Re: Clergy Letter Project exceeds 11,000 signatures

James Goetz <james.goetz@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?

Interesting question. The contrarian in me wants to find a third way -
suppose causal determinism is right, but everything turns out to have
statistical ensembles (ie., tends to normal distributions in the absence
of external influences)... do you think I could run that line?
--
John S. Wilkins, Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Philosophy
University of Queensland - Blog: scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts
"He used... sarcasm. He knew all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor,
bathos, puns, parody, litotes and... satire. He was vicious."

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Clergy Letter Project exceeds 11,000 signatures
    ... statistics before I can defend anything else? ... his defense of evolution. ... But I once mentioned that strict determinism such as ... Nevertheless scientists know they are violating ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Clergy Letter Project exceeds 11,000 signatures
    ... can you defend the common ancestry of all primates? ... "the legitimacy of random distributions"? ... statistics before I can defend anything else? ... Well as statistics was developed in part to deal with evolution, ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Clergy Letter Project exceeds 11,000 signatures
    ... can you defend the common ancestry of all ... mean "the legitimacy of random distributions"? ... statistics in his defense of evolution. ... But I once mentioned that strict determinism such as ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Clergy Letter Project exceeds 11,000 signatures
    ... "the legitimacy of random distributions"? ... statistics before I can defend anything else? ... But I once mentioned that strict determinism such as ... events involve chance (probabilities greater than zero and less than ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Clergy Letter Project exceeds 11,000 signatures
    ... "the legitimacy of random distributions"? ... statistics before I can defend anything else? ... his defense of evolution. ... But I once mentioned that strict determinism such as ...
    (talk.origins)