 |
A Sturm's Eye View, Guaranteed
Free of Harmful, or Potentially Harmful Chemicals -- but Watch Out for the
Ideas! Some of them are Contagious!
A journal of sorts to record Jonathan Sturm's (and others') thoughts and observations on things worth thinking About. Feedback welcome, but be aware that unless you prominently say you want your communication kept private, I may publish it. |
|
|
Saturday, 5 November 2005
When Corresponding with The Pompous Git there are really no rules, which is why he has never posted any. Most of the correspondence makes sense and is dealt with in a satisfactory though ad hoc way. One correspondent has become increasingly annoying of late and The Git rather lost his temper. Instead of arguing with The Git's arguments, he attacked The Git's use of terms. For example, he remarked that no scientists use the term Darwinism; it's a term used by Creationists (implying that the Git is a Creationist). When The Git gave references for its use by Stephen Jay Gould and Ernst Mayr, who both were arguably scientists although a little bit dead, the correspondent said my references were not recent enough. Annoying Correspondent went on about many other terms used by The Git with similar consequences. This is not in the least bit interesting, but the correspondent went on to explain that he was winning, therefore The Git was losing, and also breaking a very long list of rules that were brought up after several months of correspondence.
The Git is not in the least interested in winning. He is interested in learning. Disagreement can provide those learning experiences, but attacking The Git for using particular words on the basis of undeclared rules is not on.
By contrast, Mark Frank presents well-argued comment:
A small logical point:
'Descartes was not alone in this belief in "clear and distinct" ideas; Leibniz, and Spinoza both use some version of the premise that "all clear and distinct ideas are true" as an integral part of their respective versions of the ontological argument. Conversely then, "unclear and indistinct ideas" are untrue'
Is the last sentence your deduction or your interpretation of what Leibniz was saying? It is equivalent to: All swans are white therefore everything that isn't a swan is not white.
Mark's logical point seems valid. Clearer is: "an idea is obscure and confused if and only if it is either too inclusive or too restrictive". Thanks Mark :-)
And a Mark Frank piece here:
Jonathan Sturm on Intelligent Design
I always look forward to reading the occasional diatribes of Jonathan Sturm (aka "The Git"). They are original, well informed and now and again I agree with them. However, mostly I look forward to disagreeing with them -- particularly when it comes to issues relating to Intelligent Design and Neo-Darwinism. His most recent diatribe on this theme is here.
Jonathan's summarises his position at the end:
'The Git has canvassed a few of the more lunatic beliefs inherent in NeoDarwinism in order to indicate that while Evolution is a fact, the commonly accepted explanation of Evolution, NeoDarwinism is not fact, but speculation undeterred by what may be clearly observed. Indeed, the commonly accepted explanation may very justly be compared with that proffered by the Intelligent Design (aka Creation "Science") brigade.'
I am not against teaching children about ID in schools. It is a religious idea with a long and distinguished history (contrary to what Jonathan says, most neo-darwinists recognise that it is an old idea with a new name -- although they typically only trace it as far back as Paley's watch and not Aquinas) and deserves to be explained to children along with the ontological argument and the Bible. I am very much against teaching ID in biology classes as an alternative hypothesis to Neo-Darwinism.
There are two aspects to this. One is the status of Neo-Darwinism as a scientific theory. The other is the non-status of Intelligent Design as a scientific theory -- although a respectable religious belief. Most of Jonathan's diatribe is devoted to trying to attack the former and reduce it to the same status as ID i.e. just another "invisible golf-ball" as he puts it. So I will try to reinstate Neo-Darwinism first and then move on to ID.
In this diatribe Jonathan attacks Neo-Darwinism by attacking a number of ideas associated with Neo-Darwinists -- presumably the "lunatic beliefs" he refers to in the summary. In order:
- Two ideas that are still controversial and undecided between Neo-Darwinists:
- Does evolution represent a pattern of increasing complexity over the history of life?
- The contingency of evolution -- if we played the tape again would we get similar results?
- A question for which the answer is not yet known (and Neo-Darwinists would accept this) -- How did life get started?
- An interesting side-alley of Neo-Darwinism which is widely accepted and I just disagree with Jonathan's position (but even if I were wrong it is not fatal to the Neo-Darwinism position) -- Hamilton's explanation of how the genetics of altruism can work.
- A concern that Darwinism originally made a great deal of the ability of a population to outgrow its food resources and that it was this that forced competition.
Unfortunately, The Git has insufficient time to deal with all of Mark's considered response in this Diatribe. Perhaps in a week, or so. This is not a cop-out, but due to the fact it arrived on the day the current Diatribe was written.
