Posted by:
Henry Bemis
(
)
Date: April 30, 2018 10:39AM
"First, scientific theories are approximations that must be continually refined."
COMMENT: Agree. But, to what degree a given theory is a reliable, and verifiable "approximation" to reality is far better assessed when the theory is well-defined and quantifiable. Moreover, it is much easier to "refine" a quantifiable theory than one that is merely conceptual.
_____________________________________________
"Rational people don't "believe" in theories; they accept them tentatively, until refinements lead to better theories. Anyone who "believes" in the theory of evolution does not understand the nature of scientific process."
COMMENT: "Belief" is a psychological term that merely points to someone's psychological attitude in relation to some proposition. The statement, "Rational people don't believe in theories" is ludicrous. People, including scientists, have psychological attitudes towards propositions, including theories, which includes belief in some and disbelief in others. This has nothing to do with certainty; either psychological certainty or logical certainty.
_________________________________________
"Second, you are wrong to differentiate so starkly between what you call quantitative and qualitative scientific theories. Theories are a mixture of both characteristics. Newton's theories were approximations, good until Einstein devised a system that was a somewhat closer fit to reality. Moreover, Einstein never claimed that his "theories" were final or correct. He spent the rest of his life trying to improve them--and in some cases was confident that his theories would be overturned."
COMMMENT: I can agree that all theories have a conceptual element to them. However, mathematical theories are by definition more rigorous. That means that they are deductive and well-defined, at least ideally. When they are not, physicists judge them to be defective or incomplete to that extent, and work (mathematical) is then done in an attempt to sharpen them. A theory that is solely qualitative, or conceptual, is not as rigorous, not as well-defined, and often suffers accordingly, however intuitively appealing it may be.
The "theory of evolution" is a classic example of this. There are no equations of Darwinism, and people are all over the map as to how it should be interpreted, and what its application is in various contexts. On the other hand, although there are disagreements as to the metaphysical implications of general relativity, the equations which define the theory provide a clear and rigid framework from which to test its correlation with reality.
Finally, it is far easier to assess the relationship between theory and observed reality in quantifiable theories. That is because observed reality itself is quantifiable. As a simple example, is vision better understood scientifically by comparing what we see, e.g. red, with an object, e.g. a cloud; or by comparing the frequency of light as reflected from the physical (quantifiable) properties of the cloud that reflects such light. Which is more rigorous? Which is more scientific?
_____________________________________________
"The allusion is of course to quantum mechanics, though quantum field theories would work as well. These are best guesses, acceptable to the extent that they explain phenomena better than competing theories. They may at this point be less refined than special and general relativity, but Einstein would have disputed that since he thought that relativity and quantum mechanics must be subsumed in a universal Grand Unifying Theory."
COMMENT: I am not arguing that quantifiable theories are necessarily the last word. They still may or may not reflect reality when tested by experiment. My point is that with such theories, we know what we are talking about. There are, generally speaking, no conceptual issues that need further defining. For example, we laypersons can talk all day about the concept of space-time. By in physics it is a definite quantifiable concept that does not require conceptual haggling.
____________________________________________
"The notion that the theory of evolution is inferior (because qualitative) to physical theories (because quantitative) is wide of the mark. What matters isn't quantifiability so much as consonance with observed reality."
COMMENT: Well, it may still be true, as any theory may be, if one can define it sufficiently to assign it a truth value. So, ultimately, you are right; what matters is truth. But, defining a theory of evolution sufficiently so as to assign it a truth value is problematic, as we have seen over decades of discussing Darwin's theory. How do "mutations" occur? How do physical traits relate to genetic traits? What role does epi-genetics play? What is fitness? What triggers "natural selection?" When is an environmental factor relevant to evolutionary processes? What about group selection? All of these questions, and the endless controversy they generate emphasize the fact that the "theory of evolution" is poorly defined, and suffers from much conceptual confusion and a lack of scientific rigor.
_________________________________________
"The theory of evolution may have problems and areas of uncertainty, but are they more extensive than those in quantum field theory? Probably not."
COMMENT: Well, the problems are different. But, when a QFT is proposed, what it postulates is not controversial; it is all mathematics. What is controversial is whether it is true or not. The theory of evolution, on the other hand, does not get to the question of truth, because we cannot agree on what the theory even says, other than in a general way.
____________________________________________
"Is it accurate to say that evolution is not in practice verified, or falsified, by quantitative data (DNA, fossils, biochemistry, computer models) in much the same manner as physical theories? No, it is not."
COMMENT: First, as I noted above, evolution is verified, including quantitatively. But, the "theory of evolution," whatever that may be, is not well enough defined to verify or falsify it; and most certainly not mathematically. Again, there are no equations that define Darwinism, or the Modern Synthesis. We can use mathematics to investigate the fine points of evolution, i.e. how certain biochemical processes work to change genetic expression, etc. But, that does not create a "theory." It does not present any laws which explains how evolution works, other than the cause and effect relationships of biochemistry (reductionism).
____________________________________________
"Scientific theories are process, not definition. They are approximations. Evolutionary theory is a work in progress just like QM theories and, frankly, relativity."
COMMENT: O.K. But it is far easier to move forward in theoretical science, including theoretical biology, when you have a well-defined theoretical starting point. What is the well-defined theoretical starting point for evolutionary theory? It cannot be Darwinism, because we are still haggling over the concepts involved, and what they mean, and how they relate to each other. How can we get to natural laws without some rigorous mathematical underpinning?
Personally, I am quite suspicious that there is any "theory of evolution." Evolution just happens as a result of biochemistry, coupled with living organisms interacting with the environment. This now includes complex human interactions under a broad range of motivations. Maybe the explanation of evolution simply does not rise to the level of a theory.