![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 87 to 111 of 126. Go back in thread:
Posted by Scott L. Schofield on November 18, 1999, at 13:55:30
In reply to Re: Depression, Evolution - God, Proof, and Faith, posted by Elizabeth on November 18, 1999, at 12:56:17
> > I've never been one for blind faith. I much prefer the rewards that sighted faith provides. Just look around.
> Hmm...well, can't one have blind faith in what seems "obvious?"If I were to try to answer that question seriously, I think I would say something like, "How can one be blind to that which he sees as obvious?"
How does that sound? Just rhetoric.
> > Who is Laplace? I envy you your wealth of education.
> These days, education requires wealth, doesn't it?Health is a more necessary requirement.
> But anyway http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Laplace/RouseBall/RB_Laplace.html will provide the answer to your question.Thanks.
> > I haven't spoken to enough Christians regarding this topic to know if this is true or not. It does seem that it is religion that has inspired most of the great feats of mankind, especially those of antiquity. This may no longer be true in the industrial age.
> Okay, I think we should start listing the great feats of mankind now.
Je n'ai pas besoin de les escrire ici. Alors, il y a trop de cettes choses.
(Pardon. J'ai oublie presque tout).
- Scott
Posted by CC on November 18, 1999, at 15:35:29
In reply to Re: Rascal's wager, posted by Bruce on November 18, 1999, at 8:25:24
Yes, but we have to figure out if it has a soul and if not how to get it one.
Posted by CC on November 18, 1999, at 15:53:59
In reply to Re: contradiction.(?CC & anyone else w/the answer), posted by CarolAnn on November 18, 1999, at 11:01:59
Yes, but CC if there was no incest, where *did* Cain get his wife??? CarolAnn
Apparently there were other people outside the "Garden", I think. You would have to ask a theologian to get a more accurate answer.
Posted by CC on November 18, 1999, at 16:22:58
In reply to Zheezh! You turn your back for a second ..., posted by Bob on November 18, 1999, at 13:51:46
"technically speaking, it's a hypothesis that is refuted by one
negative instance"Then how did it ever get past being a hypothesis??
Posted by Adam on November 18, 1999, at 18:13:43
In reply to Re: Adam: inspiration, posted by Elizabeth on November 18, 1999, at 12:45:10
>Have you ever read the Hedonistic Imperative web site? (I can't decide what I think of it.)
Yes, I have, a number of times. The whole things seems rather boring to me, along the lines
of the paradise discussion. Then again, maybe everyone will be too joyful and productive and
vital and epicurian and oh-so-darn-cute to notice.
Posted by Adam le grenouille on November 19, 1999, at 0:35:01
In reply to Re: Depression, Evolution - God, Proof, and Faith, posted by Scott L. Schofield on November 18, 1999, at 13:55:30
>
> > > I've never been one for blind faith. I much prefer the rewards that sighted faith provides. Just look around.
>
> > Hmm...well, can't one have blind faith in what seems "obvious?"
>
> If I were to try to answer that question seriously, I think I would say something like, "How can one be blind to that which he sees as obvious?"
>
> How does that sound? Just rhetoric.
>
> > > Who is Laplace? I envy you your wealth of education.
>
> > These days, education requires wealth, doesn't it?
>
> Health is a more necessary requirement.
>
> > But anyway http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Laplace/RouseBall/RB_Laplace.html will provide the answer to your question.
>
> Thanks.
>
> > > I haven't spoken to enough Christians regarding this topic to know if this is true or not. It does seem that it is religion that has inspired most of the great feats of mankind, especially those of antiquity. This may no longer be true in the industrial age.
>
> > Okay, I think we should start listing the great feats of mankind now.
>
> Je n'ai pas besoin de les escrire ici. Alors, il y a trop de cettes choses.
>
> (Pardon. J'ai oublie presque tout).
>
> - Scott
Pourquoi parlez-vous en français? Parlez en anglais ainsi les gens peuvent vous comprendre.
(Pardonnez moi pour les erreurs. Mon francais est assez mal.)
Posted by Scott L. Schofield on November 19, 1999, at 8:31:42
In reply to Re: Depression, Evolution - God, Proof, and Faith, posted by Adam le grenouille on November 19, 1999, at 0:35:01
You're right. I apologize.
What's worse, is that the author of the biographical piece on Laplace never bothered to translate it either.
