Support NeoGAF

[iapetus]

To augment my last point, you'd have to believe some very strange things in order to deny evolution. Specifically:

1) Scientists, some of the smartest people on Earth who devote their entire lives to figuring out these problems, are wrong and deluded.

Appeal to authority? Seriously?

Have 'scientists' ever been wrong in the past? Have there been theories that had support from the vast majority of the scientific world and then turned out to be utterly wrong? Well, yes. There have. And there will continue to be in the future, hopefully. That's one of the ways in which science progresses.

That's not a reason to deny evolution, but it is a reason not to use "But scientists believe in it and they're more cleverer than you" as your argument. It's just not needed.

but the opposite of believing that the "descent with modification" question has been entirely solved by scientists is believing that the scientific establishment is completely rotten to its core, which is a far, far worse proposition.

I don't think that's a necessary conclusion. The scientific establishment doesn't need to be rotten to its core, just carried away with a neat theory that isn't accurate, as has happened before.

Again, I don't believe this to be the case, but it's the position that you seem to be missing.

 

[Nocebo]

Have there been theories that had support from the vast majority of the scientific world and then turned out to be utterly wrong? Well, yes. There have.

Can you name a couple of examples?

 

[Zaptruder]

Anyway, the proper paragraph answer would've been:

Dawkin's response is 'strident and offensive' for a few reasons; it is taken out of context of his larger body of work. While that particular response was indeed strident and offensive, it is also written in the context of people he thinks are like minded - he feels comfortable in creating camraderie by excluding outgroups like young earth creationist.
It is also an expression of frustration of how evolution is routinely set on an uneven playing field with creationism. They're treated as equal theories, when evolution has a mountain of hard data and science to support it, with recorded examples and plenty of congruent supporting bits of evidence, against creationism which has lots of unsupported bits of evidence that aren't congruent with the body of knowledge and data out there.

Edit for clarity and submit.

 

[phisheep]

Can you name a couple of examples?

Well, for starters, there's the phlogiston theory of heat, the existence of the ether, the belief that atoms were the smallest fundamental units of matter, that lights came in waves but not in particles and vice-versa, the transmutability of metals through alchemy, much of medical science prior to about 1930 ...

Want more?

 

[iapetus]

Well, for starters, there's the phlogiston theory of heat, the existence of the ether, the belief that atoms were the smallest fundamental units of matter, that lights came in waves but not in particles and vice-versa, the transmutability of metals through alchemy, much of medical science prior to about 1930 ...

Want more?

I'm not sure how widely accepted phlogiston was, but you've hit a fair few of the same ones I'd have gone for - along with Newtonian mechanics, though whether 'utterly wrong' is fair for a theory that's useful in certain conditions but doesn't give the whole story is a matter for discussion.

 

[phisheep]

I'm not sure how widely accepted phlogiston was, but you've hit a fair few of the same ones I'd have gone for - along with Newtonian mechanics, though whether 'utterly wrong' is fair for a theory that's useful in certain conditions but doesn't give the whole story is a matter for discussion.

On the other hand, Aristotelian mechanics is pretty much a shoo-in.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

To augment my last point, you'd have to believe some very strange things in order to deny evolution. Specifically:

2) Scientists actively try to suppress the truth, even though the entire basis of science is openness and free expression.

Others have touched on your first point, so I will address your second.

Scientists are often react slowly and distrustingly to new information. Barbara McClintock discovered transposons in the 1940s. Her peers reacted dismissively. Not until the 1980s did she finally receive credit for her earlier work. There are countless scientists whose discoveries were dismissed during their lifetimes and only received accolades posthumously. Mendel is a good example. His work would have given Darwin ample genetic support for his theory of natural selection, but Darwin was unaware of Mendel's work because it was not published or taken seriously. More recently, scientists such as Fred Singer, Fred Seitz, and Bill Nierenberg used the "delay and deny" strategy to confuse the public on issues like tobacco's effect on health, acid rain, ozone depletion, global warming, and even evolution. These three are big names in science, and have occupied prestigious positions, public and private. The Scientific Method itself is rarely as cut and dry as its proponents would like to admit. Even Louis Pasteur, who we have elevated to a realm just below Newton and Galileo, who publically promoted the Scientific Method, and who chastised those whose research followed "the tyranny of preconceived ideas," privately followed his own preconceived notions even when faced with overwhelming evidence seemingly disproving these notions. His work on tartrates, fermentation, and the anthrax and rabies vaccines are excellent examples of Pasteur following preconceived notions, suppressing other scientists, and shrouding his methods in secrecy.

We teach and promote a naive, simplistic, and idealized view of the Scientific Method. When people begin noticing inconsistencies between reality and what they were taught, they become disullusioned and distrustful of science as a whole. Spin doctors and charlatans can now prey on these people for political or monetary purposes.

 

[Mgoblue201]

Appeal to authority? Seriously?

Have 'scientists' ever been wrong in the past? Have there been theories that had support from the vast majority of the scientific world and then turned out to be utterly wrong? Well, yes. There have. And there will continue to be in the future, hopefully. That's one of the ways in which science progresses.

That's not a reason to deny evolution, but it is a reason not to use "But scientists believe in it and they're more cleverer than you" as your argument. It's just not needed.



I don't think that's a necessary conclusion. The scientific establishment doesn't need to be rotten to its core, just carried away with a neat theory that isn't accurate, as has happened before.

Again, I don't believe this to be the case, but it's the position that you seem to be missing.

Evolution is not just another theory that can be easily discarded. That is, frankly, a staggering misrepresentation of evolution's impact, to simply call it a "neat theory". In fact, I fail to think of a single idea in the era of modern scientific enlightenment that, having irrevocably defined an entire field and withstood over 150 years of scrutiny, is completely thrown away. It would mean that scientists have failed to faithfully interpret a wealth of fossil data, rich molecular evidence, millions of years of our planet's history, and many experimental results. It would be such a huge mistake that it would make us question the veracity of scientific thought. Because with this much information, there is no reason why scientists should get it wrong.

