Re: Your Communication Problems

in article 1123587134.765564.69270@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Zachriel at
angelmail@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 8/9/05 7:32 AM:

> Raymond Griffith wrote:
>> in article icWdnaLzyPmIhmXfRVn-qA@xxxxxxxxxxxx, Zachriel at
>> "http://www.zachriel.com/mutagenation/contact.asp"@giganews.com wrote on
>> 8/8/05 10:51 PM:
>>
>>>
>>> "Stephen Montgomery-Smith" <stephen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:1123514357.951269.110350@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> I am now going to admit that I honestly don't know if you ToE guys are
>>>> right or not, and I will go back and look at the evidence (which may
>>>> well take me a lot of time.)
>>>>
>>>> In the meantime, permit me to make a few observations as to why you
>>>> guys are doing quite so badly in the public eye. You really want to
>>>> listen to this - not get defensive - but use me as resource. I do have
>>>> a reasonably keen sense of science, but I also have a good feeling for
>>>> the fundamentalist mindset. I really think that I can help you. So
>>>> instead of your usual snotty remarks that some of you make, why don't
>>>> you ask me honest probing questions?
>>>>
>>>> Let me start with a story that I think will illustrate my point.
>>>>
>>>> About a year ago there appeared in my local paper "The Columbia
>>>> Tribune" an article written by university professors called
>>>> "Intelligent Design is Not Science." (Looking back I can now see that
>>>> the article failed to make a clear distinction between the I.D.
>>>> paradigm, which might or might not have merit, and the I.D. movement,
>>>> which I can agree with you that at least some of its members are
>>>> charletons.)
>>>>
>>>> Now this article had a web site where I could find a list of profs who
>>>> had signed on to this article. One of these was a good friend of mine,
>>>> so I went to visit him and asked if he could explain the evidence of
>>>> evolution. He told me that actually he didn't really know too much
>>>> about the subject, and that he had signed it because he saw the article
>>>> as being essentially anti-Bush. This was definitely a dissapointing
>>>> experience for me.
>>>
>>>
>>> One person's experience is not the basis for determining the validity of a
>>> scientific theory. Once you have satisfied yourself of the evidence, then
>>> these other issues will no longer be of any importance. Darwin wrote
>>> hundreds of pages on his observations of barnacles. Why did he spend so much
>>> time on such minutae? It certainly wasn't for the entertainment of the
>>> masses.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You guys are really having problems, because a lot of scientifically
>>>> trained professionals are buying into this I.D. paradigm.
>>>
>>>
>>> Very few in the relevant fields of study.
>>> http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=18
>>>
>>>
>>>> For example,
>>>> I notice that many graduate math students are christians like I am (I
>>>> would be happy to use the label "fundamentalist" but I don't think that
>>>> they would be - so please regard "fundamentalist" as a label, not as
>>>> necessarily descriptive). Another example - I get the sense that a
>>>> large proportion of the engineering faculty and grad students are
>>>> pro-Bush, and surely in many ways he is your worst enemy.
>>>
>>>
>>> Mathematics is not empirical science. Nor is engineering. Neither use the
>>> scientific method, which is essentially inductive and iterative.
>>>
>>
>> I would disagree with you on this point. Good mathematics uses the
>> scientific method. There are vast areas of unknowns where hypothesis,
>> prediction, testing, observation, validation, and repetition are used to
>> good effect in mathematics.
>>
>> Of course, once something is established, people can go back to mathematics
>> as nothing more than a revealed rulebook. But the best mathematicians do not
>> think that way. Particularly not those who make the advances in theory.
>
>
> I try not to make a habit of disagreeing with those who may have a
> valid point. ;-)
>
> One could say that engineers, mathematicians, doctors and plumbers use
> some method of empirical induction every day in their fields of study.
> However, we don't usually consider engineers, doctors or plumbers to be
> scientists.

True. Let us say that science has provided them with the means to do their
jobs more effectively, shall we?

But we should also make an exception in certain areas. There are those who
are involved in research who extend the knowledge available within the
discipline. This is often done with deliberate, scientific methodologies.
For example, engineers who are studying new structural materials could be
called "scientists". Engineers who develop designs and materials to help
buildings withstand hurricanes or earthquakes could easily be called
"scientists".

I suppose that you might find some (extremely few) plumbers who are
"scientists" as well.

