The Scientific Method & Macroevolution?

[MissRowy]

Bring it back on topic guys!!

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Me and you are a minority here

Apart from the basic First Aid stuff, I had plenty of time to study. Time to finish my schooling part-time. I studied two languages, Biology, Economics, Mercantile Law and Biblical Studies, yet nothing like my current part-time studies.
So, have you answered my OP yet?

 

[crjmurray]

Apart from the basic First Aid stuff, I had plenty of time to study. Time to finish my schooling part-time. I studied two languages, Biology, Economics, Mercantile Law and Biblical Studies, yet nothing like my current part-time studies.
So, have you answered my OP yet?

No. They are both silly questions. Questions you obviously know the answers to.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

No. They are both silly questions. Questions you obviously know the answers to.

I have got a lot of jumbled thinking about the answers to both of these questions and the only answers I have in play here are the ones from Talk Origins.*



---
* 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

 

[whois]

The scientific method has it's limitations:

"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."
Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953

i believe the method is wholly satisfactory in determining the methods of evolution.
the method did a pretty fair job with the periodic table, and with chemistry in general.
the limitations here are, lack of imagination and lack of technology.

A rather brief summary, but then I don't recall seeing your posts in the early part of Lines of Evidence.

yes, i try to stay simple and brief, i prefer water over dihydrogen oxide any day.
i posted in the thread but it was in the last pages before the new one started.

Try this on for size, as well as the link:

'....Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory, macroevolution involves common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993). ....'*

---
* 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

okay, thanks.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

i believe the method is wholly satisfactory in determining the methods of evolution.
the method did a pretty fair job with the periodic table, and with chemistry in general.
the limitations here are, lack of imagination and lack of technology.

My concern with the scientific method, is when it is employed to argue against matters of personal belief. i.e. Jesus is the Son of God; assumptions. i.e. the existence of God + the general propositions religious people adhere to, when they say they are this that and the other group. i.e. Protestant, Catholic, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Krishna, Zen etc.
Knowing where it starts (the scientific method, relative to Evolution) and where its usefulness ends, is a matter I hope to explore here.

yes, i try to stay simple and brief, i prefer water over dihydrogen oxide any day.
i posted in the thread but it was in the last pages before the new one started.
okay, thanks.

A simple answer is nice, but some questions require considerable explaining. This is certainly the case with Evolution, and more generally Biology and all the sciences. Even some pseudo-scientific (C.S. and I.D) stuff. i.e books, papers etc. You know that.

Yes, that is what I saw.

 

[SteveB28]

My concern with the scientific method, is when it is employed to argue against matters of personal belief. i.e. Jesus is the Son of God; assumptions. i.e. the existence of God + the general propositions religious people adhere to, when they say they are this that and the other group. i.e. Protestant, Catholic, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Krishna, Zen etc.
Knowing where it starts (the scientific method, relative to Evolution) and where its usefulness ends, is a matter I hope to explore here.



A simple answer is nice, but some questions require considerable explaining. This is certainly the case with Evolution, and more generally Biology and all the sciences. Even some pseudo-scientific (C.S. and I.D) stuff. i.e books, papers etc. You know that.

Yes, that is what I saw.

The scientific method is nothing more than a means of broadening knowledge and understanding? How can that ever be a bad thing?

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

The scientific method is nothing more than a means of broadening knowledge and understanding? How can that ever be a bad thing?

'....Knowing where it starts (the scientific method, relative to Evolution) and where its usefulness ends, is a matter I hope to explore here.'*

---
*

 

[AV1611VET]

The scientific method is myopic.

 

[bhsmte]

.

 

[Loudmouth]

A. WHAT EXACTLY IS: THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD?

Learn what others have already learned.

Use that knowledge to investigate a question.

Come up with an idea of how something works.

Come up with a way to test that idea.

Test the idea.

Draw conclusions.

Report what you have done so that others can learn from you.

Repeat.

B. WHAT IS THE PROPER UNDERSTANDING OF MACROEVOLUTION?

To understand macroevolution you have to understand the mechanisms and how they affect populations of organisms. At a minimum, you need to understand mutation, selection, and speciation. You need to understand why these mechanisms would produce a nested hierarchy, and what a nested hierarchy is.

 

[Loudmouth]

My concern with the scientific method, is when it is employed to argue against matters of personal belief. i.e. Jesus is the Son of God; assumptions. i.e. the existence of God + the general propositions religious people adhere to, when they say they are this that and the other group. i.e. Protestant, Catholic, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Krishna, Zen etc.
Knowing where it starts (the scientific method, relative to Evolution) and where its usefulness ends, is a matter I hope to explore here.

Where is the usefulness in accepting claims for which there is no evidence? If you want to discuss usefulness and where science stops, then you need to demonstrate how theistic beliefs are useful where science is not. No one needs to argue against personal beliefs if those beliefs are superfluous or irrelevant to the question at hand. Instead, it is those arguing for those personal beliefs that need to make a compelling case for accepting those beliefs.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Learn what others have already learned.

Use that knowledge to investigate a question.

Come up with an idea of how something works.

Come up with a way to test that idea.

Test the idea.

Draw conclusions.

Report what you have done so that others can learn from you.

Repeat.

You're missing a very important part about the scientific method and that is that the following:

"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."
Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953



"It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven."
Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941.

To understand macroevolution you have to understand the mechanisms and how they affect populations of organisms. At a minimum, you need to understand mutation, selection, and speciation. You need to understand why these mechanisms would produce a nested hierarchy, and what a nested hierarchy is.

Yes, there is much for me to learn. I am no particular hurry, but I do appreciate your concise thinking.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Learn what others have already learned.

Use that knowledge to investigate a question.

Come up with an idea of how something works.

Come up with a way to test that idea.

Test the idea.

Draw conclusions.

Report what you have done so that others can learn from you.

Repeat.

You're missing a very important part about the scientific method and that is the following:

"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."
Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953



"It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven."
Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941.

To understand macroevolution you have to understand the mechanisms and how they affect populations of organisms. At a minimum, you need to understand mutation, selection, and speciation. You need to understand why these mechanisms would produce a nested hierarchy, and what a nested hierarchy is.

Yes, there is much for me to learn. I am no particular hurry, but I do appreciate your concise thinking.

 

[Loudmouth]

You're missing a very important part about the scientific method and that is the following:

"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."
Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953

What I described is what scientists actually do when they are doing science. What philosophers may or may not say about science is immaterial. They are not scientists. In the end, science is what scientists do.

In my experience, scientists couldn't care less what philosophers say or believe about science. Philosophers are a bit like the sideline commentator at a football game who thinks he knows everything about what the team should do without ever setting foot on the field. I largely agree with Steven Weinberg who said, "The insights of philosophers have occasionally benefited physicists, but generally in a negative fashion – by protecting them from the preconceptions of other philosophers". In other words, the only good philosophers do is pointing out bad philosophy. In scientific terms, philosophy has been "unreasonably ineffective", as Weingberg describes it.

"It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required — not proven."
Albert Einstein, in Science, Philosophy and Religion, A Symposium, 1941.

That is much closer to how scientists view the scientific method instead of the etheral nonsense that people like Popper write about. Einstein correctly points to real connections between real things, not philosophical concepts.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I am certain not one to comment on Einstein, Weinberg or Popper - however I think the obvious point expressed by both Popper and Einstein would be a good one to include in a proper understanding of the what the scientific method can and cannot do for us. As with all branches of knowledge, there are always limitations. A truly brilliant mind, such as Einstein was not ashamed of the virtue of humility. I'm not so sure about Popper, but what a powerful force of nature!

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

Where is the usefulness in accepting claims for which there is no evidence? If you want to discuss usefulness and where science stops, then you need to demonstrate how theistic beliefs are useful where science is not. No one needs to argue against personal beliefs if those beliefs are superfluous or irrelevant to the question at hand. Instead, it is those arguing for those personal beliefs that need to make a compelling case for accepting those beliefs.

Such compelling cases have been made by such great minds as C.S. Lewis, Thomas Acquinas, St. Augustine etc. however it is important to remember that such arguments were only done in an attempt to do what St. Peter said, '....to give an account for the hope that in you, with gentleness and reverence.' (NASB)

To be sure about something, so sure that one is willing to die for such a thing -- and yet to have no way of bringing that something within the realm of science, is unfortunately the nature of the beast.

I shan't bother to revisit what I have already posted to this forum, but I'm sure if you really want to engage me in such a discussion -- it would fall outside the scope of this forum.

I know that St. Paul uses certain arguments in his letters, but as I am not St. Paul and certainly not his spokesman -- I can only say that if you want proof/evidence (?) for the existence of God, it's only tested when you begin to pray and devote yourself to such. If you can manage your 'flesh', and stay the course, then you will have as much as C.S. Lewis had (maybe more) -- as God moved towards him, and eventually as he was moved by God's servants (Tolkien and Dyson) to consider alternative views, and eventually find himself moved by what he could not say -- merely that he suddenly found himself enabled to receive the truth that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

If you know your NT. you will know that St. Peter made such a claim too, and when Jesus explained how such a thing had happened, it was clearly not Peter's doing -- but the Father who had revealed such a thing to Peter. All this really has very little to do with science, the scientific method or Macroevolution. (though one might use certain branches of science to explore the religious experience, but not God or God within. -- one would need something more sophisticated than neurological scans to accomplish such a feat. A fool's errand, I say.)

So, let's do science.

 

[whois]

My concern with the scientific method, is when it is employed to argue against matters of personal belief. i.e. Jesus is the Son of God; assumptions. i.e. the existence of God + the general propositions religious people adhere to, when they say they are this that and the other group. i.e. Protestant, Catholic, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Krishna, Zen etc.

i see.
OTOH, wouldn't you say that "religion" is a global and recurring theme in relation to humanity?
there has to be some kind of "science" that explains this.

Knowing where it starts (the scientific method, relative to Evolution) and where its usefulness ends, is a matter I hope to explore here.

i think it's important to keep in mind the following:
science is a method of discovery, not one of proof.

that pretty well defines what science is, generally.

A simple answer is nice, but some questions require considerable explaining.

true, but to make it available to the masses, it must be broken down into "bite sized" chunks.

This is certainly the case with Evolution, . . .

yes it is, and there is a simple reason for it.
that reason is conflicting data.

. . . and more generally Biology . . .

in what sense?
the classification system seems simple enough.

. . .and all the sciences.

i doubt if the common man disagrees with the majority of science.

Even some pseudo-scientific (C.S. and I.D) stuff. i.e books, papers etc. You know that.

i do not consider ID or creationism "science".
OTOH, i do not discount the possibility of either being true.

just for curiosity here is my take on life on this planet:
1. appearance of the first living cell.
2, appearance of the first multicellular organized systems.
3. appearance of human intelligence.

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

i see.
OTOH, wouldn't you say that "religion" is a global and recurring theme in relation to humanity?
there has to be some kind of "science" that explains this.

Of course there will always be some "Johnny Come Lately" trying to give an explanation of 'religion'. In fact, there are a number of branches of study which explore that, however tests for divinity, deity and such are not within the province of science.

Some of those branches of study fall into the following categories:

a. Brain/biological functioning
b. Genetics
c. Evolution
d. Psychological factors

"If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part."
Richard Feynman (1918-1988)*




~~~
* 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Scientific "Proof", scientific evidence, and the scientific method

 

[Loudmouth]

I am certain not one to comment on Einstein, Weinberg or Popper - however I think the obvious point expressed by both Popper and Einstein would be a good one to include in a proper understanding of the what the scientific method can and cannot do for us. As with all branches of knowledge, there are always limitations. A truly brilliant mind, such as Einstein was not ashamed of the virtue of humility. I'm not so sure about Popper, but what a powerful force of nature!

Popper wasn't a scientist. I would put more weight in what Einstein says as it relates to how science is done.

Also, how can there be knowledge without limitations? If something made up on the spot carries as much weight as something with 150 years of science behind it, then what good is that type of knowledge?