And if you think that I said that we should trust scientists on everything, then you've clearly misinterpreted. But if you say that you have never trusted scientists at their word and instead attempted to verify every scientific principle independently, then I'd say that you are wrong. Everybody trusts scientists to a degree. You don't have to know much about relativity to think that it's already been proven. Sure, it's nice to think that you can learn about its principles and the ways in which it was proven if you desire to, but you are putting your implicit trust in the scientific institution when you first approach relativity with an open mind. You are, essentially, putting your trust in the fact that, when you do explore it further, you will reach similar conclusions as the experts. If you met someone who was merely skeptical of every scientific theory by default, then you would think that this is rather strange behavior and possibly unwarranted. So why do we excuse evolution-deniers? Do we really think that their skepticism is a healthy kind of skepticism?

Lastly, this is a question of how we evaluate scientific claims without the need to become an expert. I never said that we trust scientists gullibly. But we do need to know whether we can trust scientists. And I feel that this can be done with rather simple logic, at least when it comes to something as broad as evolution.

Others have touched on your first point, so I will address your second.

Scientists are often react slowly and distrustingly to new information. Barbara McClintock discovered transposons in the 1940s. Her peers reacted dismissively. Not until the 1980s did she finally receive credit for her earlier work. There are countless scientists whose discoveries were dismissed during their lifetimes and only received accolades posthumously. Mendel is a good example. His work would have given Darwin ample genetic support for his theory of natural selection, but Darwin was unaware of Mendel's work because it was not published or taken seriously. More recently, scientists such as Fred Singer, Fred Seitz, and Bill Nierenberg used the "delay and deny" strategy to confuse the public on issues like tobacco's effect on health, acid rain, ozone depletion, global warming, and even evolution. These three are big names in science, and have occupied prestigious positions, public and private. The Scientific Method itself is rarely as cut and dry as its proponents would like to admit. Even Louis Pasteur, who we have elevated to a realm just below Newton and Galileo, who publically promoted the Scientific Method, and who chastised those whose research followed "the tyranny of preconceived ideas," privately followed his own preconceived notions even when faced with overwhelming evidence seemingly disproving these notions. His work on tartrates, fermentation, and the anthrax and rabies vaccines are excellent examples of Pasteur following preconceived notions, suppressing other scientists, and shrouding his methods in secrecy.

We teach and promote a naive, simplistic, and idealized view of the Scientific Method. When people begin noticing inconsistencies between reality and what they were taught, they become disullusioned and distrustful of science as a whole. Spin doctors and charlatans can now prey on these people for political or monetary purposes.

Yes, and I can also add continental drift and plate tectonics to that list, which, ironically, is one of the very theories that creationists claim is taken as dogmatic truth within the scientific establishment. But I'm not sure how that is a response to what I said. In order to claim that evolution is false (not any particular notion of evolution, but "descent with modification" in general), you'd have to claim that, in an era of remarkable biological knowledge, when we could potentially access the full genome of every lifeform on the planet, the truth of life's origin and development are somehow more opaque to us now than they were in the early 19th century, and that, in addition, the vast majority of biologists and scientists in general can't figure this out.

That is a remarkable statement. We are not talking about the sudden realization over years and decades that, as we acquire new knowledge, a prior theory that was ahead of its time now seems to be true. We are talking about wide-scale scientific malpractice. Do we think that biologists are delusional when they say, after 150 years, that the case for evolution is stronger than ever? Is there a serious challenger to evolution? Mendel did his work to fill a void in scientific thought. The nature of inheritance had proven intractable for a long time. Is there a similar hole now? Or did evolution fill it, and that question is settled? If there is a lack of evidence, or actual scientists and experts in the field are deeply divided, then we are not warranted in trusting in any one theory. But evolution is one of those things that you can say it has been proven, and you would be right.

 

[Zaptruder]

Good defense Mgoblue. Far more articulate than I could've managed.

Maybe we should start a new thread on the topic of; how does the layperson disseminate genuine scientific advances from pseudo science... or something along those lines. Probably something more catchy than that of couse.

 

[Yoshiya]

On the other hand, Aristotelian mechanics is pretty much a shoo-in.

I'd argue those were philosophical claims rather than scientific claims. They certainly weren't determined through anything resembling the scientific method.

 

[Nocebo]

Well, for starters, there's the phlogiston theory of heat, the existence of the ether, the belief that atoms were the smallest fundamental units of matter, that lights came in waves but not in particles and vice-versa, the transmutability of metals through alchemy, much of medical science prior to about 1930 ...

Want more?

Yes, more please.

Judging by these examples for some of them the term "scientific world" seems to be used rather loosely.
Also atoms being the smallest fundamental units of matter doesn't seem utterly wrong but rather being on the right track. Are there any others where the truth was far removed from what scientists thought?

ps the light one is a pretty decent example I think.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Mgoblue201, you will find on the previous page my argument that evolution cannot be discarded if one of the many hypotheses under it is disproven. We agree on that.

On this page, I was responding to your point that it is very strange to believe that "Scientists actively try to suppress the truth, even though the entire basis of science is openness and free expression." I used a variety of examples to demonstrate that science is not nearly so neat and pure as many naively conceive it. Then, I explained how this naive conception may lead people to distrust science when they discover it is not as open, free, or purely objective as they originally believed.

Maybe we should start a new thread on the topic of; how does the layperson disseminate genuine scientific advances from pseudo science... or something along those lines. Probably something more catchy than that of couse.

There are several barriers that the layman must get through to understand what he should believe.