>
> Mathematical "exploration" has become increasingly important. But let's
> consider a simpler case; the number of primes. Certainly exploration
> and extrapolation were an important component of the study of numbers.
> It certainly seemed to the Ancients that there were an unlimited number
> of primes. Eventually, they devised a *proof* of this, but what
> occurred before that, the exploratory phase, was at the very least
> arithmetic. With fractals, mathematicians are definitely working
> through a process of exploration. But rarely do they consider this
> sufficient. Mathematicians nearly always attempt to *prove* a grand
> generalization. But maybe that's just old-fashioned. Still, no one
> considered the four-color map problem solved until it was *proved*.
> Close enough was just not good enough. But perhaps that's just old hat.

There are some problems which do not have an exact, closed-form answer. In
those cases, we have no choice but to devise a point where "close enough is
good enough". It is one of the major reasons graphing calculators are so
popular in the schools. Suddenly the student has a whole new class of
problems available to him or her that they can solve to a reasonable degree
of accuracy *and* use the results.

In mathematics, "proof" is still important. It is an "exact science", where
sciences like biology are "inexact" sciences. But mathematics is the
backbone of all sciences, since it is the language used to model the
physical behavior.

Another interesting arena of mathematics is statistics, where it is
understood that we cannot reasonably arrive at an exact solution, or even
"prove" that a particular answer to a problem is the "right" one. What we
can look at are the characteristics of a set of data and try to analyze
those characteristics for meaning. We talk about "best fit", and
"regression" and "error bars", etc. because an exact fit turns out to be
practically worthless in terms of usefulness.

Imagine a set of 50 students who take a test. One of the questions (which
they are assumed to answer honestly) is how long they studied for the test.
The ordered pairs (study time,test score) will usually form a more-or-less
linear path, but a rather fuzzy one. There are a lot of things which
influence test scores, and we are only measuring one of them.

It is true that one can perform a regression analysis without doing science.
But students who learn what the method is and what it does are indeed
learning a vital scientific tool.

>
> What about plumbers? Don't they also figure out problems, make
> generalizations, develop workable hypotheses? Sometimes even formally?
> And the same of engineers?

Sure. Simple "problem-solving" today does not make one a scientist --
although it might have centuries ago.

But we should not deny that these people are using tools given to them by
science. So a doctor might not be a scientist in that he is investigating a
genetic defect and looking for new ways to cure it. But he has to use many
of the tools of science to adequately do his job.

And perhaps this is where we fall short in our explanation. We look at
doctors and engineers and we ridicule them as not being "real scientists".
Well, maybe they are not extending the field of knowledge, but they are
still using the tools science has given them. And perhaps we are not being
clear enough to help people who use these tools correctly every day to see
how they can use the same tools of inquiry to understand evolution.
>
> So when does induction become science? In fact, most scientists do not
> work with a formalized scientific method. For most, it is just plain
> old puzzle-solving, or grunt work in the lab scribbling notes.

Sure. In another post I referred to the fact that there are several
different philosophies of science.

Induction may not be science itself, but it is the basis for it. We have to
assume that patterns we see on a regular basis have some reason for being
regular.

But let's explore this idea a bit. Consider two scenarios. One is a
scientist peering through a microscope at a bacterium. He performs certain
tests, takes genetic samples of the cell wall. He wants to know why this
particular beasty is able to thrive in the human system and cause death. He
uses the technologies at hand, performs the experiments he knows to do,
looks at the readouts and either finds what he is after, or not.

The other is a car mechanic. Your car won't go, and why is a puzzle. The
mechanic has the hood up. He checks the oil, the transmission fluid,
examines the seals, does an electrical test. He wants to know why your car
won't go. He uses the technologies at hand, performs the experiments he
knows to do, looks at the readouts and either finds what he is after, or
not.

Is there a practical difference? Perhaps not.

You see, the ideas of science have pervaded our culture down to the
mechanics and the plumbers. They use the methodologies. They may not get to
play with the high-tech equipment, but so what? They are doing science at
their level.

Perhaps it is the spirit of inquiry that makes the difference. There are
good mechanics and bad ones. There are good scientists and bad ones. The bad
mechanics tend to give up and say, you need a new car (and by the way, I
have one here to sell to you). The good mechanics look to fix the problem
and understand it. Maybe you do need a new car. But at least the problem is
understandable.

Creationists and IDers are, in my opinion, much like the "bad mechanics"
who, not being able to resolve a problem, decide that the mess they are
unable to resolve must be "intelligently designed". A miracle has occurred
here! Big whoop.

But in any field, you have to know the basics to be able to do any advanced
work. A competent engineer who uses science in figuring out his problems
doesn't necessarily have the basic knowledge in biology to be able solve
problems there.

