Vorkosigan

*bump*

John Galt, are you around?

Fled, it appears.

I'd be happy to debate him over Plantinga.

Vorkosigan

caritas

ok John, I'll give it a try. (My, I step out for a few days thinking the thread is moribund...). In the analogy with the trees we can usually tell if they are planted but can we tell if a tree is naturally seeded? Specifically, is there a feature absent in the planted tree that would be present in the naturally seeded tree so that we could fairly separate a series starting with an original planting from a series with natural seeding all the way back? Sometimes. Some trees like persimmon, pawpaw and walnut normally, when naturally seeded, form a thick taproot. But when nursery-grown and transplanted the taproot is absent. If we had a continuous buried record of root crowns for a series of black walnut forests on a site it would be simple task to check if the lowest layer of buried root crowns was, unlike those of the higher layers, absent taproots. If so then, in this idealized example, we could suspect a non-natural origin of this series of walnut forests.
Real fossil sequences, from what I read, are never this tidy. I tend to agree with Morpho that it may be impossible in the real world of paleontology to find a test case like my analogy.

Peez

I was aware of your qualification, but you seem to be missing the point. How do you know that I am lacking "an elementary knowledge/appreciation of the epistemology of (aspects of) received science"? If it is just the fact that I have claimed that evolution is a fact, then you are making a circular argument. Please explain.

Peez

John Galt, Jr.

beausoleil

**
This really doesn't touch the central issue here-the issue of the descriptive accuracy of what scientists produce when 'theorizing'. To put it another way, it is not what scientists say when they are 'doing science' that is the problem; It is what they say (sometimes) about what they produce when they are doing science that is the problem. Given the epistemic nature of the scientific enterprise, it might very well be that the evolutionary story is the story on which scientists should focus at this time. However, the fact that it is acceptable science does not mean that it is acceptable history.

******
Vorkosigan,

It seems clear that you are not distinguishing between the confirmation of a hypothesis (story, theory) by data, and what Hempel and other philosophers of science have called crucial tests-the support for one hypothesis over another. It is that latter that I have asked for in the post that began this thread.

Or, you don't know what 'begging the question is.

*****

Morpho,
I
So, do I understand you correctly? You do agree that the fossil record, in itself and by itself, does not/cannot discriminate between the two stories and that those who, in previous posts, seem to have indicated that they think it does so discriminate are mistaken.

If the ASH is true then one might find (or be given) 'films/recordings' or documentation of some kind, someday by those who have done the seeding. This is a possible consequence of the seeding. Interestingly, it is also a possibility with respect to the 'natural selection' story as well. Maybe visitors have documented the history of this planet. Of course, there may not ever be anything that will confirm one story over the other-- but this is not a flaw in the ASH. Rather it is just the consequence of the fact that we are talking about (remote) history, and history is often in inaccessible to us.

It may very well be that because of the non-testable (once again, not an 'in principle non-testability') aspects here, scientists should work with the evolutionary hypothesis. BUT, this fact does not, in itself, make it any more likely that the evolutionary story is true.

Films of the sort mentioned above. Once you, yourself, let go of the idea that evidence must be (perhaps) fossil evidence of some kind, you can probably offer some suggestions of your own. It isn’t difficult.

A bit of a recap: There seems to be a presuppostion at work in your post and in the posts of others that there must (some sense of ‘must&#8217 be some way of testing ( in a very narrowly defined way) with respect to these two stories. But, it may very well be the case that, as a matter of simple fact, there is no such test and that we cannot find out. However, this latter fact, if it is a fact, is not a flaw in my discussion. It is a fact about a historical research in general.

It may be that, for this reason, such hypothses do not get considered (and rightly so) when scientists 'do science'. But this fact has an impact on what one can say about the theories/stories that become accepted by science.

John Galt, Jr.

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: John Galt, Jr. ]</p>

John Galt, Jr.

Clutch,

I said, "Why don't you take some time to think about your responses before you fire them off. Or perhaps read the posts, or both.

