butterfly : the non-intrustion delusion

[chris_waller]

The philosopher, David Hume, demonstrated the logical errors in the notion of causality, awakening Immanuel Kant from his 'slumbers'. Karl Popper circumvented the problem with his notion of falsifiability, that is, that we should accept a theory until it can be disproved. For example, all sodium compounds so far tested give an orange flame-test. There may be one, hitherto undiscovered, that doesn't, but until we find it we continue to accept that an orange flame-test confirms the presence of sodium.

[cooltpmd]

Anything that is a theory (a working model of reality) is subject to being grossly wrong, or simply an incomplete explanation.

 

Listen, I believe in science thoroughly ... I apply it, rely on it, have faith in it. I will "bet" on the side of gravity every time, anything else is a fools game.

 

But to use the success of science to exclude other options is a bad application. For example, because physics has been so well done (understanding forces, gravity, resistence, thermodynamics, etc...) people give all science a "pass". Science is simply a methodology used to measure and explain. It should never have an expectation or prejudice, it should never rule out the possibility that the Hypothesis can be disproven.

 

Evolution is a great area of study of this phenomena. Darwin explained natural selection, which again is a logical finding. A community will become like the surviving breeding members (micro-evolution). A subset of scientists expanded this theory to support their own agendas. Their hypothesis, a legitimate hypothethis, "Maybe, because we can change a little ... over a long time, we may change fundamentally (e.g. ape ... man, bird ... reptile, even inorganic...organic". Well, this is a great leap with substantially weaker data and an agenda to boot ... but it has been lumped in with the strength of micro-evolutionary theory.

 

So today, your kids learn that man comes from ape (and ultimately from an accidental merging of elements) ... no argument allowed, there is no doubt expressed, it is fact.

 

Yes this has religious implications, but it also has launched a horrific assault of bad science, misinformation, and an agenda that is every bit religiously (anti-religious) in its own right.

 

I believe in science the methodology, not the religion.

[Norma Desmond]

Chris--

<p><p>

Thanks for bringing in Popper.

<p><p>

By the way, Hume (<i>Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding</i> written in 1748)

would truly have revolutionized the notion of causality if he had awakened Kant

(<i>Critique of Pure Reason</i> written in 1781), because he preceded him :)

<p><p>

While I (like you, it sounds) think Hume was closer to where we are today and Kant, in

many ways, took a step backward, Kant shouldn't be dismissed nor should he be accused

of slumbering. His philosophical "Copernican revolution" thought of objects as conforming

to our way of knowledge rather than our way of knowledge conforming to the realm of

objects. That was an important answer to Hume's skepticism and a reason why today we

can approach the world more as Hume did without thinking of it as skeptical.

<p><p>

Thomas, I still think you are comparing apples to oranges when you conflate faith and

reason, myths and scientific proofs. It's interesting that when you use "faith" and "religion"

to improperly describe approaches to science, you use them as dirty words.

<p><p>

The fact that nothing may be "certain" -- in the sense that Descartes misguidedly

demanded a foundational rock upon which both knowledge and science could rest --

does not lead to the conclusion that all methodology and disciplines are of equal value for

all purposes. Religion and science may each have their value and drawbacks, but they do

not fulfill the same purposes. There has been much <i>evidence</i>, <i>proof</i>,

<i>observable data</i>, and <i>logical reasoning</i> put into the theory of evolution. If

you can show me the observable data for the existence either of God or the tooth fairy, for

the notion that the world was created in six days (with the omnipotent creator resting

upon completion), then you can talk about the doubt inherent in science and the

mythology inherent in religion in the same breath. But please don't tell me that, because

there is recognizable room for error in scientific investigation, it should be taught as

doubtful in the same way the existence of unicorns is doubtful.

<p><p>

As Popper suggested, the difference between science and non-science is in the manner in

which scientific theories test their predictions and are given up when they fail their tests.

That some scientists are less than rigorous in their adherence to this doesn't undercut the

entire notion of scientific inquiry and doesn't put it in the same ballpark as "an option" as

religion or faith. Option for what?!

