Defining life in a world without Darwin

Well, thank God scientists don't need to disbelieve anything to do science either! They certainly don't need to disbelieve the miraculous. Mung

Vividbleau,

Doveton “Actually, according to either definition, self-evident requires no belief given the definition of belief I provided. I’m quite fine either way.” I am quite sure that you are fine either way, consistency not being one of your strong points.

You are more than welcome to point out my inconsistencies whenever you find them. However, I'm skeptical of the claim in this case since I provided definitions and stuck to them. But hey...I'm open to being shown otherwise...

“Do you routinely believe that you will not fall asleep at night until you wake up again at some point?” No which means I believe in the opposite. I routinely believe that I will falls asleep at night until I wake up again at some point. To disbelieve is to believe.

Ahh good. Given a few of your questions, I was beginning to think you didn't understand the difference. Doveton

Doveton "Actually, according to either definition, self-evident requires no belief given the definition of belief I provided. I’m quite fine either way." I am quite sure that you are fine either way, consistency not being one of your strong points. "Do you routinely believe that you will not fall asleep at night until you wake up again at some point?" No which means I believe in the opposite. I routinely believe that I will falls asleep at night until I wake up again at some point. To disbelieve is to believe. Vivid vividbleau

Vividbleau,

Doveton “Works for me. My point remains the same.”

Ahhh I don’t think so.Your point being that what you hold as self evident is not a belief yet according to your definition it is. Self evident “Without proof or reasoning”

Actually, according to either definition, self-evident requires no belief given the definition of belief I provided. I'm quite fine either way.

Doveton “but I’ve not deployed such a definition of belief. Here’s the definition I’ve been using all along: noun 1 an acceptance that something exists or is true, ESPECIALLY ONE WITHOUT PROOF: his belief in extraterrestrial life [with clause] :a belief that climate can be modified beneficially From the Oxford English Dictionary.”

But once again I am not surprised since you don’t know why you should believe your own words why should you believe your own definitions? At least you are consistent in your incoherency.

This makes no sense, Vivid. I asked the question not because I am uncertain of my words, but because based on the context of your questions and my definitions, the concept of "belief" does not apply. In other words, your question concerning my belief of my words are nonsensical to me. Given the above, I'll pose to you the same question I posted to Mung (who never addressed it): Do you routinely believe that you will not fall asleep at night until you wake up again at some point? Doveton

Doveton "Works for me. My point remains the same." Ahhh I don't think so.Your point being that what you hold as self evident is not a belief yet according to your definition it is. Self evident "Without proof or reasoning" Doveton "but I’ve not deployed such a definition of belief. Here’s the definition I’ve been using all along: noun 1 an acceptance that something exists or is true, ESPECIALLY ONE WITHOUT PROOF: his belief in extraterrestrial life [with clause] :a belief that climate can be modified beneficially From the Oxford English Dictionary." But once again I am not surprised since you don't know why you should believe your own words why should you believe your own definitions? At least you are consistent in your incoherency. Vivid vividbleau

Vividbleau,

Doveton “Incorrect. Here’s the definition of self-evident: adjective Not needing to be demonstrated or explained; obvious” Incorrect here is the definition of self evident adjective, Websters evident without proof or reasoning.

Works for me. My point remains the same.

“See definition of moot.” Once again do you believe the definition of moot? “Why would I?” You mean why would you believe your own words? Why am I not surprised?

Once again, since my words are self-evident, the act of believing in them makes no sense. Equivocating the term "believe" to apply to convictions concerning definitions provided doesn't strike me as having any point. So I guess I should ask at this juncture - do you have one? Doveton

Doveton "Incorrect. Here’s the definition of self-evident: adjective? Not needing to be demonstrated or explained; obvious" Incorrect here is the definition of self evident adjective, Websters evident without proof or reasoning. "See definition of moot." Once again do you believe the definition of moot? "Why would I?" You mean why would you believe your own words? Why am I not surprised? Vivid vividbleau

Kf,

If science is about knowledge it needs to be about seeking the truth, though err we will; otherwise it simply becomes yet another materialist ideological Trojan Horse, as some are indeed trying to make it into.

All I can say is that I certainly don't seek "truth" in my work and I'm not aware of any scientist out in the world who does. Doveton

Vividbleau,

Doveton “No need; see definition of self-evident.” Let me repeat from 59 According to your definition since what is elf evident requires no proof, indeed cannot be proven, it must be a belief.

Incorrect. Here's the definition of self-evident: adjective? Not needing to be demonstrated or explained; obvious

“Nope, you didn’t, but from my perspective, knowing (or thinking one knows) that something exists is required to believe in it.” Do you believe that from your perspective knowing ( or thinking one knows) that something exists is requires to believe in it?

Why would I?

“The truth or existence of one or the other is irrelevant, so the belief in one or the other is moot.” Do you believe the belief in one or the other is moot? “See definition of moot.” Do you believe the defintion of moot?

See definition of moot.

Mung “I’m not convinced Doveton believes this conversation is taking place.” Thats a moot point :)

Clearly true.

Thus, without anyway of knowing whether something exists, I have no way to believe in it.” So you don’t believe in it?

There's no ability to believe or disbelieve given the context above. Doveton

Mung,

What was said was: Science isn’t about belief and requires no belief But, since it is scientists who do science, and science itself cannot have beliefs, I don’t think it was a completely inaccurate portrayal of what you meant.

It really is and this isn't that hard. It's no different than noting that cooking isn't about belief and requires no belief. Unless one is trying to create a strawman by equivocating the definition of belief, the statement is pretty straight forward - one does not have to hold any specific convictions or accepted truths without evidence in order to cook food.

There is no requirement that scientists have beliefs in order to engage in science. Is that better?

Yes. Nice rewording.

And science most surely is about what scientists believe to be the case.

Not in my experience. Doveton

PS: Knowledge, best summary defn, warranted, credibly true belief. If science is about knowledge it needs to be about seeking the truth, though err we will; otherwise it simply becomes yet another materialist ideological Trojan Horse, as some are indeed trying to make it into. Cf discussion here. kairosfocus

F/N 1: MOOT, AmHD, 2b: "b. Of no practical importance; irrelevant." F/N 2: On self evident first principles of right reason, cf here. kairosfocus

Doveton "Thus, without anyway of knowing whether something exists, I have no way to believe in it.” So you don’t believe in it? Vivid vividbleau

Doveton "No need; see definition of self-evident." Let me repeat from 59 According to your definition since what is elf evident requires no proof, indeed cannot be proven, it must be a belief. "Nope, you didn’t, but from my perspective, knowing (or thinking one knows) that something exists is required to believe in it." Do you believe that from your perspective knowing ( or thinking one knows) that something exists is requires to believe in it? "The truth or existence of one or the other is irrelevant, so the belief in one or the other is moot.” Do you believe the belief in one or the other is moot? "See definition of moot." Do you believe the defintion of moot? Mung "I’m not convinced Doveton believes this conversation is taking place." Thats a moot point :) Vivid Thus, without anyway of knowing whether something exists, I have no way to believe in it." So you don't believe in it? vividbleau

“He says scientists have no beliefs.” Yes, that was a mistake. I meant to delete it but hit the comment button before I could do so. What was said was:

Science isn’t about belief and requires no belief

But, since it is scientists who do science, and science itself cannot have beliefs, I don't think it was a completely inaccurate portrayal of what you meant. There is no requirement that scientists have beliefs in order to engage in science. Is that better? And science most surely is about what scientists believe to be the case. Mung

I'm not convinced Doveton believes this conversation is taking place. Mung

Vividbleau,

“In the case of whether what I perceive is real or an illusion, I have no way of knowing.” I did not ask about knowing?

Nope, you didn't, but from my perspective, knowing (or thinking one knows) that something exists is required to believe in it. Thus, without anyway of knowing whether something exists, I have no way to believe in it.

“Thus, I can’t say whether my memories exist or are true,” Do you believe that you cant say whether your memories exist or are true?

See above concerning knowing.

The truth or existence of one or the other is irrelevant, so the belief in one or the other is moot.” Do you believe the truth or exietence of one or the other is irrelevant, so the belief in one or the other is moot?

See definition of moot. Doveton

"In the case of whether what I perceive is real or an illusion, I have no way of knowing." I did not ask about knowing? "Thus, I can’t say whether my memories exist or are true," Do you believe that you cant say whether your memories exist or are true? The truth or existence of one or the other is irrelevant, so the belief in one or the other is moot." Do you believe the truth or exietence of one or the other is irrelevant, so the belief in one or the other is moot? Vivid The truth or existence of one or the other is irrelevant, so the belief in one or the other is moot. vividbleau

Vividbleau,

“I don’t care one way or the other.” I did not ask whenther you cared one way or the other. I asked You either belive your memories are an illusion or you dont believe they are an illusion. Which is it?

Here we clearly differ on the concept of "belief". In my understanding (which goes along with the definition I provided), the term belief only applies to an acceptance of something I find exists or is true. In the case of whether what I perceive is real or an illusion, I have no way of knowing. Thus, I can't say whether my memories exist or are true, but since it does not matter, I don't care either way. It could be both as well and still would not matter. The truth or existence of one or the other is irrelevant, so the belief in one or the other is moot.

“Do you believe the definition you provided?” No need – it has utility and is thus self-evident. Do you believe it has utility and is thus self evident?

No need; see definition of self-evident. Doveton

re 58 "Do you believe it has utility and is thus self evident?" According to your definition since what is elf evident requires no proof, indeed cannot be proven, it must be a belief. Vivid Vivid vividbleau

re 57 "I don’t care one way or the other." I did not ask whenther you cared one way or the other. I asked You either belive your memories are an illusion or you dont believe they are an illusion. Which is it? "Do you believe the definition you provided?" No need – it has utility and is thus self-evident. Do you believe it has utility and is thus self evident? Vivid vividbleau

Vividbleau,

Do you believe your memories are not an illusion?

I don't care one way or the other.

Do you believe the definition you provided?

No need - it has utility and is thus self-evident. Doveton

"No need. They are based upon my memories and if my memories are an illusion, all aspects of my reality are an illusion" Do you believe your memories are not an illusion? "Why would I need to when I have provided the definition?" Do you believe the definition you provided? Vivid vividbleau

Vividbleau,

“The statements I have made about science are based upon my experience in the science” Do you believe that your statements about science are based upon your experience in the science?

No need. They are based upon my memories and if my memories are an illusion, all aspects of my reality are an illusion. Given that, since I have no way of knowing if reality (and by association my memories) is an illusion, it is, from my POV, identical to reality. Thus I will rely upon my memories as being consistent with the framework of this illusion or reality since that is the perception provided. No belief required in either case.

“The statements I have made about beliefs are based upon the definitions of belief.” Do you believe the statements you have made about beliefs are based upon the definitions of belief?

Why would I need to when I have provided the definition?

“In the former case, relating experience is not commonly referred to as a product of belief, but rather a product of observation” Do you believe this?

Yes.

“In the latter case, making statements about defined terms is generally not referred to as being based upon belief, but rather upon awareness of the definition.” Do you believe making statemments about defined terms is generally not referred to as being based upon belief, but rather upon awareness of the definition?

Yes. Doveton

Ilion,

“He says scientists have no beliefs.”

Perhaps he means “there is no truth in them.”

Well, I've never said that scientists have no beliefs and pointed this out to Mung. I'm not sure who Mung is referring to in fact since I can't find an example of anyone here stating that scientists have no beliefs.

Isn’t it odd that he says “BINGO!” about my post @ 32 — while apparently deploying the tendentious “definition” of ‘belief’ used by no one but atheistic polemicists — and simultaneously ignores my post @ 34?

It would be odd under those conditions, but I've not deployed such a definition of belief. Here's the definition I've been using all along: noun 1 an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof: his belief in extraterrestrial life [with clause] :a belief that climate can be modified beneficially From the Oxford English Dictionary. In any event, I find your previous statement quite accurate, so I agree with it. As for 34, since you didn't address it to me, I thought you wanted only Mung to address it. Here's my response now:

Isn’t it amusing that almost all scientistes (think ‘artiste‘ a la Miss Piggy) will proclaim, night and day, that “science isn’t about belief and requires no belief” … and then they spend inordinate amounts of time faulting the intellect and/or morals of persons who simply do not believe the stupid things they insist are “scientific truths” (which are not to be confused with actual truths).

Well, I don't know what you are thinking of specifically, but since neither I nor Lizzie (to my knowledge) has faulted anyone else's intellect or morals, I'm not sure how this even applies to me. Could you elaborate?

What? Are these people stupid — are they incapable of understanding their own claims? — or are they just intellectually dishonest?

Hard to say since I can't find an example of what you are referring to in this thread. Doveton

re 52 "The statements I have made about science are based upon my experience in the science" Do you believe that your statements about science are based upon your experience in the science? "The statements I have made about beliefs are based upon the definitions of belief." Do you believe the statements you have made about beliefs are based upon the definitions of belief? "In the former case, relating experience is not commonly referred to as a product of belief, but rather a product of observation" Do you believe this? "In the latter case, making statements about defined terms is generally not referred to as being based upon belief, but rather upon awareness of the definition." Do you believe making statemments about defined terms is generally not referred to as being based upon belief, but rather upon awareness of the definition? vivid vividbleau

Vividbleu,

Mung this is what I want to know from Doveton If the statements he/she has made about what science is, is not,what beliefs are, what beliefs are not, etc, etc, are not beliefs then what are they. Doveton?

The statements I have made about science are based upon my experience in the science. The statements I have made about beliefs are based upon the definitions of belief. In the former case, relating experience is not commonly referred to as a product of belief, but rather a product of observation. In the latter case, making statements about defined terms is generally not referred to as being based upon belief, but rather upon awareness of the definition. Does that answer your question? Doveton

Mung,

it [science] is about utility – what explanations are useful for predicting further aspects of our world’s phenomena.

Which of course is itself a belief.

I disagree. It strikes me as an observation. But then I'm actually in research, so perhaps by practicing it, I'm more aware of it.

And the belief that an explanation may be useful for predicting further aspects of our world’s phenomena is (obviously) a belief.

Except that in science, explanations are not believed to be more useful before they are observed to be; they either objectively are (and thus are labeled as such) or objectively are not (and thus are labeled as such) through use. No belief required. So Mung, just curious, but do you routinely believe that you will not fall asleep at night until you wake up again at some point? Because that is the type of belief process you are describing for science and I don't find it tenable. Doveton

Vividbleu,

“Science isn’t about belief and requires no belief” it’s because science isn’t about truth.” If its not a belief then what do you say it is?

An observation. Doveton

Max Born: "I [still] believe in the possibility of a model of reality... that is to say, of a theory which presents things themselves and not merely the probability of their occurrence." junkdnaforlife

Einstein did not believe in quantum mechanics. Despite observation. He just did not believe it, hence his famous, "God does not play dice." Others have felt the same. Lee Smolin: "I am on of those who never found a way to believe in quantum mechanics, but I am one of the insincere ones." And the list goes on. junkdnaforlife

"He says scientists have no beliefs." Perhaps he means "there is no truth in them." Isn't it odd that he says "BINGO!" about my post @ 32 -- while apparently deploying the tendentious "definition" of 'belief' used by no one but atheistic polemicists -- and simultaneously ignores my post @ 34? Ilion

I'm sure Doveton will agree they are in fact beliefs, but that they are not scientific, therefore they are not really beliefs, for they don't agree with the evidence of one’s senses. Mung

re 44 Mung this is what I want to know from Doveton. If the statements he/she has made about what science is, is not,what beliefs are, what beliefs are not, etc, etc, are not beliefs then what are they. Doveton? Vivid vividbleau

He says scientists have no beliefs. Doveton says:

Science isn’t about belief and requires no belief

Elizabeth says:

Scientists may believe things, but science is not about belief, nor does it require belief.

Doveton says:

it [science] is about utility – what explanations are useful for predicting further aspects of our world’s phenomena.

Which of course is itself a belief. And the belief that an explanation may be useful for predicting further aspects of our world's phenomena is (obviously) a belief. Mung

"mm…well, if that’s the case, then Ilion would be wrong. I’ll let you and Mung discuss that point with Ilion. When you all come to an agreement on the subject, we can continue. " “Science isn’t about belief and requires no belief” it’s because science isn’t about truth." If its not a belief then what do you say it is? Vivd vividbleau

Vividbleau,

“What belief? Are you disagreeing with Ilion? Because I agree with his statement – it’s the very foundation of science.” What you call the very foundation of science is a belief. I think thats what the writer is getting at. Vivid

Hmm...well, if that's the case, then Ilion would be wrong. I'll let you and Mung discuss that point with Ilion. When you all come to an agreement on the subject, we can continue. :) Doveton

Mung,

See, the problem is that you are now using “belief” to mean “agree with the evidence of one’s senses” as opposed to my previous use of the term wherein it meant “to accept without evidence.”

What a bizarre definition of what it means to believe something, to form beliefs, and to have beliefs.

I agree. So why are you being inconsistent in your use of the term?

And no, I’m not equivocating. I’ve been consistent in my usage. You, otoh, I don’t know what you’ve been.

I disagree. At the top of these comments where you ask, "why should I believe your unfalsified theory", the term "believe" there has a completely different meaning than the term "belief" as used in your questioning whether basketball players have to believe they've been fouled or have hit a basket.

Want to present your original statement again for us, this time stated the way you really meant it?

I wrote my statement exactly the way I meant to write it in 15 above. There is no reason I can see to to rephrase it.

Why do scientists even do science if they have no beliefs?

Well, first and foremost, I don't know any scientists who engage in an science because of some belief. The scientists and researchers I know engage in science because it's a useful tool for developing explanations about the world around them. But in reference to your question, where did anyone state that scientists have no beliefs? I looked through comments and didn't see such a statement. In fact, here's Lizzie's statement to the contrary from 22 above in case you missed it:

Scientists may believe things, but science is not about belief, nor does it require belief. If I have a significant finding, I do not “believe” it. I simply consider that my hypothesis is “supported”. All scientific propositions are provisional, and they are all potentially falsifiable – or at least potentially rendered less tenable – by the next batch of data.

Doveton

"What belief? Are you disagreeing with Ilion? Because I agree with his statement – it’s the very foundation of science." What you call the very foundation of science is a belief. I think thats what the writer is getting at. Vivid vividbleau

Mung,

Oh, so that’s what scientists believe?

What belief? Are you disagreeing with Ilion? Because I agree with his statement - it's the very foundation of science. Doveton

Doveton:

See, the problem is that you are now using “belief” to mean “agree with the evidence of one’s senses” as opposed to my previous use of the term wherein it meant “to accept without evidence.”

What a bizarre definition of what it means to believe something, to form beliefs, and to have beliefs. And no, I'm not equivocating. I've been consistent in my usage. You, otoh, I don't know what you've been. Want to present your original statement again for us, this time stated the way you really meant it? Why do scientists even do science if they have no beliefs? Mung

BINGO! Exceptionally well put!

Oh, so that's what scientists believe? Mung

Ilion,

If “Science isn’t about belief and requires no belief” it’s because science isn’t about truth.

BINGO! Exceptionally well put! Doveton

Mung,

Doveton:

And basketball players all have beliefs too, but that doesn’t mean that basketball is about belief or requires belief.

No. There’s no need to believe you’ve been fouled. There’s no need to believe you’ve scored a basket. There’s no need to believe you won or lost the game. There’s no need to believe those guys in the funny shirts are referees or that they have the power to eject you from the game. There’s no reason to believe basketball is a team sport. There’s no reason to believe those other 5 guys are not on your team. No, there’s no reason to believe anything at all in order to play basketball.

OOHHH...you're trying to equivocate! Well, why didn't say so? See, the problem is that you are now using "belief" to mean "agree with the evidence of one's senses" as opposed to my previous use of the term wherein it meant "to accept without evidence." Hey...if that's what you want to run with, have at it!

In terms of the way Dr. Liddle and I were using the term, however, the fact is, basketball players don't engage in belief with regard to fouling, hitting baskets, dribbling, or anything else game related; they either accept the perception of their own senses and those of others around them or they don't. And guess what? Many times they don't accept the calls against them! Surprise! But that's why we have instant replay and all that other jazz now to make sure we get calls correct in accordance with the evidence, thus eliminating belief from games altogether. But thank you for proving my point for me, Mung - if this is what you mean by science being about "belief" (e.g., "agreement based upon evidence") then fine. I'll go ahead and agree with you since that was my point all along! Thanks!

And you don’t have to believe anything at all in order to do science.

Go ahead. Say some more idiotic stuff.

No no...no need for me to say anything idiotic at this point, what with you doing such a fine job on my behalf!

Doveton

Isn't it amusing that almost all scientistes (think 'artiste' a la Miss Piggy) will proclaim, night and day, that "science isn’t about belief and requires no belief" ... and then they spend inordinate amounts of time faulting the intellect and/or morals of persons who simply do not believe the stupid things they insist are "scientific truths" (which are not to be confused with actual truths). What? Are these people stupid -- are they incapable of understanding their own claims? -- or are they just intellectually dishonest? Ilion

Mung: "And sure, tack on speciation. The very thing Darwinism is supposed to explain." Even speciation is a red herring. What *needs* to be explained is not speciation, but the origin of biological novelty. Ilion

If "Science isn’t about belief and requires no belief" it's because science isn't about truth. Ilion

What isn’t? Speciation? Not in cloning critters it isn’t. How could they?

Bifurcation. Nested hierarchies. And sure, tack on speciation. The very thing Darwinism is supposed to explain. So if the very first self-replicator did so by cloning, how did we ever get any new species of self-replicators? Oh, we didn't? So at the must basic level of life Darwinism is false? Mung

Doveton:

And basketball players all have beliefs too, but that doesn’t mean that basketball is about belief or requires belief.

No. There's no need to believe you've been fouled. There's no need to believe you've scored a basket. There's no need to believe you won or lost the game. There's no need to believe those guys in the funny shirts are referees or that they have the power to eject you from the game. There's no reason to believe basketball is a team sport. There's no reason to believe those other 5 guys are not on your team. No, there's no reason to believe anything at all in order to play basketball. And you don't have to believe anything at all in order to do science. Go ahead. Say some more idiotic stuff. Mung

Elizabeth Liddle,

Oh, so then that’s NOT a prediction of Darwinian theory after all.

What isn’t? Speciation? Not in cloning critters it isn’t. How could they?

Just a suggestion, but perhaps it would help Mung if you noted that "Darwinian" theory made several predictions, noted a number of effects, and, as a theory, covered a number of related concepts. As such, while speciation is an effect (not a prediction) explained by evolutionary theory, it is not an effect of all of the concepts explained under evolutionary theory.

Doveton

Oh, so then that’s NOT a prediction of Darwinian theory after all.

What isn't? Speciation? Not in cloning critters it isn't. How could they? Elizabeth Liddle

Mung,

Doveton: Science isn’t about belief and requires no belief Elizabeth Liddle: Doveton is of course correct. How would you know? Is that your belief, speaking as a scientist?

Well, I can't speak for Dr. Liddle, but I certainly arrived at the conclusion in a straight forward manner without belief: there's no evidence, historical or otherwise of science requiring belief. Ergo, there is none. Of course, that's actually a tautology, but then that's the point.

Elizabeth Liddle: Scientists may believe things, but science is not about belief, nor does it require belief.</blockquote You two make a great pair.

That's very kind of you Mung, but you aren't really addressing the differentiation.

Elizabeth Liddle: If I have a significant finding, I do not “believe” it. Nor, I suppose, would you say that you “believe” it is significant.

No need to believe such; if it garners utilitarian interest and/or changes the understanding of given phenomenon, then by definition it is significant.

Scientists have beliefs, just like everyone else. Scientists don’t stop having beliefs just because they became scientists. In fact, I’d like to see someone do science without having any beliefs. The very idea is ludicrous.

And basketball players all have beliefs too, but that doesn't mean that basketball is about belief or requires belief. It seems you think that the beliefs held by participants and workers are somehow conferred onto the institution under which they are operating, but that only works if all workers and participants come to the institution due to a common belief. Do you know of such a belief held by all scientists? But more to the point, people having beliefs (plural) in general is quite different from an institution being about specific belief (singular) and requiring specific belief (singular). You are conflating scientists with science, but the two are quite different entities. Science is the broad body of knowledge garnered via a specific methodology and the methodology itself. Scientists are the practitioners of the methodology. To say that science is about the belief of the scientists and/or requires the belief of all scientists is to completely ignore that there are vast differences between the beliefs held by the many and varied scientists, not just today but throughout history. So no, this does not rebut my previous statement - the institution of science by definition is not about belief and does not require belief. If it was about belief or required belief, there could not be such varied beliefs among all the scientists who exist and have existed - they would all share the single belief required to conduct science. Doveton

Doveton:

Science isn’t about belief and requires no belief

Elizabeth Liddle:

Doveton is of course correct.

How would you know? Is that your belief, speaking as a scientist? Elizabeth Liddle:

Scientists may believe things, but science is not about belief, nor does it require belief.</blockquote You two make a great pair. Elizabeth Liddle:

If I have a significant finding, I do not “believe” it.

Nor, I suppose, would you say that you "believe" it is significant. Scientists have beliefs, just like everyone else. Scientists don't stop having beliefs just because they became scientists. In fact, I'd like to see someone do science without having any beliefs. The very idea is ludicrous.

Mung

I’m not sure what you are saying. I’m not saying that single-celled critters can’t evolve. It’s just that you won’t get speciation in the sense in which it is normally defined (bifurcation of populations into non-interbreeding sub-populations) – you’ll get plenty of adaptation, though, and lots of variation.

Oh, so then that's NOT a prediction of Darwinian theory after all. Mung

You may well have done. In which case, we agree. cool :) Elizabeth Liddle

Elizabeth Liddle:

But yes, it covers it – you just have to be careful not to extrapolate carelessly from one to the other.

And didn't I make this very point to you just the other day, lol? Mung

Doveton is of course correct. Scientists may believe things, but science is not about belief, nor does it require belief. If I have a significant finding, I do not "believe" it. I simply consider that my hypothesis is "supported". All scientific propositions are provisional, and they are all potentially falsifiable - or at least potentially rendered less tenable - by the next batch of data. Indeed, your first job, when you get data that support a hypothesis, is to try figure out what alternative hypothesis might also explain those data. Elizabeth Liddle

Mung:

Mung: Elizabeth, an an earlier thread you argued that evolution does not take place at the level of the cell. Elizabeth: I argued that natural selection takes place at the level of the organism – the phenotype. Well, let’s go back and have a look at just what was said. Mung: I try more and more to ignore any aspect of evolutionary theory which is above the level of the cell, what takes place in the cell and during the cell cycle. Cellular structures and processes. Elizabeth: In that case you cannot hope to understand evolutionary theory because natural selection operates at the level of the organism not at the level of the cell. And natural selection is fairly fundamental to evolutionary theory! Oh my. There I was talking about the cell, and cell level processes, and structures within the cell, and you told me I could not hope then to understand evolutionary theory because natural selection does not operate at the level of the cell. Except when it does. Right?

yes, obviously, when the cell IS the organism (i.e. when the organism is unicellular) then the level of the organism IS the level of the cell. OK?

So surely evolutionary theory covers all those unicellular organisms that live and have ever lived, right?

Well, evolution in asexually producing organisms has different characteristics - no speciation, for instance. But yes, it covers it - you just have to be careful not to extrapolate carelessly from one to the other.

It tells us how they evolved. How multi-cellularity evolved. How sexual reproduction evolved. All that good stuff.

Well, some of those remain pretty speculative. But yes, if it's any good as a theory it ought at least to generate hypotheses for these transitions. And has done.

There’s LOTS of things for evolutionary theory to explain just when it comes to single cells.

Indeed there is. But it doesn't alter the fact that natural selection (not "evolution") operates at the unit-of-reproduction, which, in the case of a single celled critter is, obviously, the cell, but which, in a multicellular organism is the organism. It can also operate at the level of the population, of course, as this is also a self-reproducing unit. And at the level of the colony, which may be the best way of thinking about very early multi-cellular organisms.

So why get sidetracked on common descent and all those other issues if we can’t even get life to evolve to that point?

I'm not sure what you are saying. I'm not saying that single-celled critters can't evolve. It's just that you won't get speciation in the sense in which it is normally defined (bifurcation of populations into non-interbreeding sub-populations) - you'll get plenty of adaptation, though, and lots of variation.

We need to evolve cell membranes.

Yes. Some people think they might have come first. In any case, until you have a self-reproducing cell, however simple, you don't have anything anyone would probably want to call life. Lipid vesicles containing self-replicating polymers is probably where we've got to start.

We need to evolve cell division. (600+ genes for mitosis alone!)

In modern cells, yes. But you can't talk about "evolving" cell division, really - evolution presupposes self-replication. You are down to the abiogenesis wire here.

We need to evolve introns. We need to evolve organelles. Intra-cellular transport. Cell to cell signalling. New cell types. A flagellum might come in handy. And the list goes on.

Sure. It's a very interesting topic, but obviously its one where data is pretty scarce. We may never have definitive answers, merely plausible hypotheses that make some verifiable predictions. Elizabeth Liddle

Doveton, do you know what the phrase patently false means?

Yes, I am well aware of what patently false means. However, declaring that something is patently false does not make the claim automatically true. As I'm unaware of any evidence that even remotely implies that science is about belief and requires belief, nevermind any evidence that directly proves such, and as you've failed to provide any such evidence yourself, I can only conclude that you are mistaken in your claim. Doveton

Mung: Elizabeth, an an earlier thread you argued that evolution does not take place at the level of the cell. Elizabeth: I argued that natural selection takes place at the level of the organism – the phenotype. Well, let's go back and have a look at just what was said. Mung: I try more and more to ignore any aspect of evolutionary theory which is above the level of the cell, what takes place in the cell and during the cell cycle. Cellular structures and processes. Elizabeth: In that case you cannot hope to understand evolutionary theory because natural selection operates at the level of the organism not at the level of the cell. And natural selection is fairly fundamental to evolutionary theory! Oh my. There I was talking about the cell, and cell level processes, and structures within the cell, and you told me I could not hope then to understand evolutionary theory because natural selection does not operate at the level of the cell. Except when it does. Right? So surely evolutionary theory covers all those unicellular organisms that live and have ever lived, right? It tells us how they evolved. How multi-cellularity evolved. How sexual reproduction evolved. All that good stuff. There's LOTS of things for evolutionary theory to explain just when it comes to single cells. So why get sidetracked on common descent and all those other issues if we can't even get life to evolve to that point? We need to evolve cell membranes. We need to evolve cell division. (600+ genes for mitosis alone!) We need to evolve introns. We need to evolve organelles. Intra-cellular transport. Cell to cell signalling. New cell types. A flagellum might come in handy. And the list goes on. Mung

Doveton, do you know what the phrase patently false means? Mung

1) Science isn’t about belief and requires no belief Patently false.

I have no doubt that you believe such, Mung, but declarations without substantiation don't carry much weight or credibility. You are, of course, welcome to your opinion however. Doveton

1) Science isn’t about belief and requires no belief Patently false. Mung

Elizabeth Liddle:

Mung:

Why should we believe your unfalsifiable theory?

First, you shouldn’t believe any theory, you should simply evaluate whether it is a good fit to the data. (snip} Third, as I’ve said before, science does not, in fact, proceed by falsification (except of the null, which doesn’t count) – it proceeds by fitting models to data, then using the fitted model to predict new data. Also by comparing fits of alternative models.

Nicely put, Dr. Liddle! These two are, imho, the foundations of really understanding science. 1) Science isn't about belief and requires no belief; it is about utility - what explanations are useful for predicting further aspects of our world's phenomena. 2) Scientific utility comes from the models describing how a given phenomenon works. Models are refined as more evidence becomes available. Models that do a better job of describing how a given phenomenon or set of phenomena operate are used more often (and sometimes replace*) older models. * I particularly enjoy Isaac Asimov's The Relatively of Wrong for its clarity on this subject. A worthwhile read for those who have not done so: http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm Doveton

... you know, the metaphysical equivalent to empty calories. Ilion

"What’s up with that?" Just her way of letting me know to generally skip over any post of hers. Ilion

junk, the stuff about the flagellum was in the comments, not a post. WilliamRoache

Junkdnaforlife,

The amount of effort that people spend trying to stop the idea of ID speaks volumes.

Yes indeed! 538 separate blog posts regarding ID available to anybody with an internet connection speaks volumes of the lengths those pesky darwinists will go to to suppress dissenting thought! WilliamRoache

I also found it interesting that (at telic thoughts) the category with the most entries is Intelligent design coming in with a whopping 538. Coming in second was a category named "The debate", with 325 entries. And coming in third, strangely, was "evolution," with 308. The amount of effort that people spend trying to stop the idea of ID speaks volumes. junkdnaforlife

WilliamRoache, I just checked the blog and could not find the flagellum evolution post. Drop a link and I will check it out. I found this I thought was funny. A commenter posted this:

The ideas of directed evolution, sequence mutation, and tailoring presented above lend naturally to more global concepts of design involving the notion of energy landscapes. For proteins, statistical-mechanic frameworks based on density of states, pioneered by Frauenfelder, Wolynes, Dill, Onuchic, Thirumalai and others (e.g.,[70–72]), have been invaluable in interpreting various protein kinetics and thermodynamic observations such as conformational sub-states, folding mechanisms, and function. Recently, Pitt and Ferre-D’Amare[73 ] introduced the notion of empirical RNA fitness landscapes by a combination of experiment and computation to analyze the optimization of typical SELEX products in terms of sequence/function relationships for small RNAs (up to 13 nt). Such genotype/phenotype mapping is of general interest and practical importance.

http://monod.biomath.nyu.edu/index/papdir/fulllengths/2011Curr.pdf Commenter then wrote this:

I think it is rather obvious the authors of the paper were thinking along the lines of human "directed evolution" and human "design", but I'm in a bit of a trouble-making mood, so I thought I would stir things up a bit. I am also posting this on Panda's Thumb. link I'm not an expert here and am willing to have it explained to me how I got this wrong.

-- It's funny, the ID debate, the virus that it, is everywhere lol. junkdnaforlife

Mung:

Why should we believe your unfalsifiable theory?

First, you shouldn't believe any theory, you should simply evaluate whether it is a good fit to the data. Second, not all predictions arising from theory are unique. So just because your theory predicts something that another theory predicts as well doesn't mean that your theory has no predictive power - it just means that the prediction in question doesn't distinguish the two theories. I've noticed this come up before - someone (me, for example) points out that an observation claimed to be a problem for Darwinism actually isn't, and the comeback is: well, that means Darwinism explains nothing. No, it doesn't. It means that the observation in question is compatible with Darwinism Not the same thing. Third, as I've said before, science does not, in fact, proceed by falsification (except of the null, which doesn't count) - it proceeds by fitting models to data, then using the fitted model to predict new data. Also by comparing fits of alternative models. The reason the falsification criteria (in its probabilistic sense) is still a bit relevant as a criterion for whether a theory is scientific is that a theory should both explain existing data and make predictions regarding new data that differ from rival theories. Darwin's theory does this. However, in science, as soon as you get confirmatory data the first thing you ask is: is there yet another alternative theory that might account for these new data? And so on. It's an iterative process. And often how it works is that the original theory becomes progressively refined, giving rise to nested sub-theories, as well as super-theories that extend beyond it, and account for data that the original theory doesn't explain. You might even say that it's the signature of a good theory. Darwin's was, and is, a good theory. Elizabeth Liddle

Mung:

Elizabeth, an an earlier thread you argued that evolution does not take place at the level of the cell.

I argued that natural selection takes place at the level of the organism - the phenotype.

And yet here you are arguing that it does. What’s up with that?

Because for microbes, the cell is the level of the phenotype. Elizabeth Liddle

Mung, Our understanding of evolution is also evolving. It would be odd if it were not. So the roots of the tree become bushes, some things are reclassified etc etc. Boring housekeeping work really for a living theory still in it's infancy (given that we'll probably be studying our biological inheritance on this planet for our entire history). So, no, Mung, the theory does not fit "any data". If we were to sequence a polar bear and find Pi encoded to a million bits in it's DNA evolution would not "fit" around that. If Irreducible Complexity really was a problem for evolution (it was predicted many years ago btw by a "darwinist") then it would have been a problem for evolution. But it was not. As Nick is showing on Telic Thoughts at the moment the evolution of the flagellum is now well supporter in the literature and no ID in sight. That the denizens of TT object furiously does not matter a whit. Their objections can be sent to the publisher of the paper in question. So go on then. What's the number one data point that you say should have broken evolution wide open rather then being noted and adjustments made (kinda like the borg!)? WilliamRoache

Elizabeth, an an earlier thread you argued that evolution does not take place at the level of the cell. And yet here you are arguing that it does. What's up with that? Mung

Why don't I believe in a theory that can fit any data? Mung

Mung, Why don't you simply "believe" in the theory that fits the data best? PS You don't believe in theorems the same way that people believe in religion. It's to do with supporting evidence and all that sort of thing. It's not really a question of "belief" if something is supported by verifiable facts. WilliamRoache

Why should we believe your unfalsifiable theory? Mung

You write:

In that case, what are they to make of recent findings that life’s simplest cells evolve mainly by swapping genes, and not through Darwinian competition?

These are not mutually exclusive! What evidence do you have that the results of gene-swapping never result in differential reproduction? Elizabeth Liddle