distressed at a declaration that our knowledge is provisional and subject to revision, and that students should keep an open mind. The answer is that we aren't distressed at all by that; in fact, our textbooks already say it over and over, and typically have long chapters that introduce the scientific method and describe how it works and what its limitations are.

For instance, Campbell's Biology, fourth edition, has an extensive section on the hypothetico-deductive method, and comes right out and says it explicitly:

Even the most thoroughly tested hypotheses are accepted only conditionally, pending further investigation.

Scott Freeman's Biological Science, second edition, also describes several key theories in some depth, and explains what makes them useful:

This chapter has introduced some of the great ideas in biology. The development of the cell theory and the theory of evolution by natural selection provided cornerstones when the science was young; the tree of life is a relatively recent insight that has revolutionized the way researchers understand the diversity of life on Earth.

These theories are considered great because they explain fundamental aspects of nature, and because they have consistently been shown to be correct. They are considered correct because they have withstood extensive testing. How do biologists test ideas about the way the natural world work? The answer is that they test the predictions made by alternative hypotheses, often by setting up carefully designed experiments.

Then follows several examples of hypothesis testing, one a test of why giraffes have long necks (no, not the Lamarckian idea…but whether it is a result of food competition or sexual competition) and another about the adaptive value of capsaicin in chili peppers. The examples are accompanied by discussion of key concepts like controls, the null hypothesis, repetition, etc.

Life, seventh edition, by Purves et al. also has a general section that discusses the hypothesis-prediction approach to doing science, illustrated with the examples of two hypotheses to explain frog extinctions, the role of UV-B and airborne pesticides. They make this summary statement:

Scientific methods are the most powerful tools that humans have developed to understand how the world works. Their strength is founded on the development of hypotheses that can be tested. The process is self-correcting because if the evidence fails to support a hypothesis, it is either abandoned or modified and subjected to further tests. In addition, because scientists publish detailed descriptions of the methods they use to test hypotheses, other scientists can—and often do—repeat those experiments. Therefore, any error or dishonesty usually is discovered. That is why, in contrast to politicians, scientists around the world usually trust one another's results.

If you understand the methods of science, you can distinguish science from non-science. Art, music, literature, activities that contribute massively to the quality of human life, are not science. They help us understand what it means to live in a complex world. Religion is not science, either. Religious beliefs give us meaning and spiritual guidance, and they form the basis for establishing values. Scientific information helps create the context in which values are discussed and established, but cannot tell us what those values should be.

That's far too charitable to religion for my taste, but it does illustrate a general attitude you'll find in the books: they tend to distance themselves from religious issues (quite appropriately, I think), do not promote any kind of atheism, do not proclaim science infallible, and quite the contrary to what creationists like to imply, are damned quick to explain that science is not above criticism and in fact thrives on testing alternative explanations.

The objections to the textbook sticker approach is that 1) at best, they are redundant, echoing what the book already says, 2) they are narrow, selectively targeting evolution while ignoring all other theories, and thereby giving the false impression that evolution is particularly weak, and 3) they tend to promote weak hypotheses, like Intelligent Design or vague "religious theories", as equivalent to strongly supported theories like evolution. If you actually read the introductory chapters to these textbooks, you'll discover that Intelligent Design creationism fails to meet the criteria for a legitimate scientific hypothesis, lacking observations in support and failing to make any predictions that can be tested.

That says that school boards must be in a sorry state, when it's obvious from their scribblings that the people who write these textbook stickers haven't even bothered to read the first chapter of the books they want to label.

Trackback URL: http://www.pandasthumb.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/837

Comment #17195

Posted by Grand Moff Texan on February 21, 2005 10:08 AM (e) (s)

Somewhat OT: 

In case you haven’t seen this, apparently there’s an explanation for these people: 

Title: Handedness and Religious Beliefs
Authors: Douglas Degelman, Denee Heinrichs, and Hisashi Ishitobi      
Affiliation: Vanguard University of Southern California

Introduction: Niebauer, Christman, Reid, & Garvey (in press) have found that strongly-handed individuals, whose two cerebral hemispheres may interact less than mixed-handed individuals, were more likely than mixed-handed individuals to believe in Biblical creationist accounts of human origins. Niebauer et al. argue that the two hemispheres are involved differently in how individuals maintain and update their beliefs, with the left hemisphere more involved in maintaining consistency of beliefs and the right hemisphere more involved in monitoring beliefs and registering inconsistencies. If interhemispheric communication underlies the updating of beliefs, and if strongly-handed individuals evidence less interhemispheric interaction than mixed-handed individuals, then strongly-handed individuals may be more likely than mixed-handed individuals to maintain religious beliefs that have been uncritically held.

Hypothesis: The extent to which individuals believe in divine intervention will be associated with degree of handedness, with more strongly-handed individuals believing in divine intervention to a greater extent than mixed-handed individuals.

Comment #17207

Posted by Steve Reuland on February 21, 2005 10:31 AM (e) (s)

That’s a neat sounding study, but the results were this:

Conclusions: No evidence was found of a significant association between degree of handedness and belief in divine intervention in this online study of 588 respondents. These results may call into question the assumption of interhemispheric communication underlying the updating of beliefs or the finding that strongly-handed individuals evidence less interhemispheric interaction than mixed-handed individuals.

Comment #17212

Posted by Ed Darrell on February 21, 2005 10:47 AM (e) (s)

Hmmm.  But it does lend a twist to the etymology of the phrase “even-handed,” doesn’t it?

Comment #17219

Posted by Empiricist on February 21, 2005 11:00 AM (e) (s)

PZ Myers, who helps to run this website, refers to:

bizarre ideas that Einstein ‘proved’ Newton wrong

I encourage readers to follow this link to the Economist website and to read an article entitled “Turn, turn, turn” that appeared in April, 2003. Here is a relevant excerpt:

IT WAS the moment that catapulted Albert Einstein to world fame. In 1919, two teams of British astronomers led by Sir Arthur Eddington journeyed to the southern hemisphere to observe a solar eclipse. Einstein’s general theory of relativity, an explanation of how gravity works, predicts that the sun bends light that passes close to its surface a few degrees off-course. That will cause stars in the same part of the sky as the sun to look out of place. Because of the sun’s overpowering brightness, such a deviation cannot normally be observed. But with the sun’s disc obliterated by the eclipsing moon, Eddington’s colleagues were able to confirm the deviation was as Einstein said it should be, and that Newton’s model of gravity, then two centuries old, was wrong.

In essence, the article states that experimental observation showed that Einstein was correct and that Newton was wrong. I would like to understand PZ Meyers position. Does he or she believe that the Economist is purveying “bizarre” ideas?

Comment #17225

Posted by PZ Myers on February 21, 2005 11:17 AM (e) (s)

Yes, the Economist was purveying bizarre ideas, and they’ve been further bizarrified as they pass through the minds of creationists.

Newton was not “wrong”. His theories were  reasonable and correct in quantifying the phenomena he observed, and are still useful. They were incomplete in that they did not encompass all phenomena and circumstances. Einstein’s theories built on them, and extend and refine Newton.

Basically, you have a very naive and primitive view of how science works. As, apparently, does the author of the Economist article.

Similarly, I expect evolutionary theory will be refined and extended in the future, without invalidating our current approximations to how the process works. That’s the fatal flaw in the Intelligent Design creationism movement: they think they can prove evolution “wrong”, when what scientists anticipate is that replacement theories will more accurately account for the very same stuff biology currently describes.

Comment #17234

Posted by Russell on February 21, 2005 11:47 AM (e) (s)

Similarly, I expect evolutionary theory will be refined and extended in the future, without invalidating our current approximations to how the process works. That’s the fatal flaw in the Intelligent Design creationism movement: they think they can prove evolution “wrong”, when what scientists anticipate is that replacement theories will more accurately account for the very same stuff biology currently describes.

