News: 10 Questions, and Answers, About Evolution.
Ye Old One
Published: August 23, 2008
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/us/WEB-tenquestions.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
“Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution,” a
document by Jonathan Wells, a senior fellow at the Discovery
Institute, a Seattle-based group that advocates intelligent design,
aims to highlight the weaknesses in evolutionary theory. Here are his
questions, along with responses compiled by the National Center for
Science Education. More questions can be found on Dr. Wells’s site,
http://www.iconsofevolution.com/ More information about biological
evolution can be found at http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/.
1. Origin of life. Why do textbooks claim that the 1953 Miller-Urey
experiment shows how life’s building blocks may have formed on the
early Earth — when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing
like those used in the experiment, and the origin of life remains a
mystery?
N.C.S.E. answer: Because evolutionary theory works with any model of
the origin of life on Earth, how life originated is not a question
about evolution. Textbooks discuss the 1953 studies because they were
the first successful attempt to show how organic molecules might have
been produced on the early earth. When modern scientists changed the
experimental conditions to reflect better knowledge of the earth’s
early atmosphere, they were able to produce most of the same building
blocks. Origin-of-life remains a vigorous area of research.
2. Darwin’s tree of life. Why don’t textbooks discuss the “Cambrian
explosion,” in which all major animal groups appear together in the
fossil record fully formed, instead of branching from a common
ancestor — thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?
A. Fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals all are
post-Cambrian. We would recognize very few of the Cambrian organisms
as “modern”; they’re in fact at the roots of the tree of life, showing
the earliest appearances of some key features of groups of animals -
but not all features and not all groups. Researchers are linking these
Cambrian groups using not only fossils but also data from
developmental biology.
3. Homology. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to
common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence or common ancestry — a
circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?
A: The same anatomical structure (such as a leg or an antenna) in two
species may be similar because it was inherited from a common ancestor
(homology) or because of similar adaptive pressure (convergence) .
Homology of structures across species is not assumed, but tested by
the repeated comparison of numerous features that do or do not sort
into successive clusters. Homology is used to test hypotheses of
degrees of relatedness. Homology is not “evidence” for common
ancestry: common ancestry is inferred based on many sources of
information, and reinforced by the patterns of similarity and
dissimilarity of anatomical structures.
4. Vertebrate embryos. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities
in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry — even
though biologists have known for over a century that vertebrate
embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings
are faked?
A: Twentieth-century and current embryological research confirms that
early stages (if not the earliest) of vertebrate embryos are more
similar than later ones; the more recently species shared a common
ancestor, the more similar their embryological development. Thus cows
and rabbits - mammals - are more similar in their embryological
development than either is to alligators. Cows and antelopes are more
similar in their embryology than either is to rabbits, and so on. The
union of evolution and developmental biology — “evo-devo” — is one of
the most rapidly growing biological fields. “Faked” drawings are not
relied upon: there has been plenty of research in developmental
biology since Haeckel (long-discredited drawings that were used in
textbooks 20 years ago) and in fact, hardly any textbooks feature
Haeckel’s drawings, as claimed.
5. Archaeopteryx. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing
link between dinosaurs and modern birds — even though modern birds are
probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not
appear until millions of years after it?
A: The notion of a “missing link” is an out-of-date misconception
about how evolution works. Archaeopteryx (and other feathered fossils)
shows how a branch of reptiles gradually acquired both the unique
anatomy and flying adaptations found in all modern birds. It is a
transitional fossil. These fossils are not direct ancestors of modern
birds but relatives, and, as everyone knows, your uncle can be younger
than you!
6. Peppered moths. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths
camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection — when
biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don’t normally
rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?
A: These pictures are illustrations used to demonstrate a point - the
advantage of protective coloration to reduce the danger of predation.
The pictures are not the scientific evidence used to prove the point
in the first place. Compare this illustration to the well-known
re-enactments of the Battle of Gettysburg. Does the fact that these
re-enactments are staged prove that the battle never happened? The
peppered moth photos are the same sort of illustration, not scientific
evidence for natural selection.
7. Darwin’s finches. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in
Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of
species by natural selection — even though the changes were reversed
after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?
A: Textbooks present the finch data to illustrate natural selection:
that populations change their physical features in response to changes
in the environment. The finch studies exquisitely documented how the
physical features of an organism can affect its success in
reproduction and survival, and that such changes can take place more
quickly than was realized. That new species did not arise within the
duration of the study hardly challenges evolution!
8. Mutant fruit flies. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra
pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials
for evolution — even though the extra wings have no muscles and these
disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?
A: In the very few textbooks that discuss four-winged fruit flies,
they are used as an illustration of how genes can reprogram parts of
the body to produce novel structures, thus indeed providing “raw
material” for evolution. This type of mutation produces new structures
that become available for further experimentation and potential new
uses. Even if not every mutation leads to a new evolutionary pathway,
the flies are a vivid example of one way mutation can provide
variation for natural selection to work on.
9. Human origins. Why are artists’ drawings of ape-like humans used to
justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our
existence is a mere accident — when fossil experts cannot even agree
on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?
A: Drawings of humans and our ancestors illustrate the general outline
of human ancestry, about which there is considerable agreement, even
if new discoveries continually add to the complexity of the account.
The notion that such drawings are used to “justify materialistic
claims” is not borne out by an examination of textbook treatments of
human evolution.
10. Evolution a fact? Why are we told that Darwin’s theory of
evolution is a scientific fact — even though many of its claims are
based on misrepresentations of the facts?
A: In the last century, some of what Darwin originally proposed has
been augmented by more modern scientific understanding of inheritance
(genetics), development, and other processes that affect evolution.
What remains unchanged is that similarities and differences among
living things on Earth over time and space display a pattern that is
best explained by evolutionary theory.
--
Bob.
John Harshman
> 10 Questions, and Answers, About Evolution
>
> Published: August 23, 2008
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/us/WEB-tenquestions.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
I'm going to piggyback my own answers to some of these questions onto
the NCSE answers, because I like mine. Of course I'm a lot more
long-winded than they were. I wrote these for a project of the SSE
(Society for the Study of Evolution) that was never published. They used
to have diagrams attached, but I've rewritten around them.
> “Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution,” a
> document by Jonathan Wells, a senior fellow at the Discovery
> Institute, a Seattle-based group that advocates intelligent design,
> aims to highlight the weaknesses in evolutionary theory. Here are his
> questions, along with responses compiled by the National Center for
> Science Education. More questions can be found on Dr. Wells’s site,
> http://www.iconsofevolution.com/ More information about biological
> evolution can be found at http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/.
[snip]
> 2. Darwin’s tree of life. Why don’t textbooks discuss the “Cambrian
> explosion,” in which all major animal groups appear together in the
> fossil record fully formed, instead of branching from a common
> ancestor — thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?
>
> A. Fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals all are
> post-Cambrian. We would recognize very few of the Cambrian organisms
> as “modern”; they’re in fact at the roots of the tree of life, showing
> the earliest appearances of some key features of groups of animals -
> but not all features and not all groups. Researchers are linking these
> Cambrian groups using not only fossils but also data from
> developmental biology.
There are a great many premises hidden in this question. Wells claims
that 1) textbooks don't discuss the Cambrian explosion, 2) all major
animal groups appeared during the explosion, 3) the groups were "fully
formed" when they appeared, and 4) that this all somehow falsifies the
idea of common descent. As we will see, none of these premises is true,
so the question is pointless.
It's would be surprising if textbooks didn't discuss the Cambrian
explosion, since it's a major event in the history of life. And in fact
they do. Of ten textbooks examined by Wells, he claims that eight don't
even mention the explosion. In fact all but one does mention it, and
four of those give it more than a hundred words. Still, a hundred words
isn't much to deal with such a major event; Wells' implication is that
coverage of the explosion is being deliberately suppressed. Then again,
textbooks have limited space to deal with all of the complex field of
biology; an alternative explanation is that these books just have
limited coverage of the history of life and of evolution in general.
Let's use the scientific method to test Wells' hypothesis (cover-up)
against an alternative hypothesis (limited space). The biggest event in
the history of life since the explosion is undoubtedly the end-Permian
(or Permo-Triassic) mass extinction, in which up to 90% of all animal
species on earth died, but nobody suggests this extinction is a problem
for evolution. Let's compare how many textbooks cover the Cambrian
explosion vs. how many cover the end-Permian extinction. The prediction
of the cover-up theory is that more texts would mention the end-Permian
than the Cambrian explosion; the prediction of the limited space theory
is that the same number or fewer will mention the end-Permian. Result?
Of 18 texts examined (including Wells' ten), 16 mention the Cambrian
explosion, while only 10 mention the end-Permian extinction. Of those
that mention both events, all but one give more coverage - an average of
three times more - to the Cambrian explosion than to the end-Permian
extinction. (What does your textbook do?) So both Well's claim that
textbooks don't mention the explosion and his implication that there is
a coverup are refuted. Of course, Wells doesn't really mean that
textbooks fail to discuss the Cambrian explosion. He means they don't
consider it to be evidence against evolution, and he thinks they should.
His reasons, however, don't hold up under examination.
It's important to note that our knowledge of the Cambrian explosion, and
of still earlier life, is fragmentary. Most types of animals are rarely
preserved as fossils, so we are limited for much of our information to a
few deposits with exceptional preservation, like the famous Chengjiang
and Burgess faunas. No deposits like these are known from the crucial
period preceding the explosion. And even when we have exceptional
fossils, the information we can get from them is limited. Fossils don't
come with labels saying "I'm the common ancestor of mollusks and
brachiopods", or even "I'm an arthropod". Much information available
from study of living animals is missing from even the best fossil.
Finally, remember that when we say a phylum "appears" in the Cambrian
explosion, we mean that no earlier fossils that we are sure belong to
that phylum are known yet. Just a few years ago, there were no known
Cambrian vertebrates, but vertebrates have recently been added to the
list of groups that originated in the explosion. But maybe that's just
because we haven't found the still earlier vertebrate yet, or, worse,
have failed to recognize it because the fossil is poorly preserved.
