The Appendix

[Hopey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Sharkey,

As my friends at OOT would say, YSSCKY. And no, I won't explain to you what that means.

[/ QUOTE ]

CLOWNS

*** You are ignoring this user ***

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL...I'll try my best not to cry too hard about this lunatic ignoring me.

[pilliwinks]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I only sort of agree that the law of gravity constitutes a sufficient cause of elliptical orbits, because that kind of language tends in my experience to lead to the view that there is such a thing as the law of gravity, and that it is binding.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, the phenomena described by the “law” of gravitation. Surely there’s no way out of that one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, the actual, generalized, found-everywhere phenomena themselves aren't, and can't be observed. We just have a bunch of astronomers counting dots, whose maths currently agrees with Mr Einstein's (and not Mr Newton's). On the basis of that agreement, we are wise to point our spaceships in the direction that they predict. We are not so wise, in my opinion, if we claim that we know the invariant laws of the universe that dictate where the planets must be. Followers of Newton did that, and they were wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
After exhaustive trial and error, the universality of a phenomenon becomes apparent, but, as you suggest, that’s no guarantee. Sometimes what’s being observed can be misconstrued, yet after a while certain things begin to look much more like objects of “reality” than artifacts of observation.

[/ QUOTE ]
I quite agree. Hence my confidence in the theory of evolution. The sociological argument is my least favorite, but it still has some merit: if there were a better explanation of how species arose, do you not think that 150 years of scientists clawing and scratching to try to get recognition of their talent would have turned up the mistakes? It is a common misconception that scientists have some investment in the status quo. On the contrary, academia dictates that you must have a unique contribution, or outlook, or technique or something. Consequently, if anyone on the forum here comes up with a better alternative to evolution, I want to know about it, so I can publish it and get the Nobel prize before anyone else thinks of it.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps a useful concept is that of theory half-life: the average time taken for half the theories in a particular field to be superceded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Certain foundational concepts are stable, no?

[/ QUOTE ]
It is my prejudice that reality is pretty stable. And I think our descriptions of it do seem to move asymptotically - after a while the changes are usually minor. But then I am not a fan of Kuhn.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is an essential question. When extended, the proposed processes have to be not only radical enough, but also of the correct character to account for the diversity of species.

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed. As I say, there is plenty of evidence bearing on whether this is plausible or far-fetched.

[/ QUOTE ]

In the case of evolution, a formalization of such extendibility hasn’t even been published.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to agree with Ishmael here. Mr Darwin's theory was clearly flawed in several respects, but the certral issue of whether or not there is evidence of relatedness by descent among a broad range of species, is addressed quite well.
Much of his evidence has not been discredited despite 150 years of biologists trying to show they're smarter than Darwin...

[Copernicus]

"I quite agree. Hence my confidence in the theory of evolution. The sociological argument is my least favorite, but it still has some merit: if there were a better explanation of how species arose, do you not think that 150 years of scientists clawing and scratching to try to get recognition of their talent would have turned up the mistakes? It is a common misconception that scientists have some investment in the status quo. On the contrary, academia dictates that you must have a unique contribution, or outlook, or technique or something. Consequently, if anyone on the forum here comes up with a better alternative to evolution, I want to know about it, so I can publish it and get the Nobel prize before anyone else thinks of it."

In fact you are being quite conservative here. There is tremendous upside to disproving the status quo, both financially and academic recognition.

It is theism that is heavily invested in maintaining the status quo, because any fissure in dogma has the potential to tear down the foundations.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, the actual, generalized, found-everywhere phenomena themselves aren't, and can't be observed.

[/ QUOTE ]

If a causality works every time it’s tried, at will and under arbitrary circumstances, then, since it’s taken for granted there’s nothing perverse at work, the principle of economy takes over and justifies a status of generality.

[ QUOTE ]
We just have a bunch of astronomers counting dots, whose maths currently agrees with Mr Einstein's (and not Mr Newton's). On the basis of that agreement, we are wise to point our spaceships in the direction that they predict. We are not so wise, in my opinion, if we claim that we know the invariant laws of the universe that dictate where the planets must be. Followers of Newton did that, and they were wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

The concept of invariant law is an idealism that is justified by its utility. Just like accuracy of measurement, where again the concept of contextual sufficiency has its place.

Newton’s gravity is good enough for space probes.

[ QUOTE ]
The sociological argument is my least favorite, but it still has some merit: if there were a better explanation of how species arose, do you not think that 150 years of scientists clawing and scratching to try to get recognition of their talent would have turned up the mistakes?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not necessarily. It could happen a year from now using a new approach.

[ QUOTE ]
It is a common misconception that scientists have some investment in the status quo. On the contrary, academia dictates that you must have a unique contribution, or outlook, or technique or something. Consequently, if anyone on the forum here comes up with a better alternative to evolution, I want to know about it, so I can publish it and get the Nobel prize before anyone else thinks of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The status quo does not make the scientist. Likewise, an absence of alternate explanations does not make the science.

[ QUOTE ]
Mr Darwin's theory was clearly flawed in several respects, but the certral issue of whether or not there is evidence of relatedness by descent among a broad range of species, is addressed quite well. Much of his evidence has not been discredited despite 150 years of biologists trying to show they're smarter than Darwin...

[/ QUOTE ]

Good for Darwin, but you can’t just set your own criteria, and when they are met, declare your theory quite reasonable and live happily ever after. Of course, we’ve already been over how correctly formed propositions of science meet certain objective standards of cause and effect. That’s why I say evolution has not been formalized. It’s not a matter of pointing to a chromosome and a ring species and sounding scientific, even if it’s the best understanding (or misunderstanding) around.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with a “plausible narrative” that “seems reasonable” based on available evidence. Everyone likes a good yarn on occasion. It’s just that the stamp of science requires more.

[Gugel]