One of the great things about UD is the insights that often come up in the comment boxes, by design and inadvertently. And here (at 147 in the Chemist speaks out thread) we have ecs2 responding to the same “he said it” clip I highlighted yesterday. He then continues later in the thread, in response to NM at 150.
Let us watch:
_________________
NM: >>“Sigh. You really have no idea at all about this stuff, do you?
Here’s the issue. Picture, in your head, all 5000 mammal species currently living on the planet. Now think of how many individuals are in each species — some are almost extinct, some have populations of billions. Now think about how each of these individuals lives and reproduces and dies over the years. Now add in how all of these individuals compete with each other, each each other, etc. Continue this process for millions of years, with species splitting and going extinct, sometimes randomly, sometimes due to climate change, sometimes due to invasions of other species, etc. Add in continents moving around on the globe, ice sheets advancing and retreating, and tens of thousands of other species of vertebrates plus hundreds of thousands of plant species and millions of insect species.
Then imagine what this process would look like if all you had was a very incomplete sample with lots of biases, in the form of fossils, most of which are fragmentary.
Suppose you are interested in doing science, and you want to develop hypotheses about the patterns you observe, and developed the data and statistical methods to rigorously test those hypotheses.
Now you’re getting some vague sense of what macroevolutionary studies are really about, why it requires actual training and work to be able to avoid talking nonsense about the topic, and why you can’t just read a popular book or two and blithely assume you know what you are talking about.”>>
ecs2: >>I don’t dispute your science. Not because I accept it, nor because I deny it, but because I am a learner in this area and don’t feel I have sufficient knowledge to discuss intelligently.
But I do have some comments on the quote above. It seems that what you are saying is that this is difficult. That there is not as much evidence as one would like, that you are have piecing together the theory based on fragments of insight.
This is understandable. It would be expected there will be error in this process. There will be surprises where theory must be revised. That the scientists involved should be very conservative in their judgments and conclusions.
The problem is this is the opposite of the approach I see. I see claims that evolution is true, that the evidence is “overwhelming” and similar words from that section of the thesaurus. I see grandiose narratives, speculative interpolation, and so on.
This is not science as I was taught it. This is not the scientific process I was taught. Good science doesn’t blackball alternative or minority theories or opinions. Good science doesn’t defend, protect, or promote a favored theory. Good science doesn’t discount the opinion of scientists from other fields who note where a general theory isn’t supported by theory within their field. Good science let’s the evidence speak for science rather than scientists.
But, in the end, the approach I see in evolutionary biology (some of which you have demonstrated in this thread) is damaging, most of all to theory of evolution itself.
Abuses of the scientific process contribute to increased skepticism – it raises the guard of those who are not informed and see only the human behaviors surrounding the science. And the truth is those behaviors don’t influence whether the science is ‘true’ or not.
I am still open to the theory of evolution. I still want to learn more and follow the evidence where it leads. But I admit that I am particularly cautious as I research it because of the approach of evolutionists in championing their theory.>>
[–> NM replies at 150, which ecs2 then excerpts. It should be noted that (as far as I have seen in following the exchanges) there has been no accusation of general fraud — what “bogus” means — in the field of evolutionary biology, though there have been concerns over bias, error and the inherent limitations of science especially where the objects of research, cannot be directly observed. Also, of course, there have been noteworthy hoaxes and frauds, such as Piltdown and apparently the Feathered Dinosaurs of the late 1990’s. In addition, there have been serious errors such as not only the Nebraska man of the 1920’s “reconstructed” from the tooth of a pig, but also the suggested early whale of the 1990’s that turned out to be nothing like the early reconstructions. Also, there have been notorious debates and contentions such as over KNM-ER 1470 and related dating of isochron radioactive samples. Here, the fundamental challenge is that we face the deep and unobservable past of origins, and may only examine traces from that past that is forever gone from our direct reach. Thus, we make models and explain on patterns of cause and effect that we may observe in the present that give rise to similar effects to the items we find as traces from the past. NM’s declaration that we are dismissing his field as “bogus” was corrected already, but unfortunately, it appears again. This therefore seems to be a polarising and generally unfair misrepresentation of the questions and challenges being raised, one maintained in the teeth of headlined correction, and it should cease. There are also several other serious distortions that call for editorial notes like this, following.]
NM, 150: >> http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/s…..ations.php
I don’t dispute your science. Not because I accept it, nor because I deny it, but because I am a learner in this area and don’t feel I have sufficient knowledge to discuss intelligently.