* See the excerpt below.Regarding the existence of a Creator, Laplace said, "Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là." I believe it means something like, "I had no need of that hypothesis."
> > If you could prove God exists, there would be no need for "faith".
> Well, exactly; it's an untestable hypothesis. (And do we really have need for it? Laplace didn't....)> > > Who is Laplace? I envy you your wealth of education.
> http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Laplace/RouseBall/RB_Laplace.html will provide the answer to your question.----------------------------------------------------------
* Excerpt from a short biography written about the French mathematician, Laplace.
Laplace went in state to beg Napoleon to accept a copy of his work, and the following account of the interview is well authenticated, and so characteristic of all the parties concerned that I quote it in full. Someone had told Napoleon that the book contained no mention of the name of God; Napoleon, who was fond of putting embarrassing questions, received it with the remark, ``M. Laplace, they tell me you have written this large book on the system of the universe, and have never even mentioned its Creator.'' Laplace, who, though the most supple of politicians, was as stiff as a martyr on every point of his philosophy, drew himself up and answered bluntly, ``Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là.'' Napoleon, greatly amused, told this reply to Lagrange, who exclaimed, ``Ah! c'est une belle hypothèse; ça explique beaucoup de choses.''----------------------------------------------------------
> > > Thanks.
> > > > I haven't spoken to enough Christians regarding this topic to know if this is true or not. It does seem that it is religion that has inspired most of the great feats of mankind, especially those of antiquity. This may no longer be true in the industrial age.
> Okay, I think we should start listing the great feats of mankind now.
> > Je n'ai pas besoin de les escrire ici. Alors, il y a trop de cettes choses.
> > > (Pardon. J'ai oublie presque tout).
> > > - Scott
> Pourquoi parlez-vous en français? Parlez en anglais ainsi les gens peuvent vous comprendre.
> (Pardonnez moi pour les erreurs. Mon francais est assez mal.)Your francais is certainly better than mine.
- Scott
Posted by Scott L. Schofield on November 19, 1999, at 13:29:42
In reply to Re: contradiction.(?CC & anyone else w/the answer), posted by CC on November 18, 1999, at 15:53:59
> Yes, but CC if there was no incest, where *did* Cain get his wife??? CarolAnn
>
> Apparently there were other people outside the "Garden", I think. You would have to ask a theologian to get a more accurate answer.Check-out Noah.
- Scott
Posted by Elizabeth on November 20, 1999, at 5:31:27
In reply to Zheezh! You turn your back for a second ..., posted by Bob on November 18, 1999, at 13:51:46
> Elizabeth, thanks for those URLs. Don't tell me your dad is a defender of the (positivitist-empiricist) faith?! That's so passe! As for the bio of Laplace, I found it quite amusing to see that it was taken from A Short Account of the History of Mathematics. It doesn't mention Laplace's rather bitter feud with Newton over who "discovered" calculus (for those who don't know, Laplace developed integral calculus at the same time that Newton produced differential calculus).
No, that was Leibniz. http://www.maths.tcd.ie/pub/HistMath/People/Leibniz/RouseBall/RB_Leibnitz.html
(Hence the two notations for the derivative!)
> I could produce a chain of events leading from plain, carbon-rich compounds towards amino acids and the pseudo-living interactions they can have on their own all the way up to single celled life, I'm much rather take a shot at having a room full of an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of typewriters whose task is to reproduce the King James Bible.
I thought the complete works of Shakespeare was the traditional goal of such experiments.
Posted by Elizabeth on November 20, 1999, at 5:34:59
In reply to Re: Rascal's wager, posted by CC on November 18, 1999, at 15:35:29
> Yes, but we have to figure out if it has a soul and if not how to get it one.
Define your terms please? What is a "soul?"
Posted by Scott L. Schofield on November 20, 1999, at 8:20:54
In reply to calculus; monkeys (Scott), posted by Elizabeth on November 20, 1999, at 5:31:27
Oh, so now you're calling me a monkey!?
Damn. I had hoped no one would find out.
I'm not sure if you were prompting me to comment on the room full of monkeys analogy. I had thought to when I first saw it posted. I figured that Bob was either joking or perhaps lacks an appreciation for the immensity of time.
The "theory" of evolution is not a theory at all. It is fact. I smile when I think about what motivated Darwin to begin his journey in the first place. The concept of evolution had existed for some time before he set foot on the Beagle. He was determined to *disprove* the theory of evolution. Thank God he was a true scientist. After making careful observations, like those documenting the radiation and diversity of Darwin's Finches of the Galapagos islands, he was forced to give-in.