[fate_faith_change_chains]

But of course God created the heaven and earth in six days, we all know that, it's a fact,

and on the seventh day Stanley Kubrick sent everything back for modifications.

[Norma Desmond]

Chris--

 

My apologies. It looks like I misinterpreted some of your original post.

[vince_smith2]

"Anything that is a theory (a working model of reality) is subject to being grossly wrong, or simply an incomplete explanation."

 

That is fundamental to science and is applied in practice to scientific theories. I seem to recall a guy named Einstein who questioned a few well-founded theories. It's actually pretty amazing how scientific theory is constantly being refined and changing our views of the universe. Your comment is not applied in practice to most non-scientific theories.

 

"... because physics has been so well done (understanding forces, gravity, resistence, thermodynamics, etc...) people give all science a "pass"."

 

I don't know anyone who gives all science a pass. I can't even imagine anyone who knows anything about science making an inconsistant statement like that. The statement is by definition "unscientific". I see statements like that put into other people's mouths by people trying to make a point all the time (a.k.a Straw man fallacy).

 

"Well, this is a great leap with substantially weaker data and an agenda to boot ... but it has been lumped in with the strength of micro-evolutionary theory."

 

The evidence is extremely strong, and you probably don't want to bring agendas into the discussion.

 

"So today, your kids learn that man comes from ape (and ultimately from an accidental merging of elements) ... no argument allowed, there is no doubt expressed"

 

That is a false statement.

 

"has launched a horrific assault of bad science"

 

The assault is "on" science, which is fine as long as people are reasonable when they examine the data.

[jtk]

Nobody's "faith based." We're gambling based. We risk our lives, what we know of them, on guesstimates. When we find easy answers, that's a clue that were're wrong. Wrong is possible. As a matter of fact, wrong is always. Faith is the enemy of this truth.

[fate_faith_change_chains]

Faith & truth go hand in hand. Or at least they should. Imagine...

[jtk]

"Should" means an external demand (parent, dictator, spouse, preacher).

 

That means an individual's search for truth is being discouraged.

 

"Imagine..." the fear and confusion in that is the source of the energy in existentialism.

[fate_faith_change_chains]

An individuals search for truth being discouraged isn't necessarily bad I think.Taoism/

Daoism seems to embrace this unsearching for truth ( religious or scientific ) or wanting or

needing as the only

path to get to the actual truth, the higher goal.

 

I threw in ' Imagine ', thinking about :

 

Imagine there's no heaven -

It's easy if you try -

No hell below us -

Above us only sky -

Imagine all the people -

Living for today -

...

 

Just a great song.

[cooltpmd]

Vince:

"I don't know anyone who gives all science a pass. "

 

I frankly disagree. It's the reason the drug companies advertise to the general public. People simply don't question the science. The vitamin supplement community tells you that it "cures baldness, prolongs life, and makes women want you more", at the bottom of each vile, it says that "the FDA hasn't approved any of these claims", and they sell billions a year. Science has a complete pass with most people.

 

John:

"We risk our lives, what we know of them, on guesstimates. "

 

Probabalistic decision making simply is not accurate. Probability is how computers make decisions, it is how science is supposed to decide, but most people under/over estimate the odds ... have emotions and desires that cloud probabalistic reasoning. We are statistically more likely to die from falling pieces of airplanes than sharks ... but who knows this? AND, noone would play the lottery if they understood probability.

 

In the end, what do I care if something is 10% or 20% likely to kill me, I will eventually need to decide "should I stay or should I go" ... and my faith in the statistics, my abilities, and God will all play a role.

 

John & Phylo:

"Imagine"

 

If people realy believed that TODAY is all we have, the this world becomes simply a Darwinian nightmare. The strong will take from and kill the weak ... eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die. I doubt Lennon really thought that through.

