About Rationally Speaking


Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Monday, December 24, 2007

The difference between science and bullshit

Supporters of Intelligent Design creationism make grandiose claims about how their worldview would expand science by allowing so-called supernatural “explanations” (an oxymoron, if I’ve ever heard one). The claim is similar to that of some extreme postmodern feminists who blather on about having reinvented science itself. Yet, the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. I have not seen any new scientific discovery or technological advancement coming out of either feminism or ID-ism. Have you?

Now, for a taste of how real science works, we can turn to two very recent discoveries in evolutionary biology: the answer to the question of how pregnant women maintain their balance despite their obviously shifted center of gravity, and the quest for the earliest ancestor of whales.

Research co-authored by Liza Shapiro of the University of Texas has provided an elegant evolutionary explanation for how women cope with the gravitational challenges imposed by pregnancy: it turns out that two slight modifications of their skeletal structure, compared to men, do the trick. In particular, women have one of their hip joints that is about 14% larger than the corresponding structure in men; also, in women one of the lower lumbar vertebrae has the shape of a wedge, instead of the more square form it takes in men. That’s it, and yet these minor changes make it possible for women to carry their pregnant bellies without causing too much stress on their back muscles.

But wait, I can already hear our ID friends shout in excitement, isn’t that a wonderful example of intelligent design? No, because these two changes simply makes it possible to improve on what still is a pretty bad situation: other primates who walk on all four have a much easier time dealing with their pregnant bellies than any human female. But once human ancestors evolved bipedalism, natural selection favored whatever adjustment would make enough difference to their survival and reproduction. In other words, as biologist Francois Jacob observed many years ago, evolution works by tinkering with already existing structures, not by designing them from scratch. The result is a series of suboptimal adjustments, not an intelligent design.

Let us turn now to whales. Until a few years ago we knew pretty much nothing about the evolution of Cetaceans. Then several key intermediates were discovered in the fossil record, allowing paleontologists to reconstruct important steps of the transition between land animals belonging to the even-toed ungulates (like hippos) to modern whales. However, until recently scientists were missing any clue to the very early steps in that evolutionary trajectory. Not any more: work co-authored by J.G.M. Thewissen at Northeastern Ohio University has identified the raoellid genus Indohyus from the Indian Kashmir region as very close to the root of the evolutionary tree to which whales belong.

Indohyus was a terrestrial animal that found refuge in shallow water, similar to the modern African mousedeer, probably as a means of defense against predators. Indohyus has several characteristics that identify it as belonging to the phylogenetic tree of whales and separate it from the even-toed ungulates, including the density of its limb bones and the anatomy of its premolar teeth. Most interestingly, Thewissen and colleagues have concluded that the aquatic habit evolved first in the lineage that led to whales, followed by a later switch to an aquatic diet: Indohyus is the perfect “missing link” in that it lived a partially aquatic life, but still maintained a terrestrial diet.

Now, that is how real science works. But if you prefer bullshit, by all means, go ahead and read the intelligent design literature. It’s entertaining.

49 comments:

  1. A characteristic of the IDers that I've noticed is that they rarely bother with recent findings. Ignorance or deliberately ignoring anything that would weaken their arguments even further? They know that their followers are unlikely to have any scientific background at all, and they can continue to build religious dogma on the foundation of outdated science.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't want to dwell on the point too much, but assuming that bull shit is the same as cow manure, I think it's unfair to denigrate it by comparison to Intelligent Design. Cow manure is a resource for fertilization, is widely used as fuel, and can even be fermented to produce electricity.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "...as biologist Francois Jacob observed many years ago, evolution works by tinkering with already existing structures, not by designing them from scratch. The result is a series of suboptimal adjustments,.."

    It is convenient to distance oneself from the direct usage of the word "tinker", Massimo. Under ordinary circumstances there are no usages of the word that do not imply problem solving and forethought. It is not quite honest to use such a word in that context.

    My dad use to modify he rules of common games that we played, either for the sake of his own boredom of the game or to just challenge us or our kids. As in, reverse the rules of chess or checkers or something like that. The thing was, even tho there were changes, the rules applied uniformly to us all as the they did to him.

    In the case of the evolutionary methodology, otoh, "we will make no appeal to miracles" the issue here is that there may be a fairly obvious miracle in a certain area of understanding (a phenom which is not entirely understood), but we might just choose to call it something else. There is no law in accordance with classical science that states that when the origin of a mechanism is not understood that the default setting automatically cannot be a miracle. It is a secular contrivance to not seek to understand the potential for a miracle. You might be ruling out the ability for people to figure out why miracles appear happen sometimes and not others and that could be a science (of sorts) in itself.


    cal

    ReplyDelete
  4. I believe Jacob was using the French word "bricolage" for which it is very difficult to find a simple one-word English translation. It smacks of the home handyman, the unskilled.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Okay.


