Evolution and the myth of "scientific consensus"

[Loudmouth]

I disagree strongly. Researchers are reporting results as if they actually demonstrate the existence of phenomena, often leading others to pursue that line of research and sometimes leading to clinical trials. They're doing so based on underpowered studies and statistical procedures that are guaranteed to produce lots of false positives. They don't have to be doing that.

Even proper studies with statistically significant and solid numbers can still lead to a conclusion that turns out to be false. My experience is more in the fields of immunology and microbiology where we are often working with a big black box, or a bowl of spaghetti, whichever metaphor you would prefer. It is nearly impossible to decipher the entire host-pathogen relationship in a single study. You have to do it in bits across many different research labs. At times, certain interactions will look very promising, but upon further study they aren't important. Perhaps your field is a bit different.

We don't have to wait until we're 100% sure; physicists don't. But they don't get two thirds of their results wrong, either.

What do you mean by "wrong"? Do you mean that the reported data is wrong because of experimental error, the data is analysed incorrectly, or that the conclusions drawn from the data are incorrect/not supported?

 

[sfs]

Even proper studies with statistically significant and solid numbers can still lead to a conclusion that turns out to be false. My experience is more in the fields of immunology and microbiology where we are often working with a big black box, or a bowl of spaghetti, whichever metaphor you would prefer. It is nearly impossible to decipher the entire host-pathogen relationship in a single study. You have to do it in bits across many different research labs. At times, certain interactions will look very promising, but upon further study they aren't important. Perhaps your field is a bit different.

Sure, well-powered studies can be wrong. But in most biomedical research, they're wrong much more often than they have to be or than is optimal. The metric for a subfield is a little crude but simple: how often do findings replicate? I used to work in genetic epidemiology, and that field was then terrible, with few studies being replicable. The result was a great deal of thrashing, with various groups pursuing candidate genes that didn't actually have anything to do with the trait in question. (It's changed since then.) So what fraction of studies in your field replicate?

What do you mean by "wrong"? Do you mean that the reported data is wrong because of experimental error, the data is analysed incorrectly, or that the conclusions drawn from the data are incorrect/not supported?

I mean they're writing papers saying that caffeine causes cancer, or that allele X causes nose warts, or that treatment with stem cells improve cardiomyopathy, when none of those things is true. In their abstracts and in their press releases, they are treating their conclusions as correct, and subsequent scientific studies tend to treat them the same way. They're usually wrong because of a combination of small sample size, lax statistical standards (e.g. a threshold of p < 0.05) and inadequate correction for multiple hypothesis testing. Particle physics doesn't do this. They see lots of funny little bumps in (for example) mass plots, but they don't publish them until they have very high statistical significance. And almost all of them go away as more data accumulates.

 

[Loudmouth]

So what fraction of studies in your field replicate?

I would say a very high percentage of experimental outcomes are replicable. The real question is whether they mean anything, or support the conclusion.

I mean they're writing papers saying that caffeine causes cancer, or that allele X causes nose warts, or that treatment with stem cells improve cardiomyopathy, when none of those things is true. In their abstracts and in their press releases, they are treating their conclusions as correct, and subsequent scientific studies tend to treat them the same way. They're usually wrong because of a combination of small sample size, lax statistical standards (e.g. a threshold of p < 0.05) and inadequate correction for multiple hypothesis testing. Particle physics doesn't do this. They see lots of funny little bumps in (for example) mass plots, but they don't publish them until they have very high statistical significance. And almost all of them go away as more data accumulates.

As an example, an experiment in mice may see a 10-20 fold increase in ccl2 mRNA for heart tissue. In my experience, that type of observation is very repeatable. However, does it mean that ccl2 plays a role in the pathogenecity of that bug? Does data collected in mice even transfer over to human immune responses? For most publications, it is enough to publish that a certain gene has changes in expression with protein data to back it up. They will possibly show downstream effects of that that gene within the overall immune response. Their conclusion is that GeneX may play a role and some ideas for future work. That's usually it. What you have to do is read a lot of publications, figure out how they relate to each other, and then come up with a way to improve the infection model that also tests the current infection model.