I remember hearing of an instance of speciation documented in the southwest. A population of gray coyotes became separated by a canyon as they migrated southward. After several years, a mere nanosecond relative to geological time, one of the populations had begun to show a trend towards having a red coat. Red or tan coloring made for better camouflage in that locale. Perhaps sexual-selection was the driving force. Regardless of the dynamics, this thing was actually observed with human eyes. Fact.
As for the monkeys, there are some things that can be conceptualized that are excluded from existence because of the laws governing the Cosmos. Bob's analogy sound like one of them.
- Scott
Posted by Elizabeth on November 20, 1999, at 17:45:38
In reply to Zheezh! You turn your back for a second ..., posted by Bob on November 18, 1999, at 13:51:46
> Elizabeth, thanks for those URLs. Don't tell me your dad is a defender of the (positivitist-empiricist) faith?!
Well, since I never took any philosophy beyond an extremely irritating first-year course (to fulfill part of my humanities requirement), I don't have much clue what you mean by that, so I can't really answer your question!
Posted by Bob on November 22, 1999, at 16:25:42
In reply to "positivist-empiricist?", posted by Elizabeth on November 20, 1999, at 17:45:38
[an aside to those who might have been asking, "What about Bob?" ... buried in paperwork and still digging, but I had to chime in on this one]
Empiricism is one of the philosophic cornerstones of the natural sciences, something truly held as axiomatic. It's basically the belief that the truth is "out there" in the sensible world, and only through examination of the world and the report of our senses can we determine its nature.
Empiricism by itself isn't enough to beget capital-S Science, though.
Positivism is an epistemilogical/ontological (how we know/what exists) stance steeped in empiricism and attempting to make philosophy and other social sciences as rigorous and empirically-based as the natural, "hard" sciences. In its heyday, positivists believed that they could arrive at a Universal Science -- kind of like physicists' Theory of Everything, but the positivists truly meant EVERYTHING, excluding (of course) that which is opinion and not fact. Only facts could be true or false, and eventually there was a split in the positivist camp as to how one determines what is true. One side favored an exact correspondence to sensible reality. There is no truth in saying that what I am holding is a styrofoam cup of coffee, because it introduces cultural artifacts like "cup" and "beverage" that have nothing to do with the item's measureable characteristics. Better to describe it as "here, now, white, hot" as all of those terms are definable in terms of measurable quantities. The other side, strangely enough, resorted to coherence of logic rather than focusing solely on what could be sensed and measured. Look at a church steeple, and you know what the object is. The "leaps" of knowing in being able to say such a thing come from the coherence of the logic underlying the statement -- in this case, what it means for something to be a church steeple. The coherence school, in this sense, was trying to get around the concern that sensation both seriously underdescribes our world and that our senses are not infallible.
Anyway, these two camps were having a grand time riping each other to logical shreds while the dogma of Universal Science pervaded certain areas of the scientific world at large -- it fit quite well with the natural sciences (except for when you start figuring in chaos, probability, and other quantum weirdness) -- but worst of all, it totally hijacked American psychology and was the perfect tool for the behaviorists. In the mean time, Sir Karl Popper came along and pointed out that scientists do NOT verify, they falsify -- something that just about killed positivism. It still rears its ugly head whenever you hear of anyone (particularly scientists ... what a sin!) say that something scientific has been proved to be true. There simply is no such thing as a Scientific Truth.
Which, by the way to CC, is exactly why I have no faith in science. I have a healthy amount of skepticism and a willingness to suspend disbelief when warranted, but I accept nothing purported to be scientific on faith.
Anyway, being a research psychologist, I'm constantly confronted by the work of those who think they are proving something ... positivism's cult-like, covert adherence in the social sciences is what Stephen Jay Gould calls "physics envy". Nothing like a nice hard, uh, FACT to get you all hot and bothered, is there? ;^)
Bob (heading back to the mounds of paper ... happy T-day to all my fellow yanks out there ... and yes, you canadians can celebrate a second thanksgiving if you want....)
Posted by Bob on November 22, 1999, at 16:31:56
In reply to is vitalism not dead yet???, posted by Elizabeth on November 20, 1999, at 5:34:59
> > Yes, but we have to figure out if it has a soul and if not how to get it one.
