Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Jerry Coyne Wants Empiricism Except When He Doesn’t

Barry Arrington
September 11, 2006
Intelligent Design
Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Eminent evolutionist Jerry Coyne has a piece in the Times Literary Supplement (here) in which he urges us to turn the penetrating glare of empiricism on all claims (not just the claims of science).  Curiously, in the same article he implies that Darwinism is not only unimpeachably true, but that only by accepting it can we save the planet.  The article is a strange mixture of oil and water, empiricism and dogma. 

Coyne begins by discussing Marx, Freud and Darwin, whom, he says, many consider to be the preeminent thinkers of their time.  It is a commonplace that the former two have now been thoroughly debunked, yet it does not seem to occur to Coyne that the same may happen (indeed may be happening) to his hero.

Comments
"Further, Freud’s general model of quietly and respectfully listening has been the cornerstone of all psychology." - bFast I don't know diddly about Sigmund Freud beyond PSY101, but lots of regular people understand intuitively that it's therapeutic to be listened to without judgement, and that it helps us unburden our souls if we are allowed to share openly and without fear of condemnation. Would the psychology profession never have figured this out without Freud? Anyway, I think one New Testament writer may have beaten Freud to the punch: JAMES 1:19 "My dear brothers, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry..." ;)russ
September 11, 2006
September
09
Sep
11
11
2006
11:17 AM
11
11
17
AM
PDT
Has anyone reading this ever taken a rented car through a carwash? Sure. Who doesn't prefer being seen in a clean car instead of a dirty one? I think a better question is who reading this has used an expensive wax guaranteed to protect the paint for a year on a rental car they'll be returning in a week. :lol:DaveScot
September 11, 2006
September
09
Sep
11
11
2006
11:15 AM
11
11
15
AM
PDT
Russ is certainly correct. Anyone who suggests that Christian doctrine supports environmental irresponsibility has a profound lack of understanding of the doctrine they purport to be explicating.BarryA
September 11, 2006
September
09
Sep
11
11
2006
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT
"...people who think that they can mess up this planet as much as they want, since it’s only a temporary assignment before they’re relocated to a more spiritual abode." The major religions of the west hold both that this is a "temporary assignment", and that judgement follows death. Why would adherents of western religion--following that religion---gratuitously trash the "temporary" earth, knowing that their stewardship of everything earthly would be judged once the "assignment" was over?russ
September 11, 2006
September
09
Sep
11
11
2006
11:02 AM
11
11
02
AM
PDT
bFast Freud’s theories are little different than doctors’ theories 200 years ago. They had no idea what caused disease, so they came up with the four “gross humors” to explain it, and they bled people to correct imbalances in the gross humors. Their patients got better, if they got better, not because of the treatment but despite it. Freud had no idea what causes mental illness, so he came up with his own crackpot version of the gross humors. And the same thing happened. Patients treated using Freud’s methods got better – if they get better – not because of the treatment but despite it. Freud in his treating room is the mental health equivalent of an 18th century doctor standing over his patient with a lancet and a bowl to catch the blood.BarryA
September 11, 2006
September
09
Sep
11
11
2006
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT
Carlos writes: “But we’ve hardly done much better [on the environment].” This is absurd. The countries of the former Soviet Union (FSU) are environmental disaster zones. Conversely, by practically every significant measure the US’s environment is not just cleaner, but far cleaner, than it was 30 years ago. There is no clear link between Darwinism and the FSU’s disastrous environmental record. The latter is due to the FSU’s disregard of human nature. People will do (or not do) what you give them an incentive to do (or not do). If you take away ownership of property you give people an incentive not to be good stewards of that which they do not own anyway. Has anyone reading this ever taken a rented car through a carwash? Ekstasis’ basic point is still valid, however. Crews states that acceptance of Darwinism is critically linked to environmental responsibility. Ekstasis points to an example of a nation (the FSU) that accepted Darwinism with great fervor and yet had a terrible environmental record. The link that Crews suggests not only does not exist, but at least with respect to correlation (if not causation), just the opposite is true.BarryA