Do all major animal groups appear in the Cambrian explosion? No. By
"major group" Wells means a phylum (plural: phyla). The Cambrian
explosion, which may be as short as 5 million years in duration, saw the
first unambiguous appearance of most of the major groups of marine
invertebrates with calcified shells, and thus excellent fossil records,
as well as several groups of soft-bodied animals: eight phyla in all,
out of a total of nearly thirty. A few phyla appear before the
explosion; in fact, depending on the debated interpretation of some
fragmentary fossils, the number appearing in the explosion may be from
one more to three less than eight. Eight more phyla first appear in the
fossil record after the explosion, from the middle Cambrian to the
Cenozoic, and nine in fact have no fossil records at all. (The last is
almost certainly due to lack of preservation rather than a recent
origin, because there are a very few ancient fossils of some such
groups. For example, the earliest clearly identifiable nematode
roundworm is Cretaceous in age; there are claimed earlier examples as
early as the Mississippian, but they are all controversial, and nematode
fossils of any age are extremely rare.) And note that Wells is entirely
ignoring, for no good reason, all plants, fungi, and protists.
Were these first appearances "fully formed"? It's hard to say what Wells
means by that. What would a "partially formed" animal look like?
Cambrian animals certainly are not identical with modern ones. They
possess some but not all the features that characterize the modern phyla
to which they are related. For example, some Cambrian arthropods, such
as Anomalocaris and Opabinia, seem to lack jointed legs except for a
single pair near the mouth; the rest of the body had lobes, somewhat
like the modern Onycophora, which are arthropod relatives but not
arthropods. Cambrian relatives of Onycophora are common, but unlike
their modern relatives they lived in the ocean and lacked important
organs of the modern animals. There are still other Cambrian fossils
that do resemble the possible ancestral forms of two or more phyla.
Shelled and scaled animals called halkieriids, for example, have
characteristics of both mollusks and brachiopods. There were vertebrates
in the Cambrian, but they were more primitive than any living
vertebrate, resembling most closely modern Amphioxus, a non-vertebrate
chordate. There were no bony fish, no sharks, no amphibians, reptiles,
or mammals. In fact, there was no life on land at all.).
Wells also plays fast and loose with definitions. The Cambrian explosion
is not synonymous with the entire Cambrian period. Even though Wells
gives a length for the explosion of 5-10 million years, he also
considers groups to have originated in the explosion if they appeared at
any time during the Cambrian, a period of over 50 million years. He also
counts groups that first appeared in the fossil record "shortly before"
the Cambrian, and this is sometimes as much as 30 million years before
the beginning of the Cambrian (or more than 40 million years before the
beginning of the explosion). Thus the Cambrian explosion by his flexible
definition can be as short (when he wants to emphasize its abruptness)
as 5 million years or as long (when he wants to emphasize its magnitude)
as 80 million years, and these different definitions are never
distinguished, leaving the impression that everything that happened
during the longer, 80-million year period can be condensed into the
shorter, 5-million year period. No wonder he talks about an explosion!
It's not a matter of contention whether the Cambrian explosion happened.
The question is what it was. Did new body plans appear suddenly (if 10
million years can be called sudden)? Or did they just become visible by
becoming large and/or gaining hard skeletons? The fossil record is
unclear, but there are clues. The Cambrian explosion (defined by the
first appearance of trilobites) was preceded by the Tommotian stage of
the Cambrian, whose fauna consists of a variety of small, enigmatic
shells. Some may have been small mollusks. The Tommotian was preceded by
the Late Precambrian, home of the Ediacaran fauna. Some of these may
have been relatives of modern phyla - it's hard to tell because they
weren't preserved in sufficient detail. It's certain that at least some
fairly advanced animals were around, because burrows and tracks made by
unknown but necessarily advanced animals became common in the late
Precambrian.
Science works by comparing alternative explanations for data,
provisionally accepting the alternative that best fits the data. Wells,
however, presents no theory to explain the data. Were animal phyla
created out of nothing during the Cambrian explosion? If so, does that
mean that all modern species within those phyla are each descended from
a single phylum ancestor? If that's not his theory, his question
wouldn't make sense even if his premises were true. The earliest known
vertebrates appear at the end of the explosion. They were "fully
formed", meaning that we can tell they were vertebrates. But none of the
modern vertebrate classes, let alone orders, families, genera, or
species, are known from the Cambrian. Is Wells suggesting the modern
vertebrates are all descended from a primitive vertebrate of the
Cambrian? Or does he think they were all created, separately, later? But
the latter theory would make the Cambrian explosion problematic from his
perspective also. What does Wells think?
Literature
Budd, G. E., and S. Jensen. 2000. A critical reappraisal of the fossil
record of the bilaterian phyla. Biol. Rev. 75:253-295.
Valentine, J. W., D. Jablonski, and D. H. Erwin. 1999. Fossils,
molecules and embryos: New perspectives on the Cambrian explosion.
Development 126:851-859.
> 3. Homology. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to
> common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence or common ancestry — a
> circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?
>
> A: The same anatomical structure (such as a leg or an antenna) in two
> species may be similar because it was inherited from a common ancestor
> (homology) or because of similar adaptive pressure (convergence) .
> Homology of structures across species is not assumed, but tested by
> the repeated comparison of numerous features that do or do not sort
> into successive clusters. Homology is used to test hypotheses of
> degrees of relatedness. Homology is not “evidence” for common
> ancestry: common ancestry is inferred based on many sources of
> information, and reinforced by the patterns of similarity and
> dissimilarity of anatomical structures.
This question stems from confusion on Wells’ part between how something
is defined and how it is recognized, which are two quite different
things. Homology is indeed defined as similarity due to common ancestry.
But we don’t just label any similarity a homology and call it evidence
for common ancestry. That would indeed be circular. What we really do is
quite different. Similarity between the characteristics of two organisms
is an observation. If the similarity is sufficiently detailed (“both are
big” or “both are green” won’t do) we consider it a candidate for homology.
Homologies can be tested to some degree by predicting that the
characters will be similar in ways we haven’t yet checked. For example,
if we propose that similar-looking bones in two animals are homologous,
we might predict that they would arise from similar precursors in the
embryo, have similar spatial relationships to other bones in the
organism, and have their development influenced by similar genes. And
this is commonly the case.
But the main way of testing candidate homologies is by congruence with
other proposed homologies. By congruence we mean that the two characters
can plausibly belong to the same history. If the history of life looks
like a tree, with species related by branching from common ancestors,
then all true homologies should fit that tree; that is, each homology
should arise once and only once on the tree. If a large number of
functionally and genetically independent candidate homologies fit the
same evolutionary tree, we can infer both that the candidates really are
homologies and that the tree reflects a real evolutionary history.
And in fact that’s what we commonly find. Mammals, for example, are
inferred to descend from a common ancestor because they all have hair,
mammary glands, and other more obscure characteristics like seven
neckbones and three earbones. All these characteristics go together:
mammals have all of them and no other animals have any of them. Further,
other characters support consistent groupings within mammals, and
groupings within those groupings. Within most of life, groups are
organized in a very special way called a hierarchy. In a hierarchy,
every group is related to every other group in one of two ways: either
one group entirely contained within the other, or they share no members
at all. No two groups can partially overlap.
What we see if we try to organize species using candidate homologies is
that groups organized according to different characters fit together
into the same nested hierarchy. Why should characters all go together in
this consistent way? Evolutionary biology explains these characters as
homologies, all evolved on a single tree of descent.
Wells gives no alternative explanation for such patterns, and indeed
they are hard to explain in any other way than as reflections of an
evolutionary history. Wells has it all wrong. Homology isn’t a circular
argument, it’s a branching tree of evidence.
[snip]
> 5. Archaeopteryx. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing
> link between dinosaurs and modern birds — even though modern birds are
> probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not
> appear until millions of years after it?
>
> A: The notion of a “missing link” is an out-of-date misconception
> about how evolution works. Archaeopteryx (and other feathered fossils)
> shows how a branch of reptiles gradually acquired both the unique
> anatomy and flying adaptations found in all modern birds. It is a
> transitional fossil. These fossils are not direct ancestors of modern
> birds but relatives, and, as everyone knows, your uncle can be younger
> than you!
What does Archaeopteryx have to be to qualify as a "link" (not a missing
link, because it isn't missing)? Wells apparently (he never really says)
requires an insensible gradation of ancestors and descendants leading
from an unquestioned dinosaur to an unquestioned bird, with
Archaeopteryx in the middle. While that would be nice, it's hardly
necessary — and considering the quality of the fossil record, that's lucky.
How likely are we to find direct ancestors of living species in the
fossil record? That depends on the quality of the fossil record. If we
have found most of the extinct species that ever lived, our chances are
good; on the other hand, if our knowledge is spotty, our chances are
bad. We can judge the quality of the dinosaur fossil record based on the
species we have found so far. Half of all known dinosaur genera are
known only from a single specimen, which suggests that there are many
more genera for which not even that single specimen has yet been found.
Moreover, many of the genera with multiple specimens are known only from
a single time and place. We have nine specimens of Archaeopteryx, all
from a single limestone quarry in Germany. Archaeopteryx is the only
known Jurassic bird. How likely is it that the single Jurassic bird we
happen to have found is the ancestor of all subsequent birds? Given the
small sample we have, we are unlikely to have found the ancestors for
most dinosaur groups, including birds. Fortunately, we often can find
fossils that are not too far removed in time and appearance from those
ancestors. Archaeopteryx is one such fossil. It probably isn’t the
ancestor of birds. (Distinguishing actual ancestors from cousins of the
ancestors is itself an unsolved problem.) But it does represent a key
transitional stage between theropod dinosaurs and modern birds. It has
some features of theropods, some of birds, and others that are in
between. Wells offers no explanation for the transitional nature of
Archaeopteryx. We have other fossils for both more primitive and more
advanced transitional stages. Some of the more primitive transitional
stages — Velociraptor, for example — lived later than Archaeopteryx.
Such are the vagaries of preservation. Nobody claims that ancestors
appeared after their descendants, only that we have sampled a big family
of cousins and siblings at random points through time, some of whom
(like Velociraptor) resemble their common ancestor more closely than
others (like Archaeopteryx).