>
> Define your terms please? What is a "soul?"ooh, sounds like creeping empiricism to me ... ;^)
[So much for getting away easy... and thanks for the correction on LaPlace/Leibnitz ... I knew there was something wrong with that story.....]
Posted by Bob on November 22, 1999, at 16:59:31
In reply to Re: calculus; monkeys (Scott), posted by Scott L. Schofield on November 20, 1999, at 8:20:54
> I remember hearing of an instance of speciation documented in the southwest. A population of gray coyotes became separated by a canyon as they migrated southward. After several years, a mere nanosecond relative to geological time, one of the populations had begun to show a trend towards having a red coat. Red or tan coloring made for better camouflage in that locale. Perhaps sexual-selection was the driving force. Regardless of the dynamics, this thing was actually observed with human eyes. Fact.
Thus, the fact was that one population had a higher percentage of red-coated individuals than the other. That is the only demonstrable truth. You say it yourself -- "regardless of the dynamics" -- I could just as easily state that since the sky is blue and the sky is made of nitrogen, mostly, that nitrogen must therefore be blue.
Evolution, as a theory, consists of a number of mechanisms that describe how species today may have derived from species in the past (and please note, folks, that evolution applies to species and not to individuals ... particularly if you want to talk about genetic mechanisms of evolution). There are number of possible explanations as to the difference in the groups. Better camouflage for the area is one. That does not necessarily lead to females choosing mates with redder coats. It might mean that males with grayer coats are less successful at hunting and, therefore, are too weakened from starvation or nutritional deprivation to successfully compete for mates with red coats. Alternately, if the area was at all populated by humans, the graycoats may have become easy targets, thus being thinned off through a more direct means. Given that coyotes also have a rather nasty competitor for their spot in the niche -- wolves (the increase in the wolf population in Yellowstone has led to a dramatic decrease in the coyote population, for example)-- this natural predation may have also led to the demise of the graycoats as well.
So, many potential mechanisms, all similar but not identical dynamics, and all support the general notions that are held in common as the THEORY of evolution. Again, tho, the only FACT is the measurable population density of red vs. gray coated coyotes in each group.
> As for the monkeys, there are some things that can be conceptualized that are excluded from existence because of the laws governing the Cosmos. Bob's analogy sound like one of them.
DOH! Positivism rears its ugly head once again!! My application of the Infinite Monkey Hypothesis here may be excluded from YOUR existence, but since you cannot ascertain the nature of all possible existences -- not for a moment, not during your life -- you cannot exclude my Monkey-produced copy of Leon Uris' Trinity (with scribble on the inside cover that looks suspiciously like a dedication from Leon to me) from existing SOMEWHERE in the Cosmos. Even if the Cosmos is bounded, it can still be infinite ... and I have quite an over-healthy sense of the immensitude of both time and space, thank you very much! ;^) =^PBob
(Devoted follower of Dr. Science ... that should explain some things....)
Posted by Bob on November 22, 1999, at 17:15:40
In reply to Re: Zheezh! You turn your back for a second ..., posted by CC on November 18, 1999, at 16:22:58
> "technically speaking, it's a hypothesis that is refuted by one
> negative instance"
>
> Then how did it ever get past being a hypothesis??Oops! General reference there. The sentence would have been more clearly stated as "The scientific 'entity' that can be demonstrated as being false through a single negative case is a hypothesis, not a theory." Just because a hypothesis has not yet been shown to be false does not entitled it to the grandiose label of Theory. Theories, in practice, are collections of supportable hypotheses and models which, as a whole, provide some explanation of some natural phenomena.
Sorry,
Bob
Posted by Adam on November 22, 1999, at 23:05:30
In reply to Re: "positivist-empiricist?", posted by Bob on November 22, 1999, at 16:25:42
>Empiricism is one of the philosophic cornerstones of the natural sciences, something truly held as axiomatic.