    "A person who engages in bricolage is a bricoleur: someone who invents his or her own strategies for using existing materials in a creative, resourceful, and original way." wiki

    Things that happen to flow from other cultural semantic origins are not necessarily somehow less prone to error. As a matter of fact, since the French have long tended to be passivistic (ie, "how can I get out of doing things that are going to cost me personally") I would find their way of approaching problems at least sometimes suspicious. So to me it does not matter which form of "tinker" the French fellow used,(we are still just talking about the WORDS, not the actual things themselves) the 'use of of "existing" "materials" in a "creative" way' is not nearly as random and unorganized in its series of actions as some would like it to seem.

    Some people still expect that words should mean what they imply.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  6. Semetics.

    I think often what people actually pick up from the body of what one person says has much more to do with the "spirit" of the topic and the philosophical orientation of the one delivering the message. That means that all messages do not have to be apparently coherent to be understood. Is that not the case, Noam Chomsky?

    So I would propose that the ability to understanding concepts and the subtleties that revolve around them is a pretty much a fundamental miracle. Being able to bypass what was apparently being said and then being able to discern what was in fact said seems to be something of a supernatural level of brain activity.

    That is, such decisions are made by your spirit(ual) self. A miracle.

    Other explanations?

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hee hee. Semantics.

    ReplyDelete
  8. No, because these two changes simply makes it possible to improve on what still is a pretty bad situation: other primates who walk on all four have a much easier time dealing with their pregnant bellies than any human female.

    The assumption you make that "it's a pretty bad situation" is only true if bipedalism has no other advantages over quadripedalism.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Now now Anonymous. Let's not be anti-semetic.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Cal,
    Other explanations?
    Yes, there is a interesting book, accesable to all, it can help you to understand decisions that are made by your "spirit(ual) self". It is a "miracle" to read the book from Rodolfo Llinás: "I of the Vortex: From Neurons to Self".

    icaro.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "It is convenient to distance oneself from the direct usage of the word "tinker", Massimo. Under ordinary circumstances there are no usages of the word that do not imply problem solving and forethought."

    Cal,
    Although your comments are as usual opaque and ambiguous, I will take a jab at responding to what I think you are saying.

    Much of our language and vocabulary has been developed to describe things from an anthropomorphic and anthropocentric perspective. Such as in the case of the word "tinker" that is often used to describe the actions of a human agent. For example "the mechanic tinkers with the design of a machine to modify it from its original design and purpose."

    Evolutionary biology inherits this language, and applies it to describe natural processes that are not attributable to a thinking intentional agent. If they did not use this inherited language, then they might not be able to communicate these ideas as effectively.

    Such is the case with the word "tinker", which is used to describe the way natural selection modifies existent biological structures under new conditions to adapt an organism to its environment in new ways. There is nothing dishonest about it as you suggest. If you really understood anything about evolutionary theory, then you would see how the modified use of words such as "tinker" are legitimate. The use of the word, like many others are analogous.

    And of course language and word usage are not static, but evolve as well.

    ReplyDelete
  12. "Now now Anonymous. Let's not be anti-semetic."

    You too.

    Posted a comment about the fact that I had no idea whatsoever what Jew was until my early twenties, but that comment disappeared.

    It was kind of weird because way back then my husband would ask me questions about a whole list of things and I had like no opinion to speak of about a lot of everyday stuff. At the time, he thought that was great. :) So to counter his obvious huge knowledge of the world, I became a bit interested in skepticism. I try to handle it (and what I know about it) very carefully tho.

    I think people who do not handle everything they know with a balance become very bummed out. Sometimes I feel like I am very much ALIVE and everyone else around me isn't.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  13. Of course, three large-ish cups of Sumatran Mandheling before 9am helps a person run circles around all the other snails standing around you too.

    :) like good teas better tho.

    You guys totally crack me up.

    WAKE UUUUP!!!

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  14. Sheldon,

    I don't even necessarily support ID. It is an interesting angle to study, but I personally don't have much use for it. If I support calling things what they really are then I am just happy examining the creation story and calling it what it is.

    No big deal.

    I know some people get really upset over this stuff, but it is not a 'hill worth dying for' as far as I am concerned. All I care about is where you will be for all eternity. My entire agenda just boils down to that.

    Thats it. That's all.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  15. anonymous cal wrote: "All I care about is where you will be for all eternity."

    Cal, you and I and all the rest of us will spend eternity in exactly the same place as every dog, cat, elephant, zebra, fish, insect, worm and bacteria that ever lived. I think that your beloved book even mentions it... ashes to ashes, dust to dust. Or to put it in a Sagan-esque way: we are made of star stuff and to star stuff we shall return.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sagan hadn't died yet when he said that.

    I've watched the deaths (and dying) of both believers and unbelievers and tho I don't exactly know how to explain it, there is a difference.

    What you happen to believe today in fact does matter to your tomorrow.
    cal

    ReplyDelete
  17. "All I care about is where you will be for all eternity. My entire agenda just boils down to that.

    Thats it. That's all."

