Questions Will Get You In Trouble

[Vigile]

That's unfortunate because I begin my studies in biological anthropology in the fall and once I get my doctorate I feel that if I want to question darwinism after I'm a trained scientist then I should be free to do so.

 

You are perfectly free to question a theory that has been vetted by every single biologist worth their microscope. When you reach the level of academia that makes you qualified to do so, submit a paper for peer review with your specific disputes. It seems rather arrogant that an undergrad(?) would assume to have a better understanding of the general theory than a vast sea of scientists who have studied and peer reviewed the evidence but who knows? Perhaps you have something that none of them have ever considered before. Probabilities are almost infinitely against it but science isn't a dogma and it doesn't crack when challenged.

[Ouroboros]

It's unspoken law "you shall not question darwinism." Well, what the fuck? Some of it doesn't make sense to me? And I find it too convenient that we are so "ordered." Dawkins says its an illusion.

...

It just all seems too convenient.

I think I saw the front-page on a science magazine recently which said: "Darwin was wrong." So maybe the illusion is over? The article wasn't really about the principle of how evolution works, but rather the famous Tree of Life.

[Vigile]

Since scientists are human, they're subject to personal biases, and may scoff at challenges to certain dearly held theories.

This is just hearsay from what I read on another forum, but I've heard that when the theory of plate tectonics was first introduced in the 1960's the researchers were laughed at. Now it''s accepted fact. Also in the early eighties, when some researchers had a theory that ulcers were caused by bacteria, they were mocked too. Now that theory has also been proven.

 

You are using two meanings of the word theory interchangeably. A scientific theory isn't a hypothesis or just a wild guess like an instance when someone says "I have a theory." It's my understanding that the only reason evolution isn't a law is because it is such a wide field of study that it cannot be reduced to just a simple principle like the law of gravity can. We do know, however, that carbon based life forms evolve. That is an undisputed fact and it has survived a mountain of disputes with a much larger mountain of confirming evidence.

 

I value science as a tool that's useful in learning about the world and how to use what we learn to benefit humanity, but I also think scientists are still human, and some can be as dogmatic as a preacher when their theories are challenged.

 

Some scientists are surely prone to protecting their pet hypotheses in the face of mounting evidence against them. Recognizing ToE however is just recognizing reality. At a certain point in one's academic life they either reach the stage where the facts speak for themselves or they must simply be considered delusional.

[Ouroboros]

That's unfortunate because I begin my studies in biological anthropology in the fall and once I get my doctorate I feel that if I want to question darwinism after I'm a trained scientist then I should be free to do so.

Absolutely. Science also can fall into the trap of dogma, and it shouldn't. It has to allow questioning and testing the existing concepts.

 

See, the problem is that people like Dawkins have admitted they are speculating because no one was around to see it happen. So, yeah, I have a problem with it.

The idea of evolution wasn't really his idea, if I understand it right, but the only thing he added to the mix was the idea of Natural Selection as the invisible hand, guiding it. And there has been computer software made which simulates the concept, and has been proven to work. So there's evidence the concept works.

 

 

Even Dawkins admits, "Nobody knows how it happend." (referring to the creation of the universe)

And we might never fully know.

[Ouroboros]

Since scientists are human, they're subject to personal biases, and may scoff at challenges to certain dearly held theories.

This is just hearsay from what I read on another forum, but I've heard that when the theory of plate tectonics was first introduced in the 1960's the researchers were laughed at. Now it''s accepted fact. Also in the early eighties, when some researchers had a theory that ulcers were caused by bacteria, they were mocked too. Now that theory has also been proven.

Sure, that's true. But now they are accepted in science. Basically, it takes time for new ideas to break through, and science is sometimes slow to the large changes. Like the relativity theory wasn't accepted right off the bat either. If Intelligent Design got anything to provide, then they need to provide evidence to support their claims, just like relativity started to get accepted after the first experiments, or when they actually found ulcer making bacteria and proved it, it was accepted. Science can't just accept fringe ideas just because they could potentially be true and perhaps proven right in the future. Evolution as a theory does fit to explain the similarities and differences in the DNA code, and ID doesn't have an explanation to it more than "God's prerogative."

 

Consider the fact (yes, observed fact) that humans and chimpanzees share a couple of damaged genes. We need to eat fruit to get c-vitamin, and the majority of animals do not, because they have a gene which produces the c-vitamin for their bodies. We got that gene too, but it was damaged long time ago through a viral infection. Now the chimpanzee share the same damaged gene with us, and the chances that we the exact same infection the same way is astronomical, but if we consider that we are close relatives in the gene-history, then it makes sense. If we try to explain it with Intelligent Design, it means that the Creator intentionally planted a damaged gene in humans, and on top of that planted the exact same in the chimps. How can that be considered intelligent? And my understanding is that we share about 20 genes like this one with the chimps.