I have asked for the empirical evidence (in the fossil record) that discriminates between the two hypotheses. That was the question that started the entire thread and it is the question that you and so many others seem to have difficulty focusing on.

Try it again.

You , and others, are making asses out of yourselves, attacking again and again positions that I have not presented here and do not hold."

You responded,

Once again, the analogy that you offer implicitly attributes to me a position that I have not presented and that I do not hold.

I trust that you will agree that there can be rather ordinary circumstances in which available empirical evidence does not evidentially discriminate between two or more possibilities. This can happen in criminal cases. It is, as I understand it, the situation with respect to the transportation of the stones out of which Stonehenge is constructed. Cases in which this has happened and can happen abound.

The hypothesis that I have proposed (in either of its forms) is not such that it is, in principle, impossible to produce empirical evidence that would decide the issue. It is fairly easy to describe the kind of evidence, the kind of documentation, that would decide it. Moreover, it is an on-going epistemic possibility that evidence of the sort that I have described above (films) might someday become available. Do we have any positive reason to think that such films will turn up. Nope!, none at all, to the best of my knowledge. But that is irrelevant to the point. It may very well be the case that there is no such empirical evidence and that there never will be. But to acknowledge that is not to allow the radical scepticism that you would saddle me with. It is to simply draw the consequences of our epistemic situation with respect to this issue-- the history of the occurrence of the species on this planet. Our epistemic situation, with resepct to the history of the species on this planet is not unique. In fact, it is our epistemic situation with respect to many, many, other aspects of the history of this planet, including many aspects of portions of its history that are fairly recent. You seem to have run together 'no possible evidence 'in principle' ' with 'no evidence available as a matter of fact'.

It is worth noting that in your post, you have acknowleged all that I have wanted to establish from the outset—that the empirical evidence for the evolution story does not weigh against the other hypothesis that I have proposed. You acknowledge this when you present the epistemic logic of the Cartesian sceptical argumentation.

The Cartesian sceptical argumentation is fatally flawed, but not at the point where it turns on the ambiguity of what the argument takes to the available evidence. But all of that is matter for another time and another place.

John Galt, Jr.


*****
Vorkosigan

You said,

[ July 15, 2002: Message edited by: John Galt, Jr. ]</p>

Mageth

I am not a creationist, I am not a theist, nor am I an atheist, nor am I an agnostic (these are categories for ‘amateur’ philosophers).



To enlighten the unworthy asses among us, what are you? Deist? Pantheist? Or some other category reserved for self-professed non-amateur philosophers?

My father owned an ass once. I used to ride it in the fields. It, like you, was not a creationist, a theist, an atheist or an agnostic. As a matter of fact, it was just an ass.

hezekiah jones

lmao @ Galt.

Hurry back Vorkosigan.

Tim Thompson

Galt: I have asked for the empirical evidence (in the fossil record) that discriminates between the two hypotheses.

On very fundamental grounds, the question is without meaning. It is not possible to "discriminate" the creation hypothesis at all, because it is in all respects totally arbitrary. therefore, its realtion to empirical evidence is equally arbittrary. the creation hypothesis can always be brought into total accord with any conceivable set of facts, and is therefore devoid of empirical value.

However, the evolutionary hypothesis is quite different. It makes fairly specific predictions about how the fossil record should look, both in small detail, and in large scale structure. That evidence can be found in the literary record.

The following paper offers empirical evidence to show that the fossil record is a reliable chronicle of life's history. It does not appear to suffer from any systematic weakness.

