Reg Prescott

Well, supposing just one staunch card-carrying atheist (Richard Dawkins perhaps) converts to Islam overnight -- due to whatever reasons (make up your own scenario LOL). Clearly, appeal to evolution/natural selection is not gonna work.

@ Strange Well, forget specifics then. Just consider the rate at which the non-religious convert to religion -- any religion. No, I don't have statistics, but whatever they are, it's gotta be faster than natural selection can keep pace with. Happens overnight sometimes. All it takes is an encounter with a burning bush, say, or an epiphany on the road to Damascus (I jest slightly). Or maybe even a half-hearted grumbling agnostic prayer gets answered. One minute religiosity is -- at least outwardly -- absent; next minute you're handling rattlesnakes. I suppose you could argue that a "latent gene" suddenly got activated. Once again, strikes me as far too simplistic. I'd incline towards an argument of the form: stuff happens and we adjust our beliefs accordingly. Far less simplistic, eh?

Oh, I dunno. They're at every major intersection here where I live (Taiwan) waiting to pounce on the weak and infirm. Owning a Ferrari might help. They only use bicycles.

Ha! Well, if I knew the answer to that I'd be writing books and getting filthy rich rather than squandering my youth with you fine people That said, given the speed that religious ideas spread, not to mention the complex web of intentionality thereby implicated, a genetic explanation would appear vanishingly unlikely. Mormonism takes over the world in 200 years or so? I don't think natural selection works that fast, does it?

No, I don't think that. The idea strikes me as manifestly preposterous. You're the one who suggested -- in your opening post -- that religion is an evolutionary trait.

And is it really plausible that the complexities, subtleties, and intricacies of religiosity can be captured in one trait? Seems a tad simplistic to me.

@ Strange You make some good points above. There is a difference, though, as I see things. Whether or not blue eyes (and the other traits you mention) confer an evolutionary advantage on the bearer remains unclear, as you note yourself. Itoero, on the other hand, is asking us to entertain the hypothesis that religiosity does confer an advantage. Now, if this much is stipulated, we must examine the theoretical consequences (with blue eyes on the back burner for now). With Frank Sinatra and Brad Pitt in mind, however, I can't help but sympathize with the "blue eyes conduce to reproductive success" hypothesis. Wish I had 'em, dammit.

I don't see the analogy, I'm afraid. Perhaps you might elaborate. What you suggested in your opening post, Itoero, is that religiosity is an evolutionary trait (in whatever species you have in mind) -- an adaptation I think is what you have in mind -- due to the advantage it confers on the bearer vis-à-vis the conspecific rivals who lack it. Now, if this were indeed the case, selection theory would lead us to expect -- given all the usual qualifications, ceteris paribus, all else being equal, etc -- that, given the beneficial nature of the trait in question, it is likely, though not inevitable, that this trait would spread through the given population or entire species, eventually reaching fixation. There has been no mention of a speciation event. Now, my question was: if your conjecture is correct, why has this not happened? I, for one, lack the trait. It appears you, and several other posters, do too. How does this connect to your analogy above?

To the above posters: It wasn't so long ago that western, white, male, scientifically inclined investigators decided to rank the races in order of intelligence by way of measuring skull capacities. The outcome -- surprise surprise -- was that whites are the smartest and blacks the dumbest. Who would've guessed, eh? (American Indians lay somewhere in the middle). One can easily imagine them afterwards pouring themselves a few drinks, slapping each other on the shoulders, and celebrating their own superiority -- a conclusion that was never in any doubt even prior to commencement of the inquiry. But now it had been scientifically proven. But that was then and this is now. We've learned from our mistakes and we no longer engage in such prejudicial silliness these days. Or do we? What I see here is apparently a group -- a cohesive group -- of overzealous scientistic atheists sitting around the campfire, concocting evolutionary Just-So stories, slapping their mutual shoulders and celebrating the fact that their own finely honed critical faculties allow them to defy -- while the weakminded succumb to -- the tyranny of those imperious genes that determine, or at least predispose, the human race to religious gullibility. After all, it's been scientifically proven. Some things never change, eh, chaps? As for Just-So stories, take this for example... Is it possible? Well, why not? Lots of things are possible: flying elephants, world peace, and Scotland winning the World Cup, for example; none of which are precluded on logical grounds alone. It's also within the bounds of possibility, I suppose, that this is just some fanciful, self-congratulatory yarn that you've spun. @ Itoero -- I took a look at the Wiki page on "religious behavior in animals" that you linked on the previous page. Fascinating stuff in and of itself: chimpanzees dancing at the onset of heavy rain, elephants waving branches at the moon, etc. Strangely, however, dogs chasing their own tails (clearly a precursor to Muslims circling the Kaaba), parrots on a perch (an obvious adumbration of the stylite movement), not to mention the praying mantis, were omitted. Seriously though, folks, as far as this pertains to religion, I can't say I'm impressed. It seems those imputing religiosity (or proto-religiosity) to our furry friends have neglected one rather essential element: intentionality (in its philosophical sense). Suppose you were presented with two dudes down on their knees reciting the Lord's prayer. One, you're told, is a devout Christian; the other an atheist actor. How would you tell which is which? Wouldn't it take more than outward behavior to make the distinction? Raymond Tallis' superb "Aping Mankind" provides a much needed antidote for what Tallis labels Darwinitis, that is, the misapplication of Darwinian-type explanations; what both he and I see as the dismaying tendency nowadays to fabricate facile Darwinian-type explanations to account for... well, just about everything in the human sphere.