September 11, 2006
September
09
Sep
11
11
2006
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
In any event, “having overcome all scientific challenges” is hardly “certain,” let alone “certainty of certainties.” Scientists can be dogmatic, but they are not as dogmatic as you pretend they are. On the other hand, I do think that NCSE and that crowd (e.g. Shermer, Panda’s Thumb) lay it on a bit thick. Comment by Carlos — September 11, 2006 @ 11:54 am Richard Dawkins on evolution as fact/theory: http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/alabama/1996-04-01alabama.shtml "A fact is a theory that is supported by all the evidence...The number of clues, the sheer weight of evidence, totally and utterly, sledgehammeringly, overwhelmingly strongly supports the conclusion that evolution is true...." By "evolution" he means the following: "The distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is becoming a favorite one for creationists. Actually, it's no big deal. Macroevolution is nothing more than microevolution stretched out over a much greater time span..." "...We can all look back through the generations, through 4000 million years to a tiny bacterium who lived in the sea and was the ancestor of us all. We are all cousins."russ
September 11, 2006
September
09
Sep
11
11
2006
10:35 AM
10
10
35
AM
PDT
As one who has studied psychology on the masters level, I fail to understand the distain for Freud. It is well true that psychoanalysis is a field that is very difficult to study by the scientific method. It is also clear that the ability of the psychologist to improve or transform the life of the patient is very limited -- otherwise our prisons would be empty, and "rehabilitiation" would be a term of siginificant social value. I also recognize the North American tendancy to over-sexualize Freud's "labido" concept, but that's our problem, not his. However, Freud's view of the developmental stages of childhood are very well respected. The oedipal and electra phenomenons certainly have some validity. Further, Freud's general model of quietly and respectfully listening has been the cornerstone of all psychology. Freud is certainly the father of modern psychology. Modern psychology certainly plays a role in modern life, albiet a much smaller role than was expected of it (except in marketing). Freud certainly didn't get it all right. However, I certainly place him squarely in the camp of a significant contributer to society. I hardly view him as "debunked".bFast
September 11, 2006
September
09
Sep
11
11
2006
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
In any event, “having overcome all scientific challenges” is hardly “certain,” let alone “certainty of certainties.” Scientists can be dogmatic, but they are not as dogmatic as you pretend they are. On the other hand, I do think that NCSE and that crowd (e.g. Shermer, Panda’s Thumb) lay it on a bit thick. Comment by Carlos — September 11, 2006 @ 11:54 am "Evolution is a scientifiec fact. That is, the descent of all species, with modification, from common ancestors is a hyposthesis that in the last 150 years or so has been supported by so much evidence, and has so successfully resisted all challenges, that it has become a fact." - Douglas Futuyma's 2005 college textbook "Evolution", quoted in Jonathan Wells' The Politically Incorrect Guide to Intelligent Design and Evolution, p. 63russ
September 11, 2006
September
09
Sep
11
11
2006
10:25 AM
10
10
25
AM
PDT
The acceptance of Darwinism does not imply, nor is implied by, communism. The rejection of Darwinism does not imply, nor is implied by, Christianity. The former USSR destroyed its environment in a desperate and shortsighted attempt to catch up to the West. But we've hardly done much better. If we are enjoined "to till and to tend," we've done a really bad job of it. I think Coyne is wrong to regard anti-Darwinism as the natural ally of anti-environmentalism, but the two are often found together, for example, in people who think that they can mess up this planet as much as they want, since it's only a temporary assignment before they're relocated to a more spiritual abode. Whereas a Darwinian view of life does give one a sense of connection and one-ness with other living things. And of course that sense is compatible with Christianity and other faiths as well.Carlos
September 11, 2006
September
09
Sep
11
11
2006
10:19 AM
10
10
19
AM
PDT
Jerry says:
The whole enterprise reminded me of the excesses of evolutionary psychology, where adaptive stories about human behaviour pass for scientific truth.