Quality of the fossil record through time
M.J. Benton, M.A. Wills & R. Hitchin
Nature 403(6769): 534-537, February 3, 2000

ABSTRACT: Does the fossil record present a true picture of the history of life (1-3), or should it be viewed with caution (4-6)? Raup (5) argued that plots of the diversification of life (2) were an illustration of bias: the older the rocks, the less we know. The debate was partially resolved by the observation (7) that different data sets gave similar patterns of rising diversity through time. Here we show that new assessment methods, in which the order of fossils in the rocks (stratigraphy) is compared with the order inherent in evolutionary trees (phylogeny), provide a more convincing analytical tool: stratigraphy and phylogeny offer independent data on history. Assessments of congruence between stratigraphy and phylogeny for a sample of 1,000 published phylogenies show no evidence of diminution of quality backwards in time. Ancient rocks clearly preserve less information, on average, than more recent rocks. However, if scaled to the stratigraphic level of the stage and the taxonomic level of the family, the past 540 million years of the fossil record provide uniformly good documentation of the life of the past.

Having established that the fossil record is in general a reliable chronicle, we can proceed to examine details. The evolutionary hypothesis relies, for instance, on speciation as a source of macroevolution. That hypothesis requires a consistent pattern of similarity with time to be revealed in the fossil record. The creation hypothesis, on the other hand, requires no pattern at all, and can be arbitrarily molded to fit any observed pattern. The fossil record appears in fact to show the patterns that the evolutionary hypothesis predicts, as shown in the following paper.

Speciation in the fossil record
M.J Benton & P.N. Pearson
Trends in Ecology & Evolution 16(7): 405-411, Sp. Iss., SI July 2001

ABSTRACT: It is easy to claim that the fossil record says nothing about speciation because the biological species concept (which relies on interbreeding) cannot be applied to it and genetic studies cannot be carried out on it. However, fossilized organisms are often preserved in sufficient abundance for populations of intergrading morphs to be recognized, which, by analogy with modern populations, are probably biological species. Moreover, the fossil record is our only reliable documentation of the sequence of past events over long time intervals: the processes of speciation are generally too slow to be observed directly, and permanent reproductive isolation can only be verified with hindsight. Recent work has shown that some parts of the fossil record are astonishingly complete and well documented, and patterns of lineage splitting can be examined in detail. Marine plankton appear to show gradual speciation. with subsequent morphological differentiation of lineages taking up to 500 000 years to occur. Marine invertebrates and vertebrates more commonly show punctuated patterns, with periods of rapid speciation followed by long-term stasis of species lineages.

Having established evidence to show that speciation (and therefore macroevolution) is represented in the fossil record, there are still otehr patterns to look for. More modern mathematical models of evolution, such as the Bak-Sneppen model, or a fitness landscape model, suggest that evolution has its own internal dynamics, that reflect "chaos" & self organized criticality. Patterns seen in the fossil record are consistent with this hypothesis, as demonstrated in the following paper.

Evolutionary patterns from mass originations and mass extinctions
D. Hewzulla et al.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series B - Biological Sciences 354(1382): 463-469, February 28, 1999

ABSTRACT: The Fossil Record 2 database gives a stratigraphic range of most known animal and plant families. We have used it to plot the number of families extant through time and argue for an exponential fit, rather than a logistic one, on the basis of power spectra of the residuals from the exponential. The times of origins and extinctions, when plotted for all families of marine and terrestrial organisms over the last 600 Myr, reveal different origination and extinction peaks. This suggests that patterns of biological evolution are driven by its own internal dynamics as well as responding to upsets from external causes. Spectral analysis shows that the residuals from the exponential model of the marine system are more consistent with 1/f noise suggesting that self-organized criticality phenomena may be involved.

So we have thus far established evidence that macroevolutionary patterns of speciation, and origin & extinction match the expectations of the evolutionary hypohtesis. Another way to match the fossil record is to create phylogenetic trees independently, either by molecular or morphological studies, and then compare these to the same constructs based on the fossil record. If the evolutionary hypothesis is true, then there should be a match between the two sets of phylogenetic trees. Examination of the fossil record provides encouraging results, which imply the match that is expected from the evolutionary hypothesis.