There are many philosophical “cornerstones” to the natural sciences, which could be described as “axiomatic”
during their periods of greatest popularity; don’t forget there were always rival camps. If there were ever
bitter fights that the empiricists fought, it might be with Descartes and the other European rationalists,
who valued deductive reasoning informed by intuition (not to be mistaken with instinct), a concept the
empiricists firmly rejected. I guess for the most part the empiricists won out, but one might find in modern
physics a hint of rationalism. I can think of no better example than what Steven Weinberg describes as the
need for scientific theories, especially the unifying theories of physics, to be “beautiful”. This “beauty”
is a quality of successful fundamental theories, and it is the apprehension of beauty that guides many in their
quest for the finest mathematical expression of the “final theory.” Weinberg argues for such an aesthetic
judgement because, as a guiding principle, it works. One might debate that the concept of “beauty” in this
context is more inductive than deductive, that clever minds well-versed in the most complex mathematics become
so wired as to feel the presence of “beauty” when exposed to the best equations for the particular application,
and hence Weinberg is still an empiricist. I don’t know. All such arguments demonstrate to me is the uselessness
of old philosophy, except to provide modern philosophers with examples of what tautological arguments not to
repeat, or whatever. If there is any axiomatic underlying priniciple that endures, it is the scientific principle:
Observe, hypothesize, test, report. Repeat until dead, or at least until tenured. Whether this falls under the
catagory of empiricism I can’t say, and I can’t see why any scientist should think about it.>it fit quite well with the natural sciences (except for when you start figuring in chaos, probability, and
>other quantum weirdness) -- but worst of all, it totally hijacked American psychology and was the perfect tool
>for the behaviorists. In the mean time, Sir Karl Popper came along and pointed out that scientists do NOT verify,
>they falsify -- something that just about killed positivism.As for what did in positivism, I think it may have been the work of Hempel (who just died a few years ago, I
guess) that contributed as much as anything. Logical Positivism didn’t really clash with probability or its
implications. Where the positivists went wrong was not so much, as Hemple pointed out, in their trust in
scientific “truths” but in their innapropriate use of the word. The idea that theories could be proven true or
false through observation in a positivist sense struck Hempel as wrong because any expression of a new theory was
dependant not on the observation but on old theoretical terms. These terms must then be seen as “true”. But
such a reliance on old theory is unscientific, because all scientific theories are, by definition, falsifiable,
and therefore contain no “truth”. Positivism relies on the idea that theories have observational content. Hempel
denies the existence of theory based on observation.Maybe Hempel was right in his criticism of positivists. I don’t know. Maybe Popper is right in his criticism of
positivism by saying that all scientists do is refute the theories of old scientists and thus don’t prove anything,
they just disprove.I say, from a scientific perspective, who the hell cares? The positivists and rationalists and empiracists and
mechanists and atomists and monists can keep debating for all I’m concerned. Maybe I resemble one or the other
sometimes, maybe not. If I spent time thinking epistemologically about my education and ontologically about my next
experiment I’d get nothing done (gee, I put some restriction enzyme in a tube of DNA, but I can’t actually SEE them,
I’m just supposing they are based on what someone told me, and how do they know? Anyway, even if they’re there,
in the end I’m just observing a glowing band of something on a gel, and my theory that this band is the product of an
enzymatic reaction is based only on some other theories, and those on other theories before that in a long line of
theories which just use observations to justfy their a priori veracity so what on Earth is it that I’m REALLY doing
anyway and maybe I should just go home and THINK real hard about this surrogate religion science I’m bowing to and
make no assumptions at all about anything...)>I have a healthy amount of skepticism and a willingness to suspend disbelief when warranted, but I accept nothing
>purported to be scientific on faith.I can think of no useful philisophical argument for or against the appropriateness of science as a guiding principle
and a worthy pursuit. I can think of all sorts of useful things that scientists do on a daily basis by practicing the
scientific method. Leave “truth” to the metaphysicists. How about “realiability”, “reproducibility”, “consistency with
observation”, “applicability to known phenomena”. If some better theory comes along, why shouldn’t someone still have
confidence in the process? And why equate that confidence with “faith”? Confidence gives scientists the ability to do
work without having to prove every underlying principle themselves. It does not make them less skeptical. If scientists
practiced faith, they’d cling to old theories despite all evidence of their unreliability. I guess some scientists do
this, but as soon as they walk that path, they cease to be relevant.>positivism's cult-like, covert adherence in the social sciences is what Stephen Jay Gould calls "physics envy".
Well, leaving positivism, what’s wrong with “physics envy”? I have it all the time as a biologist, and I think this is
healthy. It means you hold yourself to a certain standard of confidence; black boxes should only be allowed to exist if you
do not have the time or the money to probe them further at this very moment. Why accept an id or superego or collective
unconscious or animus if you can’t break it down to the observable interplay of physiology, biochemistry, and environment?
