Re: Is Evolution a Law like the 'Laws' of physics?


"PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1128090282.418143.24580@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Bill Hobba wrote:
>> "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1127962258.783524.307330@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >
>> > Bill Hobba wrote:
>> >> "PD" <TheDraperFamily@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >> news:1127789212.360513.40430@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> >
>> >> > Bill Hobba wrote:
>> >> >> I recently came across the following interesting essay by Watson:
>> >> >> http://www.calendarlive.com/books/bookreview/cl-bk-watson18sep18,0,529081.htmlstory?coll=cl-bookreview
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I found its conclusion rather provocative:
>> >> >> 'Let us not beat about the bush - the common assumption that
>> >> >> evolution
>> >> >> through natural selection is a "theory" in the same way as string
>> >> >> theory
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> a theory is wrong. Evolution is a law (with several components)
>> >> >> that
>> >> >> is
>> >> >> as
>> >> >> well substantiated as any other natural law, whether the law of
>> >> >> gravity,
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> laws of motion or Avogadro's law. Evolution is a fact, disputed
>> >> >> only
>> >> >> by
>> >> >> those who choose to ignore the evidence, put their common sense on
>> >> >> hold
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> believe instead that unchanging knowledge and wisdom can be reached
>> >> >> only
>> >> >> by
>> >> >> revelation. '
>> >> >>
>> >> >> As an emergent property of complex systems I would not give
>> >> >> evolution
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> status of a 'law' - even assuming the use of the word law is
>> >> >> justified
>> >> >> for
>> >> >> any scientific theory. I can not see any difference between string
>> >> >> theory
>> >> >> and evolution as theories that may be proven incorrect by future
>> >> >> developments that would justify the use of 'law'. Which law of
>> >> >> gravitation
>> >> >> is he talking about - Newton's or Einstein's - and when GR was
>> >> >> developed
>> >> >> and
>> >> >> Newton's law relegated to an approximation could we still
>> >> >> legitimately
>> >> >> call
>> >> >> it a 'law'? What do others think? I know Steve Carlip has written
>> >> >> (and
>> >> >> I
>> >> >> agree with him) that he thinks the word 'law' should be done away
>> >> >> with
>> >> >> in
>> >> >> physics, except, where due to common usage, (eg ohms law), it would
>> >> >> be
>> >> >> silly. I think Watson, whose accomplishments in molecular biology
>> >> >> stamp
>> >> >> him
>> >> >> as a scientist who should know what he is talking about, has missed
>> >> >> the
>> >> >> mark
>> >> >> here.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Thanks
>> >> >> Bill
>> >> >
>> >> > Personally, I agree, though I can tell you that there are many who
>> >> > would not. It goes directly to the statement that "evolution is a
>> >> > fact." This further goes to what children are taught in school about
>> >> > science and the scientific method, and this is where the abuse
>> >> > starts
>> >> > to get flung liberally in all directions.
>> >> >
>> >> > That there were species on the planet 100,000 years ago and
>> >> > 100,000,000
>> >> > years ago that are different than the species on the planet now is a
>> >> > fact. This is a fact in the form that is commonly classed as an
>> >> > observation.
>> >> >
>> >> > That there is genetic drift that can be correlated to time from a
>> >> > common genetic ancestor is also a fact. This is a fact in the form
>> >> > that
>> >> > is commonly classed as a natural law, in the same way that Ohm's law
>> >> > is
>> >> > a natural law. It represents a common behavior exhibited by a broad
>> >> > class of observed phenomena. It is a different level of fact than
>> >> > the
>> >> > observation, because it both claims a broader generality and also
>> >> > abandons absoluteness of truth, there being boundaries to the
>> >> > application of the natural law.
>> >> >
>> >> > That there is a genetic drift that is attributable to random genetic
>> >> > variation and subsequent natural selection by favorable survival of
>> >> > progeny is what is commonly classed as a theory. A theory is
>> >> > supported
>> >> > by facts, but never becomes a fact itself.
>> >> >
>> >> > The problem is that we are completely schizophrenic (some would say
>> >> > hypocritical) about teaching these distinctions in school. We teach
>> >> > the
>> >> > scientific method as though it were a rigorous process, with clear
>> >> > lines between observational fact and natural law and theory. And
>> >> > then a
>> >> > little while later, we muddy the waters by presenting evolution as a
>> >> > fact, or Newtonian gravity as a fact. Sometimes we even call them
>> >> > laws
>> >> > as though that carried *more weight* than a theory. In so doing, we
>> >> > completely obscure what the *theory* of evolution is and how that is
>> >> > distinct from the "fact" of evolution, and we completely obscure the
>> >> > *theory* of Newtonian gravity and where the experimental support for
>> >> > it
>> >> > has ragged edges.
>> >> >
>> >> > This does a great disservice to the teaching of science in general,