A comparison may be helpful in understanding this point. Consider human
relationships. We have a number of fossil apes, most over 10 million
years in age. We also have a number of fossil hominids, of which
Australopithecus afarensis, represented by “Lucy”, is perhaps the most
famous and has often been mentioned as a possible human ancestor. While
it’s not clear whether A. afarensis is or isn’t a direct human ancestor,
it’s definitely not too far from that line. The next closest human
relatives are the chimpanzees. Chimpanzees have no known fossil record.
Someone might try to cast doubt on this human phylogeny by claiming that
modern humans are probably not descended from Lucy, and her supposed
ancestors (meaning chimpanzees) do not appear until millions of years
later. Of course, there are other, earlier fossil apes, but they are
much farther from humans than are chimpanzees. Nobody actually makes
this argument, probably because we easily recognize it as ridiculous,
equivalent to the question, "If humans are descended from apes, why are
there still apes?" You don't even have to accept human evolution to
realize that question is silly. (OK, some creationists do make that
argument; but other creationists realize that they shouldn't.) But
Wells' question about Archaeopteryx is exactly the same. We’re not sure
if Archaeopteryx is a direct ancestor of modern birds, but it’s not far
from that line. The theropod dinosaurs that Wells calls Archaeopteryx’s
“supposed ancestors”, like Velociraptor, are merely the closest known
relatives of Archaeopteryx, and stand in the same relationship to it
that chimpanzees do to Lucy: later in time yet more primitive. And of
course there are plenty of earlier, even more primitive theropod
relatives. We know that the fossil record is incomplete, and it’s
incomplete for both birds/dinosaurs and humans/apes. The fit between the
actual fossil record and our natural expectations that primitive
characters will appear earlier than advanced characters is surprisingly
good, but it’s not perfect; as in these two cases, some fossils we
would like to see have not been found. But enough have been found to
give us a clear picture, at least in outline, of both human and bird
evolution. "Lucy" and Archaeopteryx don't have to be directly ancestral
to make important contributions to those pictures.
[snip]
squealpiggy
wrote:
> Ye Old One wrote:
> > 10 Questions, and Answers, About Evolution
>
> > Published: August 23, 2008
>
>
> I'm going to piggyback my own answers to some of these questions onto
> the NCSE answers, because I like mine. Of course I'm a lot more
> long-winded than they were. I wrote these for a project of the SSE
> (Society for the Study of Evolution) that was never published. They used
> to have diagrams attached, but I've rewritten around them.
>
This is one of the best posts I have ever ready on Talk Origins
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
> 10 Questions, and Answers, About Evolution
>
> Published: August 23, 2008
>
>
> “Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution,” a
> document by Jonathan Wells, a senior fellow at the Discovery
> Institute, a Seattle-based group that advocates intelligent design,
> aims to highlight the weaknesses in evolutionary theory. Here are his
> questions, along with responses compiled by the National Center for
> evolution can be found athttp://nationalacademies.org/evolution/.
Damn, this horse shit is at least a decade old now. Are the nutters
STILL passing it around . . . . . . .?
No WONDER nobody takes them seriously any more. (shrug)
================================================
Lenny Flank
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Editor, Red and Black Publishers
http://www.RedAndBlackPublishers.com
John Harshman
John Harshman
[snip]
> Damn, this horse shit is at least a decade old now. Are the nutters
> STILL passing it around . . . . . . .?
>
> No WONDER nobody takes them seriously any more. (shrug)
If only that were true.
Boikat
> 10 Questions, and Answers, About Evolution
>
> Published: August 23, 2008
>
>
> “Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution,” a
> document by Jonathan Wells, a senior fellow at the Discovery
> Institute, a Seattle-based group that advocates intelligent design,
> aims to highlight the weaknesses in evolutionary theory. Here are his
> questions, along with responses compiled by the National Center for
<snip>
>
> 7. Darwin’s finches. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in
> Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of
> species by natural selection — even though the changes were reversed
> after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?
>
> A: Textbooks present the finch data to illustrate natural selection:
> that populations change their physical features in response to changes
> in the environment. The finch studies exquisitely documented how the
> physical features of an organism can affect its success in
> reproduction and survival, and that such changes can take place more
> quickly than was realized. That new species did not arise within the
> duration of the study hardly challenges evolution!
>
Another comment on #7 : And if the drought had not ended?
Boikat
John Wilkins
I'll take that as a nomination, and second it...
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Queensland
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Cheezits
[etc.]
> Damn, this horse shit is at least a decade old now. Are the nutters
> STILL passing it around . . . . . . .?
They're still using the same textbook from 2000 years ago. What did you
expect?
Sue
--
Full bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed
scientific literature, please. - Herb Huston
RAM
> "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [etc.]
>
> > Damn, this horse shit is at least a decade old now. Are the nutters
> > STILL passing it around . . . . . . .?
>
> They're still using the same textbook from 2000 years ago. What did you
> expect?
I hope Tony doesn't read this; it will send him into a posting frenzy
followed by victory dances.
>
> Sue
> --
> Full bibliographic references to the peer-reviewed
> scientific literature, please. - Herb Huston
RAM
David Hare-Scott
"John Harshman" <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:BNKsk.20366$89.2...@nlpi069.nbdc.sbc.com...
JH do you have responses for the other 5 too? Want to go for a POTM quinella?
David
Ye Old One
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> enriched this group when s/he
wrote:
>I'm going to piggyback my own answers
Well done. Now put back the diagrams and get it on the TO website.
--
Bob.
Ye Old One
Wilkins) enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>squealpiggy <anthon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Aug 25, 5:30 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>> wrote:
>> > Ye Old One wrote:
>> > > 10 Questions, and Answers, About Evolution
>> >
>> > > Published: August 23, 2008
>> >
>> > >http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/us/WEB-tenquestions.html?_r=1&oref=...
>> >
>> > I'm going to piggyback my own answers to some of these questions onto
>> > the NCSE answers, because I like mine. Of course I'm a lot more
>> > long-winded than they were. I wrote these for a project of the SSE
>> > (Society for the Study of Evolution) that was never published. They used
>> > to have diagrams attached, but I've rewritten around them.
>> >
>> Snip
>>
>> This is one of the best posts I have ever ready on Talk Origins
>
>I'll take that as a nomination, and second it...
And just in case it isn't taken as a nomination I'll second your
second.
--
Bob.
Robert Carnegie
John Harshman
The other responses were written by other people, and I have no idea
where if anywhere they could be found.
John Harshman
> "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [etc.]
>> Damn, this horse shit is at least a decade old now. Are the nutters
>> STILL passing it around . . . . . . .?
>
> They're still using the same textbook from 2000 years ago.
Hint: it's not the one with the orange cover.
Richard Clayton
Agreed. I'm nominate it for PotM, but I see somebody else beat me to
the punch.
It's stuff like this that keeps me reading t.o.
Richard Clayton
> On Aug 25, 4:40 pm, Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
> > 10 Questions, and Answers, About Evolution
>
> > Published: August 23, 2008
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/us/WEB-tenquestions.html?_r=1&oref=...
>
> > “Ten questions to ask your biology teacher about evolution,” a
> > document by Jonathan Wells, a senior fellow at the Discovery
> > Institute, a Seattle-based group that advocates intelligent design,
> > aims to highlight the weaknesses in evolutionary theory. Here are his
> > questions, along with responses compiled by the National Center for
How brave of the Disco Attitude to arm children with ancient, easily-
rebutted canards and march them in to confront their science teachers.
If a kid is lucky, he'll have a good teacher who will use it as an
opportunity to educate. If he is unlucky and his teacher is a tyrant
(and some are), he's in for pretty severe humiliation.
AC
Now hold on a second...
--
Aaron Clausen mightym...@gmail.com
Friar Broccoli
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 07:21:54 GMT,
> Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Wilkins) enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>
>
> >>> On Aug 25, 5:30 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > Ye Old One wrote:
> >>> > > 10 Questions, and Answers, About Evolution
>
> >>> > > Published: August 23, 2008
>
> >>> > >http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/us/WEB-tenquestions.html?_r=1&oref=...
>
> >>> > I'm going to piggyback my own answers to some of these questions onto
> >>> > the NCSE answers, because I like mine. Of course I'm a lot more
> >>> > long-winded than they were. I wrote these for a project of the SSE
> >>> > (Society for the Study of Evolution) that was never published. They used
> >>> > to have diagrams attached, but I've rewritten around them.
>
> >>> Snip
>
> >>> This is one of the best posts I have ever ready on Talk Origins
>
> >>I'll take that as a nomination, and second it...
>
> > And just in case it isn't taken as a nomination I'll second your
> > second.
>
> Now hold on a second...
Good idea, it's:
POTM *nomination*
Martin Hutton
On 25-Aug-2008, John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
> Ye Old One wrote:
> > 10 Questions, and Answers, About Evolution
> >
> > Published: August 23, 2008
> >
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/us/WEB-tenquestions.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
>
> I'm going to piggyback my own answers to some of these questions onto
> the NCSE answers, because I like mine. Of course I'm a lot more
> long-winded than they were. I wrote these for a project of the SSE
> (Society for the Study of Evolution) that was never published. They used
> to have diagrams attached, but I've rewritten around them.
I think the NCSE responses are good for a high-school
biology teacher who has very little time to respond
to these asinine questions while still following the
lesson plan. Your answers, while superb, would take far
too long to pass on. Hell, the teachers have very important
"No child left behind" tests to administer.
Are you going to publish your additions to the rest of
NCSE's answers? If you do, that'd be a definite POTM shoo-in.
{snip}
--
Martin Hutton
John Harshman
> Are you going to publish your additions to the rest of
> NCSE's answers? If you do, that'd be a definite POTM shoo-in.
I have posted the answers I have, to the questions that are within my
field of expertise, more or less. I don't have all that much to say
about peppered moths, the origin of life, or embryology.
Krubozumo Nyankoye
intoned: news:5s56b49v56h5sc0b3...@4ax.com:
> 10 Questions, and Answers, About Evolution
>
> Published: August 23, 2008
<snip>
>
> 10. Evolution a fact? Why are we told that Darwin’s theory of
> evolution is a scientific fact — even though many of its claims are
> based on misrepresentations of the facts?