I don't see a problem with papers that boil down to, "Hey, this is what we got, and it might mean __blank___". The worst thing that could happen is people not publish because they are afraid of being wrong.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

One of the evolutionist's favorite tactics is to immediately appeal to a "scientific consensus" that Evolution theory is beyond all reasonable doubt. If the vast majority of scientists accept Evolution theory (or more accurately, do not publicly oppose it) then it simply must be true. This reasoning is absurd on its face to any sophisticated reader, but lets demonstrate that it is false.

First, think about how many popular-science presentations you've watched where you've been matter-of-factly assured that the Big Bang really happened and is beyond reasonable doubt. It is casually stated as if it were as clear as the sky is blue. Audiences are never given the slightest hint that anyone with relevant expertise questions whether or not the Big Bang really happened.

Next, have a quick read through the following publication. (some technical jargon snipped)

An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)
http://homepages.xnet.co.nz/~hardy/cosmologystatement.html

"The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation...

...What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles...

...Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory..."
----------------------------

(Now, 'consensus defenders' would love to say these are just a few cranks making this noise, but that is not true. Have a look through the signees and you will find highly credentialed astronomers and physicists, and a great number of credentialed scientists in general.)

However, this thread is not about debating the Big Bang theory. It is to shed light on the reality of "consensus" and the nature of the academic world in general.

Notice what is being expressed in the letter above, that a dominating theory is so entrenched, that scientists do not feel comfortable openly questioning it. Not because of the strength of evidence for the theory - (as stated they have sound scientific reasons for calling it into question) but because the theory is being protected ideologically. It is protected from question because so many parties are invested in it.

(Again, recall all of those popular science broadcasts where some 'science-spokesman' like Carl Sagan or Neil DeGrasse Tyson tells you completely matter-of-factly how the Big bang occurred billions of years ago)

This paints quite a different picture than the mantras we hear day after day about how the consensus is based strictly on scientific merit, how scientists are eagerly waiting to have their theories disproved, how any young scientist who finds a hole in a reigning theory will be fast-tracked to a Nobel prize, etc. etc. This is all simply a myth that is perpetuated to give the scientific community an aura of righteousness and selfless pursuit of truth. It is simply not true.

So, while I know this clarification will bounce off most consensus-worshipers like rubber, I hope it will contribute at least a little bit to chipping away that silly myth that is promoted all over the internet.

....

Now, some additional thoughts... think about the Theory of Evolution for a moment in this light... think about how many parties and institutions are invested in it. Think about what they stand to lose if Evolution theory is, not even disproven, but simply allowed to be openly questioned in a scientific setting. Think about how disastrous that would be for so many invested parties that have been telling the public for the last century that the theory is simply beyond question.

Evolution is their ultimate Creation Story - think about how much ideological power is in that.. being able to tell all of society where they originated from. Think of the culture that is been built around that ideology. The entire "science vs. religion" narrative.

It makes the ideological stakes for the Big Bang theory look paltry in comparison.

With this in mind, only the most blind and naive would believe that Evolution theory is maintained based strictly on its scientific merit. What utter nonsense.

Do you really think this level of ideological investment is not playing a role in maintaining the "consensus" and protecting the theory from question?

Do you really think the average young scientist trying to make a living feels comfortable openly questioning the theory, or even voicing the slightest hint of doubt?

Do you really think they're being honest and upfront with you about Evolution theory's weaknesses?

There's one thing about theories. They never just go away. No matter how many inconsistencies or issues it might have, it cannot go away unless a better theory comes along to replace it.

That is the case with the big bang theory. It's got a big glaring problem . . . no reason for it to ever happen.

But it won't go away. It can't. Everything about the origin of the universe can only be discussed in the context of the big bang theory until a better theory replaces it.

 

[sfs]

I would say a very high percentage of experimental outcomes are replicable. The real question is whether they mean anything, or support the conclusion.