    Cal,
    Then maybe you should mind your own damn business? And why bring that agenda onto Massimo's blog when you are not really interested in discussing the post at hand? Like I have said before, you are very rude, and dishonest.

    "As a matter of fact, since the French have long tended to be passivistic....."

    And as a matter of fact, American fundamentalist Christians have long tended to create over generalizing stereotypes to dismiss the arguments they don't like.

    Number of souls saved here on Massimo's blog? Zero! Go knock on some doors Cal!

    ReplyDelete
  18. "The claim is similar to that of some extreme postmodern feminists who blather on about having reinvented science itself. Yet, the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. I have not seen any new scientific discovery or technological advancement coming out of either feminism or ID-ism."

    Hey Massimo,

    First, I'm not entirely sure that the "extreme postmodern feminists" you speak of actually exist -- but if they do, they were always a small minority of both the "post-modernist" camp and the "feminist" camp and indeed a small minority of the already fairly small "post-modernist feminist" camp. I don't know of anyone who actually *claimed* to have reinvented science, and very few people who even claimed to want to "reinvent" science.

    As far as any "new scientific discovery or technological advancement coming out of... feminism" well, certainly, if by "feminism" you mean the crazy "post-modernist" "we need a whole new science" brand, then you are surely right.

    But certainly e.g. primatology benefited greatly from the inclusion of feminist perspectives -- we ended up with a richer picture of e.g. chimp life once people started paying attention to the ways that females actively engaged in politicking, etc. Certainly not everything that early feminist critics of and practitioners of primatology argued was right, and there were certainly excesses, but the net result was an improvement over the old status quo.

    Similarly, while it would be hard to quantify, certainly many advances have been made in perfectly ordinary sciences, in perfectly ordinary ways, by women who were only able to become scientists because of the opportunities that feminism (not post-modernism, though!) brought women.

    ID is of course rather different, in that it pretends to be a science, and just isn't. But feminism, without the silly post-modern bit, doesn't pretend to be a science -- it is a perspective and a political issue. As a perspective, it can be usefully brought to bear on a number of fields, including, of course, science.

    Just something to think about...


    jk

    ReplyDelete
  19. "the French have long tended to be passivistic (ie, "how can I get out of doing things that are going to cost me personally")..."
    Cal, keep your paranoid xenophobic rantings for which you ahve zero evidence away from a blog that encourages rational evidence-based thinking, why don'tcha?

    ReplyDelete
  20. "First, I'm not entirely sure that the "extreme postmodern feminists" you speak of actually exist -- but if they do, they were always a small minority of both the "post-modernist" camp and the "feminist""

    JK,
    They certainly exist. Whether a small minority of not, I don't know. But there certainly is an intellectual clique out there that promoted the idea that the scientific method and various disciplines of science were based on androcentric assumptions.

    My view of postmodern thought is that sometimes it contains a grain of insight and validity, but usually with a large helping of bunk. The extreme postmodern feminists rightly identified some problems within science, and then overstated their case.

    ReplyDelete
  21. "And why bring that agenda onto Massimo's blog when you are not really interested in discussing the post at hand?"

    I am totally interested in the post at hand. I just don't think that science rates quite as highly as you do. I half agree with M that ID is presenting itself as something that it is not. I do not, however, doubt the motives of the people who get interested in it. I would suggest that most of those people probably care deeply about your way of viewing the world and go to great lengths to establish some facts about why some facets of biology and the world around us appear to be intelligently engineered.

    certainly not something worth getting upset over..glad enough to leave you on your own tho...

    laters

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  22. By my count roughly 38% of the replies to M's post is bullshit. Need I say more?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Cal! Have you been using illegal, mind bending substances over the Christmas break? You're particularly out of the ordinary here...

    Happy New Year, everybody
    (oh well, at least to those who do change the year now) :-)

    ReplyDelete
  24. "...some facets of biology and the world around us appear to be intelligently engineered".
    The appearance of design does not actually denote design, Cal. Read the Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins to learn why.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Cal says

    "It is convenient to distance oneself from the direct usage of the word "tinker", Massimo. Under ordinary circumstances there are no usages of the word that do not imply problem solving and forethought. It is not quite honest to use such a word in that context."

    No, it isn't dishonest. Massimo Pigliucci is counting on the fact that his readers understand metaphors. In this context, "tinker" obviously simply means "modify", which evolution does without any guiding intelligence. The same goes for genes being "selfish" according to Richard Dawkins: genes obviously don't have emotions, but we know what Dawkins means. Cal is just splitting hairs.

    Next she says

    "In the case of the evolutionary methodology, otoh, 'we will make no appeal to miracles' the issue here is that there may be a fairly obvious miracle in a certain area of understanding (a phenom which is not entirely understood), but we might just choose to call it something else. There is no law in accordance with classical science that states that when the origin of a mechanism is not understood that the default setting automatically cannot be a miracle. It is a secular contrivance to not seek to understand the potential for a miracle. You might be ruling out the ability for people to figure out why miracles appear happen sometimes and not others and that could be a science (of sorts) in itself."

