Lawrence Krauss has a column in the Aug. 2 issue of New Scientist [Why God and Science Don't Mix].1 The article is mostly about why scientists should not support the Templeton Foundation but I want to focus on one particular statement.Krauss says,
Science must follow nature wherever it leads us. If it turn out to suggest that we are alone in a universe without purpose, we must accept that.Let's not quibble about the "alone" part. I think that science does, indeed, reveal a universe without purpose. In particular, it strongly indicates that humans have no special place in the universe and no special role to fulfill. This is one of the reasons why science and religion are in conflict.
Theistic evolutionists and soft intelligent design creationists claim that the universe was set up by God in a way that makes intelligent life inevitable. Many of them claim that the goal is to evolve humans—or something like humans—whose purpose is to discover God and worship Him.
Here's the question. Does science really tell us that there's no purpose and humans aren't special? I think it does suggest exactly that and anyone who chooses to think otherwise is in concflict with science. It's one of the reasons why I think that science and religion are in conflict.
Now, I admit that the inference of purposelessness isn't obvious to the average person but I think it's plain to those people who study science for a living. Perhaps it explains why so many scientists are nonbelievers and perhaps it's why religious scientists such as Ken Miller, Francois Collins, and Simon Conway Morris have to develop such convoluted arguments to rationalize the conflict [Does the Univese Have a Purpose?].
1. It's interesting that the print version of this essay is titled "Let's Listen to What Nature Says." A much better title IMHO.
37 comments :
Absolutely right. I don't understand how any biologist could think otherwise.
If science could clearly explain the origin of the initial conditions of the universe, then science could claim that humans have no purpose.
James, since humans came along 13.69 billion years after the initial conditions of the universe, how are the events related? What was it that Gould said about re-playing the tape?
What religion gives us any more insight than what science can give; and which religion is correct about it? How do you know?
Is there any reason to accept what religion has to say since it is all man-made anyway and no one has been able to show a direct connection to a creator except for wishful thinking?
And James's argument seems to make no sense at all.
i.e. we understand that if we were to re-run evolution on this planet, it would be unlikely that you'd get us emerging. Which means that unless there was direct meddling with the historical events that shaped life on this planet, which there's no scientific evidence thus far, arguing that we need to explain how the universe came about in order to even infer humanity's lack of "purpose" appears fallacious.
Give us evidence that humans are a direct deterministic outcome of the conditions of the origin of the universe, else such an argument is as bunk as the Anthropogenic Principle as argued by IDists...
I admit that the inference of purposelessness isn't obvious to the average person but I think it's plain to those people who study science for a living.
Oh, good. Now, is this inference Bayesian or based on statistical likelihood or under frequentism? How is it framed and do you have any numbers you can give us to plug in? You know, the kind of things professional scientists do when they are making inferences.
Mike,
First question, the origin of the initial conditions (or similar initial conditions) were a prerequsite for the origin of human.
Second question, nothing close to human life would have originated according to naturalistic explanations.
Third to fifth questions, these questions are jumping the gun. We can make philosophical conjectures about the purpose of the universe and humanity without appealing to religion.
One thing about this - it seems to me that science got going when it abandoned the notion that all events must have a purpose (at least, in biology). While that methodology has not shown anything since to need a purpose (again, except in the teleosematic sense of being the result of directional selection) it doesn't mean that science has shown it. I happen to think it has done, but not in any rigorous manner.
John Wilkins says,
While that methodology has not shown anything since to need a purpose (again, except in the teleosematic sense of being the result of directional selection) it doesn't mean that science has shown it.
I agree. It would be almost impossible to prove the negative; namely, that there is no purpose. It's just that the big picture of scientific knowledge doesn't seem to be consistent with the idea that there's purpose in the universe. There has been no scientific evidence to suggest that "purpose" is required.
I happen to think it has done, but not in any rigorous manner.
