What Scientists Really Do

Hi Lee- no one knows any odds pertaining to new allele fixation. Joe

Anything one can gamble on at a Casino is strongly influenced by chance. Joe

Peter, All I am saying is that natural selection is NOT non-random. Any output that is depended on random inputs, will also be random. Joe

Joe,

Biased by chance would mean (in this case) strongly influenced by.

For example? Peter Griffin

Joe,

Natural selection, a result, is totally biased by chance. That means natural selection is biased by chance events, as opposed to being biased by designed events. Chance rules the variation. Heredity is 50/50 at best. And fecundity, can’t tell until after.

Can you express that mathematically? It seems to me you are saying we can't know anything really about natural selection because what's selected might just have been selected because the other thing, the thing that would in fact have been selected, got trod on by something else randomly. Is that about it? Peter Griffin

If you want to be successful, there is huge pressure to come up with some thing novel, and very little to confirm the status quo.

That's a false choice. You forgot about finding novel ways to confirm the status quo. ScottAndrews2

Joe, this is your second warning. Barry Arrington

Biased by chance would mean (in this case) strongly influenced by. Joe

I am neither.

That is debatable. And when scientists attack the status quo pertaining to the ToE they get expelled. Joe

What question did I refuse to answer? And why can't you address my explanation? Also the only selection that is non-random is artificial selection. Natural selection, a result, is totally biased by chance. That means natural selection is biased by chance events, as opposed to being biased by designed events. Chance rules the variation. Heredity is 50/50 at best. And fecundity, can’t tell until after. Or is that not clear enough? Joe

And DrREC was banned for incivility? You have just told me that I am either mentally retarded or dishonest. I am neither. Scientists have vested interests alright, but not in the status quo. They have a vested interest in finding something erroneous about the status quo. Originality is what is valued in science, not replication. Unfortunately, in some respects. Elizabeth Liddle

But it is not false, Barry. It does appear that you have a wrong idea about what makes for success in the scientific world. If you want to be successful, there is huge pressure to come up with some thing novel, and very little to confirm the status quo. If there's a problem, that's the problem - exciting but inadequately tested ideas make the scientific headlines (I mentioned cold fusion, but it's not the only example) while solid replicative work is hard to get published anywhere decent. Same with funding - as I said, "incremental" is a damning word on a grant review. Grant-giving bodies want novel and exciting stuff, not "incremental" work. It's actually a problem. It's just the complete opposite of the problem you think you've identified. Elizabeth Liddle

And scientists do not have a vested interest in the status quo. Dr. Liddle, this is touchingly naïve if you really believe it. Nobody over the age of 10 with an IQ over 80 is that naive, even operating under the principle of charitable reading. William J Murray

"Also the only selection that is non-random is artificial selection. Natural selection, a result, is totally biased by chance." Only X is 100% Y. Therefore Z is 0% Y. Logic Joe. If faster cheetahs eat more, slow and fast cheetahs will reproduce equally well. "totally biased by chance" An impossibility demonstrated by the question you refuse to answer above. pitiful.... DrREC

markf, my next post might interest you. Barry Arrington

Elizabeth, I read your post. The things you say after the sentence I quoted do not make the sentence I quoted any less false. Barry Arrington

I know, also sperm count ... But all that aside, I'm referring to heritability odds, assuming of course, that conception occurs, and ultimately with regard to fixation odds in a given population size. leebowman

Bingo! That is one of the fields I am trained in (though outside of the Anglo-American context). To markf's point (who still hasn't learned not to cite lowest Wiki in such discussions!), there is a lack of respect for SoS predominantly out of fear of exposure and thus discomfort. They'll cite 'immature field,' though it's coming up on 90 yrs! If you knew you were being observed, that the 'mystery' of your 'creativity' were under scrutiny, that the 'holiness' or your peer review process were being watched and deviations from the 'norm' recorded, if the 'citation index' world was found compromised for groupism and tribalism, would you feel as safe in defending 'normal science' or even 'cutting-edge science' as you did before? More importantly, what do 'natural & social science' mean to people and do you want your kid(s) to become one who does this? The answer to the OP's question is that 'Yes, scientists appeal to authority.' Which authority and whose authority become the operative questions. IDists quite obviously appeal to authority too. Gregory

If fecundity is normal or optimal, is the heritability 50/50 in passing along a trait?

