Is science more than evolution?

[roach]

Looking at it from another angle, science currently seems to accept 2 general types of "forces" (I'm using the word somewhat generically, so we needn't restrict ourselves to the strong force, weak force, etc.):
* deterministic
* random (which some people merely consider to be complex deterministic forces we can't explain)

So, if the "evolutionary" process is merely a big Monte Carlo simulation where random events are being selected by some deterministic framework (and possibly some interactions among the random events), is science anything more than random guessing to see what determinism selects?

Or, for those who see "random" as complex determinism, wasn't the outcome the scientist found determined?

If not, what "force" am I not including in the list?

The evolutionary process is a model for predicting a 'determined' effect, yes. I don't see what you're getting at by asking whether the outcomes predicted by science were determined or not. They are, that is what science does: figures out what will happen. And btw, objectively it does this better than anything else ever conceived by man. The question of whether reason or faith is more accurate at describing reality often seems philosophical but the two don't lie on separate planes of reality. The plausibility of faith rests upon the same system of cognitive functions that define one's standards of belief. Certainly, subjective experience belies all objective knowledge, but this only serves to underscore the intrinsic value of consciousness in regard to everything in the universe. We are, in a sense, prejudiced in our perspective as conscious beings, and all value is derived from that consciousness. Even a value like faith is tethered to the innate value of consciousness.

It seems any argument that science is "only a philosophy" or one of several perspective which are equally valid attempts to explain experience miss an important point. These perspectives, at bottom, are attempts to satisfy the needs and wants of conscious beings, specifically their subjective experiences.

 

[Orogeny]

its own uniforms

Care to post a couple examples?

 

[roach]

So, wouldn't it be the case that those who came before with ID ideas were "wrong" and the evolutionary process is selecting those who have the "right" idea, making science an emergent thing resulting from the evolutionary process. In other words, those individuals who have science ideas correlating to the framework of "reality" have an advantage, and are therefore selected. To satisfy sfs we also need to acknowledge that selection is not a purely positivist process, but even with that I think the basic idea remains.

So, it doesn't matter that some in the past may have pursued ID. It was a "bad" mutation, thereby diminishing the probability that those individuals would reproduce (if that's the right wording). I think the original idea stands.

I don't see any problem with this, in general. Depending upon how you're defining terms like evolution, right and wrong, advantage, selection, etc. It's difficult to commit to this notion, though, because it is described through the use of agency words that are not accurate descriptions of what is actually happening. They give a sense that there is intention where there is none and the processes of biological 'evolution' vs the 'evolution' of ideas don't correlate as well as you've implied. I see the whole meme argument in this but I don't think it would logically follow that paradigm shifts in science are evidence of something similar in darwinian evolution.

 

[roach]

I compare it to a person lighting fires, then putting it out himself and looking like a hero.

Hmmmm, I wonder where this tactic originated.....?????!!!!

 

[Davian]

<snip>
I always shake my head in disgust whenever a shrewdness of scientists get together and scare the living daylights out of us commoners about something specific (e.g. Y2K), then solve the problem themselves.

I compare it to a person lighting fires, then putting it out himself and looking like a hero.

Hmmmm, I wonder where this tactic originated.....?????!!!!

"Zing!", as AV would say.

As a senior IT guy at a billion-dollar corporation, I - and the rest of the IT department - stayed home on Y2K.

 

[Resha Caner]

I don't see any problem with this, in general. Depending upon how you're defining terms like evolution, right and wrong, advantage, selection, etc. It's difficult to commit to this notion, though, because it is described through the use of agency words that are not accurate descriptions of what is actually happening. They give a sense that there is intention where there is none and the processes of biological 'evolution' vs the 'evolution' of ideas don't correlate as well as you've implied. I see the whole meme argument in this but I don't think it would logically follow that paradigm shifts in science are evidence of something similar in darwinian evolution.