I agree again. We can't write a mathematical equation to show there is no such thing as purpose. But science is based on evidence and it's very difficult for a scientist to justify a belief in purpose without violating the principles of scientific methodology. That's probably why religious scientists try so hard to make up scientific "evidence" of purpose. That's what Ken Miller does with his fine tuning argument. It's what Francis Collins does with his Moral Law argument and it's what Simon Conway Morris does with convergence.
There's only one way in which science can uncover purpose - by helping trace down some thing that can speak and say - "This is why I created you." and then making that person prove the claim by creating something. The term "why?" is a leftover of our thinking. In all circumstances it can be substituted by What? and How? without any loss of meaning. Indeed in a few languages you use the same word for Why and How and make sense of the difference only thru the context.
"Science must follow nature wherever it leads us. If it turn out to suggest that we are alone in a universe without purpose, we must accept that"
That the universe has no purpose was long ago figured out by Nietzsche and other brilliant philosophers.
The logic leading to this conclusion is unlikely to be overturned by any forthcoming accumulation of scientific data.
If you think there is no philosophical decision, that it's just a matter of evidence, that you trust science will afford you the philosophy by trivially delivering you "the way of nature" on a silver platter, then you must be very explicit about what kind of "nature" could have shown you a universal purpose
Some say that would be a universe following a predetermined, inevitable pathway. We cannot tell from evidence if the universe as a totality is predetermined (n=1 for that one). Whether it is or not says nothing about "purpose". Highly deterministic, inevitable sequences of events (for instance, the fact the sun will engulf the earth) do not prove anything such as "purpose".
Larry:
... the big picture of scientific knowledge doesn't seem to be consistent with the idea that there's purpose in the universe.
So we have established that purposelessness is not a scientific inference, it is a philosophical conclusion you draw from what you see as "the big picture."
... science is based on evidence and it's very difficult for a scientist to justify a belief in purpose without violating the principles of scientific methodology.
Do you believe in democracy? Are the values that democracy support any more tangible to science than "purpose"? For that matter, do you have scientific evidence to establish that it is or should be difficult for scientists to believe in anything that is not amenable to the scientific method? Or is that just a belief without scientific support?
That's probably why religious scientists try so hard to make up scientific "evidence" of purpose.
Is that what they are doing ... or are they simply looking for things about the world that may be consistent with their philosophical beliefs? The way you may look for things that are consistent with the values you believe in, like democracy?
Did the intelligent designers have a purpose in designing the human body to be so very much like that of chimps and other apes? (Even if it is so remote as setting up the laws of nature at the Big Bang so we'd turn out this way.)
Or is there no purpose to be assumed for those similarities? If "it's just a matter of chance", then there's no moral lesson to be drawn from those similarities.
If it shows some purpose by our designers, maybe we should behave like animals.
Tom S.
The theory of evolution shows us that we are not the ultimate point on a ladder of progress but are just as 'evolved' as other species.
Try turning the question to other species - "whats the purpose of a rabbit?", "whats the purpose of an earthworm?" or "whats the purpose of a beech tree?"
Its pretty easy (even for the religious) to find a common 'purpose' in any other species (to produce more offspring). I guess it must be frightening for some that this also seems to be the biological purpose of humans (the social or cultural purpose, on an individual level is an entirely different question).
john pieret says,
So we have established that purposelessness is not a scientific inference, ...
We have established no such thing. It is a scientific observation that humans are not special and it's a scientific observation that there's no evidence of purpose in the universe.
If purpose was part of the universe then there's no reason at all why science couldn't have detected it. If that turned out to be true then we would have scientific evidence of purpose. You can't just dismiss science when it fails to find such evidence.
... it is a philosophical conclusion you draw from what you see as "the big picture."
You are beginning to sound like a broken record.
Do you believe in democracy?
No.
Are the values that democracy support any more tangible to science than "purpose"?
Yes, they are testable and they have been tested. In some societies democracy seems to work very well. In others there may be better forms of gevernment.
For that matter, do you have scientific evidence to establish that it is or should be difficult for scientists to believe in anything that is not amenable to the scientific method?
