Kim Il Sung giving "on the spot guidance" to collective farmers. When asked the farmers were unclear about his message

One of the biggest complaints of New Zealand scientists working in the Crown Research Institutes is bureaucracy. Or, at least that was the case during my time.

You know – stupid bureaucratic requirements like time sheets. At one stage we were being forced to break our time down to 6 min intervals! I used to say that science is a creative process and this was as silly as getting artists to fill in time sheets. Then we had financial managers, commercial managers, human resources people, communication managers, etc. making extra demands on our time. Creative people forced into an accounting role. Publications having to be vetted for intellectual property (IP) before publication – and sometimes prevented from being published so that IP could be “captured”. “Innovative thinking” and “customer management” courses imposed on researchers. Commercial managers preventing proper communication of science to the public (see the example of Jim Salinger in Clamping down on science communication).

Epistemology managers – a new bureaucrat layer

It’s a human problem – we always seem to spawn bureaucracy and the bureaucrats always try to prevent us from doing our jobs.

But here is another bureaucratic layer one of the “Thinking Matters” bright sparks wants to impose on science. The epistemologists!

In comments on his posts (Evolution should not be taught in State Schools: A Defence of Plantinga Part I and Part II), Matt at the MandM blog pontificates:

“Scientists cannot get to claims about the world unless they use a reliable method and what epistemologists are need to help us know what methods are reliable.” Mind you, he is gracious enough to suggest this as a “partnership” rather than an imposition (although we know from experience to be wary of those who declare “we are here to help you”): “On the other hand epistemologists can help us discover whether a method is reliable but they cannot tell us about the world until someone trained in the method uses it.”

I have this vision of a new breed of managers, the “Epistemology Managers,” at research institutes. Their job would be scrutinise every research proposal, every publication, with powers of veto when they felt their brand of “epistemology” might be violated. Maybe some would even be appointed to laboratories to look over scientists’ shoulders to ensure the methodology was “pure.” Reminds me a bit of the Stalinist approach to science. Or the appointment of political commissars to work groups and military units in Stalin’s USSR and Mao’s China. The “on the spot guidance” that the North Korean leader Kim Il Sung was always giving (see photo) also comes to mind.

It sounds pretty silly, and unlikely for New Zealand. But I still wouldn’t like Crown Research Institute managers hearing this idea – they have been know to run with others just as silly.

Naive epistemology

Of course, Matt’s concept of the scientific process is pretty naive and mechanical. And he has his own theocratic motives for undermining science.

In reality a good appreciation of epistemology is inherent in the scientific method. Not the creationist “epistemology” that leads Matt to argue that children in state schools should be denied access to current knowledge in their science classes. No. Scientific epistemology sees our knowledge as arising from interaction with reality, from evidence. And that knowledge is validated by checking against reality. The theological “epistemology” Matt wants to impose sees knowledge as arising from mythology,  revelation and theocratic requirements. It denies the proper role of reality in the process.

Some idea of Matt’s naive concept of epistemology can be seen in his rejection of science as a powerful way of understanding the world. His concept of scientific theory:

“some have argued that in fact history shows us that scientific theories are nearly always later discredited and proven false. If so this is not a history of progress it’s a history of failures and mistakes.” (I guess the “some have argued” provides deniability but why present the argument if he doesn’t agree with it?)

Scientists don’t see scientific knowledge as “finally true” – and this underlines the power of science. Its success relies on that humility and the fact that our knowledge is constantly tested and verified against reality. Matt dismisses this with “This is just rhetoric, if science repeatedly fails to get it right that does not show its reliable. It shows its unreliable.” I guess for him “truth” comes only from revelation.

I find these statements unbelievable. Does Matt use any of today’s technology? Will he board a plane, drive a car or visit a medical specialist? These assertions indicate that Matt has a very naive understanding of scientific method and epistemology.