I don't think you meant it this way, but your post comes across as a hedge. You're right, the details aren't there in what I've said to give a full, explicit description. So, I'm not trying to trap you. If a detail emerges to which you disagree, I'd be more interested in knowing why you disagree than forcing you into a corner. Hopefully the discussion can proceed in that spirit.

So, let me put it this way. I've laid 2 categories on the table and I'll give them a definition:
1) Determined: A result is determined if initial conditions and laws of operation are sufficient for predicting that result within a confidence level set by applying statistical rules to the initial conditions and laws.
2) Random: A result is random if it cannot be found via #1.

Caveat 1: The confidence level must be agreed upon by all parties to the issue. The confidence level cannot be set to infinity to force agreement that a random event is, in fact, determined.

Caveat 2: It is possible that a system has both determined and random forces at work (hence the need to specify confidence levels). As such, mixtures can occur that would require a use of statistical "laws", for example that the grades of students taking physics classes follows a normal distribution.

So, if you agree to use what I've laid out, then I'll feel justified in insisting that your posts be consistent with it. If, however, you want to add or adjust something ... if you want to add a third category, add another caveat, or change a definition ... I'm open to that.

So, back to your hedge. If biological evolution and scientific evolution are governed by these same 2 categories, then I think there is a similarity between them. In fact, it goes beyond a similarity. They are just parts of the same whole. If you disagree, you'll need to explain it within the context of what I've defined.

Or, if you disagree because I omitted something, I'm interested in knowing what you think I have omitted.

 

[Sailor_A]

Is science more than evolution?

Yes

 

[Aeneas]

Is science more than evolution?

Yes, science is a method used to understand the the universe through naturalistic study. Biology, chemistry, physics, psychology, geology, astronomy, meteorology, marine science, zoology, botany, paleontology...

 

[roach]

I don't think you meant it this way, but your post comes across as a hedge. You're right, the details aren't there in what I've said to give a full, explicit description. So, I'm not trying to trap you. If a detail emerges to which you disagree, I'd be more interested in knowing why you disagree than forcing you into a corner. Hopefully the discussion can proceed in that spirit.

So, let me put it this way. I've laid 2 categories on the table and I'll give them a definition:
1) Determined: A result is determined if initial conditions and laws of operation are sufficient for predicting that result within a confidence level set by applying statistical rules to the initial conditions and laws.
2) Random: A result is random if it cannot be found via #1.

Caveat 1: The confidence level must be agreed upon by all parties to the issue. The confidence level cannot be set to infinity to force agreement that a random event is, in fact, determined.

Caveat 2: It is possible that a system has both determined and random forces at work (hence the need to specify confidence levels). As such, mixtures can occur that would require a use of statistical "laws", for example that the grades of students taking physics classes follows a normal distribution.

So, if you agree to use what I've laid out, then I'll feel justified in insisting that your posts be consistent with it. If, however, you want to add or adjust something ... if you want to add a third category, add another caveat, or change a definition ... I'm open to that.

So, back to your hedge. If biological evolution and scientific evolution are governed by these same 2 categories, then I think there is a similarity between them. In fact, it goes beyond a similarity. They are just parts of the same whole. If you disagree, you'll need to explain it within the context of what I've defined.

Or, if you disagree because I omitted something, I'm interested in knowing what you think I have omitted.

Sorry, I'll think on this and get back, I'm want to be sure I understand you but I'm on my way out.

 

[AV1611VET]

Care to post a couple examples?

 

[Orogeny]

Predictable. Stupid. Predictably stupid.

 

[AV1611VET]

Predictable. Stupid. Predictably stupid.

-- Thank yew.

 

[mpok1519]

The things we observe would exist without us, but not science as a "thing unto itself." That is a product of the human mind.

the process of which humans observe and calculate the natural world, yes, is a human invention. But the natural world still would play by the same rules, if we were here, or not.