You see, empiricist, it’s a lot like that “Central Dogma” story.

Comment #17238

Posted by Jim Harrison on February 21, 2005 11:51 AM (e) (s)

Everybody expects that continued research on evolutionary biology will result in new findings, and it would hardly be surprizing if some of the results turn out to be, well, surprizing. What the Creationists and ID folks don’t seem to recognize is that the novelties that emerge are quite likely to be even less favorable to a theological view of the world than the current consensus view because only a very narrow and hence very unlikely outcome would match their prejudices.

Defenders of religious traditions are like gamblers who bet on the numbers in roulette, except that there are vastly more possible numbers in the game of science than on a Vegas roulette wheel. It would be a chump’s bet in a fair game.

Comment #17241

Posted by Keanus on February 21, 2005 11:56 AM (e) (s)

Empiricist, with the support of a stringer from the Economist, stated…

In essence, the article states that experimental observation showed that Einstein was correct and that Newton was wrong.

Not so fast. Eddington and company validated Einstein’s theories. True enough. But Eddington did not prove “…Newton was wrong.” Newton’s Laws of motion and gravitation simply became special cases that work well within the framework for which Newton had data. They are still widely used in practical applications and taught in basic physics. And I suspect they will be for centuries to come.

And to bring this into the context of evolution, one needs to understand that the frames of reference in which Newton’s Laws don’t apply are those found at extraordinarily small or large scales relative to what are accessible to unaided human senses. Until instruments and mathematics evolved sufficiently to extend our senses beyond those that evolution gave us (to cope with life in the grasslands of East Africa and time spans no longer than a human life), recognizing the limits of Newton’s Laws was nigh impossible, although to be fair, Einstein developed his ideas before we had the instruments to confirm his conclusions, so he’s properly recognized for his insight and genius.

Comment #17245

Posted by Andrew Rey on February 21, 2005 12:03 PM (e) (s)

I remember in college a professor deriving Newton’s Law of Gravity from Einstein’s Law of Gravity by manipulating Einstein’s equation and dropping off the least significant portion (the part of the equation that only added a small amount to the total).  So you can legitimately view Einstein’s Law of Gravity as being a slight modification of Newton’s law, applicable only in the most precise measurements.

This is why the word “wrong” is too strong in this case.  Einstein’s Law of Gravity did not invalidate Newton’s law.  It’s more like Einstein’s law was closer to the target that Newton’s.

Comment #17246

Posted by Ken Willis on February 21, 2005 12:08 PM (e) (s)

A part of the quote from Life, 7th Ed. by Purves et al. posted by PZ Myers is poignant:

In addition, because scientists publish detailed descriptions of the methods they use to test hypotheses, other scientists can—and often do—repeat those experiments. Therefore, any error or dishonesty usually is discovered.

I believe power will ususally be abused by those who possess it. I  favor limited government.  I distrust politicians, especially those of a liberal/leftist bent who claim to want to make the world better.  Therefore, even though I have limited religious inclinations, I like the idea of most other people being religious because I have no fear they will take over the government and, unless they can do that, they have no power to infringe my freedom.

But I also know, as made clear by the above quote from Life, that religion, unlike science, often lacks the ability to expose error and dishonesty.  In fact, religion too often serves as a refuge for liars, scoundrels and crooks.  Those who are religiously devote must rely on their own wisdom and values to recognize such people and purge them from their midst.

It is a great failure of many religious people in American, in my view, to have failed to recognize the outright fraud and false promise of “Intelligent Design.”  I think many are otherwise very good and well meaning people who have been seduced by a false god.

Comment #17247

Posted by Les Lane on February 21, 2005 12:11 PM (e) (s)

Empiricist’s observation proves that people can be overly literal when it suits their purpose. Scientists are in the habit of interpreting statements at multiple levels of literalness. The “literally handicapped” will find this confusing.

Comment #17250

Posted by Empiricist on February 21, 2005 12:28 PM (e) (s)

Thanks for all your input. This provides a fascinating perspective on the philosophy of science and on evaluating the truth of scientific theories. Here is a link to a web page at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory that discusses gravitational wave computer models and says the following:

Tony Mezzacappa, task leader for astrophysics theory in ORNL’s Physics Division, and his team are helping to prove that Newton was incorrect about gravity. The team uses computer modeling to study gravitational waves, predicted by Einstein’s theory of gravity. A gravitational wave has never been directly detected, only inferred from observations of pulsing spinning neutron stars, also known as pulsars.

Now, as I understand the philosophy of science espoused by PZ Meyers, the author of the passage above should be berated and told that he is purveying “bizarre ideas”. Newtonian mechanics yields accurate answers in a subset of situations and the theory is still very valuable, hence, one must state with great forcefulness that it is “bizarre” to say that “Newton was incorrect”?

Comment #17251

Posted by Keanus on February 21, 2005 12:29 PM (e) (s)

Ken Willis’ comment reminds me of Samuel Johnson’s old aphorism “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” I’ve often thought  the observation applies eqally well to religion.

Comment #17252

Posted by Keanus on February 21, 2005 12:32 PM (e) (s)

Ken Willis’ comment reminds me of Samuel Johnson’s old aphorism “Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel.” I’ve often thought  the observation applies eqally well to religion.

Comment #17253

Posted by Aggie Nostic on February 21, 2005 12:34 PM (e) (s)

I believe colleges should require a “History of Science” course for all science majors.

Appreciating science in all of its fits and starts, successes and failures, breakthroughs and setbacks, can do wonders in creating a well-balanced view of the process called the scientific method.

Science is by no means a perfect system of inquiry. It’s a human institution, after all. And while science does not pretend to have all the answers, it does try to offer the best explanations for a given phenomenon within the constraints of the knowledge and tools available at the time.

Are such explanations set in stone? No. Could they be wrong or inaccurate? Sure. But, until a better explanation comes along that makes better sense of the data, why should science distract itself with ideas which are at best inferior and at worst un-verifiable?

Comment #17254

Posted by Aggie Nostic on February 21, 2005 12:41 PM (e) (s)

Posted by Empiricist on February 21, 2005 11:00 AM

…with the sun’s disc obliterated by the eclipsing moon, Eddington’s colleagues were able to confirm the deviation was as Einstein said it should be, and that Newton’s model of gravity, then two centuries old, was wrong.

Newton’s “model of gravity” was INCOMPLETE, not WRONG. The above assertion make it sounds like Newton’s theory is useless post-Einstein. It is not. It merely becomes less useful when dealing with objects moving near the speed of light.

Comment #17255

Posted by Ethan on February 21, 2005 12:43 PM (e) (s)

I think Tony Mezzacappa would feel as uncomfortable with that press release as I do, or as PZ
Meyers does.  Of course Newton was “wrong” about gravity in a literal sense.  But in the same
way that Einstein is certainly “wrong”.  In fact, I’d be willing to bet my house that all of physics
is “wrong”.

However, it’s more or less right as well.  Einstein was more right than Newton.  A complete quantum
theory of gravity will be more right than Einstein’s theory of General Relativity.  I’d hesitate to guess
where the process will end.  In any case, applied appropriately, Newton’s theory is right, and is used
today.  General Relativity teaches us where its limits lie and how to do better when we exceed them.
It also has its limits.