But I do have some comments on the quote above. It seems that what you are saying is that this is difficult. That there is not as much evidence as one would like, that you are have piecing together the theory based on fragments of insight.
The problem is this is the opposite of the approach I see. I see claims that evolution is true, that the evidence is “overwhelming” and similar words from that section of the thesaurus. I see grandiose narratives, speculative interpolation, and so on.
The evidence of some big pattern — e.g. common ancestry — can be overwhelming, without every last detail being known. The evidence for plate tectonics is overwhelming, yet we don’t know the position of every grain of sand at every point in time, or even the exact position of every fragment of every tectonic plate at every point in time.
Science is about making good approximations, not omniscience.
This is not science as I was taught it. This is not the scientific process I was taught.
A lot of people were taught an oversimplified and basically fake version of “The Scientific Method”, which was based on the assumption that all science is based on lab experiments and that it follows a black-and-white step-by-step process. The actual process is more like this:
http://undsci.berkeley.edu/art…..ceworks_01
[Insert image:]
Good science doesn’t blackball alternative or minority theories or opinions. Good science doesn’t defend, protect, or promote a favored theory.
So, you’re in favor of giving equal time in chemistry classes to the idea that Atomic Theory is false. Right? Oh, and homeopathy. [–> with all due respect, this is a strawman caricature of ecs2’s remarks]
Good science doesn’t discount the opinion of scientists from other fields who note where a general theory isn’t supported by theory within their field. Good science let’s the evidence speak for science rather than scientists.
I’ve been the only one citing actual evidence in these macroevolution threads. All the UD regulars are just throwing up objections based on their personal lack of understanding of these topics,
[–> A strawman caricature, hasty generalisation and dismissal of serious and well-known objections, some of which are in fact citing evidence, others of which are addressing interpretation issues regarding well known evidence such as the pattern of sudden appearances, stasis and disappearance in the fossil record and cases such as the Cambrian fossils.]
and then pretending that they represent huge crucial gaps in the entire field.
You guys are the ones afraid to follow the evidence wherever it leads. If you were actually brave enough to do so, you would admit that transitional fossils are common, that common ancestry is overwhelmingly supported, etc.
[–> In fact, as NM knows or should know, design theory is neutral on the question of common descent, as can be seen from the view of Michael Behe, one of the two leading design theorists, who accepts common descent; as do many supporters of Design thought here at UD. What it is raising, is the question as to whether, via Common Descent, front loading or otherwise, there are signs in the world of life and in the cosmos more broadly that point — on empirical testing — to design as a key causal feature of our world. That is, we must distinguish (a) limited common descent, (b) universal common descent and (c) blind watchmaker thesis universal common descent; if we are to be fair to the various view out there. E.g. even, many modern Young Earth Creationists hold that “species” is an ambiguous concept and speak of “created kinds” or “baramins,” which go up to the level of a Family or the like in typical taxonomical categories and would see common descent as active through variation and adaptation within the kind. Moreover, what I have just summarised is immediately accessible and directly observable, even well known here and now in the present. NM, if you — with your background of having been a public relations person for the NCSE (a leading Darwinism advocacy group), cannot be trusted to accurately and fairly summarise what we can all directly see here and now, how can we trust you to be objective and fair on traces and interpretations on events that may lie 500+ to 3,500+ MYA? And, does this not constitute “fear of facing evidence,” easily accessible evidence?]
But, in the end, the approach I see in evolutionary biology (some of which you have demonstrated in this thread) is damaging, most of all to theory of evolution itself.
Abuses of the scientific process contribute to increased skepticism – it raises the guard of those who are not informed and see only the human behaviors surrounding the science. And the truth is those behaviors don’t influence whether the science is ‘true’ or not.
I am still open to the theory of evolution. I still want to learn more and follow the evidence where it leads. But I admit that I am particularly cautious as I research it because of the approach of evolutionists in championing their theory.
I try to be patient. But I’m human. When people who don’t know what they are talking about start declaring my field bogus, and then start blaming it for Nazis etc., I get annoyed. Anyone would be.
[–> As noted, this is a strawman caricature of objections. In addition, no-one has been
raising the issue of the ethical challenges of materialism and of scientific racism that was deeply connected to Darwinism in Germany and elsewhere that did contribute beyond reasonable dispute to the rise of eugenics and did historically contribute to the genocides carried out by Nazi Germany. A responsible view of the ethical responsibilities of science in society, would frankly address such troubling issues from history. And, without trying to use this as an atmosphere-poisoning distractor, as this comment by NM plainly opens up.]
