For scientists who accept evolution

[Dr Adequate]

Flick is doing his best. Don't be mean to Flick I like Flick. He is at least listening, which is more than can be said for hammy.

Personally I like his questions because they tend to be about what science is, which is my (adopted) field of expertise. By listening to him I learn what questions the intelligent man would wish to have answered about science, which is handy 'cos I'm writing a book to answer such questions.

In a minute, I'll come back and explain what's wrong with John Stuart Mill. I don't really think ignoring Flick's questions and ridiculing him is at all right.

Hammy, on the other hand, is a halfwitted troll who is either a consummate liar or suffering from brain damage.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Care to elaborate on J.S. Mill's mistake? I'd love to see that.

The problem is his identification of the "practical man" as one who reasons from the particular to the general. But that's weird, becuase this is precisely what it means to form a theory. This is theorizing: to "require specific experience, and argue wholly upwards from particular facts to a general conclusion". This is precisely what, for example, Darwin did, when he went from the established facts of biogeography to the theory of evolution. That's theorizing.

The "practical man", the engineer or whatever, does the exact opposite. He supposes a theory to be true, and works from that to answering a particular question as yet unknown. He says: "If Newton's theory is correct then I know how to put a satelite into orbit ... If Darwin's theory is correct, then this computer algoithm will evolve an efficient load-bearing girder... If the germ theory of disease is correct, then such-and-such a method will eliminate this disease in this area... If the laws of aerodynamics are correct, than my plane will fly."

Etc, etc. The practical man reasons from the general statement (the laws and theories which theorists assure him are sound) to the particular consequences.

And John Stuart Mill has stood him on his head.

Have you read any Peter Medawar? He's a Nobel Laureate, he wrote on the scientific method, and I seem to remember that he took a derisory look at Mill in at least one of his essays. Also I would gnaw my own leg off for his prose style.

 

[delphi_ote]

Flick is doing his best. Don't be mean to Flick I like Flick. He is at least listening, which is more than can be said for hammy.

I thought the same of Flick. His post wouldn't have disappointed me so much if I didn't respect him. He had shown an uncommon willingness to explore ideas and challenge people up to that point. Then he suddenly switched to the typical tactics of the irrational. I honestly expected better.

In fact, I know better. He's going to come back to this conversation. How could he resist a reply like yours?

 

[Dr Adequate]

If you look at the thread, the grouchiness set in because Taffer offered BSM's comments as a substitute for my critique of John Stuart Mill.

There are too many proper nouns in that sentence.

Flick is a little touchy, but on the other hand Taffer was both cursory and wrong.

 

[delphi_ote]

I did some more thinking on that quote and on your response, Dr. A. Isn't your version of the "practical man" developing a hypothesis which is tested by the success or failure of his particular design? Couldn't his design principles be generalized into a theory? There are many results in evolutionary computation and computer engineering that followed this path. "Moore's law" is a very general observation about practical engineering experience, but it evolved as essentially as an educated guess to an engineering problem (that problem being "If my design is going to interface with a processor, and it's going to take me a year to get it to the market place, how fast should I expect the top of the line processor to be when my product is finished?")

Also, don't your "theory" people need a "practical" experiment to test their theory? Once they've reasoned their way up, don't they have to be able to reason their way back down again?

My take on this subject is that we're all always making theories and testing them from the minute we're born to the day we die. While we might lean one way or another in some of our higher thinking, nobody is really a "theory" person or a "practical" person. Trial and error and making generalizations from successes is just the process we call learning. Science may be more explicit, but it's the same method extrapolated to the species as a whole (or a subset of the species, depending on how you look at it.)

 

[Taffer]

If you look at the thread, the grouchiness set in because Taffer offered BSM's comments as a substitute for my critique of John Stuart Mill.

There are too many proper nouns in that sentence.

Flick is a little touchy, but on the other hand Taffer was both cursory and wrong.

Well, my apologies. I did so because I felt the question was answered, and done so by another poster. I felt that Flick had willfully ignored that post, so I posted it again for him to see. If I was wrong, I apologies, but please point out to me so I know for the future.

ETA: Plus, since I do not predict the future, I was sadly unable to predict your response. Once again I apologise most humbly for my serious offence (and lack of future-prediction skills).

 

[Dr Adequate]

Well, my apologies. I did so because I felt the question was answered, and done so by another poster.

Well, you were wrong. BSM's post has damn all to do with John Stuart Mill's mistakes.

I may have turned a bit snappish myself, but we all have our little areas of expertise that we pride ourselves on. So when I start discussing the philosophy of science --- you shut up and hold my coat, dammit.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I did some more thinking on that quote and on your response, Dr. A. Isn't your version of the "practical man" developing a hypothesis which is tested by the success or failure of his particular design?

Yes. He is working from theory to practice. That is what makes him a "practical man".

Couldn't his design principles be generalized into a theory?

In principle, yes. But that would consitute theorizing.

Also, don't your "theory" people need a "practical" experiment to test their theory? Once they've reasoned their way up, don't they have to be able to reason their way back down again?

Certainly, otherwise the theory is vacuous.

My take on this subject is that we're all always making theories and testing them from the minute we're born to the day we die. While we might lean one way or another in some of our higher thinking, nobody is really a "theory" person or a "practical" person. Trial and error and making generalizations from successes is just the process we call learning. Science may be more explicit, but it's the same method extrapolated to the species as a whole (or a subset of the species, depending on how you look at it.)

Absolutely correct. I was just explaining why Mill was wrong about the "practical man", rather than setting up the whole empiricist stall.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Absolute certainty is something for theologists.

and bad ones at that!

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Well, you were wrong. BSM's post has damn all to do with John Stuart Mill's mistakes.

I may have turned a bit snappish myself, but we all have our little areas of expertise that we pride ourselves on. So when I start discussing the philosophy of science --- you shut up and hold my coat, dammit.

In my defence I would stand by my answer as being appropriate to Flick. You have filled in the background but my basic point is still true: to the extent that Mill's analysis is correct it is inapplicable to this debate. My reply was too cursory and assumed the fist part of that clause without stating it explicitly. You have now very neatly shown that Mills's analysis was incorrect so of even less use.

But this really is a derail and can I suggest that if there are follow-ups they should be in a new thread so as not to obscure the view of Hammy struggling against the logical bind he has created for himself.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Agreed. Flick suggested making Mill Philosopher of the Month. I'm game.

Meanwhile, let's watch hammy do the hammy dance.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

What has been occuring is a couple of us requesting some 'evidences' that aren't maybe-mightbe-couldbe-shouldbe.

Nope. What has been happening is people feeding you accurate information and you refusing to see the logical inferences being drawn from it....


[reminder]while steadfastly refusing to reveal your own "thinking"[/reminder]

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Meanwhile, let's watch hammy do the hammy dance.

"thinking"

 

[stamenflicker]

I usually have about 30min max in the afternoon to look at threads. When I mentioned "moving on" I meant moving from this thread to others threads I have posts in, and I meant moving for the night, not for good. That said, however the thread is immensely intangled, and I admit adding to that entanglement. The JS Mill quote really belonged in another thread of its own. It almost takes all my time just to play catch up.

I left this board once for a period of about two years in search of what I called "better company." I was wrong to both say that and to leave-- as time slowly pointed out. People are just people whatever boards you frequent, and its a matter of taking the good and the bad. There are posters here and thread titles that I just don't even open or read-- from both atheists and theists, I suppose that's probably true for many others.

This board is as good as any, and probably better as evidenced by my frequent visists.

Hammy has produced no evidence of either, and nor have you as far as I can see. Hence my comment on Mill.

My understanding of Mill's practical man is that he doesn't see it as his responsibility to "generate" evidence, thats what theorists do after arriving at a general principal via the evidence. Instead, the practical man will take evidences that are reached from the "theory down" and see if they match up when working from the "evidence up."

This truly belongs in another thread... I'll work one up on the philosophy board later this weekend, including thinking through Dr. A's objections.

And thanks for the kind words, Dr. A. While there is no doubt that we are two different pages, I think we have much more in common than I often admit. Primarily, we share a rentless devotion to truth, which at least for me reaches its ceiling before yours. I'm the first one to admit that I don't have answers, and I'm not one to outright deny that others have these answers... I just question my way through the process.

I tend to refer back to thinkers I really respect when reaching a conundrum of thought, Mill being one of those. Mill makes his case against thinkers like me, he is clearly not supporting my approach, and he almost outright condemns it in matters of "science." But I think he asks the right questions and points out the space in which his "practical man" operates from. It looks like Hammy and I do in fact operate from this space in this particular thread.

