4 ms·

"There's a reason why science as a philosophy places so much value on experimentation that makes predictions and tests them." Exactly. There's something that'

"There's a reason why science as a philosophy places so much value on experimentation that makes predictions and tests them." Exactly. There's something that's always bothered me about the "evolution by natural selection is science and everyone who doesn't immediately buy into every aspect of it is an idiot". I personally believe in evolution. It probably makes quite a few good predictions. And I'm sure some experiments have rigor. But a lot of it seems pretty untestable. Add a stress to a population, and it will either die off or evolve to improve fitness. If it dies off, does that contradict the theory because no evolution happened? If it evolves, how much will it evolve? Will the population reach a smaller equilibrium, larger, or the same? Does any change count as "evolution" or is someone quantifying which ones actually improve fitness? What about changes that don't seem obviously connected to fitness, like ridiculous peacock feathers, would those be predicted? Are we coming up with falsifiable predictions before the tests, or just explanations afterward? I'm sure someone with more knowledge of the field has answers to all of these questions. But my guess is that they are more nuanced than the "evolution is science and if you question any aspect you are an idiot".

catalogia 7y ago
> If it dies off, does that contradict the theory because no evolution happened? Isn't some species dying off a pretty major component of what evolution is?
- jeffdavis 7y ago
  So if the species is wiped out, it's evolution; and if it's not wiped out, it's evolution? Doesn't sound like science to me.
  - catalogia 7y ago
    I'm no biologist, if you want high quality answers you'll have to go find one to ask. But I'm pretty sure you have some wrong ideas about how evolutionary biology works as a field. They observe reality and form theories that fit what they've perceived thusfar. They make predictions based on those theories. Subsequent discoveries can confirm their predictions, or confirmation may remain elusive. It works basically the same way as astrophysics. Biology is traditionally considered a "hard science" by people who subscribe to a 'hard/soft science' worldview.
    - jshevek 7y ago
      I've learned through personal experience that it's not sufficient to discuss this with a professional biologist. I've found several biology PhDs ill prepared for this topic. I discovered that even at the PhD level some biologists take evolution on faith without having a decent understanding. I think it's much better to read books or view lectures created by specialists in the field specifically for the purpose of confronting evolution skepticism.
  - jshevek 7y ago
    I respect your skepticism, but I agree with catalogia in that I get the impression that you "have some wrong ideas about how evolutionary biology works" Evolution is a fact, but many people's individual mental models of evolution are flawed. It's easy to remain unconvinced if you have a series of conversations with such people and successfully ferret out those flaws. If you have the time for it, maybe now (covid stay at home) would be a good time to get on Amazon and take a deep dive into evolution and evolution denial?
jshevek 7y ago
I agree. I comfortably assert that evolution is fact, and evolution is science. This is independent of various social / cultural phenomena surrounding the discussion. As a skeptic and contrarian I've encountered the "evolution is science and if you question any aspect you are an idiot" people, and worse. Many ignorant people believe in evolution without understanding it, without understanding the evidentiary basis for it. They have chosen the correct cultural 'team' to side with, but usually for the wrong reasons.
- netcan 7y ago
  Just because people believe in a scientific theory doesn't mean they don't believe in science. They don't technically even have to know about science. In practice though, most evolution skeptics don't believe in science.
jshevek 7y ago
>Does any change count as "evolution" or is someone quantifying which ones actually improve fitness? I think it's helpful to get distance from the idea of "fitness" in discussion with laypeople, as it is often loaded with presumptions. Evolution selects for what it selects for. It's true that surviving to maturity and producing offspring is vital for evolution (for the forms of life that work this way), but that's far from the whole story and our intuition about 'fitness' is often wrong.
netcan 7y ago
This is the opposite of what I meant. Darwinism is is a scientific theory par excellence. A lot of that "testable predictions" philosophy of science was inspired by darwinism. First, a scientific theory doesn't need to make only testable predictions. It just needs to make a testable prediction. Testing it doesn't "prove" the theory, it just subjects the theory to falsification. Second, "testable/falsifiable" doesn't strictly mean "testable in practice." Even if it's not practical to test a prediction. EG, new species of bat will emerge in the future. We don't live long enough to test this in practice, but theoretically, it is a testable prediction. That doesn't make it unfalsifiable. "Origin of Species" itself is full of predictions, some tested by Darwin himself and after is death. At this point, evolution has made so many predictions, that it is very very unlikely to be true. Unlikely, but nothing in science is proven beyond doubt ever. Newtonian physics was "disproven" by Einstein. To do that though, Einsten's theory had to predict Netwonian physics.