[kristina_kraft]

I believe in human evolution. I believe that people from time to time becomes more self-conscious and self-aware and passing through these kind of transformations are able to become conscious about other people and animals. But their mind is able to use that knowledge in order to hurt others but not opposite, I'm afraid. So our evolution is getting pretty slow. In the end, where are we heading? All religions are giving a different answers. Scientists are giving different too.

 

I find hardly to believe that I came from an ape. I believe I had transcended the notion of ape ancestor.

 

Some theories brings to a light how humans were developed from a reptile breed.

 

"Lorenz helps to show that there is inherent chaos or unpredictability in life." - I can only say that I agree totally with that cognition.

I have built my life through many unpredictable situations. And I like to follow this line from the past till now, finding myself more conscious, recognizing the role of other people too. Sometimes it is hard to pass through unpredictable situation, chasing the chain of events. But I like it. It is an adventure, in the end.

[don_e]

Would it matter if the next moment you learned absolutely that God exists or not, that evolution theory is true or false? What would change for you? Would you become a different person? Would you think, feel, experience differently?

 

My life would be more affected if my wife would carelessly slight me or I her -- or for that matter the same regarding the clerk at the 'kwiki-mart', a stranger on the street.

[Norma Desmond]

"drug companies advertise"

 

And the key word here is "advertise," not "science."

 

It's advertising that is selling this stuff, not a great belief in the truth of science. The

general public is not thinking of science when they buy over-the-counter cough

medicines, diet supplements, bogus nutritional supplements, otherwise they wouldn't

waste their money on stuff that's been scientifically shown NOT to work. AIRBORNE,

anyone!

 

Thomas, you seem to be disproving your own point. As you suggest, even with FDA labels

telling them it's crap, THEY STILL BUY THE CRAP DESPITE THE SCIENCE. Madison Avenue

and money are making that world go 'round, not science. The problem is most people have

too little respect for science, not too much.

[dave wyman]

Thomas - nobody confuses the sale of vitamins with "science," except perhaps, you.

 

>noone [sic] would play the lottery if they [sic] understood probability<

 

You can back this up? I think I understand the probability of winning, so does my wife, and my kids, even as we've each put down a few bucks on the California lottery from time to time over the years. It's like fishing. It's the fishing that's fun, catching fish is secondary. Playing the lottery is fun, winning is secondary.

 

>this world becomes simply a Darwinian nightmare.<

 

Apparently I am the one to clue you in on this: many if not most humans do live in a Darwinian nightmare. Yes, the strong do take from and kill the weak. That is, millions of poor people in the U.S. often go hungry or without the medical care that wealthier citizens receive. Millions in Iraq know they are in a Darwinian nightmare, as U.S. "contractors" and oil companies extract amazing profits from that sad region - a million people are estimated have died from causes proximate to the occupation of Iraq. The women being raped in Darfur know it. The children who are sex slaves in Thailand might not know how horrible their exploited lives are, but their lot is a grim one, and the list of horrors people endure goes on and on.

 

Maybe you've made enough money to live comfortably (or inherited your wealth). If so, you are one of the few who live in a pleasant dream, compared to most of the rest of the people in this world who must struggle to live.

 

 

By the way, kids - at least in most of the U.S., where I live, who aren't in bible schools, are not taught that humans come from apes. They are taught that humans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and gibbons, evolved from a chain of common ancestors, none of whom were not apes. What really separates we humans from the other apes is our ability to better use Photoshop.

[vince_smith2]

I saw something on the internet tonight that has me totally baffled and is directly related to this subject. I literally stumbled across a video trailer on youtube of a pseudo documentary on the subject of evolution vs. intelligent design. It stars Ben Stein and is called "Expelled". Ben attempts to shoot down evolution in the movie. You'll find references to the movie if you search online news sources or a site like wikipedia. If you search youtube for "Ben Stein Expelled trailer" you'll find the video trailer I'm referring to. It's 7:36 minutes long. It says it was added 3 months ago. As of a few minutes prior to my writing this post, there were 254 text comments about the video. Every one of them praised the movie. They all gave glowing support to Ben Stein and gushed about intelligent design while putting down evolution. In fact, having scrolled through all the comments, there were zero comments critizing the movie that I saw. FYI, the movie was largely panned.