Flick

 

[stamenflicker]

Do you ever wonder why the scientific community doesn't take your nonsense seriously?

Well, it wasn't my nonsense. It happens to come from one of humanity's greatest thinkers of all time.

Re-read your post about 10,000 times. That's ID in a nutshell.

I'm assuming you meant the post from Mill? I think there is a good argument to be made that Mill's "practical man" is the tack of ID proponents, though that wasn't the way I was thinking about it. One of the problems is relying on text to communicate, it's too bad we can't all sit down over a beer and talk it out. We'd probably get much more done in less time.

Your post was based on... a guy saying something? Congratulations on all that hard work and thinking!

My post is selfish in that it addresses my concerns, which are about the philosophy of science. I tend to leave science itself to the scientists in that they can do it better than me, as has been demonstrated to me here countless times.

Like I said a few pages back, hammy's feather post doesn't disprove evolution. And I said, "How could it? Evolution happened and is happening." It does provoke questions of degrees to which TOE is happening, which I didn't explore at all because its not my affair.

Where I tried to take the discussion was toward a scientific experiement actually being done from the evidence up to the theory, and the places where there seemed to be a potential mismatch, and what that means for the scientific method when examining data with the theory as a pre-requistite for interpretation.

I think doing a separate thread on Mill and philosophy of science may help clear some things up with regards to the different approaches. The essay I'll use is one on defining the science of political economies, so it in an of itself will have comparison issues, but the content is good none the less.

Flick

 

[Taffer]

Well, you were wrong. BSM's post has damn all to do with John Stuart Mill's mistakes.

I may have turned a bit snappish myself, but we all have our little areas of expertise that we pride ourselves on. So when I start discussing the philosophy of science --- you shut up and hold my coat, dammit.

As BSM has already say, the answer was appropriate for this discussion. So what if it didn't address a question that was not related to the discussion at hand. I felt the question was dealt with and that we should move on. Oh, and sorry, I don't hold anyone's coat.

 

[Taffer]

Once again, Flick, Mill is confusing Inductive and Deductive scientific methods, and claiming that only one is the "true scientific method", which is nonesense.

 

[delphi_ote]

I'm assuming you meant the post from Mill?

Not at all. Conversation about the scientific method is highly relevant to this discussion. I meant you post about moving on. I thought you were actually leaving the thread because a few people disagreed. When confronted with facts and challenges, it is typical for the ID community to retreat instead of think and listen. They are beholden to a certain dogma that doesn't let them consider another perspective.

It seemed to me you were better than that, and I'm glad you proved my optimism correct by returning to the conversation and contributing.

One of the problems is relying on text to communicate, it's too bad we can't all sit down over a beer and talk it out. We'd probably get much more done in less time.

I think that would be a great time and an enlightening conversation. If you find yourself in the Orlando area or at TAM4, let me know. The beer is on me.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

One of the problems is relying on text to communicate, it's too bad we can't all sit down over a beer and talk it out. We'd probably get much more done in less time.

Agreed. It is a serious weakness of this mode of debate. I really regret the inability to make opponents stick to the point at hand and that they can get away with rewriting the history of a discussion, ultimately so as to ignore the arguments already built up and pretend they did not happen. There is also the exponential explosion that results from multiple posters, whereas a face-to-face live discussion can maintain a single line even if it means some people's side points get ignored. Also, you can't simply ban someone you're talking to, which is the frequent habit of the homeopathy boards whenever they are challenged. You could leave in a huff, but the rest of the group would easily see who had been the weak debater, so it puts the balance of power in the side who are properly on top of their argument. Whereas on those boards, the losing side bans the winners and declares victory.

I'm assuming you meant the post from Mill? I think there is a good argument to be made that Mill's "practical man" is the tack of ID proponents

No. I could see that they would want this to be true. However, for them to correctly take on that role their views from the sidelines would have to be valid. Instead they lie and misrepresent the evidence, which disqualifies them.

 

[hammegk]

....on those boards, the losing side bans the winners and declares victory.

Ah, to be so sure of one's ideas.

Instead they lie and misrepresent the evidence, which disqualifies them.

Conversely, how many evidential maybes does it require to certify a Theory 'scientifically certain' so that all future evidence may *only* be interpreted to support The Theory?

Scientifically, why is it that data offer less support for 'baramin' than for, say, a taxonomic 'Family'?