>
> A: In the last century, some of what Darwin originally proposed has
> been augmented by more modern scientific understanding of inheritance
> (genetics), development, and other processes that affect evolution.
> What remains unchanged is that similarities and differences among
> living things on Earth over time and space display a pattern that is
> best explained by evolutionary theory.
>
Wells makes an accusation of the misrepresentation of facts by
misrepresenting the facts? Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is
a theory that offers explanations and mechanisms for the fact of evolution.
No one claims the theory of evolution is a fact, except creationists.
--
Here we may reign secure, and in my choyce
To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heav'n.
John Harshman
> Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> eyed the audience and in choked emotion
> intoned: news:5s56b49v56h5sc0b3...@4ax.com:
>
>> 10 Questions, and Answers, About Evolution
>>
>> Published: August 23, 2008
>
> <snip>
>> 10. Evolution a fact? Why are we told that Darwin’s theory of
>> evolution is a scientific fact — even though many of its claims are
>> based on misrepresentations of the facts?
>>
>> A: In the last century, some of what Darwin originally proposed has
>> been augmented by more modern scientific understanding of inheritance
>> (genetics), development, and other processes that affect evolution.
>> What remains unchanged is that similarities and differences among
>> living things on Earth over time and space display a pattern that is
>> best explained by evolutionary theory.
>>
> Wells makes an accusation of the misrepresentation of facts by
> misrepresenting the facts? Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is
> a theory that offers explanations and mechanisms for the fact of evolution.
> No one claims the theory of evolution is a fact, except creationists.
>
obvious as many posters seem to think. Darwin had several theories of
evolution: branching common descent, natural selection, some ideas about
speciation, sexual selection, etc. What we generally call "the fact of
evolution" is that first theory I mentioned. When a theory is well
enough supported, we tend to call it a fact. And I would argue that
everything we call a fact is (in fact) a theory. Even what we call raw
observations are theories we develop in our heads to account for sensory
input. And I would say that at least one of Darwin's theories of
evolution -- his theory of common descent -- is fact.
Now of course Wells' question number 10 isn't really a question in
itself. It's a summing up of the lessons you're supposed to draw from
the first 9 questions. Since its premise is false, there's no point in
answering it.
Ye Old One
True. So now I will second your correct nomination :)
--
Bob.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
wrote:
And I have to disagree with YOU. ;)
The fact of evolution is a simple one --- organisms change over time.
At least that is how it would have been put in Darwin's day -- today
we would say that allele frequencies change over time.
That is not a theory -- it is an observed fact, no different than the
observed fact that birds hatch from eggs or that apples fall when
dropped.
The "theory" part is what EXPLAINS how and why organisms (or allele
frequencies) change over time. That's where all the natural
selection, lamarckism, sexual selection, saltationism, hopeful
monsters, descent with modification, etc etc etc, come in. Even if
all of those theories that EXPLAIN evolution -- absolutely every
single solitary one of them -- were proven wrong tomorrow, that will
not change the simple observable fact that organisms/allele
frequencies change over time, i.e., they evolve.
> Now of course Wells' question number 10 isn't really a question in
> itself. It's a summing up of the lessons you're supposed to draw from
> the first 9 questions. Since its premise is false, there's no point in
> answering it.
Yeah verily.
John Harshman
You don't have to, and it would be better if you didn't.
> The fact of evolution is a simple one --- organisms change over time.
Few creationists would disagree with you. But there's much more to it
than that.
> At least that is how it would have been put in Darwin's day -- today
> we would say that allele frequencies change over time.
>
> That is not a theory -- it is an observed fact, no different than the
> observed fact that birds hatch from eggs or that apples fall when
> dropped.
Nonsense. You can't observe allele frequencies changing. You can't even
observe alleles. And while it is a fact (i.e. a very well corroborated
theory) it's a boring one. Birds hatching from eggs is a theory too, one
that is so far unfalsified. Same with apples falling.
> The "theory" part is what EXPLAINS how and why organisms (or allele
> frequencies) change over time.
This is an artificial dichotomy. I have no idea where it came from, but
it's not a good one. Facts and theories are not different in any
essential way.
> That's where all the natural
> selection, lamarckism, sexual selection, saltationism, hopeful
> monsters, descent with modification, etc etc etc, come in. Even if
> all of those theories that EXPLAIN evolution -- absolutely every
> single solitary one of them -- were proven wrong tomorrow, that will
> not change the simple observable fact that organisms/allele
> frequencies change over time, i.e., they evolve.
Again, a boring fact. My observation (or is it my theory?) is that this
is not what most people mean by "the fact of evolution". Perhaps it's
what you mean, but you would be unusual if so. Most people do mean
common descent.
Ernest Major
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> writes
>> The "theory" part is what EXPLAINS how and why organisms (or allele
>> frequencies) change over time.
>
>This is an artificial dichotomy. I have no idea where it came from, but
>it's not a good one. Facts and theories are not different in any
>essential way.
I don't know where the meme originally came from, but it got a boost
from Stephen J. Gould ("evolution is a fact and a theory"). (Gould would
inveigh against binary thinking with the one hand, and practice it with
the other.)
Now, I agree with you the distinction between fact and theory is a lot
fuzzier than is generally recognised, but like many other contrasting
pairs (e.g. wet and dry) the distinction remains useful.
--
alias Ernest Major
Friar Broccoli
I completely agree with Harshman's position because none of
us can prove that we aren't Brain's in a bath or nodes in a computer,
living imaginary lives. Similarly, it may be that God creates most
birds in the air, except for a tiny subset that He provides allows to
hatch from eggs.
However, for me, there is a more practical reason for abandoning
the fact/theory distinction: Nobody is going to be convinced that
evolution is true because somebody declares it to be a "fact". This
most often just leads to a declaration that God is a "fact", and/or
a long pointless argument about the deference between theories,
facts, laws and so forth.
If you actually want to change someone's thinking you need to
drop the linguistic/philosophical word play, and move to some
neutral mutually agreeable word like say "model" so you get
evolutionary model; creation model; gravity model; germ theory model
and so forth.
Then, after establishing the observations you can both agree on,
you discuss which model is best supported by those observations.
Garamond Lethe
Are the individual observations not to be considered facts? I had always
thought of that as the distinction. Allele frequency variation could be
observed and measured, thus the fact of evolution.
I do agree with you that "model" is a much more intuitive word than
"theory" for the layperson.
Friar Broccoli
Harshperson can almost certainly do better at this than I, but
Alleles are an interpretation of differences we see in DNA code.
DNA code is an interpretation of strings of molecules we
see in cells.
Molecules are interpretations of groups of atoms that we cannot
even see (except as bumps from images from electron microscopes)
"Code" is an interpretation of what we think those strings do.
It's ALL interpretation, no FACTs in there at all.
> I do agree with you that "model" is a much more intuitive word than
> "theory" for the layperson.
I am a layperson.
John Harshman
How exactly do you "observe" allele frequency variation? In my world
alleles are something you infer from the distribution of traits (or,
these days, by looking at a chromatogram or gel image), and allele
frequencies are something you estimate by sampling a population. That
is, they're theories about the world.
r norman
All this comes down to levels of organization and what we accept as
given. At the bottom, physics loses it and fails to gives us a
reality we can grasp. At the macroscopic scale, for practical
purposes we assume that "objects" and "events" are "real" and use the
word "fact" to describe them. I like the distinction I made in a
different thread: rather than talk about fact vs. theory, scientists
distinguish between results and discussion. Our results are things
that we see or measure. These we take as "fact". Discussion is how
we interpret those results, what causes them and what they mean. For
instance, allele frequency is ordinarily not something we can see or
measure directly. Instead we count phenotypes in a population. These
are result. Given a model or theory of the genetics linking genotype
with phenotype, we compute or derive allele frequency from our
results: they are interpretation. On the other hand, we can do all
the work to actually gene sequence every member of the population and
then allele frequency would be "result", not "interpretation". Of
course, the notion of "gene" and "allele" themselves must be accepted
but are really the result of earlier theories and interpretations.
Incidentally, the word "model" is interpreted differently by different
disciplines; substituting it for "theory" doesn't help. All you can
do is use words based on the tradition used by particular groups and
when individuals from different groups come together, you get
misunderstandings unless each recognizes that different traditions
exist in word usage.
John Harshman
Well, I'd say that these particular interpretations *are* facts. Like I
said, a fact is just a particularly well-supported theory. Alleles do
exist: they're facts. We know they exist because the theory that they
exist is very well supported. There is no other rational explanation for
the data.
Dogma Discharge
"Richard Clayton" <rich.e....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c3c60277-0e9d-4dda...@r15g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
Ditto, but these days I inevitably spend waaay too much time on Wikipedia
(quick fix) educating myself on the 'scraps' that John Wilkins, Harshman and
R Norman leave to us mere mortals :) I've gotten quite an education over the
last year or so and may even go as far as to refer to myself as well
informed ;)
*also nominated
Padmar Mushkin
They aren't even theories, since they based on induction, which we
have learned is scientifically invalid. Not every falling apple has
been observed. Who's to say some don't fall up?
John Harshman
on induction and is therefore invalid. I would quit science and take up
plumbing (quite aside from the boost in salary), except that plumbing is
based on induction too. It would in fact appear that the only valid
pursuit is mathematics. Pure mathematics. Applied mathematics is of
course based on induction. Tony has taught us so much.
r norman
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
Proof by induction is a basic mathematical process. Still, the worst
aspect of induction involves the military.
Lee Jay
wrote:
> I have to disagree. The difference between theories and facts isn't so
> obvious as many posters seem to think.
As an experimentalist, the difference seems clear to me.
A fact is an observation. It may be a sample from an A-to-D converter
that itself is measuring the voltage on a strain-gauge or temperature
sensor. I may get thousands or millions of them per second from a
particular experiment. Every sample is a fact within experimental
uncertainty.
A theory is a model designed to explain all those millions or billions
of individual facts. It's not an observation, it's a model of the
observations. It's an abstraction (thought) not an observation
(measurement).
Fact: A ball of mass M falls from height H in time T.
Facts 2-1000: More balls dropped, from more heights, and a time is
measured for each one.
