Evolution, human nature, and the scientific method

Hello all.

This whole idea of vitamin C showing anything regarding evolution and ID seems so far fetched, almost like someone grasping for straws.
Early mankind had no idea of what was contained in what they ate, they had found out through trial and error what was safe to eat, they did not have the luxury of the supermarket so whatever was available is what they ate.
The food high in vitamin C is also often the easiest to obtain in the wild, especially in the warmer climates.
The simplest explanation is most often the right one, and when the evidence against ID is so overwhelming it is hard for me to understand some still trying to shoehorn it into life.
I have absolutely no idea whether there is a higher intelligence or not, but if there is one, the record of nature argues very strongly against any involvement by anything intelligent, even remotely being involved.

Regards, John.

Hello all.

This whole idea of vitamin C showing anything regarding evolution and ID seems so far fetched, almost like someone grasping for straws.
Early mankind had no idea of what was contained in what they ate, they had found out through trial and error what was safe to eat, they did not have the luxury of the supermarket so whatever was available is what they ate.
The food high in vitamin C is also often the easiest to obtain in the wild, especially in the warmer climates.
The simplest explanation is most often the right one, and when the evidence against ID is so overwhelming it is hard for me to understand some still trying to shoehorn it into life.
I have absolutely no idea whether there is a higher intelligence or not, but if there is one, the record of nature argues very strongly against any involvement by anything intelligent, even remotely being involved.

Regards, John.

What prediction are you testing here? What would be it's prior plausibility?

And, since you brought up simple explanations, what is yours for the dramatic difference between the reproductive fitness value for ID believers and evolution believers? Between the Amish, say, and professional scientists?

Did you mean to give the impression that you estimate the truth value of your opinion above that from the practise of Hypothetico-deductive science?

Judging fitness merely by the number of babies seems an uncertain way to argue or imply that 'evolution believers' are inferior to 'ID believers'.

William Catton makes the point pretty clearly in his book Overshoot (http://greatchange.org/footnotes-overshoot-graphs.html), as did the Club of Rome report Limits to Growth (http://www.clubofrome.org/?p=326).

Yeast:


Reindeer:


Humans (Irish potato famine):


Humans (possible future scenario):


You could argue that over-breeding is a sign of unfitness.

You could argue that, even so, if there are more ID believers due to out-breeding evolutionists, then after a crash there will be more ID believers then also, who will proceed to 'clean up', no doubting trumpeting that the meek (but not the humble!) have inherited the Earth.

Or you could argue that evolutionists will, as closer to social darwinist ideas, will out-compete those hamstrung with their religion's morality, or etc... with assertions all around. 'Assertion' is of course not 'philosophical argument'.

This type of thread could run forever, with us getting nowhere!

Tim

Hello Groktruth, you wrote:
And, since you brought up simple explanations, what is yours for the dramatic difference between the reproductive fitness value for ID believers and evolution believers? Between the Amish, say, and professional scientists?

Ever hear of the biblical command to be fruitful and multiply? Now it seems ridiculous to think that this command still applies. Having a lot of offspring usually has little to do with ability, just a case of choice.

You wrote:
Did you mean to give the impression that you estimate the truth value of your opinion above that from the practise of Hypothetico-deductive science?

I will value common sense anytime over any misapplication of a pseudo science.

Regards, John.

I began this thread to encourage those who have come philosophically to regard the following thoughts as highly plausible, very likely to be true.

1. Human nature is fraught with vulnerability to the following problems: Deception, self-deception, denial, delusion and self-delusion, arrogance and hubris. Being human, all persons, including we ourselves, are vulnerable.

2. Succumbing to these problems is shameful, weakening, and ultimately fatal. Especially if we attempt to correct others without getting ourselves clear.

3. Philosophers, especially epistemologists, and most especially scientists have addressed these problems for centuries, arriving at a scientific method which is demonstrably very good protection from falling into these traps.