No scientific theory ever conforms exactly with reality. There is always room for improvement, modification. That’s great – it keeps scientists in jobs. It also keeps them humble as they recognise the importance of evidence and testing against reality to support their theories and to enable modification so that theories mirror reality more exactly. We could say that a good scientific theory contains two kinds of truth. Aspects which are true in an absolute sense, conforming closely to reality. And aspects that are true in only a relative sense, likely to be modified as new data comes in. The philosopher of science Alan Chalmers describes this briefly when he says that “significantly confirmed theories need to live on as limiting cases in their successors.”

Newton & Einstein are “failures”

"Epistemological Manager" giving "on the spot guidance" to NZ agricultural scientists

Matt’s “epistemology” would have it that Newtonian mechanics is a failure, has been discredited and that the same fate awaits Einsteinian mechanics. (What a bleak view). But scientists don’t see it that way. They see Newtonian mechanics as a limiting case. Perfectly adequate for the day-to-day world but unable to describe things at high velocities or in extreme gravitational fields. Newtonian mechanics accurately predicted the existence of the planet Uranus (from its effect on the orbit of Neptune) but the prediction of a planet “Vulcan” (from abnormalities in the orbit of Mercury) proved wrong. The gravitational field of the sun meant Newtonian theory was inappropriate.

So what would happen with Matt’s “Epistemological Managers.” They would have us throw away every scientific theory as a “failure,” a “mistake,” as discredited. No scientific knowledge would be left. With that sort of ideology they would actually have us throw away scientific epistemology.

And, after all, isn’t that the intention of the current attempts by theocrats to undermine science. Isn’t that the Wedge Strategy – which seeks to impose a theistic epistemology on science (see Intelligent design/creationism III: The religious agenda)?

Permalink

Similar articles

Related articles by Zemanta

• Different ways of knowing? (openparachute.wordpress.com)

Book Review: The Six Ways of Atheism: New Logical Disproofs of the Existence of God by Geoffrey Berg.
US$14.50
ISBN-10: 0954395662
Published May 29, 2009
Temple DPS Ltd
Website:http://www.thesixwaysofatheism.com/

Like many non-theists my attitude to the god hypothesis is the same as to any question of fact. It’s based on evidence and experience, as well as logic. There is no doubt that arguments based on logic alone are susceptible to subjective distortions. And we should be aware there are limits of common sense logic when confronted with the most basic questions about reality (see Different ways of knowing? ). So, it’s unavoidable that I see limits to an approach based purely on logic – as the arguments in this book are (obvious with a subtitle New Logical Disproofs of the Existence of God).

However, I still consider that this is a useful book. Most religious apologists try to justify their god beliefs using logic. True, some will try to use a caricature of science – but when challenged they quickly retreat to “theological logic.” They feel safest there – presumably because of the freedom it gives to make “leaps of faith.”.

And it’s true that atheist arguments rarely concentrate on logic alone. Some would say “why should we?”, When we have the evidence!

So there is an imbalance between the theist reliance on logic and the atheist reliance on evidence. Theists rarely come to grips with the scientific evidence and atheists rarely fully challenge theological logic. I suggest this is one reason the science-religion debates often involve participants talking past one another.

Geoffrey Berg has gone a long way to repair that imbalance by presenting a series of extensive and detailed arguments against the god belief based on logic alone. He is taking on the theologians on their own ground – where, because they are rarely challenged, they have become rather lazy in their arguments.

The logical arguments

In summary he presents six logical arguments:

1: The aggreagte of qualities: There is an infinitesimal chance that an entity would posses even one of the qualities attributed to God. Therefore the chance of an entity having several, let alone all, of these attributes is so remote as to be impossible. This means God can’t exist.

2: Man and god comprehension gulf: Man, being finite, can’t possible recognise an infinite god, or even know such a god exists.

3: God has no explanatory value: The questions an all-knowing god is supposed to answer still remain. Therefore God is an unnecessary complication with no explanatory value.

4: This is not the best possible world: If God exists she would have created the best possible world and that is demonstratively not the case.

5: Universal uncertainty: There is no way of gaining certainty about the universe and therefore God, if she exists, cannot have certain knowledge. If God cannot be sure she exists she cannot be God.

6: Some of God’s defining qualities cannot exist: It is impossible for any entity to have some of the qualities that are essential to define a god.