    Cal says that there might be a miracle in an area that we don't understand, but that we "call something else". But what on Earth is a miracle, anyway? If it is just an unlikely occurrance (that's how I use the word "miracle"), then there is no denial of miracles in science. All scientists know that unlikely things occur.

    What Cal probably really means is that there are obvious acts of God that we ignore. Is it a "secular contrivance" that we decide not to conclude that they are acts of God? No, because it isn't a contrivance: it is reason. We don't believe things just because ancient books say so. We test hypotheses and look for the most rational explanations.

    The fact that a particular anomaly could have been caused by a deity means nothing, because anything could have been caused by a deity. Let's do some basic reasoning: in any situation where you don't know why something happens or why something exists, you can say "I don't know", but you can also say "God did it". What does that mean? It means that saying "God made it so" is really just saying "I don't know", but being a whole lot less honest about it.

    It is truly amazing how Christians believe that their faith carries any more weight than Harry Potter or ancient Greek religions. Does Cal think that we are ignoring obvious evidence for reincarnation? No? What about aliens?

    It only gets worse:

    "I've watched the deaths (and dying) of both believers and unbelievers and tho I don't exactly know how to explain it, there is a difference."

    Ah, the good old "I don't know how, but I just know that I'm right" argument ("argument" should be in scare quotes). To talk this way is extremely disrespectful; classic Christian hubris for the win.

    Her last post contains a line that I've heard many Christians spout before:

    "I am totally interested in the post at hand. I just don't think that science rates quite as highly as you do."

    All that this statement really means, when you get down to it, is that she doesn't think that being rational is as big a deal as we do. To us, it really matters whether or not there is evidence for or against a certain theory. For her, it matters what a thick book on her nightstand says.

    At least Cal isn't hiding her motivations:

    "All I care about is where you will be for all eternity. My entire agenda just boils down to that."

    ReplyDelete
  26. "The fact that a particular anomaly could have been caused by a deity means nothing, because anything could have been caused by a deity."

    Yes, thats the problem. God or some other supernatural agent or mechanism is the default position that leads nowhere. It is up to the IDers and creationists to actually explain a mechanism or process by which the supernatural agent (i.e. God) actually designed or engineered what they claim he did. As soon as they do this, we will take them seriously. So we wait, and wait.....

    ReplyDelete
  27. J: "In this context, "tinker" obviously simply means "modify", which evolution does without any guiding intelligence.

    Or so you you think. The same factors that show some of us that there was forethought to much of what we observe, show you that there was none. How odd.

    "No, it isn't dishonest. Massimo Pigliucci is counting on the fact that his readers understand metaphors."

    Are you sure? Will they likewise respect the use of symbolic language in the furtherance of any philosophical area of understanding? For instance, one of our daughters babysits for young woman whose father is an atheist. He came to church with their fam last Sunday. My hub taught on the passages of Revelation 2:1-7. Revelation, of course, is full of symbolic language. 'Eyes of fire' stand for discernment, etc. What are the first thoughts that you would have if you were listening to such discussions?

    See, now I did not believe that this would necessarily be confusing for this guy. I actually thought he would navigate through it fairly well. Whether he believes that it has any merit or not is another matter, isn't it. So whether someone like myself can "believe" that "tinker" will work in the context that you support (with no evidence of another entity's forethought or pre-med) is also another matter. Sure. Metaphors will work for most of us. But the question (spiritually speaking) just usually boils down to what or Whom is in command of your life.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  28. "The same factors that show some of us that there was forethought to much of what we observe, show you that there was none. How odd."

    The fact that gene frequencies change over generation to generation due to the varying reproducting success of those species indicate that somebody is guiding it? No. The entire process is fully explained by our knowledge of physics, chemistry, and biology.

    The reasons that we know items like computers, art, and music are designed by humans is because we have evidence that humans create them and because they appear to have been created for the purposes of humans. None of this applies to evolution.

    "Are you sure? Will they likewise respect the use of symbolic language in the furtherance of any philosophical area of understanding? For instance, one of our daughters babysits for young woman whose father is an atheist. He came to church with their fam last Sunday. My hub taught on the passages of Revelation 2:1-7. Revelation, of course, is full of symbolic language. 'Eyes of fire' stand for discernment, etc. What are the first thoughts that you would have if you were listening to such discussions?"

    The first thoughts that I would have are "these people believe that there is anything whatsoever accurate about the absurd statements of an ancient piece of religious literature. I'm leaving."

    But I know what you want me to say. You want me to say that I'd be appalled by their use of language: "how dare they not think that the statements of their text mean exactly what their standard definitions would indicate that they mean!?" Sorry, I was a Christian for three years. I know about Christian views on symbolism.