 

I value science as a tool that's useful in learning about the world and how to use what we learn to benefit humanity, but I also think scientists are still human, and some can be as dogmatic as a preacher when their theories are challenged.

Yes. I agree. They have pride too, and it's a constant danger to science, which means to question existing science must be allowed. Not necessarily approved or accepted without further evidence, but it shouldn't be shut down. So I'm for one is not against the creation science laboratories and whatnot, but so far, they haven't provided anything to really prove it. And you would think that if everything was truly created by an intelligence, and the evidence supposedly is penetrating everything, that it would be quite easy to prove it?

[Guest end3]

If most of what we are dealing with is interactions/reactions between "stuff", then why can we not argue that a rock lives?

[Legion]

Florduh, actually that statement seems consistent with what a hardcore reductionist would say.

You say "reductionist" like it's a bad thing! How else can we learn about the physical world?

Florduh, what often irks me about these kind of conversations is that I am eager to admit that there are a lot of things which I do not yet understand. Yet my “opponents” seem unwilling to admit such an obvious thing for themselves.

 

There is a new movement emerging in the sciences. It is so new that its name has not even been decided. Some call it relational biology. Others say it extends beyond biology and is applicable to many systems in addition to organisms and call it relational science and they contrast it with reductionism. I do not yet understand it. So let me quote a pioneer in this field.

 

“In any case, I can epitomize a reductionist approach to organization in general, and to life in particular, as follows: throw away the organization and keep the underlying matter.”

“The relational alternative to this says the exact opposite, namely: when studying an organized material system, throw away the matter and keep the underlying organization.”

...

“However there is nothing in the relational strategy that is unphysical, in the sense of “ideal” physics. The organization of a natural system (and in particular, of a biological organism) is at least as much a part of its material reality as the specific particles that constitute it at any given time, perhaps indeed more so.” – Robert Rosen, Life Itself, pg 119

 

Some have been quick to point out that a relational strategy, which makes the organization of a system the object of its study, will not render reductionism useless. Rather, they say relational science will compliment reductionism and expand what we have hitherto known as science. In other words, reductionism is one way to do science, but not the only way.

[Ouroboros]

If most of what we are dealing with is interactions/reactions between "stuff", then why can we not argue that a rock lives?

Some think they do.

 

I think it depends on what "living" means. If our definition is that it got some kind of motion and change, and some form of transfer and change of energy, and if we include that "life" requires cells, then rocks are not alive. But if we make it to mean anything that can change form over time, but besides that do nothing, then rocks could be "alive" too. The most common definition (I think) starts at least on the level that when something is alive, it has cells, can replicate itself, it is sustaining its existence through us of "food" and energy.

[Guest end3]

If most of what we are dealing with is interactions/reactions between "stuff", then why can we not argue that a rock lives?

Some think they do.

 

I think it depends on what "living" means. If our definition is that it got some kind of motion and change, and some form of transfer and change of energy, and if we include that "life" requires cells, then rocks are not alive. But if we make it to mean anything that can change form over time, but besides that do nothing, then rocks could be "alive" too. The most common definition (I think) starts at least on the level that when something is alive, it has cells, can replicate itself, it is sustaining its existence through us of "food" and energy.

 

Thanks Hans for the explanation

[Ouroboros]

Thanks Hans for the explanation

My pleasure.

[florduh]

Florduh, what often irks me about these kind of conversations is that I am eager to admit that there are a lot of things which I do not yet understand. Yet my “opponents” seem unwilling to admit such an obvious thing for themselves.

 

I just don't see that your "opponents" claim to have all the answers. Because there are things they don't know, research continues. Mainstream researchers (other than Rosen) are also interested in the question, "what is life?" They work with the tools available and try to find answers.

 

Robert Rosen may be right in that studying the components of an organism will never answer the Big Question, but how far does he get just looking at the whole and wondering why it's "alive?" Science has provided a lot of answers (not all) and enough understanding to allow us to cure diseases, transplant organs, promote health and prolong life. These advances didn't come from philosophical pondering. It seems to me that looking at both the whole and its parts has been done all along.

[sheri butterfly]

All scientific fields of study have some foundational truths (axioms) that have to be understood prior to jumping into any field.

 

e.g. physical chemistry: you have to understand that all matter is composed of atoms.

