Science: Do we believe or do we accept?

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Toughy

Somewhere on UTube in the last couple of days I ran across all the contestants from the recent Miss USA pagent answering a question. The question was 'Do you think evolution should be taught in public schools?' Some of them said no, some said maybe, and some said yes. That's right, some of them said evolution should not be taught. Another one said evolution should be taught only in college and the students could decide which one to believe. Some said they believed God created them and evolution was just wrong. None of them thought evolution should be taught without also teaching the creation story in the Bible.

Aj.........don't go find it cuz you will break your computer.....I nearly broke mine.

Too late! My honey, in her never-ending quest to find things that break my brain, played it last night while I was brushing the dog.

The thing that struck me, was this idea of belief. Almost every single one of them used the idea that science is a belief. Evolution is a theory and not fact. None of them seemed to understand the difference between belief and fact. None of them understood what a scientific theory is and what it means.

I'm not sure where I am going with this, except it is what came to my mind when citybutch asked you if you believe in science.

Like you, I was struck that not a single one of them seemed to grasp what a scientist means when we use the word theory (it is not 'guess') nor did any of them, as you said, seem to draw a distinction between a belief and a fact. These are non-trivial distinctions. One might, if they wish, hold the belief that Earth is flat, rests on the back of four elephants who, in turn, stand upon the back of a gigantic star turtle named A'tuin. One might hold that belief but that doesn't make it a fact.

I think a useful working definition of a fact is this: a statement about the world that is such that the world is obliged to actually be that way. To give a couple of examples: Barack Obama is the 44th President of the United States. Earth orbits a yellow, main sequence star named Sol. F=ma*. For these things to be facts, we should be able to query the world and ask if there is such a thing as the United States and if so, what is the name of the head of state and/or head of government. We should then be able to determine how many people have held that position before the current one, do the math, determine the name of the current person holding the office and by that method decide if the world is, in fact, in agreement with our statement. The same applies to the other two statements.

Now, I might have a *belief* that Hillary Clinton is the 43rd President of the United States but that does not make my belief factual, it just makes it a belief. Nothing will ever make my belief factual because we've already had a 43rd President and much to our regret as a nation, it was Bush the Younger. These women seem to confuse belief (i.e. how they might wish the world to be) with fact (how the world actually is).

In the physical sciences there's a phrase "your theory is not in agreement with observation (or experiment)". That means that no matter how beautiful it might be, no matter how much you love it, your theory is wrong. It simply doesn't matter what one believes about one's theory, if it is not in agreement with observation or experiment then it's wrong. If there is no way to articulate how the theory might be shown to be wrong, then it is not even wrong. It's definitely not science.

What struck me was how utterly unconcerned these young women were with the truth. I did not hear any of them say that, ultimately, if evolution is true it is true and it should be taught because it was true. Instead, their beliefs (what they wanted to be true) trumped how the Universe might actually work.

A long time ago, I read a phrase that really stuck with me over the years. It was, I believe, Sagan (or it might have been Dawkins) talking about the work of a scientist. The first task was to 'be humble before the data'. What that means is that even if the data leads you someplace where you discover something you would much prefer were not true, one must be humble before the data, admit that Nature always bats last and conform yourself to what the data dictates.


Cheers
Aj

[Linus]

Like you, I was struck that not a single one of them seemed to grasp what a scientist means when we use the word theory (it is not 'guess') nor did any of them, as you said, seem to draw a distinction between a belief and a fact. These are non-trivial distinctions. One might, if they wish, hold the belief that Earth is flat, rests on the back of four elephants who, in turn, stand upon the back of a gigantic star turtle named A'tuin. One might hold that belief but that doesn't make it a fact.

Well, rats!

How about a star whale?

No, eh?
I guess no blue police boxes either, eh?
Seriously, however..

What struck me was how utterly unconcerned these young women were with the truth. I did not hear any of them say that, ultimately, if evolution is true it is true and it should be taught because it was true. Instead, their beliefs (what they wanted to be true) trumped how the Universe might actually work.

I think this comes from a limited exposure to more than a Biblical background. I'd be curious how many of those women were home schooled and only shown one possible method of understanding and comprehending. And not just education but also in home culture.

My uncles went to Catholic parochial boarding school as kids and public high school. All of them are atheists but have a deep understanding of the Catholic church and the various Catholic rights. They have, however, a keen desire of curiousity to learn beyond the boundaries they started with in grade school. My aunts also fall into that category.

