Re: Clergy Letter Project exceeds 11,000 signatures

On Sep 29, 2:22 pm, James Goetz <james.go...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 29, 9:57 am, RAM <RAMather...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On Sep 28, 7:52 pm, James Goetz <james.go...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 28, 5:46 pm, RAM <RAMather...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

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 (JohnWilkins) wrote:

James Goetz <james.go...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 26, 9:13 am, j.wilki...@xxxxxxxxx (JohnWilkins) wrote:
James Goetz <james.go...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 26, 2:00 am, j.wilki...@xxxxxxxxx (JohnWilkins) wrote:
James Goetz <james.go...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 25, 8:36 am, j.wilki...@xxxxxxxxx (JohnWilkins) 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.)

Your number one would invalidate all of history of the scientific
method. I doubt it. But if that is the case, then such is life. And
you have not come close to explaining your number two. Why do most
scientist have to assume that both causal determinism and
probabilistic causation are right?

Have you read about these philosophical concepts? See below:
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-probabilistic/>
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/>

If you read the above articles then you would know that probabilistic
causation is a philosophy that specifically opposes causal
determinism, which is classical determinism. And probabilistic
causation works with reactions that are *essentially* deterministic.

I know the meaning of both at least as employed by stats theory and
theroetical modelling.

Are we talking past one another?

I think we are. We can never assume a universal nomenclature. I am
using the defintions per philosophy according my citations. According
to philosophy, causal determinism implies that there is no chance in
the universe while all appearance of chance is ultimately determined.
And according to philosophy, probabilistic causation allows that some
events involve chance (probabilities greater than zero and less than
one) while some events involve determinism (probabilities of zero or
one).

Er uh, I mean we can never assume universal defintions of techinical
terms.

snip

.

Relevant Pages

  • 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
    ... mean "the legitimacy of random distributions"? ... statistics in his defense of evolution. ... But I once mentioned that strict determinism such as ... I think you are confusing the notions of "knowing" that evolution occurs ...
    (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)
  • 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 ... I think you are confusing the notions of "knowing" that evolution occurs ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Clergy Letter Project exceeds 11,000 signatures
    ... statistics before I can defend anything else? ... But I once mentioned that strict determinism such as ... that mimics probability in microreversibility. ... Nevertheless scientists know they are violating ...
    (talk.origins)