One: The mainstream press wants to give 50/50 coverage to stories. That doesn't sound like a problem, but it is. Why? Because certain issues like global warming and evolution are widely accepted in the scientific community. If 99% of the scientific community believes global warming is true and 1% doesn't, giving that 1% equal time creates the sense that there is still little consensus among scientists. Consequently, readers of mainstream publications tend to get a distorted view of reality while those who read academic journals or more specialized magazines get a more accurate view of reality.

Two: Science is about asking questions. It is always evolving. As a result, it is easy to point out several flaws or changes in theories and argue that because they were wrong once, they are wrong again - and they are solely in it for prestige, research dollars, etc.

Three: We rely on models in many instances, and these models are, at best, approximations. So people can, for political reasons, point to holes in research that relies on these models. Yes, testing a drug on an animal is not the same as testing it on a human, but ethical considerations prevent us from doing those same tests on a human and being able to control as many variables. We knew that tar caused cancer in mice, and tobacco smoke caused lung cancer in animals. We had studies showing the link between smoking and cancer. But we had no explicit proof that tobacco was the causative agent because we couldn't conduct a regular experiment since it is ethically wrong to cause harm to humans. We couldn't say how much is genetics, how much is asbestos, how much is lifestyle, etc. These holes sow the seeds of doubt.

I am about to pass out from exhaustion, so I will stop for now. But you get the idea. I do not think the layman can be reasonably educated nowadays without putting forth some effort. The forces promoting ignorance are too strong to overcome without research. You can thank the hawkish conservative physicists who emerged from the Cold War for our current conundrums. They give credibility to much of the dissent. And in many cases, they actively manufactured it.

 

[Trent Strong]

Evolution is not just another theory that can be easily discarded. That is, frankly, a staggering misrepresentation of evolution's impact, to simply call it a "neat theory". In fact, I fail to think of a single idea in the era of modern scientific enlightenment that, having irrevocably defined an entire field and withstood over 150 years of scrutiny, is completely thrown away. It would mean that scientists have failed to faithfully interpret a wealth of fossil data, rich molecular evidence, millions of years of our planet's history, and many experimental results. It would be such a huge mistake that it would make us question the veracity of scientific thought. Because with this much information, there is no reason why scientists should get it wrong.

And if you think that I said that we should trust scientists on everything, then you've clearly misinterpreted. But if you say that you have never trusted scientists at their word and instead attempted to verify every scientific principle independently, then I'd say that you are wrong. Everybody trusts scientists to a degree. You don't have to know much about relativity to think that it's already been proven. Sure, it's nice to think that you can learn about its principles and the ways in which it was proven if you desire to, but you are putting your implicit trust in the scientific institution when you first approach relativity with an open mind. You are, essentially, putting your trust in the fact that, when you do explore it further, you will reach similar conclusions as the experts. If you met someone who was merely skeptical of every scientific theory by default, then you would think that this is rather strange behavior and possibly unwarranted. So why do we excuse evolution-deniers? Do we really think that their skepticism is a healthy kind of skepticism?

I don't think relativity has been proven. Relativity theory conflicts with quantum mechanics, and both of those theories can't be right. I also don't think the average person could reach similar conclusions as the experts if they studied relativity, since understanding the theory requires understanding a lot of high level math, and a lot of other specialized knowledge. Most people who believe in relativity theory or quantum mechanics probably are just taking it on faith that these authority figures know what they're talking about.

 

[Mgoblue201]

Good defense Mgoblue. Far more articulate than I could've managed.

Maybe we should start a new thread on the topic of; how does the layperson disseminate genuine scientific advances from pseudo science... or something along those lines. Probably something more catchy than that of couse.

Thanks for the kind words.

Mgoblue201, you will find on the previous page my argument that evolution cannot be discarded if one of the many hypotheses under it is disproven. We agree on that.

On this page, I was responding to your point that it is very strange to believe that "Scientists actively try to suppress the truth, even though the entire basis of science is openness and free expression." I used a variety of examples to demonstrate that science is not nearly so neat and pure as many naively conceive it. Then, I explained how this naive conception may lead people to distrust science when they discover it is not as open, free, or purely objective as they originally believed.

Right, but we're not really talking about people who have a naive view of science: the opposite, actually. We're talking about people who distrust science to some degree. But it must be said that I was attempting to make the distinction between the ideological environment in which science itself thrives and its practice. It works best when there is free and open expression. I did not say that this is always true about science. To say that science is a messy business is a rather obvious point about human behavior. Egos, close-mindedness, and special interests will always play a factor in every endeavor (though a few of your examples aren't particularly venal or unscrupulous in any kind of way - just people limited in imagination and cognitive scope or, perhaps even, unready for an idea).

But even admitting this reality, that people don't work optimally to reach the truth, is really a separate matter from the point that denying evolution, by following the arguments logically, must lead to the conclusion that the scientific establishment itself has grown sclerotic. This is very dangerous. Individuals may be venal - there is a good quote about how scientists may be biased toward their work, but science as a whole is very good at correcting itself over time, even if it moves slowly. Just as science moved toward Mendelian genetics, it also moved toward evolution. To attempt to undo 150 years of "progress" under the guise of caution and skepticism I think is a fundamental error in reason.

I don't think relativity has been proven. Relativity theory conflicts with quantum mechanics, and both of those theories can't be right. I also don't think the average person could reach similar conclusions as the experts if they studied relativity, since understanding the theory requires understanding a lot of high level math, and a lot of other specialized knowledge. Most people who believe in relativity theory or quantum mechanics probably are just taking it on faith that these authority figures know what they're talking about.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I've never heard this. I've always thought that relativity was incomplete and still needed to be explained in light of quantum mechanics but was fundamentally accurate. The general theory was accepted initially because it predicted an empirical phenomenon that was later shown to be true. It also, I believe, predicted that the universe was expanding, which also later appeared to be true, despite Einstein's own resistance to the idea.