Yes. Furthermore, as you well know, I don't think there is anything that is not amenable to rational explanation and evidence.
Or is that just a belief without scientific support?
No. It seems to be your position that is irrational. You seem to think that it's okay for a scientist to belive in all kinds of silly things withuot evidence. You base your conclusion on the fact that you are able to see what nobody else sees; namely the limits of science. Apparently there's a wall around religion that protects it from scientific investigation.
Prof. Moran misses the point.
The universe has no purpose, neither do humans.
Humans appear to have evolved in such a way that they invent purpose for the universe and themselves. We invent purposes for ourselves. For Prof. Moran, the invented purpose is to investigate the chemistry of organisms. For others, the invented purpose is to seek God, or strive for justice, or build the perfect society, or become a star of stage and screen, etc. etc. etc.
Seeking God doesn't mean that God exists any more than seeking a triple helix (Linus Pauling) or a single gene for "intelligence" means that such a helix or gene exists.
Why then is seeking God any less valid than seeking a biological structure or process that, as it turns out, doesn't exist?
Now, my money is on a God-free universe, so I won't be spending any time seeking something I rather suspect isn't there.
Darwin sought a mechanism for speciation that many others thought wasn't there. He happens to have found it--or some significant part of it.
Seek and ye shall find.
It is a scientific observation that humans are not special and it's a scientific observation that there's no evidence of purpose in the universe. ...
If purpose was part of the universe then there's no reason at all why science couldn't have detected it.
If it is scientific, then you should be able to set out for us a formal inference and give us numbers to back it up. You could start by telling us what this evidence of purpose should look like.
You are beginning to sound like a broken record.
Perhaps because I am responding to someone who keeps confusing science and philosophy.
... they are testable and they have been tested. In some societies democracy seems to work very well. In others there may be better forms of gevernment.
"Well" and "better" by what measure? What value are you putting on it? The continued existence of one particular species? Why would that be important?
Yes. Furthermore, as you well know, I don't think there is anything that is not amenable to rational explanation and evidence.
If you have scientific evidence that scientists should not believe in anything that is not amenable to the scientific method, can you please produce it? If you have scientific evidence that everything is amenable to rational explanation and evidence, please produce that or explain why you believe it in it the absence of support of it by the scientific method.
You seem to think that it's okay for a scientist to belive in all kinds of silly things withuot evidence. You base your conclusion on the fact that you are able to see what nobody else sees; namely the limits of science.
The only people who see no limits on science are those, like you, who have made a committment to philosophies like materialism or naturalism which are not, themselves, subject to investigation by the scientific method. I think it is okay for scientists to have different philosophies than Larry Moran and to therefore recognize limits on science. And I especially think it is okay for scientists to decide what is "silly" and what is not without consulting Larry Moran and his philosophy.
Apparently there's a wall around religion that protects it from scientific investigation.
There is no wall around any claims by religion that are amenable to scientific investigation. But you already told us that we can't really scientifically investigate purpose.
The purpose of the universe is unveiled by stem cell researcher Robert Lanza in an interview in the September 2008 issue of Discover magazine:
You’ve said physical laws are exactly balanced for life to exist.
If there were one-billionth of a difference in the mass of the Big Bang, you couldn’t have galaxies. If the gravitational constant were ever-so-slightly different, you couldn’t have stars, including the sun, and you would just have hydrogen. There are 200 parameters like this. We now have people out there talking about an intelligent design, saying “God” is the explanation. But it is really because quantum theory is right: Everything is observer-determined and the past and present are relative only to you, as the observer. It all fits, but the problem is, you then do need to accept what people will not accept: When you turn you back to the moon, it no longer exists.
To Evan Stephens:
If no one on earth observed the moon at a given moment in time and then, at the next moment, several million people observed the moon, you might then argue that the moon had ceased to exist for a few moments before returning to existence. Or you might argue that the moon had persisted while unobserved. Which do you think more likely?
