Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Gould on Imposing Your Theory on the Data

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Closely related to the definition of evidence that we have been debating lately is the notion that evidence does not “speak” for itself. It is always interpreted within a paradigm. This is not wrong for the simple reason that it is unavoidable. That said, a researcher runs off the rails when he becomes so enamored with the paradigm within which he is working that he literally cannot see evidence smacking him in the face. Gould notes one such case concerning stasis:

Paleontologists therefore came to view stasis as just another failure to document evolution. Stasis existed in overwhelming abundance, as every paleontologist always knew. But this primary signal of the fossil record, defined as an absence of data for evolution, only highlighted our frustration – and certainly did not represent anything worth publishing. Paleontology therefore fell into a literally absurd vicious circle. No one ventured to document or quantify – indeed, hardly anyone even bothered to mention or publish at all – the most common pattern in the fossil record: the stasis of most morpho-species throughout their geological duration. All paleontologists recognized the phenomenon, but few scientists write papers about failure to document a desired result. As a consequence, most nonpaleontologists never learned about the predominance of stasis, and simply assumed that gradualism must prevail, as illustrated by the exceedingly few cases that became textbook “classics”: the coiling of *Gryphae*, the increasing body size of horses, etc. (Interestingly, nearly all these “classics” have since been disproved, thus providing another testimony for the temporary triumph of hope and expectation over evidence – see Gould, 1972.) Thus, when punctuated equilibrium finally granted theoretical space and importance to stasis, and this fundamental phenomenon finally emerged from the closet, nonpaleontologists were often astounded and incredulous.

Stephen Jay Gould, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2002), 761

Gould’s remedy: Try to make yourself bust out of the confining paradigm.

Abrupt appearance may record an absence of information but stasis is data. Eldredge and I became so frustrated by the failure of many colleagues to grasp this evident point . . . that we urged the incorporation of this little phrase as a mantra or motto. Say it ten times before breakfast every day for a week, and the argument will surely seep in by osmosis: ‘stasis is data; stasis is data’

Stephen Jay Gould, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press, 2002), 759.