    This isn't about any fear of misunderstanding. Anybody who has taken introductory biology at a community college can understand Massimo's metaphors. You just want to inject creationistic connotations into the clearest of all metaphors. Here's the bottom line: no scientist is bound to even consider how their statements might be interpreted religiously. People who are pathologically committed to ignorance will interpret anything however they want.

    "But the question (spiritually speaking) just usually boils down to what or Whom is in command of your life."

    I agree, the question is whether or not you think for yourself or whether you follow the commands of an imaginary being and take ancient religious texts literally.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Hi Sheldon,

    You are certainly right that some feminist critics of "science" argued that "the scientific method and various disciplines of science were based on androcentric assumptions." I just didn't think that any of them had argued that they'd actually invented a whole new science, which was what I read Massimo as accusing them of having argued. They sometimes suggested that a whole new science *ought* to be invented (and I think in this they were deeply mistaken), but that's different. But it isn't fair to ask "so -- what has *your* science achieved?" if the group in question doesn't even pretend to have actually invented the new science yet.

    As far as post-modernism goes, well, I'm not even sure what the term means anymore. But insofar as we use it as shorthand for the very strong relativist / constructivist / Edinburgh-school, then, yeah, surely it took some interesting ideas and fair criticisms and went *way* too far with them...

    But again, the minor critical claim I was making was much more simple and basic -- Massimo first attributed a stronger claim to "extreme postmodern feminists" (that they claimed to have "reinvented science itself") then in fact any identifiable group actually put forward and second that he then switched to making claims about "feminism" more generally, where, taken at face value, those claims were false when applied to feminist critics (of the non-extreme, and non-post-modern, and non-relativist variety) of particular sciences.

    This is, admittedly, a trivial point. But it is one I thought deserved some consideration -- the practice of science is, as Massimo well knows, not independent of the world around it, and it is hardly surprising if bad politics, etc., often result in bad science. While it is science itself that usually shows why the bad science was bad, it is sometimes because of social and/or political arguments that the good science gets done and the bad science re-evaluated.

    Best,


    jk

    ReplyDelete
  30. JK,

    "I don't know of anyone who actually *claimed* to have reinvented science."

    Well, how about this one? "I doubt that in our wildest dreams we ever imagined we would have to reinvent both science and theorizing itself” (feminist philosopher Sandra Harding, quoted in: Koertge, N., Ed. (1998). A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths About Science. New York, NY, Oxford University Press, p. 106).

    The problem with postmodernists is that they often make outrageously stupid statements and then they say that they didn't really mean it, or that "nobody really says that." But when their statements are not outrageous, they become trivial, like "science is affected by social forces." Yeah, did anybody doubt that?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Hey Massimo,

    Two quick quibbles :)

    "I don't know of anyone who actually *claimed* to have reinvented science."

    "Well, how about this one? "I doubt that in our wildest dreams we ever imagined we would have to reinvent both science and theorizing itself” (feminist philosopher Sandra Harding, quoted in: Koertge, N., Ed. (1998). A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths About Science. New York, NY, Oxford University Press, p. 106)."

    First, notice that Harding does not in fact claim to have actually reinvented science or theorizing here. Taken at face value, the quote claims that such a reinvention is necessary, not that it has been accomplished.

    And there are reasons to think that the quote should not be taken at face value -- that in context, the quote was rather tamer than it would seem here. I'd have to look up the particular quote, etc., but I'd be very surprised if Harding was in fact making a claim as radical as it appears... I'm familiar with Harding's work more generally (though I don't recognize the quote) and in short, I disagree with many of her claims -- but that means in part that I think her claims are *not* trivial, and I think that they are often mistaken, but I don't think she's crazy or that she is prone to make crazy claims. The idea, for example, that science, as a whole, would be more objective if more members of traditionally oppressed groups were actively recruited into the practice of science and they maintained their view of themselves as coming from traditionally oppressed groups strikes me as mistaken, but mistaken in an interesting and non-trivial way...

    "The problem with postmodernists is that they often make outrageously stupid statements and then they say that they didn't really mean it, or that "nobody really says that." But when their statements are not outrageous, they become trivial, like "science is affected by social forces." Yeah, did anybody doubt that?"

    Well, some radical claims are meant, and are difficult to adjudicate. Taken seriously, Pickering (often associated w/ constructivism, what with having called his book "Constructing Quarks") implies that an alternative to the Standard Model of contemporary high-energy physics, one based on different modeling approaches, might have been equally successful, despite being inconsistent with the Standard Model; in principle, in such an alternative model, evidence for different sets of incompatible particles might be found. I don't know how to test this view -- but it is radical, and I don't think that it is obviously stupid. It sure ain't trivial.

    Similarly, to point out, as Collins and Pinch do, that in some sense science got lucky when Pasteur won and Pouchet lost, is radical. There is a fact of the matter here -- Pasteur was right that bacteria etc don't spontaneously arise and Pouchet was wrong in his contention that they did. But noting that the reason that Pasteur won and Pouchet lost had much less to do with their skill as experimenters or the evidence they'd gathered and much more to do with power etc. is, again, fairly radical. Had Pouchet won, we still (I think) would have eventually determined that he was wrong, but that's a different question. Collins and Pinch never claim that there is no fact of the matter -- just that at the time, all the empirical facts available didn't determine the outcome.