More correspondence. This time from Informal:
Greetings
I write in response to your latest diatribe on the existence of the mind, and in particular to Roland Seidel's belief that there is no mind. I, as you know, am an atheist, but I do believe in the existence of the mind:
it is a process of the brain, just as digestion is a process of the gastro-intestinal organs. None, however, would be so silly as to think that the digestion survives the destruction of our osteosarchæmatosplanchnochondroneuromuelous, or to employ a more intelligible term, osseocarnisanguineoviscericartilaginonervomedullary, compages, or shell, the body; and, likewise, I have no reason for believing that our mind survives death either.
Farewell
Er... no comment needed :-)
The thrust of Annoying Correspondent's argument is that The Git does not understand science and since he isn't a scientists, merely a philosopher, never will and is therefore not qualified to write on matters scientific. As specific evidence, Annoying Correspondent wrote: "No. I converse with scientists on a daily basis. The distinction between hypothesis and theory is clear enough - theory is hypothesis after some sort of testing. Only highly regarded hypothesis that have not been tested become confounded, given enough time, with theory. A hypothesis can be considered scientific if it can be tested in principle, even if we do not have the means to carry out such testing (or observation or whatever)..."
This is part of the belief that the "scientific method" follows the form:
- In physics and other science disciplines, the words "hypothesis," "model," "theory" and "law" have different connotations in relation to the stage of acceptance or knowledge about a group of phenomena.
- An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations
- The word model is reserved for situations when it is known that the hypothesis has at least limited validity
- A scientific theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests
- A scientific law represents a theory that is so well-accepted, it is considered proven
Not many philosophers of science would be found to buy that description. The progression from hypothesis, through model, then theory to the status of law is illusory. Confining the "scientific method" to scientists is also a gross misrepresentation of the case.
A hypothesis is a conceptualisation contrived to explain observations, and to provide a framework for testing. Hypothesising begins with evidence and seeks probable causes. For example, you flip the light switch and, contrary to your expectation, the light doesn't turn on. Reasoning leads you to believe that there is a probable cause for this: the filament in the light bulb is broken.
We now have a hypothetical claim in the standard form: If p, then q, where p is the probable cause and q is the observation. Notice also that we are working backwards from the necessary condition to the sufficient condition. In other words, the purpose of the hypothesis is to best determine what the sufficient condition is based on what the necessary condition is.
Our hypothesis is a conditional claim: If Hypothesis, then (Observation1, Observation2, ... Observationn) which amounts to: If your hypothesis is true (i.e., if you correctly identified the sufficient condition) then you'd expect to make these observations.
Because you started with the observations, you end up with the following argument:
If Hypothesis then Observation1, Observation2, ... Observationn Observation1, Observation2, ... Observationn Therefore Hypothesis
In ordinary language, the argument works this way: If your hypothesis is true, then you'd expect to make certain observations. You do make those observations. Therefore, your hypothesis is true.
Is the conclusion "my hypothesis is true" justified? In a word: No! The reason is that you are using a fallacious argument form called affirming the consequent. If p, then q, q therefore p.
To see that this is so, let's use the argument form in a different case. If Hilary is pregnant, then Hilary is a woman. Hilary is a woman. Therefore, Hilary is pregnant. Clearly, it is not the case that Hilary is necessarily pregnant, though of course she might be. Annoying Correspondent claims: If the Theory of Evolution is true, then Observation1, Observation2, ... Observationn. We do observe Observation1, Observation2, ... Observationn, therefore the Theory of Evolution is true.
At best, you can conclude: "My hypothesis is probably true." A hypothesis can never be proved. It can be confirmed, or it can be falsified.
How can the original hypothesis be falsified? Suppose that you're doing a scientific experiment. If your experiment is correctly designed (a difficult task, often enough) and properly performed (a different and also often a difficult and tedious task), you should obtain certain results (observations). In this experiment, you don't make the observations; your observations are quite different. Your argument then looks like this:
If Hypothesis then Observation1, Observation2, ... Observationn not (Observation1, Observation2, ... Observationn) Therefore Hypothesis is wrong
This argument shows that you didn't make the expected observations, so the hypothesis must be wrong. The argument form is called Modus Tollens (abbreviated MTT), a valid argument form. Your conclusion is certain and your hypothesis is falsified.
Here it is in symbolic form: If p then q. Not q, therefore not p.
It is very important to know that all scientific hypotheses end up being one of the above two argument forms: Affirming the consequent (invalid) when confirmed, and Modus Tollens (valid) when falsified.
The use of the terms hypothesis, theory, and law obscures the important point that all general scientific propositions are hypotheses. All hypotheses (including laws and theories) have the logical form above. Scientific theories are contrived, and compete with each other, to make an argument to the best explanation. No scientific theory, or law is the only possible theory, or law.
