Posted on 08/13/2005 3:49:15 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
The cover story of the August 15, 2005, issue of Time magazine is Claudia Wallis's "The evolution wars" -- the first cover story on the creationism/evolution controversy in a major national newsweekly in recent memory.
With "When Bush joined the fray last week, the question grew hotter: Is 'intelligent design' a real science? And should it be taught in schools?" as its subhead, the article, in the space of over 3000 words, reviews the current situation in detail. Highlights of the article include:
While Wallis's article is inevitably not as scientifically detailed as, for example, H. Allen Orr's recent article in The New Yorker, or as politically astute as, for example, Chris Mooney's recent article in The American Prospect, overall it accomplishes the important goal of informing the general reader that antievolutionism -- whether it takes the form of creation science, "intelligent design," or calls to "teach the controversy" -- is scientifically unwarranted, pedagogically irresponsible, and constitutionally problematic.
No one is proposing doing science without observers. I might have hoped this point had been established by now.
Direct or indirect, faulty and distorted that observation often is, science is premised on observation. That was the only point I was making.
You certainly have been sounding that note. Fester can set you charging rather better than anyone else can reign you in. I am out of love with the Twist and Shout trick. (Sorry, AG.) We seem to agree that science must compensate for the tendency of our eyes to tell us that the Buddha statue is getting larger, the indentical shades of blue have far different brightnesses, and the still picture is writhing like a snake. Still you rant on. I can find nothing in the original text which would violate our supposed area of agreement. Still you rant on.
Fester did what he did because he brazens everything. He, like Southack, is never wrong. He must fire back.
We have to be better than this. There is nothing wrong with the original text. I really don't like Twist-and-Shout.
For those that are keeping track of this sidebar of a sidebar, the original argument I participated in with Fester was whether or not direct observation is the only valid form of observation, or can indirect observation be given as much validity. My point, backed up by two biologists, was that there is very little difference between direct and indirect observation in science, making the absolute necessity of direct observation unnecessary, which of course was vociferously opposed by Fester.
Twist-and-Shout. A sentence or phrase is lifted out of context. It is mangled as needed to make it appear absurd or at least patently wrong. That's the "twist."
Next comes the "shout." The absurdity is now denounced loud and long. Others are pinged to come and help slay the absurdity monster. The absurdity is compiled into quote salads and used to show that various people hold inconsistent views, are detached from reality, are unable to think, etc. Protests are ignored. There is no stopping the process.
A variant of strawman fallacy. There are other ways to get to a strawman argument, of course. Twist and Shout is basing your strawman upon that single snippet and boring in with tunnel vision from there.
There is nothing wrong with the original text to merit the treatment it has received here. I have been noting that out loud since I was pinged onto this thread by the miscreant himself. Somehow, the concept seems almost ungraspable.
Is this finally what the quarrel's about -- "lawful cause-and-effect relationships?" Methodological naturalism is premised on Newton's laws, which basically describe the movement of bodies in space. But it seems there are things in the Universe -- such as consciousness, life -- that are immaterial, non-corporeal, and seemingly cannot be accounted for on the basis of Newton's laws. It seems MN puts such things outside the range of science. This does not make any sense to me at all. For it appears such things are quite "natural." IMHO FWIW
Pace to your two biologists, but I'll stick with Bohr's epistemology. Which in the present case would mean that an indirectly observed phenomenon by one individual would be put to the test of whether other observers are able to "see" the indirectly observed phenomenon under like experimental conditions.
Thanks for bringing up to speed on this, b-sharp!
No. The overturning of Newton's laws didn't do a thing to methodological naturalism, which is the premise that laws exist to be discovered and what we see in nature can be analyzed in terms of whatever those laws are. Our current understanding of what the laws are is allowed to change if science is ever to get anywhere.
Science can do nothing without that premise and anything unreachable thereby is somehow not part of our world. The examples you give, consciousness and life, are inappropriate as they have long been under study by science.
I suppose if you start with the assumption that thigs can exist without a material embodiment -- yet magically interact with matter -- then not much of the world would make sense.
My point is simply that direct observation, at least from the standpoint of this observer, merits more certitude than indirect. All of a sudden direct observation became suspect. I reckon it is because, for example, macro-evolution and a 4.5-billion year history of planet earth cannot be directly observed.
I mean, if we're going to set the bar so low as to accomodate the philosophy of evolution as "science," then we might as well keep it there for the theology of creationism to enjoy the same title.
