Dawkins on Evolution

@richrf,

Fair comment, although perhaps better to say, it is an idea for which evidence has yet to be forthcoming. In the context, however, I was trying to make the point that whether Sheldrake's ideas end up being accepted or not, the reaction to him is illustrative of the idea the science is perceived to operate within certain bounds. In other words, there are types of things that science won't consider because to consider them is not scientific. The historical situation of the debate between creationism and evolution is such that almost all ideas of a certain type - including a much broader spectrum of ideas than just crude creationism - are placed on the 'religion' side of the ledger, and are therefore not regarded as worthy of scientific investigation.

I have some books on (for example) paranormal research. They seem to me to make a pretty good case for the fact that some telepathic effects do occur. But the arguments all come down to interpretation of statistical probabilities over long periods of time, and so the argument quickly turns from whether such things really occur, to arcane debates about mean variances and the interpretations of trials, and so on. But again, without declaring sides, it is interesting to note the extent to which the 'scientific sceptic' will go to deny that there has ever been one instance of telepathy. Because if there were even one, then basically the idea that reality consists of nothing more than interactions between purely physical entities is more or less shot down in flames, isn't it?

---------- Post added 09-22-2009 at 08:02 PM ----------

I should have said 'worthy of consideration by science' rather than 'worthy of investigation' because they might still be beyond the scope of investigation, while still serving as an explanatory principle.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;92657 wrote:

Fair comment, although perhaps better to say, it is an idea for which evidence has yet to be forthcoming. In the context, however, I was trying to make the point that whether Sheldrake's ideas end up being accepted or not, the reaction to him is illustrative of the idea the science is perceived to operate within certain bounds.

Sure, and those bounds are what can be shown through processes involving physical evidence and reasoned logic.

Quote:

In other words, there are types of things that science won't consider because to consider them is not scientific. The historical situation of the debate between creationism and evolution is such that almost all ideas of a certain type - including a much broader spectrum of ideas than just crude creationism - are placed on the 'religion' side of the ledger, and are therefore not regarded as worthy of scientific investigation.

I'm not sure that's true. There seem to be a large number of remunerative offers for people to enter labs and demonstrate the sort of paranormal phenomena they claim to be able to do on stage, and they are generally ignored or proved wrong.

It's not like science isn't willing to look at these things - but it isn't willing to do so whilst compromising it's method (assuming the scientists involved are professionals) and I think that's desirable - because the method is what makes it science.

For example - I saw a program on UK TV where there were a number of reports of a haunted house, and people visiting it were often reporting feelings of dread and suffering from odd sensations and even involuntary movements, and some scientists were challenged to explain why.

They found a source of loud subsonic noise in the house (wind blowing through a flue in a certain way) and showed that people in labs exposed to similar noises also reported feelings of dread and suffered from odd sensations and even involuntary movements.

Does it prove that the building wasn't haunted? No. But it does give a more likely scenario to explain the feelings people reported than the activity of ghosts.

Quote:

Because if there were even one, then basically the idea that reality consists of nothing more than interactions between purely physical entities is more or less shot down in flames, isn't it?

No, because there might be a physical explanation for why two people could communicate remotely without words - the equivalent of a biological radio.

So even if telepathy were to be somehow made a matter of general agreement - it still wouldn't be safe to consider it outside the realm of the physical unless it could somehow be proved that no part of the body governed telepathy through physical means.

0 Replies

@richrf,

Speaking of Sheldrake, and Dawkins, this is definitely worth a read - an account of Dawkins interviewing Sheldrake, where the latter sent documentary accounts of telepathic experiences, and Dawkins refused to look at it, saying he was only interested in a 'high-grade debunking exercise'. Dialogues and Controversies - Controversies - Richard Dawkins

As for the evidence, there is plenty of statistical evidence, of the kind that 'the probability of same effect occuring by chance is X thousand to 1'. There is enough to prove there is an effect. But the the scientific sceptics are sufficiently skilled at 'debunking' as Dawkins puts it, to sorround it all by doubt and difficult arguments. But then, there is a lot at stake.

And if telepathy can be shown to occur, then the definition of the word 'physical' will have to be considerably altered, don't you think?