Excesses in evolutionary psychology? Really?!! I can't believe it.
And the propositions of psychoanalysis have proven to be either untestable or falsified. How can we disprove the idea, for example, that we have a death drive? Or that dreams always represent wish fulfilments? When faced with counter-examples, Freudianism always proves malleable enough to incorporate them as evidence for the theory.
Allow me to make a more in-topic twist: "And the propositions of the theory of evolution have proven to be either untestable or falsified. How can we disprove the idea, for example, that birds evolved from dinosaurs? Or that land mammals evolved into whales?? When faced with counter-examples, Darwinism always proves malleable enough to incorporate them as evidence for the theory." This last statement is specially true on the "punctuated equilibrium" desperate atempt to have the fossil record as evidence for evolutionism.
Other key elements of Freudian theory have never been corroborated.
Other key elements of Darwinian theory have never been corroborated.
There are no scientifically convincing experiments, for example, demonstrating the repression of traumatic memories.
There are no scientifically convincing experiments, for example, demonstrating the eye evolution.
Realizing the scientific weaknesses of Freud, many diehards have taken the fall-back position that he was nevertheless a thinker of the first rank.
Realizing the scientific weaknesses of Darwin, many diehards have taken the fall-back position that he was nevertheless a thinker of the first rank. It is interesting that in the debate Bill had with Silver (I think that was the name) Bill alluded to a ppaer saying "The Triumph of Evolution". Bill correctly pointed out that we never hear about the "Triumph" of other theories. When will we read "the Triumph of relativity" ? Or the "the triumph of quantum mechanics" ? What is it about evolution that deserves such special promotion ?
Why, we must wonder, would the shaper of the universe have frittered away some fourteen billion years, turning out quadrillions of useless stars, before getting around to the one thing he really cared about, seeing to it that a minuscule minority of earthling vertebrates are washed clean of sin and guaranteed an eternal place in his company?”
This is a very good question, specially for those who hold for theistic evolutionism, but not only for them. Of course, his question betray assumptions that no Creationist accepts ("the 14 billion year universe")
Regardless of what they say to placate the faithful, most scientists probably know in their hearts that science and religion are incompatible ways of viewing the world
Oh...so now we have it. When Darwinist and humanist Eugenie Scott says that there is no contradiction between science ("evolution") and faith in God, she is only "placating" the faithful. She doesn't really believe in that.
Supernatural forces and events, essential aspects of most religions, play no role in science, not because we exclude them deliberately, but because they have never been a useful way to understand nature
Except for Kepler, Newton, Galileo, Carl Linaeus, Mendel and Louis Pasteur. But then again, what did those fundies know about science?
Scientific “truths” are empirically supported observations agreed on by different observers.
Except when you compare them. Fo example, if we compare life forms from the morphological viewpoint, and then from the molecular view point, it gets a bit complicated to "empircally" observe the "fact" of evolution.Mats
September 11, 2006
September
09
Sep
11
11
2006
10:04 AM
10
10
04
AM
PDT
The attached article said the following: "Crews points out the dangers to the survival of our planet arising from a rejection of Darwinism. Such rejection promotes apathy towards overpopulation, pollution, deforestation and other environmental crimes: “So long as we regard ourselves as creatures apart who need only repent of our personal sins to retain heaven’s blessing, we won’t take the full measure of our species-wise responsibility for these calamities”." Is he serious? Has he visited formerly or currently Communist nations recently? With their idealogy passionately enshrining Darwinian evolution, they have left the land, air and water a total disaster!! Now, did Christianity ever state that personal sins excluded poisoning the environment? I must of forgot that verse in the bible. In fact, where did the idea of responsibility for our habitat come from? Possibly from the instructions to have dominion over the world? What does the bible say was our first task? To tend the garden? Hmmmmm.Ekstasis
September 11, 2006
