Page 2 of 3

Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:39 am
by BGoodForGoodSake
August wrote:
As scientists are a diverse group there is a peer review system which tries to prevent bias. Not fullproof due the the limitations of man.
That's right. However, all scientific theories start with an individual or smallish group, and those may be biased because of preconception. Subsequent peer review may or may not remove that bias, depending on how critically it's assessed.

Did you see this article? http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915
What do you think of it?
Most scientific findings are wrong. Reproducibility is paramount to the advancement of science.

As for ID. Design assumes designer and this is a bias.

Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 9:50 am
by August
As for ID. Design assumes designer and this is a bias.
For that matter, evolution assumes natural selection, and that's a bias. Where does that leave us?

Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 10:02 am
by BGoodForGoodSake
August wrote:
As for ID. Design assumes designer and this is a bias.
For that matter, evolution assumes natural selection, and that's a bias. Where does that leave us?
Natural selection is an explanation and not pre-conceived.

Are factors such as predation, isolation, and sexual selection really bias?
Or are they just explanations which can be observed?

Take rain for example.
Observation: When it gets cloudy it rains.
Theory: Well cloud formation must be necessary for rain.

Observation: Not true rain occurs in clear skies as well.
Further observation: clouds do form however sometimes rain deviates from its origin.

Science assumes clouds for rain, is this a bias, or a conclusion?

Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 10:17 am
by Kurieuo
If I may interject to ask a question, although I don't want to disrupt this conversation you two have going. :)

But is assuming there to be 'no designer' not also a bias? Is 'peer review' enough to 'objectively' evaluate the question of a designers existence or non-existence?

Kurieuo.

Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 10:24 am
by BGoodForGoodSake
Kurieuo wrote:If I may interject to ask a question, although I don't want to disrupt this conversation you two have going. :)

But is assuming there to be 'no designer' not also a bias? Is 'peer review' enough to 'objectively' evaluate the question of a designers existence or non-existence?

Kurieuo.
Science does not assume there is no designer. All conclusions are possible but to expect science to answer this is unreasonable.

P.S. Kurieuo you are always welcome to interject. =)

P.P.S I have no objection to teaching ID in schools, my only objection is in calling it a science.

Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 12:27 pm
by Kurieuo
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:Science does not assume there is no designer. All conclusions are possible but to expect science to answer this is unreasonable.
So when conducting science, you believe one should not assume a 'natural' or 'designed' solution?
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:P.P.S I have no objection to teaching ID in schools, my only objection is in calling it a science.
I think you are safe then from the mainstream ID proponents. As those behind the ID movement aren't even so much as pushing mandating the teaching of ID in schools. They are only pushing for "teaching the strengths and weaknesses about Darwinian evolution." The Discovery Institute (which consists of all the major names behind ID) specifically respond to the question on whether ID should be a required teaching:
3. Should public schools require the teaching of intelligent design?

No. Instead of mandating intelligent design, Discovery Institute recommends that states and school districts focus on teaching students more about evolutionary theory, including telling them about some of the theory's problems that have been discussed in peer-reviewed science journals. In other words, evolution should be taught as a scientific theory that is open to critical scrutiny, not as a sacred dogma that can't be questioned. We believe this is a common-sense approach that will benefit students, teachers, and parents.

http://www.discovery.org/csc/topQuestio ... gentDesign
Kurieuo.

Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 1:22 pm
by AttentionKMartShoppers
BGoodForGoodSake wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:If I may interject to ask a question, although I don't want to disrupt this conversation you two have going. :)

But is assuming there to be 'no designer' not also a bias? Is 'peer review' enough to 'objectively' evaluate the question of a designers existence or non-existence?

Kurieuo.
Science does not assume there is no designer. All conclusions are possible but to expect science to answer this is unreasonable.

P.S. Kurieuo you are always welcome to interject. =)

P.P.S I have no objection to teaching ID in schools, my only objection is in calling it a science.
Actually science doesn't assume, scientists do. And, yes, evolutionist do assume no designer-like you yourself do. Go find your definition of origin science (which is actually operational science's definition)-you REQUIRE a natural explanation!

Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 1:22 pm
by August
Natural selection is an explanation and not pre-conceived.
That is a pretty profound assertion. Firstly, I would argue if that's the case, then the theory of evolution is circular.

But what did Darwin say, in the Origin of the Species?

"How will the struggle for existence, discussed too briefly in the last chapter, act in regard to variation? Can the principle of selection, which we have seen is so potent in the hands of man, apply in nature?"

"This preservation of favourable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection."

"I am well aware that this doctrine of natural selection, exemplified in the above imaginary instances..."

"On the belief that this is a law of nature, we can, I think, understand several large classes of facts..."

"Thus it will be in nature; for within a confined area, with some place in its polity not so perfectly occupied as might be, natural selection will always tend to preserve all the individuals varying in the right direction"

"which may be effected in the long course of time by nature's power of selection."

Sure looks like Darwin used it as an axiom, unless "law", "principle" and "dogma" means something else to you than it does to me. If not, what axioms did he use to interpret his observations? What principle then underlies natural selection? If there is nothing underlying it, on what basis should we believe it?

The fact that he assigned power to nature is in direct opposition to a religious worldview, in fact, it's the creation of a new religious worldview. How would you distinguish between the "power of selection" over the "power of creation"? Both attempt to explain the origin of species.

But what beliefs did his student and spokesperson Huxley hold?

"yet I found that, whatever route I took, before long I came to a tall formidable-looking fence. Confident as I might be in the existence of an ancient and indefeasible right of way, before me stood the thorny barrier with its comminatory notice board - 'No thoroughfare - By order, Moses.'... The only alternatives were to give up my journey which I was not minded to do - or to break the fence down and go through it."

Do you honestly think that these were the remarks of a neutral scientist? It sure seems to be a preconception that directly influenced his work.

Furthermore, if evolution was held to be true, then we could not know it. Neo-darwinism holds that blind, random, naturalistic processess are responsible for all life, including man. These processes are not rational, they are a-rational. From this it follows that our brain is the result of the same processess, and since it was our brains that came up with the ToE, what reason do we have to believe the product of blind, random, a-rational processess?

Darwin himself struggled with that, by the way:
""With me, the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy."

I'm sure we will continue.....

Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 2:06 pm
by BGoodForGoodSake
August wrote:
Natural selection is an explanation and not pre-conceived.
That is a pretty profound assertion. Firstly, I would argue if that's the case, then the theory of evolution is circular.
I don't understand what you mean?
How is it circular?

If I say perhaps proboscis monkeys have such a large nose because the females prefered larger nosed individuals, it is an explanation is it not?

Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 2:34 pm
by August
I don't understand what you mean?
How is it circular?
Because then evidence given for natural selection is in as much need of proof as natural selection itself.

But Darwin already solved that problem, he just assumed it as a principle. If natural selection is not a principle in your opinion, what is the principle underlying it?

So you agree that evolution is based on certain preconceptions, since you did not respond to my list of Darwin and Huxley quotes?
If I say perhaps proboscis monkeys have such a large nose because the females prefered larger nosed individuals, it is an explanation is it not?
What does it explain?

Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 3:48 pm
by BGoodForGoodSake
August wrote:
I don't understand what you mean?
How is it circular?
Because then evidence given for natural selection is in as much need of proof as natural selection itself.

But Darwin already solved that problem, he just assumed it as a principle. If natural selection is not a principle in your opinion, what is the principle underlying it?

So you agree that evolution is based on certain preconceptions, since you did not respond to my list of Darwin and Huxley quotes?
No the evidence is nature itself, natural selection is an explanation.

No I did'nt respond because science is a fluid knowledge base, you can't quote it like scripture. All the explanations in science are up for criticism.
If I say perhaps proboscis monkeys have such a large nose because the females prefered larger nosed individuals, it is an explanation is it not?
What does it explain?
It posits that females of this species has selected larger noses for generations. OR that a larged nose male was found attractive in the past and after generations only this allele survives.

Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 8:15 pm
by August
No the evidence is nature itself, natural selection is an explanation.
Not according to Darwin. Was he wrong?