 

e.g. evolutionary biology: you have to understand that allele frequencies change from generation to generation. That this causes 'descent with modification'.

 

evolution isn't directional and things aren't evolving to be a 'certain' thing (other than fitting to their environment) IMO the greatest error is in the 'understanding' of science in the first place....

 

 

evolutionary theory is a pretty darn good scientific theory. Which not only 'explains' the diversity of life on earth. Of course we have added too it, as we understand more about life on earth, but we have found nothing which suggests evolution theory doesn't answer the questions about life on earth.

[chefranden]

Why ask why?

 

As a social species we ask why because intent is important in social interactions.

 

Why did you poke me in the eye? Possible answers bring different results in relationships. "Oops, it was a mistake." or "Because I hate your fat ass!"

 

A why question is close to a how question. Why is the grass green feels like a real question, but it means how is the grass green. In all probability the Universe has no intent therefore why questions about it are nonsense from its perspective. We still want to ask why because we have a relation to the Universe. Nevertheless the possible answers are like answering x/0 =. Why did Mother Earth make people? Because she wanted plastic. That's George Carlin's answer, but any other answer makes equal sense, if not equal humor.

[Legion]

Geez Chris, you’re really making work over here, which is cool. But like I’ve said, I am still learning.

 

Apparently Rosen went quite some distance in answering the question: What is life? Though to my chagrin I do not yet comprehend it. I feel as if I’ve been shortchanged in my youth by being overly exposed to reductionism and the materialism which I think often accompanies it. And I think this has rendered me ill equipped me to immediately grasp a relational approach.

 

Rosen devised a class of relational models for organisms which he call M,R-systems: metabolic, repair systems.

 

Oh damn, I have to run and go do some plumbing real quick Chris. But I want to pick this discussion back up when I return in about two or three hours.

[chefranden]

There is a new movement emerging in the sciences. It is so new that its name has not even been decided. Some call it relational biology. Others say it extends beyond biology and is applicable to many systems in addition to organisms and call it relational science and they contrast it with reductionism. I do not yet understand it. So let me quote a pioneer in this field...

 

Thanks Legion,

 

I haven't heard of this before, but it matches what I've been thinking lately. "Things aren't so much the sum of their parts as the organization of their parts."

 

What else is there to read?

[Guest end3]

There is a new movement emerging in the sciences. It is so new that its name has not even been decided. Some call it relational biology. Others say it extends beyond biology and is applicable to many systems in addition to organisms and call it relational science and they contrast it with reductionism. I do not yet understand it. So let me quote a pioneer in this field...

 

Thanks Legion,

 

I haven't heard of this before, but it matches what I've been thinking lately. "Things aren't so much the sum of their parts as the organization of their parts."

 

What else is there to read?

 

so give an example Chef, I am cynical...

[nightflight]

Buddhism teaches that things in themselves are "empty", that is they have no independent existence. We use words and concepts to differentiate "things", which is necessary and useful, but ultimately everything is deeply interdependent.

 

Isn't this also what evolution teaches us? Survival of the fittest doesn't mean which creature can overcome other creatures, but rather which organism can best "fit" into the environment. Its all relational.

[woodsmoke]

What has evolved is all we can know, and we have evolved to see what exists as "order" so we can navigate our world and make plans to benefit our species. In other words, the order wasn't deposited intact for us to marvel at. We just consider what we ended up with to be order.

"Isn't it amazing how the water always makes it to the shore?"

 

See, the problem is that people like Dawkins have admitted they are speculating because no one was around to see it happen. So, yeah, I have a problem with it.

The idea of evolution wasn't really his idea, if I understand it right, but the only thing he added to the mix was the idea of Natural Selection as the invisible hand, guiding it. And there has been computer software made which simulates the concept, and has been proven to work. So there's evidence the concept works.

You're referring to Darwin, actually, but you're right. The idea of evolution wasn't new during his lifetime, but his identifying the mechanism of natural selection finally gave the academic community something to anchor it on, which is why it was such a big deal.

[florduh]

Things aren't so much the sum of their parts as the organization of their parts.

 

Isn't that self evident?

[Guest end3]

Things aren't so much the sum of their parts as the organization of their parts.

 

Isn't that self evident?

 

Kind of what I thought F........gheez, no, no, no....I mean profound, I shall snob about my library in thought....

[Legion]

What else is there to read?

Chef, I was made aware of Rosen’s work by a reference from Stuart Kauffman. I believe it was in either his book At Home in the Universe or Investigations. So you might also check him out.