    Indeed, when proponents of the "strong school" of Edinburgh sociology make claims like "the explanation for why true beliefs are held cannot be different than the explanation of why false beliefs are held" the claim is, in part, absolutely trivial. When one lists all the evidence in favor of a particular belief, "and it's true" isn't part of that evidence -- it's the conclusion. Now, *why* there is evidence in favor of a particular belief might well involve claims about truth, but again, that's a different question. That is, the explanation for why one believes in evolution would involve appeals to evidence, background beliefs, etc. Similarly for creationism. But the difference is that the reason that we have good evidence in favor of evolution is that it is true (!) and our conviction that it is true emerges from our having worked really hard to gather and evaluate diverse kinds of evidence, whereas the reason that most creationists have "evidence" in favor of creationism is because they are systematically mislead and prevented from being exposed to the evidence against it (both willingly in a kind of self-deception and unwilling in that if you are born into a community where everyone only presents evidence for 'x' and against 'y' it is harder to find out which belief is better supported *overall*).

    And again, I think it is worth being careful with the terminology here. Liz Anderson does a wonderful, and I think quite fair, job describing some of the different positions feminist critics of science / epistemology / etc. have taken / could take in: her Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on "Feminist Epistemology and Philosophy of Science":

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-epistemology/

    OK, I'll stop for now ;)

    jk

    ReplyDelete
  32. "But when their statements are not outrageous, they become trivial, like "science is affected by social forces." Yeah, did anybody doubt that?"

    I don't know if that is all that trivial. Maybe its not completely an original insight of postmodernist, but it is an issue that is worthy of discussion. And there are people who doubt that, or at least ignore those issues

    ReplyDelete
  33. jo: "But I know what you want me to say. You want me to say that I'd be appalled by their use of language: "how dare they not think that the statements of their text mean exactly what their standard definitions would indicate that they mean!?" Sorry, I was a Christian for three years. I know about Christian views on symbolism."

    On the contrary, Joseph. I'd truly expect better of you. :) If I really want to understand something, I will keep working on it till I get it. I suspect that most people think the same.

    Try to understand why symbolic language is used in biblical texts at all. Possibly a lot of people do not take into consideration that it was created to be like a bridge to transcend time. The majority of tech items used currently would have came across as completely senseless if someone tried to describe them even 200+ yrs ago.

    On the other hand,

    Four oranges, four slashes into a piece of wood, the actual character that we use today for the number "4", they all have the exact same meaning. This is the kind of symbolism that I am thinking about. Manners of speech or symbols that can transcend different ages and cultures.

    NO big deal, really. I think we can actually manage that way of dealing with information very well.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  34. J: "In this context, "tinker" obviously simply means "modify", which evolution does without any guiding intelligence.

    Hey, it wasn't me this time! :-)
    Although I do agree with what the guy said, of course. Any normally developed 8 year old already knows that there is not going to be a funeral in the near future because I said "oh, no! my cell phone is dead!", or, more fitting to my own experience, "my car is dying!".

    All I care about is where you will be for all eternity. My entire agenda just boils down to that.

    I'm positive that was what motivated Torquemada, too... Nice chap, he was.

    But WHAT do I read you writing there!? Symbolic language, in the BIBLE!?! When did you stop taking that stuff literally? Congratulations, anyway, and while you're at it, please notice it is full of self-contradictions too. Not even a presidential pre-candidate can be remotely like that...

    Now that you agree that all that "six day world creation", "world-wide flood", or "some bloke resurrecting" crap is not really true, but just symbolic, I can see some hope for you.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Now that you agree that all that "six day world creation", "world-wide flood", or "some bloke resurrecting" crap is not really true, but just symbolic, I can see some hope for you."

    There are guiding linguistic principles that tell one what to take literally or not. Not much differently than any other thing you might choose to read. For instance, the days of creation pretty much have to be 24 hr days because plants will not go without sunlight for too long. That was the third and fourth days of creation , if I remember it right

    Similarly the "evolutionary tree" or the fossil record do not support the long ages between the (un) creation of different species. It would be absolutely impossible to have plants without various animals,(namely birds and insects) animals without many plants and other symbiotic relationships that we see to day, etc.

    To think that such incredible gaps between the species could work is asking for truly extraordinary circumstances. More extraordinary actually than 24 hr days for creation. And that based on the fact that the latter recognizes the potential for a miracle, the first simply does not. In matters plausibility, both will inevitably require some level of a miracle.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  36. Cal,

    For instance, the days of creation pretty much have to be 24 hr days because plants will not go without sunlight for too long.

    The days of creation could still be ages or eons. This would have nothing to do with the normal life of a plant.