Comments
Folks: If paradigms, frames of thought and worldviews are always pivotally and foundationally present, that makes it doubly vital to understand that. And, to address it. That means, facing the fact of the contingency of our basic frames of thought, and not subsuming that to a myth of progress and telling truth by the clock. Today's consensus, historically, is vulnerable to tomorrow's facts. Often, the facts that a small despised alternative group or a few individuals have advocated. But it is when a critical mass crisis hits, that there is a willingness to finally listen. So, ahead of such, wisdom is to seek out reasonable alternatives and compare on strengths and limitations, in light of a liberal dose of the history and philosophy of science. It will help to appreciate that worldviews have core first plausibles that are finitely remote, infinite regress of warrant being impossible. So, we need to compare serious candidate alternatives (why are they serious enough to short-list?) and assess factual adequacy, coherence and balanced explanatory power . . . neither an ever-growing ad hoc patchwork nor a simplistic cramping frame that locks out facts, concerns, perspectives and issues it should not. Otherwise, question-begging ideological captivity to some power agenda or other beckons. (Did you ever wonder how business as usual conventional wisdom got to be that way, and how it is sustained? Cf Plato's parable of the cave for a longstanding counterbalance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2afuTvUzBQ&feature=related ) And, that is precisely the challenge many of the more politically correct domains of current science and science education face. It is time for a re-think. In the case of origins, a priori Lewontin-style materialism is patently question-begging. And, we would do well to ponder what functionally specific, complex organisation and associated information tell us about causal roots of the world of life. As well as, the mounting evidence of a fine tuned cosmos. KF PS: Someone above needs to understand the powerful evidential force of a telling admission against interest. With the Gould cite in the OP as a key case in point.kairosfocus
March 23, 2015
March
03
Mar
23
23
2015
03:57 AM
3
03
57
AM
PDT
What are the entailments of unguided evolution? What predictions are borne from unguided evolution?Joe
March 23, 2015
March
03
Mar
23
23
2015
03:44 AM
3
03
44
AM
PDT
Thank you, Barry, for pointing out an example of evolutionary biologists breaking out of a paradigm and being willing to follow the evidence where it leads.Bob O'H
March 23, 2015
March
03
Mar
23
23
2015
01:44 AM
1
01
44
AM
PDT
@not_querius #2 "strong proponent of unguided evolution?" Instead of talking about proponents, please provide evidence in the form of reproducible proof-of-concept demonstrations which strongly support the hypotheses that unguided (random) processes can: 1-generate complex functional mechanisms, and/or 2-change existing complex functional mechanisms into other comparably functional ones with substantially different structures and functionality.RalphDavidWestfall
March 23, 2015
March
03
Mar
23
23
2015
12:25 AM
12
12
25
AM
PDT
AMEN AMEN AMEN Evidence does not speak for itself! AMEN It is SO interpreted as said here. Its very raw data.Its strange such confidence is drawn from conclusions about raw data especially in past and gone events and processes as we bump into in origin subjects. By the way its crazy dumb this Gould stresses about the stasis thing in the fossil record. Its a damning point and comes up with these living fossils. In fact it stresses biology conclusions are based on geology conclusions for the depositions of sediment.fossils that evolutionism must embrace. This Gould guy himself misses the point that the fossils story is a geology story first and so the biology story is conditional on the geology story AND SO nullify's it as biological evidence. Fossils are only biological data within a PARADIGM of geological conclusions. I say that means fossils are not bio sci evidence at all. Gould was stasis himself in this error.Robert Byers
March 22, 2015
March
03
Mar
22
22
2015
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT
"What is needed is truly extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claims made by all sides but there is none." Oh Mapou, you've done it again!ronvanwegen
March 22, 2015
March
03
Mar
22
22
2015
06:46 PM
6
06
46
PM
PDT
not_querius:
Personally, I will tend to give more credence to the people who have researched this over several decades than to someone who is using the same evidence to advance their own world view.
Nobody should be trusted because everybody has a worldview to defend. What is needed is truly extraordinary evidence for the extraordinary claims made by all sides but there is none.Mapou
March 22, 2015
March
03
Mar
22
22
2015
06:37 PM
6
06
37
PM
PDT
In science, real time empirical evidence is suppose to have the last word. And although the fossil record is certainly a piece of historical evidence that is, to put it mildly, not parsimonious to Darwinian explanations, Darwinism's greatest failure, scientifically speaking, occurs in the lab. There simply is no real time empirical evidence from the lab to support Darwinian claims:
“The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain – Michael Behe – December 2010 Excerpt: In its most recent issue The Quarterly Review of Biology has published a review by myself of laboratory evolution experiments of microbes going back four decades.,,, The gist of the paper is that so far the overwhelming number of adaptive (that is, helpful) mutations seen in laboratory evolution experiments are either loss or modification of function. Of course we had already known that the great majority of mutations that have a visible effect on an organism are deleterious. Now, surprisingly, it seems that even the great majority of helpful mutations degrade the genome to a greater or lesser extent.,,, I dub it “The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution”: Break or blunt any functional coded element whose loss would yield a net fitness gain. http://behe.uncommondescent.com/2010/12/the-first-rule-of-adaptive-evolution/ Where's the substantiating evidence for neo-Darwinism? https://docs.google.com/document/d/1q-PBeQELzT4pkgxB2ZOxGxwv6ynOixfzqzsFlCJ9jrw/edit