Molecular and morphological phylogenies of mammals: Congruence with stratigraphic data
M.J. Benton
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 9(3): 398-407, June 1998

ABSTRACT: Tests of a sample of 206 cladograms of mammals show that morphological data seem to predict phylogenies that match the known fossil record better than molecular trees. Three metrics that assess the rank order of branching points, the stratigraphic consistency of those nodes, and the ratio of ghost range to known range show a considerable diversity of values. Some published trees show excellent matching with fossil-record data; others show almost no correspondence whatsoever. Morphological trees are nearly twice as good as molecular trees in terms of matching of the rank orders of nodes and oldest fossils, while morphological trees are 10% better than molecular in terms of stratigraphic consistency of the nodes. The ratios of ghost range to known range are lower for molecular trees. Among the molecular trees, those based on gene data are considerably better than those based on protein sequences, at least in terms of the rank order of nodes and the stratigraphic consistency of nodes. Protein trees, however, were best of all in terms of minimizing the proportion of ghost range. These findings probably indicate real phenomena, but the match of molecular trees to the expectations of stratigraphy may improve as the study of molecular phylogeny matures.

I would say that the abstracts offered here, and the attendant papers, constitute empirical evidence in support of the evolutionary hypothesis. I would also say that discriminating against creation, as noted above, is impossible, since there are no discriminatory features in the creation hypothesis.

Vorkosigan

Thanks for coming back....

I have asked for the empirical evidence (in the fossil record) that discriminates between the two hypotheses. That was the question that started the entire thread and it is the question that you and so many others seem to have difficulty focusing on.

It's been focused on. Several of us have noted that since the Creation concept, at least as Plantinga presents it, is non-testable, it is not a hypothesis, and hence your question is basically meaningless. See, for example, Tim Thompson's remarks in the post preceding this one.

I have no inclination to defend Plantinga’s views regarding the comparative likelihood of the two stories he delimits.

Plantinga discusses one story (Creationism) and one theory (evolution). If you do not want to defend or discuss it, why did you raise it?

I am not a creationist, I am not a theist, nor am I an atheist, nor am I an agnostic (categorization of this kind is for ‘amateur’ philosophers).

It is good to know you're a professional. I assume, then, that you can outline what your views might be? I am an evolutionary naturalist who, following Giere in <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0226292061/internetinfidelsA/" target="_blank">Explaining Science : A Cognitive Approach(Science and Its Conceptual Foundations)</a>, believes that philosophy cannot explain science.

The point of the reference to Plantinga’s essay was merely to display a more detailed use/treatment of the ambiguous data that the fossil record provides.

Plantinga's treatment is not at all detailed. He fails to understand the major issues involved, makes numerous errors, and leaves out some of the most powerful data against his position.

Most, if not all, of what you provided is either beside the main point, or, as an attempt to undermine the ‘ambiguity of the data’ claim, question-begging in the most fundamental way.

The data is un-ambiguous. As I said, common descent is supported by two independent lines of evidence. It is unambiguous in the extreme. The only recourse is to do what Plantinga actually did -- fall back on Last Thursdayism.

Natural selection and genetic change are similarly supported unambiguously by observations of selection processes and genetic change in the lab and in the field. They can also be seen in the fossil record. Again, all Plantinga can do is claim that god made the world the way it is. This is not a testable hypothesis. In your view, how could such a claim be tested?

Question: Are you a native speaker of English? Some of the responses that you make to parts of Plantinga’s essay suggest that you don’t understand the englsih sentences.

I'd love to see some examples.

It seems clear that you are not distinguishing between the confirmation of a hypothesis (story, theory) by data, and what Hempel and other philosophers of science have called crucial tests-the support for one hypothesis over another. It is that latter that I have asked for in the post that began this thread.

Or, you don't know what 'begging the question is.

Or, perhaps I have a much richer view of the concept than you.

I do not know why you mention Hempel, who argued against the idea of "crucial tests" as determining whether theories stand or fall. Hempel's view was that a crucial test could not refute a hypothesis, but at most show that a new direction in the research project was required. See Hempel's Aspects of Scientific Explanation, published in '65, but collects his 1951 paper where he argues against this. Hempel is known for Inductive-Statistical models, not "crucial tests." Are you perhaps reading his The Philosophy of Science?