This is where the human problem of intellectual dishonesty comes in. We are
good in one area. We assume we should be good in another. Our opinions in
anything should be respected.

But you wouldn't respect my opinion one whit if you were a car mechanic. Nor
should you. I don't know much about that at all. For me to presume to tell
the mechanic exactly what is wrong with my car would be a *big* presumption.
For me to tell him how to fix it would be even worse.

>
> In fact, most universities distinguish between science and mathematics
> because of their widely differing methods. Hence, "Science and
> Mathematics", "College of Science and Mathematics", are very common
> phrases, seemingly linked, but apparently not redundant.
>
> Is this just a semantic difference, or substantive?

It is not simply semantics. But while mathematicians do not use the
microscope, the differences in methodologies may simply be due to the fact
that the "sciences" are dealing with the physical world, while
mathematicians are dealing with idealized data.

Still, there is a close connection between the two. And perhaps we would be
better off recognizing it.

Lots of people *do* science who are not recognized as "scientists".

We live in a diverse world. Perhaps if scientists were willing to give up
some of the "prestige" they tend to carefully hold on to, then the ideas of
science wouldn't be so abhorrent to others.

This is not to excuse those who are deliberately ignorant. But if we
contribute to that ignorance by taking an exclusivist attitude, then we push
people away emotionally.

Thanks for the questions.