And what if no one observed the moon but still observed the ebb and flow of the tides or the shadows of trees on the snow at night? Would you say that the moon had ceased to exist? And lets say no one observed the moon, tides or shadows at night, but the Earth continued to revolve around the Sun without disturbance. Would you then conclude that the moon had ceased to exist for a period of time?
Robert Lanza should stick to stem cells and leave off word-spinning.
"If purpose was part of the universe then there's no reason at all why science couldn't have detected it. If that turned out to be true then we would have scientific evidence of purpose. You can't just dismiss science when it fails to find such evidence"
And that evidence would be?....
If you cannot stipulate what are you looking for that you haven't found, your scientism is simply RETARDED, Larry. And not scientific at all. Pure exultation of science without substance.
We've repeatedly seen larry's logic crumble to pieces when it comes to questioning any of his scientistic "gospel truths". Consider his use of the "courtiers reply" argument as an apology for ignorance on any topic he previously declares to be "garbage" (religion, the humanities, evo-devo perhaps).
This is not scientific thinking, it is pig-headed scientism.
"You base your conclusion on the fact that you are able to see what nobody else sees; namely the limits of science"
To think science has no limits is more in the lines with theism. "God wants us to know", he has created the human mind to fit the universe like a shoe.
Naturalism leads to the conclusion that humans are structurally concrete, limited systems, always will be, and as such that have intrinsic limitations to what they can know, even at the most basic, biological levels of perception. We can only make sense of things in our limited, human terms. Blind spots are inevitable, misrepresentations and illusions the "tour de jour"
Now if you think admitting to blind spots is a weakness, a terrible thing that will let religion in, that is not the case. It's the other way round. No blind spots would be "godly".
Getting back to Larry's initial thoughtful point:
Now, I admit that the inference of purposelessness isn't obvious to the average person but I think it's plain to those people who study science for a living.
Which makes me think of Steven Weinberg and his famous closing statement to The First Three Minutes: i.e, The more the universe seems intelligible, the more it also seems pointless, or words to that effect.
Wouldn't the natural order's intelligibility be purpose enough--at least for a scientist? And do we need to be any more special than our ability to make some sense of the universe's rationality?
Regarding the issue of limits on science . . .
It seems to me that there are likely theoretical limits to what can be known to humans using the scientific method. It also, seems to me that the critics of science want to announce those limits very prematurely.
In a debate with Daniel Dennett, Dinesh D'Souza advocated such a line, saying we are limited by our basic senses and reasoning. But of course, we are able to use tools and techniques that greatly expand our natural abilities. These range from the relatively simple, such as magnifying lenses and the ability to pass on previous learning through writing, to very complex, such as particle accelerators and computer modelling.
I have also been impressed how scientists can use simple, but well designed experiments to glean knowledge that superficially seemed unknowable.
Bottom line - if there is a limit to using science to understand our world, we haven't found it yet. Those who avocate supernaturalism seem bent on declaring this limit before it is reached.
"The purpose of the universe is unveiled by stem cell researcher Robert Lanza in an interview in the September 2008 issue of Discover magazine:"
In an observer-defined quantum reality, the universe (including the past) becomes increasingly more defined and detailed as it is observed over time, so of course all constants will have to fit and be consistent. A creator/designer God is not necessary. Not unless you want to call yourself one - but a solipsist God with no power is not much of a God.
A not very scientific use of the notion of purpose unfortunately still pervades much of biological explanation. Teleological thinking and language is used all the time, specially regarding adaptation. Gould himself said: eyes are "for" seeing, legs "for" walking (Whatever happened to Dr. Pangloss?? The nose is for carrying the glasses, and the legs for wearing trousers).
I guess the bottom line is that you must not play the game of treating non-scientific questions as if they were scientific. Some questions are very tricky (indeed every question contains in itself the germ of an answer).Once you take the ball, you're playing THEIR game.
We can tell that purpose explanation is of little use to science. It even deters science by interjecting a premature explanation that is non- scientific. The phenomenon is thus "explained" despite no advance in our mechanistic understanding of it.