One of Isaac Newton's Laws states that f=ma and it's possible that it will fail tomorrow. It is extremely unlikely, but there is nothing that says it must work exactly the same way forever and ever, Amen. We believe that it will, simply because it has done so consistently in the past. It's an example of classic induction. We believe we can predict future events based on past events, but no future event is logically necessary (not even death and taxes). Note that we believe these things, but our "almost second-rate rationality" does not allow us to ground those beliefs in certainty.
The Git notes here that the competing hypotheses:
- There is a God
- There is not a God
are to all intents and purposes identical "invisible golf balls". The Git has seen no proof as discussed above that has established either hypothesis as true. The existence of God might be susceptible to detection, but establishing the non-existence of God logically entails looking everywhere God might be and that is impossible in an infinite universe.
Confirmed hypotheses are inductive arguments, so their adequacy requires careful consideration.
The hypothesis must adequately explain something of significance in a way which matters. For example, suppose your hypothesis is that an Evil Demon is preventing your light turning on when you flip the switch. This is no help in solving the problem. On the other hand, hypotheses about broken light bulb filaments, broken light switches, unpaid electricity bills etc, do provide the possibility of identifying the cause.
A useful hypothesis can be falsified. If there is no apparent way to falsify a hypothesis, it is practically speaking, useless. The Evil Demon example above is just such a case. The Evil Demon is invisible and undetectable by ordinary human beings, even Pompous Gits. The same is true of many highly regarded scientific hypotheses that, like Natural Selection in evolution, cannot be falsified. These are known as non-falsifiable hypotheses.
A hypothesis should be consistent with other hypotheses that are well-confirmed. For example, the hypothesis about Evil Demons does not comport well with hypotheses regarding electrons, mechanical devices and physics in general.
A good hypothesis accurately predicts future events. For example, the hypothesis that passing electricity through a light bulb filament will cause that filament to light up, will do so every time in the future. Note that this is Ceteris Paribus. Ceteris Paribus means "all things being equal". Thus in the case of the light bulb filament, the conditions of wire length, continuity, resistance, voltage applied etc must be maintained.
When several hypotheses appear to be adequate in terms of the above four criteria, it is usual to select the one that's the simplest. This does not mean that the best hypothesis is simple. It is to say that a simple hypothesis is more likely correct than a complicated hypothesis. However, it's worth bearing in mind that Einstein's theory of gravitation is considerably more complex than Newton's simpler theory of gravitation. This is because it makes more and better predictions. If Ockham's Razor were to be used indiscriminately, we would prefer Newton's theory, rather than Einstein's.
Ockham's Razor is a term never used prior to the nineteenth century and is usually expressed as "Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity." Ockham actually wrote: "Non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem" usually translated as: "Plurality is not to be assumed without necessity" or "What can be done with fewer [assumptions] is done in vain with more.
The Good News, to borrow a phrase from the God-botherers, is that the logical system discussed above, that is the scientific method, is the basis of scientific investigation. Anyone can do it. No need to be anointed as a scientist to do it and the results speak for themselves. The scientific method has generated many improvements making life easier, healthier, and safer: how to avoid sexually transmitted diseases, better farming methods, digital computers, transportation advances, more efficient ways of killing enemies, and so on. Not to mention car mechanics repairing cars.
The Bad News is that the scientific method is limited to providing answers that are never certain (a hypothesis can never be proved). Pompous Gits believe this Bad News is actually A Good Thing, since it follows that continued research can provide better answers (and more interesting questions to ask). Unfortunately, many scientists want to claim that scientific theories are proven, even though as demonstrated above, it's impossible. How many times have you heard scientists pronounce: "Evolution is a proven fact"?
Rather than a single theory, evolution is a suite of theories devised to explain the observations of the geological record. Logic completely eliminates the possibility of any of those theories ever being proven. Of course the same is true of any competing theories as well. Critical thinkers resist being dogmatic about a theory because they prefer it, or because a textbook, or a teacher, or some other overbearing authoritarian told them it was true. Science is a vast swamp of uncertainty in which it is essential to keep an open mind to competing theories.
Dogmatic adherence to popular theories leads to a reduction in the generation of useful new theories that explain what has been hitherto inexplicable. For example, Alfred Wegener proposed his theory of Continental Drift in 1915. Opponents of Continental Drift noted that continents ploughing through oceanic crust would become distorted beyond recognition, and that centrifugal and tidal forces were far too weak to move continents. One scientist calculated that a tidal force strong enough to move continents would cause the Earth to stop rotating in less than one year. All agreed that Wegener was "unqualified". Since acceptance of Continental Drift (and renaming the theory to Plate Tectonics) many new useful hypotheses have been made. These have led to the discovery, among other things, of useful new mineral deposits that might otherwise have remained hidden.