What is the principle that underwrites natural selection? Any explanation must make logical sense, therefore it must contain a premise and a conclusion. If natural selection is the conclusion by your reasoning above, what is the premise?
No I did'nt respond because science is a fluid knowledge base
On what basis then do you assume anything that science describes to be true? Elsewhere you agreed that there are certain fundamental underpinnings to science, are you now saying those fundamental beliefs are fluid? Are the laws of logic fluid? How about the scientific method?
All the explanations in science are up for criticism.
Yes, the conclusions may be open to criticism.
It posits that females of this species has selected larger noses for generations. OR that a larged nose male was found attractive in the past and after generations only this allele survives.
Can you please explain logically how you arrive at your conclusion? Can you put the answer in a syllogy, for clarity's sake please.

Posted: Fri Sep 02, 2005 11:31 pm
by BGoodForGoodSake
August wrote:
No the evidence is nature itself, natural selection is an explanation.
Not according to Darwin. Was he wrong?
Darwin was biased. All humanity is.
On what basis then do you assume anything that science describes to be true? Elsewhere you agreed that there are certain fundamental underpinnings to science, are you now saying those fundamental beliefs are fluid? Are the laws of logic fluid? How about the scientific method?
I assume nothing ever in the history of science is true. It is all subject to criticism.
August wrote: Yes, the conclusions may be open to criticism.
It posits that females of this species has selected larger noses for generations. OR that a larged nose male was found attractive in the past and after generations only this allele survives.
Can you please explain logically how you arrive at your conclusion? Can you put the answer in a syllogy, for clarity's sake please.
If females selected for the large nose individuals then it goes that they bear more children. Its just a theory, one can check to see if the evidence supports this or not.

Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 8:46 am
by August
Darwin was biased.
What do you think his bias was? And how did it influence his theory?
I assume nothing ever in the history of science is true. It is all subject to criticism.
If all premises are false, are all the conclusions false too?

I'm must say, I'm a bit surprised by this position. If your view holds true, we could not have arrived at any of the benefits we see from science.

Posted: Sat Sep 03, 2005 11:11 am
by BGoodForGoodSake
August wrote:
Darwin was biased.
What do you think his bias was? And how did it influence his theory?
I assume nothing ever in the history of science is true. It is all subject to criticism.
If all premises are false, are all the conclusions false too?

I'm must say, I'm a bit surprised by this position. If your view holds true, we could not have arrived at any of the benefits we see from science.
No you misunderstood, I meant to say all conclusions in science are subject to scrutiny.

I know it is natural to respond to a statement made, but please try to take the statement in context of the entire discussion so we don't need to refer to posts already made.

It is possible for all scientific theories to be wrong. It is this way of thinking, where ideas and "truths" are from men and are falible, that we have all the benefits of science.

Here is some evidence of natural selection.
Many birds have an advanced courtship dance, and decorative plumage which allows them to attract potential female mates. Apparently brightly coloured plumage is sexually selected. If we remove a few feathers from one group and not another the females prefer the fully plumed males. This is natural sexual selection.

I am not sure if in Darwins time if the idea of punctuated equilibrium and genetic drift were around. I think when evolution was in its infancy there was alot of emphasis on natural selection, however there is a problem with this. In large populations any mutations would be so diluted into the population that it would take many many generations for a new gene to take hold. Especially if its a gene which gives no advantage to the individual immediately. I.E. random mutation which makes an organism's blood protiens deformed. No apparent health effects but intereferes with malaria causing protazoan infestation.

That is why new theories were created, because these explanations of science cannot account for the fossil evidence which has speciation taking hundrends of thousands of years not millions of years it would take for the gradual changes expected from natural selection alone.

Environmental and Sexual Selection on a small isolated population has the potential for dramatic radical speciation.

It only takes a little study to see that science is an evolution, a trial an error process of systematic discovery which allows us to approximate the true mechanics of a diverse array of knowledge.

Regarding Darwin, I haven't much knowledge on the subject. I did not originally care for the origins, nor the history of the evolutionary theory. I have only concerned myself with the current ideas and evidence.

But I will do some study on this subject if you wish to discuss my opinion of his bias and its influence on the theory of evolution.