Saturday, April 9, 2011

Is Evolution Criticism Anti Science?

There is no question that science has made tremendous progress over the centuries, but what exactly does that tell us about science? For some, science’s seemingly inexorable march of progress means that scientific theories are either true or headed in that direction. Scientific ideas, particularly if they are successful, must be revealing something about how the world works. Perhaps they are not exactly correct, but future research will iron out the rough spots. Sure science has had plenty of failed upstarts, but the scientific method provides a feedback loop that rapidly and ruthlessly eliminates those ideas that don’t match up to reality. Scientific theories that are mature, on the other hand, have endured this testing and are well on their way to taking their place as an accurate description of nature. This assessment of science, or at least portions of it, are sometimes referred to as scientific realism, for science is viewed as describing reality. Today, scientific realism plays an important role in evolutionary apologetics but the argument is problematic.

If you question evolution you will, at some point, be told that you are opposing science. Anyone who doubts such a mature, well-established theory must be anti science, whether he knows it or not. Has not the success of science proven the naturalistic approach? As Sean Carroll (the cosmologist, not the geneticist) explains:

Most modern cosmologists are convinced that conventional scientific progress will ultimately result in a self-contained understanding of the origin and evolution of the universe, without the need to invoke God or any other supernatural involvement.

But such raw realism relies on a whiggish understanding of the history of science. Scientific progress, while undeniable, has been accompanied by massive failure. And how to distinguish between the two is not always obvious. Theories that are thought to represent reality often turn out to be miserable failures. And very successful scientific theories are routinely later taken to be a false representation of reality. They were not slightly modified but dropped altogether. But in their day such theories were held with great confidence.

And so it is not terribly surprising that, as a recent paper explains, most published research findings are false. Like the weather forecast, what science tells us is often not true:

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

Published research findings are sometimes refuted by subsequent evidence, with ensuing confusion and disappointment. Refutation and controversy is seen across the range of research designs, from clinical trials and traditional epidemiological studies to the most modern molecular research. There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims. However, this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false. Here I will examine the key factors that influence this problem and some corollaries thereof.

None of this means that science does not progress, but science’s progress is not straightforward. It is not as though science smoothly and efficiently gains knowledge of the natural world, like the turning of a Baconian crank. And while careful formulations of realism are possible, there is little basis for the evolutionist’s marshalling of it as an apologetic for naturalism. What is amazing is how often realism is so naively employed. As Larry Laudan once commented:

It is little short of remarkable that realists would imagine that their critics would find the argument compelling. As I have shown elsewhere, ever since antiquity critics of epistemic realism have based their scepticism upon a deep-rooted conviction that the fallacy of affirming the consequent is indeed fallacious. …

No proponent of realism has sought to show that realism satisfies those stringent empirical demands which the realist himself minimally insists on when appraising scientific theories. The latter-day realist often calls realism a “scientific” or “well-tested” hypothesis, but seems curiously reluctant to subject it to those controls which he otherwise takes to be a sine qua non for empirical well-foundedness.

There simply is no basis for the evolutionist’s common retort that criticism of his theory is anti science. In fact, this seems to be more of a protectionist ploy than a genuine defense of truth. Perhaps it is no coincidence that such a ploy is used to defend the empirically problematic evolutionary claim that the universe, and everything in it, spontaneously arose on its own.

9 comments:

  1. Cornelius Hunter:

    "If you question evolution you will, at some point, be told that you are opposing science."

    As Sean Carroll (the cosmologist, not the geneticist) explains:

    "Most modern cosmologists are convinced that conventional scientific progress will ultimately result in a self-contained understanding of the origin and evolution of the universe, without the need to invoke God or any other supernatural involvement."
    ===

    Well the above quote has a false position on just what evolution actually is. At least according the local shaman and various other assorted religious clergyman of this faith who constantly condemn so-called opposers and insist that evolution is only above biological variation of species and is NOT Origins[Abiogenesis] or anything else.

    Yet in that quote, he brings up origins and the universe as evolution. Should this not at least be equally criticized by the faithful ???

    No time left, but I'm sure it'll get more interesting as the day goes on. Can't believe I beat the old retired dude to first post. Ah, but I believe it's his bed time over there. *wink*

    ReplyDelete
  2. Cornelius said:

    "There simply is no basis for the evolutionist’s common retort that criticism of his theory is anti science. In fact, this seems to be more of a protectionist ploy than a genuine defense of truth. Perhaps it is no coincidence that such a ploy is used to defend the empirically problematic evolutionary claim that the universe, and everything in it, spontaneously arose on its own."

    Painfully obvious. What we need is a systematic analysis of the religious, social, and political motivations which support belief in realsim. Most people believe in God and do not believe in evolution. Cornelius has to get his share of the credit for disillusioning us. So it would be useful to catalogue the various motivations for belief in realism by this minority. Then we could discuss how it has impacted society. That could include the moral decline/disintegration of the West and the impact on our eternal salvation. Now that would be an interesting conversation.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  3. Cornelius Hunter: Is Evolution Criticism Anti Science?

    Legitimate criticism should be encouraged, however, pseudo-science presented as scientific criticism is not legitimate.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cornelius Hunter said...

    There simply is no basis for the evolutionist’s common retort that criticism of his theory is anti science. In fact, this seems to be more of a protectionist ploy than a genuine defense of truth. Perhaps it is no coincidence that such a ploy is used to defend the empirically problematic evolutionary claim that the universe, and everything in it, spontaneously arose on its own.