It all depends on the personality, if alcohol is involved and if any protection is used. Joe

If fecundity is normal or optimal, is the heritability 50/50 in passing along a trait? The recipient obviously does not share the same trait, so what are the actual odds, or range of odds? Is it possible for the trait to be inherited but become recessive in the progeny? If so, how do the odds change for the progeny to pass it along? I'm not familiar with heritability functions, but would like to be so educated, since it appears to me to possibly be an overlooked but viable fly in the NS ointment? Any explanatory links would be appreciated. leebowman

Let's just back up: Also the only selection that is non-random is artificial selection. Natural selection, a result, is totally biased by chance. That means natural selection is biased by chance events, as opposed to being biased by designed events. Chance rules the variation. Heredity is 50/50 at best. And fecundity, can't tell until after. Or is that not clear enough? Joe

All your thetans are belong to us. Starbuck

"Bias and chance are practically antonyms." Good luck supporting that bit of tripe.

Let's try something simple. If you took the probability distribution for the number of heads obtained in many iterations of ten flips of a fair coin, you'd get a chart that looks like this: http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0312/Rickman/fig2.gif If the distribution was skewed from the expected outcome of a CHANCE process, you would call it ________, and conclude the coin was loaded. Fill in the blank. DrREC

Most scientific papers start with a review of the literature of course, but that's generally to make it clear that the research question is well-founded, and often includes references to conflicting findings. In conclusion, typically, you might write: "our findings are consistent with the findings of X...." or "our findings conflict with those of X; this may because in our study we did Y instead of Z" or "our findings are consistent with those of X, but suggest a different interpretation of their findings..." And then of course there are systematic reviews and meta-analysis, but again this is not "appeal to consensus" but a rigorous attempt to find out what the available published evidence, in total, suggests. Elizabeth Liddle

How can something be biased by chance?

If it is due to blind and undirected processes.

Bias and chance are practically antonyms.

Good luck supporting that bit of tripe. Joe

This post appears to lack a single example of a scientist appealing to authority. I imagine that it is possible to find one - scientists are human after all - and scientists quite often appeal to consensus for good reasons which Lizzie and others explain above. I think you would struggle to find a peer reviewed scientific paper which used authority or consensus as evidence. markf

Yes, I agree Lynch was very clear. Which is why it's important not to extropolate from what Lynch said to some other person's usage of the word. And there isn't "a standard definition" of Darwinism. Elizabeth Liddle

How can something be biased by chance? Bias and chance are practically antonyms. DrREC

The emails and the data speak for themselves. Evos love to giggle at "cdesign proponentists" and here we have everything one could possibly want to expose the fraud of human induced global warming. Sweet... Joe

Barry, you need to read the rest of my post. It's not enough just to be against the consensus! And of course with climate change, we are talking about forecasts with potentially huge implications for millions of human beings, so it's not just a question of which model is right (which we can't test until testing becomes irrelevant) but of risk-benefit calculation. And in any case, you don't need a fancy scientific model to spot the fact that large chunks of Antarctic ice shelf are breaking up and melting! Nor do you need anything more than HS physics to realise that once non-floating ice starts melting (and the flow from Antarctic glaciers has increased substantially since the ice-shelves locking them in have broken up) sea levels will rise. It might seem unnecessarily alarmist to you in Colorado, but to those of us at sea level, it's, well, alarming! So I think climate change is a somewhat special class anyway. I hope the most alarming forecasts are pessimistic, but forewarned is forearmed. Elizabeth Liddle

Is there a field of study (properly so-called) that actually studies “what scientists really do,” and if so, what is it?