Theory (model) formed from examining those facts: Acceleration is a
constant within the constraints of the experimental data.
So, the measurements of times-to-fall are facts, and the abstraction
that acceleration must be constant is the result of modeling those
facts.
Lee Jay
r norman
wrote:
You are really differentiating "result" from "discussion". The only
person here I would trust to define "fact" is John Wilkins. That is
only because he is a philosopher and the question of "what is truth",
a quality that a fact must posses, is a philosophical one. I would
still argue with him about it because even the philosophers after some
3000 years of discussion can't decide what truth is.
So just declare a fact to be a truth about objective reality and let
the philosophical mud fly!
John Harshman
currents in you?
John Harshman
> On Aug 26, 3:14 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>> I have to disagree. The difference between theories and facts isn't so
>> obvious as many posters seem to think.
>
> As an experimentalist, the difference seems clear to me.
Seems.
> A fact is an observation. It may be a sample from an A-to-D converter
> that itself is measuring the voltage on a strain-gauge or temperature
> sensor. I may get thousands or millions of them per second from a
> particular experiment. Every sample is a fact within experimental
> uncertainty.
So you're saying that a readout from some instrument measures something
(voltage) that you can't even see? Hardly sounds like either a fact or
an observation to me. How do you know that such a thing as voltage even
exists?
> A theory is a model designed to explain all those millions or billions
> of individual facts. It's not an observation, it's a model of the
> observations. It's an abstraction (thought) not an observation
> (measurement).
You mean like "voltage"?
> Fact: A ball of mass M falls from height H in time T.
> Facts 2-1000: More balls dropped, from more heights, and a time is
> measured for each one.
> Theory (model) formed from examining those facts: Acceleration is a
> constant within the constraints of the experimental data.
How did you determine that there was such a thing as a mass M, a height
H, or a time T? Did you experience them directly?
> So, the measurements of times-to-fall are facts, and the abstraction
> that acceleration must be constant is the result of modeling those
> facts.
Sorry, but all your "facts" are abstractions taken from more basic
observations, all of them highly theory-laden. That doesn't mean they
aren't facts, any more than the abstractions made from them aren't
facts. As S. J. Gould said, a fact is any theory so well supported that
it's perverse to deny it. It's turtles all the way down, and I for one
am happy to stand on a stable platform many turtles deep.
r norman
OK, let's get serious here.
My Shorter Oxford Dictionary has three disparate meanings for "fact"
Truth, reality
A datum of experience
A thing assumed as a basis for inference
Actually, it has a lot more but these seem to incorporate the
differences expressed here.
The results of an experiment are "data of experience". In order to do
anything at all, we must "assume as a basis for inference" the
existence of the things we measure as data points. As to "truth,
reality", see my other post which is likely to provoke The Wilkins and
we know what that is likely to entail.
John Harshman
Sure, and that assumption is a theory. And those data are generally
themselves inferences based on still more basic observations, until you
get to the level at which all the observations are the firings of
nerves, and the inferences are done unconsciously in your brain. "I see
a chair" is a marvel of inference, of a complexity we are finding it
hard to get robots to manage.
> As to "truth,
> reality", see my other post which is likely to provoke The Wilkins and
> we know what that is likely to entail.
And yet you posted it nevertheless. Will you never learn?
r norman
You see a what? You 'see' an assemblage of things that are
assemblages of yet other things that are yet assemblages of still
other things until they vanish into stringiness. Prove to me that
"chairs exist"! Fortunately, now that we know about emergent
properties, we have confidence that all these things are real.
John Harshman
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:02:26 -0700, John Harshman
> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>
>> Sure, and that assumption is a theory. And those data are generally
>> themselves inferences based on still more basic observations, until you
>> get to the level at which all the observations are the firings of
>> nerves, and the inferences are done unconsciously in your brain. "I see
>> a chair" is a marvel of inference, of a complexity we are finding it
>> hard to get robots to manage.
>
> You see a what?
Exactly.
> You 'see' an assemblage of things that are
> assemblages of yet other things that are yet assemblages of still
> other things until they vanish into stringiness. Prove to me that
> "chairs exist"! Fortunately, now that we know about emergent
> properties, we have confidence that all these things are real.
Is chairness an emergent property? Can we get a ruling here?
r norman
<jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
We (John W and I) have been through this already. Quantum mechanics
easily predicts "chair" given the right boundary conditions. Those
conditions, unfortunately unspecified, seem to be that the particles
be in "chair" configuration, but I'll let that other John explain
completely.
Krubozumo Nyankoye
in choked emotion intoned:
news:yl_sk.5052$zv7....@flpi143.ffdc.sbc.com:
<snip>
> I have to disagree. The difference between theories and facts isn't so
> obvious as many posters seem to think. Darwin had several theories of
> evolution: branching common descent, natural selection, some ideas
> about speciation, sexual selection, etc. What we generally call "the
> fact of evolution" is that first theory I mentioned. When a theory is
> well enough supported, we tend to call it a fact. And I would argue
> that everything we call a fact is (in fact) a theory. Even what we
> call raw observations are theories we develop in our heads to account
> for sensory input. And I would say that at least one of Darwin's
> theories of evolution -- his theory of common descent -- is fact.
>
> Now of course Wells' question number 10 isn't really a question in
> itself. It's a summing up of the lessons you're supposed to draw from
> the first 9 questions. Since its premise is false, there's no point in
> answering it.
Fine with me, in an honest discussion such distinctions can be
constructive. I don't think Well's intention was honest or constructive and
so I think it is useful to point out that he deliberately conflates the
theory, (a large body of facts if you like) with a single fact (common
descent if you like). Wells also used the term "scientific fact". Should
biology classes have the kind of discussion we have here? If so how much
time should be devoted to it? I would say yes but not very much.
John Harshman
It seems to me that if any such discussion is needed, it should be in
all science classes, not to say all reality classes.
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank
wrote:
In that case, there simply is no such thing as a "fact" or "data".
It's only a theory that I am typing on a computer keyboard rigtht now
-- albeit a very well-supported theory. I may THINK it's a fact (or a
bit of data) that I am looking at a computer screen right now, but in
"fact" it's just a theory -- albeit a very well-supported theory.
Your existence is also just a theory (albeit a quite well-supported
one).
Lee Jay
wrote:
> Lee Jay wrote:
> > On Aug 26, 3:14 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > wrote:
> >> I have to disagree. The difference between theories and facts isn't so
> >> obvious as many posters seem to think.
>
> > As an experimentalist, the difference seems clear to me.
>
> Seems.
>
> > A fact is an observation. It may be a sample from an A-to-D converter
> > that itself is measuring the voltage on a strain-gauge or temperature
> > sensor. I may get thousands or millions of them per second from a
> > particular experiment. Every sample is a fact within experimental
> > uncertainty.
>
> So you're saying that a readout from some instrument measures something
> (voltage) that you can't even see? Hardly sounds like either a fact or
> an observation to me. How do you know that such a thing as voltage even
> exists?
I have more senses than sight, and voltage is detectable directly and
indirectly by, say, walking across the carpet and having your hair
stand up, releasing a shock to ground, watching lightning, or using
instruments that measure the effect of voltage on something else.
> > A theory is a model designed to explain all those millions or billions
> > of individual facts. It's not an observation, it's a model of the
> > observations. It's an abstraction (thought) not an observation
> > (measurement).
>
> You mean like "voltage"?
Yes...voltage is a measurement.
> > Fact: A ball of mass M falls from height H in time T.
> > Facts 2-1000: More balls dropped, from more heights, and a time is
> > measured for each one.
> > Theory (model) formed from examining those facts: Acceleration is a
> > constant within the constraints of the experimental data.
>
> How did you determine that there was such a thing as a mass M, a height
> H, or a time T? Did you experience them directly?
In this hypothetical, I'm doing the experiment, so yes.
> > So, the measurements of times-to-fall are facts, and the abstraction
> > that acceleration must be constant is the result of modeling those
> > facts.
>
> Sorry, but all your "facts" are abstractions taken from more basic
> observations, all of them highly theory-laden.
I don't buy that. I can feel voltage, and can count time, I can see
the ball fall, I can hear it hit the ground, I can feel and control
when I released it.
> That doesn't mean they
> aren't facts, any more than the abstractions made from them aren't
> facts. As S. J. Gould said, a fact is any theory so well supported that
> it's perverse to deny it. It's turtles all the way down, and I for one
> am happy to stand on a stable platform many turtles deep.
I still see a very clear difference between a measurement or
observation of reality, and a model of those measurements. It's the
difference between the measured data points in Excel, and the linear
regression fit thereof.
Lee Jay
Robert Carnegie
Ikea does a brisk business selling particles to be assembled to form
chairs, I believe.
r norman
wrote:
>On Aug 27, 11:40 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
Sorry, all you "know" are your sense impressions. Beyond the fact
that your senses very often lie to you, you cannot sense mass. All
you can tell is that it requires a certain muscular effort to hold an
object, that you feel a certain stimulation of the skin receptors
holding the object and in the tendons pulling against gravity. It
could be a very light stretched spring or a very light magnetized
object in a strong magnetic field, or any number of alternatives
causing the impression of "heaviness". Besides, you have to have a
theory indicating that gravitational pull is related to your notion of
mass. Similarly for distance and time. And for voltage -- there are
animals that can directly detect electric fields but we can't. And
for instrumental measurements, these rely on trust in somebody's
design and in advertising claims that they work as indicated. Usually
instruments measured "direct physical parameters" very indirectly,
based on theories about how physics works. And, if you really want to
get fussy, what you "know" is almost certainly only the result of
models of reality that you have created in your head to make some
sense out of the sensory inputs that you have been receiving all your
life.
John Harshman
Why not? That only follows if you assume there is a complete dichotomy.
You think that nothing can be both a theory and a fact. Why?
> It's only a theory that I am typing on a computer keyboard rigtht now
> -- albeit a very well-supported theory. I may THINK it's a fact (or a
> bit of data) that I am looking at a computer screen right now, but in
> "fact" it's just a theory -- albeit a very well-supported theory.
>
> Your existence is also just a theory (albeit a quite well-supported
> one).