Why favor a notion, say, that there is some inscrutable gestalt of the mind, that “physics envy” couldn’t lead one to discover
the basic principles of consciousness and describe them in physical terms, no more special than a hurricane or a speck of dust?
Oops, I’m being a reductionist.
Posted by Elizabeth on November 22, 1999, at 23:30:23
In reply to Re: "positivist-empiricist?", posted by Bob on November 22, 1999, at 16:25:42
> Positivism is an epistemilogical/ontological (how we know/what exists) stance steeped in empiricism and attempting to make philosophy and other social sciences as rigorous and empirically-based as the natural, "hard" sciences.
Thank you, Bob. I now have enough information to answer your q: heck no. (He quoted Gould's physics envy joke to me once -- the context was particularly amusing since he was referring to a particular psychologist who was clearly of the cognitive-behavioral persuasion. One thing I like about the analytic types: at least they admit that they're doing literature, not science.)
> Which, by the way to CC, is exactly why I have no faith in science.
"Faith in science" seems like an oxymoron to me. :-)
> Nothing like a nice hard, uh, FACT to get you all hot and bothered, is there? ;^)
Oooh baby.
> Bob (heading back to the mounds of paper ... happy T-day to all my fellow yanks out there ... and yes, you canadians can celebrate a second thanksgiving if you want....)
Happy T-day to you too, and good luck wading through all that work.
Posted by Adam on November 22, 1999, at 23:57:54
In reply to fact?, posted by Bob on November 22, 1999, at 16:59:31
>
>one population had a higher percentage of red-coated individuals than the other. That is the only demonstrable truth. You say it yourself -- "regardless of the dynamics"
>-- I could just as easily state that since the sky is blue and the sky is made of nitrogen, mostly, that nitrogen must therefore be blue.
>
You could hypothesize that nitrogen is blue. Then you could test that hypothesis. Then you could conclude "it's blue". Maybe somebody hypothesized red-coated wolves
are there because of a particular evolutionary process. Why assume they put this forth as "truth?" And even if someone did, why does this necessarily speak against the
theory of evolution in science?> Evolution, as a theory, consists of a number of mechanisms that describe how species today may have derived from species in the past (and please note, folks, that
>evolution applies to species and not to individuals ... particularly if you want to talk about genetic mechanisms of evolution). There are number of possible explanations
>as to the difference in the groups...many potential mechanisms, all similar but not identical dynamics, and all support the general notions that are held in common as the
>THEORY of evolution. Again, tho, the only FACT is the measurable population density of red vs. gray coated coyotes in each group.
The point being? I suppose if I just left it at that I wouldn't be doing much to test evolution. I could observe the wolves over a long time and narrow down the list
of selective pressures. A person, when they hypothesize something, is under some obligation to test this hypothesis. If they don't, they're not practicing science.
Why would I use the latter example to talk about science and evolution? And what does such an example tell us about theory? I think you are proposing people use hypotheses
to support theories. They don't, or they shouldn't. They ought to use theories to come up with good hypotheses which they then test by gathering more factual information.
Of course theories have origins. All ideas do. Then they get tested. What's the problem with evolution, then? What's the problem with "THEORY"?
Posted by CC on November 23, 1999, at 1:02:51
In reply to Re: fact?, posted by Adam on November 22, 1999, at 23:57:54
Can anyone give a mechanism for the "evolution" from one species to another? It seem to me that the accumulation of favorable or viable random mutations is unlikely from a mathematical point of view. Excuse me, I have to cast a demon out of my web browser.
Posted by Adam on November 23, 1999, at 9:19:51
In reply to To anybody, posted by CC on November 23, 1999, at 1:02:51
> Can anyone give a mechanism for the "evolution" from one species to another? It seem to me that the accumulation of favorable or viable random mutations is unlikely from a mathematical point of view. Excuse me, I have to cast a demon out of my web browser.
Accumulation of favorable mutations isn't very likely, but given enough time, it makes a difference.