These reasons for rejecting purpose-explanations do not mean at all that purpose-explanation has been rejected on the basis of evidence;
As if some degree of retinal experience could suddenly turn purpose-explanation very enlightening.
In fact, purpose explanations in biology have been attached to bulk-loads of phenomenological data. It is no wonder therefore that religious people will insist, following the exact pathway indicated by Larry' epistemology, that it is simply this evidence that has scientifically confirmed purposefulness in nature.
As I've said so many times, this mentality that looks down its nose on philosophy and thinks anything can be solved by science (naïve empiricism) provides a logic leading directly into different forms of "scientific" justification of religion.
It's just that the big picture of scientific knowledge doesn't seem to be consistent with the idea that there's purpose in the universe. There has been no scientific evidence to suggest that "purpose" is required.
I am far more comfortable with the second sentence than the first.
I will readily assent to the proposition that there's absolutely no data indicating, to the best of our abilities to reason from it, any purpose to the universe or that suggests a purpose is required.
What raises my eyebrows is the (IMO) extra-logical leap from lack of evidence to the proposition that this supports an affirmative conclusion of lack of purpose. To put it as simply as possible, I don't think we know nearly enough about the universe yet to start drawing any conclusions.
Cosmologists have already thought of experiments (though of course we currently lack the ability to perform them) to create "pocket universes" in order to see how they evolve - for example, whether they undergo cosmic inflation. It is certainly not unthinkable that our universe was the result of such an experiment by other intelligent living beings between 13 and 14 billion years ago. There would thus be a purpose to our universe, albeit a quite prosaic one.
If the unspoken subtext to your proposition is that the Universe doesn't have the One True Purpose of serving as testimony to the greater glory of [$DEITY_AS_PORTRAYED_IN_$SACRED_BOOK], then to me that's so trivially evident as to be uninteresting.
And that evidence would be?....
If you cannot stipulate what are you looking for that you haven't found, your scientism is simply RETARDED, Larry. And not scientific at all. Pure exultation of science without substance.
In which the inability to verify a phenomenon is viewed as support for the existence of that phenomenon. Down the rabbit hole.
No, you flippin dumbass.
It means the refutation of purpose as non-scientific is based on epistemology, not "evidence".
In other words, "evidence" will ever show up that will make purpose a scientifically enlightening concept
If you talk like it's simply a matter of evidence, it's only thanks to your low-brow scientism
The word "purpose" is actually too imprecise to be used in a scientific context. It usually means "motive" (as in a court of law), in which case a conscious, thinking mind is necessarily implied. Or... it can be used with unconscious things - for example, the "purpose" of chlorophyll in plants is to obtain energy from light. Therefore, to say that the universe has a "purpose", is not very meaningful, unless you are much more specific.
In other words, "evidence" will never show up that will make purpose a scientifically enlightening concept
If you talk like it's simply a matter of evidence, it's only thanks to your low-brow scientism
Rude person: If you have something other than evidence to back up claims of purpose, you have failed to present it, describe what it could be, or explain how to differentiate it from "making shit up."
"the "purpose" of chlorophyll in plants is to obtain energy from light"
Good example. These a posteriory desctiption are sometimes thought of as explanatiom but actually tells us nothing about how chlorophyll obtain energy from light. That's the problem (and not a problem of evidence)
It's an ontologicla distinction, not something that may flip this way or that according to phenomenological evidence. Logical inference is tantamount to science.
Using the brains and not the retina alone is fundamental to keep it scientific, and that is not equivalent to "making shit up".
It's an ontological distinction, not something that may flip this way or that according to phenomenological evidence. Logical inference is tantamount to science.
No logical inference to establish purpose has been presented. No explanation of how a purely logical inference could establish purpose has been presented. Arguments put forward to support purpose also tend toward the evidential. Claimed difference from "making shit up" has not been established.