Why do you say "just a theory"? That's the sort of thing creationists
like to say. And do you understand that saying X is a theory doesn't, as
I see it, prevent it from being a fact too? Yes, to you my existence is
a theory, and a very well supported one, and I suggest we use the word
"fact" for theories that well supported. Now of course to me, my
existence is not a theory, but the only truly primary observation one
can make -- Cogito ergo sum.
John Harshman
> On Aug 27, 11:40 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>> Lee Jay wrote:
>>> On Aug 26, 3:14 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I have to disagree. The difference between theories and facts isn't so
>>>> obvious as many posters seem to think.
>>> As an experimentalist, the difference seems clear to me.
>> Seems.
>>
>>> A fact is an observation. It may be a sample from an A-to-D converter
>>> that itself is measuring the voltage on a strain-gauge or temperature
>>> sensor. I may get thousands or millions of them per second from a
>>> particular experiment. Every sample is a fact within experimental
>>> uncertainty.
>> So you're saying that a readout from some instrument measures something
>> (voltage) that you can't even see? Hardly sounds like either a fact or
>> an observation to me. How do you know that such a thing as voltage even
>> exists?
>
> I have more senses than sight, and voltage is detectable directly and
> indirectly by, say, walking across the carpet and having your hair
> stand up, releasing a shock to ground, watching lightning, or using
> instruments that measure the effect of voltage on something else.
Those are not direct measurements of voltage. Those are effects that you
explain by a theory of electric charge. If we could just sense voltage
by watching lightning, Ben Franklin wouldn't be a famous scientist.
>>> A theory is a model designed to explain all those millions or billions
>>> of individual facts. It's not an observation, it's a model of the
>>> observations. It's an abstraction (thought) not an observation
>>> (measurement).
>> You mean like "voltage"?
>
> Yes...voltage is a measurement.
No it isn't, in the sense you mean. There are a great many inferential
steps from the actual, physical voltage to your measurement of it. You
just don't think about them.
>>> Fact: A ball of mass M falls from height H in time T.
>>> Facts 2-1000: More balls dropped, from more heights, and a time is
>>> measured for each one.
>>> Theory (model) formed from examining those facts: Acceleration is a
>>> constant within the constraints of the experimental data.
>> How did you determine that there was such a thing as a mass M, a height
>> H, or a time T? Did you experience them directly?
>
> In this hypothetical, I'm doing the experiment, so yes.
I'd be interested to know how you gained a mass, height, and time sense
that is accurate enough for such direct measurements. And of course
these "direct" measurements are merely various nerve cells firing at
various rates, assembled in your brain into a hypothesis. The fact that
it happens automatically and unconsciously shouldn't blind you to the
process.
>>> So, the measurements of times-to-fall are facts, and the abstraction
>>> that acceleration must be constant is the result of modeling those
>>> facts.
>> Sorry, but all your "facts" are abstractions taken from more basic
>> observations, all of them highly theory-laden.
>
> I don't buy that. I can feel voltage, and can count time, I can see
> the ball fall, I can hear it hit the ground, I can feel and control
> when I released it.
You only believe this because you haven't thought about what happens to
make you aware of these "facts".
>> That doesn't mean they
>> aren't facts, any more than the abstractions made from them aren't
>> facts. As S. J. Gould said, a fact is any theory so well supported that
>> it's perverse to deny it. It's turtles all the way down, and I for one
>> am happy to stand on a stable platform many turtles deep.
>
> I still see a very clear difference between a measurement or
> observation of reality, and a model of those measurements. It's the
> difference between the measured data points in Excel, and the linear
> regression fit thereof.
This is true only in the sense that one step on a ladder is clearly
different from an adjacent step on the same ladder. The difference is in
level, not in kind. All your data points can be unpacked into theories.
John Harshman
Don't forget that many of those models are hardwired and genetically
based. And that we have no direct access to their details, though we can
determine them experimentally. Most of the models are very good in most
cases (and so they give us "facts"), but can easily fail in other cases;
that's what optical illusions are. Surely it's not just biologists that
know this.
Ernest Major
<r_s_norman@_comcast.net> writes
off that is the length of a mercury column, which is a surrogate for the
volume of a the mercury contained in a reservoir plus column, which is a
surrogate for the temperature of the mercury, which is a surrogate for
the temperature of the environment. The links between the steps of this
chain are theory-laden. (Don't forget the theories about the behaviour
of the other parts of the apparatus in response to changing
temperatures.)
--
alias Ernest Major
Lee Jay
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 15:05:40 -0700 (PDT), Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com>
Whenever you pick something up and try to "weigh" it with your hand,
you instinctively move it around, thus measuring it's mass through
measurement of its acceleration in response to the forces you apply.
This works in zero G. So you can feel mass, because you can feel its
inertia.
I'm not understanding why the distinction between observation and
model is unclear.
Lots of observations ---> facts
F=m1m2G/r^2 ---> model of the facts
One is disconnected measurements. One is mathematical abstraction.
One is facts. The other is theory.
Lee Jay
r norman
wrote:
>On Aug 27, 4:27 pm, r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
You still don't get it even though several of us have commented.
Yes, you can heft an object to get a sensory impression that our
theories indicate should be proportional to its inertial mass while
the force required to hold it still should be proportional, according
to other theories, to its gravitational mass. You still don't
appreciate that measuring force is different from measuring mass and
you still don't appreciate that what you feel is not force but
deflection of mechanoreceptors, which yet other theories indicate
should be roughly proportional to force. The nervous system is also
aware of the magnitude of signals sent to the muscles which, again
according to still different theories, is very very roughly
proportional to force.
So tell me again: just how do you directly know mass without
theories.
Lee Jay
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:08:29 -0700 (PDT), Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com>
You're missing my point. Let me make it clearer.
Data points are facts, within experimental error. Methods of
detection are irrelevant to my point. You can make a lot of useless
philosophical arguments as to whether or not things are being directly
or indirectly measured (last-Thursdayism?) but that isn't the issue.
The data points are the facts, within experimental error.
Mathematical models fit that data. Math is an abstraction - the
entire universe of math is defined. Things can be proven in that
universe.
The theory is the math that fits the data. It is an abstraction.
Lee Jay
r norman
wrote:
>On Aug 27, 6:37 pm, r norman <r_s_norman@_comcast.net> wrote:
Once again you do not understand. What you are describing is what I
have now several times called the distinction between results, the
actual measurements, and interpretation. The definition of "fact" is
something entirely separate. Yes, I also already cited one definition
of "fact" to be "a datum of experience" but there is that other pesky
definition: "truth; reality". That one is a bit more problematical.
The particular instrument you use to obtain your "datum of
experience", the human body and its sensory/perception system, is a
notoriously bad measurement system easily misled and, at best,
extremely inaccurate. Every instrumental measurement you use is based
on the application of physical theory. You do not measure "voltage",
you read a number off a display. You do not measure "temperature" (as
has already been pointed out), you measure the length of a column of
mercury. All your experimental data points, all your "facts", are
strongly dependent on prior theories and practices culminating in
engineering designs that are supposed to work in a uniform way. As a
matter of convenience, we simply assume all these theories and designs
to be true as a basis for inference, still another definition of fact.
John Harshman
somebody else wrote down for him so he doesn't have to think about where
it came from. The theory behind those numbers is somebody else's problem.
And he also thinks, apparently, that theories must be mathematical. Are
all engineers like this?
John Wilkins
Facst are sentences that have truthmakers that are true. Happy now?
--
John S. Wilkins, Philosophy, University of Queensland
scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
r norman
I believe Freud had something to say about your subconscious
struggling to define "fascist" that way.
OK, I'll read it properly. Are you saying that the truthmaker is true
or that the sentence is true? And does the truthmaker happen to be
Cretan?
r norman
The think I find scary is that a tremendous amount of modern research
data is simply what a computer display shows. And that same computer
is also used to build models to simulate the experiment or compute
results from the theory. How can we really be confident which display
is which?
That fear is prompted by the enormous success JPL (NASA's Jet
Propulsion Lab) has had in producing beautiful graphic computer
simulations of planetary probes exploring other worlds which has been
extended to beautiful computer-generated pictures of galaxies in
collision and all that. Now compare those to actual planetary probe
pictures or Hubble telescope pictures. When you watch all those
gee-whiz TV shows about space have you ever noticed a narrator clearly
explaining which pictures are "real" and which are pure computer
constructions?
John Harshman
r norman
No, they are all here arguing about fact and theory.
John Harshman
A few years back, I got a bunch of sequences out of the sequencer that
were perfectly good sequences, looked just fine, but bore no resemblance
at all to what they were supposed to be. After a fruitless search for
the reason (tube switching? mistaken amplification?) it finally came out
that the person who had set up the run had just checked the wrong box on
the setup sheet. Every single base was read as a different base from
what it really was.
> That fear is prompted by the enormous success JPL (NASA's Jet
> Propulsion Lab) has had in producing beautiful graphic computer
> simulations of planetary probes exploring other worlds which has been
> extended to beautiful computer-generated pictures of galaxies in
> collision and all that. Now compare those to actual planetary probe
> pictures or Hubble telescope pictures. When you watch all those
> gee-whiz TV shows about space have you ever noticed a narrator clearly
> explaining which pictures are "real" and which are pure computer
> constructions?
Reality is so overrated.
Krubozumo Nyankoye
Well I agree there as well, however, I also agree it should be in
all science classes not just biology. Obviously Wells here is focused
solely on biology. I am not aware of reality classes, is this something
new? Admittedly, it has been a very long time since I was in any class.
John Harshman
Krubozumo Nyankoye
intoned:
news:19a72161-27a9-4bf7...@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
Lee,
I tend to align more with your point of view than Harshman's though I
understand what he is arguing and I can see the reason why it is worth
while to make that argument. I'll go out on a limb here and say that I
think the reason for such an argument is that we have to take into account
that a lot of people do not have a particularly empirical approach to the
world, or what we might call reality. I am not a philosopher nor do I
aspire to be, however, I have long since chosen my own perspective from
which to evaluate my experience and in general have applied it to good
effect. On the other hand, I am not an experimentalist as you describe
yourself, but I am certainly an empiricist.