 

Buddhism teaches that things in themselves are "empty", that is they have no independent existence. We use words and concepts to differentiate "things", which is necessary and useful, but ultimately everything is deeply interdependent.

Nightflight I think it is interesting that you would mention this. Someone told me that the Buddhist notion of “dependent arising” was equivalent to the notion of entailment. When we ask “why?” about something we expect answers of the form “because…” I have been told that to ask “Why B?” and to answer “because A” is to assert an entailment relation: A entails B.

 

The concept of entailment resides at the root of Rosen’s work. And he said that profound arguments over its nature were responsible for the divide between the hard and the soft sciences (e. g. between physics and sociology).

[Legion]

e.g. evolutionary biology: you have to understand that allele frequencies change from generation to generation. That this causes 'descent with modification'.

Hey there Sheri Butterfly, welcome to ex-C. In thinking about what you said here I was reminded of something else Robert Rosen said and it will also tie in with what I was telling Florduh before. Here I quote again…

 

“I devised a class of relational cell models called (M,R)-systems (M for metabolism, R for repair). The idea behind these systems was to characterize the minimal organization a material system would have to manifest or realize to justify calling it a cell. It seemed natural to do this; the cell is important in biology, elevated into a basic reductionistic unit by the cell theory. Yet so many different kinds of things, from bacteria to neurons, are called cells that, if this terminology is to be meaningful at all, it cannot have an exclusively material basis.

 

It seemed to me (and it still does) that one would not call a material structure a cell unless its activities could be partitioned into two classes, reflecting the morphological partition between nucleus (genome) and cytoplasm (phenome), and the corresponding functional partition between what goes on in the cytoplasm (the M of the system) and what goes on in the nucleus (the R).” Essays on Life Itself, pg 261

 

I mention this here because I think many biologists make a mistake when they try to characterize evolution as a change in allele frequency alone. I think genotypes are undoubtedly an indispensible aspect of organisms, but so too are phenotypes. And some have said that natural selection primarily acts on phenotypes.

 

evolutionary theory is a pretty darn good scientific theory. Which not only 'explains' the diversity of life on earth. Of course we have added too it, as we understand more about life on earth, but we have found nothing which suggests evolution theory doesn't answer the questions about life on earth.

I agree that our theories of evolution have shown some predictive value. For instance, when we look at various geological layers our theory predicts that that as we progress backward in time the diversity of organisms should decrease. And this is exactly what we find.

 

However, I would say that most of our current evolutionary models give us little to no explanation of how or why organisms emerged to begin with. And I don’t believe they address why we anticipate radically different behavior from an organism than we do from a rock.

[PandaPirate]

I thought about this today and it concurs with what Florduh posted. We just see it as ordered because that's the way it came out. It quite possibly could have come out a lot of other ways but this is just the way it ended up.

[Antlerman]

I thought about this today and it concurs with what Florduh posted. We just see it as ordered because that's the way it came out. It quite possibly could have come out a lot of other ways but this is just the way it ended up.

My main focus is on mythology, so this idea of seeing things as ordered and therefore suggesting a directed purpose, or moreover meaning, is very much relevant to that. Just something I read recently to toss into this discussion before I step back to let the science discussion continue. From Burton Mack, The Christian Myth, pg. 94

 

"But attribution of agency is a primary mode of accounting for things that appear and happen, and agency is the only way we know to attribute purpose to an event. If a people wants to think of the social structures as having purpose and design, mythic moments and agents will have to be imaged."

 

I see the same thing applicable when looking at our natural existence. Humans. We're are definitely creators of gods.

 

 

.... as you were...

[Ouroboros]

I thought about this today and it concurs with what Florduh posted. We just see it as ordered because that's the way it came out. It quite possibly could have come out a lot of other ways but this is just the way it ended up.

Exactly. And we would sit here, wonder how come things would be ordered that way instead, and not some other way. We can't say for sure that this is the only way to order things, not even the universe, because we don't have any other planet with life to compare to, neither do we have another universe to compare to, so every argument that say that this is the only way things could be, is assuming that there are no other ways things can be (without having any real evidence to support it).

 

If we look in two boxes with similar contents, and one seems to be ordered and the other one seems to be in chaos, then we can say: "This one is ordered, and that one is not." But if you open one box and things are just in there the way they are, and we find some arbitrary pattern in it, it doesn't mean it was ordered that way on purpose. Just think crystals. They are ordered because of possibly electromagnetic fields, or something else, I'm not sure, but they are self-organizing. But I doubt there is some God somewhere spending his time organizing the molecular structure of each and every crystal to make it look that way, it must be some natural law that causes it to be just that way.