4. The most highly recommended scientific method is called the hypothetico-deductive method, as normally interpreted by Bayes theorem applied to evidence that is predicted from scientific theories, and is new to science. The application of this method in a Lakatosian method seems to offer the best hope of getting it (most) right. (This means slowly improving the plausibility and model for a scientific theory, through a multi-step process involving many small and diverse predictions and tests.)

5. Applying this method, in it's most highly recommended format, Strong Inference, to the theory of evolution is therefore a good idea. This suggestion will of course, according to what we know about human nature, be opposed by deceivers, the self-deceived, the deluded, the self-deluded, those in denial, the arrogant, and the hubristic. This is what they do, and why they attempt to sidetrack discussions so that they "do not go anywhere." They do this in the hopes that such discussions will not disturb the sand in which they have hidden their heads. Sand known as "logical argument" or "rationalization."

6. We enjoy having such post here, because they keep the problem right in front of our eyes. When I worked in alcohol abuse rehab, I would parade drunks (who insisted that they had only had a drink or two) in front of those wanting the truth, so that all could see the danger they were in.

7. But I want to know that there is someone here who distrusts their "common sense," and their hubristic judgements of "pseudoscience," (My God, if John Platt knew that someone had called Strong Inference pseudoscience!). Anyone here want, in the fear of deceiving themselves, to think about what philosophers have decided was good science?

Anyone?

In order to test the validity of the hypothesis of evolution by natural selection, we need to make predictions from it, especially predictions that contrast with alternative hypotheses (see strong inference http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~markhill/scie ... erence.pdf).

Very true.

Now, the hypothesis of evolution is a hypothesis presented by a member of the species Homo sapiens, and applies to that species. Hence, if the hypothesis is true, it ought to have consequences on the behavior of the species commensurate with the "human nature" of the species.

No, not necessarily. That would be the naturalistic fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
Evolution explains our behavior and our human nature. It makes predictions about how humans might behave in certain situations. But it doesn't make predictions about how we ought to behave. We use condoms, that's evolutionarily suicide, but certainly that doesn't mean that condoms are bad.

We might assume that any idea that is closer to 'truth" would increase fitness, which is why we have evolved a brain that does this work. That is, we suppose that our brains have evolved to form and retain truer ideas about the way things really are, because having such ideas in the brain makes the body directed by such a brain do better, be more fit.

Wrong inference. It is certainly the case that in general, having true beliefs had adaptive value in the environment our ancestors evolved in. But this doesn't mean that all true beliefs increase fitness.

If that were the case, one could argue that the fact that education in third world countries decreases the birth rate would disprove evolution. That's obviously ridiculous.

So, anyone want to deduce a prediction about how "evolutionists" ought to live a more fit life, because they have a truer idea in their brain? In contrast to non-evolutionists, of course.

This is a bad idea for the reasons I mentioned above. The basic thing about predictions is important though, there have been dozens of stunningly successful predictions based on evolutionary thinking. Some examples include human chromosome 2 being a fusion of two ape chromosomes (researchers had noticed that other great apes have one more chromosome pair than humans, and they predicted that we should find molecular evidence indicating a fusion); retroviral remains being at the exact same locations in both humans and other primates; DNA and anatomical comparisons leading to nested hierarchies -- something you wouldn't get with ID; predictions regarding the social and reproductive behavior of animals, including humans, based on evolutionary reasoning; fossil records being "progressive": no rabbits in the Cambrian; specific geographical distribution patterns of closely related organisms, convergence; ring species; mistakes in design (such as the blind spot in the human eye, flat fishes with distorted skulls, the laryngeal nerve etc.), and so on.

Evolution has passed, all these predictions, and many more, came true.

Wowbagger wrote:

Groktruth wrote:
Now, the hypothesis of evolution is a hypothesis presented by a member of the species Homo sapiens, and applies to that species. Hence, if the hypothesis is true, it ought to have consequences on the behavior of the species commensurate with the "human nature" of the species.

No, not necessarily. That would be the naturalistic fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy
Evolution explains our behavior and our human nature. It makes predictions about how humans might behave in certain situations. But it doesn't make predictions about how we ought to behave. We use condoms, that's evolutionarily suicide, but certainly that doesn't mean that condoms are bad.

But, Wowbagger, a cultural choice such as condoms is a manifestation of human learning ability which is an evolutionary advance. Human cultures of belief and practise are determined by evolutionary forces which will eventually cause the demise of humankind if some other natural disaster does not preempt evolution. One does not have to agree that the naturalistic fallacy is a fallacy. The overall question is whether determinism or true randomness rules.rightly or wrongly I plump for determinism.

But, Wowbagger, a cultural choice such as condoms is a manifestation of human learning ability which is an evolutionary advance. Human cultures of belief and practise are determined by evolutionary forces which will eventually cause the demise of humankind if some other natural disaster does not preempt evolution.

I agree with all that (except that it might not necessarily lead to the demise of humankind, maybe we'll create an ethically superior human species by artificial selection -> genetic engineering).

One does not have to agree that the naturalistic fallacy is a fallacy. The overall question is whether determinism or true randomness rules.rightly or wrongly I plump for determinism.

I think I know what you mean. Evolution can certainly be seen as predicting human behavior, and in that sense, there's no fallacy involved. My point was about normative issues, can evolution tell us how we ought to behave? I think not, and that's what's meant with the fallacy. If I understood the OP correctly, he wanted to find evidence for people who accept evolution being more fit than people who don't accept evolution, because 1) evolution would be a true beliefs and 2) true beliefs have adaptive value. But clearly 2) isn't always the case, and just because someone learns about evolution doesn't mean they have to change their behavior in some way (though it's interesting that many people actually do just that...). (BTW, I'm a determinist as well.)

Wowbagger,

The most plausible ID theory claims that we have the origin of biological diversity by means of artificial selection and genetic engineering. The genetic engineering might include manipulation of genotypes through intentional restructuring of DNA by mental and verbal methods.

What about nested hierarchies is inconsistent with an intelligent bioengineer's work? Theologians note that the biblical God is a seed-planter, a Person who prefers building things through small developmental steps, as compared, say, to an artificial plant creator. Many argue that, to keep things interesting, He works combining random and unpredictable elements with His artificial selection and life shaping decisions. (Reflected in our delight in bonsai trees.)

We do have, incidently, the ID prediction that the process of creating diversity will include frequent episodes of what we call genocide, where a desirable trait is found and selected ("many are called, few are chosen"), and then the rejected are disposed of as quickly and efficiently as possible. As human cattle farmers will dispose of a whole herd of "mad cow" infected animals, so any other Intelligent Designer might get rid of, say, those with a mad human disease. Gently perhaps, say through the use of condoms, but certainly expeditiously. The goal in both cases is to increase the frequency in the population of those with positive genetic traits.

Such a prospect is, of course abhorrent to us, as the mass slaughter of a herd of cattle might be to the cows themselves. The cows, of course, are appalled because they do not know about the disease and the potential damage it might do to thier own future generations. So too, we, in our ignorance, find God's ways repellent. ID researchers are comforted in this by "the good news," that mad human disease can be cured by any willing to get the shot. Getting chosen or selected, as well as called, is ultimately each person's (they think only humans have free will, courts and responsibility and so on) decision. But even here, some selction goes on. Deciding to be chosen must be matched by a decision to be in the know.

There is a fake medical establishment out there, offering cut-rate "shots" that do not cure the disease. In the end, the decision to live must be matched by a fierce intellectual, critical thinking decision, before one is actually chosen, and excused from whatever process of elimination is going on.

Anyway, don't forget to fill me in on how nested hierarchies invalidate ID.