Frankly, though, I am not very interested in arguments that center on such
questions as how do we know what we know. I find that uninteresting. I am
much more interested in what we can do with what we know. That of course
involves some process of evaluating the quality of the term "know" with
respect to any given fact or theory. So indeed, I have some level of
confidence in the scientific method that exceeds my utter lack of
confidence in arguments from authority, or illogical arguments, whether
they are sincere (which I doubt), or simply misguided. I refer here
specifically to Well's arguments and NOT Harshman's! :-)
I have to say one thing more. 30+ years ago I worked for 3 years in an
experimental lab and it was a profoundly satisfying experience.
Krubozumo Nyankoye
emotion intoned:
news:7b7bc923-ae22-49fc...@m44g2000hsc.googlegroups.com:
> On Aug 26, 8:36 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Aug 26, 5:14 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > Krubozumo Nyankoye wrote:
>> > > Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> eyed the audience and in choked
>> > > emotion intoned:news:5s56b49v56h5sc0b3...@4ax.com:
>>
>> > >> 10 Questions, and Answers, About Evolution
>>
>> > >> Published: August 23, 2008
>>
>> > > <snip>
>> > >> 10. Evolution a fact? Why are we told that Darwin’s theory of
>> > >> evolution is a scientific fact — even though many of its claims
>> > >> ar
> e
>> > >> based on misrepresentations of the facts?
>>
>> > >> A: In the last century, some of what Darwin originally proposed
>> > >> has been augmented by more modern scientific understanding of
>> > >> inheritanc
> e
>> > >> (genetics), development, and other processes that affect
>> > >> evolution. What remains unchanged is that similarities and
>> > >> differences among living things on Earth over time and space
>> > >> display a pattern that is best explained by evolutionary theory.
>>
>> > > Wells makes an accusation of the misrepresentation of facts by
>> > > misrepresenting the facts? Evolution is a fact. The theory of
>> > > evoluti
> on is
>> > > a theory that offers explanations and mechanisms for the fact of
>> > > evol
> ution.
>> > > No one claims the theory of evolution is a fact, except
>> > > creationists.
>>
>> > I have to disagree. The difference between theories and facts isn't
>> > so obvious as many posters seem to think. Darwin had several
>> > theories of evolution: branching common descent, natural selection,
>> > some ideas abou
> t
>> > speciation, sexual selection, etc. What we generally call "the fact
>> > of evolution" is that first theory I mentioned. When a theory is
>> > well enough supported, we tend to call it a fact. And I would argue
>> > that everything we call a fact is (in fact) a theory. Even what we
>> > call raw observations are theories we develop in our heads to
>> > account for sensor
> y
>> > input. And I would say that at least one of Darwin's theories of
>> > evolution -- his theory of common descent -- is fact.
>>
Point taken clearly. I find it interesting that you invoked the word true.
Obviously, Wells means to question whether evolution is true or not, he
just does not use those words. Once again he obscures the actual issue by
draping in in verbiage that is ambiguous.
Is evolution true? Is the theory of evolution true?
These are honest questions that can be addressed in a reasonable fashion.
I don't see Wells' questions as being honest or worthy of much discussion.
Krubozumo Nyankoye
in choked emotion intoned:
news:Udgtk.35723$co7....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com:
> r norman wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 09:40:59 -0700, John Harshman
>> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Padmar Mushkin wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 18:26:39 -0700, John Harshman
>>>> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank wrote:
>>>>>> On Aug 26, 5:14 pm, John Harshman
>>>>>> <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Krubozumo Nyankoye wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> eyed the audience and in choked
>>>>>>>> emotion
>>>>>>>> intoned:news:5s56b49v56h5sc0b3...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>>>> 10 Questions, and Answers, About Evolution
>>>>>>>>> Published: August 23, 2008
>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>> 10. Evolution a fact? Why are we told that Darwin’s theory of
>>>>>>>>> evolution is a scientific fact — even though many of its
>>>>>>>>> claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?
>>>>>>>>> A: In the last century, some of what Darwin originally
>>>>>>>>> proposed has been augmented by more modern scientific
>>>>>>>>> understanding of inheritance (genetics), development, and
>>>>>>>>> other processes that affect evolution. What remains unchanged
>>>>>>>>> is that similarities and differences among living things on
>>>>>>>>> Earth over time and space display a pattern that is
>>>>>>>>> best explained by evolutionary theory.
>>>>>>>> Wells makes an accusation of the misrepresentation of facts by
>>>>>>>> misrepresenting the facts? Evolution is a fact. The theory of
>>>>>>>> evolution is a theory that offers explanations and mechanisms
>>>>>>>> for the fact of evolution. No one claims the theory of
>>>>>>>> evolution is a fact, except creationists.
>>>>>>> I have to disagree. The difference between theories and facts
>>>>>>> isn't so obvious as many posters seem to think. Darwin had
>>>>>>> several theories of evolution: branching common descent, natural
>>>>>>> selection, some ideas about speciation, sexual selection, etc.
>>>>>>> What we generally call "the fact of evolution" is that first
>>>>>>> theory I mentioned. When a theory is well enough supported, we
>>>>>>> tend to call it a fact. And I would argue that everything we
>>>>>>> call a fact is (in fact) a theory. Even what we call raw
>>>>>>> observations are theories we develop in our heads to account for
>>>>>>> sensory input. And I would say that at least one of Darwin's
>>>>>>> theories of evolution -- his theory of common descent -- is
>>>>>>> fact.
>>>>>> And I have to disagree with YOU. ;)
>>>>> You don't have to, and it would be better if you didn't.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact of evolution is a simple one --- organisms change over
>>>>>> time.
>>>>> Few creationists would disagree with you. But there's much more to
>>>>> it than that.
>>>>>
>>>>>> At least that is how it would have been put in Darwin's day --
>>>>>> today we would say that allele frequencies change over time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is not a theory -- it is an observed fact, no different than
>>>>>> the observed fact that birds hatch from eggs or that apples fall
>>>>>> when dropped.
>>>>> Nonsense. You can't observe allele frequencies changing. You can't
>>>>> even observe alleles. And while it is a fact (i.e. a very well
>>>>> corroborated theory) it's a boring one. Birds hatching from eggs
>>>>> is a theory too, one that is so far unfalsified. Same with apples
>>>>> falling.
>>>> They aren't even theories, since they based on induction, which we
>>>> have learned is scientifically invalid. Not every falling apple has
>>>> been observed. Who's to say some don't fall up?
>>>>
>>> Of course. In fact there aren't any theories, since all science is
>>> based on induction and is therefore invalid. I would quit science
>>> and take up plumbing (quite aside from the boost in salary), except
>>> that plumbing is based on induction too. It would in fact appear
>>> that the only valid pursuit is mathematics. Pure mathematics.
>>> Applied mathematics is of course based on induction. Tony has taught
>>> us so much.
>>
>> Proof by induction is a basic mathematical process. Still, the worst
>> aspect of induction involves the military.
>>
> You mean when they use a moving magnetic field to create electrical
> currents in you?
No, more like when they write "fit for duty" on your med-ev even though you
are funtionally deaf. After all you never hear the bullet that kills you.
TomS
<1imdp6s.5o1fou145r1uvN%j.wil...@uq.edu.au>, John Wilkins stated..."
So, evolution is not a fact.
Evolution is something that happens in the world of life.
"Evolution happens" is a fact.
--
---Tom S.
"As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand."
attributed to Josh Billings
Ron O
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:08:29 -0700 (PDT), Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com>
This video shows up in the side bar when you play the AAAS statement
against ID:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCH1sT27my4&feature=related
How extreme can you take the notion of just what you can believe about
what you hear, see, and feel?
Even if you think that you've seen this video before, remember that
those memories were planted. I never really wrote this post. I have
the video running at this very moment, so what does that say?
Ron Okimoto
Lee Jay
wrote:
> r norman wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:50:48 -0700 (PDT), Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com>
I'm an experimentalist. It's a number that I designed, built,
installed, tested, and calibrated a system to collect, or a number I
can trace to an international standard.
> The theory behind those numbers is somebody else's problem.
No, it's not. As the experimentalist, it's my problem to ensure end-
to-end traceability to the standard.
> And he also thinks, apparently, that theories must be mathematical.
The good ones are. Some can have other elements and still be
acceptable.
Lee Jay
Robert Carnegie
> The think I find scary is that a tremendous amount of modern research
> data is simply what a computer display shows. And that same computer
> is also used to build models to simulate the experiment or compute
> results from the theory. How can we really be confident which display
> is which?
I think the application title bar usually says. You just need to use
clear file names.
> That fear is prompted by the enormous success JPL (NASA's Jet
> Propulsion Lab) has had in producing beautiful graphic computer
> simulations of planetary probes exploring other worlds which has been
> extended to beautiful computer-generated pictures of galaxies in
> collision and all that. Now compare those to actual planetary probe
> pictures or Hubble telescope pictures. When you watch all those
> gee-whiz TV shows about space have you ever noticed a narrator clearly
> explaining which pictures are "real" and which are pure computer
> constructions?
Usually the moving pictures are the "fakes" - although they've used
real planet data to make a 3D planet model to "fly" a probe around the
geography. Such as the "That's Not A Canyon - This Is A Canyon" on
Mars. But generally, scientists aren't in the movie business.
(Which tells you what about the moon landings?? :-)
John Wilkins
*sigh* I can't even try to get out of it. They keep *dragging* me back
in.
A fact is a sentence that is true. This is a philosopher's definition.
It raises the question of which sentences are true and how we know. As
to the former, this depends on what theory of truth one adopts - as a
foundherentist I think there are some relatively basic sentences based
on measurement. So for my money a fact is whatever is based closely on
measurement (which includes ordinary observation).
I reject the notion that all observation is theory based (which is, I
think, a case of overgeneralisation - some observation is theoretical,
but rarely the theory that the observation tests), and agree with
Hacking - we iteratively refine our measurements from naive observation
through to technically complex observation.
The Last Conformist
wrote:
> r norman wrote:
> > On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:50:48 -0700 (PDT), Lee Jay <ljfin...@msn.com>
I sorta *wish* all theories were mathematical, but as an empirical
fact (:p) some aren't.