Berg argues each in detail (some would say exhaustive detail – but that may be my bias). And he sometimes takes a unique approach. In particular, he takes a god’s-eye view in some of the arguments. For example, he shows that a god, if she exists, would logically be forced to be agnostic about her own existence!

One for believers

This book should be useful to those atheists preoccupied with logical arguments. Those more interested in evidence and science may find it of less value.

But the theologically inclined should be most interested in this book. After all, they have been raised on the arguments of “theological logic.” They have usually not seen these arguments tested. (Isn’t that why they don’t consider Dawkins The God Delusion worth reading?). So their arguments have become formulaic and weak. They ignore or accept logical gaps – presumably because these are rarely challenged.

So here’s a challenge to the religious apologists who love to repeat the “theological logic” of people like William Craig (“cosmological argument,” “argument from design,” and “argument from morality). Buy the book. Read it and try to refute Berg’s six arguments.

You should find this mental exercise unusual, but stimulating. You may even identify the gaps in your own logical justifications for belief. Maybe even discard some of those beliefs.

And that can’t be bad thing can it?

(This book can be ordered direct from The Six Ways of Atheism website).

Permalink

Other book reviews

Related articles by Zemanta

• Agnostic/atheist labels (openparachute.wordpress.com)

There does seem to be a blog war these days on the science-relgion conflict. There even seems to be a debate within the separate camps about the tactics used by the participants. And then there are other’s who find the whole issue embarrassing. They seem to wish everyone would just shut up or cover their ears (eyes and mouths).

It’s worth asking, though, who is responsible? Who is feeding the conflict and why?

I thought Neil deGrasse Tyson put it very well in a recent talk. Responding to a question about the evolution-creation conflict he put some questions to the audience:

“Do you see scientists demanding that their science be taught in Sunday schools? Do you see scientists parading with placards outside Churches? Do you see scientists appearing at Church governing bodies demanding a determining role in Church dogma?”

The answer is no, of course. And that tells you something.

By the way, this was a great talk. He was in great form, using a lot of humour to discuss recent findings in astronomical physics. He was speaking to the Commonwealth Cub in California on his book Death by Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries. His talk is available as a video (mp4), in audio (mp3) and as a  Transcript (pdf). Well worth watching, listening to or reading.

See Video: FORA.tv – Neil deGrasse Tyson: Death By Black Hole.

Permalink

Similar articles

There are now about 60 NZ blogs with public sitemeter stats. these are ranked in the table below. The change is with respect to the equivalent May ranking (NZ blog sitemeter ranking – May ‘09).

I have also included a snapshot of the daily ranking on the NZ blog ranking tool. This can be seen at NZ blogs average daily visits. This is based on the visits/day averaged over the previous 7 days. The data is for July 12. Because I have only managed to automate the spreadsheet for StatCounter, Sitemeter and ShinyStat the number of blogs is, at this stage, slightly smaller.

Always interested in hearing about NZ blogs with public sitemeter stats that I have missed. For those bloggers who don’t use sitemeters but are interested have a look at sitemeter, StatCounter, ShinyStat or search for other sitemeters.

Permalink

Similar articles:

Subscribe to NZ Blog Rankings

Subscribe to NZ blog rankings by Email

Find out how to get Subscription & email updates

In discussions with  religious apologists we often hear the claim that “there are different ways of knowing!” This is often used as a counter to science. It amounts to claiming knowledge which is not based on evidence and not testable against reality.

In many cases it’s a defensive argument, a retreat. It’s claiming a logic or justification for the theist belief without allowing the normal checking that should go with knowledge claims. That’s OK -  if it is just personal justification. We all do that from time to time.

However, sometimes religious apologists will go on the offensive with this argument. They use it to justify a knowledge claim that conflicts with scientific knowledge. In fact, they will use it to claim they have access to knowledge which is more reliable than scientific knowledge.

Should theology trump science?

Matt Flannaghan, from the MandM blog, provides a useful example of the latter approach. In his comments on his own posts (Evolution should not be taught in State Schools: A Defence of Plantinga Part I and Part II) Matt claims that:

“If the relevant evidence points towards a theory it does not follow that all the evidence points towards it. That’s because there might be evidence which science does not consider, such as theological claims, that are relevant.”