As a result, I grew up in an environment where curiousity and questioning everything was encouraged. I cannot personally imagine not being such an environment but it makes me wonder if the opposite of my environment is what those women experienced? If curiousity is discouraged and downplayed, then accepting things at face value would be the result, I would think.

It leads me to believe that this is truly the "Microsoft/Mac OS/GUI Age". That isn't to say that that MS or Apple rules but rather because of making things easier for people to make those tools work without ever really needing to understand has made us -- for lack of a better phrase -- mentally lazy and "curious-less". (keep in mind that I recognize that not everyone has a desire to learn what happens behind the screen but that desire that things just work and we accept things as they are seems commonplace for everything, not just computers).

Anyways, maybe that's why..

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Linus

Well, rats!

How about a star whale?

No, eh?
I guess no blue police boxes either, eh?
Seriously, however..



I think this comes from a limited exposure to more than a Biblical background. I'd be curious how many of those women were home schooled and only shown one possible method of understanding and comprehending. And not just education but also in home culture.

My uncles went to Catholic parochial boarding school as kids and public high school. All of them are atheists but have a deep understanding of the Catholic church and the various Catholic rights. They have, however, a keen desire of curiousity to learn beyond the boundaries they started with in grade school. My aunts also fall into that category.

As a result, I grew up in an environment where curiousity and questioning everything was encouraged. I cannot personally imagine not being such an environment but it makes me wonder if the opposite of my environment is what those women experienced? If curiousity is discouraged and downplayed, then accepting things at face value would be the result, I would think.

It leads me to believe that this is truly the "Microsoft/Mac OS/GUI Age". That isn't to say that that MS or Apple rules but rather because of making things easier for people to make those tools work without ever really needing to understand has made us -- for lack of a better phrase -- mentally lazy and "curious-less". (keep in mind that I recognize that not everyone has a desire to learn what happens behind the screen but that desire that things just work and we accept things as they are seems commonplace for everything, not just computers).

Anyways, maybe that's why..

Something my wife observed with the women talking about evolution was that *every single* woman who did thought that evolution should not be taught or that 'the (nonexistent) controversy' should be taught were from a red state. Every. Single. One. The women who, at least, conceded that evolution should be taught were all from blue states. I think that is very telling.

Like you, I think that we have become a culture that expects things to be easy. We have become mentally lazy and, for some reason, we treat the brain as being different than any other organ. No one would ever suggest that you needn't give your heart, or lungs or legs or arms a workout just to keep them working well. Yet we, as a culture, do not promote the idea that the brain is a muscle and that it needs regular exercise as much as any other part of our bodies lest it atrophy.

Evolution is an elegant theory. By elegant I mean it in the way that mathematicians, engineers, scientists and hackers mean it--a solution that is subtle, powerful and no more complicated than it need be to do the job. On paper, it is a very simple theory. In practice it is fiendishly subtle. It also has very wide-ranging implications.

A few months ago, I read an article (that I wish I'd clipped to my electronic scrapbook) about farmers in, I believe, Alabama who were battling some pest or another. They were expressing surprise that this pest, which they thought some pesticide or another had all but eradicated, had come back with a vengeance and was now all but immune to the pesticide in question. This was, perhaps, the most poignant example of what not understanding evolution looks like. Evolution *predicts* that we should see exactly that kind of thing happen.

I'm going to terminate this post because I think that it might be interesting--and worthwhile--to post a general statement about evolution but that will take some time. Stay tuned.

Cheers
Aj

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

Evolution is an elegant theory. By elegant I mean it in the way that mathematicians, engineers, scientists and hackers mean it--a solution that is subtle, powerful and no more complicated than it need be to do the job. On paper, it is a very simple theory. In practice it is fiendishly subtle. It also has very wide-ranging implications.

A few months ago, I read an article (that I wish I'd clipped to my electronic scrapbook) about farmers in, I believe, Alabama who were battling some pest or another. They were expressing surprise that this pest, which they thought some pesticide or another had all but eradicated, had come back with a vengeance and was now all but immune to the pesticide in question. This was, perhaps, the most poignant example of what not understanding evolution looks like. Evolution *predicts* that we should see exactly that kind of thing happen.

I'm going to terminate this post because I think that it might be interesting--and worthwhile--to post a general statement about evolution but that will take some time. Stay tuned.

