Evolution: What missing link?

Comments

When scientists say their stories are "irrefutable", they are no longer scientists.
I agree. But in most cases, this 'irrefutable' means that there's a huge body of evidence suggesting that a particular theory is correct. so i do agree with you.
and in terms of evolution, if there's evidence suggesting somethingelse, this something else won't be some groundbreaking idea that discounts evolution, but will be some form of derivation of the main ideas of evoltion........if that makes sense.

That does make sense. Changes in a theory (even big ones) are evidence that the theory is robust. But when people - scientists, teachers, science writers and the public - start saying a theory is proven, it undermines science.

Here is a snip from a book I am reading now.

Jacquetta Hawkes (John Danz Lecture U of Wash 1971), p 6:

The analytical approach has had such astounding successes in the physical sciences that it has produced an equaly astounding hubris among the smaller-minded scientists. What was really a method, one way of turning our brains upon limited aspects of the universe tha has produced them, has tended to become a view of life, a totalitarian ideology. it has been held that nothing that cannot be measured and proved experimentally has any validity. Extreme, and I think we can say extremely naive, forms of behaviorism and positivism have captured able minds. Philosophy has been castrated, metaphysics made a dirty word.

Interesting you bring this up. First, I had a debate with my friend (we're both science fiends) on philosophy and it's usefulness in science. her view point was that philosophy was all wishy-washy whereas my viewpoint was that philosophy was still, a crucial topic as ever, largely in neuroscience, but other aspects too. without going into too much detail, i think philosophy is needed if scientists want to understand things like 'free will' and similar concepts in the human brain and how they're processed and i think philosophy's ability to analyse these topics will help neuroscientists greatly.

But..when a theory is said to be proven, it is usually when there's empirical (though not necessarily empirical) evidence showing that theory holds and all the alternatives can be disproved from the vast array of experiments done on the area of the theory, then i think one can say the theory is 'proven'. In instances like 'evolution' where there is no plausible alternative theory, saying it's 'proven' maybe naive but unwilling to accept it is even more ignorant, since one can not find a better alternative or more truly, there is no alternative.

There are lots of alternatives. It is the nature of thought and the nature of science that there are always lots of alternatives.

Philosophy is NOT only about fuzzy things, not only about metaphysics. Philosophy is also about numbers, theories, facts, experiments, knowledge, alternatives, systems, how to see, how to count, how to measure and how to talk about what you have done with people who don't speak your jargon. Scientists who poohpooh all that are scientists who are smug.

Compare evolution "theory" today versus ten years ago. Huge differences. Versus twenty years ago. Huge differences. Versus fifty years ago. Huge differences. Huge alternative reformulations of the old data as well as huge ideas about how to generate new data to test old ideas.

Now extend ten years into the future.

Scientists should be keen on clearly separating out good science from the all too common shitty forms of science. In order to do that, higher level evaluations must be done about experimental work from the viewpoint of method, epistemology, theory-construction, interpretation, argumentation, historical trends, etc. In other words, if you don't do philosophy, you won't be able to protect your science from collapsing from the inside. Brainless, lazy and dishonest people in your field can destroy science FASTER than any outside opposition to science. And philosophy is the tool scientists have to use to keep the crappy scientists from burning down the house.
rubbish scientists are already marginalised as it is. if you think of all the brightest thinkers in history, and the current ones, none of them adhere to the principles of shitty scientists.
i think whatever is discovered is never by rubbish scientists and becuase for something to be discovered, there has to be dozens of studies corroborating the proposed theory, all the rubbish science gets filtered out anyway.

I would suggest that there are whole disciplines, some popular and hugely funded, which are nothing but rubbish, and confused with science. The push of scientific politics, the rush for funding, the eagerness of scientists to suck the teats of government, the overspecialization that results in failure of scientists to critique each other - all these are forces that allow rubbish/crap science to grow.

Here is an exercise. Get the course catalog for any big university. Look at the list of departments and courses in the science colleges. Make two lists, one containing emprical sciences, and the other listing NONempirical. The second list will be longer.

Can anyone claim to be scientific while declining to criticize the crap that is done in the name of science? I don't think so. Scientists and science, I propose, would be LESS marginalized and more respected and more productive if crap science were attacked.

Your point about the need for a SET of studies to establish anything in science is very important. Not generally appreciated by the public, by the press or by crap scientists. You must know as well, however, that science not only requires replication of results by different researchers; it also requires SCRUTINY of any study by critical colleagues.

[this is good]

There are many examples of confusion and debate (healthy things) in evolutionary science. One is - the place of the 'mind'. On that point, consider this quote:

Here, then, is a surprising situation in science. Biologists cannot but agree that the living world is composed of organisms ordered at every level on a hierarchical system. It has been agreed for a very long time that the great central current of evolution is that which has swept organisms along through time twoards greater and greater complexity. You can witness that we now have from the pen of Sir Peter Medawer ... first that we have 'no convincing account' of how that greater elaboration has been brought about, and second, that 'We still seek a theory of order' for the 'functional and structural integrations of living organisms'. In short, science does not even claim to know how either mice or men have been created in time, nor how, having been created, they are ordered and maintained. These fundamental problems, then, still challenge neo-Darwinism over and far above all the unexpected discoveries concerning odd goings-on in the gene complex - only a few of which I have had time to mention. I repeat, with greater emphasis, here is good reason for humility of mind... One of the principles emerging was ... the inner integrity and activity of the organism, characteristics that evidently become more important as one lifts one's sights all the way upwards from amoeba to man. Through its own activity the animal can in a limited sense 'choose' what kind of environment, and therefore the kind of selective forces to which it will be subject. Waddington gave as an example the fact that at some early point in their evolution the horses 'chose' to survive by running away rather than by standing to fight, and therefore evolved in the direction of fleetness of foot. Waddington expressed this principle very bluntly ... "We have considerable grounds for believing that mentality in the broad sense, or at least behavior (biologists tend to be very timid about mentioning the mind) is a factor of importance in evolution.
Jacquetta Hawkes, Nothing But or Something More, p 14

If you got a room full of qualified (PhD-certified) evolutionary researchers in a room, would there be any clarity on this question? How many of them would agree with the philosophically minded that while a lot is known about evolution, the basic mechanisms are still not clear.

Without clarity on fundamentals, like causes, like relationship between internal-external forces, like emergence of new species, etc. how "objective" can the whole field be? Sure it is easy to say species "adapt" and "change". But those are fuzzy words that tend to be inter-defined.

As long as evolution is tautological (a problem struggled with since before Darwin), it is not really an empirical theory, is it?

Post a comment

Already a Vox member? Sign in

Mr.Nice

About Me

Mr.Nice
United Kingdom
I'm smart enough to know that I'm dumb.