Comment #17256

Posted by Paul Orwin on February 21, 2005 12:45 PM (e) (s)

Two responses: 1) You are making a very strange claim - the original claim was that “Einstein proved Newton wrong”, which is not, in fact, what Einstein did.  If a later group of investigators looks at Newton’s and Einstein’s work, examines a key difference, and studies it to see which (or neither) is correct, that has no bearing. 
2) The article, written clearly by a non-scientist, vastly oversimplifies Newton’s work and Einstein’s work.  You would have to ask Mr. Mezzacappa and his group what they think, but I would suspect they might take a different view of what they were doing.  In the part above what you link, there is a summation of the “Newtonian” gravity (action at a distance) and “Einsteinian” gravity (the curvature of space time).  General Relativity supplanted Newtonian mechanics, but Newtonian mechanics is still useful, valuable, and accurate under conditions where the relativistic contribution is vanishingly small.  Anyone (including, I’m sure, the physicists at ORNL) with training in science understands what this means.  If you want to calculate, for example, the escape velocity of a rocket leaving Earth, or the period and velocity of an orbiting satellite, Newton is your guy.

I think you (and other critics) are confused very deeply about the nature of science (and your pseudonym just has to be ironic). “This provides a fascinating perspective on the philosophy of science and on evaluating the truth of scientific theories.”  The end of that sentence gives the game away.

Comment #17259

Posted by Mike on February 21, 2005 12:48 PM (e) (s)

Therefore, even though I have limited religious inclinations, I like the idea of most other people being religious because I have no fear they will take over the government and, unless they can do that, they have no power to infringe my freedom.

I think they already have.

Comment #17260

Posted by Aggie Nostic on February 21, 2005 12:49 PM (e) (s)

Posted by Jim Harrison on February 21, 2005 11:51 AM:
What the Creationists and ID folks don’t seem to recognize is that the novelties that emerge are quite likely to be even less favorable to a theological view of the world than the current consensus view because only a very narrow and hence very unlikely outcome would match their prejudices.

I’m currently reading Dr. Ken Miller’s book, “Finding Darwin’s God.” Dr. Miller, who is quite cogent in his defense of evolution against IDists, has decided to view Heisenberg’s uncertainty and indeterminism as an opening for God’s role in nature. When you really want to believe something, you will find a “gap” somewhere, even if it is a “gap” that science itself has discovered.

Comment #17273

Posted by Aggie Nostic on February 21, 2005 01:31 PM (e) (s)

From link provided by Empiricist http://www.ornl.gov/info/reporter/no39/july02.htm…:

Newton summed up gravity as “action at a distance,” assuming that space itself is a void or “nothingness.”

Newton correctly described the manifestation of gravity, right down to the mass-distance-inverse-square law. However, he was unable to come up with an explanation for gravity itself — i.e. why are masses attracted to one another?

In Principia, Newton left gravity as an exercise for future scientists to explore, which is precisely what Einstein did. Darwin continued in the tradition of passing the torch, by finishing Origins with a list of tasks that future scientists should engage in to verify or falsify his theories. We should be so lucky to get anything remotely resembling that from the world of ID/creationism.

I’m beginning to wonder why Empiricist has this bug up his @ss about Newton. Is Newton up for Sainthood? The integrity of scientific inquiry does not rest upon Newton (or any other scientist) being inerrant. Science doesn’t expect perfection from those who go about doing the best they can with the information and talents they have. It merely expects humanity.

Comment #17277

Posted by plunge on February 21, 2005 01:51 PM (e) (s)

“I’m currently reading Dr. Ken Miller’s book, “Finding Darwin’s God.” Dr. Miller, who is quite cogent in his defense of evolution against IDists, has decided to view Heisenberg’s uncertainty and indeterminism as an opening for God’s role in nature. When you really want to believe something, you will find a “gap” somewhere, even if it is a “gap” that science itself has discovered.”

Hey, that’s fine with me.  Why should non-believers care if people want to further theologize about God as long as their science is good.  I enjoyed both the anti-ID part of the Millers book and his quite reasonable argument that atheists have wrongly co-opted evolution to present it as disproving god altogether, which goes beyond humble and reasonable science, not to mention pointlessly making the layman view science with deep hostility.

Comment #17278

Posted by Uber on February 21, 2005 01:52 PM (e) (s)

Dr. Miller, who is quite cogent in his defense of evolution against IDists, has decided to view Heisenberg’s uncertainty and indeterminism as an opening for God’s role in nature. When you really want to believe something, you will find a “gap” somewhere, even if it is a “gap” that science itself has discovered

I talked with him at length about that, the discussion was good, but really amounted to him saying ‘I was raised this way and I believe this way’. He is however a very liberal catholic and doesn’t seem to endorse many of their doctrines.

Which you would expect. I also suspect he is troubled internally to some degree but only he could say.

Comment #17281

Posted by keller on February 21, 2005 01:55 PM (e) (s)

atheists have wrongly co-opted evolution to present it as disproving god altogether

actually I don’t think atheists have done that, I think theists of all walks of life are afraid that is what evolution leads to, evolution is just evolution.

You don’t need to disprove God, you need to prove the case.

Comment #17292

Posted by Jim Harrison on February 21, 2005 02:24 PM (e) (s)

I don’t think that religious belief declined because of advancements in biology—other factors had more to do with the advance of secularism. But I expect it would have made a difference if 19th Century biology had discovered genuine evidence for design. Remember, most of the scientists of that period were believers. Most of them, at least the geologists, were aware that the chronology of Genesis had to be interpreted very broadly to make any sense at all; but they probably thought that the facts would turn out to justify some reasonable allegorical interpretation of scripture and thus vindicate theism if not Christianity.

What we have here is an instance of a dog that didn’t bark. Things would surely look very different today if the science had yielded evidence of a creator. It didn’t, even though many of the scientists at the time surely thought that it would.

Comment #17296

Posted by Jeff Low on February 21, 2005 02:38 PM (e) (s)

Maybe 19th century biology didn’t, but what about 21st century biology?
Superior design?

Comment #17297

Posted by plunge on February 21, 2005 02:43 PM (e) (s)

“Which you would expect. I also suspect he is troubled internally to some degree but only he could say.”

See, but this is the sort of sot bigotry of which I think Miller rightly complains.  Too many of us atheists seem to have a faith in our heart of hearts that religious believers on our side are jsut faking it, or going with the tide.  That’s just as meanspirited as believers who think that atheists are just in denial over a spat with god.

Miller is utterly sincere when he argues that he sees a universe of evolution as far BETTER for Christian theology than one where God micromanages everything.  He’s not trying to fool anyone, certianly not himself.  And as someone who cares a lot more about good science and good arguments than atheism, that’s the sort of honest thinking I want to endore and celebrate rather than scoff at.  Miller has ever right to his beliefs, and every right for people to NOT assume that being a biologist and a Catholic are somehow mutually exclusive, or that his Catholicism has to be “watered down” because of it.

Comment #17305

Posted by Empiricist on February 21, 2005 03:13 PM (e) (s)

This community is truly intriguing! It seems that some of you think that anyone questioning you must be a “religious fanatic”, and so you adopt rather curious positions about the nature of scientific theories.

In my opinion, “classical physics” yields incorrect predictions that clash with observations. For that reason I would say that it is wrong. But based on the comments here it seems that many of you disagree. I am interested in your positions because they illuminate the philosophy of science. I have been told rather harshly that I have a “very naive and primitive view of how science works.”

I admit that I really did believe while taking physics courses that the theories of classical physics were wrong. In fact, I even thought that this fact was widely known, obvious, and unobjectionable. When I learned the equations for the “Special Theory of Relativity” I thought that the theory of Newtonian mechanics was wrong. I could see that for large velocities the predictions from Newtonian mechanics differed from the prediction generated by “The Special Theory of Relativity.” The equations showed that Newtonian mechanics provides only an approximation, and it becomes increasingly inaccurate as the velocity grows. Now, PZ Myers and others insist that “Newton was not “wrong”.”

So I would like to know what forum members think about the status of classical physics. Here is a link to a course lecture at the University of Texas at Austin that discusses “The breakdown of classical physics.” Here are the topic headers and details:

1) The anomalous stability of atoms and molecules
2) The anomalously low specific heats of atoms and molecules
3) The ultraviolet catastrophe
4) Wave-particle duality:

(1) The anomalous stability of atoms and molecules: According to classical mechanics an electron orbiting a nucleus should lose energy by emission of synchrotron radiation and gradually spiral in towards the nucleus. Experimentally, this is not observed to happen.