I normally don't quote myself but I wanted to have that above to explain why this subject came up. This is no substitute for reading a good treatment on the subject, but to understand why so many people get so mystified or flummoxed about people denying evolutionary biology on religious grounds, it's kind of necessary to explain why evolution is such a core part of modern biology.

Everyone is, I'm sure, aware that Charles Darwin is the name most attached to evolution. It's even called Darwinism or Darwinian theory. I won't belabor talking about Darwin there's plenty of good material on him. But what did he actually say. What follows is a condensation of a very subtle and elegant theory. I've stripped out everything I think is extraneous. But follow the logic and you will see why I call the theory subtle, beautiful and elegant.

Evolution in a nutshell:

1) Left to their own devices, meaning that absent predation or disease and with unlimited resources any population will tend to increase in a geometric fashion (e.g. 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128...). As you can see numbers start to get really big really fast. If populations *actually* increased geometrically then we should not be surprised if the planet were populated by nothing but, say, elephants.

2) We don't live on a planet populated by nothing but elephants so there must be *some* check on the growth of populations. Those checks come in the form of predation, accident, disease and starvation.

3) Not every member of a population goes on to have offspring. This is because many die before they can manage to reproduce.

4) When sexual species reproduce the offspring is like but not identical to its parents.

5) If the parents have some trait that helps them survive a little better and they pass that trait on to their offspring, then they will survive a little better than those around them who may lack that trait.

6) Over time, these small, incremental changes in genes accumulate.

7) If a population becomes reproductively isolated and the environment is such that other adaptations may become advantageous they will tend to diverge from the founding population. If enough time passes then the two groups may not be able to interbreed if they come in contact later. They have become two different species.

8) Over very long periods of time, these accumulated changes are responsible for the diversity of species we see.

That is pretty much the theory in a nutshell.

I find it useful to invoke analogy so I'm going to ask you to come play in a toy world for a few minutes. In this world there are cats and there are mice. Let us call them average-cat and fast-cat. Let us say that, on average, for every five mice a cat goes after it gets two. That is average-cat's performance. Fast-cat, however, is a *tiny* bit faster than average-cat. She is able to catch three of five mice. Fast-cat and average-cat both get impregnated by the same Tom who also carries the gene that makes fast-cat a little bit faster than average-cat. But the gene is recessive. In order for average-cat to pass it on she needs a copy of the gene too but she doesn't have it. Her kittens will also be average. Let's say that the average litter size for these cats is four of which one kitten has a better than 50% chance of dying so the average number of kittens that live to reproduce is 3. Now, fast-cat, because she eats a little better than average-cat has five kittens. She also loses one of her kittens but that means she has four kittens instead of three. Let us say that of those four, they *all* inherit the gene for fastness. That means that, all other things being equal, the offspring of fast-cat will have more descendants than average-cat. Over time, genes for being a fast cat will become dominant in that population. This will now set the bar for the new 'average' cat.

Now, you might be wondering "okay, if this is true, Aj, then why don't cats move the speed of light". The reason is straightforward, after a certain point it just is no longer cost-effective to build a faster cat body. So cat speed is not being driven infinitely upwards. It's like the old joke about you and someone else running from a bear, the goal isn't to be faster than the bear, the goal is to be faster than the other person.

At the same time that the cats are spreading genes for being fast, the mice are in an evolutionary arms race with the cats. The mice don't want to be eaten, so any genes that help mice live a little bit longer so they can reproduce will, again, tend to become dominant in a species. If something changes for *either* mice or cats that effects how well the cats eat and how long the mice avoid being eaten, if it can be passed down it will be.

So, at some point, fast-cat winds up on an island where there are mice and birds. Average-cat stays on the mainland. Let's now introduce not just birds but coyotes. Coyotes go after cats. On the mainland it helps to be small so you can get up or in things quickly. Not *too* small but about the size of a house cat. On the island, however, there's nothing to predate on the cats. So they can start getting larger. At some point, a population goes across a river while it is dry and then it returns. Over time, the two cat populations diverge. One population becomes larger, the other population stays the same size. After a while, the larger cats begin to predate on the smaller cats because mice and birds just aren't cutting it for something the size of, say, a lynx.

That is evolutionary thinking in action. Does nature work this way? Yes. I built an overly simple toy world because the details are not important. It is just to give you an idea of what kind of explanatory power evolutionary theory has. Subtle, beautiful, elegant and powerful.