Certainly not. Lucky for us we got the not-easily-duped gene, eh?

The thread began with the suggestion that religion may be an evolutionary trait, conferring upon the bearers the advantage of social cohesion; an important feature enjoyed also, we're told, by many animals -- besides religious dolts -- such as African wild dogs, lions, wolves, whales, dolphins, chickens, penguins, crows, monkeys, and apes. The implication appears to be: "Gotta feel sorry for these religious dummies, eh? But, hey, it's not their fault: they got bad genes". The first thought that came to my mind was: If it is indeed the case that religion is an advantageous evolutionary trait, why did it not spread through the entire human population as natural selection theory would lead us to expect? How come Itoero and Beecee, just to name two, seem to have been spared the rigors of biological determinism that afflicts only the poor unenlightened? Good luck? More recently in the thread it has been suggested by DrP, mirroring Beecee's earlier insight, that, "they [i.e., people that live in a state religion or cult ] have been brainwashed". Now I'm left to puzzle over why brainwashing would be necessary if "they" were already genetically determined to succumb to religious silliness... Just to be doubly sure?

Well, it's not impossible that there does exist such a thing as "The Scientific Method" that scientists in all times, disciplines, and places -- and only scientists -- follow unconsciously, as you suggest, based on tacit knowledge, perhaps, that even scientists themselves are unable to articulate. This would be not unlike Chomsky's characterization of linguistic grammar: we can all speak English (say), but few of us can articulate the grammatical rules that apparently underlie and govern our discourse. I'd still say it's a hard position to defend; one I certainly wouldn't want to have to defend myself, in light of extensive historical studies that have been conducted in an attempt to identify a putative unique method of science, whether explicit or implicit. Here's something I wrote a while back, for your consideration. (Hope this isn't off topic. If it is, perhaps the mods can move us somewhere else). Happy to hear any thoughts/criticisms you might have. The scientific method (hereafter TSM) has been traditionally defined as a single, timeless, invariant set of rules governing empirical inquiry, at least since the time of the so-called Scientific Revolution of around 400 years ago. If real, TSM would be precious indeed: it would serve to unify all the prima facie disconnected scientific disciplines (after all, it's far from obvious that anything links the activities of subatomic physicists with economists, say), it would act as the demarcation criterion to distinguish bona fide science from pseudoscience or non-science in general, and it could be appealed to in order to explain the undeniable success of the scientific enterprise. My own view is that TSM, as characterized above, does not exist. Whenever I express this view in internet chatrooms or elsewhere, the reaction from more scientifically oriented participants tends to be hostile, sometimes to an almost hysterical degree. One gets the impression these partisan footsoldiers, who by and large are not well read on the issue, feel they are confronted with a religious crackpot, Kentucky hillbilly, or else the victim of some other unidentified pathology. Then all hell breaks loose. My purpose here, then, will be to articulate the reasons why a growing number of people like myself deny the existence of the scientific method as traditionally understood. (1) First, we need to be clear about what is, and what is not, being claimed. My claim is not that science is entirely unmethodical; that scientists do not employ various methods of one kind or another. The claim, rather, is that there is no single overarching method of science; there is no unique method employed by all genuine scientists in all times, all places, and all disciplines. Of course chemists use litmus paper to detect the presence of acid, while geologists use dating techniques to determine the age of rocks, say. That said, surely no one would venture the opinion that carbon dating (for example) just is the scientific method. (2) Before setting out, we must pay careful attention to our application of the concept "method". We must agree that the concept properly applies to certain processes, quintessentially a cookbook recipe for instance (just follow the steps and voila!), and must be withheld from others which depend more on luck or creativity than rigid adherence to a set of rules; a lottery scoop or the writing of a novel, say. If the overzealous defender of science insists on applying the concept "method" no matter what, then the whole notion of a substantive "scientific method" is trivialized and we might as well stop right now and head down the pub instead for a few bevvies. (3) The reason why belief in TSM