Yes. It is called the sociology of scientific knowledge or sometimes Science Studies. Steve Fuller, who sometimes posts on UD, is a professor in the subject. Most scientists who are aware of the discipline have very little respect for it. (I have a masters in Science and Society which overlaps with it) markf

There were at least 8 independent investigatory committees that found no wrongdoing. Further, this doesn't back the claim that research funding goes only to "those who parrot the party line." DrREC

Would sociology of science be what you want? KF kairosfocus

Para, go look up the Climate gate email trails I and II. The mess is truly horrendous, there is an in-group acting like out of control ideologues who are giving those doing serious and careful science a black eye. KF kairosfocus

"Well, yet again, this looks to me like a fuss over no more than different uses of the word “Darwinism”." In what way? I believe Arrington and Lynch are agreed on the definition of Darwinism. Darwinism is saying that the main cause for the origin of the diversity of life is natural selection. Arrington says that Darwinists ignore non-Darwinian evidence, and so does Lynch. I don't see how it is a "fuss over the different uses" - both are talking about the same use of Darwinism. And, as I've pointed out, this is the primary use of the term. Lynch was very clear what he meant by Darwinism. Arrington did not spell out his definition, but why would anyone assume that his definition was anything different than the standard one? johnnyb

Mr. Arrington, Citation needed. paragwinn

Liddle: “And scientists do not have a vested interest in the status quo. They – we – have a huge vested interest in overturning the status quo. That’s where the High Impact Factor journal papers come from, the keys to the gate of research funds.” Dr. Liddle, this is touchingly naïve if you really believe it. Everyone who has even a cursory understanding of the climate debate knows that the research money chases those who parrot the party line climate alarmism the loudest. This is just one example. There are many more. Barry Arrington

This is what is so tragic when “scientists” are worshipped as if they are somehow better human beings. I think you're correct about 'normal human behavior', and that seems to be part of the problem: when people ask what person with title X does, there's a tendency to reply with an imagined ideal and try to pass that off as the reality. Do CEOs and executives put the needs of the company and their customers ahead of their own personal interests? Sure they do. Look at their job description - do you see anything in there about advancing their own interests over those of others'? That settles it. And how about elected officials? They represent their constituents. Advancing their personal power and wealth, or advocating pet causes of others? Show me where it says this in their oath. They don't do that - people just misunderstand government, that's all. nullasalus

And scientists do not have a vested interest in the status quo. They – we – have a huge vested interest in overturning the status quo.

Not if they want to keep their jobs- or at least they have to wait until they have tenure. And the only common descent that has been overwhelmingly demonstrated is that humans have humans babies, cats have kittens and dogs have puppies. Joe

Umm Darwin's basic principle was that natural selection is a designer mimic, which is as sound as (the) ether. Also the only selection that is non-random is artificial selection. Natural selection, a result, is totally biased by chance. Joe

Anyone who does not think that ego and "where is my funding coming from?" don't play a big part in the practice of science is living in a fantasy world -- whether they work in a research field or not. The sinful ( read simply ordinary human ) behavior of scientists should be no surprise. I have never seen any statistics, but I would wager that the field of science has just a high a proportion of hypocrites, sell outs, and out and out fraudsters as any other field which involves sinful human beings. This is what is so tragic when "scientists" are worshipped as if they are somehow better human beings. Just not true. I think many people would be more open to ID if they did not belong to the "church of scientism" -- or if they had a reasonable expectation of the integrity of scientists in general. JDH

Well, yet again, this looks to me like a fuss over no more than different uses of the word "Darwinism". It's perfectly true that we now tend to see "natural selection" as a mere bias on the sampling of the genetic pool in each generation, but that doesn't make Darwinism wrong, but it puts it on a much firmer statistical footing, and makes it clear that the categorical distinction between "random" mutation and "non-random" selection is a misleading one. Both processes are stochastic, and both are biased. But Darwin's basic principle remains sound. Elizabeth Liddle

If I understand the question correctly, then Philosophy of Science is still the correct answer, but the History of Science would also be a correct answer. Philosophers of science study both what scientists *should* do and what they *actually* do. Historians of Science generally study what scientists *have* done. johnnyb

Neil - Unless I misunderstand him, it looks like the Michael Lynch quote (quoted by Moran in the blog post you mention) is making the exact same argument that Barry Arrington is. In fact, Barry's quote:

Tell that to the next Darwinist who gets red in the face, stamps his feed and yells “Darwinism is a fact, fact fact!”