Theories, as Duhem put it, are groups of hypotheses that are tested in bundles. Lakatos makes this same point in his paper on the Kuhnian vs. Popperian research programs, collected in Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge. Hempel also noted this in his discussion of auxilliary hypotheses. He argued that there could be no crucial tests because tests are not performed in isolation, but are connected to bundles of auxilliary hypotheses.

So there isn't any "crucial test" that can confirm evolution over creation. Hypotheses are tested in bundles (Duhem) or series of theories (Lakatos). Evolution is supported over creation by the weight of evidence and argument. This weight of evidence includes the fact of common descent, as well as observations of selection and mutation occurring in the real world.

Creationism, as Plantinga describes it, cannot be tested, because he believes in a version of Last Thursdayism, in which Ya created the world with the appearance of age. But where creationists make testable empirical claims, they are always shown to be wrong. For example, some creationists claim that there was a universal Flood about 4,500 years ago. There is no scientific basis for this claim; they make this claim because their holy records say it was so. This is an empirical claim, and can be tested. Since no evidence supports a Flood, and positive evidence disconfirms it, at least that portion of the Creationist claim is incorrect.

Because hypotheses are tested in bundles -- as a professional, not amateur, I am sure you are aware of this -- a single erroneous claim does not destroy creationism. But creationists also claim that god made "kinds" in accordance with the Bible. Again, no evidence for such kinds exists, and no creationist has ever been able to erect a testable definition. Meanwhile, scientific species concepts have been confirmed in a number of ways, from field and lab work, to ethnographic inquiry. So another creationist claim falls.

If you look at specific claims, you will see that across the range of empirical and philosophical issues, creationism fails badly. It can supply no mechanisms, no definitions, no testable theory, no real-world applications, no holes in the current evolutionary model, provides no better explanation of the data, provides no areas for further research, and is based in turn on claims that are unproven -- god is not known to exist. Evolution provides all of the above, plus is based on processes known to exist, selection operating under natural law.

It is this massive, across-the-board failure of young-earth creationism that has caused it to be rejected by all thinking scientists. There is no "crucial test" because no "crucial test" is possible. The entire idea of "crucial test" is erroneous. Grand theories like Evolution, Relativity, the Standard Model or Plate Tectonics, are built up out of many different pieces of evidence and argument.

Let us examine again your remarks above:

• It seems clear that you are not distinguishing between the confirmation of a hypothesis (story, theory) by data, and what Hempel and other philosophers of science have called crucial tests-the support for one hypothesis over another.

It is clear that you are operating under a misunderstanding, an error I can hardly credit in a professional like yourself. Hypotheses are confirmed or disconfirmed by data. Such data may occur in the form of a test, or it may be developed by observations in the field. In either case, it is still "data," so there is no difference between "data" and "test" like you appear to imply above. For example, Jane Goodall's observation of "warfare" among chimps disproved the view that chimps were peaceful. She was not performing a "crucial test," but simply gathering data. Similarly, data gathered since 1965, sparked by the discovery of Deinonychus, has convinced paleontologists that dinosaur metabolism is a lot more complex than previously thought. Again, there was no "crucial test" but simply an observation in the field that sparked new theorizing. Further data has tended to support the new ideas of dinosaur metabolism.

To look at one "crucial test," the celebrated 1919 observation of gravity bending light that was taken to confirm Einstein's theory was certainly a test, but it was the data that confirmed or disconfirmed it. There simply isn't any difference between data and crucial test like the one you are positing above. All data is a test of the current view, regardless of whether it is gathered in patient field observation over many years, or in dramatic experiments that change many minds at once. That is what makes science so exciting -- the knowledge that at any moment, at any lab or field site on earth, the current view may be overturned by new data, arguments, understandings or theories.

Vorkosigan

[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: Vorkosigan ]</p>

Starboy

Mr. Galt,

In this scenario you describe, are we allowed to perform experiments?

Starboy