Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
08-28-2002, 10:51 AM | #1 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 472
|
A very simple question for Vanderzyden
Vander, based on your response in the chromosome thread, I have a very simple question that can be answered with either a yes or a no:
Is there any evidence under any circumstances that you can imagine that would convince you personally that evolutionary theories were true? Ignore for the moment whether you think we currently have such evidence, I'm only interested in whether you think there could _ever_ be evidence that would convince you personally. A simple yes or no will do. Please do not post quotes from anyone else, talk about "ways of knowing", etc. Please don't post something off topic, I'd like to keep this question laser focused on this single question. If you choose to answer, I would like to ask one follow up question. |
08-28-2002, 12:08 PM | #2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California
Posts: 694
|
Quote:
(You may recall that we started down this path in a recent thread, "The Utility of Evolution: What Good is it?") |
|
08-28-2002, 01:03 PM | #3 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 472
|
Quote:
Can you please describe in as much detail as you can what this evidence would look like. Things like what disciplines we would need information from (biology, geology, etc) and what those specific findings would be would be great. If there are other non-science displines you think we would need information from, feel free to share that as well. I'm really trying to understand what evidence would convince you, so please add as much detail as you like. |
|
08-28-2002, 03:16 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California
Posts: 694
|
Yes, that's another fair question.
It would be great to have evidence that EXPLAINS: -- incredible complexity arising from utter simplicity -- a mechanism by which new species are generated -- how mind comes from non-mind But wait! Critics require more than just claims of evidence. Context and resiliency are also necessary. Any evidence must be: -- uncontrived -- compelling (accompanied by sound argument) -- explained in the simplest terms possible (e.g., no handwaving technospeak) -- logically consistent -- unfalsified by other evidence -- able to withstand critique from non-scientific disciplines, such as philosophy That should be a good start, eh? [ August 28, 2002: Message edited by: Vanderzyden ]</p> |
08-28-2002, 03:33 PM | #5 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: East Coast. Australia.
Posts: 5,455
|
One or two BIG problems right away:
1) about mind coming from no mind. We have not been able to fully explain how the human mind works yet. This should not detract from evolutionary theory, until we DO know more about the mind. The only thing about the mind that evolution could not explain would be if the mind was found to be irreducibly complex. Who knows? maybe it will be, but NO-ONE knows enough about the mind to say this yet. In short, you should not require evolution to explain how the mind came into being, any more than you should require physics to comletely explain the fundamental structure of space before you accept gravity as a theory. There are things we dont know yet. So what? 2) That evolutionary theory should stand up to philosophical critique. This is impossible for any theory, philosopy, or any other kind of knowledge. There is always a philosophy somewhere that contradicts something else. Postmodernism, for example, often claims that science is not a reliable way of knowing about the world. All experimental results are discounted, and frequently the very existence of the universe is denied by some philosophies. How can any theory be devised that agrees with all philosophies? Even the theory that nothing can be known is discounted by the philosophy that things can be known. The theory that things can be known is dicounted by the philosophy that nothing can be known. Please demonstrate any single idea that has ever been entertained by any human in the history of time that would stand up to all philosophies. Or do you not mean all philosophies?, perhaps you mean one, or a few philosophies? Why, they wouldn't happen to be YOUR favourite philosophies would they? |
08-28-2002, 04:01 PM | #6 | |||||
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 717
|
Quote:
And by the way, depending on what you mean by complexity, natural processes will arive at complexity even without randomness and selection. Take for example an aqueous solution of randomly moving molecules of NH3 and CH2O result in this: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
{edited to fix link} [ August 28, 2002: Message edited by: scigirl ]</p> |
|||||
08-28-2002, 05:12 PM | #7 | |||||||||
Regular Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 472
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
However, I don't see how this is directly related to the question of whether evolutionary theories are true or not. One could always posit that evolutionary theories are true, but that at some point a "creator" stepped in and created a mind in humans after they had physically evolved to a certain point. (if you simply could not accept that mind could come from "only" matter) Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Not everything can be explained in simple terms if you want to be accurate. If I asked you to tell me where you lived in one sentence, you could give me your address. If I asked you for step by step directions on how to get to your house from a remote part of gnome alaska in one sentence, you could tell me "get on the highway", but your leaving out a lot of detail. If you then start telling me about specific highways and turns, it would be silly for me to start telling you to quit using highway numbers and keep it simple for me. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
That is, the only way that you can say that chemistry is superior to alchemy is by pointing to scientific experiements and methods. If one says up front that non-scientific methods and principles "count", you have already eliminated any and all methods by which one can make a determination as to whether a discipline is true or not! One could always say that really lead will turn into gold, its just that it can't happen under scientific conditions and I just "know its true". I can produce bars of gold that I say were once lead. How do we know it didn't happen? If I claim absolute knowledge that it did, what methods could be used to invalidate my belief? To take another example, many people currently believe in astrology. Astrology makes lots of predictions that invalidate the fields of astronomy and physics. By your criteria, astronomy and physics are invalidated _unless we appeal to scientific methods_. There are no non-scientific methods that allow us to conclude that physics and astronomy are true and astrology false. My point is that if you take as a starting point that science must answer to non-scientific disciplines , you are admitting in principle that the scientific discipline in question can never be shown to be true, which is why I asked the first question in this thread. If we assert that there are non-sensory ways of knowing, which I think is what has underlined a lot of your posts, then anything at all in the field of science can be invalidated. Physics, chemistry, astronomy, geology and even mathematics have no foundation if not based on what we know through our senses and a shared view of objective reality. If we allow non-scientific evidence into the equation, it will always trump scientific evidence because we have no method other than science for determining the truth or falsehood of such claims. If I claim 2+2=5 and that I "know" this through some non-sensory means, how can you invalidate it? You cannot, and this is exactly the hurdle created by the criteria you posit. It is a road to inevitable solipsism. If you really think that science must be culpable to non-scientific disciplines, then I think you need to revise your original answer as there will never be enough evidence to override what you "know in your heart" through some non-sensory means. Or am I wrong? [ August 28, 2002: Message edited by: Skeptical ]</p> |
|||||||||
08-28-2002, 05:48 PM | #8 | ||
Regular Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 214
|
re: speciation
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
08-28-2002, 06:46 PM | #9 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Seattle
Posts: 4,261
|
Quote:
scigirl |
|
08-28-2002, 06:57 PM | #10 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: US east coast. And www.theroyalforums.com
Posts: 2,829
|
Quote:
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|