And of course many people can't understand the math, which is why we still require some trust, as it were. I'm mostly talking about understanding the implications of relativity, and such.

EDIT: Quantum field theory is the marriage between quantum mechanics and special relativity. Quantum gravity, I believe, is the marriage between quantum mechanics and general relativity. The latter is not well-understood, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that it's in conflict. Anyway, I hope that I got the science right; I'm not much of a physicist.

 

[phisheep]

I'd argue those were philosophical claims rather than scientific claims. They certainly weren't determined through anything resembling the scientific method.

On the contrary. I'd argue that Aristotelian physics certainly consisted of scientific claims. It doesn't matter so much how these claims came about, but how they were debunked - by the scientific method, specifically by Newtonian mechanics. That makes them scientific claims.

On the same ground, I'd say that young-earth creationism is a scientific claim, but that the existence of a god or gods is not necessarily so (it depends on the god or gods in question).

Yes, more please.

Judging by these examples for some of them the term "scientific world" seems to be used rather loosely.
Also atoms being the smallest fundamental units of matter doesn't seem utterly wrong but rather being on the right track. Are there any others where the truth was far removed from what scientists thought?

ps the light one is a pretty decent example I think.

Heliocentricism maybe?
Blending theory of inheritance.
Steady-state universe.
...

Want even more?

 

[speculawyer]

Heliocentricism maybe?
Blending theory of inheritance.
Steady-state universe.
...

Want even more?

Caloric theory of heat
Newtonian physics (OK, that is a cheap shot.)
Most medicine before germ theory of disease
Most of what Sigmund Freud wrote.
How we thought stomach ulcers formed.


But I agree that Evolution really is on a different plane now . . . it has been 150+ years, there are literally tons of evidence, it is quite falsifiable (the 'rabbit in the pre-Cambrian'), the observations of evolution in action, and the amazing molecular evidence. It is established to the point where the only explanation for a Creationist type of world would require Bill Hick's "Prankster God" who literally ran around burying fossils to fuck with us.

 

[Vaporak]

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I've never heard this. I've always thought that relativity was incomplete and still needed to be explained in light of quantum mechanics but was fundamentally accurate. The general theory was accepted initially because it predicted an empirical phenomenon that was later shown to be true. It also, I believe, predicted that the universe was expanding, which also later appeared to be true, despite Einstein's own resistance to the idea.

And of course many people can't understand the math, which is why we still require some trust, as it were. I'm mostly talking about understanding the implications of relativity, and such.

Relatively is wildly inaccurate at predicting sub-atomic behavior, but extremely accurate at making predictions about larger sets of reality. Quantum mechanics is incredibly accurate at predicting sub-atomic behavior, but it's predictions for how large scale interactions of matter work are wildly inaccurate.

On the contrary. I'd argue that Aristotelian physics certainly consisted of scientific claims. It doesn't matter so much how these claims came about, but how they were debunked - by the scientific method, specifically by Newtonian mechanics. That makes them scientific claims.

On the same ground, I'd say that young-earth creationism is a scientific claim, but that the existence of a god or gods is not necessarily so (it depends on the god or gods in question).

The word you're looking for is empirical. Your example theories are empirical, but not scientific. A theory is only scientific if it's formulation followed the scientific method.

 

[Yoshiya]

The word you're looking for is empirical. Your example theories are empirical, but not scientific. A theory is only scientific if it's formulation followed the scientific method.

This. Just because they came about via observation does not make Aristotle's claims scientific. You do science a disservice by suggesting as such. Science is fallible, sure, and your other examples better show that, but invoking Aristotle just isn't relevant to what is being discussed here.

 

[phisheep]

The word you're looking for is empirical. Your example theories are empirical, but not scientific. A theory is only scientific if it's formulation followed the scientific method.

I'm really not going to get hung up over the difference between empirical and scientific. All I mean by a scientific claim is one that is testable by empirical/scientific means - wherever it came from that puts it squarely in the realm of science to absorb/test/debunk/replace it. Even if it came from a jumped-up patent clerk or the son of a suspected witch.

 

[Vaporak]

I'm really not going to get hung up over the difference between empirical and scientific. All I mean by a scientific claim is one that is testable by empirical/scientific means - wherever it came from that puts it squarely in the realm of science to absorb/test/debunk/replace it. Even if it came from a jumped-up patent clerk or the son of a suspected witch.

Well that's your choice, but those words already have agree'd upon definitions. If you want your point to be understood you should either use those definitions or explicitly state in your post that you're redefining a term and give the new definition.

 

[Raist]

Scientists are often react slowly and distrustingly to new information.

This. Skepticism is required when you're a scientist. Now the problem is that some people apply it to other's work but not their own, OR go way overboard, like "This is BS, not listening, LALALALAAAAA"

Spoiler

No I'm not bitter. Ok maybe a little bit

 

[Eteric Rice]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IguW9xHd2qo&feature=player_embedded

Someone please fuck the pain away.

 

[iapetus]

The word you're looking for is empirical. Your example theories are empirical, but not scientific. A theory is only scientific if it's formulation followed the scientific method.

It might be better to look at the use of the word 'theory' - Aristotelian physics counts more as a hypothesis, surely?

Evolution is not just another theory that can be easily discarded. That is, frankly, a staggering misrepresentation of evolution's impact, to simply call it a "neat theory". In fact, I fail to think of a single idea in the era of modern scientific enlightenment that, having irrevocably defined an entire field and withstood over 150 years of scrutiny, is completely thrown away. It would mean that scientists have failed to faithfully interpret a wealth of fossil data, rich molecular evidence, millions of years of our planet's history, and many experimental results. It would be such a huge mistake that it would make us question the veracity of scientific thought. Because with this much information, there is no reason why scientists should get it wrong.

No theory that's had a lot of effort invested in it and survived a whole load of testing through the scientific method can be 'easily discarded'. They can, however, turn out to be incomplete, accurate only in a limited way, and we still have to accept the possibility that they are invalid, and just happen to map in some circumstances to reality. Some people take the view that all models that make the same predictions are equivalent and equally good; I don't agree with this.

This may be a fairly fine point of principle - I'm just saying that while I agree with you entirely that where there is a theory that neatly and elegantly explains the observed facts, makes predictions that are upheld, and is supported by the vast majority of the scientific world (however you define that) you should believe it to be right, you still don't get to say that anyone who questions it must be insane by virtue of the fact that they're questioning it. If you want to point out the insanity of their criticism, then by all means do that. But taking a position of "I am right, and those who disagree are insane" as a blanket default is dangerous, and leads to the acceptance of theories that later turn out to be incomplete or debunked entirely.

Incidentally, you're mistaken if you think I consider 'neat theory' a dismissive phrase. Science strives for neat theories - they just don't always stand up to scrutiny.

And if you think that I said that we should trust scientists on everything, then you've clearly misinterpreted.

What you said seemed to imply that where there is scientific consensus you should immediately bow to it because scientists are 'some of the smartest people on Earth'. If that's not what was meant, then that's the misunderstanding.

So why do we excuse evolution-deniers? Do we really think that their skepticism is a healthy kind of skepticism?

I think some of their skepticism can be a healthy kind of skepticism. The problem lies not in keeping an open mind about something that should have an open mind kept about it (as should everything in science). It lies in wanting to turn that open mind into denial of the most well supported theory, and to supplant it with a model which is in no way scientific, and isn't held by its proponents to any of the same standards as they want to apply to evolution.

Skepticism is supposed to follow the evidence over dogma. At least some evolution deniers - probably the majority - do so by following dogma over the evidence, and that's the problem I have with their approach - they know what the 'right' answer is before they start, and the only use for evidence is dependent on whether it can be used to support that answer or attack opposing answers.

That's not an approach reserved entirely for the anti-scientific religious types, of course - it's used extensively in 'real' science by people wanting to defend their pet theories.

 

[travisbickle]

So you have to answer the question "why is Richard Dawkins intolerant of people who believe Jesus and his cronies rode around on the backs of dinosaurs?"

And also, every single potential employer will at the very least google your university, and even though you will be happy to know you will give each one of those employers a good laugh for 10 minutes and the subject material for their next funny email I am afraid you will not be offered a job.

 

[Feep]

I think some of their skepticism can be a healthy kind of skepticism. The problem lies not in keeping an open mind about something that should have an open mind kept about it (as should everything in science). It lies in wanting to turn that open mind into denial of the most well supported theory, and to supplant it with a model which is in no way scientific, and isn't held by its proponents to any of the same standards as they want to apply to evolution.

This right here. Though it almost NEVER applies, if people who disagreed with all or parts of the theory of evolution did so on the basis of evidence viewed through a dispassionate, nondogmatic lens, without preconceived bias, I would have no issues with such a stance (though I cannot imagine what evidence we have collected that would outright contradict anything in the ToE).

But this is almost impossible to find. Every evolution denier I've ever even heard of offers an immediate rebuttal of "Intelligent Design" or "Creationism", which lie outside the scientific method, automatically invalidating their argument. If they find something wrong with evolution, the point is to fix or reconcile the contradicting evidence with an altered or new scientific explanation, not mumbo-jumbo nonsense. This is how science works and evolves.

 

[Parl]

Caloric theory of heat
Newtonian physics (OK, that is a cheap shot.)
Most medicine before germ theory of disease
Most of what Sigmund Freud wrote.
How we thought stomach ulcers formed..

The thing is, belief in atoms being the smallest thing and a static universe aren't science. As it stood, we couldn't prove them wrong, so it's not science. But then we developed methods of proving them wrong, intentionally or not.

Old school medicine wasn't science and could have easily been proven wrong with the day's technology.

The theory of evolution is falsifiable, and could easily be proven wrong if it were through many different methods. If it were wrong, it would have been proven as such many, many years ago, again and again.

Now what are every conceivable alternative to evolution? To those who understand the overwhleming body evidence from many different fields, evolution is either scientific fact, or a diety/aliens created us and retrofitted everything on our planet and within us to see if we'd become clever enough to discover their incorrect invention of evolution - so the chance of evolution being incorrect is about on par as the chance we're plugged into the Matrix.

 

[iapetus]

The theory of evolution is falsifiable, and could easily be proven wrong if it were through many different methods. If it were wrong, it would have been proven as such many, many years ago, again and again.

And bingo - your thinking becomes as closed as that of the fundamental nutjobs who believe that the Bible is the word of God.

 

[Parl]

And bingo - your thinking becomes as closed as that of the fundamental nutjobs who believe that the Bible is the word of God.

Evolution claims that the species of today are different than the species of the past (except a few stubbornly adapted species), and that species of today came from said species of the past. If somebody claimed this 300 years ago, it'd be difficult to disprove, and wouldn't be science.

It's now very possible to disprove if incorrect. Is this the part you contest? I can see some potential realities which would make evolution currently unfalsifiable, and I pointed to one in my previous post. I'm open to those possibilities, it's just counterproductive to consider them, as the same potential realities could disprove nearly every law and theory of science that (we think) have advanced our civilisation over the centuries.

 

[iapetus]

It's now very possible to disprove if incorrect. Is this the part you contest? I can see some potential realities which would make evolution currently unfalsifiable, and I pointed to one in my previous post. I'm open to those possibilities, it's just counterproductive to consider them, as the same potential realities could disprove nearly every law and theory of science that (we think) have advanced our civilisation over the centuries.

No - what I object to is the "it's falsifiable, and it has stood for a long time without being shown to be false, therefore it is not false" line of argument. Because that's horrible.