    It would be absolutely impossible to have plants without various animals,(namely birds and insects) animals without many plants and other symbiotic relationships that we see to day, etc.

    Have you never heard of co-evolution? Even inThe Origin of Species Darwin stated that the environment that an organism adapts to is largely composed of other organisms.

    I really think you could benefit from trying to inform yourself on what the Theory of Evolution really is, not what some ideologues say it is.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Even inThe Origin of Species Darwin stated that the environment that an organism adapts to is largely composed of other organisms."

    And you don't think that falls in the "duh" category. I sure do. LOL

    Darwin said a lot of pitifully self evident things that do not take a brain surgeon to figure out. But OFTEN tacked on the the end of the self-evident statement comes the less than plausible one. One REALLY does not have to agree with one and then fall for the next thing that happened to tumble out of his mouth.

    No one else that I can think of gets off in the fields of science as forgivingly for all the unconfirmed and unprovable things that he said like he did. I have read 'on the origin..' more than once, I find what a lot of people will let go in ref to what he wrote rather astounding.

    He was not, compared to most other notables, a particularly good scientist. But of course, everyone is entitled to their opinions, no matter how unrealistic.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  38. And you don't think that falls in the "duh" category. I sure do. LOL

    And if it's so obvious, how come you missed the point entirely in your previous comment? You seemed to think that the insects etc. had to evolve first to make plants possible, but the point is they evolved together. Co-evolution.

    I'm not going to get in a pissing contest about Darwin. I disagree with your estimation of him, but the OS is not a Bible and should not be rgarded as infallible.

    Not a good scientist. His backyard was his laboratory, and quite a good one apparently.

    Anyway, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. (You're the horse- no offense- theory of evolution is the water)

    ReplyDelete
  39. It is unfortunate that you are so foolish as to believe that order can come from chaos without the benefit of outside input.

    ReplyDelete
  40. There are guiding linguistic principles that tell one what to take literally or not.

    Pure bovine manure, as always. So, where are these magical "principles" written down? I strongly suspect that such "principles" are just the reader's preconceptions.

    "It's undoubtedly the intention of Providence that the African race
    should be servants,--kept in a low condition," said a grave-looking
    gentleman in black, a clergyman, seated by the cabin door. "'Cursed be
    Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be,' the scripture says."*

    * Gen. 9:25. This is what Noah says when he wakes out of
    drunkenness and realizes that his youngest son, Ham, father
    of Canaan, has seen him naked.

    "I say, stranger, is that ar what that text means?" said a tall man,
    standing by.

    "Undoubtedly. It pleased Providence, for some inscrutable reason, to
    doom the race to bondage, ages ago; and we must not set up our opinion
    against that."

    "Well, then, we'll all go ahead and buy up niggers," said the man, "if
    that's the way of Providence,--won't we, Squire?" said he, turning to
    Haley, who had been standing, with his hands in his pockets, by the
    stove and intently listening to the conversation.

    "Yes," continued the tall man, "we must all be resigned to the decrees
    of Providence. Niggers must be sold, and trucked round, and kept
    under; it's what they's made for. 'Pears like this yer view 's quite
    refreshing, an't it, stranger?" said he to Haley.


    From Harriet B. Stowe's Uncle Tom's Cabin, which I'm reading right now.

    ReplyDelete
  41. It would be absolutely impossible to have plants without various animals, (namely birds and insects)

    As usual, you're quite wrong, Cal. Plants got out of the water before animals did. And many plants, even today, do not depend on animals at all -- pollination and seed dispersal by wind, for example. Basic biology, it would do you good to learn it.

    It is unfortunate that you are so foolish as to believe that order can come from chaos without the benefit of outside input.

    Dear AC here hasn't heard of deterministic chaos, it would appear. Ever heard about climate? Or does some little god without much imagination direct that too?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Speaking of bullshit, If you haven't read it already, then check out "On Bullshit" by Harry G. Frankfurt. He writes a great analysis on BS.

    ReplyDelete
  43. P: "You seemed to think that the insects etc. had to evolve first to make plants possible, but the point
    is they evolved together. Co-evolution."

    Evidence needed to support such a scenario does not even turn out to be circumstantial. Everything we observe today, even with the huge array of species that do happen to now grace the planet, does not remotely support Co-volution. The fact is that there are far less species than there once were, therefore if the concept was a good one there is no reason that it should not cont. to build up the "needed" links and dependency requirements between species
    Besides...
    A vehicle that can carry seeds (once plants are already in existence) could also be the wind. But one still has to look back at a point in time when there were like ZERO seeds. The only way we know that seedless propagation can even work is because of an intelligently designed process. i.e. seedless grapes, watermelon etc.

    Generally no living thing in its natural state propagates without a seed. You are plainly seeking for a level of biological activity, that is obviously anything but a natural one.

    cal

    ReplyDelete
  44. Cal

    Replication is one of the hallmarks of life. First came asexual reproduction, sexual reproduction came later. Some organisms employ both. Some can fall back on asexual reproduction if need be. In any case, sexual reproduction evolved like everything else.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Generally no living thing in its natural state propagates without a seed.