With the real time empirical evidence directly contradicting Darwinian claims, for four decades no less, a person would be well justified in asking 'why is not Darwinian evolution falsified as other theories of science would be if their hypothesis did not pass empirical muster?' The answer to that question is that Darwinian evolution has no rigid mathematical criteria for falsification as other theories of science do to test against (In fact I've heard it said that Darwin hated math):
A Philosophical Question...Does Evolution have a Hard Core ? Some Concluding Food for Thought In my research on the demarcation problem, I have noticed philosophers of science attempting to balance (usually unconsciously) a consistent demarcation criteria against the the disruptive effects that it’s application might have with regard to the academic status quo (and evolution in particular)… Few philosophers of science will even touch such matters, but (perhaps unintentionally) Imre Lakatos does offer us a peek at how one might go about balancing these schizophrenic demands (in Motterlini1999: 24) “Let us call the first school militant positivism; you will understand why later on. The problem of this school was to find certain demarcation criteria similar to those I have outlined, but these also had to satisfy certain boundary conditions, as a mathematician would say. I am referring to a definite set of people to which most scientists as well as Popper and Carnap would belong. These people think that there are goodies and baddies among scientific theories, and once you have defined a demarcation criterion, you should divide all your theories between the two groups. You would end up. for example, with a goodies list including Copernicus’s (Theory1), Galileo’s (T2), Kepler’s (T3), Newton’s (T4) … and Einstein’s (T5), along with (but this is just my supposition) Darwin’s (T6). Let me just anticipate that nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin can be described as scientific, but this is exactly what we are looking for.” So basically, the demarcation problem is a fun game philosophers enjoy playing, but when they realize the implications regarding the theory of evolution, they quickly back off… http://www.samizdat.qc.ca/cosmos/philo/hardcore_pg.htm
Leaving the ‘fun games’ that philosophers enjoy playing aside, Here is a very concise, and simple, statement as to what truly constitutes a falsification in 'hard' science.
The Scientific Method - Richard Feynman - video Quote: 'If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn’t make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are who made the guess, or what his name is… If it disagrees with experiment, it’s wrong. That’s all there is to it.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OL6-x0modwY
And in that beautifully simple, and concise, statement as to what the 'key to science' is all about, Darwinian evolution is shown, by four decades of experiment, to be wrong. i.e. Or more precisely, to be falsified! Or perhaps as Pauli would have said, to be 'Not even wrong!' Supplemental note: I would add that not only is Darwinism not a science, but I would also argue that Darwinism actually qualifies as a pseudo-science along the lines of reading tea leaves.
Is evolution pseudoscience? Excerpt:,,, Thus, of the ten characteristics of pseudoscience listed in the Skeptic’s Dictionary, evolution meets nine. Few other pseudosciences - astrology, astral projection, alien abduction, crystal power, or whatever — would meet so many. http://creation.com/is-evolution-pseudoscience Darwinism is a Pseudo-Science: Excerpt: The primary reasons why Darwinism is a pseudo-science instead of a proper science are as such: 1. No Rigid Mathematical Basis (Demarcation/Falsification Criteria) 2. No Demonstrated Empirical Basis 3. Random Mutation and Natural Selection are both grossly inadequate as ‘creative engines’ 4. Information is not reducible to a material basis, (in fact, in quantum teleportation it is found that material ultimately reduces to a information basis) 5. Darwinism hinders scientific progress (i.e. falsely predicted Junk DNA, vestigial organs, etc..), https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oaPcK-KCppBztIJmXUBXTvZTZ5lHV4Qg_pnzmvVL2Qw/edit
Verse and Music:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test everything; hold fast what is good. Creed - Higher (Video) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J16lInLZRms Creed - My Own Prison https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBBqjGd3fHQ
bornagain77
March 22, 2015
March
03
Mar
22
22
2015
05:47 PM
5
05
47
PM
PDT
> You do realize that Gould was a strong proponent of unguided evolution? So? No one knows what "unguided evolution" looks like or how to test it. It isn't science.Mung
March 22, 2015
March
03
Mar
22
22
2015
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT
You do realize that Gould was a strong proponent of unguided evolution? Evidence is always interpreted with a bias. That is just human nature. Gould examined the fossil record and proposed punctuated equilibrium. But he did not believe that it violated the "Darwinian" process, only clarified it. But IDist interpret the exact same evidence as a nail in the coffin of unguided evolution. Personally, I will tend to give more credence to the people who have researched this over several decades than to someone who is using the same evidence to advance their own world view.not_querius
March 22, 2015
March
03
Mar
22
22
2015
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT
I've tried to make this point clear several times with materialistic athiests; evidence is data interpreted according to a theory, hypothesis or paradigm. They insist they are "following the evidence where it leads", as if it is the data itself that tells you how to interpret it. Data must be conceptualized in terms of models that would explain/predict it; those models are dependent upon reality paradigms that allow/promote such perspectives. Case in point: natural laws "governing" the regular behavior of matter according to precise, calculable mathematical formulas. It seems pretty obvious now, but outside of a very particular nexus of certain concepts of reality, looking for such kinds of data and organizing it in such a way was a mental blind spot. However, today's materialist atheists have proven themselves blind to their own ideological paradigm over and over. The don't even think they are interpreting data according to worldview theory any more; they are so immersed in their ideological position that they believe it is the data that is "leading" them, not their worldview a prioris.William J Murray
March 22, 2015
March
03
Mar
22
22
2015
03:53 PM
3
03
53
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply