Stuff I Think Is Important - Part II: The Question

[Resha Caner]

Following Part I, I think well-formed questions are important. The way a question is formulated does a lot to set the scope and rules of the discussion.

The question, as formulated in the original thread, was fairly posed. But what motivation do I have for answering it? Almost none. Why is that?

If you understood Part I, as an instrumentalist, when addressing the field of evolution, my point of approach would be: Is evolution an efficacious model? It's not a model I really like, but, yeah, as far as empirical models go, it works. If my only interest is curing disease, increasing food production - those types of things - it's an effective instrument.

For a Realist or Platonist Christian that causes cognitive dissonance, so they reject the model. For an Instrumentalist that doesn't happen.

Further, the scope of the question excluded God. OK. So I have no motivation from a scientific perspective and no motivation from a religious perspective to answer the question. Suppose I could come up with an alternative to evolution that fits within the scope of the question. If it is as equally mechanistic as evolution, equally has no need for God, what have I accomplished? Nothing ... maybe. My one possible motivation would be philosophical instead of theological - to convince people the largely empirical approach to evolution is lacking and in need of a much more rigorous archetype.

Do I think God created everything? Yes. Do I think the "real" means were different from evolution? Yes. But it's impossible to demonstrate that when the question is scoped to eliminate God from the outset. Would ID work had the question allowed it? No. ID, while I think it is an interesting and creative idea, in the end, has some insurmountable issues, scientifically speaking.

Do I think evolution poses some theological problems? Yes. But that is a discussion for Christians. I don't see why it would interest non-believers.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

If my only interest is curing disease, increasing food production - those types of things - it's an effective instrument.

Evolution is clearly fighting (and winning) against those things. Diseases are "evolving" faster than our ability to combat them by our own "evolution". Despite our best efforts hunger still stalks the planet. Therefore evolution is actually counterproductive in addressing these problems. We should return to the tried and true.

Of course we can try to justify evolution by declaring that all the things we need to do to be successful is to do what evolution has provided. The problem is that people don't know what this is, because at the point that we interfere with evolution...evolution stops being an "effective instrument".

For example, naturally occurring food plants supposedly "evolved", leaving us to cultivate them properly for maximum benefit. However we have cross-bred and hybridized them way beyond what evolution could or would ever do. So we have thwarted the evolutionary advances by our interference.

The same goes with medicine. Evolution has provided a method of ensuring the survival of the fittest by removing the unfit, mainly through diseases. However, we have thwarted this mechanism by developing treatments that evolution never would or could provide, thereby weakening the species.

So I think we have to take a more honest look at our working relationship with "evolution".

 

[Resha Caner]

Evolution is clearly fighting (and winning) against those things. Diseases are "evolving" faster than our ability to combat them by our own "evolution". Despite our best efforts hunger still stalks the planet. Therefore evolution is actually counterproductive in addressing these problems. We should return to the tried and true.

Of course we can try to justify evolution by declaring that all the things we need to do to be successful is to do what evolution has provided. The problem is that people don't know what this is, because at the point that we interfere with evolution...evolution stops being an "effective instrument".

For example, naturally occurring food plants supposedly "evolved", leaving us to cultivate them properly for maximum benefit. However we have cross-bred and hybridized them way beyond what evolution could or would ever do. So we have thwarted the evolutionary advances by our interference.

The same goes with medicine. Evolution has provided a method of ensuring the survival of the fittest by removing the unfit, mainly through diseases. However, we have thwarted this mechanism by developing treatments that evolution never would or could provide, thereby weakening the species.

So I think have to take a more honest look at our working relationship with "evolution".

When I referred to it as an effective instrument, I meant the model, not reality. Again, you have to read Part I before you'll understand the context of the statement I'm making. I could tell engineering stories about people who don't use models (pure empiricists) and what happens, but I'm not sure the stories would resonate unless you understand the point I'm trying to make.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

When I referred to it as an effective instrument, I meant the model, not reality. Again, you have to read Part I before you'll understand the context of the statement I'm making. I could tell engineering stories about people who don't use models (pure empiricists) and what happens, but I'm not sure the stories would resonate unless you understand the point I'm trying to make.

It is a little confusing. I saw an opportunity to take a good natured jab at the evolutionists i.e. if evolution is so great why do they keep interfering with it.

 

[Resha Caner]

It is a little confusing. I saw an opportunity to take a good natured jab at the evolutionists i.e. if evolution is so great why do they keep interfering with it.

Do you actually want me to try to untangle this for you?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Do you actually want me to try to untangle this for you?

Nah, that's ok.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Do I think evolution poses some theological problems? Yes. But that is a discussion for Christians. I don't see why it would interest non-believers.

The theological problems are not of much interest to me. But like denial of climate change, or denial of the efficacy of vaccines, I am concerned by the denial of well-established facts, evidence, and scientific knowledge.

 

[Resha Caner]

The theological problems are not of much interest to me. But like denial of climate change, or denial of the efficacy of vaccines, I am concerned by the denial of well-established facts, evidence, and scientific knowledge.