>> >> > made more egregious by the fact that scientists can't seem to get
>> >> > their
>> >> > act together on it, either.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for the well thought out response. And yes the issues are
>> >> rather
>> >> subtle. After reading what Tom said my view is that we have many
>> >> facts
>> >> such
>> >> as the dying out of species and their replacement by others, genetic
>> >> drift,
>> >> and small scale examples of evolutionary adoption such as the often
>> >> cited
>> >> peppered moths. Taken together these all point to the existence of
>> >> species
>> >> changing over time which is what I would call the fact of evolution
>> >> similar
>> >> to the evidence of gravity as a fact independent of theory. But I see
>> >> your
>> >> point - such evidence is not as strong as the existence of gravity;
>> >> and
>> >> exactly where do we draw the line on what we accept as fact and what
>> >> is a
>> >> deduction from those facts that can still be questioned? Many times
>> >> the
>> >> issue of exactly why some theories are preferred to others has been
>> >> examined
>> >> on this forum eg SR vs aether theories. The decision is often not
>> >> based
>> >> on
>> >> experiment only - it is based on the situation as a whole (eg the
>> >> importance
>> >> symmetry in modern physics) and what is most reasonable. And to make
>> >> matters worse what is the most 'reasonable' for some is not
>> >> necessarily
>> >> the
>> >> most 'reasonable' for others eg Ilja's GLET. Having discussed the
>> >> situation
>> >> with Ilja I know the reason he likes aether theories is he sees broken
>> >> symmetries all around us and prefers a theory that has symmetry broken
>> >> at
>> >> its foundation. Philosophers and some textbooks give the impression
>> >> science
>> >> is a well laid out process. It is not - it requires a lot of what
>> >> people
>> >> often refer to as 'common sense' and can not be codified into well
>> >> defined
>> >> inferential rules. IMHO there is only one way to learn about the
>> >> scientific
>> >> method - it is to actually do science. It is interesting that the
>> >> person
>> >> who bought that article to my attention is a research biologist. She
>> >> commented that that she has never formally studied epistemology yet
>> >> she
>> >> believed from her experience she has a good idea of how it is
>> >> practiced
>> >> in
>> >> science. In fact she attended a lecture by Watson where he said he
>> >> disliked
>> >> his first years at university because he was forced to take too much
>> >> epistemology - something other greats like Feynman would probably feel
>> >> the
>> >> same about if he was subjected to it - which is why MIT was a good
>> >> choice
>> >> for him. I am inclined to agree with her and feel the same about
>> >> epistemology as does Feynman and Watson.
>> >>
>> >> As an aside I am nearing completion of Zwiebachs's First Course on
>> >> String
>> >> Theory and will soon start on Penrose's Road to Reality.
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >> Bill
>> >>
>> >
>> > Fascinating reply.
>> >
>> > Not too long ago, I was embroiled in a s.p. discussion about evolution
>> > and was frankly astonished at how many people felt *extremely strongly*
>> > that, even if the causal relationships that are at the heart of
>> > Evolution-the-Theory are not very well established yet, this does
>> > nothing to diminish Evolution-the-Fact. In fact, many people think the
>> > hub-bub about it today is precisely and only about Evolution-the-Fact,
>> > even though the hub-bub is ostensibly about teaching *science* in
>> > school.
>>
>> I agree that is what the noises are being made are about. But often it
>> is
>> instructive to look at possible hidden nuances behind what is being
>> said -
>> they may be a cover up. Here in Australia our current prime minister is
>> sometimes called the horse whisperer because he will take on an issue,
>> such
>> as conscription of the unemployed, but what he is really doing is sending
>> a
>> message to a certain segment of the populace that has doubts the
>> unemployed
>> are genuine that he agrees with them. I suspect the same of the
>> education
>> debate. With the increasing complexity of society fundamentalist belief
>> systems are rather attractive to some - but it is difficult to bring up
>> ones
>> children under its umbrella if it is being attacked by what they are
>> taught
>> at school. Such parents see it as their duty to ensure their children
>> are
>> protected. To me the real answer lies in greater educational diversity
>> rather than the one size fits all approach of a standard curricula.
>
> There are many who smell an ulterior motive. Typically, they are also
> people more concerned about what facts their children absorb than about
> the methods of science used to determine facts. Their comments usually
> include things like, "Why would I want my children exposed to something
> that is false?" This is a real danger only in the hands of weaker
> science teachers who believe it is their function to teach facts and
> not science. I firmly believe that flexing this muscle will only
> strengthen both student and teacher understanding of science. You're
> right, there are many students who don't have enough room in their
> heads for both facts and an understanding of what science is about;
> given the choice, I would MUCH rather see the latter.