 

If you're not familiar with the average youtube user, I saw a video about a month ago involving a girl with tourettes syndrome. There were several hundred comments on the video, the vast majority of which totally trashed the girl. Reading the comments kids made about the girl was difficult. It was definitely a "what's this world coming to" moment for me. I can't imagine any of those posts were made by people who put any value in religion.

 

So please explain the "Expelled" video comments to me. I'm guessing that the person who posted the video got a bunch of friends to post positive feedback (many of the posts followed a similar script), but I don't understand how the video could be up on youtube for 3 months with no negative comments. There were over 175,000 views of the video. I'm sure high school kids are more interested in making fun of someone afflicted with a serious disability than with any video involving philosophical discussions, but 254 to 0 is just too strange.

 

Is there a way to delete comments from a video posted on youtube? I wouldn't think so given the majority of the comments that I've seen on that site. I'm curious what other people think is going on with that video.

 

Thanks.

[Julie H]

<p>Vince,</p>

 

<p>It's a huge PR battle. See <a href="http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/">PZ Meyers site</a> (scroll down to find many posts on the movie) for the view from the other side.</p>

<p>The movie is a joke, but they seem to be using the bad publicity to drum up an audience.</p>

<p>-Julie</p>

[cooltpmd]

Dave & Fred ("nobody confuses the sale of vitamins with "science"; "drug companies advertise" )

 

I actually wish that this was true, but it isn't. The drug companies have taken the drugs, where the science is understood by the MD, and purposely ask the layman to evaluate whether they want it. The layman tends to place great weight in the science they don't understand. Sales are great by the way.

 

 

There are actually studies which show the MOST, not a few, people cannot distinguish science from anecdote. Do most people know that alternative "medicine" are considered "food" in the US? That they undergo no FDA screening of effect? No, they see the claim that "it works" and equates it to science. As long as I write in small letters "the FDA hasn't approved the claim, I can say anything". Supplement sales are at record levels.

 

I call this a pass on the methodology of science. Science is a methodology and we have to decide how "sound" it must be to accept. If we demanded good science, Madison Avenue would have little effect.

 

The lottery ... if you enjoy buying meaningless paper with numbers on it, for fun ... then I agree the lottery is a great way to go. What I mean is, noone would put money on any activity that had as bad a return as the lottery if they were thinking probabilistically. The stimulation of gambling, the entertainment value, the hope, the personal weighting of risk/return ... all overcome reason.

 

Dave ("Apparently I am the one to clue you in on this: many if not most humans do live in a Darwinian nightmare. ")

 

First, I applaud your point ... Second, you depressed me ... Third, I agree and disagree. While some people are bullies, there are many pockets of exception. I think that the very yearning (by many, not all) to be better that Darwin predicts says something about humans.

[don_e]

If we did have absolute knowledge one way or the other -- no matter which, it would end both atheism and religion, even science would see its end coming. I doubt the proponents of either would care though, since it is not religion or science that is their interest, but politics, and that would still be so, just under different guises.

[jtk]

Thomas, Darwin predicts nothing "about humans."

 

Since you invented that notion, what does it tell us about the rest of what you have to say?

 

"I think that the very yearning (by many, not all) to be better that Darwin predicts says something about humans."

 

Don E...great points.

 

I'm amazed at the general ignorance about the essence of science (which is method, including repeatable research and suspension of belief), including especially religious disinformation about the nature of "theory." Our President and one of the three Candidates all encourage ignorance regarding science generally and "evolution" in particular.

[jtk]

"The stimulation of gambling, the entertainment value, the hope, the personal weighting of risk/return ... all overcome reason."

 

That statement mistakenly associates "gambling" with "probability" and especially with mathematical odds.

 

Gambling has primarily to do with the thrill of risk, fear of loss, and the hope of reward. Without fear and thrill, why live?