(2) The anomalously low specific heats of atoms and molecules: According to the equipartition theorem of classical physics each degree of freedom of an atomic or molecular system should contribute  to its specific heat. In fact, only the translational and some rotational degrees of freedom seem to contribute. The vibrational degrees of freedom appear to make no contribution at all (except at high temperatures). Incidentally, this fundamental problem with classical physics was known and appreciated in the middle of the last century. Stories that physicists at the turn of the century thought that classical physics explained everything and that there was nothing left to discover are largely apocryphal (see Feynman, Vol. I, Chap. 40).

(3) The ultraviolet catastrophe: According to classical physics the energy density of an electromagnetic field in vacuum is infinite due to a divergence of energy carried by short wavelength modes. Experimentally, there is no such divergence and the total energy density is quite finite.

(4) Wave-particle duality: Classical physics can deal with waves or particles. However, various experiments (interference, the photo-electric effect, electron diffraction) show quite clearly that waves sometimes act as if they were streams of particles and streams of particles sometimes act as if they were waves. This is completely inexplicable within the framework of classical physics.

One response to information like this is to state that “Classical physics” has broken down. “Classical physics” yields incorrect predictions that clash with observations and it is wrong. The CP theory has been superseded by theories such as Quantum Mechanics and general relativity. Of course, CP is still useful because it provides correct and approximately correct answers in many applications. Also, CP should of course still be taught and used.

When I read the responses on this website it seems that most of you favor another strategy. You wish to redefine the CP theory so that it applies to a restricted subset and then to maintain that CP was really “correct” all along. To assure that CP is “correct” all you have to do is be certain to apply it only in the carefully limited situations where it provides a correct or approximately correct answer. If anyone points out that CP as originally formulated yields incorrect predictions and has been superseded then you apparently would disagree. If someone says that CP is wrong then it appears some of you would sneer. Indeed, some might claim the person has “bizarre ideas” and a “naive and primitive view of how science works.” But, maybe I have misjudged some of you?

Comment #17306

Posted by plunge on February 21, 2005 03:14 PM (e) (s)

Sorry, I meant “soft” not “sot.”  Geez!

Comment #17308

Posted by Uber on February 21, 2005 03:26 PM (e) (s)

Hey plunge-pull your head out of your behind. I have had a first hand conversation with the man. Your comments are silly.

See, but this is the sort of sot bigotry of which I think Miller rightly complains.  Too many of us atheists seem to have a faith in our heart of hearts that religious believers on our side are jsut faking it, or going with the tide.  That’s just as meanspirited as believers who think that atheists are just in denial over a spat with god.

First you assume I’m an atheist. I didn’t say he was faking it. In our conversation we covered alot of ground.

Miller is utterly sincere when he argues that he sees a universe of evolution as far BETTER for Christian theology than one where God micromanages everything.  He’s not trying to fool anyone, certianly not himself.

nobody is saying he isn’t sincere, just that he is obviously thinking about alot of things and as time goes on may change his mind.

And as someone who cares a lot more about good science and good arguments than atheism, that’s the sort of honest thinking I want to endore and celebrate rather than scoff at.

Nobody is scoffing-you mistook everything. I like the guy, don’t agree with everything he said but our conversations were good.

Miller has ever right to his beliefs, and every right for people to NOT assume that being a biologist and a Catholic are somehow mutually exclusive, or that his Catholicism has to be “watered down” because of it.

See that pisses me off. Of course he does, and I’d defend his right to have them. But if you think he agrees with all of Catholic doctrine you are in fantasy world. But then again few catholics do.

You are attacking the wrong guy for the wrong reasons.

Comment #17309

Posted by Rupert Goodwins on February 21, 2005 03:28 PM (e) (s)

Aggie said:

I’m beginning to wonder why Empiricist has this bug up his @ss about Newton. Is Newton up for Sainthood? The integrity of scientific inquiry does not rest upon Newton (or any other scientist) being inerrant. Science doesn’t expect perfection from those who go about doing the best they can with the information and talents they have. It merely expects humanity.

I can’t speak for Empiricist, but I have observed many times that those of a fundamentalist bent are fixated on absolute correctness - and if something isn’t absolutely right, it’s not to be trusted. This isn’t an original observation, but it is backed up somewhat by the Salem Hypothesis. Engineering and programming fit well with this mindset (up to a point, it is actively harmful in many ways if not used in moderation), but science doesn’t. Science looks for the perfect, but doesn’t demand or expect it: good enough is very useful, even if there’s a constant search for something better. (That’s one of my pet whinges about science education - I don’t know about the US, but in the UK you’re initially taught that facts is facts and laws is laws. It’s only when you start to do the good stuff, usually at age 16 or 17 when you’ve started to make decisions about your education with a career in mind, that the truth shyly emerges.)

So if you are religious and more comfortable with absolutes, then the fundamentalist explanation is much more agreeable. How many times have we heard or read “I don’t know much about evolution, but I know it’s wrong”? The same works in reverse: there are some ferocious anti-religionists among the scientists who scream into the attack without ever coming close to what religion actually is and what it means to people (Dawkins, take a bow). I’m much more comfortable with the approach I read credited to Ernst Mayer in one of the many obits recently - he held that you could be very religious and entirely without theology. It certainly matches my outlook - an atheist by any normal definition, but with an enormous affinity for spirituality that absolutely includes my respect and enjoyment of science and a firm belief that enlightenment values are provably the least bad way forward. It seems to me to celebrate everything that is positive about being human and what we may do if we have the will and the vision. I know the same can be said, and with internal logic, by many fervent believers of even the most authoritarian religion, but the evidence is that this creates an utter inability to adapt. Which is not a good place to be, in a changing world where understanding the tidal wave is preferable to praying about it.

R

R

Comment #17310

Posted by JK on February 21, 2005 03:31 PM (e) (s)

Well here’s what Einstein had to say about Newton’s theory of gravity:

There could be no fairer destiny for any physical theory than that it should point the way to a more comprehensive theory in which it lives on as a limiting case.

I agree with the spirit of the above comments which point to the compatibility of Newton and Einstein. But I do think, understandably in the circumstances, that you are being a bit up tight about the fact that occasionaly the scientific consensus is shown to be wrong.

There is some underestimation of how radical the break between Newton and Einstein really was. The measured deviations from Newton’s theory are small. But the conceptual break is dramatic. The reintepretation of the evidence is not a small step.

(A small clarification. The portions of Einstein’s equations that Andrew Rey’s professor dropped are only small in certain circumstances. Those circumstances are not just those pointed out by Aggie Nostic, low velocities compared to light, but also weak gravitational fields (compared to, for example, a black hole).)

Comment #17312

Posted by Paul Orwin on February 21, 2005 03:41 PM (e) (s)

Empiricist, you are, I think, using words in a way that most people don’t.  When you say “wrong”, what you mean is “incomplete”.  As in “classical mechanics is wrong because it doesn’t explain the behavior of electrons orbiting the nucleus(or rather, moving in an uncertain path around the nucleus)” vs.  “classical mechanics is incomplete, because it does not explain the behavior of electrons moving around the nucleus of an atom”.  To call Newton’s laws incomplete, or valid only on a limited set, is fine.  To call them wrong is, at best, naive. 
Here’s a simple question for you;  If classical mechanics is wrong, why do physics courses (all intro courses, not just non-majors ones) spend so much time on it?