There really isn't much more to it than that. The cellular machinery that replicates DNA is pretty high
fidelity, but it's not perfect. And there are always mutations caused by chemicals or radiation. So
mutations are always occuring, and it is hypothesised at a fairly constant rate. Most of them are "silent"
in that they fall on a sequence of DNA that doesn't code for anything, or, because of the degeneracy of the
genetic code, the amino acid sequence of the final product isn't altered. Of the few that do make a real
difference, most of those are deleterius. Then, very rarely, there is a
mutation that confers a selective advantage. If that individual carrying the mutation reproduces, then
it gets handed down to a new generation, conferring a selective advantage on them, and so forth. When two
or more subgroups of a species are isolated somehow (usually by geography), their divergent accumulation
of genetic change (genetic drift) becomes so significant that they are no longer genetically compatible
from a reproductive standpoint. They are now genetically isolated from one another, and are now referred
to in scientific terminology as separate species. This is a bit of an oversimplification from a taxonomical
point of view, and is skewed toward sexual reproduction, but you get the idea. So you take the constant of
genetic change, plus a large number of individuals in a species, plus millions of years, plus physical
isolation of a subgroup, plus selective pressures, and you get the origin of species.
Posted by Scott L. Schofield on November 23, 1999, at 13:48:40
In reply to Re: "positivist-empiricist?", posted by Adam on November 22, 1999, at 23:05:30
I don't know anything about all this intellectual stuff, but it seems like one hell of a forest to have to navigate through.
> >Empiricism is one of the philosophic cornerstones of the natural sciences, something truly held as axiomatic.
>
> There are many philosophical “cornerstones” to the natural sciences, which could be described as “axiomatic”
> during their periods of greatest popularity; don’t forget there were always rival camps. If there were ever
> bitter fights that the empiricists fought, it might be with Descartes and the other European rationalists,
> who valued deductive reasoning informed by intuition (not to be mistaken with instinct), a concept the
> empiricists firmly rejected. I guess for the most part the empiricists won out, but one might find in modern
> physics a hint of rationalism. I can think of no better example than what Steven Weinberg describes as the
> need for scientific theories, especially the unifying theories of physics, to be “beautiful”. This “beauty”
> is a quality of successful fundamental theories, and it is the apprehension of beauty that guides many in their
> quest for the finest mathematical expression of the “final theory.” Weinberg argues for such an aesthetic
> judgement because, as a guiding principle, it works. One might debate that the concept of “beauty” in this
> context is more inductive than deductive, that clever minds well-versed in the most complex mathematics become
> so wired as to feel the presence of “beauty” when exposed to the best equations for the particular application,
> and hence Weinberg is still an empiricist. I don’t know. All such arguments demonstrate to me is the uselessness
> of old philosophy, except to provide modern philosophers with examples of what tautological arguments not to
> repeat, or whatever. If there is any axiomatic underlying priniciple that endures, it is the scientific principle:
> Observe, hypothesize, test, report. Repeat until dead, or at least until tenured. Whether this falls under the
> catagory of empiricism I can’t say, and I can’t see why any scientist should think about it.
>
> >it fit quite well with the natural sciences (except for when you start figuring in chaos, probability, and
> >other quantum weirdness) -- but worst of all, it totally hijacked American psychology and was the perfect tool
> >for the behaviorists. In the mean time, Sir Karl Popper came along and pointed out that scientists do NOT verify,
> >they falsify -- something that just about killed positivism.
>
> As for what did in positivism, I think it may have been the work of Hempel (who just died a few years ago, I
> guess) that contributed as much as anything. Logical Positivism didn’t really clash with probability or its
> implications. Where the positivists went wrong was not so much, as Hemple pointed out, in their trust in
> scientific “truths” but in their innapropriate use of the word. The idea that theories could be proven true or
> false through observation in a positivist sense struck Hempel as wrong because any expression of a new theory was
> dependant not on the observation but on old theoretical terms. These terms must then be seen as “true”. But
> such a reliance on old theory is unscientific, because all scientific theories are, by definition, falsifiable,
> and therefore contain no “truth”. Positivism relies on the idea that theories have observational content. Hempel
> denies the existence of theory based on observation.
>
> Maybe Hempel was right in his criticism of positivists. I don’t know. Maybe Popper is right in his criticism of
> positivism by saying that all scientists do is refute the theories of old scientists and thus don’t prove anything,
> they just disprove.