Of course, since observation affects the thing being observed (mainly at the quantum level), some might argue that even the things we observe wouldn't exist without us.

eh, no. Those things would exist whether or not we would. the interaction of those things with human observation, however, wouldn't exist, if humans didn't, simply because there is no human interaction.

 

[Aeneas]

*slowly and with incredulity*

Everyone hear does realize that lab coats aren't "uniforms", and that they are worn to give us pockets to hold our goggles, pens, spare gloves in and protect us from the hazardous materials we work with, right?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

*slowly and with incredulity*

Everyone hear does realize that lab coats aren't "uniforms", and that they are worn to give us pockets to hold our goggles, pens, spare gloves in and protect us from the hazardous materials we work with, right?

Oh, don't mind him, if he's busying himself here, he can't disrupt threads elsewhere.

 

[AV1611VET]

Oh, don't mind him, if he's busying himself here, he can't disrupt threads elsewhere.

 

[Blayz]

So, back to your hedge. If biological evolution and scientific evolution are governed by these same 2 categories, then I think there is a similarity between them.

Can you give any example of anything that isn't governed by these categories?

Or, if you disagree because I omitted something, I'm interested in knowing what you think I have omitted.

I disagree because you have omitted everything else, and cherry picked two examples and claimed some kind of significance. Your criteria == the universe of possible criteria and are thus meaningless.

 

[RickG]

Those things would exist whether or not we would. the interaction of those things with human observation, however, wouldn't exist, if humans didn't, simply because there is no human interaction.

No human interaction? Well let's think about that. What about anthropogenic global warming? Atmospheric CO2 content has risen by 40% since the beginning of the industrial revolution measured from 1880 to present. I would say that that is a rather significant interaction.

 

[roach]

So, let me put it this way. I've laid 2 categories on the table and I'll give them a definition:
1) Determined: A result is determined if initial conditions and laws of operation are sufficient for predicting that result within a confidence level set by applying statistical rules to the initial conditions and laws.
2) Random: A result is random if it cannot be found via #1.

Caveat 1: The confidence level must be agreed upon by all parties to the issue. The confidence level cannot be set to infinity to force agreement that a random event is, in fact, determined.

Caveat 2: It is possible that a system has both determined and random forces at work (hence the need to specify confidence levels). As such, mixtures can occur that would require a use of statistical "laws", for example that the grades of students taking physics classes follows a normal distribution.

So, if you agree to use what I've laid out, then I'll feel justified in insisting that your posts be consistent with it. If, however, you want to add or adjust something ... if you want to add a third category, add another caveat, or change a definition ... I'm open to that.

So, back to your hedge. If biological evolution and scientific evolution are governed by these same 2 categories, then I think there is a similarity between them. In fact, it goes beyond a similarity. They are just parts of the same whole. If you disagree, you'll need to explain it within the context of what I've defined.

Or, if you disagree because I omitted something, I'm interested in knowing what you think I have omitted.

I think someone else already pointed out what seems odd about calling the two processes the same, given your 2 categories. Defining determined and random as you have, you can point to anything and call them essentially the same. So it's more a matter of arbitrarily defining what makes two things the same that seems odd. i.e. the criteria you're using to call biological evolution and scientific evolution the 'same' is too broad and can be misleading because it implies the exact same mechanisms are at work in both, which I don't agree is the case. But if you'd like to describe them this way according to the categories you've defined, I can't tell you not to. Interesting stuff, though

 

[Resha Caner]

Can you give any example of anything that isn't governed by these categories?

No, which was sort of the point.

I disagree because you have omitted everything else, and cherry picked two examples and claimed some kind of significance. Your criteria == the universe of possible criteria and are thus meaningless.

Fair enough. I hoped you might suggest an alternative because it seems to me that this is exactly the pointless conclusion one comes to if you stick to what evolutionary theories have to offer.

But maybe I just need to spend some time getting a better grasp on what is niggling at me and come back later.