Yes. My only concern is to ensure that understanding is taught at the
appropraite level for primary and secondary students.

>
>>
>> > In my mind, at least, there is substantially more to the proper
>> > teaching of science than the teaching of facts. I would go so far as to
>> > say, in fact, that it is more about How We Know than it is about What
>> > We Know. Perhaps even How We Go About Finding Out.
>>
>> My concern though, regarding the teaching debate, is if such subtleties
>> are
>> suitable for inclusion in primary and secondary school education. When I
>> went to school these issues were covered but only at a superficial
>> level -
>> which is all I suspect most students can handle. Certainly it was all I
>> could handle and I was considered a thinking student - lazy as hell but
>> one
>> that actually thought about things.
>
> I had the privelege of teaching a course in Physics for the Terrified
> when someone else who had taught this class retired. In the second year
> of teaching, I introduced a semester project. The students were to
> build a clock of their own design, one that would run for an hour and
> mark the event as accurately and reliably as possible. The caveat was
> that they could not use any clock parts in their construction. Keep in
> mind these are students who never opened up a toaster with a
> screwdriver to find out how it worked. Mid-semester, they needed to
> submit a written design, and two weeks ahead of the contest date, they
> needed to report on a prototype. As a project, it taught very little
> physics, but it taught several other key things:
> - How to do library research on their own
> - How to design an apparatus in a way to the level of completeness
> where possible dustbunnies are found out
> - That just because you have a good design in no way guarantees that
> the prototype is going to behave as designed
> - What lengths one must go to, to ensure reproducibility and correct
> for systematic or random effects
>
> On contest day, professors from the department would come swinging
> through the lab to admire the creativity and precise thought the
> students had put into their projects. Most importantly, the students
> discovered that they had the power to do this with their own hands and
> minds, and this new confidence fueled their curiosity and active
> investigation for things scientific going forward, something they did
> not have at the beginning of the term. I could not ask for a better
> outcome.
>
>>
>> >
>> > Historically, I started out as a philosophy/physics major. I got
>> > disillusioned about philosophy not so much because of the poor job
>> > prospects but rather because it seemed to be more about the style of
>> > the dance than about getting somewhere. Physics at least had a concrete
>> > handle on how to determine truth, something that philosophy does not.
>> >
>>
>> I never really liked philosophy much. I took a course in it as part of
>> my
>> masters to broaden my knowledge but was consigned by my teacher to the
>> merely material (which is a rather strange thing to say of someone who
>> along with Penrose believes in the Platonic world of mathematics) - not
>> in
>> the same class as her beloved Hegel. To me reading Hegel was torture -
>> he
>> would have to be one of the most obscure nonsensical writers I have ever
>> come across - and I was outspoken spoken enough to tell the lecturer so.
>> I
>> also discovered that some philosophers understanding of basic physics and
>> math left a lot to be desired.
>
> Oddly enough, I published a paper on Hegel in our university philosophy
> journal. What I found in philosophy was almost exactly what I found in
> math -- equipment for logic and fully-fleshed analytical thinking -- a
> toolbox. Some of the tools in the toolbox are more difficult to use. I
> found Hegel to be as personally difficult as, say, representation
> theory of groups. :)