 

Gambling has little to do with "probability": do people betting on religious theories, such as advocated by preachers, calculate the odds?

 

"Probability" is a reference to mathematical calculation and to a particular logical process. That's not what's going on in casinos for the most part, or in life when people bet on a religion (or on some version of existentialism, or on the idea that these matters are irrelevant).

[kristina_kraft]

Under the notion of human evolution I was thinking about emotional intelligence - a pattern which leads to our own development and growth.

I am always impressed by the people - biologists, photographers who are doing the research outside in the field with animals. It takes a lot of knowledge except the ones from the book. One has to be talented, has to "use the tools" for communicating with them. I'm referring to the capabilities which comes from one's sensibility, feeling, intuition.

When one's communicate, for example, with monkey or even gorilla, he or she might be able to sense them and in one point, one's can gain the notion of being connected to gorilla.

 

http://www.masters-of-fine-art-photography.com/02/artphotogallery/photographers/jill_greenberg001.html

Looking the photos of Jill Geenberg, I'm simply speechless.

 

Or the famous biologist who was killed by a spotted ray while he was wondering about her existence. He was stabbed in the heart.

Regarding his intelligence and abilities to communicate with the animals, the animals were being able to understand him? Because he knew how to speak emotionally to them.

 

In the end, if one is a self-conscious, then he is also conscious about other beings, right? Can one might be able actually to chasten a wild animal? Because if we all have the same ancestor, then we still have a capability written somewhere in our code to communicate with any animal that we desire.

This is how I see an evolution.

[vince_smith2]

Julie,

 

Thanks for the link. Apparently there are cooridinated campaigns to flood internet sites with positive comments about the movie. It happened on the NY Times website as well. It stunned me when I saw it, but I guess that's their goal.

[cooltpmd]

"Darwin predicts nothing "about humans." "

 

Darwinism certainly has been applied to the fate of the human animal, whether or not the man himself believed that. I don't think I'm the 1st to think of this. I certainly believe that natural selection involves the human animal, as well as the cricket and any other varment you identify. Frankly, I don't know what you are implying.

 

 

"That statement mistakenly associates "gambling" with "probability" and especially with mathematical odds."

 

Frankly, gambling has eveything to do with probability and odds. For, it is not gambling if it is assured. Go to the horse track, lotto, or casino ... they will tell you the reward offered for you to ignore the improbability and the probability (the likelihood of your desired result to occur).

 

The "thrill of risk, fear of loss, and the hope of reward" are the emotional state of the person that leads them to risk the odds. That was the point I was making ... people will risk $1 to win $1 million due to thrill and hope, the odds of winning is something like 1 in 50,000,000 ... which means simply, that you are likely to lose 49,999,999 times for every time you win once. If you buy one ticket a day for every day of your 100 year life, that is 36,500 tickets (and $36,500) ... you will only need 49,963,500 tickets to be "likely" to get a winner. If you put that $36,500 in an interest bearing account for your 100 years at 5% ... you would earn a guaranteed $1,050,478.

 

You tell me which makes more sense?

[jtk]

Thomas, you used "Darwin" without knowing what he had to say...you're right that others have done that, particularly a century ago...why identify with them? Is this a religious issue for you?

 

"Frankly, gambling has eveything to do with probability and odds. For, it is not gambling if it is assured."

 

Thomas, you invented "assured." I didn't even suggest it. I'm further from that idea than you are.

 

Gambling is risk taking, it only superficially involves odds. Risk can sometimes be estimated and guessed (with fingers crossed) but nothing rationally prevents dice from rolling snake eyes for 100 rolls...or never rolling snake eyes.

 

In your eagerness to reduce gambling risk to mathematical odds (to reduce fear and thrill), you asked "which makes more sense?"

 

That's a non-question, like asking which is heavier, green or red?

 

A person unaware that he's gambling his/her life is missing his/her one-time (presumably) biggest experience.

 

I taught statistics in graduate school (back before PCs): flipping a coin may result in 50:50, but it's entirely possible to get heads 100% .