If we keep gaming out our toy world long enough to get a species that begins asking questions about the cats, at first glance it might seem incredible that something the size of a house cat gave rise to something the size of a mountain lion. It didn't all at once, but little tiny forcings due to conditions make it possible to grow a larger body.

Look around you. Look at your cats and your dog. Look at the plants in your garden. All around you are survival machines designed by genes.

Cheers
Aj

[citybutch]

Was sitting here thinking AJ... and it came to mind (I would love your response to this) that perhaps one of the great differences between a spiritual understanding of the world around us and a scientific one is that in science the question is how and yet in a spiritual sense we want to know why. Science sees the patterns that allow us to predict... but at the same time the randomness of creation and life... i.e. certain events had to have happened in order for life to exist.

Thoughts?

[imperfect_cupcake]

Originally Posted by citybutch

Was sitting here thinking AJ... and it came to mind (I would love your response to this) that perhaps one of the great differences between a spiritual understanding of the world around us and a scientific one is that in science the question is how and yet in a spiritual sense we want to know why. Science sees the patterns that allow us to predict... but at the same time the randomness of creation and life... i.e. certain events had to have happened in order for life to exist.

Thoughts?

well, for me - I know you asked aj but I'm going to answer too - the magic thing that makes me feel all the beauty/wonder is that for me... there *is* no why. it just... is. It has it's own inherent value just for the same meaninglessness as the next thing. A cockroach is as different from a human as a cougar. for me there is no why. *I* get to invent the why, for me. it's up to me to give my own life purpose and meaning. That's a big fat responsibility.

sometimes, I'm not up to the task, lemme tell you. But most of the time, I am.

and in that, I do get a sense of "spirituality" in the sense of the word meaning "a sense of wonder and beauty and feeling of unity and smallness/humility all in one." for me spirit doesn't have to mean supernatural or other worldy. it's a concept word for me that I "get" the translation of. I don't mind it being applied.

[imperfect_cupcake]

It applies to New Age invocations of quantum mechanics or chaos theory or relativity theory

* SHRIEK* sorry but that really gets on my tits. I once watched a 3.5 hour movie on just that called What the bleep do we know and it is the loss of those 3.5 hours out of my life is something I mourn heavily. I'm pretty non-judgemental when it comes to beliefs but some things I just can't take.

Granted I have The Tao of Physics, but I actually didn't find that book flakey or unreasonable.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by citybutch

Was sitting here thinking AJ... and it came to mind (I would love your response to this) that perhaps one of the great differences between a spiritual understanding of the world around us and a scientific one is that in science the question is how and yet in a spiritual sense we want to know why. Science sees the patterns that allow us to predict... but at the same time the randomness of creation and life... i.e. certain events had to have happened in order for life to exist.

Thoughts?

For the most part I agree with the first part. I think that science deals very well with how questions and a limited set of why questions. For example, science can deal with the question "why do we die" it cannot deal with the question "knowing that I will die, why should I live". Religion deals with a different set of why questions having to do with ultimate meaning. For better or worse, science is not tooled-up to handle ultimate meaning questions.

As far as your last part about certain events having had to happen in order for life to exist, I think that is an artifact of our perceiving our existence as somehow special. For example, in order for me to exist my parents had to have been born, had to live long enough to meet, have sex at least once, and then my mother had to live long enough to give birth to me. It would be tempting to look at that chain of events and conclude that since I am here (obviously) all those events came to pass and *therefore* there must be some great cosmic meaning or force that caused it to happen. Put another way, I could look at my parent's life as having happened so *that* I could come into existence.

I think we do something similar with the Universe. I know that a great deal is made about the perfect set of conditions that (allegedly) have to obtain in order for life to exist on this planet but some of that stuff is just an artifact of looking for specialness where it may not exist. For example, I've heard people say on numerous occasions that if the Earth were ten feet or ten miles in either direction then life wouldn't be possible. Except that is entirely wrong. Our orbit is not a circle, it is an elipsis so by definition we vary in our position relative to the Sun. It is certainly more variance than 10 miles (the distance between Earth at its closest point and at its farthest point varies by ~3 million miles!). The biozone (habitable zone) around Sol may be as close to the Sun as Venus orbit and possibly as far out as Mars' orbit. That gives a lot of variance.

Yes, some of the constants of the Universe appear very finely tuned and if they had slightly different values we wouldn't be here. But the fact that they have the values makes our existence possible, it does not mean that those values *had* to be where they are. Just that if we were going to be there, they had to be what they are.

Does that make sense?

Cheers
Aj