Being one who would love to find a higher intelligence out there, anywhere, I can not see all that much of HIGHER in Groktruths last post.
It shows a designer, who, on a regular basis goes "oops, that did not pan out the way I intended, back to the drawing board"

The overall picture forming in my mind is that of movies we often saw in the past, one that has a ship sinking, and when all that can be done, has been done, all gather together and pray. Of course the ship still sinks.
Having given up on the literality of the creation story on the grounds that it is indefensible, have gone to plan B and are now busy trying to fit any story to the existing facts, but this does not fit very well with how they have described that designer in the past.
All this says to me that a level of desperation has crept in, a realisation that they are fighting a losing battle.

Regards, John.

The most plausible ID theory claims that we have the origin of biological diversity by means of artificial selection and genetic engineering. The genetic engineering might include manipulation of genotypes through intentional restructuring of DNA by mental and verbal methods.

How can something mental or verbal restructure DNA? Are we proposing an alternate theory of physics here as well? You'd need evidence to support that too. Or I'm probably just misunderstanding what is meant here.

What about nested hierarchies is inconsistent with an intelligent bioengineer's work? Theologians note that the biblical God is a seed-planter, a Person who prefers building things through small developmental steps, as compared, say, to an artificial plant creator. Many argue that, to keep things interesting, He works combining random and unpredictable elements with His artificial selection and life shaping decisions. (Reflected in our delight in bonsai trees.)

Is that what one would get by thinking about what ID would predict? I don't think so, this seems to be heavily influenced by the actual findings, and this weakens the way in which the evidence fits the data. One could reasonably expect the designing process like human cars are being designed. In fact, creationists often use this as an example, which is ironic because cars don't fall into nested hierarchies at all, even though you can observe "trends" and "progress". Additionally, the way you describe it, the nested hierarchies would end at some level, i.e. only for biological families, or orders. This would be like the claim that there's only microevolution -- producing some nested hierarchies -- but not macroevolution (because if you allow for that, there's nothing left to do for the designer).With ID, there's no reason for the hierarchy to go all the way up to phyla and further, but that's actually what we observe. That's why nested hierarchies are some of the strongest lines of evidence for evolution.

We do have, incidently, the ID prediction that the process of creating diversity will include frequent episodes of what we call genocide, where a desirable trait is found and selected ("many are called, few are chosen"), and then the rejected are disposed of as quickly and efficiently as possible. As human cattle farmers will dispose of a whole herd of "mad cow" infected animals, so any other Intelligent Designer might get rid of, say, those with a mad human disease. Gently perhaps, say through the use of condoms, but certainly expeditiously. The goal in both cases is to increase the frequency in the population of those with positive genetic traits.

That's just what evolution predicts too, so Ockham's razzor favors evolution here. The intervention thing would be totally unnecessary anyway because undesirable traits are often by definition reducing genetic fitness. They will go extinct anyway, this is logical, proven by mathematical models, and well documented.

Such a prospect is, of course abhorrent to us, as the mass slaughter of a herd of cattle might be to the cows themselves. The cows, of course, are appalled because they do not know about the disease and the potential damage it might do to thier own future generations. So too, we, in our ignorance, find God's ways repellent.

I thought ID people weren't allowed to use the word "god"? Haha.
And these "ways" really ARE repellent. The suffering in nature is terrible beyond imagination. If you're doing the "comparing hypotheses over the alternatives", the "evil designer hypothesis" has way more probability than the "good designer hypothesis". So it was all the devil's work!

Wowbagger,

If I had thought of it, I would have used cars for nested hierarchies in creation, Fords, Chevies, etc, subdivided into different models, and so on.

You ought to check out the studies at this site: http://www.scientificexploration.org/

Remember, ecience is a human activity, rift with dishonesty according to diligence in following strictly scientific methodology. Go with the crowd, and not the rules, and you are sure to be misled.

