Freethought & Rationalism Archive

tgamble · 01-16-2002, 08:29 AM

Is this quote accurate?

"The first rule for any scientific hypothesis ought to be that it is at least possible to conceive of an observation that would contradict the theory. For what good is a theory that is guaranteed by its internal logical structure to agree with all conceivable observations, irrespective of the real structure of the world?

If scientists are going to use logically unbeatable theories about the world, they might as well give up natural science and take up religion.

Yet is that not exactly the situation with regard to Darwinism? The theory of evolution by natural selection states that changes in the inherited characters of species occur, giving rise to differentiation in space and time, because different genetical types leave different numbers of offspring in different environments. ...

Such a theory can never be falsified, for it asserts that some environmental difference created the conditions for natural selection of a new character. It is existentially quantified so that the failure to find the environmental factor proves nothing, except that one has not looked hard enough.

Can one really imagine observations about nature that would disprove natural selection as a cause of the difference in bill size? The theory of natural selection is then revealed as metaphysical rather than scientific. Natural selection explains nothing because it explains everything."

(Lewontin, Richard C. [Professor of Zoology and Biology, Harvard University], "Testing the Theory of Natural Selection," review of Creed R., ed., "Ecological Genetics and Evolution," Blackwell: Oxford, 1971, in Nature, Vol. 236, March 24, 1972, p.181).

I know about the quotes on talkorigins where he states evolution is a fact and I do realize he's talking about NS. Still, the quote doesn't seem to very accurate. Thanks for the help.

Asha'man · 01-16-2002, 09:15 AM

A scientific theory is only as useful as the predictions it generates. If a theory can be twisted to accommodate all possible evidence, then it cannot make any predictions. Instead, a good theory must draw a line between observations that are allowed within the theory and observations that are not allowed.

So the quote starts out on the right track. However, the idea that evolution is a bad theory is wholly untrue. It very clearly makes predictions. Those predictions are best seen in the realm of genetics, and in the similarity between species based on the distance to their common ancestor. And there is strong evidence that those predictions are correct.

Natural Selection is not really a theory, however. It is an observation: life is a struggle, and some creatures are better able to survive (in a particular environment) than others. Observations are not called upon to make predictions, observations are used to support or refute the predictions made by theories.

In fact, the beauty of evolution is that is takes a small number of basic observations and ties them together in a simple theory with great predictive power.

The problem with �creation science� is exactly the point that Lewontin is trying to get at. It makes no predictions. If a supernatural entity is regularly suspending natural laws, then it makes no sense to even look for those natural laws, and trying to make predictions based on laws that only intermittently apply is equally futile.

As for the authenticity of the quote, I can't say. If Lweontin is a serious scientist, and not a flake, I can't imagine him actually saying this. But that isn't very scientific of me, is it?

tgamble · 01-16-2002, 01:05 PM

Lewentin also stated:

It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a FACT, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a FACT that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a FACT that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a FACT that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a FACT that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a FACT that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.

- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.

This makes the given quote suspect IMO.

scombrid · 01-16-2002, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tgamble:
[QB]Is this quote accurate?

Can one really imagine observations about nature that would disprove natural selection as a cause of the difference in bill size? B]

Yep, sexual selection.

Quetzal · 01-16-2002, 01:24 PM

It's probably a fairly accurate quote. It seems to represent a continuation of the Gould/Lewontin vs Dawkins et al mudslinging. It sounds like another salvo in the "pure Darwinists are blind" pissing contest that started when Dawkins blasted Gould about the importance of the spandrel thing.

The only people that have been helped by this long-running feud are the creationists who get lots and lots of quotes. I recommend Richard Morris's "The Evolutionists: The Struggle for Darwin's Soul" as a great, unbiased, discussion of both sides.

Peez · 01-16-2002, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Can one really imagine observations about nature that would disprove natural selection as a cause of the difference in bill size?
scombrid:
Yep, sexual selection.

This is, perhaps, a semantic argument, but natural selection is usually defined so that it includes sexual selection (sexual selection is one particular kind of natural selection). OTOH, there are those who define natural selection as not including sexual selection, but it is not necessarily so.

Peez

scombrid · 01-16-2002, 02:09 PM

I really know nothing of the quote's context or validity. I was just being a smartass because there are camps that separate sexual selection from natural. Some oddball bird traits appear to counter what pure natural selection would produce and I thought it funny that he used a bird trait for his example.

