Limits of Science, and Moral Choices

[creekster]

This is an interesting discussion, and some of these issues are ones I've struggled with. Many of you know about the recent publication of Ardipithecus ramidus, a 4.4 million year old hominin with very large implications for human evolution. I'm going to be testing some of the conclusions they came to this summer when I go to Kenya to look at some 10-20 million year old ape specimens. In order to get grants, a lot of folks expect me to have an idea of what I'm going to find, but I really don't know and want nothing more than to test their hypotheses.

I really don't think it'll help my career more or less if my findings confirm those of the Ardipithecus team, and either way there will be no practical benefit to anyone. Therefore, I can truly say that I have no agenda. This isn't always possible and a lot of fields (climate science these days, pharmaceuticals) have a more difficult time of it.

On the other hand, human evolution is perhaps one of the most contentious fields in all of science (in America, anyway), so many will assume that I have an agenda to continue the evolutionary dogma. If there were any alternative, this could be a valid point, but again, any contention or controversy that exists about evolution being true is 100% political. Scientists, in their official capacity, simply don't care whether a lot of people believe that we didn't evolve. Their beliefs don't matter.

Please don't take this as a criticism. But I wonder if you are missing your own possible bias? Your response to SOP's proffer of his wife's opinion was rather strident and full of pre-judgment. It might turn out that she is, in your opinion, wrong but it is also clear that you are full of bias (no mate how well founded) against her supposed general conclusion without ever having heard the basis of her claim. It seems to me that this sort of bias is unlikely to affect a fundamentally objective analysis but could easily seep into a more nuanced analysis of theories (IOW Sooner's studies of genes and their effect on biological processes as opposed to an analysis of hominid development).

[SeattleUte]

I don't think either of these phrases are completely accurate, at least as stated. Some religious people know religion's bounds, although religion has its share of embarrassing gaffes when it comments on science. There are plenty of scientists who feel that science has "disproven God" when all they're really saying is that science has disproven their prior, and often immature and poorly thought-out, conceptions of God. I wish both groups would do a better job of defining the limitations of their crafts. I think this is toughest for the theoretical physicist--Sagan and Hawking come to mind.

I agree that popular scientists attack a god straw man, the God of traditional monotheism. But you even have to ask what does "proven" or "disproven" even mean in science. It only means essentially (to use my profession's jargon) a preponderence of the evidence.

[SeattleUte]

I am not a scientist. Based upon my non-scientific reading I see it like this:

The mechanism of evolution is virtually undeniable. It is not a million piece puzzle with only a 100 piences in place. It is a puzzle almost solved.

The specifics of the organisms resulting from that mechanism other than those now living is much more open-ended. As Soonercoug points out, it is much more specualtive to discuss the appearance and date of hominid predecessors in the evolutionary line.

It is not controversial to discuss the mechanism of evolution.

Don't be so hard on yourself. In some ways lawyers are more qualified than scientists to talk about this.

[woot]

Please don't take this as a criticism. But I wonder if you are missing your own possible bias? Your response to SOP's proffer of his wife's opinion was rather strident and full of pre-judgment. It might turn out that she is, in your opinion, wrong but it is also clear that you are full of bias (no mate how well founded) against her supposed general conclusion without ever having heard the basis of her claim. It seems to me that this sort of bias is unlikely to affect a fundamentally objective analysis but could easily seep into a more nuanced analysis of theories (IOW Sooner's studies of genes and their effect on biological processes as opposed to an analysis of hominid development).

But did you read my followup to that?

Remember the boy who cried wolf? I consider creationist folks to be in the same category, except rather than crying wolf a few times until everyone learned not to listen to them and the story ended, they have been screaming at the top of their lungs about a wolf chewing on their leg for the last 150 years (or since the beginning of recorded history if we expand the discussion to god in general). At what point do we learn our lesson?

Yes, it's possible that SoP's wife will be the one who finally has some evidence against evolution. I will again hear her out if she chooses to present her ideas here. Why is it wrong for me to assume she has none?

If it's ok to assume the sun will rise in the morning, it's ok to assume that a creationist will have nothing to contribute to a debate about evolution.

[creekster]

But did you read my followup to that?

Remember the boy who cried wolf? I consider creationist folks to be in the same category, except rather than crying wolf a few times until everyone learned not to listen to them and the story ended, they have been screaming at the top of their lungs about a wolf chewing on their leg for the last 150 years (or since the beginning of recorded history if we expand the discussion to god in general). At what point do we learn our lesson?

Yes, it's possible that SoP's wife will be the one who finally has some evidence against evolution. I will again hear her out if she chooses to present her ideas here. Why is it wrong for me to assume she has none?

If it's ok to assume the sun will rise in the morning, it's ok to assume that a creationist will have nothing to contribute to a debate about evolution.

I admit I havent followed this thread that closely. Did SOP say she was a creationist? I didnt get that from his post, but maybe that is in the htread somewhere else. Either way, I think the difference in the possible effect of bias that I was trying to describe is still a valid one.

Don't forget that whn you first popped up on CG all those posts ago you assumed I was what you would call a creationsit and argued rather stridently against my postion, as you expected it, ignoring my actual statements. That was a bias.

Given her background, it does seem more likely that she will be talking abotu the mechanism of evolution as oppsoed ot the results of the process, and thus it seems unlikely to me that she would be bale to rpesent persuaasive eviudence. Even so, I would be curious to hear what she says and I am not preapred ot dismiss it at this point based upon my presumption of her position as desrcibed by her husband.