He specifically argues for this regarding evolution:

“because on many issues the relevant scientific evidence is the only evidence, but on questions of origins that is not the case. The question of our origins is both a scientific and theological question so a correct examination of the issue will take into account both the theological and scientific evidence.

To teach evolution is the true theory of origins one would have to show it is probable on all relevant evidence, and seeing science excludes relevant theological evidence from the discussion it cannot claim to have shown its true on all relevant evidence.”

And:

“You should not teach its true in a science if you have not examined the philosophical issues.”

Leave aside, for the moment, concepts of “truth” – the word means different things to theologians, scientists and the person in the street.

Implicit in the “different ways of knowing” argument, and hinted at by Matt in his comments, is the desire to change the science process to include theological “evidence” and claims that are not based on, or tested by, evidence. To give theology a “free pass.” This is consistent with the Wedge strategy. Matt’s ginger group Thinking Matters often pushes this line (see their comments on scientific issue on their blog Thinking Matters Talk and in the  Thinking Matters Journal).

From myth, to logic to evidence

The way I see it, humanity has developed its approach to knowledge over time. Initially much of our knowledge was superstitious and mythical. Mythology provided explanations. A philosophical approach, based on logic and reason, developed in Greece and Italy from about the sixth century BCE. Today, modern science has its feet firmly placed on evidence. Scientific ideas are, must be, tested against reality.

These phases of human knowledge are not clearly demarcated. In fact many modern people still fall back on mythology. Logic and reason was heavily influenced by mythology during the 17th century when experimental science, or natural philosophy as it was then called, developed. And logic and reason play an important role in today’s scientific culture and process.

In the modern scene there is a distinction between science, which has experimental confidence, and philosophy which doesn’t. But this is not so historically. The two started to diverge from their “common ancestor,” which was heavily influenced by theological mythology, during the 17th century.

To assert today that we should revert to a pre-scientific era, that theology or philosophy should trump scientific knowledge, is to claim that mythology/logic/reason is more reliable than evidence.

Most of us, and most reasonable religious people, would not strongly defend a role of mythology and superstition in modern understanding of the world. But the claim for an overriding role for reason and logic (usually theological reason and logic) can be more persuasive. After all, we all have some sort of philosophical world outlook, and we do try to use logic and reason.

Logic must follow evidence

Of course logic and reason are important – and they can contribute to knowledge. They can provide a synthesis, an overview, and intuitions to the researcher. But they are not a substitute for evidence. In the end our reason and logic must conform to the evidence, not displace it.

The philosopher of science Alan Chalmers recently commented: “because of the stringent way in which scientific knowledge is required to pass experimental tests it is the best kind of knowledge we have.” He also pointed out that modern society and the technological experience of humanity “provides ample evidence that scientific knowledge has a validity that has no analogue in philosophy.” (Matt described these sort of comments as “just rhetoric”).

It’s not surprising that philosophy/logic has limitations. It is after all just a refinement of common sense by reason. Philosophical/logical principles arise form intuitions and may not properly represent reality. Quantum mechanics is an obvious example. Nobel Prize winner Frank Wilczek commented in an Edge interview: “The classic structures of logic are really far from adequate to do justice to what we find in the physical world.”

It also suffers from susceptibility to subjectivity – which is reinforced by the lack of testing against reality. Clearly individuals, organisations, political parties, religions will use philosophy/logic to justify preconceived beliefs. Logical distortions for ideological reasons are inherent in the process. In science the requirement of evidential input counters this subjectivity.

Today, the resort to “other ways of knowing”, to a trumping role for philosophy or even theology, is just a cheap attempt to avoid reality. To impose prejudices based on mythology and biased logic/philosophy.

Stalinist consequences

So what would the trumping of science by theology/philosophy be like? We have seen some disastrous examples. Such as Stalin’s promotion of Lysenko, trumping of science by Stalinist interpretations of Marxism-Leninism. This put Soviet genetic science back many years and led to the death and persecution of many scientists. In many ways the current theological /creationist/wedge attack on science is of a similar ilk to Stalinism.

When religious apologists refer to philosophy and logic they almost invariably mean theology. It’s a deceptive way for them to try and give credibility to their theological arguments. And it can be a deceptive way of giving respectability to superstitious and mythological beliefs.

Matt, for example, has used his “philosophy” and “other ways of knowing” argument to give respectability to fundamentalism. He argues that teaching evolution is actually teaching “fundamentalist children that their religious beliefs are false.” Well, of course that is a problem for fundamentalism, not science. We cannot ignore reality because some silly people are offended by it. (And what’s with this “fundamentalist children,” Matt? Just consider the terms “Marxist child,” “post-modernist child,” “Tory child,” etc. Silly isn’t it?).

I have come to expect apologists to use the “other ways of knowing” argument, and to attempt to the trump science with philosophy, theology and mythology in debate. But I find Matt’s use of the arguments to justify withholding of modern knowledge from children particularly repulsive.

Imposing ignorance on children is surely a form of child abuse!

Permalink

Similar articles

Book Review: Quantum Gods: Creation, Chaos, and the Search for Cosmic Consciousness, by Victor Stenger
US$26.98
ISBN-10: 1591027136
Published May 12, 2009
Prometheus Books.

There’s something about modern physics, especially quantum mechanics, which attracts magical thinking. Perhaps this isn’t surprising. Someone once said that because quantum mechanics is so counter-intuitive, because no one really understands it, it’s easy to fall into the trap of using it to “explain” anything else we don’t understand. Consciousness is a prime example.

Even some scientists and science writers will sometimes indulge themselves with magical speculation. An example from Gau Am Naik, writing in the Wall Street Journal on quantum entanglement.“Some philosophers see quantum phenomena as a sign of far greater unknown forces at work and it bolsters their view that a spiritual dimension exists.” So, it’s not surprising that those outside the science culture who may have a particular spiritual or theological barrow to push will make opportunist use of quantum strangeness.

Victor Stenger’s book “Quantum Gods: Creation, Chaos, and the Search for Cosmic Consciousness,” aims to show how this use of quantum mechanics is wrong. He describes how “spiritually”-inclined scientists, “new-agers” and other “spiritual” merchants, and modern theologians use quantum mechanics. All these groups have the same aim – to provide some sense of scientific credibility to their beliefs and claims. They are using science opportunistically and Stenger provides an important service exposing this in his new book.

Quantum flapddodle

Stenger coins the terms quantum spirituality and quantum theology to describe the two opportunist uses of modern quantum physics. Michael Shermer in his foreword to this book uses the term quantum flapdoodle – originally used by Murray Gell-Mann to describe the misuse and abuse of quantum physics. Both Shermer and Stenger refer to the film What the Bleep Do We Know? – a successful documentary film which indulged in this flapdoodle.

The film included interviews with some “spiritually inclined” people. Like Fred Alan Wolf, who has written several popular books on quantum spirituality, John Haglin, a leader of the transcendental meditation movement and Amit Gowami, author of “The Self-Aware Universe.”

There is also the psychiatrist Jeffrey Satinover who wrote “The Quantum Brain” and anaesthesiologist Stuart Hameroff who collaborated with Roger Penrose in postulating a place for quantum mechanics in the brain. Hameroff goes as far as claiming quantum like behaviour of microtubules in the nerve cells produce consciousness, and decisions. As Stenger sardonically comments – some people “suggest that in the case of the human male, microtubules in the cells of the penis dominate.”

Unfortunately scientists like these provide an impression of modern physics which is just not accepted by most scientists working in the field. Their pronouncements are used to promote a pseudo-scientific basis to claims like “we can make our own reality”, “we are part of an inseparable whole,” and “quantum mechanics is behind miraculous phenomena.”

It’s hardly surprising that some of those who promote mysticism as a commercial enterprise have fallen back on quantum mechanics to provide scientific “credibility” to their claims. For example, Maharishi Mahish Yogi (p 55) claims that transcendental meditation enables people to “tune into the cosmic consciousness” – a quantum-mechanical force pervading the universe.

Religious apologists will also sometimes resort to quantum mechanics in their attempts to claim scientific credibility. For example, naïve creationist Allan Epling in a recent article (Does String Theory Confirm the Bible?) asserts that modern quantum and string theory is “supporting and giving insight into perhaps some of the mysteries of the Bible.” He claims physicists don’t discuss this in public “for fear it would lend credence to the religious concepts of people of faith.” He then goes on to use “multiverse and “alternate worlds” ideas to justify a belief in heaven and hell! – “For those who don’t believe in hell, there is a very real possibility that future discoveries in science will confirm such a place can exist.”

The Premise keepers

Stenger discusses how this opportunist use of science can arise naturally out of honest attempts to modernise religion. Christian theologians and theistic scientists who accept the results of science are often guilty of this when they attempt to reconcile science with their traditional religious beliefs. Stenger labels these people the “
Premise Keepers”

Theists often argue the laws of nature arise out of the rationality imposed on the universe by their god. So the theistic scientists see a god who does not violate its own laws of nature. As John Polkinghorne argues – this would have god acting against god. These sincere attempts to make their god’s activity constrained within the laws of nature restricts the acceptable theories of a god.

One natural conclusion of this approach is a deistic god. A god who creates the universe, imposes the laws of nature, gives everything a kick-start and then retires.

This conflicts with the Christian concepts so theologians try to find a way for their god to intervene – without violating the laws of nature. So some argue the indeterminism of quantum mechanics provides a way for divine intervention.

This is illustrated by an article from the Biologos Foundation, which was set up by theistic scientist Francis Collins and is funded by The Templetopn Foundation. Dealing with Evolution and divine intervention the article says in part:

“It is thus perfectly possible that God might influence the creation in subtle ways that are unrecognizable to scientific observation. In this way, modern science opens the door to divine action without the need for law breaking miracles. Given the impossibility of absolute prediction or explanation, the laws of nature no longer preclude God’s action in the world. Our perception of the world opens once again to the possibility of divine interaction.

Despite the uncertainty and unpredictability of the world, we are not forced to reject the earlier understanding of God’s creation as consistent and reliable. After all, the world still exhibits the same orderly behaviour that inspired so many faithful scientists of earlier centuries. Regardless of the irregularity of tiny, quantum mechanical, or complex, chaos theoretical, systems, the sun stills rises and sets, the tides ebb and flow, and objects fall to the ground. Nature is reliable enough to reflect God’s faithfulness yet flexible enough to permit God’s involvement.“

Of course, all this is contrary to the whole spirit of science where ideas are built on, and tested by, evidence in the real world.

Victor Stenger is an international authority in this area of modern physics. He is adjunct professor of philosophy at the University of Colorado and professor emeritus of physics and astronomy at the University of Hawaii. In recent years he has written several books on modern physics and religion. Examples are God: The Failed Hypothesis, The Comprehensible Cosmos, Has Science Found God?, Timeless Reality, The Unconscious Quantum, Physics and Psychics and Not by Design.  The New Atheism: Taking a Stand for Science and Reason will be published in October.

In Quantum Gods Stenger alternates between descriptions of the opportunist use of science by the quantum spiritualists and quantum theologians on the one hand and outlines of the science on the other. He explains the science in an economical and clear way. This enables him to provide coverage of a breathtaking range of physical concepts in 260 pages. Ideas ranging from thermodynamics, though space time and matter, Chaos complexity and mergence, quantum philosophy and spookiness to theories of the origin of the universe. And these ideas are suitably referenced – which is always an advantage for popular science books.

In the last chapter Stenger outlines the problem:

“Unfortunately, public understanding of science and the scientific method (as well as many other important disciplines such as history and philosophy) is so inadequate that many people are easy prey to the charlatans who promise simple solutions to difficult and often unsolvable problems. ….. While many scientists have spoken out against the misuse of science, the majority have chosen not to get involved in the fray. I plead with my scientist colleagues to take a more active role in what fundamentally continues the ancient battle between science and superstition. Their non-involvement may be the easy way out, but all it does is encourage irrational thinking that surely is not of benefit to society.”

For these reasons I believe this book is fitting and timely. It will be a useful counter to some of the quantum mysticisms we are confronted with today.

Permalink

Similar articles

Subscribe to book reviews
Receive Open Parachute » book reviews by Email
See Subscription & email updates for information on how to subscribe or get updates.

The philosopher AC Grayling is one of my favourite people. Here, at age 60, he makes some brief comments in the Guardian series “This much I know.”

A few choice extracts:

“The democracy of blogging and tweeting is absolutely terrific in one way. It is also the most effective producer of rubbish and insult and falsehood we have yet invented.

I am putting together a secular bible. My Genesis is when the apple falls on Newton’s head.

I would imagine Jesus was a kind of Jewish reformer. If you were looking for an equivalent to the figure you dimly perceive through the gospels it would probably be a Richard Dawkins.”

For some more provocative and thoughtful comment go to: This much I know: AC Grayling, philosopher, 60, London.

See also this video of a great lecture presented by Grayling to the Darwin, Humanism and Science Day Conference during June.

Permalink

Similar articles

Craig Venter

Some time ago (Evolution – a theory or a fact?) I made the observation:

“Our knowledge about evolution includes facts (e.g., fossil records, genetics, molecular biology of DNA), theories (e.g, natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift) and speculation (e.g., much of evolutionary psychology). Just like any other body of scientific knowledge.”

We could add that although many ideas in evolutionary psychology are speculative, some of these are firming up. Steven Pinker does a good job of separating the more reliable ideas from the more speculative (see his books: The Blank Slate,  How the Mind Worksand The Stuff of Thought). Similarly, some of the theories, such as natural selection, are now so well supported by factual evidence they are beginning to be accepted as facts in themselves. A bit like the laws of thermodynamics.

However, when it comes to the basic facts there are just so many of them now. Darwin discussed things like homological similarities between species, geographic distribution,  selection during domestication, hybridisation, embryology, etc. Then there is the fossil record – which is still improving dramatically today. But the field of molecular biology is producing so many useful facts about evolution it enables us to develop our theoretical understanding of the evolution of humans and other species in a way which we would not have believed possible 60 years ago.

More about that below.

Dawkins and Venter on the facts of evolution

Richard Dawkins has famously said that those who reject the facts of evolution are either ignorant or dishonest. Some creationists, who seek to demonise Dawkins,  interpret this as a comment on the entirety of evolutionary science  – but Dawkins knows too much about science to mean that. However, there are clearly people around who remain ignorant about the facts of the fossil record and molecular biology. And then there are creationist activists who just lie about those facts.

Recently Dawkins interviewed Craig Venter about some of these modern facts of evolution – the work he and his research company have done on the genomes of humans and other species.

Its a great interview. I really appreciate the way that Dawkins is using different formats to get across information. In this video he and Venter stroll through the laboratories of the Venter’s company. This provides a great background to the discussion.

After having spent a research career getting by with limited facilities, laboratory space, assistants and instrumentation, I can’t help feeling jealous about the resources available in this field today. The nature of these resources and how rapidly they are improving, comes through very strongly in the interview.

Permalink

Similar articles

Related articles by Zemanta

• Steve Pinker with Richard Dawkins On Charles Darwin (brainandlearning.blogspot.com)

My latest attempt to rank New Zealand blogs in the tables below.

The methods used are outlined in Ranking methods for NZ blogs. The change is the change in ranking compared with May 09 (NZ blog sitemeter ranking – May ‘09).

Briefly the method involves ranking the blogs according to 11 different ranking indices – 4 page ranking (Google Pagerank, Alexa 3 month rank, Technorati rank and Alexa NZ rank), 5 linking indices (Alexa links, Google web links, Google blog links, All the Web links and Yahoo links) and 2 RSS subscription counts (Google reader and Bloglines). The average rankings for the 11 indices are then ranked to produce a final rank.

I also include a separate ranking for each of the 3 broad classes – Page ranking, Links and RSS subscription counts.

If you want a more immediate measure of blog performance have a look at the NZ blog ranking tool. This lists the performance of over 50 NZ blogs based on actual sitemeter visit statistics. The data is for average visits/day over the previous 7 days. Obviously only the blogs which allow public access to the statistics are included. Data changes daily and one can watch blogs moving up and down the list on a daily basis.

