tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post5156362562495797694..comments2024-02-10T20:36:43.004+11:00Comments on Duae Quartunciae: Is D'Souza really redefining evolution?sylashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10594421176931832170noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post-78968381997827300722008-03-28T15:26:00.000+11:002008-03-28T15:26:00.000+11:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post-72627869217220509132007-05-09T00:37:00.000+10:002007-05-09T00:37:00.000+10:00By the way... thanks David Marjanović . I have cha...By the way... thanks David Marjanović . I have changed the title of my blog to the correct spelling. The url is unchanged.sylashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10594421176931832170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post-25047597784988144032007-05-07T22:26:00.000+10:002007-05-07T22:26:00.000+10:00pz asks:But where do I use this phrase "redefining...pz asks:<BR/><I>But where do I use this phrase "redefining evolution"?<BR/><BR/>My original argument was that ID is trying to rebrand itself with a label that puts it under the umbrella of evolution; my point was that trying to turn evolutionary biology into Paleyism isn't valid.</I><BR/><BR/>I think this question is answered at the start of my main blog article.<BR/><BR/>I agree that ID is trying to rebrand itself, and I said so plainly, right at the outset, before getting in to the points where we have some disagreement.<BR/><BR/>I also quoted a portion of the Pharyngula article that speaks of redefining science; of the potential to redefine evolution, and which says explicitly that <I>'what they call "evolution" is not evolution as evolutionary biologists understand it</I>.<BR/><BR/>I don't think that's accurate. It seems to me that what they call evolution is the same as what we call evolution... the process by which living things change over time, by cumulative variation and natural selection. They are, it seems, adopting a view more like that of Dobzhansky; that there is a creator who set up the whole operation, and that evolution – as conventionally defined – is a part of the whole grand design.<BR/><BR/>This view is not a scientific one, of course. It is not a part of evolutionary biology itself and it is not claimed to be. It is not falsifiable; and it has no implications for what we see in the natural world. Dobzhansky, I think, understood that. As far as I can tell, Dobzhansky never tried to claim that his religious beliefs were scientific models, and made no attempt to expand the definition of science to incorporate arguments that we conventionally recognize outside the scope of scientific argument.<BR/><BR/>I am not so sanguine about D'Souza, who is lightyears less insightful than Dobzhansky; it would not surprise me to know that he fails to understand the nature of scientific argument and evidence. But the blog article he wrote does not attempt to redefine science that I can see.<BR/><BR/>Bear in mind; it is quite possible to use unscientific arguments without redefining science. You are only redefining science if you try to claim that those arguments are scientific ones.sylashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10594421176931832170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post-37410441588231843252007-05-07T16:35:00.000+10:002007-05-07T16:35:00.000+10:00We have a combination of a lack of evidence and su...<I>We have a combination of a lack of evidence and such blatant bad-faith evasiveness on the part of the god-belief advocates that we can legitimately make an operational judgement that gods do not exist.</I><BR/><BR/>For me the operational judgement is something rather less than making a (scientific) statement on the existence of an object: you're acting as if the statement is true (or false), but you're not saying whether it is. Calling for a statement to be rejected is calling for a decision on its truth.<BR/><BR/>And making a decision on the truth of a matter based on the behaviour of its supporters is hardly a scientific approach, it would be likeCENSORED BY GODWIN SQUADelephants.<BR/><BR/>Whatever. <A HREF="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2074076,00.html" REL="nofollow">This should be appearing in your mailbox</A> from 1367 Pharynguloids.<BR/><BR/>BobAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post-86479206536688663122007-05-07T06:55:00.000+10:002007-05-07T06:55:00.000+10:00The "operational judgement" is called Apathetic Ag...The "operational judgement" is called <A HREF="http://www.apatheticagnostic.com" REL="nofollow">Apathetic Agnosticism</A>... :-)<BR/><BR/>On another note, I bet it should be <I>dua quartunciae</I>, assuming <I>quartuncia</I> is really singular. If it's plural, you're right.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post-21395223994319889972007-05-07T05:10:00.000+10:002007-05-07T05:10:00.000+10:00But where do I use this phrase "redefining evoluti...But where do I use this phrase "redefining evolution"?<BR/><BR/>My original argument was that ID is trying to rebrand itself with a label that puts it under the umbrella of evolution; my point was that trying to turn evolutionary biology into Paleyism isn't valid.<BR/><BR/><I>You also mix up "lack of evidence for existence" with "evidence for non-existence".</I><BR/><BR/>Not at all. I know the difference. We do not have evidence for the non-existence of deities in general, although we do have evidence that the predicted properties of specific deities are not in existence. We have a combination of a lack of evidence and such blatant bad-faith evasiveness on the part of the god-belief advocates that we can legitimately make an operational judgement that gods do not exist -- those who object should simply give a solid argument rather than retiring to empty abstractions.PZ Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10911078800554129822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post-16384619930927885382007-05-07T05:09:00.000+10:002007-05-07T05:09:00.000+10:00On the other hand, noting that the phenomenon does...