>
> I say, from a scientific perspective, who the hell cares? The positivists and rationalists and empiracists and
> mechanists and atomists and monists can keep debating for all I’m concerned. Maybe I resemble one or the other
> sometimes, maybe not. If I spent time thinking epistemologically about my education and ontologically about my next
> experiment I’d get nothing done (gee, I put some restriction enzyme in a tube of DNA, but I can’t actually SEE them,
> I’m just supposing they are based on what someone told me, and how do they know? Anyway, even if they’re there,
> in the end I’m just observing a glowing band of something on a gel, and my theory that this band is the product of an
> enzymatic reaction is based only on some other theories, and those on other theories before that in a long line of
> theories which just use observations to justfy their a priori veracity so what on Earth is it that I’m REALLY doing
> anyway and maybe I should just go home and THINK real hard about this surrogate religion science I’m bowing to and
> make no assumptions at all about anything...)
>
> >I have a healthy amount of skepticism and a willingness to suspend disbelief when warranted, but I accept nothing
> >purported to be scientific on faith.
>
> I can think of no useful philisophical argument for or against the appropriateness of science as a guiding principle
> and a worthy pursuit. I can think of all sorts of useful things that scientists do on a daily basis by practicing the
> scientific method. Leave “truth” to the metaphysicists. How about “realiability”, “reproducibility”, “consistency with
> observation”, “applicability to known phenomena”. If some better theory comes along, why shouldn’t someone still have
> confidence in the process? And why equate that confidence with “faith”? Confidence gives scientists the ability to do
> work without having to prove every underlying principle themselves. It does not make them less skeptical. If scientists
> practiced faith, they’d cling to old theories despite all evidence of their unreliability. I guess some scientists do
> this, but as soon as they walk that path, they cease to be relevant.
>
> >positivism's cult-like, covert adherence in the social sciences is what Stephen Jay Gould calls "physics envy".
>
> Well, leaving positivism, what’s wrong with “physics envy”? I have it all the time as a biologist, and I think this is
> healthy. It means you hold yourself to a certain standard of confidence; black boxes should only be allowed to exist if you
> do not have the time or the money to probe them further at this very moment. Why accept an id or superego or collective
> unconscious or animus if you can’t break it down to the observable interplay of physiology, biochemistry, and environment?
> Why favor a notion, say, that there is some inscrutable gestalt of the mind, that “physics envy” couldn’t lead one to discover
> the basic principles of consciousness and describe them in physical terms, no more special than a hurricane or a speck of dust?
> Oops, I’m being a reductionist.
Posted by Morrigane on November 23, 1999, at 17:22:51
In reply to Re: To anybody, posted by Adam on November 23, 1999, at 9:19:51
You've done an excellent job explaining speciation. I was going to jump right onto the question, but now it seems unecessary.
Pardon me for getting personal, but are you married?
Posted by Adam on November 23, 1999, at 17:36:33
In reply to Re: To Adam, posted by Morrigane on November 23, 1999, at 17:23:01
> Pardon me for getting personal, but are you married?Nope. I think, given some recent events, I'm going to do the single thing for a while. But, you know,
someday, maybe. :)Well, have a happy Thanksgiving, all. My best to a truly unique and wonderful group of people.
-Me
Posted by saint james on November 23, 1999, at 23:55:18
In reply to Re: To anybody, posted by Adam on November 23, 1999, at 9:19:51
> > Can anyone give a mechanism for the "evolution" from one species to another? It seem to me that the accumulation of favorable or viable random mutations is unlikely from a mathematical point of view. Excuse me, I have to cast a demon out of my web browser.
>
> Accumulation of favorable mutations isn't very likely, but given enough time, it makes a difference.
> There really isn't much more to it than that. The cellular machinery that replicates DNA is pretty high
> fidelity, but it's not perfect. And there are always mutations caused by chemicals or radiation.James here....
Another source for mutations are the copies of DNA
men make. Women have X number of eggs, and they are produced very early on while in the womb. Biology gets it right to a high degree at this stage. Men make gazillions of copies throughout their life so by the sheer numbers some errors are made. Cosmic rays and radition from minerals are very important to supply the random chance of mutation.In my study of science I can't help miss how important random chance is. Mutation is a good example. When I look beyond a single random event
to a bigger picture order does come out of randomness. At the moment of the big bang when
our universe winked into existance it was lucky there was exactually the right amount of energy and matter so our universe did not explode or implode in a wink. The frequency at which every atom vibrates was set at the instant of creation, had it been slightly different we could of gotten space but no time of vise versa; out physical laws whould of been very different. Reality is not an illusion but level in Quantum Mechanics.Please take this only as my view, I realize that no one's view can hope to answer all the questions. I think it is more important to find what works for you and allow others to do the same.
j
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.