That's good. The kind of papers I'm complaining about are the ones drawing conclusions from what's basically statistical noise. Biological meaning and causation are at a different level, and I have no problem with that kind of uncertainty.

 

[Zosimus]

That paper considered only fields within biomedical research.

That's an interesting point of view – that problems with p-values, bias in researchers, and problems with multiple groups investigating the same questions cause problems with false positives is something that ONLY occurs within biomedical research.

Evolutionary research, I suppose, never uses p-values. There is no bias of any kind among evolutionary biologists. There are never multiple teams investigating the same question.

Good to know!

I think there are good reasons for believing that science accumulates knowledge, for fairly unremarkable definitions of "knowledge". Very few scientists and few philosophers of science are pure instrumentalists.

Good reasons that you don't bother to elaborate on.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Nope, not true. As discussed previously, birds could be assigned to a completely different animal group than theropods if necessary, etc. etc. Also in general with any taxa, any number of traits could be labeled convergent (there is no strict limit because evolutionists can't even assign a limit in principle) to shift phylogenies around. Fossils can be found at least tens of "millions of years" out of sequence and be accommodated.

You're just repeating the same old myths and mantras. Phylogeny is not even remotely as objective as you'd like it to be. What's sad is that someone who doesn't know any better would probably believe you.

Your extreme skepticism of all science is not convincing. You've got plenty of evidence in your own body of descent from earlier species and its not very hidden. Things like your coccyx, your ear wiggling muscles, the vestigial digits on your feet, the broken vitamin c gene shared with primates, the recurrent laryngeal nerve . . .

These are things beyond reasonable doubt about what they mean. Of course, we cannot resolve unreasonable doubt.

 

[Wryetui]

Wait... I just saw that the "theory of evolution" is just a theory... So unexpected, I thought that with all the "sure" we have that evolution is right and everyone else's opinions are wrong and anachronic it would be something sure, not a theory...

 

[The Cadet]

Wait... I just saw that the "theory of evolution" is just a theory... So unexpected, I thought that with all the "sure" we have that evolution is right and everyone else's opinions are wrong and anachronic it would be something sure, not a theory...

http://notjustatheory.com/

You're using "theory" in the colloquial sense. The term has a completely different meaning in science; see also "Atomic theory" "The theory of gravity" "Cell theory" "Germ theory" "theory of relativity" "theory of evolution" et cetera.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So now you are going to claim that the scientific community did not have peer reviewed material to support their belief the Milky-Way was the entire universe? Only AFTER Georges Lemaitre proposed expansion and the Big Bang, did the consensus slowly change.

It's called "progress" and "learning".

I know you hate both concepts. But the rest of us rational folk value it quite highly...

 

[DogmaHunter]

"collective judgment, position, and opinion" "Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity" because consensus does not mean correct, which they fail to grasp.

I haven't seen anyone here claim that scientific concensus means that the things on which there is concensus are correct.

There are no absolutes in science.
Concensus on a topic means that it is tentatively accepted as the best explanation currently available.

At every single point in the history of mankind, the prevailing consensus has been overturned and shown to be wrong.

Yes. Again, it's called learning and progress.
Just because you dogmatically hold on to views that has been overturned ages ago in exactly this fashion doesn't make "learning and progress" a bad thing.

Again, I know you hate it. But that's your problem.

But now it is different and they are of course correct because the majority believes it

No. As explained above.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Nah, it would be more accurate to say that peer-review is "better than nothing", than "less than perfect"

What do you propose to do instead?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Or if you prefer in over 100 years of experiments with plant and animal husbandry, where species become anything but subspecies, breeds, varieties, sub-varieties or formae (infraspecific taxa) of the original Kind?

...exactly in line with what evolution theory would predict.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why should I find it ironic that it's published in a peer-reviewed journal? You can get almost anything published in a peer-review journal. All you have to do is nominate one of your buddies as the peer to review it.

As an author of a paper, you don't get to pick and choose who will review it.

 

[Wryetui]

http://notjustatheory.com/

You're using "theory" in the colloquial sense. The term has a completely different meaning in science; see also "Atomic theory" "The theory of gravity" "Cell theory" "Germ theory" "theory of relativity" "theory of evolution" et cetera.