I want to add that I know from personnel experience my teacher had a keen
mind and she understood Hegel. So the evidence is that Hegel is
understandable and the problems I had reside in me. You have simply
confirmed my suspicion. But it does not matter how hard I try statements
like 'It is a matter of perfect indifference where a thing originated; the
only question is: "Is it true in and for itself?"' leave me cold. To me
your attitude to where a thing originated is a matter of context and you can
say nothing about it, especially what emotive response you may experience,
without that context, and can draw no conclusions about what questions to
ask, especially vague ones like 'Is it true in and for itself' which, also
to me, only gains meaning when given context. I recently participated in a
discussion about the statement 'Existence exists' and what it means. To me
(and I must admit to others participating in the discussion as well ) it is
a tautology and of itself has no meaning. For me the way out of tautologies
is to examine what you it may be trying to say - in this case I take it to
mean a rejection of solipsism. I am however much more comfortable with
authors who express their ideas in as clear and transparent way as possible.
BTW thanks very much for you well thought out and interesting response.

Thanks
Bill

>
>>
>> >
>> > Oddly, in the years that have followed in learning and doing physics,
>> > I've found myself on an oval track, and I've discovered that there is
>> > more to doing physics than I first thought, and that some parts of it
>> > are subjective and muddy and artistic and instinctive and physics is
>> > *better for it*.
>>
>> Without doubt.
>>
>> > Rigid application of the scientific method is a
>> > piss-poor approach to doing really good physics.
>>
>> Again without doubt.
>>
>> > Smolin and Bardeen and
>> > Wheeler and Feynman have been masters at stepping *outside* the
>> > scientific method and doing something truly artistic and almost
>> > musical.
>>
>> Yes. But the talent that I stand in awe of that the greats posses that
>> almost frightens me (and I have heard the word frighten used to describe
>> it
>> by others such as Gleick) is the ease they switch from the math to the
>> physics. I have some faculty with math, much less with physics, but the
>> ease the greats have with both is scary - that is the only word I can
>> think
>> of that expresses it.
>>
>> > I firmly believe that they are motivated and guided by an
>> > internal faith -- not the conventional religious one, but something
>> > about the "soul" of reality that has a beauty and elegant justice to
>> > it.
>>
>> Yes. As a Platonist I believe it is the ability to connect the
>> mathematical
>> Platonic realm to the world of physical phenomena. The greats seem
>> totally
>> at ease with both worlds in a way I simply do not have the ability to
>> understand.
>>
>> >
>> > As an aside, I'm on my second read of Penrose's book and, after reading
>> > some Gould, will turn to Zwiebach. Happy trails.
>>
>> Zwiebackh was interesting but got progressively more difficult the
>> further
>> you went. It took me a lot longer to get though it than I had first
>> thought. The last couple of chapters I merely skimmed - I will need to
>> come
>> back to it.
>>
>> Thanks
>> Bill
>>
>> >
>> > PD
>> >
>


.

Loading