Beliefs and Theories


Guy A Hoelzer <hoelzer@xxxxxxx> wrote:-

I separate beliefs from theories. I wouldn't call an idea a belief
unless or until a critical view of the idea has been abandoned. In
contrast, I wouldn't call an idea a theory unless it is deeply
embedded
in critical thinking.

JE:-
Please provide an example.

Kimura's Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution certainly qualifies as
a
theory in my book. ALL notions of supernatural action are based on
belief.

JE:-
My apologies for such a late response. My understanding of Kimura's
Neutral
Theory of Molecular Evolution is this view remains based on the
assumption
that a random process can provide evolution in its own right, i.e. a
non
random process is not also required. While it is mathematically true
that
just a random process acting alone can provide change, to constitute a
theory of science such a process must exist within a non random process
so
that it does not constitute the entire theory . In evolutionary theory
the
non random process can only be natural selection because no other has
been
proposed. In other words, any theory of evolution via heritable random
change can only be regarded as a form of heritable variation on which
non
random natural selection can act. This restricts all random events to
constitute just a small part of any evolutionary _theory_. Random
processes
supposed in isolation remain "supernatural" because they assume that an
empirical event is not caused by an predictable law of nature. This
being
the case, I find your example contradictory to your proposed way of
separating of a belief from a theory. If you do not agree, how do you
propose to explain random events in a scientific way?

I didn't claim that the Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution was the
Theory
of Everything, or the complete theory of evolution. I claimed it was a
theory as opposed to a belief. I have no problem with theories invoking
stochastic inputs, so I do not feel obliged to explain "random events"
to
defend my characterization of Kimura's theory as a theory.

JE:-
I don't think that I had claimed that you had claimed "that the Neutral
Theory of Molecular Evolution was the Theory of Everything" so I don't
see
the point of this comment.

A theory of everything would not include random inputs because all inputs
would be fully understood within a theory of everything.

JE:-
I would agree. A _complete_ theory of how this universe works cannot leave
anything to chance otherwise it remains incomplete. However, this reduces
chance events to only a constitute mathematically based beliefs. Would you
agree that any proposed theory of evolution which remains entirely a random
process cannot be anything other than a belief and not a theory?


You appear to have claimed that the Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution
constitutes a theory in its own right, i.e. Neutral Theory remains
independent of any non random process. Is this correct? I simply
challenged
this position for the reasons given.

Well -- I do claim that the Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution is a
theory in its own right, but I do not claim that neutral molecular
evolution
is independent of any non-random processes.

JE:-
What is the non random process on which Neutral Theory remains dependent?

Such independence is not a
factor in my understanding of what constitutes a theory (see my
understanding of what a theory is at the beginning of this thread). Maybe
I
don't understand your point here.

JE:-
Are you arguing that probability represents a theory of science in its own
right?

If Neutral Theory constitutes a "theory as opposed to a belief " but is
NOT
"the complete theory of evolution" what then is the complete theory and
what
relationship does neutral theory have to it?

First let me say that I see all theories of particular phenomena are
artificially severed from all other phenomena.

JE:-
I think we can agree that beliefs and theories represent real phenomena,
i.e. ideas must be supposed to exist in this universe and not, somehow,
outside of it. However, this thread only attempts to address how it is
possible separate belief from theory.


I like the idea of
thermodynamics as a universal framework for all theories (eventually).

JE:-
I think thermodynamics does provide a very practical theoretical framework
for any theory. In very simple terms this would state that you cannot get
something for nothing. Of course beliefs in perpetual motion and the like
remain and are impregnigable to any such framework. Therefore it becomes
ever more important to be able to separate a theory from a belief.

With
that in mind, I think anywhere you want to cut off the theory of evolution
from the rest would be a bit arbitrary. I am certainly happy to combine
neutral theory with selection theory as a step toward a fuller theory of
evolution.

JE:-
I am not attempting to "cut off the theory of evolution from the rest ". All
am asking is how you join the random process of probability to the non
random process of natural selection within the one same, evolutionary
theory.

Random processes have always constituted an inseparable part of evolutionary
theory. Darwin and Wallace proposed that their non random process of natural
selection acted on ubiquitous random heritable variation in order to provide
evolution. Because of this, historically, evolution has always been argued
to constitute a _non random directional change_ and not just a random
change. My understanding (please correct me if I am wrong) is that Neutral
theory deleted this critical historical difference, i.e. the difference
between ubiquitous random heritable variation and any evolution produced
from it via the non random process of natural selection acting on it.
Traditionally, evolutionary theory disallowed heritable random changes to
constitute evolution in their own right but Neutral Theory apprears to allow
this providing a starkly differenent approach. Is this understanding
correct?

While I agree that non random processes can invoke stochastic inputs (and
outputs) random processes acting in isolation to any non random processes
cannot constitute a theory of anything, just a belief which remains
mathematically based. This is because such a random process has no
scientific
basic, i.e. it is proposed to be acting outside of any known law of
nature.

I don't see it that way. Neutral theory is entirely mechanistic
(constrained by the laws of nature), given stochastic inputs.

JE;-
The above appears to me to contradict what you wrote: "A theory of
everything would not include random inputs because all inputs would be fully
understood within a theory of everything." This means to me that chance
events cannot be constrained by laws of nature _because_ they are chance
events. If they were so constrained within the theory they could not be
chance events. Is this understanding correct?

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

edser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

.

Quantcast