Oh, excuse my ignorance, thank you for solving my doubts.

 

[lifepsyop]

Your extreme skepticism of all science is not convincing.

Neither is that blatant strawman.

You've got plenty of evidence in your own body of descent from earlier species and its not very hidden. Things like your coccyx, your ear wiggling muscles, the vestigial digits on your feet, the broken vitamin c gene shared with primates, the recurrent laryngeal nerve . . .

Despite what you may believe, listing anatomical traits is not an argument.

 

[lifepsyop]

You're using "theory" in the colloquial sense. The term has a completely different meaning in science; see also "Atomic theory" "The theory of gravity" "Cell theory" "Germ theory" "theory of relativity" "theory of evolution" et cetera.

One clue that you may be dealing with a poor theory is its proponents' need to try and present it alongside other theories. The implication being that if you deny one, you must deny all. A bit like trying to make a dirty rag seem more appealing by surrounding it with relatively pristine garments.

 

[lifepsyop]

I haven't seen anyone here claim that scientific concensus means that the things on which there is concensus are correct.

Actually that is claimed all the time.

Concensus on a topic means that it is tentatively accepted as the best explanation currently available.

Consensus may also indicate that it is tentatively accepted as the most ideologically preferable explanation and/or the most potentially lucrative model available. Actual scientific merit may only be of secondary or tertiary consideration.

 

[Loudmouth]

That's good. The kind of papers I'm complaining about are the ones drawing conclusions from what's basically statistical noise. Biological meaning and causation are at a different level, and I have no problem with that kind of uncertainty.

I had a feeling that we were talking past each other on some level.

I also agree with what you are describing. I have seen the same problem in proteomics work where labor intensive methodologies limit sample size leading to what is often called "one hit wonders". These are often 1 or 2 peptides from a single protein that show significant differences in MS/MS runs with complex biological samples. Such data sets often lead to a situation where you form hypotheses AFTER you collect the data which creates massive problems. What you need is a good statistician who can help you avoid those traps.

 

[The Cadet]

One clue that you may be dealing with a poor theory is its proponents' need to try and present it alongside other theories. The implication being that if you deny one, you must deny all. A bit like trying to make a dirty rag seem more appealing by surrounding it with relatively pristine garments.

It's about understanding the meaning of the word in science. Evolution is the only theory in science that gets this treatment. There's no large contingent of people saying that germ disease is "just a theory". Displaying it next to these other theories helps illustrate the point. It's not just conjecture, it's well-established scientific fact. What, should we be comparing it to things not of the same category?

Well okay, let's compare it to young earth creationism.

Young earth creationism is not a scientific theory. It makes no testable predictions. It makes no claim which is falsifiable, as any erroneous result is simply attributed to supernatural meddling. It offers us no mechanism to make predictions about the natural world, as its causes are almost all supernatural and beyond our understanding. It does nothing to further how we understand any part of reality, regardless of whether or not it's true (something we cannot even in theory establish in the first place).

By comparison, evolution makes testable predictions based on naturalistic mechanisms. Darwin's phylogeny, for example, was tested in its entirety when the field of genetics was discovered, and it turned out to be remarkably stable, with the morphological nested heirarchy being almost completely concordant with the genetic nested heirarchy. We expected to find, on the basis of morphology, various fossils, which we found not only in the location predicted, but with the qualities predicted. Every time a new genome is sequenced or a new fossil is dug up, the theory opens itself up to potentially be falsified - if the fossil cannot be fit into the phylogeny or it's in the wrong strata (see also: fossil bunnies in Cambrian strata and their complete lack of existence), or the genome shows genetics which cannot be matched to any existing phyla, there's a problem.

So where's the creationist model of reality? And how is it supported? The best creationists have come up with are bogus critiques of the existing science, as if that would somehow prove their incoherent model as justified by default. As C0nc0rdance so wonderfully put it, "creationists are the jeering benchwarmers of science, not the opposing team".