---------- Post added 09-22-2009 at 09:19 PM ----------

Incidentally, if you can establish the existence of 'biological radio' then please stay in touch, because I would love to be personally acquainted with a Nobel winner.:bigsmile:

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;92666 wrote:

And if telepathy can be shown to occur, then the definition of the word 'physical' will have to be considerably altered, don't you think?

No.

Let's say that tomorrow, for the sake of debate, it simply becomes a matter of fact that we can communicate telepathically.

Now - fine - that's weird but settled.

However, you would still have all your work cut out for you if you were to assert that this isn't a physical thing. What if, for example, some people communicating telepathically were observed via CAT scan to show activity in a certain part of the brain, or that parts of the inner ear were sending and receiving signals at a sub or supersonic level?

In order to prove that such communication were definately not physical you would have to posit all possible ways in which it could occur physically and then show how none of them applied.

Once that had been shown one could say "this is something that operates outside of our common conception of the physical".

0 Replies

@LWSleeth,

LWSleeth;92597 wrote:

Is your concept that we should submit to ALL opinions of those who are more expertly educated? Do you, in your life, treat opinions of experts on theoretical controversial areas the same as observed phenomena? So, for example, a Ph.D in economics who advocates socialism is someone you automatically bow to? I think not (based on reading what you've written in other threads).

This issue of what/who is the creator is hugely important to humanity. Nobody is going to lie down for "experts'" views on theoretical areas on the other side of a highly controversial debate. Get real! :detective:

Check out the logic fallacy of "appeal to authority" if you need more reason to hesitate with your idea.

I don't submit my opinions to anyone, but when factual matters come up, I don't pretend to know as much as an expert. I will argue with a socialistic economist, but if he states that the majority of professional economists are Keynesians, I will generally accept that and move on.

The crazy thing is that both Aedes and I believe that science can't address the issue of just what created or is directing it all. We can study the process with science, but greater consciousness is beyond our realm. Beyond that, judging from Aedes accommodating nature in this thread, I imagine we disagree a bit.

Considering that we likely disagree on the logic following from the facts, your charge of "appealing to authority" falls far off the mark.

---------- Post added 09-22-2009 at 08:43 AM ----------

Aedes wrote:

Nature may not be understood, but it is observable and predictable. The hand of god is not. By definition something supernatural would be something that openly violates nature. And I restate that there is no evidence for such a phenomenon. When you raise the dead or part the waters by raising your staff, I might reevaluate my position.

And considering the ways our minds work, through probabilities, causality, and what not, at what point do we have the ability to interpret phenomenon that violates causal and probabilistic nature?

Our minds aren't geared for that.

1 Reply

@richrf,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

And considering the ways our minds work, through probabilities, causality, and what not, at what point do we have the ability to interpret phenomenon that violates causal and probabilistic nature?

The point at which we witness said phenomenom. When else could we begin interpretation?

1 Reply

@Zetherin,

Zetherin;92691 wrote:

The point at which we witness said phenomenom. When else could we begin interpretation?

My point being, how do we rationalize phenomenon that denies natural causality? I propose that it is impossible for us to do so.

0 Replies

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;92646 wrote:

Did he give a pat answer to what happened millions of years ago?

Not that I saw.

Talk about intellectual honesty.

Talk about honesty - period.

Yes. Evolution is about what might have happened in the past. It is a guess. An idea. A belief. For some it is a very strong belief.

My guess is that as we learn more about consciousness, which may take a very long time, we will learn more about what causes things to evolve. Until then, we are all guessing. I am OK with that. There is no rush for me.

Rich

2 Replies

@richrf,

Evolution is not merely a guess or a belief - it is backed by evidence, which is ample for anyone interested in looking around for a moment.

Sure, we will learn more about evolution, but evolution is far more than belief and guessing.

1 Reply

@Didymos Thomas,

Didymos Thomas;92718 wrote:

Evolution is not merely a guess or a belief - it is backed by evidence, which is ample for anyone interested in looking around for a moment.

Sure, we will learn more about evolution, but evolution is far more than belief and guessing.

There is all kinds of evidence that can be interpreted in all kinds of ways. Evolution, as defined by Darwin, is an interpretation.

Biology, unlike physics, apparently cannot differentiate interpretations from theories.

Observe how scientists treat evidence:

I and others on this thread have pointed out how natural selection is core to the evolutionary theory and how it is being widely taught as such. Lots of evidence. It appears everywhere in literature and in school curriculums. And how is all of this evidence treated - it is denied. This is exactly the way people of faith treat evidence. Deny.

Now, I look at all of the evidence, and I can seem many ways to interpret the evidence just as there are many ways to interpret quantum equations. I can differentiate between interpretations and theories that predict observable events. Anything that seeks to explain how humans and human consciousness evolved, is just an interpretation of evidence of what may have happened millions of years ago.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;92717 wrote:

Yes. Evolution is about what might have happened in the past.

That's not true.

You are confusing evolution for natural history (I repeat - if it's so simple why do you have such a problem getting it?).

History is a detective story, through which we make guesses about the past based on the evidence we have today.

Evolution - a mechanism describing how populations of organisms change - applied to historical evidence (fossil record) and currently available evidence (genetic taxonomy, selective breeding, lab experiments) reveals a compelling (to varying degrees, natch) account of what might have occured in the past.

0 Replies

@richrf,

Yeah, I'm sure you've locked on to something that the vast, almost unanimous, consensus of scientists have somehow missed... even though, had they recognized the supposed essential flaw of evolution, they would be immortalized in history.

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;92724 wrote:

Lots of evidence.

No - lots of testimony.

1 Reply

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;92732 wrote:

No - lots of testimony.

And that is how scientists filter information. To conform to their own beliefs.

Testimony, evidence, proof, beliefs, ideas, hypothesis. It call kind of gets mashed together in evolution in order to support a given view. It is kind of mushy, like Dawkins' arguments.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

Seriously,

Evolution is about as solid as theories get. It is a matter of logical deduction first off. The most supportive argument is just to explain the logical progression of the process. Then we have mountains of evidence from the study of genetics and fossil records that match what our logic says to be true.

We can deduce evolution without observing it, and we can observe it without deducing it. When the two mesh as well as our theory of evolution have, you don't find too many stronger bases for knowledge.

It is true that evolution does not answer the question of a great creator, nothing can do that. You can explain every natural phenomenon and the rules that govern them, but the chance that there is supreme power that set this great algorithm in order is still there. Still, doubting evolution is akin to doubting the orbit of the Earth around the sun, except to the degree that the idea challenges humanity's role in the world.

Of course, all we know about the possible creator is that he wanted the world to be the way it is, and we still can derive no greater quality concerning the creator nor any greater ought than what we already have. Don't see much point in adding motive to the world when all we know is motive and nothing more.

---------- Post added 09-22-2009 at 11:20 AM ----------

richrf;92736 wrote:

And that is how scientists filter information. To conform to their own beliefs.

Testimony, evidence, proof, beliefs, ideas, hypothesis. It call kind of gets mashed together in evolution in order to support a given view. It is kind of mushy, like Dawkins' arguments.

Rich

Yes, in order to promote their burning desire to make human life even more meaningless.

EDIT: My grammar is just poor.

0 Replies

@richrf,

richrf;92736 wrote:

Testimony, evidence, proof, beliefs, ideas, hypothesis. It call kind of gets mashed together in evolution in order to support a given view.

Given that you don't understand much about the theory, and that you're a relativist in terms of knowledge anyhow - how would you know that?

1 Reply

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power;92673 wrote:

The crazy thing is that both Aedes and I believe that science can't address the issue of just what created or is directing it all. We can study the process with science, but greater consciousness is beyond our realm. Beyond that, judging from Aedes accommodating nature in this thread, I imagine we disagree a bit.

You and I disagree a lot on politics and economics, but we agree here. I'm being accomodating because I think that taking a rigid stance is not very useful rhetorically, i.e. the conversation will be more productive by achieving an understanding of contrary points of view and operating on common ground. I also think there is value (and necessity) in nonscientific ideas -- but like you I do not think that these have a place competing against science in science's own terms. That is why in epistemological terms there is no scientific debate whatsoever between creation and evolution -- it simply does not exist. In social and cultural terms there is, but that bespeaks a relativistic look at science, i.e. we'll believe science when it conforms to our belief system but not when it doesn't.