John Harshman
Hey, you forgot to answer my question. Are all engineers like this?
r norman
wrote:
Thank you very much. I now understand just what a Fact is and that
there is exactly One needed to explain everything.
So if you will excuse me, I had better get moving. There is a mission
I need to accomplish.
r norman
Wilkins) wrote:
Personally, I go for the practical notion: a 'fact' is "A thing
assumed or alleged as a basis for inference". We take our
experimental measurements and our basic constructs like mass and
temperature to be facts in order to further our discussion, otherwise
we would get nowhere -- sort of like talk.origins. However different
workers at different levels of organization make different assumptions
or allegations. In discussing a "chair", you needn't worry about the
whether atoms occupy a specific location in space but when discussing
quantum electrodynamics suddenly the very notion of 'specific
location' becomes questionable. Physicists probing into the ultimate
foundations discover that the bottom-most turtles aren't standing on
anything at all and reality evaporates.
So much for your absolute reductionism -- my emergence notions sure
make an awful lot more practical sense.
Friar Broccoli
> On Aug 27, 9:54 am, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Friar Broccoli wrote:
> > > On Aug 27, 7:39 am, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 04:25:41 -0700, Friar Broccoli wrote:
> > >>> On Aug 26, 8:36 pm, "'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank" <lfl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >>>> On Aug 26, 5:14 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>> Krubozumo Nyankoye wrote:
> > >>>>>> Ye Old One <use...@mcsuk.net> eyed the audience and in choked
> > >>>>>> emotion intoned:news:5s56b49v56h5sc0b3...@4ax.com:
> > >>>>>>> 10 Questions, and Answers, About Evolution
> > >>>>>>> Published: August 23, 2008
> > >>>>>> <snip>
> > >>>>>>> 10. Evolution a fact? Why are we told that Darwin’s theory of
> > >>>>>>> evolution is a scientific fact — even though many of its claims
> > >>>>>>> are based on misrepresentations of the facts?
> > >>>>>>> A: In the last century, some of what Darwin originally proposed
> > >>>>>>> has been augmented by more modern scientific understanding of
> > >>>>>>> inheritance (genetics), development, and other processes that
> > >>>>>>> affect evolution. What remains unchanged is that similarities and
> > >>>>>>> differences among living things on Earth over time and space
> > >>>>>>> display a pattern that is best explained by evolutionary theory.
> > >>>>>> Wells makes an accusation of the misrepresentation of facts by
> > >>>>>> misrepresenting the facts? Evolution is a fact. The theory of
> > >>>>>> evolution is a theory that offers explanations and mechanisms for
> > >>>>>> the fact of evolution. No one claims the theory of evolution is a
> > >>>>>> fact, except creationists.
> > >>>>> of evolution: branching common descent, natural selection, some ideas
> > >>>>> about speciation, sexual selection, etc. What we generally call "the
> > >>>>> fact of evolution" is that first theory I mentioned. When a theory is
> > >>>>> well enough supported, we tend to call it a fact. And I would argue
> > >>>>> that everything we call a fact is (in fact) a theory. Even what we
> > >>>>> call raw observations are theories we develop in our heads to account
> > >>>>> for sensory input. And I would say that at least one of Darwin's
> > >>>>> theories of evolution -- his theory of common descent -- is fact.
> > >>>> And I have to disagree with YOU. ;)
> > >>>> would say that allele frequencies change over time.
> > >>>> That is not a theory -- it is an observed fact, no different than the
> > >>>> observed fact that birds hatch from eggs or that apples fall when
> > >>>> dropped.
> > >>> that we aren't Brain's in a bath or nodes in a computer, living
> > >>> imaginary lives. Similarly, it may be that God creates most birds in
> > >>> the air, except for a tiny subset that He provides allows to hatch from
> > >>> eggs.
> > >>> However, for me, there is a more practical reason for abandoning the
> > >>> fact/theory distinction: Nobody is going to be convinced that evolution
> > >>> is true because somebody declares it to be a "fact". This most often
> > >>> just leads to a declaration that God is a "fact", and/or a long
> > >>> pointless argument about the deference between theories, facts, laws and
> > >>> so forth.
> > >>> If you actually want to change someone's thinking you need to drop the
> > >>> linguistic/philosophical word play, and move to some neutral mutually
> > >>> agreeable word like say "model" so you get evolutionary model; creation
> > >>> model; gravity model; germ theory model and so forth.
> > >>> Then, after establishing the observations you can both agree on, you
> > >>> discuss which model is best supported by those observations.
> > >> thought of that as the distinction. Allele frequency variation could be
> > >> observed and measured, thus the fact of evolution.
>
> > > Harshperson can almost certainly do better at this than I, but
>
> > > Alleles are an interpretation of differences we see in DNA code.
> > > DNA code is an interpretation of strings of molecules we
> > > see in cells.
> > > Molecules are interpretations of groups of atoms that we cannot
> > > even see (except as bumps from images from electron microscopes)
> > > "Code" is an interpretation of what we think those strings do.
>
> > > It's ALL interpretation, no FACTs in there at all.
>
> > Well, I'd say that these particular interpretations *are* facts. Like I
> > said, a fact is just a particularly well-supported theory. Alleles do
> > exist: they're facts. We know they exist because the theory that they
> > exist is very well supported. There is no other rational explanation for
> > the data.
>
> In that case, there simply is no such thing as a "fact" or "data".
I also disagree with this, but via a slightly different line.
There are facts, data, truths etc.
I can just never be certain what any of them are.
> It's only a theory that I am typing on a computer keyboard rigtht now
> -- albeit a very well-supported theory. I may THINK it's a fact (or a
> bit of data) that I am looking at a computer screen right now, but in
> "fact" it's just a theory -- albeit a very well-supported theory.
>
> Your existence is also just a theory (albeit a quite well-supported
> one).
Krubozumo Nyankoye
Continuing education?
John Wilkins
Reductionism and emergence are operations of explanation. That is, they
have ot do, roughly speaking, with theory, not fact. It is not
reductionist to measure, say, the charge of a solution; it is
reductionist to say that charge is the sum of the properties of the
atomic and subatomic components that make it up.
And since when did it get to be *your* emergence? I thought it was Jan
Smuts'.
r norman
Wilkins) wrote:
Don't be such a boer. I co-opted the notion given a vacuum of power
over it; you certainly seemed not to be interested.
Apartheid from that, it is emergentist to say that an aggregation of
atomic and subatomic components can be formed into a table or else
into a chair and that which it is has nothing to do with the sum of
the properties of those atomic and subatomic components.
Am I going to have to go into another test of how long we can continue
back-and-forthing each other like I did with that other John? My lack
of stamina has absolutely nothing to do my the rightness of my
position.
Rupert Morrish
You need to think outside the 'boks.
John McKendry
<snip>
>>
> I believe I understand. Lee's definition of "fact" is a number that
> somebody else wrote down for him so he doesn't have to think about where
> problem.
>
> And he also thinks, apparently, that theories must be mathematical. Are
> all engineers like this?
Speaking as an engineer, I have to say that most of us are, yes.
Engineers like to make things work, and things that behave in a
regular, predictable fashion are best for that purpose. If it
behaves linearly that's even better. If it doesn't behave predictably,
it's not the sort of puzzle an engineer is happy with, and if the
engineer is not happy with the puzzle, well, that's got to be a
deficiency in the puzzle. What else could it be?
It sometimes worries me a little to find that we share this way of
looking at the world both with the occasional real scientist and with
the considerably more frequent certifiable wacko. I mean, most
engineers do not really care that their ideas do not match reality;
we accept that reality is simply a flawed approximation of how
an engineer would do it. But on the one hand, scientists should
know better, and on the other, who wants to be on the side of the
wackos?
John
Krubozumo Nyankoye
choked emotion intoned:
news:4079ab9a-4d91-4f5a...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
> r norman wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 12:29:47 -0700, John Harshman
>> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> >r norman wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:02:26 -0700, John Harshman
>> >> <jharshman....@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>> Sure, and that assumption is a theory. And those data are
>> >>> generally themselves inferences based on still more basic
>> >>> observations, until you get to the level at which all the
>> >>> observations are the firings of nerves, and the inferences are
>> >>> done unconsciously in your brain. "I see a chair" is a marvel of
>> >>> inference, of a complexity we are finding it hard to get robots
>> >>> to manage.
>> >>
>> >> You see a what?
>> >
>> >Exactly.
>> >
>> >> You 'see' an assemblage of things that are
>> >> assemblages of yet other things that are yet assemblages of still
>> >> other things until they vanish into stringiness. Prove to me that
>> >> "chairs exist"! Fortunately, now that we know about emergent
>> >> properties, we have confidence that all these things are real.
>> >
>> >Is chairness an emergent property? Can we get a ruling here?
>>
>> We (John W and I) have been through this already. Quantum mechanics
>> easily predicts "chair" given the right boundary conditions. Those
>> conditions, unfortunately unspecified, seem to be that the particles
>> be in "chair" configuration, but I'll let that other John explain
>> completely.
>
> Ikea does a brisk business selling particles to be assembled to form
> chairs, I believe.
"STUDY OF TWO PEARS
1
Opusculum paedagogum.
The pears are not viols,
Nudes or bottles.
They resemble nothing else.
2
They are yellow forms
Composed of curves
Bulging toward the base.
They are touched red.
3
They are not flat surfaces
Having curved outlines.
They are round
Tapering toward the top.
4
In the way they are modelled
There are bits of blue
A hard dry leaf hangs
From the stem.
5
The yellow glistens.
It glistens with various yellows,
Citrons, oranges and greens
Flowering over the skin.
6
The shadow of the pears
Are blobs on the green cloth.
The pears are not seen
As the observer wills."
--------- Wallace Stevens -----
Tiny Bulcher
> r norman wrote:
>> On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 09:24:52 +1000, j.wil...@uq.edu.au (John
>> Wilkins) wrote:
>>>
>>> And since when did it get to be *your* emergence? I thought it was
>>> Jan Smuts'.
>>
>> Don't be such a boer.
>
> You need to think outside the 'boks.
Ouch. I veldt that.