Science does not deal in "facts." It deals in observations,
theories, hypotheses, and experiments.
By fact, you
really mean observation or theory or hypothesis. I suggest you use this term in
the future to avoid appearing arrogant.
No. By 'fact', I mean
observation with context (for limitation), known credibility/reliability ('error
bars' in some sciences, their equivalent in others), repeatability (of, at
least, pertinent features), and verifiability (where possible). I allow for
observation reports by other observers, for which I must also evaluate the
observer's credibility/reliability as an observer and
reporter.
There is no such thing as a scientific fact. Period.
It's an oxymoron.
Perhaps there are no facts: the PoMo
(post-modern) philosophers and some christian apologists would have you believe
that, since there is no absolute certainty. The humility of science accepts
that lack of absolute certainty as 'fact'. But given the epistemic difficulty
of certainty vs the need to get on with life, we must do the best we can.
That "best" seems to be to accept as provisional 'fact' those full observations
and reports of observations which carry a sufficiently high degree of
credibility and pertinence. That is the sense that I, and other people
practising in the sciences, use the term 'fact': what other short word would
you propose to denote all the thought surrounding the above meaning of 'fact'?
Science can prove nothing. Absolutely nothing. It can only disprove
or fail to disprove something, thus supporting it. However, that is pretty good.
The scientific method works great, but it is always limited. We are always
coming up with better ways to explain things.
I'm well aware of
the shortcomings of the intellect of a single person and of larger populations.
You're absolutely correct: science proves nothing since proof is a concept for
lawyers, distillers of spirits, coin-minters and snake-oil salesmen. I'm well
aware of the validity of Feynmann's observation that "the easiest person to fool
is yourself". I'm well aware that the sciences are built around countermeasures
for Feynmann's observation, as well as for the other problems of
episteme.
And I'm well aware of the success that the sciences have had
in understanding the universe, by humbly accepting the limitations it must bear,
and working with them.
In the jargon of the sciences, a proposition is
'proven' if it is consistent with all pertinent, credible observations ever
reported. Proof, in this context, can be destroyed by a credible, pertinent
observation that severely conflicts with the proposition: in science, 'proof'
is volatile.
A 'fact' is not a certainty, to be sure. But then, neither is
anything in any rational field of endeavour.
As far as
creation/evolution goes, neither is experimental science.
In fact,
evolution is an experimental science, as well as an analytic (historical)
science. Creationism, of course, is not. There are reported experiments in
evolution, both in whole and in each of its parts.
The Lenski experiment
demonstrated evolution in action, over ca 40,000 generations, and is
still running, AIUI.
Gene modifications, of various kinds, are partial
experiments in imperfect replication (where the imperfections are man made), and
are accompanied by observations of selection of the results in various
environments.
Experiments with tree-moth populations in England, which
evolve to display different colours according the tree colours in their
respective environments.
The list goes on and on and on.
They are
not observable (nobody was there)
If 'nobody was there' is a valid
objection, then only eyewitness testimony could be considered in court. But
eyewitness testimony has been shown to be the least reliable of all permissible
forms of evidence.
My car is powered by leprechauns, living in the cylinders,
doing pushups between the piston and the cylinder head, and drinking diesel fuel
for sustenance.1 Unless you have been inside the cylinders of my
car's engine while it was running, you cannot validly dispute that statement:
you weren't there.
and they are not disprovable, two key elements of
experiment science.
Creationism is not falsifiable, by design (as
well as by goal-post shifting), since it makes no evaluable statement about
reality. It is well known that evolution can be trivially falsified by (in the
canonical example) finding a rabbit fossil in a Devonian stratum, since
evolution claims that rabbits did not appear in the world until well after the
Devonian strata had been laid down.
Think about it, what does an
evolutionist do when something comes up that contradicts an element of their
theory? Do they throw it out? No, they just tweak their theory to fit. A
creationist does the same.
I have yet to see, or see reference to,
a creationist 'tweaking' their creationism to account for new information. All
I have seen is the creationists either rejecting the information or
misrepresenting it into a pretence of support for their imaginings. For
example, the creed of the Answers in Genesis (creationist) cult, as well as many
others, plainly states that any part of reality that is found to conflict with
their interpretation of creationism is perforce wrong and is to be rejected. (I
mention AiG because they come to mind first. I've seen the same statement or
its equivalent on the websites of many creationisms.)
The humility of science
precludes any claim of absolute, unrefinable truth: all results of science are
deemed provisional, subject to correction or refinment when new information
becomes available. Sometimes, 'correction' requires throwing out the whole
theory, as with the æther theory of electromagnetic radiation or 'humours'
in medicine. Other theories can be 'tweaked' by recognizing a previously
unrecognised limitation on scope: Newtonian relativity applies, with usable
accuracy, in non-accelerating, low gravity situations; Flat Earth applies over
distances small enough that two plumb lines do not deviate from parallel by a
meaningful amount. Refinements to evolution seem to take the form "Yup, that's
another example of an evolution mechanism".
Both are HISTORICAL
sciences, in which theories or models are developed to explain what is thought
to have happened.
Much of evolution — primarily the
palæontologic and geologic parts — is indeed a historical
discipline. Creationism, not being a science at all, cannot be said to be a
historical one.
This leaves one problem with the above: science does not
seek to "explain what is thought to have happened". In its humble recognition
of the rôle of thought vs observation (empiricism), science seeks
to best explain what the evidence seems to mean. It is historical when the
evidence is historical; it is experimental when the evidence results from some
active probing of reality.
Experimental science comes into play in
testing ELEMENTS of the theories, but you cannot test the base beliefs.
Science, in its humility, always tests its bases, including the
few bases that are beliefs.
They are akin to Forensics. While
someone can make a very strong case that someone robbed a bank, the judge/jury
will never really know exactly (for sure) what happened. There will always be at
least a shadow of a doubt.
That's true for any science, but I have
not seen many creationists who will accept observation as teaching anything
about his beliefs. You might be an exception, but what you say below makes me
doubt it. Science never is absolutely certain; full-on creationists are always
absolutely certain.
Science, as I have explained above, fully
accepts that view. I cannot convince you that I am right and you are wrong and
you cannot convince me that you are right and I am wrong.
I don't
require that you accept my explanations: you are not the person I'm writing
this for. I'm writing not for the person who would cling to the arrogance of
the oppressive, illusory certainty of faith, but for the one who would revel in
the humble joy of understanding some of reality, however uncertain the
understanding might be from time to time.
Again, this is not
experimental science. What we have here is a philosophy on which rests our
choice of HISTORICAL, scientific model.
Except, again, that
evolution is both historical and experimental science, where faith-based
creationism is neither.
If you take the Bible's way of looking at
the beginning, you will TEND to steer toward creationism.
Tell that
to the multitude of christians who accept evolution alongside their bible. They
seem to outnumber the christian creationists, which is damaging to your use or
"TEND".
If you do not, you will TEND to steer towards
evolution.
Tell that to the non-christian creationists, like the
muslim ones, who tend towards their own creationism rather than either evolution
or the idiosyncratic christian creationism. Muslims seem to outnumber
christians around the world. This, to, conflicts with your purported
TENDency.
Both make perfect sense when viewed in the light of the a
priori assumptions that go into choosing that theory.
This
statement is difficult for me to understand: the creationists' a priori
assumptions seem to include a total rejection of making sense, in favour of pure
faith in either some dogma or some revelation. OTOH, the presuppositions of
science, to the extent science can be said to have any, include giving reality
precedence over philosophy and belief, with 'making sense' a desideratum or even
a goal.
We are both looking at the same evidence, just through
different interpretive lenses.
As AiG explains, their "interpretive
lenses" are expected block out any and all evidence that conflicts with their
presuppositions. Contrariwise, sciences "interpretive lenses" are expected to
highlight any evidence that conflicts with current understandings. I would hope
that you are willing to see the difference.
We are both neither
right nor wrong. That's the beauty of philosophy.
That's the
beauty, to you, of the nihilistic portion of PoMo "philosophy": reality is not
relevant to reality, is what PoMoism seems to boil down to.
The problem that
PoMoism has is that it is possible to disprove (some) reality-based
propositions. As you point out above, this potential for disproof is a
foundation of science.If you (or I) utter one such proposition, and it is
disproven, then you (or I) are wrong. When PoMoism tells you that there is no
right or wrong, they get proven wrong.
We will possibly forever
disagree, hopefully we can do so cordially and with respect for each other's
position.
Well, I can find little respect for a belief that would
claim to seek understanding of reality, while denying reality any rôle in
that understanding. Nor can I find much respect for a belief system that would,
like christian and islamic fundamentalism, and like christian and islamic
creationism, seek to impose itself through government force, rather than on its
merits.
After all, isn't competition a good
thing?
It's not necessarily good: one of the prerequisites is
competition on the merits rather than on political or financial clout (ref
Microsoft's history of 'competition').
Both theories have forced
each other to improve and not be content with "good enough."
I
don't see how creationisms have caused any improvement to evolution one whit:
evolution works with reality, rather than beliefs. OTOH, none of the
creationisms seem to have responded to ToE, except by doubling down on denial
and misrepresentation. Is that improvement?
Thus, please do not
feel threatened when you hear someone avow creationism,
I look at
the creationist politicians in the local school boards, state education boards
and the legislatures around the country. I see creationists working everywhere
to change the schools, to teach science as mere beliefs, to promote their
beliefs to the respectability that science has earned but which they have
not.
Then I look at my children, my grandchildren, my great-grandchildren
– and at others to whom I am not related – who will be affected by
this damage to their education. I will not likely be around when the results
manifest themselves, so I won't have to live in the third-world country that
these creationists are trying so hard to create (along with the patent and
copyright maximalists and others).
No, I don't feel threatened for myself,
but for the rest of the country.
and please remember the fact
that they are just looking at the SAME evidence through different
lenses.
And please understand the respective natures of your
"different lenses."--OpenSourceFTW
P.S. I
do have authority to speak on this subject (Biology, B.S.), I'm not just some
random guy off the street XD.
Quite frankly (see my signature
line), I feel much more comfortable with "some random guy off the street" (as
long as he can converse intelligently) than with a random guy off the
street internet that claims that some irrelevant degree makes
him an authority worth paying attention to.
This happens to be a
favorite subject of mine. I'd be happy to engage you further on this subject,
but this is obviously not the best place to do it (waaaaay off topic, even for
OT). :P
I would suggest a site such as Pharyngula or whyevolutionistrue. These
are where I've found the most intelligent discussion. Pharyngula is really
rough and tumble, with no tolerance for creationists that disrespect themselves
and those who blunder around uttering PRATTs (Point Refuted A Thousand Times).
WEIT is gentler.
1 Not to be construed as a true
statement.---
--Bill. NAL: question the answers, especially mine. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