Mr. Fight the Power;92673 wrote:

And considering the ways our minds work, through probabilities, causality, and what not, at what point do we have the ability to interpret phenomenon that violates causal and probabilistic nature?

We do systematic science and write it up in order that our observations are repeatable. Our confidence in a finding stems from its repeated demonstrability. And that's why random anecdotes and personal opinions melt into nothingness in the face of contradictory controlled evidence.

---------- Post added 09-22-2009 at 11:54 AM ----------

Dave Allen;92646 wrote:

Strikes me - again - that you are the one swinging your fist, and then crying foul when someone lands one on you.

Yup, Les keeps complaining about lack of evidence for the evolution of novel organ systems, which completely ignores the simple fact that apparently divergent organ systems are adaptations of the same underlying embryologic structures. The ear that exists in terrestrial animals is an embryologic paralogue of the gill that exists in fish. Big whoop. It's no different than horses having hooves but cats having paws -- just a greater degree of phenotypic change.

0 Replies

@Dave Allen,

Dave Allen;92741 wrote:

Given that you don't understand much about the theory, and that you're a relativist in terms of knowledge anyhow - how would you know that?

Because there is no clarity on what is evolution? It keeps changing as the discussion continues. It is like mercury oozing through my fingers. Why don't you clearly and succinctly state the theory if there is one?

In quantum physics theory there is no such clouds of ambiguity. However, there are similar problems in quantum theory interpretations. That is how I know a theory from an interpretation.

Views and presentations on evolution keep changing all over the place, which is the hallmark of interpretations. I would say that Dawkins' essay is exemplary of evolutionary mushiness, and your attempts to simultaneously run away from it and include it are examples of the problems one runs into when defending a belief without first clearly presenting it as a belief.

It is like any religion. Everyone says they know what it is, but when people start talking about it they realize that their beliefs are different.

Rich

---------- Post added 09-22-2009 at 11:46 AM ----------

Aedes;92744 wrote:

YYup, Les keeps complaining about lack of evidence for the evolution of novel organ systems, which completely ignores the simple fact that apparently divergent organ systems are adaptations of the same underlying embryologic structures. The ear that exists in terrestrial animals is an embryologic paralogue of the gill that exists in fish. Big whoop. It's no different than horses having hooves but cats having paws -- just a greater degree of phenotypic change.

All this says is that some things in life are the same and some things are different. I can say the same thing for history. And things change. If that is all that evolution is saying, then I can tell you that the same thing was said 2000 years ago about Daoists and Heraclitus.

However, Dawkins is saying much, much more as he states in the title of this article, and this is his view of evolution. As I said, evolution has no definition. It is a set of beliefs. You have articulated yours. Dawkins articulated his. And I have articulated mine.

Rich

1 Reply

@richrf,

richrf;92754 wrote:

All this says is that some things in life are the same and some things are different.[/qutoe]Except that we have a mechanistic explanation that is repeatedly demonstrable across the spectrum of organisms on this planet. Not only are the differences identifiable, but the underlying molecular and cellular mechanisms are as well.

richrf;92754 wrote:
I can tell you that the same thing was said 2000 years ago about Daoists and Heraclitus.
Daoists and Heraclitus did not have evidence, though -- not to mention that they wouldn't have even agreed with one another. Furthermore, a LOT was said 2000 years ago -- Pythagoras and Heraclitus said the opposite of one another, so did Plato and Aristotle, and then there were Anaximander and Anaximenes who were all over the map.

Some of them had ideas that have proven tenable based on current evidence and understanding, but there's a difference between speculation and deduction based on systematic observations.

1 Reply

@richrf,

Aedes wrote:

Some of them had ideas that have proven tenable based on current evidence and understanding, but there's a difference between speculation and deduction based on systematic observations.

And current observations.

Rich, evolution isn't what "might have happened in the past" (I'm referring to your comment on millions of years ago). There's evidence of it currently! Realize that human evolution is not the only kind of evolution, as you seem to be focusing on. More importantly, evolution hasn't stopped, it isn't a stage. It's currently progressing in all living creatures as we speak.

0 Replies

Dawkins on Evolution

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know