Comment #17319

Posted by darwinfinch on February 21, 2005 04:12 PM (e) (s)

In the current wave of religious maniacs (and I do not feel I exaggerate) we can see here how selected honesty coupled with smugness - that smirk that distorts the tone of every one of these self-centered, science-hating posts for the weeks I have stayed out (due to sheer disgust, as well as in deference to the skill of the trained responders) of the fray - proves that arrogance is the defining canon of their so-called religion.
  I do wish the reasonable among the religious would engage them with more frequency.  My faith in the basic humanity of humankind is all but destroyed by them and those they follow.

Comment #17320

Posted by Flint on February 21, 2005 04:17 PM (e) (s)

Empiricist (!) writes:

In my opinion, “classical physics” yields incorrect predictions that clash with observations. For that reason I would say that it is wrong. But based on the comments here it seems that many of you disagree. I am interested in your positions because they illuminate the philosophy of science. I have been told rather harshly that I have a “very naive and primitive view of how science works.”

The human mind is an amazing dichotomizing machine. Faced with nearly any continuum or smooth curve, the human mind is capable of recasting it as two mutually exclusive opposing positions. And so, a scientific theory is either right or wrong — the ‘real world’ continuum of being largely correct in most respects, and being improved in increments, is lost in the mischaracterization.

It is indeed naive and primitive to consider a scientific theory to be right or wrong, because both terms imply absolutes that don’t apply. Instead, we need to deal with issues like HOW WELL does the theory explain the observations, HOW MUCH of what has been observed does the theory cover, HOW USEFUL is it in generating testable hypotheses, HOW CORRECT is the theory likely to be (in terms of degree to which future enhancements will cause qualitative differences), etc. Correctness and completeness are best considered as smooth continua. The only logically supportable alternative is to consider EVERY scientific theory ‘wrong’ now and forever. But that position helps nobody.

Good theories imply predictions that are very good. Not ‘wrong’, but rather ‘close’. If someone calculates within 2% how many beans are in the jar, and someone else is off by 10%, these are not “equal because they are both wrong” — unless you are naive and primitive. Instead, we have the difficult issue of better and worse. Newton wasn’t wrong, his theory produces results that are excellent. Einstein’s approach yields results that are better in extreme conditions. And that’s the goal of science — to continue to get better forever, never reaching perfect.

Comment #17323

Posted by Ed Darrell on February 21, 2005 04:24 PM (e) (s)

Is it not accurate to say that we sent a dozen men to the surface of the Moon, using Newtonian physics?  Even at the amazing velocity of 25,000 miles per hour (approximately), Newtonian physics works well enough to send objects to the Moon and get them safely back to Earth. 

But at 25,000 mph, it still takes a couple of days to get from the Earth to the Moon.  Einsteinian units, like photons of light, make the trip in a few seconds.  The difference in velocity is great enough to account for much of the difference.

One could look at the empirical data, Empiricist …

Comment #17325

Posted by gav on February 21, 2005 04:30 PM (e) (s)

Following on Rupert Goodwins’ remark about fundamentalists and absolute correctness, I remember being puzzled as a child at the amount of time and effort that went into handling errors in experimental data. Errors? Why not just do the experiment right?

Hey ho.

Backtracking further to Empiricist’s bizarre idea, what seems most bizarre about the Economist article is the idea that a single experiment can disprove a well-attested theory. Galileo dropping his balls off the leaning tower of Pisa, that kind of thing. Theory of relativity relies not on a single experiment but on a cumulative mass of data from all over the place. Bit like the theory of - oh never mind.

Comment #17326

Posted by steve on February 21, 2005 04:31 PM (e) (s)

What is this about?

Comment Submission Error
Your comment submission failed for the following reasons:

Your comment could not be submitted due to questionable content: (Relativity-of-WrongDOThtml)

Please correct the error in the form below, then press Post to post your comment.

Anyway, if the software would let me, I’d post a link to Asimov’s “The Relativity of Wrong” essay.

Comment #17327

Posted by steve on February 21, 2005 04:34 PM (e) (s)

I had to change to the word DOT just to be allowed to post the error message

Comment #17328

Posted by Sarg on February 21, 2005 04:36 PM (e) (s)

Here is another (working) link to that essay, Steve:

http://home.earthlink.net/~dayvdanls/relativity.htm…

Very nice essay, as almost all of Asimov’s work.

Comment #17335

Posted by Steve on February 21, 2005 05:38 PM (e) (s)

my link worked. why didn’t it let me post? the hyphens?

Comment #17337

Posted by Jon Fleming on February 21, 2005 06:06 PM (e) (s)

why didn’t it let me post? the hyphens?

Absolutely.  Hyphens are the tools of Satan.

Comment #17338

Posted by plunge on February 21, 2005 06:08 PM (e) (s)

Uber, I’m sorry, but there is no way to erad your comments that isn’t basically dismissive of the man’s religious beliefs, regardless of whether you’ve had conversations with him or not.  Claiming that he basically just argues that he was raised that way, or that you “suspect” that he doesn’t really believe are exactly what I’m talking about.  Miller does, in fact, believe as much of Catholic doctrine as most Catholics do (but then, I’m not sure you mean the same thing by that word as Catholics do), and he has written countless times about how much he is bothered by people who “expect” (as you do) him to basically be some sort of sliding deist who doesn’t “really” believe in miracles and so forth.

Put aside whether or not I read you wrong and you are guilty of this: wouldn’t you agree that this perception is very very common among both believers and the more outspoken non-believers?  (that believing evolution pretty much means giving up most of the core beliefs about Christianity).  Isn’t that a bad perception to have out there?

Comment #17340

Posted by jeff-perado on February 21, 2005 06:15 PM (e) (s)

Empiricist:
So I would like to know what forum members think about the status of classical physics. Here is a link to a course lecture at the University of Texas at Austin that discusses “The breakdown of classical physics.” Here are the topic headers and details:

1) The anomalous stability of atoms and molecules
2) The anomalously low specific heats of atoms and molecules
3) The ultraviolet catastrophe
4) Wave-particle duality:

Again you seem to have a problem with the concept of “range.”

Classical mechanics applies only to a given range.  It is the simplest and most basic tenet of mathematics:  If an equation only applies in the range of X:[1,10] why then apply that equation to values of X=1,000,000,000,000?

You cannot do that.

Einstein simply bounded Newtonian mechanics to a given range (that being entirely non-relativistic).

You gave those same examples before.  Again each of those examples were classical (newtonian) physics contradictions of the 19th century which were ALL solved with the introduction of quantum mechanics.  Blackbody radiation gave rise to planck’s constant of quanta.  The “orbit” of electrons around their nucleus was solved with the discrete (rather than continuous) nature of relativistic particles.

To apply classical mechanics to these gives rise to the breakdown of classical mechanics in the relativistic realm.  But nowhere does this mean that classical mechanics cannot accurately describe classical physics problems.

It all has to do with range. I’ll give you an absurd example to prove to you your fallacy.  An AMERICAN scientist who speaks only English talks to other Americans about science.  They all understand him and what he’s saying.  Thus the range is, in reality, all English speaking people, whom that scientist can talk to.  If that scientist makes the same mistake as you, then he concludes (wrongly) that he can talk to ANYONE, and they understand him.  So he travels to central China, and proceeds to talk to the Chinese people.  Only they do not understand him at all.  If this scientist thought as you do, then he would HAVE to conclude that not only do those Chinese not understand what he was saying, but that the English-speaking Americans must not have understood what he was saying.  He drew the wrong conclusion about the range of people to whom he could speak, just like you drew the wrong conclusion about Newtonian physics.

To draw this analogy out, a scientist who spoke both Chinese and English could communicate to both groups.  That would be Einstein, and Newton would be the English-only speaking scientist.

Range is everything in science.  And a good scientist will recognize that simple fact.

Einstein never negated Newtonian (classical) physics, only set the range where it was valid, and added to that a modification of newtonian physics that applies to a wider range (the relitavistic range).