(Note: I might try to transfer some of the rankings below into an online daily updated format like the NZ blog ranking tool. Currently I find difficulty in uploading large tables onto this blog site – presumably my broadband is just not adequate).

Permalink

See also

NZ blog sitemeter ranking – May ‘09
NZ Blog ranks – May ‘09
Subscription & email updates
Ranking NZ blogs with sitemeter data
NZ Blog ranks – April ‘09
NZ blog ranks – March ‘09

Rating NZ blogs

Search NZ blog rankings

Related articles by Zemanta

• Subscription & email updates (openparachute.wordpress.com)

The local Christian apologetics blog “Thinking Matters” appears to have made a policy decision to outsource most of the content. Specifically to the subcontinent (where else do New Zealanders outsource to) and a Walter Mitty type of character, Johnson Philip.

Philip claims to be “a physicist, with expertise inter alia in Quantum-nuclear Physics, and has worked extensively on the inner quark-structure of Protons and Neutrons.” However, as he doesn’t appear to have published anything in a scientifc journal I think the more relevant part of his CV is that he “has also specialized in Christian Apologetics, Biblical Archeology, Journalism, Alternative Medicines, and several other fields.” He has written extensively in those areas.

Scientific “cred”

However, Philip seems to have been co-opted to provide some “scientific” cred to the blog. But you know how apologetics treats science. They attempt to use it, to distort it, to quote out of context, etc. (you know the game) to support their religious beliefs. But Philip has come up with a whopper here (see The Second Law of Thermodynamics). He wishes to use the Second law of Thermodynamics to support his religious ideas of creationism! You know – the idea that evolution violates the second law!

It doesn’t, of course, so Philip resorts to completely distorting the science. He claims in summary:

” When matter and energy interact freely, without interference, and blindly, entropy (disorder) always increases irrespective of whether the system is open or closed.”

Well, he is so wrong. But you can see where he is going:

“A carefully contrived system, and a complex mechanism is needed anywhere for creating order out of chaos.”

His complex mechanism is, presumably, his god. In his discussion he gives the example of an air-conditioner. I can’t help thinking of Rev Paley finding a watch on the heath argument for intelligent design. What if he had found an air-conditioner on the heath?? Now that would be something.

Entropy

So, a very brief outline of what the second law is about – entropy. Simply presented heat cannot spontaneously flow from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature. In the figure on the left heat will flow from A to B – but not in the reverse direction (without help).

Entropy is, simply, the measure of disorder of a system. ( In a hotter body the molecules are more disordered so A has a higher entropy than B. But notice that as heat flows for A to B the entropy of B will increase – but the entropy of A will decrease! Because A and B are not insulated from each other they each represent open systems.

Energy can be transferred from one open system to another – spontaneously, as for A to B, or by a machine. A refrigerator using energy to pump heat form B to A, for example (as on the right). And in the open systems represented by the sun, earth and living objects energy transfer enable the entropy of one part of the system to decrease (eg as life produces more organised structures) while it increases in  another part – such as the sun.

The little trick Philip is trying to pull refers to an isolated or thermodynamically closed system. For example the combined structure of A and B thermodynamically isolated from its surroundings (the red dotted boundary of the closed system in the diagram on the left). The total entropy of that isolated system cannot decrease. In fact the internal processes will cause the total entropy to increase or remain unchanged.

Philip is attempting to treat an open system – like living material in the presence of, and exchanging energy with, the sun and earth – like a closed, isolated, system. One could, in theory, imagine a closed system of the earth and sun, thermodynamically insulated from the rest of the universe. The total entropy of that closed system would never decrease. But the entropy of the separate parts (which are themselves open systems) can decrease. The entropy of living organisms can decrease.

This is a very old, and very naive,  distortion of science used by creationists. I am surprised that anyone claiming scientific credentials can promote such ideas (perhaps that is why he could never get anything published in a scientific journal). These concepts are taught in high school science.

God as an air conditioner. the mind boggles.

Permalink

See also