[woot]

I admit I havent followed this thread that closely. Did SOP say she was a creationist? I didnt get that from his post, but maybe that is in the htread somewhere else. Either way, I think the difference in the possible effect of bias that I was trying to describe is still a valid one.

Don't forget that whn you first popped up on CG all those posts ago you assumed I was what you would call a creationsit and argued rather stridently against my postion, as you expected it, ignoring my actual statements. That was a bias.

Given her background, it does seem more likely that she will be talking abotu the mechanism of evolution as oppsoed ot the results of the process, and thus it seems unlikely to me that she would be bale to rpesent persuaasive eviudence. Even so, I would be curious to hear what she says and I am not preapred ot dismiss it at this point based upon my presumption of her position as desrcibed by her husband.

I'm still certainly interested in her views, just as I've read closely the views of Michael Behe and a couple other evolution deniers who actually work in relevant fields. The problem is that there simply isn't a scientific challenge to evolution. That's why deniers, even those who are not ignorant about the issues, tend to deny it based on religious and occasionally postmodernist philosophical reasons, rather than evidence gleaned from their research.

Behe is a good example. His idea of irreducible complexity masquerades as a scientific idea, but it has been thoroughly debunked and was never very scientific to begin with. The fact is that he is staunchly religious and believed in a literal creation and therefore tried to find evidence to support his position while ignoring the evidence against it. Interestingly, he came out in the last couple years and admitted that common descent is correct. He has been scarcely used by the usual creationist think-tanks since.

Regardless of how brilliant, learned, or successful a scientist might be, doubt of evolution is, in every single case of which I'm aware, based on non-scientific reasons. Thus my skepticism. I don't really feel comfortable saying anything further about SoP's wife specifically.

[wuapinmon]

Where is this accusation of which you speak?

In a PM you sent me. I don't think that the sanctity of PM privacy applies when you're questioning my honesty. I am Mac Williams, not some lying sack of crap. If I tell you that I didn't do something, I didn't do it.

Keep your paranoia and distrust of people to yourself. I don't think I'll be responding to anything else you say to me because I find you annoying as all get out. Keep your own counsel.

[tooblue]

In a PM you sent me. I don't think that the sanctity of PM privacy applies when you're questioning my honesty. I am Mac Williams, not some lying sack of crap. If I tell you that I didn't do something, I didn't do it.

Keep your paranoia and distrust of people to yourself. I don't think I'll be responding to anything else you say to me because I find you annoying as all get out. Keep your own counsel.

I stated in a private pm that I did not think you were being completely honest with me. It's clear your protestations underscore that this thread is being discussed in private elsewhere.

[woot]

Hardly. woot and I usually don't agree about ANYTHING. In fact, we've traded quite vicious attacks before.

As to my requests, they were sincere. However, I do have a Humanities Agenda, and my goal is to fuse science and humanities together in a battle to destroy the evil forces of the Decepticons.

As to the "distinct group," well, we're the ones who will respond to these questions because we enjoy these types of debates. If you don't want to debate on the internet, don't fault others who do.

tooblue, man, you are an odd duck.

I think that's quite an overstatement. I've actually grown to really like you, and feel like we agree a lot more often than we disagree. I concede that might all be one-sided. I'll go have a cry now.

[wuapinmon]

Where is this accusation of which you speak?

I stated in a private pm that I did not think you were being completely honest with me. It's clear your protestations underscore that this thread is being discussed in private elsewhere.

Is it now!

[tooblue]

Is it now!

Never mind wuapimon. It doesn't really matter, but my word of caution still stands.

[wuapinmon]

I think that's quite an overstatement. I've actually grown to really like you, and feel like we agree a lot more often than we disagree. I concede that might all be one-sided. I'll go have a cry now.

It's not one-sided. But remember what I said in all those PMs and SE threads about this one? I want tooblue to think it's one-sided.

[woot]

It's not one-sided. But remember what I said in all those PMs and SE threads about this one? I want tooblue to think it's one-sided.

Oh right.

[tooblue]

It's not one-sided. But remember what I said in all those PMs and SE threads about this one? I want tooblue to think it's one-sided.

Awww I see that woot is now a member of the Speakeasy! He was voted in. That's where his new found bravado comes from.

http://www.cougaruteforum.com/showgroups.php

lol

[tooblue]

I have been avoiding this thread for several reasons, but again I can't stop indulging my sado-masochist side.



Facts and reality are constant they are not good, bad, or indifferent. facts have no moral grounds or basis . They just exist. Science attempts to give a standardized set of rules by which to test and understand facts and reality. Philosophy has its own method to do the same. Religion has its own method as well. The difference is that the latter 2 lack a standardized methodology that is applied across all philosophical camps or across all the different religions.



You are mixing concepts too much here. Facts are things that exist or phenomena that occur. Gravity is a fact/law. Objects with mass have attactional forces. This is shown with observation of the world and cosmos. The scientific theory of gravity is the attempt to explain how/why the law of gravity exists. In the same sense, evolution is a fact. You can observe changes in characteristics of a specie if you can observe enough generations. The Theory of evolution is an attempt to explain that which is observed.



I find that some believers use this as an excuse to stop asking questions



Morals are a product of society, culture, religion. They also vary(sometimes greatly) through the periods of history, even within the same culture. Science has little to do with morals or morality.



The gate swings both ways.



Indeed, flail away.

This is a good post that didn't get it's due. The gate does swing both ways.