Just because Einstein developed his theory, does NOT negate the simple fact that a person who takes a bowling ball to the top of a tower, can accurately predict the velocity, acceleration, time to impact, and force of impact using only Newtonian physics.

As for those topics you keep bringing up concerning the lectures online at UT…

Well, I would say this: showing how Newtonian physics does not apply to ALL situations is a useful tool in showing how the range of theory needed to be expanded to explain these phenomena with the use of quantum mechanics.

Comment #17348

Posted by Don T. Know on February 21, 2005 07:04 PM (e) (s)

Hey, that’s fine with me.  Why should non-believers care if people want to further theologize about God as long as their science is good.  I enjoyed both the anti-ID part of the Millers book and his quite reasonable argument that atheists have wrongly co-opted evolution to present it as disproving god altogether, which goes beyond humble and reasonable science, not to mention pointlessly making the layman view science with deep hostility.

Dr. Miller is gambling when he places his bet on the “gap” of Heisenberg’s uncertainty/non-determinism. For the sake of his religious belief and anyone who he convinces to join his gamble, Miller had better hope that unfettered future scientific inquiry does not fill this “gap.”

Comment #17350

Posted by Don T. Know on February 21, 2005 07:14 PM (e) (s)

See, but this is the sort of sot bigotry of which I think Miller rightly complains.  Too many of us atheists seem to have a faith in our heart of hearts that religious believers on our side are jsut faking it, or going with the tide.  That’s just as meanspirited as believers who think that atheists are just in denial over a spat with god.

I do agree with Dr. Miller that some scientists go too far in their comments — entering into the realm of metaphysics, but cloaking their opinions in science. However, it is not bigotry to note that Dr. Miller is resting his faith on the “gap” introduced by Heisenberg’s uncertainty/non-determinism. Throughout his book, Dr. Miller rightfully derides creationists for inserting God in what they perceive as gaps in human knowledge. Such a practice is ultimately bad for science and religion. What’s good for the goose ought to be good for the gander.

Comment #17353

Posted by Empiricist on February 21, 2005 08:02 PM (e) (s)

Jeff Perado says

Again you seem to have a problem with the concept of “range.”

I believe that I do understand the concept of “range”. That is why I said the following earlier. Perhaps you missed what I said?

… most of you favor another strategy. You wish to redefine the CP (classical physics) theory so that it applies to a restricted subset and then to maintain that CP was really “correct” all along. To assure that CP is “correct” all you have to do is be certain to apply it only in the carefully limited situations where it provides a correct or approximately correct answer.

That seems to be exactly what you are doing. Of course, I think that CP is clearly a very powerful and useful theory. Of course, NASA found it useful as Ed Darrell points out.  Of course, I believe that it should be taught in schools. It yields correct results in a wide variety of areas.  Also, it provides a stepping stone for more sophisticated theories such as general relativity. Heretically, I also think statements like “Newtonian mechanics has been shown to be incorrect by experimental observation” is a reasonable thing to say.

However, it is quite clear that I am in a tiny minority here, and I have learned that I should really say something like “CP is correct but incomplete” and “Newtonian mechanics is correct but incomplete”. Time to bow out. Sorry if I have offended people. It certainly was a fascinating learning experience for me!

Comment #17357

Posted by Buridan on February 21, 2005 08:43 PM (e) (s)

I’m not a big fan of Kuhn, but I think there’s more than a kernel of truth in his notion of paradigm shifts. So it seems somewhat of a non sequitur to make one to one comparisons between Einstein and Newton. The paradigms (I hate that word by the way) are different and thus incommensurable according to Kuhn. It’s like comparing apples and oranges. In other words, while it may appear that concepts within Newtonian physics are capable of crossing over into an Einsteinian framework, the concepts involved mean very different things when located, e.g., in the theory of relativity.

The conceptual apparatus underlying any set of statements depends upon the theoretical base from which they are derived. Change the base and you change the meaning of the statements. Certainly, Kuhn’s claims are not uncontroversial, but I think they serve, at the very least, as a useful heuristic for understanding scientific “progress” or better yet change.

By contrast, the conceptual impetus for religious belief is the preservation of “absolute truth.” Religious beliefs certainly change, but only in an ad hoc fashion and they usually result in schisms and not paradigm shifts as Kuhn suggests. Religious paradigms or belief systems simply multiply (e.g., the rise of denominationalism in America) or fade away as their adherents die off or lose interest (e.g., religious sects and new religious movements). They don’t change in the same way that science does. The only possible exception, oddly enough, is Catholicism. But even here change proceeds in an ad hoc fashion – hence, the various Papal bulls and church councils over the centuries.

That ought to raise the hackles of the religionists out there.

Comment #17360

Posted by The Messenger on February 21, 2005 08:57 PM (e) (s)

In the original post here, the comment was made,

“our textbooks already say it over and over, and typically have long chapters that introduce the scientific method and describe how it works and what its limitations are.

May I ask who the “our” refers to? I am new here and while I know that this is an evolution blog, I did not know it was owned by a textbook company. Is it and if so, which company?

Thanks,

Comment #17362

Posted by paperwight on February 21, 2005 09:24 PM (e) (s)

May I ask who the “our” refers to? I am new here and while I know that this is an evolution blog, I did not know it was owned by a textbook company. Is it and if so, which company?

I will assume just for the moment that you’re not being deliberately obtuse in order to vilify the people who volunteer hours and hours of their time here.  What PZ means by “our” is “written by any of the community of reputable scientists who study biology”, of which community PZ is a member.

Comment #17363

Posted by PZ Myers on February 21, 2005 09:37 PM (e) (s)

Correct. And when the article cites three different specific textbooks by title and author, I think it’s clear that “The Messenger” is being deliberately obtuse.

Comment #17370

Posted by Scott Simmons on February 21, 2005 10:18 PM (e) (s)

May I give it a try, empiricist?

The real question is, what does it mean to say that a theory is wrong? If the answer is that it makes predictions that are not confirmed by the evidence, then Newtonian theory is wrong. The ORNL team’s experiments do demonstrate that Newton’s theory of gravity is wrong in this sense, while failing to demonstrate that Einstein’s theory is wrong.  And in fact, it’s been made quite clear over the past hundred years that, in the range of measurement where Newton’s theories diverge from the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics, the predictions of the latter theories are consistently more accurate than those of the former. So Newton’s theory has been demonstrated to be wrong in this sense, while quantum theory and relativity have not.

BUT-as formulated today, quantum theory and relativity are not consistent with each other. (Most notably, quantum theory includes non-local effects, which are not able to be consistently modeled in current formulations of relativity.) Various theories of quantum gravity and relativistic QM are in play; but the current theories are, without a doubt, wrong, in the sense given above. And, given that definition, it is fundamentally impossible to be certain that any given theory is right (one would have to make all possible observations first, after all). Which leads me, at least, to question the utility of that concept …

It is an indisputable fact that current data shows that Newton’s theories are wrong, in that sense. But it is equally true that that fact has little or no significance. More interesting facts include the points of overlap of classical and modern physics, and that classical physics is so well established in its area of proper application as to be virtually immune to overthrow. Witness Bohr’s famous correspondence principle, that quantum theory predictions in simple aggregate over large numbers of particles ought always to conform to classical predictions. Or the exhortations of an old physics teacher of mine, that if you’ve found a system in which momentum is not conserved, you’ve misunderstood the system. A principle which not only led to the discovery of the neutrino, but also helped me ace an exam in advanced classical E&M a few years later. (“Given an infinitely long solenoid with radius r and current i, crossed perpendicularly through its center at intervals a by infinitely long wires carrying current j; what is the force per unit distance exerted by the magnetic fields of the wires on the current in the solenoid?” I wasted a page of scratch paper on calculus before I realized that Newton’s Second Law of Motion made that an arithmetic problem …)

Theories are, perhaps, right or wrong, true or false; but in that sense, they’re all (all but one, which we’ll probably never know) false. More interestingly, they’re broad or narrow in application, more or less useful. And in this sense, Newton’s theory is and will always be of interest, being extremely useful in a narrow (but extremely common, from our point of view) range of circumstances-those involving objects much larger than atomic nuclei, moving at speeds much less than that of light. And while I’m not nearly as familiar with biology as with physics, I’m fairly confident that, while new theories of the origins of biodiversity will likely arise in the future-probably even radically different theories-it will remain the case that, for the purposes of understanding the existence of the vast majority of current Earthly species, the modern synthesis of neo-Darwinian theory will always be an important part of our explanations.