Sexual selection doesn't always select for traits that are the most advantageous with respect to the environment. (but for extant species living in their niche, who are we to judge) Some rather awkward traits seem to have come through sexual selection. Therefore sexual selection sometimes acts in spite of external selection pressures. Although, they are often indistiguishable from one another so as to be inseparalbe really.

01-16-2002, 08:29 AM	#1
tgamble Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: St. John's, Nfld. Canada Posts: 1,652	Lewontin misquote? Is this quote accurate? "The first rule for any scientific hypothesis ought to be that it is at least possible to conceive of an observation that would contradict the theory. For what good is a theory that is guaranteed by its internal logical structure to agree with all conceivable observations, irrespective of the real structure of the world? If scientists are going to use logically unbeatable theories about the world, they might as well give up natural science and take up religion. Yet is that not exactly the situation with regard to Darwinism? The theory of evolution by natural selection states that changes in the inherited characters of species occur, giving rise to differentiation in space and time, because different genetical types leave different numbers of offspring in different environments. ... Such a theory can never be falsified, for it asserts that some environmental difference created the conditions for natural selection of a new character. It is existentially quantified so that the failure to find the environmental factor proves nothing, except that one has not looked hard enough. Can one really imagine observations about nature that would disprove natural selection as a cause of the difference in bill size? The theory of natural selection is then revealed as metaphysical rather than scientific. Natural selection explains nothing because it explains everything." (Lewontin, Richard C. [Professor of Zoology and Biology, Harvard University], "Testing the Theory of Natural Selection," review of Creed R., ed., "Ecological Genetics and Evolution," Blackwell: Oxford, 1971, in Nature, Vol. 236, March 24, 1972, p.181). I know about the quotes on talkorigins where he states evolution is a fact and I do realize he's talking about NS. Still, the quote doesn't seem to very accurate. Thanks for the help.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-16-2002, 09:15 AM	#2
Asha'man Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: southeast Posts: 2,526	A scientific theory is only as useful as the predictions it generates. If a theory can be twisted to accommodate all possible evidence, then it cannot make any predictions. Instead, a good theory must draw a line between observations that are allowed within the theory and observations that are not allowed. So the quote starts out on the right track. However, the idea that evolution is a bad theory is wholly untrue. It very clearly makes predictions. Those predictions are best seen in the realm of genetics, and in the similarity between species based on the distance to their common ancestor. And there is strong evidence that those predictions are correct. Natural Selection is not really a theory, however. It is an observation: life is a struggle, and some creatures are better able to survive (in a particular environment) than others. Observations are not called upon to make predictions, observations are used to support or refute the predictions made by theories. In fact, the beauty of evolution is that is takes a small number of basic observations and ties them together in a simple theory with great predictive power. The problem with �creation science� is exactly the point that Lewontin is trying to get at. It makes no predictions. If a supernatural entity is regularly suspending natural laws, then it makes no sense to even look for those natural laws, and trying to make predictions based on laws that only intermittently apply is equally futile. As for the authenticity of the quote, I can't say. If Lweontin is a serious scientist, and not a flake, I can't imagine him actually saying this. But that isn't very scientific of me, is it?

01-16-2002, 01:05 PM	#3
tgamble Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: St. John's, Nfld. Canada Posts: 1,652	Lewentin also stated: It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a FACT, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution. It is a FACT that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old. It is a FACT that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old. It is a FACT that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago. It is a FACT that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now. It is a FACT that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun. The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution. - R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit. This makes the given quote suspect IMO.

01-16-2002, 01:24 PM	#5
Quetzal Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ecuador Posts: 738	It's probably a fairly accurate quote. It seems to represent a continuation of the Gould/Lewontin vs Dawkins et al mudslinging. It sounds like another salvo in the "pure Darwinists are blind" pissing contest that started when Dawkins blasted Gould about the importance of the spandrel thing. The only people that have been helped by this long-running feud are the creationists who get lots and lots of quotes. I recommend Richard Morris's "The Evolutionists: The Struggle for Darwin's Soul" as a great, unbiased, discussion of both sides.

01-16-2002, 02:09 PM	#7
scombrid Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Central Florida Posts: 2,759	I really know nothing of the quote's context or validity. I was just being a smartass because there are camps that separate sexual selection from natural. Some oddball bird traits appear to counter what pure natural selection would produce and I thought it funny that he used a bird trait for his example. Sexual selection doesn't always select for traits that are the most advantageous with respect to the environment. (but for extant species living in their niche, who are we to judge) Some rather awkward traits seem to have come through sexual selection. Therefore sexual selection sometimes acts in spite of external selection pressures. Although, they are often indistiguishable from one another so as to be inseparalbe really.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.