Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Pot Meet Kettle

arroba Email

At the Dangerous Idea site, a commenter called I’m Skeptical writes:

In science, you have to be driven by the evidence. The folks from [Discovery Institute] are driven by their beliefs. They search for evidence to support what they already believe. That’s not scientific method, because it leads them to ignore evidence that doesn’t fit their objective. If you ignore evidence, you can’t hope to move scientific understanding forward.

In this post I hope to disabuse Mr. Skeptical of his naïve assumption that “real scientists” (as opposed, in his view, to the researchers at DI) are always dispassionate, always objective, always striving for the truth even if the data are contrary to their cherished shibboleths (nay, especially if the data are contrary to their cherished shibboleths).  A brief quote from Gould should do the trick.

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

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’ . . .

Id., 759

Joe, "I would love to know what evidence we are ignoring." Joe, watch what is going on in the field of "cold fusion", also called LENR (Low Energy Nuclear Reaction). This is a field that is currently denied by the mainstream of science, but which I very strongly believe will blossom forth in the next few years. Look at it now, before it becomes ubiquitous. See how it is rejected, labelled as "pathological science". When the world discovers the truth of this technology, history will be rewritten to suggest that "science" knew about it all along. Yet the few brave scientists that are looking into it (like those at MIT, and NASA) are suffering the same kind of minimization that ID scientists are. The evidence is in, but the evidence is being ignored. Moose Dr
ARRIVING AT TRUTH THE SCIENTIFIC WAY 1. Observe what happens. 2. Based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true. 3. Test the theory by further observations and by experiments. 4. Watch to see if the predictions based on the theory come true. The first step in the method above is problematic to scientists for obvious reasons: we can't observe one species evolving into another, yet that is exactly what Darwinian evolution teaches. Scientific truth is not revealed; it is discovered. This necessitates a system of trial and error, with the searcher for scientific truth often finding himself in a fruitless endeavor. Despite this hit-and-miss method, scientists have over the centuries built up an amazing amount of scientific knowledge. Mapou is correct when he states that no scientist is free of bias. This could be said for laypersons as well. The key is realizing and acknowledging one's biases and making an honest effort to see both sides of an issue. Darwin even agreed with this. Barb
I would love to know what evidence we are ignoring. Joe
There is no such thing as an unbiased scientist. Every hypothesis is a biased assumption in search of confirmation. Scientists do not genuinely look for falsification. In fact, they hate it for the simple reason that falsification does not improve one's scientific career. Scientists are humans first, and scientists second. Politics is what drives science. Mapou
Richard Lewontin reviewing Sagan's book The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark January 9, 1997 New York Review of Books
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.
How about the famous quote by Richard Lewontin? cantor

Leave a Reply