-Scott Simmons

Comment #17372

Posted by Air Bear on February 21, 2005 10:26 PM (e) (s)

Aggie wrote:

“I believe colleges should require a “History of Science” course for all science majors.”

“Appreciating science in all of its fits and starts, successes and failures, breakthroughs and setbacks, can do wonders in creating a well-balanced view of the process called the scientific method.”

Having majored in History of Science as an undergraduate (thesis advisor was Thomas Kuhn) and done several years of graduate study in it before dropping out, I certainly would agree in the abstract.  Science classes only show the bare bones of the nature of scientific study, and barely hint at the philosophy of science.

However, a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.  The emphasis on extra-rational elements in the development of scientific ideas - e.g. neo-Platonic sun worship as an inspiration for Copernicus’ heliocentric model - can lead to the notion that scientific ideas, including Darwinian Evolution, are mere opinion.  In my own studies I noticed how objective standards of scientific evidence were given rather short shrift by professional historians and philosophers of science.

The results of study of history of science are not always what we would wish.  Steven Meyer’s bio says he has a PhD in History and Philosophy of Science from Cambridge, and Paul Nelson apparently has a PhD in Philosophy of Science.  How these learned philosophers of science could embrace Intelligent Design is beyond me, as it is so patently outside the realm of modern science.

Comment #17376

Posted by ~DS~ on February 21, 2005 10:54 PM (e) (s)

Empiricist,

If you happen to actually <i>have</i> a scientific Theory of non-human, Intelligent Design, that explains biodiversity and which ‘proves’ evolutionary biology ‘wrong’, you could always just, you know, say what it is. Instead of this silly dancing around.

As matters stand now, you seem to be arguing that scientists should seriously consider a theory that has never been stated, as if it were in fact in existence. That’s pretty much an impossible task you’ve set yourself up with. Just state the theory, write it up, along with the testable predictions it makes and any data supporting those predictions, and it’ll be most welcome to the same scrutiny all of science enjoys. Anything is else is pointless gum slapping on your part.

Comment #17380

Posted by RBH on February 22, 2005 01:27 AM (e) (s)

How soon they forget.

RBH

Comment #17383

Posted by Cubist on February 22, 2005 02:39 AM (e) (s)

Empiricist, your use of the words “right” and “wrong” carries with it the implication that the “right” thing is 100% Right, and the “wrong” thing is 100% Wrong. This implication isn’t really valid for scientific theories, because science doesn’t go from 100% Wrong to 100% Right. Instead, science goes from N% Right to (N+X)% Right — that is, from one theory which yields good results over a particular range of conditions, to a different theory which yields good results over a wider range of conditions. Creationists tend to see Truth as an absolute, black-and-white, Fully-Wrong-versus-Fully-Right kind of deal, in which you’re either 100% Right or 100% Wrong and that’s it; scientists tend to see Truth as a shades-of-grey kind of deal, in which it’s possible for people to be partially right.

Comment #17393

Posted by Randall on February 22, 2005 07:41 AM (e) (s)

An important thing to remember about science is that by the 100%-right-or-100%-wrong definition, all science is and will always be wrong. Period. This is sort of like the epistemological perspective that since you can’t trust the knowledge of your own senses, you can never be sure of anything beyond your own existence; thus, you should assume that only you exist. Yes, if you want to interpret things narrowly, all of science is wrong. But more importantly, most of science is useful, in that it makes predictions about the results of experiments/observations made after the predictions themselves. In this regard, Newtonian physics is “less useful” than Einsteinian or quantum physics, since it predicts the results of fewer experiments. However, for most practical purposes, Newtonian is “useful enough.” To flatly say “Newton was wrong” is to miss this crucial shading; it’s just as valid to say “All of science is wrong,” and that’s not a particularly useful statement.

As a side note, if this crucial fact about science was not taught in one’s primary school science courses, one’s teachers failed. The fact that all science is tentative and uncertain is perhaps the most important thing one could know about the field, far more than any scientific theory.

Comment #17395

Posted by DaveScot on February 22, 2005 08:19 AM (e) (s)

Some biologists evidently need a sticker on their foreheads warning of the hubris therein.

So Dr. Myers, did you come up with any examples for me of the new information created inside a chicken egg while it’s going from egg to chick, or are you prepared to concede that ontogeny is the expression of preformed information?

Comment #17397

Posted by DaveScot on February 22, 2005 08:51 AM (e) (s)

RBH

No “scientific” alternatives to mutation/selection?  Hardly.  You’re laboring under an incorrect definition of science.  Does science ignore the possibility of design when something that appears like a hand ax is found?  Of course not.  Nothing else should be an exception! 

To presume a materialist explanation no matter what the evidence is anthropocenticity, pure and simple.  It presumes that humans are a special creation, the only entity in the universe capable of design, while in fact it’s simply the only known entity.  To conclude no others exist or have ever existed is a logical fallacy - an appeal to ignorance.  Shame on you. 

The enlightenment began long before Darwin came along.  The enlightenment, and modern science, owes its debt of thanks to Nicholas Copernicus who demonstrated that the earth is not the center of the universe.  The Copernican Principle of Mediocrity, which any honest scientist should embrace, states that there is nothing special about the earth, which includes life on the earth and by definition human life.  Therefore, if there is design on the earth, then as good scientists we must presume, until proven otherwise, that design is common in the universe.  To presume otherwise is to presume that humans are a special creation uniquely possessing the power to intelligently design. 

Genetic engineering is a reality today.  Therefore, the Copernican Principle of Mediocrity, the TRUE underpinning of modern science, directs us to presume that genetic engineering is a common thing in the universe.

Dogmatic materialists are every bit as guilty of anthropocentricity as the bible thumpers.  Both camps are unscientific.  Both camps are irrational and illogical.

So there.

Comment #17398

Posted by Grey Wolf on February 22, 2005 09:00 AM (e) (s)

The moment the chick-to-be goes from undifferientiated cells to slight specialization there is an increase in the information, according to Shannon’s Information Theory.

For example: given this sequence: aaaaaaaa
Getting another a gives little information
Gewtting a b gives much more information

Likewise, suddenly having a differentiated cell is an increase in information.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Comment #17401

Posted by DaveScot on February 22, 2005 09:10 AM (e) (s)

Keanus wrote:

one needs to understand that the frames of reference in which Newton’s Laws don’t apply are those found at extraordinarily small or large scales

Not always.  The Global Positioning System must take the relativistic effects of moderate satellite velocities (the satellite’s clocks are running a bit slower than the same clock on the earth’s surface) in order to get an accurate position fix. There’s also compensation for the satellite clock being in a reduced but moderate gravity field farther from the center of the earth’s mass than a ground based clock.  There’s even compensation for changes in the earth’s gravity field due to density differences over any particular spot.

If you’re trying to target a precision weapon in bad weather the difference between a bomb factory and a grammar school next to it is not a matter of extraordinarily small scale, yet without Einsteinian physics we have no way of discriminating between the two in that circumstance.

Comment #17402

Posted by DaveScot on February 22, 2005 09:21 AM (e) (s)

Grey Wolf wrote:

The moment the chick-to-be goes from undifferientiated cells to slight specialization there is an increase in the information, according to Shannon’s Information Theory.