    Complementing what paul01 said, I'd add that the vast majority of organisms do NOT have any "seed", in any sense of the word.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Y'all gotta read this:

    neil Shubin's Inner Fish

    Easy to read. Inexpensive. Supremely interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Funny, I had never heard of the guy and then twice in a few days. Neil Shubin was on the Colbert Report tonight (01/14) talking about the book. He had a scale model Tiktaalik there too. :-)

    In the bookstores tomorrow (01/15) according to Colbert.

    ReplyDelete
  48. In your regards to not being able to find any contributions to science that "ID" or feminism have made, I will make an attempt to educate you.

    First, you're making a judgment statement on feminism. The implied blanket statement I receive from your writing on the subject is that (to paraphrase) "No scientifically significant discoveries have come of it".

    While I'm fairly sure you would be doing yourself a favor in understanding important purposes of feminism such as equal pay for women doing the same work as men, the right to vote etc, I do not agree that the proposed agenda of the movement was to make scientific discoveries. I don't see any logic in this argument.

    Furthermore an excerpt from the Wikipedia article further detailing the purpose of feminism:

    "Feminism has altered aspects of Western society, ranging from culture to law. Feminist political activists have been concerned with issues such as a woman's right of contract and property, a woman's right to bodily integrity and autonomy (especially on matters such as reproductive rights, including the right to abortion, access to contraception and quality prenatal care); for protection from domestic violence; against sexual harassment and rape;[6][7] for workplace rights, including maternity leave and equal pay; and against other forms of discrimination.[8][9][10]"

    As for "ID", more specifically the church, I would argue that it's contribution are vast and far reaching. From the birth of seismology resulting from the Jesuits, Nicolaus Steno, the Father of Geology, more Financial contributions to astronomy in for the first 600 years of it's development than any other source, modern European governments first emerging based on Canon law, How Catholic priests developed the idea of free-market economics five hundred years before Adam Smith, How the Church bestowed the most unique gift to the World what we now know as the university, or How the father of atomic theory, the father of aviation, and the father of Egyptology were all Catholic priests.

    I could write a book in this portion of my argument, but it's already been done, [See Thomas Woods: How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization] and give yourself the gift of knowledge.

    We must not neglect to mention the father of the big bang theory, father Georges Lemaître. Nicolaus or Copernicus, another clergyman is also noteworthy.

    Another less recognized Contribution can be found in the example of our current president George W. Bush and his unwillingness to support government financing for stem cell research when involving embryos. This in direct effect made way for our current understanding and developing abilities by using OTHER non embryonic cells which besides not destroying embryos, provide significant further technological benefit. Again, the sanctity of life stance furthers our ability to develop science to help us benefit it.

    The contributions of religious minded people are staggering here.

    We know about the hips and the physiological condition of pregnant women... that's a point for what exactly? We also understand much about gravity and math.... What's the point here?

    Next You talk about the fossil record... As a Christian, I'm telling you I do not dispute any fossil record, this is the business of those who work in this field, I fail to see the connection here to religion or ID. The statements you ahve made somehow try to partition science or evolution from ID or Creationism, which may work for some esoteric sects of Christianity, but the Orthodox Church believes in evolution, as stated by Pope John Paul II, and reinforced by the current Pope, Benedict XVI.

    I can see you trying to separate science for "id" or "creationism" or in a larger part religion of any kind here, but I don't see the point. They coexist, and always have. I have yet to see the Catholic church disagree with anything you're saying here about these "new" scientific and or medical related discoveries you're mentioning.


    I would be interested to know however how many of the people that made these discoveries you point out, made them while announcing their disbelief in God, and their lack of religious orientation.

    Furthermore, if they we're making scientific claims BASED on atheism or similar doctrines, I would question them as scientists, as someone that's interested in empirical data rather than a particular scientist's religious preference. It just doesn't hold water for me, on ANY side when people are talking about science and try to push ANY doctrine.

    It's time to stop the atheists that are out their trying to tell the people that are practicing Christians what we believe, we say quite clearly what we as Christians believe in, and somehow we are supposed to place more weight on that which an atheist tells us? Or how an atheists interprets scripture? We the church are the originators of what is now The Holy Bible, a result of our church's Biblical Cannon, and we are it's practitioners. End the silliness by telling us how to interpret our own beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I would also like to make one further point. Super-Fast is Still Fast is it not?

    Supernatural is... "not natural"?

    Quote for me the origin of this word, in it's original language and please translate directly. It is only in current dictionaries that some how the word super means NOT and is given other worldly connotations. Let's look at the root (super):

    1 a: of high grade or quality b—used as a generalized term of approval (a super cook)

    2: very large or powerful (a super atomic bomb)
    3: exhibiting the characteristics of its type to an extreme or excessive degree (super secrecy)

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.