Regards,

Raymond E. Griffith

>
>
>>
>> Just a note.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Raymond E. Griffith
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Indeed many years ago, I looked at a book called something like "After
>>>> the Flood" written by out and out creationist scientists (young earth,
>>>> etc). Even though I have taken many science classes in school, it
>>>> became obvious to me that I simply didn't have the scientific
>>>> background to be able to make a genuine assessment.
>>>
>>>
>>> First, you need to understand the scientific method. It is how we match
>>> theory and observation: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation,
>>> repeat.
>>>
>>> You can verify many aspects of science by making the same fundamental
>>> observations others have made. You can build a telescope and watch moons
>>> orbit Jupiter. You can peer into a microscope and see animicules swimming in
>>> lake water. You can take a walk and examine your own local strata and
>>> possibly even find common fossils. What do you think the chances are that
>>> your observations will match that of geologists and paleontologists who have
>>> already examined those strata?
>>>
>>> Then scientists use these observations to make predictions. Johanson knew
>>> about the discoveries of homo habilis and homo erectus. He understood that
>>> the Theory of Evolution requires that all organisms share a common ancestor,
>>> and in particular, that humans and apes shared a (most recent) common
>>> ancestor. So he decided to go to Africa and look at 3.5 million year old
>>> strata and found Lucy.
>>> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/lucy.html
>>>
>>> These sorts of predictions are not accidents. homo didn't find
>>> Australopithecus afarensis in his backyard, but spent years working up to
>>> such an expedition. Lucy is certainly not a modern human. Lucy is certainly
>>> nothing like any modern ape. She is something else. And the existence of
>>> creatures with intermediate characteristics between humans and apes was
>>> predicted before she was ever found. That's science.
>>>
>>> And this process of making predictions and finding evidence has been going
>>> on in paleontology for quite some time. In fact, there was some reasonable
>>> dispute about the origins of whales. The genetic evidence pointed to an
>>> ancestor in among artiodactyls. Using this genetic evidence, fossils were
>>> found in the appropriate geological strata (age).
>>> http://www.sciencenewsdaily.org/story-2806.html
>>>
>>>
>>>> And if I didn't
>>>> have this background, you can be sure that a large number of other
>>>> scientific professionals (doctors, economists, agriculturalists,
>>>> mathematicians, physicists) also don't have this background. I mean, I
>>>> did get this sense that the photos of men's footprints next to dinasour
>>>> footprints was fishy, but this was simply based upon a "smell" sense,
>>>> and nothing more.
>>>
>>>
>>> Well, if it contradicts what the vast majority of experts in the field are
>>> saying, you should be somewhat skeptical, at least until you understand the
>>> evidence.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Now you guys do have this faq which tries to explain the ideas. But
>>>> (1) it is written either over-simplistically or over-technically, and
>>>> (2) large parts of it are very vitreolic. If I come in as someone with
>>>> an open mind who really just wants to know, it is hard for me to
>>>> seperate out the science. I also get the sense that someone is trying
>>>> to put something over me.
>>>
>>>
>>> Scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation, repeat.
>>> If you want to call an assertion science, it must be put to the test of the
>>> scientific method. There are lots of assertions that are not scientific.
>>> Here are a few:
>>>
>>> Beauty exists.
>>> Murder is wrong.
>>> There is no (perfect) justice.
>>> Elwood P. Dowd has a friend named Harvey.
>>> Living in freedom is better than living in chains.
>>> A Streetcar Named Desire is tragic.
>>> We hold these truths to be self-evident.
>>> My soul is purg'd from grudging hate.
>>> A kiss is just a kiss.
>>>
>>> However, Intelligent Design claims to have a scientific basis. It does not,
>>> so Intelligent Design is a false assertion.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> This communication method shows in your newsgroup. So, in sci.math, we
>>>> get a lot of posts about how 1 is not 0.999..., or about their latest
>>>> short proof of Fermat's last theorem. Now sure, these guys do get a
>>>> lot of snotty remarks. But they also get a very large number of
>>>> posters who very patiently try to explain to them why their argument is
>>>> wrong. Most times this patience is wasted, but once in a while it
>>>> really pays off. And despite the overwhelming bad experiences, these
>>>> teachers simply never seem to give up in their attempts to help these
>>>> people.
>>>>
>>>> On the contrary, when I ask for the evidence on your group, I mostly
>>>> got snotty remarks, or huge web sites - just the occassional person
>>>> really tries to help. It might be that the evidence is just too
>>>> technical and hard to explain in short emails, I don't know. But this
>>>> lack of ability to explain your position "standing on one foot" is a
>>>> big negative.
>>>
>>>
>>> I posted it in the previous thread, but there is a wide variety of evidence
>>> in support of the theory of evolution. First and foremost is the *nested
>>> hierarchy* seen in extant life, extinct life, biochemistry, biogeography,
>>> embryonics and now genetics.
>>>
>>> There is a very good reason why having mammaries means having three ear
>>> bones. And why bats have skin for wings instead of feathers. And why you
>>> will never find a centaur or a griffin.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Indeed, it was most disheartening to see the argument between Ken Shaw
>>>> and Rich Townsend on the other thread which I started. For starters it
>>>> was just very difficult for me to see precisely where they disagreed -
>>>> it was almost as if they carefully studied each other's posts looking
>>>> hard for reasons to be offended.
>>>
>>>
>>> It was a sub-thread about a philosophical point, which you could have simply
>>> ignored. It got rather heated for no apparent reason. But then again, the
>>> validity of a scientific theory doesn't depend on the understanding or
>>> misunderstanding or courtesy of any one person. Neither the Theory of
>>> Evolution nor Atomic Theory depends on the understanding of the two
>>> disputants, or the resolution of which theory has the "best" evidence. Atoms
>>> and evolution are both considered scientific facts to any reasonable degree
>>> of certainty.
>>>
>>> Examine the evidence.
>>>
>>>
>>>> In one place, I got this sense where
>>>> Rich was begging Ken (and here I openly admit I am putting words into
>>>> his mouth, but) "I love ToE and I'm sure that it is a great theory, but
>>>> please, can you give me some examples where ToE's ability to predict is
>>>> as amazing as is the theory of atoms." Yes, I thought, I cannot wait
>>>> for Ken's answer - this will really help me. But it didn't help one
>>>> bit. I do understand that it is "apples and oranges" but there wasn't
>>>> even an attempt.
>>>>
>>>> Stephen
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When Galileo insisted the Earth moved, he didn't expect anyone to just take
>>> his word for it. He wanted them to look and see for themselves. Eppur si
>>> muove!
>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: the truth
    ... "Western" science ... the foundation for modern mathematics. ... It then goes on to detail his contributions as the father of algebra, ... scientists as well as to conduct research into various realms of science. ...
    (rec.audio.pro)
  • Re: Your Communication Problems
    ... and I will go back and look at the evidence (which may ... >> Mathematics is not empirical science. ... In fact, most scientists do not ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Mechanical Light
    ... Please open your eyes and have a good look at the science of all other ... Neutrinos are objects having masses and relative motions. ... Why scientists found "high energy neutrinos" ... And if you knew enough mathematics to take a ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Why did Richard P. Feynman say, "I love only nature, and I hate mathematicians"?
    ... Half of the scientific method is not the scientific method. ... airy theorising is complete science. ... (although a large part of it is what scientists have done). ... It would certainly rule out almost all mathematics. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: The clock malfunctioned.
    ... What do you think time dilation *means*, ... Then you and I disagree on what science is. ... well with the majority of scientists and philosophers about what ... you don't agree with the scientific method, ...
    (sci.physics)