The theological issues I meant do not impinge on climate change and vaccines ... at least as far as I'm aware. I, too, have concerns about the well-being of my fellow humans. However, I am a limited being and have to pick my battles. I'm probably picking different battles than you.

 

[Resha Caner]

Since I mentioned a philosophical motivation, let me provide an example. In my work it is common to "measure" the acceleration of a machine component. Given I am familiar with the model used by engineers in my line of work, I know what they mean, and I phrase my questions accordingly. What frequency range do they plan to capture? What sample rate are they using? What is the signal to noise ratio? Have they machined the surface? To what reference? Are they gluing or tapping?

But, at a philosophical level, they are not measuring acceleration. They are measuring the charge in a crystal - or, more specifically, the voltage. As with most scientific measurements, when you drill all the way down, you are usually measuring only a few very basic quantities. In most cases, all you're really measuring is a displacement.

From there, you assume a model of some kind to equate that displacement to whatever you claim to be measuring. In the case of an accelerometer, a small mass of known value is assumed to accelerate and apply a force to a crystal, thereby causing a deflection of the crystal, which is known to produce a voltage proportional to the deflection. The deflection of the crystal can be related to a force, and the force can be related to an acceleration.

You're assuming F = ma is true. While no one is going to challenge that, the point is, if some mad scientist were going to do an experiment of some new hypothesis that claims something other than F = ma, you certainly shouldn't use accelerometers to make measurements for that experiment. When you're on the bleeding edge of science, you need to be very, very careful about those kinds of things.

Part of my career was spent working on machine control, and what I saw really bothered me. Controls engineer Carl designs a control system. Programmer Paul then turns it into code that only vaguely resembles what Carl designed. Test engineer Tim then goes into the lab and changes numbers until it appears to him the machine is stable. But what Tim does is just guessing and/or experience regarding which numbers to change. There is no "method" to it - no guiding principle. And in the mind of an extreme empiricist (as I would label them) that's OK. In his mind he followed a scientific method. He has a hypothesis that changing a number from 7.3 to 9.1 will make the machine stable. He tests it. The machine tests stable. Hypothesis verified. Declare victory and move on.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Since I mentioned a philosophical motivation, let me provide an example. In my work it is common to "measure" the acceleration of a machine component. Given I am familiar with the model used by engineers in my line of work, I know what they mean, and I phrase my questions accordingly. What frequency range do they plan to capture? What sample rate are they using? What is the signal to noise ratio? Have they machined the surface? To what reference? Are they gluing or tapping?

But, at a philosophical level, they are not measuring acceleration. They are measuring the charge in a crystal - or, more specifically, the voltage. As with most scientific measurements, when you drill all the way down, you are usually measuring only a few very basic quantities. In most cases, all you're really measuring is a displacement.

From there, you assume a model of some kind to equate that displacement to whatever you claim to be measuring. In the case of an accelerometer, a small mass of known value is assumed to accelerate and apply a force to a crystal, thereby causing a deflection of the crystal, which is known to produce a voltage proportional to the deflection. The deflection of the crystal can be related to a force, and the force can be related to an acceleration.

You're assuming F = ma is true. While no one is going to challenge that, the point is, if some mad scientist were going to do an experiment of some new hypothesis that claims something other than F = ma, you certainly shouldn't use accelerometers to make measurements for that experiment. When you're on the bleeding edge of science, you need to be very, very careful about those kinds of things.

Part of my career was spent working on machine control, and what I saw really bothered me. Controls engineer Carl designs a control system. Programmer Paul then turns it into code that only vaguely resembles what Carl designed. Test engineer Tim then goes into the lab and changes numbers until it appears to him the machine is stable. But what Tim does is just guessing and/or experience regarding which numbers to change. There is no "method" to it - no guiding principle. And in the mind of an extreme empiricist (as I would label them) that's OK. In his mind he followed a scientific method. He has a hypothesis that changing a number from 7.3 to 9.1 will make the machine stable. He tests it. The machine tests stable. Hypothesis verified. Declare victory and move on.

Are you using your career experience as a metaphor for the efficacy of applied evolution theory?

 

[Resha Caner]

Whatever you are doing with this you are clearly overthinking it for the rest of us.

Yes. The point is: It's not that simple. This is a very complex problem, and if I just give you the answer, you're bound to misinterpret it, because the answer looks deceptively simple. But ... yeah ... I guess I'll let that go. It's gonna happen. I was getting ready to start another thread where I just start plopping down equations and you guys can have at it.

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip-

Do I think God created everything? Yes. Do I think the "real" means were different from evolution? Yes. But it's impossible to demonstrate that when the question is scoped to eliminate God from the outset. Would ID work had the question allowed it? No. ID, while I think it is an interesting and creative idea, in the end, has some insurmountable issues, scientifically speaking.

-snip-

Science is not "out to eliminate god(s)". But magic can never be the answer in science as science only deals with physical reality.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes. The point is: It's not that simple. This is a very complex problem, and if I just give you the answer, you're bound to misinterpret it, because the answer looks deceptively simple. But ... yeah ... I guess I'll let that go. It's gonna happen. I was getting ready to start another thread where I just start plopping down equations and you guys can have at it.

When I was in school I didn't do as well as I could have because the teachers made everything sound difficult and complicated. So naturally I thought everything was difficult and complicated when in reality things were actually pretty simple. I kept thinking that there was something that I still wasn't getting. It was confusing to say the least.

 

[Speedwell]

When I was in school I didn't do as well as I could have because the teachers made everything sound difficult and complicated. So naturally I thought everything was difficult and complicated when in reality things were actually pretty simple. I kept thinking that there was something that I still wasn't getting. It was confusing to say the least.

Some things really are difficult and complicated.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Some things really are difficult and complicated.

Some, sure. Another problem with education is that so many kids are 'difficult and complicated'. We haven't found a good way to deal with this.

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes. The point is: It's not that simple. This is a very complex problem, and if I just give you the answer, you're bound to misinterpret it, because the answer looks deceptively simple. But ... yeah ... I guess I'll let that go. It's gonna happen. I was getting ready to start another thread where I just start plopping down equations and you guys can have at it.

If I understand you thus far - and that's a stretch - you have some 'revelation' to make to which the foregoing here and in the earlier thread are preliminaries. If that is the case I strongly suggest this is not the way to communicate. Holding the "secret" back is an excellent ploy in crime novels. It is not the correct process for communicating concepts. In that setting it comes across as manipulative, dishonest and integrity-free. Consequently its effectiveness is damaged, often beyond repair.

 

[Resha Caner]

If I understand you thus far - and that's a stretch - you have some 'revelation' to make to which the foregoing here and in the earlier thread are preliminaries. If that is the case I strongly suggest this is not the way to communicate. Holding the "secret" back is an excellent ploy in crime novels. It is not the correct process for communicating concepts. In that setting it comes across as manipulative, dishonest and integrity-free. Consequently its effectiveness is damaged, often beyond repair.

Such was not my intent, but I understand why it seems that way. From my perspective it's more like students demanding, on the first day of class, that they're ready for the final exam. No, no, don't carefully lay out your case. Just give us the whole thing in one post ... but don't make it too long - give us the whole thing in one post of 25 words or less.

If someone has an alternative to evolution, how could they possibly briefly relate it here? Oh, yeah, I know biology has spent 100 years developing evolution, but here's something I came up with over the weekend that rigorously provides an alternative. The answer is ... wait for it ... 42.

Part of that (IMHO) stems from the inherent mistrust on this forum. This is not a place that does peer review of scientific material. It's a place that seeks to rip apart what is perceived as one's enemies. Not everyone is like that, but enough are.

As a result, I'm not sure anyone here understands what I was actually trying to do. But, OK, part of the blame for that is mine. Maybe I was too guarded in my approach. Maybe the damage is done, and it's too late.

 

[Ophiolite]

Such was not my intent, but I understand why it seems that way. From my perspective it's more like students demanding, on the first day of class, that they're ready for the final exam. No, no, don't carefully lay out your case. Just give us the whole thing in one post ... but don't make it too long - give us the whole thing in one post of 25 words or less.

If someone has an alternative to evolution, how could they possibly briefly relate it here? Oh, yeah, I know biology has spent 100 years developing evolution, but here's something I came up with over the weekend that rigorously provides an alternative. The answer is ... wait for it ... 42.

Part of that (IMHO) stems from the inherent mistrust on this forum. This is not a place that does peer review of scientific material. It's a place that seeks to rip apart what is perceived as one's enemies. Not everyone is like that, but enough are.

As a result, I'm not sure anyone here understands what I was actually trying to do. But, OK, part of the blame for that is mine. Maybe I was too guarded in my approach. Maybe the damage is done, and it's too late.

Maybe it is to late, but if you do nothing that will just ensure it is the case. Summarising a concept in 25 words is not going to convince anyone, but providing an overview in 200 words, with an assurance that justification and argument will follow can capture the interest of those who could contribute/comment constructively. It should provide the roadmap by which they can relate each phase of the argument as you present it.

 

[Amittai]

[QUOTE="OldWiseGuy, post: 74890805, member: 139156 ... So I think have to take a more honest look at our working relationship with "evolution".[/QUOTE]

"Evolution" is a misnomer for a misconception. However, I like "it", insofar as it is a semi-incoherent batch of what Newman would call "notions" in the course of what Peirce would call "abduction". I found S J Gould an inspiration. I'll try and bring my intuitions into your new thread.

 

[Amittai]

... I'm not sure anyone here understands what I was actually trying to do. But, OK, part of the blame for that is mine. Maybe I was too guarded in my approach. Maybe the damage is done, and it's too late.

It doesn't hurt to be slightly more explicit, whilst allowing people leeway. A big problem was that I was too slow in joining in, since (though an amateur) I like these areas.

I particularly like the way you highlight what often gets tested is more models and perhaps not "reality"; in some cases like outer space that is inevitable, practical and deliberate though.