<I>On the other hand, noting that the phenomenon does not show up in our measurements, our photographs, our equations, our history; that it is defined in such a way as to be untestable; that it has no consequence, ought to be interpreted by the scientific mind as evidence that the phenomenon does not exist. </I><BR/>This is getting perilously close to social constructivism: if we can't measure it, it doesn't exist.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps a philosopher would correct me, but it seems to me that this only makes sense if you have a prior metaphysical commitment to simplicity. It's not the same thing as saying "if we can't measure it, then we can act as if it doesn't exist": something I would take to be the epistemic form of your argument, and which I think has more force.<BR/><BR/>The problem is that if we can't measure something, then we can't create counterfactuals to decide on the its existence. Hence, we can have now way of resolving its existence. The conclusion that it does not exist must then rely on some other philosophical commitment, other than reliance on the evidence.<BR/><BR/>BobAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post-29851265330779443182007-05-07T03:34:00.000+10:002007-05-07T03:34:00.000+10:00You continue to miss the point, PZ.If you are goin...You continue to miss the point, PZ.<BR/><BR/>If you are going to say "redefining evolution" then you need to justify that by showing something actually different in the definition of evolution being used.<BR/><BR/>You can't just take willy nilly any belief (of Dobzhansky, for example) and insist that it is part of the <B>definition</B> of evolution. That's just being sloppy in your argument. Dobzhansky did not define evolution to incorporate theism. The <I>definitions</I> of evolution he used made no reference to his beliefs in a deity.<BR/><BR/>I don't believe in God. Neither do you. Both of us consider that there are good reasons for this position. But that does <I>not</I> make our position with respect to deities a part of the definition of evolution.<BR/><BR/>You failed to justify the idea that Dobzhansky redefines evolution; and instead switched a different claim: that he is "trying to redefine all of science to allow their pet myth to sneak in". But even that claim is invalid, because Dobzhansky is not presenting his belief in a creator as a scientific conclusion. As far as I can tell, there's nothing about his creator that has any material implications that would allow it to be tested, even in principle. So therefore it's not science – and more importantly – <B>he does not claim it is science</B>. <BR/><BR/>It is fair enough to say that this belief is "unscientific". It's fair enough to say it is false, or irrational. But it does not follow that he is redefining science; since he is not making scientific arguments for his belief.<BR/><BR/>You also mix up "lack of evidence for existence" with "evidence for non-existence". This is a basic error in logic on your own part, and it's going to become relevant at this blog, I hope, as I get into cosmology.sylashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10594421176931832170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post-42458715162604292712007-05-07T00:33:00.000+10:002007-05-07T00:33:00.000+10:00Evolutionary biology makes no mention of plans, or...<I>Evolutionary biology makes no mention of plans, or designs, or Gods. We have no need of that hypothesis. The same is true of meteorology, geology, physics, chemistry or any other science. There is not even an additional clause to say "there's no God who set this up". To argue for or against God's existence can use arguments relating to empirical science, but they have to go further than this and into some metaphysics.</I><BR/><BR/><BR/>You know I'll disagree strongly with this. It's not the new atheists trying to redefine evolution; it's the theistic evolutionists (and I will include Dobzhansky in that) trying to redefine all of science to allow their pet myth to sneak in. If there's no evidence for a postulated phenomenon, if observed mechanisms account for the observations we have at hand, you don't get to smuggle the phenomenon in anyway on the basis of "well, maybe it exists." It's a violation of parsimony, for one thing, and scientific conclusions should be constructed on the basis of reproducible, verifiable evidence, for another. <BR/><BR/>On the other hand, noting that the phenomenon does not show up in our measurements, our photographs, our equations, our history; that it is defined in such a way as to be untestable; that it has no <I><B>consequence</B></I>, ought to be interpreted by the scientific mind as evidence that the phenomenon does not exist. That isn't metaphysics, that's elementary reasoning.<BR/><BR/>If someone wants to drag in an unevidenced entity with internally inconsistent properties, <I>that's</I> metaphysics. It's kneejerk contrariness to argue that the opposite contention must also be metaphysics, and I don't buy it at all.PZ Myershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10911078800554129822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post-48286791413834907902007-05-06T21:34:00.000+10:002007-05-06T21:34:00.000+10:00Pharyngula hits are nice, 'tis true; but the real ...Pharyngula hits are nice, 'tis true; but the real fact of the matter is that I was getting into some debates in PZ's blog a few weeks ago that I wanted to be able to engage more thoroughly; and that was what finally persuaded me to start blogging myself.<BR/><BR/>I've known PZ for years, from before blogs were invented. We were both talk.origins regulars in the old days. He's long been one of my favourite reads. Thanks for the comment!sylashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10594421176931832170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-879226427561095229.post-75884934721749564122007-05-06T21:00:00.000+10:002007-05-06T21:00:00.000+10:00You're shilling for Pharnygula hits again, aren't ...You're shilling for Pharnygula hits again, aren't you? :-)<BR/><BR/>More seriously, it's nice to read a more moderate atheistic voice in the discussion. I hadn't read the Dobzhansky essay before, so thanks for pointing that out too. Although it's perhaps ironic that he redefines creationism in the essay, so that he can call himself a creationist.<BR/><BR/>BobAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com