My point so far is that there are some oddities related to the theory of evolution, that are clearly predicted by ID, but can only be explained away by evolution. All that evoution can predict, Id predicts as well, but evolution struggles with some of the things ID predicts handily. Of course, with an intelligent agent on hand, if ID is true, then ID believers will be more fit, as observed. And, they will be better able to use the adaptive history of both theories to make better choices about vitamin C. They will take the idea of the "devil" (Hawking's invading aliens?) messing with the world, which is at least moderately plausible, seriously, and can test it. While evolutionists abandon science in such discussions and become dismissive. SETI is serious science, but UFO's are a crank topic? Really? Where is that irrationality coming from? ID predicts it, though! Ignore evil intelligences and they will make a fool of you, as certainly as the creative intelligence made you potentially wise!

In good science, it is not Occham's razor that prevails, but the power of a theory to predict oddities.

How does ID explain the raw reality of survival of the fittest? The strongest and smartest survive, they then pass there knowledge and strengths (traits) onto the next generation. If the environment changes perhaps the information and strengths the newer generations have acquired will inevitably be the cause of there own demise.

If ID were true and correct why is it that many species are now extinct and the very fact that those species became extinct gave rise to the majority of the species that are alive today? Or does ID not take into account changes in the environment? Perhaps ID is unable to make such predictions? If that were the case what differentiates ID to NS?

Groktruth wrote:
Of course, with an intelligent agent on hand, if ID is true, then ID believers will be more fit, as observed. And, they will be better able to use the adaptive history of both theories to make better choices about vitamin C.

Are you saying ID believers are more fit because they have more offspring?
So it is just a coincidence that they also do not believe in birth-control?
I know that some still exist who believe that we still have to obey the command to be fruitful and multiply, without having developed the brainpower to realize that it has already been grossly overdone.
If this is supposed to speak well of ID, it is now on life support.
And those who think that they have honestly used a scientific method, then I was a scientist when fixing someones car.

Regards, John.

If I had thought of it, I would have used cars for nested hierarchies in creation, Fords, Chevies, etc, subdivided into different models, and so on.

See, that's exactly the problem. If you think cars fall into nested hierarchies, then you don't get it. Not even all Fords make up a nested hierarchy! And pray tell, what would the common ancestor of of Fords and Ferraris look like? Or Ferraris and Hummers? Human designers can go back to the drawing board, start fresh with new ideas. Evolution always works by adjusting preexisting structures. There's no reason whatsoever why ID would predict exapted features or nested hierarchies. ID fails right here.

Remember, ecience is a human activity, rift with dishonesty according to diligence in following strictly scientific methodology. Go with the crowd, and not the rules, and you are sure to be misled.

Riight. And you think it's better to start with a dogmatic agenda and then try desperately to make the facts fit? ID people are doing just that.

My point so far is that there are some oddities related to the theory of evolution, that are clearly predicted by ID, but can only be explained away by evolution. All that evoution can predict, Id predicts as well, but evolution struggles with some of the things ID predicts handily.

It predicts the same things? Now why's that? Because ID proponents first look at the facts and then make up some set of ad hoc reasons why they think a designer would want to do it like that. It's not science. And I have yet to hear an even remotely convincing ad hoc reason for nested hierarchies. Evolution struggles with what?

Of course, with an intelligent agent on hand, if ID is true, then ID believers will be more fit, as observed. And, they will be better able to use the adaptive history of both theories to make better choices about vitamin C.

This is nonsense, I explained in my first post here why this has nothing to do with anything. But by all means, if they ever come up with serious testable predictions, let me know. So far ID hasn't even achieved that. BTW, do the folks there still champion "irreducible complexity", or have they given up on that front?

You know just enough about science to think you understand it, and just little enough to not realize that you don't. This is dangerous; when you know about lots of fancy fallacies and problems, but fail to apply them to your own thinking, then all that results is ideologically clouded beliefs without truth value.