No, there is not.  All the information required for differentiation is already there.  No new information is created.  None is added from the environment.  Pre-existing information is merely expressed differently.

Comment #17403

Posted by Uber on February 22, 2005 09:25 AM (e) (s)

Uber, I’m sorry, but there is no way to erad your comments that isn’t basically dismissive of the man’s religious beliefs, regardless of whether you’ve had conversations with him or not.  Claiming that he basically just argues that he was raised that way, or that you “suspect” that he doesn’t really believe are exactly what I’m talking about.

I didn’t say that, I said he is human like the rest of us and questions many things.

 

Miller does, in fact, believe as much of Catholic doctrine as most Catholics do (but then, I’m not sure you mean the same thing by that word as Catholics do),

Most catholics are not lock step with the Vatican. As an example polls show 90% disagree with the churches stance on Birth control, and 85% disagree with the churches stance on divorce. Many of my friends are Catholic and they disagree with the above as well as some of the other tenets. CAsting a big net and assuming ALL Catholics buy into all doctrines lock step is a mistake your making, it is not a monolithic body. As mentioned Dr.Miller is an ordinary Catholic no better or worse than any other.

and he has written countless times about how much he is bothered by people who “expect” (as you do) him to basically be some sort of sliding deist who doesn’t “really” believe in miracles and so forth.

I didn’t say he was a sliding deist. I just realize from talking to him that he has no answers when pressed about such things. As such his religious beliefs are no different from anyone elses and are of no greater value.

His scientific views, based on evidence, have great merit.

Put aside whether or not I read you wrong and you are guilty of this: wouldn’t you agree that this perception is very very common among both believers and the more outspoken non-believers?

No I wouldn’t—only among a small number of creationist nuts does that thought go hand in hand.

 

(that believing evolution pretty much means giving up most of the core beliefs about Christianity).  Isn’t that a bad perception to have out there?

Why stop with Christianity? Why not also Islam,Judaism,Hinduism, and on, and on. The question people should be asking is why not use the same rational processes available to us in CT skills and apply them to any or all of the mentioned religions?

If one of your core beliefs is the inerrancy of the bible, then honestly-yes evolution will challenge that. Of course if your religion doesn’t think like this-as many in Christianity don’t then do as you will.

Comment #17404

Posted by Chance on February 22, 2005 09:29 AM (e) (s)

that believing evolution pretty much means giving up most of the core beliefs about Christianity).  Isn’t that a bad perception to have out there?

My question on this comment would be why?

Why is it a bad perception? If something is proven false or so unlikely that only the clueless believe it(alien abduction,fairies,etc) why would it be wrong or bad to remove or dismiss the perception?

Why must a belief that may be totally false be given respect?

If people have to give up false beliefs why should that be considered a bad thing?

Comment #17405

Posted by Russell on February 22, 2005 09:32 AM (e) (s)

DaveIQ513Scot wrote:

To presume a materialist explanation no matter what the evidence is anthropocenticity, pure and simple.  It presumes that humans are a special creation, the only entity in the universe capable of design

Whoa. Stop right there, Brainiac. How do you come to that conclusion??? Just because there’s no evidence that some group of extraterrestrial engineers brought earth’s biota into being, (a) why would that mean that there is no other life in the universe capable of designing things? and (b) how would that make humans a “special” creation, any more than all the rest of life that exhibits properties we have not found anywhere else in the universe (yet)?

To conclude no others exist or have ever existed is a logical fallacy - an appeal to ignorance.

Right. Who’s concluded that?

Comment #17407

Posted by Chance on February 22, 2005 09:34 AM (e) (s)

entering into the realm of metaphysics, but cloaking their opinions in science

metaphysics, interesting, mostly bs but interesting.

Comment #17408

Posted by PZ Myers on February 22, 2005 09:35 AM (e) (s)

No, there is not.  All the information required for differentiation is already there.  No new information is created.  None is added from the environment.  Pre-existing information is merely expressed differently.

OK, show me where the information for, say, gastrulation is located. Explain how dorsal is specified in the chick without referencing anything in the environment or in the epigenetic history of the oocyte.

Comment #17409

Posted by Grey Wolf on February 22, 2005 09:38 AM (e) (s)

No, there is not.  All the information required for differentiation is already there.  No new information is created.  None is added from the environment.  Pre-existing information is merely expressed differently.

You have just demonstrated that you have no knowledge of Shannon’s Information Theory. Since further discussion with you - as always - will be useless, believe what you will, as you are bound to do. But my example holds - you have not managed to disprove it. Maybe you should read a little before continuing this line. But I rather doubt you will.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf, who should point out that DaveScot’s response has not increased information since it was completely predictable.

Comment #17423

Posted by DaveScot on February 22, 2005 11:00 AM (e) (s)

Grey Wolf

So you see, what we have in a chicken egg is a cell, which is composed of a recipe and self-replicating organic factory, plus a suitable chemical environment containing raw materials to be made into more organic machinery according to the recipe.

Now imagine a first, common ancestor cell for all the life on earth we see.  Most scientists agree there’s a common ancestor, right?  But instead of imagining its genome going from less to more complex, assume the complexity was already there just like the complexity is already there in the chicken egg.  Now the process of ontogeny and phylogeny are extremely similar except for the timescale. 

Further, there’s an very complex timing/trigger sequence in the expression of different cell types and organization from chicken egg to chicken.  No more or less complex timing/trigger sequence need be operating over geologic timescales in phylogenesis as are operating in ontogenesis. 

What we might better be trying to figure out is what cues are used in phylogeny to time the specialization and diversification based on the assumption that little of it was due to any random process just like little in the way of random process is required to make a chicken egg into a chicken. 

A perfectly good explanation for phylogeny is right there in ontogeny. 

The only thing different is it becomes harder to explain abiogenesis if you start from an information rich genome instead of an information poor genome in the universal ancestor.  Ostensibly, evolution is the origin of species, not the origin of life.  When it becomes the origin of life it crosses the border from fact based science to faith based philosophy.

Comment #17424

Posted by Jim Harrison on February 22, 2005 11:12 AM (e) (s)

Genomes obviously became larger and more complex in the transition from the earliest prokaryotes to single-celled and then multi-celled eukaryotes. Ecosystems also became more complex, with many more forms occupying many more niches—even such basic life styles as herbivory appear fairly late in the geological record (see G. Vermeij’s recent book, Nature: an Economic History).  The notion that all the complexity was present to begin with is simply empirically false.

Comment #17426

Posted by Grey Wolf on February 22, 2005 11:32 AM (e) (s)

DaveScot, you have changed the goalposts. You asked for an example of increased information inside an egg, and I gave you one. All the hand waving in your last post doesn’t stop my example from being correct, as you asked for.

It’s interesting how you start by assuming your conclussion, by the way, in the best pseudoscience practice.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf, who isn’t interested in discussing biology with someone who doesn’t even have passing knowledge of his own field

Comment #17429

Posted by Andrea Bottaro on February 22, 2005 11:51 AM (e) (s)

DaveScot:
I admire your ability to furiously back-pedal while carrying those heavy goalposts on your back.  Your initial claim in the “Confusion about pharyngeal homologies” thread was:

Ontogeny is the derepression of preformed genetic information.

which is complete non-sense, as anyone who has met genetically identical, yet phenotypically different twins knows.  When PZ challenged you, that argument immediately transmuted into:

No mutation/selection occurs during the process of going from an egg to a mature form.

which still may come as a surprise to those who know that the ontogeny of a functional adaptive immune system, for instance, is almost entirely based on mutation/selection processes (not to mention the role of selection of non-mutational, but still stochastic phenomena during cell and lineage differentiation, neural development, etc).

Now, in a further saltational lea