Or the whole thing is parodied beyond recognition. Bush Sr. gives a reasoned supply-side statement of how tax cuts aren't necessarily bad for government tax revenues because the economy can pick up and tax increases aren't necessarily good for tax revenues because they can drive the economy down. Dukakis replies "I hope everyone in the country heard that. He wants to give THE RICH a tax break!"
If I say I can see atoms because my eyes are really good since I started sniffing glue, should I be believed if I insist protons and neutrons are really made of little turtles rather than quarks?
I have indeed seen this method of "twist and shout" used on both sides of the usual debate. Some excerpts are repeated often from thread to thread evidently to ridicule the correspondent personally (e.g. 1720 is a large number). When it becomes personal, there is more poison in the handle than the point.
And, no, I do not recall any correspondent throwing a "twist and shout" accusation at either betty boop or me until you did so on this thread.
With regard to the original post at 464, the question being fielded was "If you found a metal fastener embedded in coal, which one would you believe was formed first, the coal or the fastener?" vis-a-vis indirect observations.
Concerning that issue, my reply at 555 stands. In the natural sciences, sensory perceptions (whether direct or augmented by instruments) are primary whereas in physics and math, the theory is primary. Therefore, if there is doubt as to the sensory perception, it is a vital issue to the natural sciences whereas to physics, doubts as to the theory itself would be primary.
This is an issue raised by H.H.Pattee in his article on Bridging the Epistemic Cut - biologists are not as concerned when observations do not fit their theories as physicists are. To the physicists, contradictory evidence points to a problem with the theory itself, i.e. the theory is their main focus. The biologist follows the evidence.
Actually, the sentence you are so contentious over speaks for itself. It fairly well summarizes the context, which was to cast doubt upon direct observation. There is a place for such doubt, to be sure. I find it amusing how evolutionists insist on empircal proof (direct observation) from creationists, but are more than willing to let it slide when their own philosophy is put forth. If you're going to call something "unscientific," why not be consistent in applying it to yourself and others?
Yes and no. We indeed ridiculed a certain poster based upon his wildly elliptical tendency to know almost nothing but to BRAZEN EVERYTHING. It was not only the ignorance but the obvious lack of integrity, IOW, which became laughable. I don't believe he ever had an argument that someone or other didn't fairly and squarely shoot to pieces based upon facts and logic.
One must not pretend to be deaf when people are shouting one's errors to the skies.
Spiritual knowledge for instance is of no value whatsoever to those who have not experienced it but to those of us who have, revelations from God come before all other types of knowledge, even sensory perceptions. Those who have these inverted in their priorities would be like doubting Thomas. But doubting Thomas was an apostle, too.
Jeepers, Fester -- what an awkward question....
As for me, I consider a sauce that is good for the goose is good for the gander as well. :^)
Thanks for writing!
In the case we are discussing, the phrase had been lifted and repeated so often that I cannot even recall the context of the original "1720 is a large number" claim. The ridicule was effective within the group which already thought little of the correspondent - but to the Lurkers following, it came across as mean-spirited and caused many otherwise useful assertions to be cast in a bad light and perhaps even, ignored.
I realize you hate the lawyerism around here but, truly, the ones we are both trying to reach are the Lurkers - who are like jurors and haven't yet made up their minds. We are not likely to convince the direct opponent. Thus when we are cautious in our presentations, we are much more persuasive.
Biologists and physicists are doing the same things. Physicists study nature at a level below the chaotic phenomena of biology. Sometimes it's easier for a physicist to identify when observations are inconsistent with theory. However, there's plenty of chaos and noise in particle collider experiments. A one-shot observation out of tens of thousands might have been the long-sought Higgs particle ... or not.
It's really the same thing. Both disciplines are being as rigorous as they know how right now.
Alamo-Girl, I think this observation is right on the mark. Sometimes I get the impression that biology wants to take a pass from the far more epistemologically rigorous approach of physics, the "queen of the sciences." I read recently that the late Professor Mahr of Harvard has proposed that biology is an "autonomous" science, just as physics is an "autonomous" science -- and apparently, the twain are never to meet. And the reason is, as you point out, that biology is concerned mainly about evidence, and physics mainly about the integrity of theory. For the physicist, if the theory is experimentally falsified, then you know you've got a problem on your hands. For the biologist, if the evidence doesn't fit the theory, just keep looking for evidence that does.
At least, that's the impression I get sometimes, these days.
Thank you ever so much for your excellent, perceptive essay/post!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.