    Honest criticism based on sound reasoning and backed up with empirical data is welcomed by the scientific community. Attacks based on religiously driven personal incredulity which rely on quote-mined quotes, dishonest misrepresentations of the actual evidence, and outright lies as you continually present here CH don't qualify.

    If you have identified any actual problems with evolutionary theory you can write up your evidence and submit it to any top line journal. If you have valid criticisms they will be published and you'll make quite a name for yourself. But you haven't, so you won't. All you've got is empty rhetoric, so empty rhetoric like this latest smear piece is all we get.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hunter:

    And while careful formulations of realism are possible, there is little basis for the evolutionist’s marshalling of it as an apologetic for naturalism. What is amazing is how often realism is so naively employed.

    I don't understand the above. It seems to be proffered as some kind of criticism, but of whom? Which "evolutionists" keep marshalling philosophical realism (assuming that is the referent) as an "apologetic for naturalism"? References, please?

    How often is philosophical realism employed by "evolutionists"? Too often, apparently. Enough to make such employment amazing. Without examples of what these people are saying, how can one tell?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Criticism of a scientific theory is allowed, unless the theory is evolution. In that case criticism is more accurately described as apostasy.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have no qualms about saying that most of the papers scientists publish are wrong or inconsequential. (I read papers and referee them.) However, once in a scientists does stumble upon real gems and that leads to progress. So the metric used by Ioannidis is neither surprising nor particularly interesting.

    The same can be said about other areas of human endeavor. Most movies (literary works, songs, whatever) are crappy but we don't measure art by averaging over the ensemble. It's the best that count, not the average.

    ReplyDelete
  8. CH: There is no question that science has made tremendous progress over the century, […]

    Really? Then why is it when we ask for an example of a scientific fact, along with the criteria used to determine it meets said definition, you remain silent? If there is "no question" then it would seem such an example and criteria would be trivial to provide.

    CH: […] but what exactly does that tell us about science?

    You seem to have it backwards as this is a naive and superficial view.

    The question is, what does the tremendous progress made by science tell us about reality, and our relationship to it.

    For example, what if, as of tomorrow, prophecy suddenly enjoyed the same tremendous repeatable progress that science enjoyed today? What if prayer departments were at least as successful as scientific research departments? Would this merely mean that prophecy was successful? Of course not. It would have impactions beyond mere success.

    CH: But such raw realism relies on a whiggish understanding of the history of science. Scientific progress, while undeniable, has been accompanied by massive failure.

    Are you sure you're a realist?

    The failures of science tell us just as much as it's success. If you understood the argument you're criticizing, you'd realize this.

    For example, even if prophecy really was successful in the past, then it's absence of success today would tell us something about the supernatural, should it exist. We can say the same if prophecy suddenly became successful today.

    In other words, new observations always increase our knowledge about realty. They always represent a new piece in the puzzle. The challenge is determining exactly where each particular piece fits in the puzzle.

    The evidence for Newton's laws of motion had been falling on every square meter of the earth long before we ever got around to testing them.

    ReplyDelete
  9. CH: And how to distinguish between the two is not always obvious.

    First, please see above. A claim that new observations always give us new pieces to the puzzle is not the same as a claim to know exactly where a puzzle piece fits.

    The problem with most evolutionary criticism is that it denies the former while misrepresenting the latter.

    Furthermore, while I'd agree it may not be obvious to everyone, I'd suggest there is a way to distinguish between good and bad explanations for phenomena, which I've discussed here at length.

    For example, Intelligent design appears to be a convoluted elaboration of modern evolutionary synthesis. Rather than explain the concrete biological complexity we observe, it merely claims these specific results represents the will of an intelligent designer. Not only is no explanation provided, but none can be forthcoming as new observations cannot reveal new pieces to the puzzle. The designer must remain a mystery for reasons which are obvious.

    CH: None of this means that science does not progress, but science’s progress is not straightforward. It is not as though science smoothly and efficiently gains knowledge of the natural world, like the turning of a Baconian crank.

    Here's a concrete example of a misrepresentation of the latter.

    CH: And while careful formulations of realism are possible, there is little basis for the evolutionist’s marshalling of it as an apologetic for naturalism.

    Again, you have it backwards. We can distill your "metaphysics" argument down the claim of a boundary where human reassigning and problem solving cannot pass. The supernatural is defined in such a way no new puzzle pieces cannot be obtained for any phenomena it's supposedly responsible for.

    Evolutionary theory doesn't claim to know that some intelligent designer didn't flip a bit in the genome one way, rather than another, to cause some different result that what would have occurred naturally. Instead, it suggests that, given what we observe, it doesn't appear necessary. Nor has anyone provided an explanation as to why a designer would choose one specific result over another.

    Again, what we DO know is that evolutionary processes did play a role. They are part of the explanation. On the other hand, God did it, doesn't add to explanation of the biological complexity we observe.

    As such, the claim that "a designer did it" is discarded.

    As i've just mentioned on another thread, we can think of evolution as an equation. We know evolutionary processes play a role in determining the outcome of the equation. However, adding God to the equation is like adding a number that can represent any value. It don't change the result of the equation in any definable way.

    Therefore, when we simplify the equation, what's left is evolutionary processes.

    ReplyDelete