As a scientist, I feel it is anti-purpose to wander out of the realm of things we can measure (or at least things we can hope to one day measure) - I agree with Krauss. The ID movement, whether they start out knowing there is a god (or purpose or whatever) or end up finding one with "science" is just too problematic, but I have a hard time articulating why I think so. Too much time writing/thinking science leaves me with few words for religion. It's frustrating, because it's wrong to say "it's just wrong!" ;)
Let me see if I can glean some insight from these comments... John Wilkins and Larry argue: when we try to incorporate intangible values or beliefs into science, we compromise the science we are attempting. John Pieret says that we can hold both scientific thinking and philosophical/religious thinking in our minds, each with their own purpose. Sanders sums this up when he says that philosophy and science can both be used to answer questions, but they aren't answering the same questions. I'm both satisfied and dissatisfied with this, because it seems equivalent to "ID is not science and science is not religion". Most scientists seem to understand the fundamental differences between the two - how do we help non-scientists to see them?
"Most scientists seem to understand the fundamental differences between the two"
yet, the language of biology is full of descriptions in terms of purpose.
There's the argument of Ernst Mayr, François Jacob, and many others, that there is a real scientific meaning to purpose: Adaptations are "for" the function that has been selected. The apparently purposeful working of an organ is result of the perfective action of natural selection precisely for that function, creating the illusion of purpose. Function and origin of structure are causally related.
Many scientists consider that to be a satisfactory explanation.
You start having problems, though, when you realize as scientist that hardly ever selection alone explains the origin of adaptations (exaptation, contingency and phenotypic plasticity are also involved).But let's just ignore that for now.
If we point at an adaptation with the finger and say "it was natural selection" again a feeling of understanding is prematurely imposed without actually improving our mechanistic understanding of the biology or obtaining any of the specifics of its actual evolutionary history. We just know "genes were selected", but just pointing is out is general enough to be basically useless.
Ultimately, Mayr's argument is flawed. Truth is, contingency is also tantamount to the origin of adaptations...remember Lenski's latest experiment?
I think that science does, indeed, reveal a universe without purpose. In particular, it strongly indicates that humans have no special place in the universe and no special role to fulfill.
Wow, is this because, (like Krauss), you are willfully ignorant of the known facts?
Like I said here:
http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2008/06/23/guest-post-rick-ryals-the-anthropic-principle/
It’s quite obvious that Krauss wouldn’t recognize purpose in nature or an anthropically oriented cosmological structure principle if it hit him upside the head!
Does the motion of the solar system affect the microwave sky?
http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/29210
Lawrence Krauss even talks about this direct observation:
THE ENERGY OF EMPTY SPACE THAT ISN’T ZERO
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/krauss06/krauss06.2_index.html
But when you look at CMB map, you also see that the structure that is observed, is in fact, in a weird way, correlated with the plane of the earth around the sun. Is this Copernicus coming back to haunt us? That’s crazy. We’re looking out at the whole universe. There’s no way there should be a correlation of structure with our motion of the earth around the sun — the plane of the earth around the sun — the ecliptic. That would say we are truly the center of the universe.
-Lawrence Krauss
“That’s Crazy”… “There’s no way”… Really, Larry?… Are you sure that it isn’t more-like… willful ignorance and denial?
Or isn’t it actually compounded supporting evidence for the life-oriented cosmological structure principle that we already have theoretical precedence for?
The problem here isn’t that we don’t have evidence, (make that, compounded evidence, and/or independently supportive evidence), the problem is that nobody is looking into this from any perspective that isn’t aimed at refuting the significance of the evidence.
They have had some success at this, too, because it has been discovered that the correlation applies to a specific region of galaxies like ours, but they act like they don’t have a clue, (and I’m sure that they don’t), that this is exactly what the Goldilocks Enigma predicts will be found.
It isn’t a case of not having evidence, rather, it is a matter of unscientific interpretation and an unwillingness to look at the physics straight-up, without automatically dragging some abstract and unproven assumptions about quantum observers into it, to see if maybe something that we do quite naturally might make us entirely necessary to the energy-economy of the physical process.