My advice for you is to keep reading, and start testing the creationist/antievolution claims for yourself.
[–> NM/NCSE know or should know, that design theory is not equivalent to creationism, or to antievolutionism. However, this rhetorically convenient conflation has consistently been used, despite repeated correction. In addition, serious concerns on the limitations of evolutionary materialistic, blind watchmaker thesis narratives of the past of origins, are too often brushed aside as ” creationism” or the like.]
Is it really true that there are no transitional fossils? Start there and then start reading. It won’t be long.
[–> This ducks the issues just above, and fails to address the vexed question of the dominance of the fossil record at its various levels, of suddenness of appearance, stasis and disappearance. If the fundamentally gradualist, incrementally emergent tree of life model were true, from the root up, and if this were overwhelmingly evident to the point that we are justified in teaching High School students and the general public that this is a “fact,” the overwhelming majority of the fossil record should be of the many, many transitional forms — samples do strongly tend to reflect the bulk of a distribution, however crudely; and, arguably, many such should be quite evident in the world today. In addition, there is a basic challenge that from the root on up, the Darwinist three of life needs to be a tub that stands on its own bottom. That is, we need to see good warrant for the blind watchmaker thesis narrative on origin of life. We need to see good evidence on the pattern of chance variation and differential reproductive success in ecological zones, leading tot he descent with unlimited modification that accounts for the various tree of life models [I here advert to the inconsistencies between traditional trees and the various molecular ones]. It also needs to credibly account for the origin of human language and mind as a knowing, reasoning, perceiving entity required for such a theory to exist and have credibility. NM knows or should know that the 6,000 word UD Darwinism essay challenge of Sept 23 on, is still standing, coming on five months without a serious response, though at least one has been promised. ]>>
ecs, 173: >>N.Matzke @150
“The evidence of some big pattern — e.g. common ancestry — can be overwhelming, without every last detail being known…Science is about making good approximations, not omniscience.”
This really evades my point, which was that you can’t do these things together:
1) in one aspect, articulate how difficult and explorative the process of building evolutionary theory is
2) in a separate aspect, act like these delicate and hard-to-build-and-interpet theories are bulletproof articulate how sound the theory is and how ‘overwhelming’ the evidence is
3) in a third aspect, act like the theories are beyond reproof, flippantly and rudely rebuffing eminent scientists who have questions.
One who tries to express these three things at once looks silly.
– If #1 then not #2. That is, if there is less evidence is desired and there are holes where interpolation is required, then the theory can’t possibly establish the confidence to state #2.
– If #2 then not #3. That is, if the evidence is overwhelming and the theory is sound, then you are happy to discuss it with other scientists whose fields overlap and you would expect your theory to hold up to those inquiries.
And so on. >>
ecs2, 174: >>
“A lot of people were taught an oversimplified and basically fake version of “The Scientific Method” …”
[–> In context, this is dismissing ecs2’s views on the methods of science as ill-informed; cf. a 101 here on this at IOSE, especially the expanded description of scientific methods; also here on on the debate in Kansas on scientific methods as taught in schools, in which NM’s former institution, NCSE, played a significant part. Bottomline: the “method” traditionally commonly taught in schools is somewhat simplistic, but it does capture some major and characteristic features of scientific investigation. In addition those trained in pure and applied sciences to graduate level are inculcated in a tradition of research that goes beyond what any description or definition can summarise — experience based expertise.]
This one actually annoyed me a little. I have a PhD in Engineering. I feel sufficiently familiar with the scientific process. You seem to make poor assumptions about those you read – because one has simple or rudimentary knowledge in your area of expertise does not make them simple overall or in other focused areas.
Two observations based on the link to ‘the real process of science’ which jumps off the page you linked.
1) There is no room on that graphic for the behaviors I mentioned. Of course science can be interpolative and exploratory. But the interpolation and exploration should still be dictated by the data. When I say grandiose narratives and speculative interpolation, I am saying that in my view some of what I have seen from the evolution community (not you specifically) violates the boundary condition of following rather than leading the data.
2)I noted in the exploration and discovery phase, the process you provided call the scientist to ‘ask questions’ (and presumably by extension to graciously receieve questions also) and also to share data and ideas (like across disciplinary boundaries (such as, I don’t know, organic chemistry and evolutionary biology). I think I have the process down. Do you (look back over this thread before you answer)?>>
_________________
A word or two to the wise, and food for thought. END