September
09
Sep
11
11
2006
09:57 AM
9
09
57
AM
PDT
There is a danger that a penetrating insight or a very successful approach to problem solving will obscure everything else in the brilliance of its glare. Coyne’s failure to see this is a cautionary tale for us all. Yes, the scientific method and the empiricism upon which it is based have been extremely successful in advancing our technology and our understanding of the universe. That overwhelming success does just that (i.e., overwhelms) people like Coyne, causing them to be unable to see beyond it. Other examples abound. Wittgenstein helped us see the centrality of language. Yet his brilliant general insight has degenerated to the point that some of his intellectual progeny write long books about how it is impossible to communicate through language (except, apparently, their long books). In my own field of law, the Chicago “law and economics” theorists helped us see the interface between economic theory and legal principles. But taken to an extreme the approach ends in a barren morality and justice free zone of utility maximizers.BarryA
September 11, 2006
September
09
Sep
11
11
2006
09:55 AM
9
09
55
AM
PDT
OK, but it's one thing for scientists to say, "we know that all organisms had a common ancestor," and another for them to say either, "we know exactly how evolution took place" or "we know exactly how the first terran organism came into existence." In any event, "having overcome all scientific challenges" is hardly "certain," let alone "certainty of certainties." Scientists can be dogmatic, but they are not as dogmatic as you pretend they are. On the other hand, I do think that NCSE and that crowd (e.g. Shermer, Panda's Thumb) lay it on a bit thick.Carlos
September 11, 2006
September
09
Sep
11
11
2006
09:54 AM
9
09
54
AM
PDT
Is the “certainty of certainties” (an interesting phrase, that) supposed to be evolutionary theory, abiogenesis, both, something else? Just curious . . . Comment by Carlos — September 11, 2006 @ 11:26 am From the National Center for Science Education: http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/9008_why_teach_evolution_1_8_2005.asp "Biological evolution is a scientifically settled theory. Among scientists, this means that its fundamental principle —the shared ancestry of living organisms —has overcome all scientific challenges."russ
September 11, 2006
September
09
Sep
11
11
2006
09:41 AM
9
09
41
AM
PDT
I'd say we got a lot more practical legwork out of Mendel, and he at least appears to be some sort of a creationist.johnnyb
September 11, 2006
September
09
Sep
11
11
2006
09:35 AM
9
09
35
AM
PDT
Darwin was the preeminent thinker of his time? What's Jerry's definition of "thinker" ?Mats
September 11, 2006
September
09
Sep
11
11
2006
09:31 AM
9
09
31
AM
PDT
Can you empirically verify empiricism?geoffrobinson
September 11, 2006
September
09
Sep
11
11
2006
09:29 AM
9
09
29
AM
PDT
Is the "certainty of certainties" (an interesting phrase, that) supposed to be evolutionary theory, abiogenesis, both, something else? Just curious . . .Carlos
September 11, 2006
September
09
Sep
11
11
2006
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT
Does anyone out there besides myself ever identify with any of the following gut feelings: Primal Scream. The expression: The inmates have taken over the asylum Charlton Heston's character in the Planet of the Apes, realizing what was going on and screaming "It's a Mad House, a Mad House!". The character in Network (which I don't think I ever saw, but it's so well known) shouting he's not going to take it anymore. and ... hmm, what else might fit here? what was it again? (distracted look and fingers drumming on desktop) Oh yeah, a whole world claiming that the extroadinary complexity of life started up from a dead planet Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!!!!!!!!!!!!! Forgive me, how very unscientific of me, I've appeared to have lost it there for a moment. [I realize that all credibility, if there ever was even a shred of it, has been lost for all time] Back to "sanity". (Ooh I'm soooo embarrased.) We return you now to your regularly scheduled program.... Hah, this was actually just a joke. These are not my personal feelings, you see. [No, of course not] But, it might me an illustration of what any "legitimately credentialed scientist" actually would have to go through if they even intimate publicly that they question this "certainty of certainties", which is apparently known to be true beyond any other scientific theory in history.es58
September 11, 2006
September
09
Sep
11
11
2006
09:22 AM
9
09
22
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply