Evolution Science and Naturalism

Along these lines... I'd be curious if you would suspect that "1-in-9 chance of life" statistic to have potential for bias? With all the acknowledgement of how young modern science is, and the fact that we still don't have anything like a complete understanding how it all happened, it seems a bit hard for me to believe that a stat like that could be somehow authorative, while it obviously affirms what naturalists want to hear. Of course I don't know what all they used in making that stat, so I can't comment scientifically... You noted that it is based on too small of a sample size to be very complete, and I'd be interested in your thoughts as to wether or not bias (or vested interest) could influence something like that?

There are 9 planets for which we have data, life is known to have come into existence on 1. So therefore, within this limited sample set, the odds of life coming into existence on a planet is 1 in 9.

The only way for that information to be biased is for us to be somehow inappropriately rejecting life on the other planets, inappropriately accepting that there is life on earth, or failing to appropriately include or exclude certain planets. For instance, maybe there is life on one of the moons of Jupiter; maybe Pluto isn't really a planet; maybe we shouldn't be counting large gas planets, etc.

But bias isn't really the right word for what you're asking.

The real problem is that there is extreme statistical limitation to the self-contained statement that the odds of life are 1 in 9. If I ran standard deviation or confidence intervals on this, the 1:9 proportion would be completely insignificant. We just don't have the data. So how do we find out the true likelihood of life arising on a planet? We 1) limit the analysis to planets with certain common parameters to ours (like size, temperature, atmosphere, presence of water) and exclude big gas planets like Jupiter and tiny iceworlds like Pluto 2) we define what life is or what its characteristics are, and 3) we study 10,000 planets -- and we do it closely enough to identify microbial life and to find evidence of life that has evolved but become extinct. (Strictly speaking you decide in advance the amount of acceptable error and then you do a power calculation to determine the needed sample size).

So what are the true odds of life evolving on a planet? WE HAVE NO IDEA. Why? NOT because of some logical argument about how we think it's unlikely. Simply because we don't have the data.

What if we go out, explore 10,000 earth-like planets, and we find cellular life in various stages of evolution on 7500 of them. Or all of them. Or 200 of them. Does that change the way we thing of the likelihood of life evolving? Certainly does for me.


Come on, you know I was being facetious by saying that. It's a completely and totally ludicrous statement that NO ONE in science makes.

By the way, you're still perseverating on the word "naturalist", which I reject as biased unto itself. You're using it rhetorically the way Rush Limbaugh throws around the word "liberals" and the way McCarthyists used the words "communists". This definition of naturalism is divergent from science, scientific thought, and the scientific community, because the philosophy is based on first principles and not on method. So if you have an objection against some fringy religion, you're not talking to one of its defenders. Science doesn't out of principle deny something -- it rejects it based on lack of evidentiary merit. To equate science with "naturalistic philosophy" is backwards.

Ok, totally misunderstood the premise behind that statistc... and I was asking partly to get some more background... which I understand now- we know of 9 planets, 1 has life... Makes sense in a certain way.

About the word "naturalist", I'm sorry if I'm using it wrong. I'm trying to explore how/if any vested interest for science or a scientist could have affects, which we both agreed could happen on at least some level. For what it's worth, I place a great deal of weight in the idea that bias/world view/vested interest/etc. has the ability to nearly blind people (we are all human after all) if it is not examined, questioned, and taken seriously. I will personally have a hard time trusting a system or people that don't take a close look at these. (And hope that I have taken this same stance in examining my own beliefs, even if I have done it imperfectly.) You on the other hand have great faith in the scientific method to correct theese possibilities, or you don't think that they exist in any significant way. That's ok, we're coming from different perspectives, and I'm just exploring the idea. If you think I've pushed this topic beyond where I should or at least beyond your interest, I'm willing to drop it.

I don't have "great faith" in the scientific method. It's not something to believe in, it's just something to do.

It differs from looking and thinking only in that observations are standardized so that it is repeatable and bias is minimized. Without the scientific method, observations would be completely fraught with bias all the time.


I'm not tired of it -- but I do want us to make progress at this. I just think you're trying to ask questions based on your own preconception about science and you're not getting the answers you want or you expect. When I offered you scientific papers in which you could demonstrate your thesis to me, you declined to do so. If you want to make a case that's more than just your own personal viewpoint on the matter, then you need to demonstrate that there is methodological bias in the research itself. If you're unwilling to do that, then your point of view is just a prejudice. Do you know what I mean?

Well, you're probably right that I'm asking questions based on some preconceptions... But I'd say they're probably preconceptions about humanity more than science in particular. I'm also bringing a certain skepticism that (for better or worse) I think I bring to most areas of life, so I don't think that in that way I've singled science out. That said, I won't pretend that I don't find some parts of science (or maybe at the way it's presented) looking askew to me, but like you said, that is from my point of view. And I'm not a scientist. So it's only my opinion. For what it's worth, I don't (and probably couldn't) take issue with the method, but from my perspective there's a lot more that goes into anything that involves humans than just a method. And please don't think that my wondering about or even suspecting bias/vested interest in science is singling out scientists- I think that they can potentially have a strong influence on anyone (including me) and any society (including science).

That's the whole point of science. You formalize your methodology in order to deliberately limit bias -- which is different than anything outside of science (and by science here I include social sciences too, not just natural sciences). You limit bias by using control groups, by using prospective methodology when possible, by blinding (or double blinding when there are human subjects), by using several methods to analyze the same question (to see if they corroborate), by using large study groups to strengthen statistical arguments, and by repeating the study methods to ensure that the results are repeatedly demonstrable.

There are always going to be human elements, especially since the domain of science is to shed light on the unknown. But as compared with anything else in life, science is the least amenable to bias. Why? Science is defined by its attempt to limit bias. That's what it fundamentally is.

Go read an editorial in the newspaper and ask yourself how the editorialist has or has not limited bias. Listen to a political candidate, or some commentator on cable news. But in science, at least the methodology is out on the table. And everyone in science knows that methods that control bias poorly, like retrospective analysis, lack of control groups, lack of statistical power, and others, generate much weaker conclusions.

In theory, I have no real disagreements with what you just said, but IMO limiting bias is a different thing altogether than eliminating it. Theoretically, I would also be of the opinion that if a system, no matter how good the system may be, is used to create a (false) sense of complete objectivity, then that itself could create an environment in which bias is quite possible; even (or maybe especially) on a large scale.

That said, I personally still have questions and doubts based on some things I've observed and (to be fair) some assumtions (whether acurate or not) as well, but I think I'm going to call it quits for now if thats ok with you.

Your premise regarding mutations is invalid because your assumptions about mutations and their effects are incorrect. Just because most mutations are neutral or damaging does not mean that progress cannot continue. You are not considering the effects of the positive mutation.

Hi Bomzaway. Thanks for reading and responding! I think I understand where you're coming from, though I would disagree on some points.

Unfortunately, I think to debate further could mostly just result in talking at or past each other, as we mostly have done so far. If I were to try to answer every argument that you, Aedes, and Peter have posed, this would be a very time consuming project (which is my fault... just look at the broad strokes of my first post!). And my answers would still not be any more satisfactory to you than theirs have been to me. (I hope that made sense and didn't sound arrogant)

As far as where I'm at right now... I will simply say that to me, from what I have understood, I think that science in general has moved beyond the objective in their interpretations of how life and the universe came to be as we see them today. Also, I would feel like the current interpretations, where they go beyond what I would call objective, often seem to me to be based on, or to the benefit of, the naturalistic world view of the current culture of science and acedemia in general.

I don't think that for now I will try to defend the above statement at all. It is not a scientific "proof", it is in essence a statement of current opinion. You are perfectly allowed to disagree with me, and for any reason. I made the mistake in my first post of taking a stance that was much too authoritative, and then antagonistic on top of that!

If you are interested in hearing more about why I feel the way I do, I could try to explain myself more... But I really do want to steer clear of trying to argue that I'm right and you're wrong (and it was my fault it started that way...).

I hope that sounds reasonable.

That's not something that you've interjected into this debate before. You've perhaps implied it, but in the context of an unsupported accusation of "naturalistic bias" (unsupported because you declined to critically look at official scientific communications and demonstrate it).

So if your contention is that it's "beyond the objective", then you're raising different epistemological issues that are extremely easy to counter. For instance, one can easily respond that nothing is ever objective, including science, and science is only different in that it is transparent and repeatable. I can respond by asking you how we know anything, which will clearly introduce parameters that give scientific discoveries more strength than nearly everything in collective human knowledge.


Which again is something you refuse to back up. The entire library of science is open to you and you refuse to support your own argument. Nor do you have the experience of science or academia to base your accusation even on insight. So I don't mean to say this in a demeaning way -- I only ask what an opinion is worth when it's not founded on anything except for an isolated point of view?


Your current opinion, of course, but without a defense, so in the end it doesn't even have rhetorical strength, let alone intellectual strength.

You're being very unyielding in a point of view that you don't even attempt to justify, which makes me wonder what you're trying to accomplish. You're entitled to it, of course, but that's not the issue. You haven't demonstrated why your point of view has any more validity than any other arbitrary statement or generalization.

You're right that that was a new addition (at least as a fully stated idea). In essence I summed up in that post my current position (after the debate so far), but as you noted I did not support it with arguments. I guess I'm in essence raising the white flag on my own thread. I opened with bold and sweeping arguments and opinions. Some of them I have decided were simply dumb. And all of them I have decided that I do not have the authority or expertise to "prove". I wish I had started in a different manner (if I brought the subject up at all), but really it took this discussion for me to come to the more succinct (and more humble) opinions I hold now. So in that way I'm thankful for the interaction- Sometimes it takes a beating to teach a hard head. (me)

That said, I mostly am applogetic about my earlier manner, and some of my original opinions. I'm not apologetic about my current opinions (stated above), and I feel that I have good reasons for them, and that from my perspective this conversation has actually supported them. And yes, you are right that they have a lot to do with general approaches (including epistemology), and the discussion would be much more philosophical than "proof" oriented, and would be a matter of opinion for certain. But... I think I ruined any possibility of an open conversation on the matter (at least for the time being), and so I'm withdrawing without supporting my own opinions or attacking anyone else's. Sorry if that frustrating- I realize I started this whole thing...

So you can say you won the debate, I won't disagree.

Hehehe, get some sleep, I'm sure we'll have a round 2 at some point.