Re: Clergy Letter Project exceeds 11,000 signatures

On Sep 28, 1:58 pm, James Goetz <james.go...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 28, 2:25 pm, James Goetz <james.go...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:



On Sep 27, 1:48 am, j.wilki...@xxxxxxxxx (John Wilkins) wrote:

James Goetz <james.go...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 26, 9:13 am, j.wilki...@xxxxxxxxx (John Wilkins) wrote:
James Goetz <james.go...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 26, 2:00 am, j.wilki...@xxxxxxxxx (John Wilkins) wrote:
James Goetz <james.go...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 25, 8:36 am, j.wilki...@xxxxxxxxx (John Wilkins) wrote:
...
By the way, John, have you studied evolution in technical detail?
For example, can you defend the common ancestry of all primates?
Can you do it without assuming the legitimacy of random
distributions?

I was defending you guys, not attacking, Jim. But what do you mean
"the legitimacy of random distributions"? Do I need to defend
statistics before I can defend anything else? I don't get your
point.

I have studied some evolution in technical detail, but only as much as I
need to do philosophy. But I did read a fair bit on the phylogeny of
pinnipeds to ensure that I had a handle on some issues (and they are
monophyletic, so there). So I can give a reasonable account of the
phylogeny of primates in terms of their synapomorphies.

I know that you were defending, thank you. And I recall you writing a
mean post describing various scenarios of speciation. And I like your
FAQ on macroevolution.

I was implying that we need to use statistics to defend evolution. But
that is a bit harsh because I do not recall Darwin using statistics in
his defense of evolution.

Well as statistics was developed in part to deal with evolution, it
seems a little circular. But Darwin *did* understand about variaiton in
populations, as this was a hot topic amongst systematists in the period,
and Quetelet had developed his "statics" well before the publication of
the Origin.

However, the development of the synthetic theory depended upon
statistics. And I could not resist bringing up an earlier unfinished
debate.

I'm afraid my episodic memory is shot. I forget that debate.

I might be melding debates because I discussed determinism with more
than you in TO. But I once mentioned that strict determinism such as
compatibilism nullifies most statistical studies such as the synthetic
theory. And if that were the case, then I might not be convinced of
universal common descent.

I think you are confusing the notions of "knowing" that evolution occurs
(through variation) through the use of statistical thinking versus the
physical causes underlying it. Suppose (pace QM) that every process
underlying evolution is causally determinate, and that the result is a
normal distribution in a population, or selection towards one. How do we
deal with normal distribtuions? By statistics, but only (in this case)
because the data are intractable in an individual deterministic model.
The *fact* of evolution in no way relies upon indeterminacy in this
case, even if our knowledge of it does.

I am aware of this. I never implied that the *fact* of evolution
relies on our ability to study it using statistics. I merely implied
that if our universe is run by causal determinism, then all of the
statistical studies in the synthetic theory would be an irrelevant
coincidence. And the same would apply to all scientific studies that
use statisitics. And this implication does not neccesitate that causal
determinism has to be wrong. I see two possibilities: 1) causal
derteminism is wrong and probabilistic determinism is right; 2) causal
derteminism is right and all statistical studies in science are
irrelevant. Do you agree or see some other choices?

I see two other possibilities: 1) causal determinism is wrong and
probabilistic determinism is wrong and 2) (what most scientists have
to assume) causal determinism is right and probabilistic determinism
is right. It is the nature of science that ones employs
methodological strategies (determinative or probabilistic statistics
that allow one to proceed in investigating natural phenomena.)
Certain correlational statistical techniques allow one to potentially
have perfect prediction. Thus if there is a time order between
variates and predictors on can absolutely (here meaning without error)
and (only in theory) predict an invariate outcome. Special conditions
such as an adequate level of measurement, no missing data, and
appropriate causal assumptions being met could lead to a casual
relationship measurement of unity. (In reality these conditions are
never met in science and indeed the closer a prediction reaches unity
the greater the concern with violations of model assumptions such as
autocorrelation.) Nevertheless scientists know they are violating
various causal assumptions. What must be understood is that they
attempt to assess all violations of assumptions in a statistical model
and whether or not and how much it is relevant to causal or
probabilistic explanation. It is from these numerous methodological
practices and the successful testing of theoretical assumptions,
hypotheses and predictions from theories that they assess how and why
a determinative or a probabilistic model is the best explanation for
the theory. Scientist that I talk to know that the nature of the data
being studied, measurement strategies and additional methodological
issues constrain all scientific research, theories and interpretations
of results such that a coherent much less consistent philosophical
interpretation of science is highly improbable if not altogether
impossible.

It is very easy to reject evolution if you want perfect predictions.
if you want some limited but precise predictions then evolution is
easily accepted. If you want that plus tons of research studies that
support the general neoDarwinian model of evolution then evolution is
even more easily accepted. Only for anal retentive perfectionists and
religious fanatics which one can find in any science (and more
outside) then fault finding is very easy. All research studies have
inherent limitations regardless of the discipline, thus for fanatics
and perfectionists scientific theories are always suspect. And as a
scientist I am highly suspicious of those who claim dominant (i.e.
normatively accepted within a scientific discipline) theories to be
unacceptable and/or foundationally flawed and they are looking at the
same data, research strategies, and interpretations the other
disciplinary scientists are looking at.

RAM

And I stated that if causal determinism were true, then I might not
*know* if evolution were true.


.

Loading