Almost exactly parallels Michael Lynch:

Numerous popularizers of evolution, some with careers focused on defending the teaching of evolution in public schools, are entirely satisfied that a blind adherence to the Darwinian concept of natural selection is a license for such activities. A commonality among all these groups is the near-absence of an appreciation of the most fundamental principles of evolution. Unfortunately, this list extends deep within the life sciences...the uncritical acceptance of natural selection as an explanatory force for all aspects of biodiversity (without any direct evidence) is not much different than invoking an intelligent designer (without any direct evidence)....The vast majority of evolutionary biologists studying morphological, physiological, and or behavioral traits almost always interpret the results in terms of adaptive mechanisms, and they are so convinced of the validity of this approach that virtually no attention is given to the null hypothesis of neutral evolution, despite the availability of methods to do so

Not quite as colorful of language, but essentially the same point. johnnyb

Philosophy of science studies the thoughts, theories and methods of (mainly, natural) scientists, rather than their (individual & social) actions. Actually 'doing science,' however, this is a topic studied by what field(s)? (Say no to suggesting duh-Wiki references!) Elizabeth's humour is, in at least one way, not far off! Praxis... Gregory

In a comment to a recent post Dr. Liddle wrote: “Scientists do not appeal to authority; they appeal to evidence and argument, and all their conclusions are provisional, not absolute.”

She is correct.

Every single scientific revolution, from Newton to Einstein, was met with vociferous opposition by the scientific establishment with a vested interest in the status quo.

This is mostly true. However, it does not contradict what you quote Dr. Liddle as saying.

If I had a dime for every every time I’ve heard “the overwhelming consensus among scientists is [fill in the blank],” I could retire comfortably today.

But that's not an appeal to authority. Nobody is saying "because the consensus says so, therefore it is true." Rather, what is being said is that, given the consensus on the evidence, you will need some rather clear evidence to persuade people otherwise.

Tell that to the next Darwinist who gets red in the face, stamps his feed and yells “Darwinism is a fact, fact fact!”

I don't recall coming across that. There's a lot of "evolution is a fact", but I don't think there's much "Darwinism is a fact." There's actually a lot of intellectual turmoil within the evolution community as to what is the best way of accounting for evolution. It probably all looks like Darwinism to the critics of evolution, but not to the biologists. Larry Moran discusses some of that in a post today at his blog. Neil Rickert

Gregory, it sounds like you're looking for Philosophy of Science. Jammer

Scientology? :p Elizabeth Liddle

Is there a field of study (properly so-called) that actually studies "what scientists really do," and if so, what is it? Gregory

Just our of curiosity, what is Barry Arrington's exposure to the practice of science that trumps that of a scientist who has "been around the scientific block" as he put it? DrREC

"Overwhelming consensus" is not the same as "not provisional". And scientists do not have a vested interest in the status quo. They - we - have a huge vested interest in overturning the status quo. That's where the High Impact Factor journal papers come from, the keys to the gate of research funds. However, and rightly, discoveries that radically alter our existing models are subject to far greater scrutiny than ones that confirm them. If a great deal of evidence supports one model, a quite different model has to do at least as well as the existing model in order to overthrow it. And unfortunately, crank theories that claim to overturn all of known physics are a dime a dozen. Occasionally a real contender turns up though, and they certainly hit the scientific headlines, even if they turn out to be false. Look at all that excitement over Cold Fusion. Or E8 theory. Or the Ekpyrotic Universe. It is certainly harder to get an exciting paper published than a run-of-the-mill replication study, but that's as it should be. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But the payoff is that when you do get it published, it makes big waves, and those are what scientists eat for breakfast. As for "Darwinism is a fact" - depends what you mean. Darwinian processes have been directly observed, both in lab and field. The short-hand for that is "fact". Not even most IDists argue against Darwinian processes as the explanation for what they call "microevolution". Common descent is also pretty overwhelmingly demonstrated. So the next time a Darwinist "gets red in the face, stamps his feed and yells “Darwinism is a fact, fact fact!” ask her what she actually means. You may find you actually agree with her. Elizabeth Liddle

Those who humbly seek after the truth will find that, more often than not, as you pointed out Mr. Arrington, they are in direct opposition to those in positions of power who falsely think they already know the truth. bornagain77