If you take Brandon Carter’s statement and bring it with you to the “consensus of opinion”, then you might begin to understand why the problem doesn’t get resolved:
And it ain’t pretty:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.2462
Defenders of ET always take the reactionary denial-ist approach to evidence that CAN mean that there is purpose in nature, and they don't realize how much they empower creationists when they wrongly equate purpose in nature with an intelligent agent.
It is not necessary for there to be an intelligent agent for there to be higher-purpose in nature. All that is required is a "final cause" and contrary to the highly popularized assumptions of the cutting-edge, there is no final theory that discounts evidence that CAN be indicative of this.
You do not KNOW that there is no purpose in nature, and I can provide MUCH evidence that CAN mean that there is, which is all that is needed to establish the plausibility as a valid scientific question.
You don't know how much the mentality of your "kind" hurts plausible science, and you don't see how weak that makes your argument in the eyes of people who recognize evidence for purpose in nature.
For example, an observationally evidenced argument for purpose in nature and guided evolution, without an intelligent agent. It doesn't even have to be right to be plausible science, so don't be so quick to kick purpose out of nature without a final theory that justifies it, or you might just kill the theory that decides the argument, in your "zeal" to take the opposite side:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/...
got 1.5 half hours to burn before continuing with in situ, so I'll clarify a bit more (if anyone gives a shit...)
It is interesting what we regard to be satisfactory scientific explanations: the catch is, even a scientific explanation can be used in a non-scientific way, misleading us into thinking we have explained something when we have not.
Consider chlorophyll again. We can say that the "purpose" of chlorophyll is to obtain energy from light. Great, but as I said before, this tells us practically nothing about HOW chlorophyll transforms light into energy. It only describes, and thus, we should not feeel very much satisfied with this explanation. It's just a reformulation of the very same basic phenomenon we are trying to explain.
Similarly, the happy darwinian amateur will without hesitation explain to us that chlorophyl evolved by natural selection favoring the production of energy from light.
This is not a un scientific statement, even if it only sees the mechanism of natural selection. For sure selection was involved in at least admittting the new variations of chlorophyll. It is not an explanation in any supernatural terms, either.
And yet, scientifically, again we learn nothing from this explanation about how chlorophyll produces energy from sunlight. And we learn close to nothing about the evolutionary history of chlorphyll: only that selection was involved, which is an incomplete narrative of how the evolution of chlorophyll actually occurred (i invite anyone to research this topic)
In other words: scientific expalantions stop being useful and actually are science stoppers when incomplete explantions are treated as if solving questions they actually do not solve. Natural selection is frequently used as the "magic balm" to cure any problem (answers any question). This is an unscientific abuse of the scientific notion of selection.
allow me to illustrate a bit further. Let's say I wish to understand the phenomenon polka dancing. I can say that polka-dancing is the result of a dynamics of molecular interactions, involving many genes.
My explanation is scientific, and is undoubteedly true, but it is hardly a useful explanation of polka-dancing: we cannot specificically deduce polka dancing from such an explanation. True understading of the specific phenomenon of polka dancing will be much more at the anthropological-cultural, dealing with the interactions among human organisms in society. Leaving out this level of description is fatal to the understanding polka dancing.
Interesting then: We could confuse ourselves considere that explanation as satisfactory to polka dancing, we would actually no know a thing about polka dancing. It is an utterly incomplete explanation, and as such should be considered utterly insatisfactory.
Unfortunately, many scientists lack the philosophical training to see the problem this way. Instead, when confronted with the supernatural explanations that religious people attach to diverse phenomena, many scientists get suckered into insisting that very basic levels of scientific explanation as complete, satisfactory explanations, when the truth is that many such explanations, are utterly incomplete and largely uninformative.
BTW I was watching mystery science theater yesterdya and was reminded of this thread. At one point the token scientist responds: "I'm a scientist. I use my eyes, not my brain"
Kind of reminded me some of the folks around here....hehehe
Post a Comment