Our most cherished beliefs, both scientific and non-scientific, are mostly hypotheses. Some of them are as mythological as the belief by many scientists that medieval theologians claimed the earth is flat, or that they debated how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Workers in the various fields of science sometimes forget the provisional nature of their profession. The press, politicians, teachers, students, and the general public are frequently misled by so-called "scientific" statements. They gain the impression that the scientific community has "proved" things that are actually debatable. Hypotheses such as global warming, the increasing ozone hole, acid rain, and the various component theories of evolution are... theories. Every one of these theories have serious opponents. Every one of these theories has serious problems. None of them has been, or ever will be, proven. Most people believe they are unquestioned fact, mainly because they are not taught how to properly evaluate them. At best, our theories are tentative. They generally are the best current explanation, but that's only saying they have some probability of being true, not that they are certain. Hypotheses are inductive, so the claims are necessarily made with low modalities.
[Aside: modalities are words indicating the level of certainty of a claim. Every claim has some probability of being true. Some claims are true beyond any reasonable doubt and are of high modality. Some claims are extremely doubtful and are therefore of low modality. Claims with high modalities require deductive arguments to prove them. Claims with low modalities require only inductive arguments to support them.]
World views are hypothetical. They are tentative formulations we make of how the world most likely is. We extrapolate from our observations of the world: what our friends and relatives say, how animals behave, what happens when we plant seeds in the garden, what teachers and journalists tell us, what we were told in church, and everything else that we observe. From these observations, we develop a world view that adequately explains our observations. Each of us is limited in our understanding, so no one's world view can be said to be completely accurate. Better than accepting someone else's dogma is being open minded and willing to change when we discover better information. A rigid world view is akin to imprisonment, though the prison be of our own making. Critical thinkers (philosophers) avoid this self imposed punishment and perhaps tend to find life somewhat more bearable.
Conjectures and Refutations by Karl Popper, Routledge and Keegan Paul 1963.
From the above it should be apparent that The Git sees no particular problem with teaching students about Intelligent Design theory in science classes. It must be stressed though that there is a proviso: that students should also be taught critical thinking so that they can evaluate for themselves the relative merits of different theories. There's something fishy about claiming to believe in democracy while simultaneously believing that what the majority wants should be overridden by the scientific élite.
The Git's attention has turned to the current debate, even though he has been disinclined. Unsurprisingly, he has discovered that much of current propaganda is incorrect. For example, many, if not most, scientists claim that the ID theorists are closet Creation "Scientists". Creation "Scientists" do not accept the validity of the fossil record, or the age of the earth as being 4.5 billion years, or so. Funnily enough, prominent ID theorists such as Michael Behe say that they accept both. Creation "Scientists" are Christians. Ken Wilber, an ID theorist appears to be more of a Buddhist than a fundamentalist Christian. And so it goes. More on this topic anon...
The Git can notify you by email when a new post is ready. Just email him to be put on the list, or removed if you are on the list and don't want to be.
Thoughts for the week:
Scientists still do not appear to understand sufficiently that all earth sciences must contribute evidence toward unveiling the state of our planet in earlier times, and that the truth of the matter can only be reached by combing all this evidence. . . It is only by combing the information furnished by all the earth sciences that we can hope to determine 'truth' here, that is to say, to find the picture that sets out all the known facts in the best arrangement and that therefore has the highest degree of probability. Further, we have to be prepared always for the possibility that each new discovery, no matter what science furnishes it, may modify the conclusions we draw. -- Alfred Wegener in The Origins of Continents and Oceans-oOo-
... the history of science as an academic subject is still in its infancy and medieval science, which I believe is the vital period, is even more neglected due to the lack of Latin language skills. This means that the discoveries of academia have yet to percolate through to the general public. Popular histories of science give the impression that science began in the sixteenth century when Europeans finally picked up that baton that the Greeks had dropped when they were smothered by Christian dogma. -- James Hannam
-oOo-
Science never tells a man how he should act; it merely shows how a man must act if he wants to attain definite ends. -- Ludwig von Mises
Current Listening:
Joni Mitchell -- Blue
Cranberries -- To the Faithful Departed
Goanna -- Oceania
Home | Previous | Next | Old Ephemerides |Site Map |Top
| www.sturmsoft.com/Writing/current.htm | Use this, or the home page when suggesting people visit this site. This is where I put important notices as I feel they are needed. |
| www.sturmsoft.com/Writing/diatribe.htm | Like the old redirector but with no delay. This is for regular readers of The Daily Diatribe. |
Check out:
Franklin & Friends, a website devoted to the village where the author lives: its culture, inhabitants, and more.
The DayNotes Gang for more daily musings on Life, the Universe and Things Computerish.
© Jonathan Sturm 2005