 

[Pandaman]

No - what I object to is the "it's falsifiable, and it has stood for a long time without being shown to be false, therefore it is not false" line of argument. Because that's horrible.

'its not false' in the sense that it is an uncontested fact that every known species emerged from a diverging series of common ancestors over time. the specifics of the driving forces behind those divergences can be debated, but nothing short of last thursdayism will change the evolutionary history of life on earth. forgive the pun, but that part is set in stone. we can be as certain of it as 2+2=4.

 

[KevinCow]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IguW9xHd2qo&feature=player_embedded

Someone please fuck the pain away.

Ahahahaha.

"We're different skeein."

 

[Mgoblue201]

This may be a fairly fine point of principle - I'm just saying that while I agree with you entirely that where there is a theory that neatly and elegantly explains the observed facts, makes predictions that are upheld, and is supported by the vast majority of the scientific world (however you define that) you should believe it to be right, you still don't get to say that anyone who questions it must be insane by virtue of the fact that they're questioning it. If you want to point out the insanity of their criticism, then by all means do that. But taking a position of "I am right, and those who disagree are insane" as a blanket default is dangerous, and leads to the acceptance of theories that later turn out to be incomplete or debunked entirely.

They're not "insane" for questioning it (I'll continue to use the word insane since it's already become precedence, but I really mean a whole series of things such as misunderstandings, will-full rejections, etc). In a perfect world, we would have the time and expertise to question and explore every scientific theory. So questioning is a good thing. They might be insane for rejecting it, however. If they simply don't understand evolution, then an agnostic stance is warranted, I feel. But if they have at least studied evolution and rejected it, or rejected it without understanding it, then I think it's fair to ask exactly what is going on here. If you claim that certain criticisms can be insane, and I extend that further to say that most criticisms of evolution are insane, then it can be concluded that rejecting evolution, for the most part, is insane.

Furthermore, while there wasn't an overwhelming amount of explication in my initial post, I also attempted to convey that there are many important caveats at work here between simple deference and learning to trust scientific consensus. In fact, it's quite different from deference. It's learning to use your intelligence to understand, despite perhaps a lack of expertise, what to trust and what to be more skeptical about.

Let me say now that I don't think it's right to equate theories that enjoy consensus now with theories that once enjoyed consensus (assuming they ever did) and were then proven wrong. Most discarded theories were based upon incomplete information. You can go down through the list: geocentrism, steady state, aether...most lacked critical experimental and empirical evidence and were simply taken as the best theory at the time. Evolution, on the other hand, is not, generally, lacking evidence. We have never had more evidence than we do now for evolution, and unless we find the mythical rabbit in the Cambrian, as they say, it is very difficult to imagine that something is going to surprise us and overturn the theory, because most avenues have already been explored. We've dug up thousands of fossils, we've explored vast amount of information in genomes, and we have evidence from both nature and the labs. Again, I would like to know which major theory that has underpinned an entire scientific field and endured 150 years of scrutiny and evidence has been suddenly overturned, leaving us without a single explanation to fill the void. Because worse than credulity is strained incredulity. If it becomes harder to maintain skepticism, then I think that trust is warranted. And at this point, it is much more difficult to think that evolution would be overturned than to believe it's true.

Your criticisms seem especially strange since the people who are most critical of those who deny evolution tend to be the same people who understand evolution quite well and, most importantly, are all too happy to explain how evolution works to those who ask. They don't want people to simply accept things based on authority. They want you to question, but they also want you to know that the science over "descent with modification" has been pretty much settled. I don't see, for example, why Dawkins should think that a layperson is going to come up with a criticism of evolution that is going to make him think twice about it. Most criticisms, in fact, tend to be so banal that it's a wonder why they didn't think that it has already been addressed by scientists. (one reason why I question the number of healthy skeptics is because most are only skeptical of evolution and rarely skeptical of and willing to explore other theories)

 

[Parl]

No - what I object to is the "it's falsifiable, and it has stood for a long time without being shown to be false, therefore it is not false" line of argument. Because that's horrible.

That's an element of my argument, not my actual argument. I don't mean that entirely literally and strictly as shown by me contradicting it within the same post and my previous post - I don't believe that evolution is therefore not false. What I'm trying to represent with my argument is that the science behind evolution is worthy of a different standard of trust by the general public because "it's falsifiable, and it has stood for a long time without being shown to be false" despite many different methods through which it could be disproven. I'm trying to represent what differentiates evolution, and many other other sciences, from previously disproven incomplete sciences and pseudosciences.

 

[phisheep]

We're in danger of going round in circles here.

For the great mass of people, being agnostic or even sceptical about evolution is - or should be - no more of a tragedy or a sign of ignorance than being agnostic/sceptical about cold fusion, the asymmetries of the z-boson or the second law of thermodynamics. We don't worry so much about the others though, because we recognise that they aren't exactly hot topics at dinner parties and that people are perfectly entitled to keep their opinions out of it.

The only thing that makes evolution different is that it is a perpetual hot topic in the USA because of the socio-religious make up of the country.

Even so, that's no good reason for to claim that everybody who doesn't explicitly believe in evolution is necessarily a denier, or wilfully ignorant/stupid/deluded. And it really is most unedifying to see a bunch of supposedly scientifically educated people joyfully slapping vituperative labels on people they never met. The "if you're not with us you're against us" mentality has no place in science or in rational discourse of any kind. Taken too far it would bring scientific progress to a dead stop.

There's a righteous argument to be had, and an intellectual just war to be fought, over this. But there's no need to make collateral damage of mere spectators.

 

[iapetus]

The only thing that makes evolution different is that it is a perpetual hot topic in the USA because of the socio-religious make up of the country.

And because of the agenda that's so often carried into the discussion by people who take that view, which tries to use the pretence of scientific thinking to push forward unscientific, dogmatic viewpoints based in a particular form of religion.

To veer vaguely back towards the original topic, I'd suggest that this is part of what makes Dawkins angry too.

 

[Erigu]

For the great mass of people, being agnostic or even sceptical about evolution is - or should be - no more of a tragedy or a sign of ignorance than being agnostic/sceptical about cold fusion, the asymmetries of the z-boson or the second law of thermodynamics.

I dunno, I learned a lot more about evolution than I did about cold fusion and bosons, in high school... Seems to me it really isn't that arcane, compared to your other examples.

As for that "sign of ignorance" thing... Really, we're still there?
It obviously is ignorance regarding that particular topic. There are many topics I'm ignorant about. I think I'm wise enough to realize that instead of getting all defensive and arguing that I have Perfectly Good Reasons for being "agnostic / skeptical" about those ("it's just that I'm not that interested in that subject, so I... I don't really know... but that's not ignorance, you arrogant prick!").

Even so, that's no good reason for to claim that everybody who doesn't explicitly believe in evolution is necessarily a denier, or wilfully ignorant/stupid/deluded.

Why "willfully ignorant"? Dawkins didn't say that.

 

[phisheep]

To veer vaguely back towards the original topic, I'd suggest that this is part of what makes Dawkins angry too.

I bet it is. I find it stretches my patience a bit when amateurs misrepresent legal stuff.

I dunno, I learned a lot more about evolution than I did about cold fusion and bosons, in high school... Seems to me it really isn't that arcane, compared to your other examples.

Probably not, but then I got taught about the aether at school (long long time ago) and many people don't get taught evolution, or at least get conflicting views of it between school and family/religion. Can't blame them if it doesn't come across as clear-cut as some other things.

As for that "sign of ignorance" thing... Really, we're still there?

It obviously is ignorance regarding that particular topic. There are many topics I'm ignorant about. I think I'm wise enough to realize that instead of getting all defensive and arguing that I have Perfectly Good Reasons for being "agnostic / skeptical" about those ("it's just that I'm not that interested in that subject, so I... I don't really know... but that's not ignorance, you arrogant prick!").

Well, when you slap an 'ignorant' label on somebody it comes across as a general insult to their intelligence. And that's just plain impolite. It isn't really a sound defence to that impoliteness to then say that what you meant is they were ignorant of badger-breeding or of classical harmony. It is the gratuitous impoliteness that grates, regardless of what other interpretations you might put on it.

Why "willfully ignorant"? Dawkins didn't say that.

He probably did somewhere, though not in this quote obviously. The point is not whether he said it or not, but that that is the implication that people carry away with them.

 

[Erigu]

many people don't get taught evolution, or at least get conflicting views of it between school and family/religion. Can't blame them if it doesn't come across as clear-cut as some other things.

And Dawkins said in that OP quote that he didn't consider ignorance to be a crime... If anything, those schools and teachers would be to blame.

when you slap an 'ignorant' label on somebody it comes across as a general insult to their intelligence.

But we do agree that has nothing to do with intelligence, right? Even Dawkins was once ignorant about evolution.

And that's just plain impolite.

How so? When you really don't know much about a given topic, it is what it is.

It isn't really a sound defence to that impoliteness to then say that what you meant is they were ignorant of badger-breeding or of classical harmony.

C'mon, man. What do you think Dawkins was talking about, there? If you choose, for some reason, to interpret that "ignorant" in Dawkins' quote as "ignorant overall", that's your problem, really...

The point is not whether he said it or not, but that that is the implication that people carry away with them.

You appear to be quite bothered by what you think that quote implied, and yet seemingly missed the part where Dawkins explicitly said that ignorance wasn't a crime in his mind (so no "blame" for that one)...

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Right, but we're not really talking about people who have a naive view of science: the opposite, actually. We're talking about people who distrust science to some degree. But it must be said that I was attempting to make the distinction between the ideological environment in which science itself thrives and its practice. It works best when there is free and open expression. I did not say that this is always true about science. To say that science is a messy business is a rather obvious point about human behavior. Egos, close-mindedness, and special interests will always play a factor in every endeavor (though a few of your examples aren't particularly venal or unscrupulous in any kind of way - just people limited in imagination and cognitive scope or, perhaps even, unready for an idea).

But even admitting this reality, that people don't work optimally to reach the truth, is really a separate matter from the point that denying evolution, by following the arguments logically, must lead to the conclusion that the scientific establishment itself has grown sclerotic. This is very dangerous. Individuals may be venal - there is a good quote about how scientists may be biased toward their work, but science as a whole is very good at correcting itself over time, even if it moves slowly. Just as science moved toward Mendelian genetics, it also moved toward evolution. To attempt to undo 150 years of "progress" under the guise of caution and skepticism I think is a fundamental error in reason.

I agree, but this is a lot different from your initial arguments.

And I think we are talking about people who have a naive view of science, not the opposite. These are people who believed, like you claim, that "entire basis of science is openness and free expression." When they discover that scientists actively repress new information, shroud their methods in secrecy, re-write the process in which they made their discoveries, and often follow preconceived notions in the face of overwhleming evidence, they tend to dismiss science as a whole.

Your initial argument represented this naive, and frankly dangerous, conception of science. By perpetuating the myth that science is purely objective, open, and free, we mislead the layman into believing science is something that it isn't -- and when the layman discovers inconsistencies in the story we have been telling, he or she becomes distrustful of science as a whole and becomes susceptible to charlatans who can them claim that scientists are motivated by political beliefs, fame, or fortune.

Your follow-up comments better defend evolution than your initial arguments, which appealed to authority and mis-represented science.

 

[phisheep]

You appear to be quite bothered by what you think that quote implied, and yet seemingly missed the part where Dawkins explicitly said that ignorance wasn't a crime in his mind (so no "blame" for that one)...

What bothers me is that it is so worded as to be gratuitously insulting, and the rider doesn't change that.

If I said to you "you're stupid, but stupidity isn't a crime" you would be quite justified in taking offence.

That's sort of thing is great for cranking up the rhetoric and rallying the troops on your side, but is about the worst thing you could do to actually get anyone new on your side. It just raises the hackles, and why shouldn't it? It's fighting talk.

So not only impolite, but ineffective.

 

[Erigu]

What bothers me is that it is so worded as to be gratuitously insulting

No, it's not.

If I said to you "you're stupid, but stupidity isn't a crime" you would be quite justified in taking offence.

Stupidity and ignorance aren't the same thing. And Dawkins' quote says as much, in fact.

That's sort of thing is great for cranking up the rhetoric and rallying the troops on your side, but is about the worst thing you could do to actually get anyone new on your side.

"The worst thing you could do"? Is it really worse to say "hey, if you're still not convinced about evolution, you should read that book!" than to tell people who don't know much about the topic that it's perfectly fine to have an uninformed opinion anyway and stick to it?

 

[phisheep]

Hmm, can't see this conversation is getting us anywhere except that we disagree. Think I'll leave at that so as to not clutter the thread up any more.

 

[ToxicAdam]

One: The mainstream press wants to give 50/50 coverage to stories. That doesn't sound like a problem, but it is. Why? Because certain issues like global warming and evolution are widely accepted in the scientific community. If 99% of the scientific community believes global warming is true and 1% doesn't, giving that 1% equal time creates the sense that there is still little consensus among scientists. Consequently, readers of mainstream publications tend to get a distorted view of reality while those who read academic journals or more specialized magazines get a more accurate view of reality.

Press coverage of global warming is not 50/50. The big papers and news organizations have science writers that are from the industry and only report things that favor mainstream views.

The only time you will see dissenting views reported on this topic is from biased rags that Murdoch owns or in Op-Eds from certain writers (like George Will).

Just look for yourself. You will see numerous articles that show the favored position (that man's carbon output is accelerating the rate in change in our climate) and no mention of any kind of doubt or denial of that. In fact, they will run with psuedo-science like AGW is causing "extreme weather" even though there is zero credible scientific evidence to back that up.

 

[Korey]

I haven't followed all of the debate in this thread, but I think you all should realize that evolution is a scientific fact, as real and accepted as gravity and precipitation. It's neither a theory nor simply an opinion.

http://notjustatheory.com/

So if you know people who don't believe in evolution, whether or not they are stupid is irrelevant; they're wrong.

 

[phisheep]

I haven't followed all of the debate in this thread, but I think you all should realize that evolution is a scientific fact, as real and accepted as gravity and precipitation. It's neither a theory nor simply an opinion.

http://notjustatheory.com/

So if you know people who don't believe in evolution, whether or not they are stupid is irrelevant; they're wrong.

I think, at least at this stage in the thread, we're all on the same page about that.

What we seem to be disputing is the use of bad arguments in a good cause - or at least arguments that some of us think are bad or unconvincing.

 

[Talon]

He goes to Bob Jones University; there is only one side that the teacher wants.

This needs to be bolded and blown up.

I haven't followed all of the debate in this thread, but I think you all should realize that evolution is a scientific fact, as real and accepted as gravity and precipitation. It's neither a theory nor simply an opinion.

http://notjustatheory.com/

So if you know people who don't believe in evolution, whether or not they are stupid is irrelevant; they're wrong.

It frustrates me that people think press coverage must be gray across the board. There are certain issues - say gravity, evolution - that are a matter of black and white.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Press coverage of global warming is not 50/50. The big papers and news organizations have science writers that are from the industry and only report things that favor mainstream views.

The only time you will see dissenting views reported on this topic is from biased rags that Murdoch owns or in Op-Eds from certain writers (like George Will).

Just look for yourself. You will see numerous articles that show the favored position (that man's carbon output is accelerating the rate in change in our climate) and no mention of any kind of doubt or denial of that. In fact, they will run with psuedo-science like AGW is causing "extreme weather" even though there is zero credible scientific evidence to back that up.

I had cable news in mind when I made that post, so it was unfair and inacurate for me to claim that all mainstream media has this problem. My bad.

 

[Zzoram]

We're in danger of going round in circles here.

For the great mass of people, being agnostic or even sceptical about evolution is - or should be - no more of a tragedy or a sign of ignorance than being agnostic/sceptical about cold fusion, the asymmetries of the z-boson or the second law of thermodynamics. We don't worry so much about the others though, because we recognise that they aren't exactly hot topics at dinner parties and that people are perfectly entitled to keep their opinions out of it.

The only thing that makes evolution different is that it is a perpetual hot topic in the USA because of the socio-religious make up of the country.

Even so, that's no good reason for to claim that everybody who doesn't explicitly believe in evolution is necessarily a denier, or wilfully ignorant/stupid/deluded. And it really is most unedifying to see a bunch of supposedly scientifically educated people joyfully slapping vituperative labels on people they never met. The "if you're not with us you're against us" mentality has no place in science or in rational discourse of any kind. Taken too far it would bring scientific progress to a dead stop.

There's a righteous argument to be had, and an intellectual just war to be fought, over this. But there's no need to make collateral damage of mere spectators.

Um there is no credible evidence of cold fusion. It can't be compared to evolution.

 

[OpinionatedCyborg]

Um there is no credible evidence of cold fusion. It can't be compared to evolution.

You serious? I thought everyone knew that Kim Jong Il figured out how to harness nuclear fusion. Do a bit of research before you post. Cold fusion is just around the corner.

 

[phisheep]

Um there is no credible evidence of cold fusion. It can't be compared to evolution.

Of course it can be compared to evolution - it just doesn't stand up at all well in the comparison that's all. (I deliberately picked one rock-solid example, one off the wall and one subject of current research to make the point fairly broadly).