arndt@lymph.DEC (03/10/85)
Lew:
So glad you read and responded to my posting. I have great respect for your
mind and opinions on science as I have read with interest your contributions
in other nets on other topics. I would like to respond to your points.
You said, "Ken Arndt posted a set of quotes to net.religion on Feb 3 which were
intended to show the unscientific nature of evolutionary theory." Then you
referenced Popper's famous quote characterizing evolution as "a metaphysical
research programme". (It is from his book, The Unended Quest, 1976. Have you
read it?) By the way, Popper goes on to say that evolution has great value to
science as a 'research programme'.
Then you go on to quote Feynman about Newtonian mechanics, as "a good PROGRAM
FOR ANALYZING NATURE, it is a SUGGESTION . . .", the law, F=ma.
You are not the first and no doubt will not be the last to complain about
Popper's statement. However, it seems to me that he carries the field as I
will show below from your own posting.
I stand by my point, that as Popper says, evolution is not a 'scientific'
theory, but a metaphysical one! Now that is NOT to say that it is untrue!!
But only to say that it is not something we can 'prove'. Popper is not saying
the evolutionist is not a scientist, any more than Feynman is saying that about
one who believes in Newtonian mechanics. Both are saying that the 'facts' are
based upon an organizing principle from which one can derive predictions that
in MANY cases can be tested. But not in ALL. You know, the 'law' of motion
would have to be observed (tested) literally EVERYWHERE ALL THE TIME to be
proved to be a law!! So when we say 'law' we don't really mean absolutely,
but as an organizing principle or in Feynman's term a "suggestion".
One of the quotes said as much. Evolution per se is not testable. Let's be
clear about what it is that we are talking about here. Evolution in the broad
sense, from molecules to man, is not absolutely testable! So what! Neither,
as you so helpfully point out by quoting Feynman, is Newton's mechanics!!!
The law, F=ma is an organizing principle. Even the prince of punctuated
equilibria, Jay Gould, says as much in a quote of his that I have at work -
I'm at home now. He says something to the effect that the way we organize
things into catagories affects what we will see.
You say, "have at 'em Ken!" But why? Feynman agrees with Popper and I agree
with him! Who do you agree with???
Please understand, the postings were not meant to 'debunk' evolution per se.
Only those who don't understand the place of science and metaphysics in
scientific effort. Remember I quoted from Medawar's book, THE LIMITS OF
SCIENCE? Well, many believers in evolution don't understand the limits of
the theory of evolution. It is SO broad a theory in its metaphysical form that
it can't be tested! Falsified. Everything can be explained within it. What's
that you say, horse prints next to T. Rex??? Silly, of course not. Can't be,
doesn't fit! Must be some new animal. How exciting. Well maybe, sez me.
I'd be interested in knowing just what you mean by "quote attack". As if to
explain what you mean in the words of men in the field were somehow second
rate or suspect. Isn't MOST of what we know basically second hand?? We
learned it from someone else. I have a great book called, SECOND HAND
KNOWLEGE, unfortunately it is at work. Just printed, look it up.
It seems to me evolution is based upon naturalism/materialism. That is,
there was a time when there were no mammals so they HAD to come from the
reptiles, there was a time when there were no reptiles, so they HAD to come
from the fish, etc. Personality/consciousness MUST be explainable by chemicals
in the brain because there is NOTHING else TO explain it. But what are the
foundations of the metaphysical choices here?? Remember, materialism IS a
metaphysical choice. With all the 'goodness' and limitations of a metaphysical
choice. We all HAVE to make them, the opposite of having a metaphysical
framework is not no framework but merely an unexamined one.
I wouldn't say Newtonian mechanics is the "hardest of hard sciences", rather
that math/logic is. But even that, as far as we can currently tell is based
upon assumptions about reality - a metaphysic. Read Morris Kline, MATHMATICS:
THE LOSS OF CERTAINTY, 1980. He identifies FOUR maths.
I find it interesting that you quote the book of Ecclesiastes:
"And I gave my heart to know wisdom and to know folly
and perceived that in this also was madness
and vexation of the spirit."
What about the CONCLUSION the writer comes to!!!!!!
"When I applied mine heart to know wisdom, and to see the business
that is done upon the earth: . . . Then I beheld all the work of
God, that a man cannot find out the work that is done under the sun:
Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth, while the evil days
come not, nor the years draw nigh, when thou shalt have no pleasure in
them; . . .
. . . : of making many books there is no end; and much study is a
weariness of the flesh. Let us hear the conclusion of the whole
matter; Fear God, and keep his commandments; for this is the whole
duty of man.
For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing,
whether it is good or whether it is evil." Ecclesiastes 8:16,17; 12:1,14
I'd be very interested in your comments, Lew.
Warm regards,
Ken Arndt
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (03/10/85)
Ken writes: > > I stand by my point, that as Popper says, evolution is not a 'scientific' > theory, but a metaphysical one! Now that is NOT to say that it is untrue!! > But only to say that it is not something we can 'prove'... . . . > ... Evolution per se is not testable. Let's be > clear about what it is that we are talking about here. Evolution in the broad > sense, from molecules to man, is not absolutely testable! So what! Neither, > as you so helpfully point out by quoting Feynman, is Newton's mechanics!!! . . . > Please understand, the postings were not meant to 'debunk' evolution per se. > Only those who don't understand the place of science and metaphysics in > scientific effort. Remember I quoted from Medawar's book, THE LIMITS OF > SCIENCE? Well, many believers in evolution don't understand the limits of > the theory of evolution.It is SO broad a theory in its metaphysical form that > it can't be tested! Falsified. Everything can be explained within it. The fact that a theory cannot be proven does not mean that it is automatically non-scientific. A good theory should contain implications that are testable. For example, consider the theory of the expanding universe. This currently is not possible to reproduce under laboratory conditions, but it is testable in the sense that it would be falsified if someone proved that our interpretation of the red-shift, as indicating recession, was just the opposite of what was actually happening. The same is true for evolution; should reptiles, in general, be found to have appeared after mammels, then evolution would be incorrect. This would happen if all those engaged in carbon dating etc. were to have gotton things backwards :-) One might complain that evolution was first proposed to explain these very observations and hence they cannot be used to test it. This is true, but two things need be considered here :a) evolution is then scientific since it relies on observation, b) if you see any shortfalls with it then propose either a modified version, or, an alternative that explains the same data set but contradicts evolution. These two are in fact indicative of evolution's scientific nature. . > It seems to me evolution is based upon naturalism/materialism. That is, > there was a time when there were no mammals so they HAD to come from the > reptiles, there was a time when there were no reptiles, so they HAD to come > from the fish, etc. Personality/consciousness MUST be explainable by chemicals > in the brain because there is NOTHING else TO explain it. But what are the > foundations of the metaphysical choices here?? Remember, materialism IS a > metaphysical choice. With all the 'goodness' and limitations of a metaphysical > choice. We all HAVE to make them, the opposite of having a metaphysical > framework is not no framework but merely an unexamined one. What has personality/consciousness got to do with evolution? They may have a basis in naturalism/materialism. So What? That says nothing about evolution. > I wouldn't say Newtonian mechanics is the "hardest of hard sciences", rather > that math/logic is. But even that, as far as we can currently tell is based > upon assumptions about reality - a metaphysic. Read Morris Kline, MATHMATICS: > THE LOSS OF CERTAINTY, 1980. He identifies FOUR maths. Mathematics and logic are not sciences. They are loosely referred to as such because of their precision. They rely on axioms, not observations, and therefore can in no way be considered sciences in discussions of this kind. Padraig Houlahan.