catalogia 7y ago

> If it dies off, does that contradict the theory because no evolution happened? Isn't some species dying off a pretty major component of what evolution is?

jeffdavis 7y ago
So if the species is wiped out, it's evolution; and if it's not wiped out, it's evolution? Doesn't sound like science to me.
- catalogia 7y ago
  I'm no biologist, if you want high quality answers you'll have to go find one to ask. But I'm pretty sure you have some wrong ideas about how evolutionary biology works as a field. They observe reality and form theories that fit what they've perceived thusfar. They make predictions based on those theories. Subsequent discoveries can confirm their predictions, or confirmation may remain elusive. It works basically the same way as astrophysics. Biology is traditionally considered a "hard science" by people who subscribe to a 'hard/soft science' worldview.
  - jshevek 7y ago
    I've learned through personal experience that it's not sufficient to discuss this with a professional biologist. I've found several biology PhDs ill prepared for this topic. I discovered that even at the PhD level some biologists take evolution on faith without having a decent understanding. I think it's much better to read books or view lectures created by specialists in the field specifically for the purpose of confronting evolution skepticism.
- jshevek 7y ago
  I respect your skepticism, but I agree with catalogia in that I get the impression that you "have some wrong ideas about how evolutionary biology works" Evolution is a fact, but many people's individual mental models of evolution are flawed. It's easy to remain unconvinced if you have a series of conversations with such people and successfully ferret out those flaws. If you have the time for it, maybe now (covid stay at home) would be a good time to get on Amazon and take a deep dive into evolution and evolution denial?

jshevek 7y ago

I agree. I comfortably assert that evolution is fact, and evolution is science. This is independent of various social / cultural phenomena surrounding the discussion. As a skeptic and contrarian I've encountered the "evolution is science and if you question any aspect you are an idiot" people, and worse. Many ignorant people believe in evolution without understanding it, without understanding the evidentiary basis for it. They have chosen the correct cultural 'team' to side with, but usually for the wrong reasons.

netcan 7y ago
Just because people believe in a scientific theory doesn't mean they don't believe in science. They don't technically even have to know about science. In practice though, most evolution skeptics don't believe in science.

jshevek 7y ago

>Does any change count as "evolution" or is someone quantifying which ones actually improve fitness? I think it's helpful to get distance from the idea of "fitness" in discussion with laypeople, as it is often loaded with presumptions. Evolution selects for what it selects for. It's true that surviving to maturity and producing offspring is vital for evolution (for the forms of life that work this way), but that's far from the whole story and our intuition about 'fitness' is often wrong.

netcan 7y ago

This is the opposite of what I meant. Darwinism is is a scientific theory par excellence. A lot of that "testable predictions" philosophy of science was inspired by darwinism. First, a scientific theory doesn't need to make only testable predictions. It just needs to make a testable prediction. Testing it doesn't "prove" the theory, it just subjects the theory to falsification. Second, "testable/falsifiable" doesn't strictly mean "testable in practice." Even if it's not practical to test a prediction. EG, new species of bat will emerge in the future. We don't live long enough to test this in practice, but theoretically, it is a testable prediction. That doesn't make it unfalsifiable. "Origin of Species" itself is full of predictions, some tested by Darwin himself and after is death. At this point, evolution has made so many predictions, that it is very very unlikely to be true. Unlikely, but nothing in science is proven beyond doubt ever. Newtonian physics was "disproven" by Einstein. To do that though, Einsten's theory had to predict Netwonian physics.