is so widespread, and unquestioningly accepted, by the populace at large I suggest is not due to any in-depth investigation conducted into the matter by John Q, but rather simply because the idea is inculcated ad nauseum on Discovery Channel showcases, introductory science textbooks, and by high school science teachers. TSM, until quite recently at least, has just been one of these background assumptions most of us simply take for granted. We've been told it is so by the right kind of people, therefore it must be so. At this point I'd suggest, unpalatable though it may seem at first blush, that for an understanding of TSM, probably the last people you'd want to consult -- with a few exceptions -- are scientists themselves. The issue of scientific methodology is what we might call a metascientific question; that is to say, a question about science as opposed to a question amenable to the techniques of science itself. I suspect this may be a hard pill for some to swallow, so let me recruit a little assistance from a man whose opinion you might be more willing to lend credence to than my own: "If you want to find out anything from the theoretical physicists about the methods they use, I advise you to stick closely to one principle: Don't listen to their words, fix your attention on their deeds." - Albert Einstein Scientists, by and large, get on with doing science: metascientific issues lie outwith their own areas of expertise. There are people, however, who devote careers to studying what it is that scientists do, including the methods they employ; these people are philosophers and historians of science, and it is to them we must turn. (4) Lack of consensus: Ask ten people about TSM and they'll probably all swear to its reality; it's unlikely that any two of them will agree on what it is though, if indeed they are able to provide a specification at all. Outstanding thinkers who have written on TSM include Descartes for whom deduction is the essence of scientific reasoning; Francis Bacon, Isaac Newton, and John Stuart Mill who advocate induction; William Whewell is widely credited with introducing hypothetico-deductivism as the putative method of science (note here that any talk of speculative hypotheses was anathema to inductivists such as Newton). Moving into the 20th century, Karl Popper famously espoused falsificationism as the method of science. Later, subsequent upon the so-called "historical turn" in the philosophy of science, scholars began to take a close look at what real world scientists actually do -- as opposed to the ivory tower logical idealizations of previous generations -- and in many cases came to a rather stark conclusion: there is no unique method of science. Thomas Kuhn speaks of science in terms of a series of paradigm shifts; Paul Feyerabend, somewhat scandalously, concluded from his studies of historical episodes that the only inviolable methodological precept to be found is "anything goes"! Now, lack of consensus does not necessarily imply that TSM is chimerical; it may simply be that we have not yet been able to pinpoint it. I would suggest, though, that at the very least, it ought to give pause to even the most implacable apologists of TSM. (5) The porridge test: Specifications of The Scientific Method invariably turn out to be either too hot or too cold. If the criteria specified are overly restrictive -- that experimentation, say, be a necessary component -- then it turns out that much of what we intuitively regard as good science ends up being excluded. Many scientists (Copernicus, Darwin, etc), and many areas of science (paleontology, astrophysics, etc) conduct few or no experiments; gardeners meanwhile do lots! On the other hand, overly permissive criteria -- formulate and test hypotheses, say -- leads to the unpalatable conclusion that pretty much the whole world is doing science. Who among us has never formed and tested a hypothesis? Ever misplaced your car keys? (6) A final thought for the time being, before I bore the pants off everyone. Given that "hypotheses" always seem to get a mention when the issue of TSM is broached, is the formation of a hypothesis the kind of thing you'd regard as methodical? Is there a step-by-step algorithm for constructing hypotheses? Is this not what would be more aptly described as a creative process? And surely the concepts of creativity and method are diametrically opposed to one another: the more of one, the less of the other. August Kekulé famously claimed that the ring-structure of the benzene molecule came to him in a dream of a snake eating its own tail -- hardly what might be called a methodical discovery! My denial of TSM is almost invariably met with a reaction of outrage. It does seem to me, however, if there is any impertinence at all, it arises from those who would have us believe that our finest scientific minds are little more than unthinking automata slavishly adhering to the steps of an inflexible pizza recipe. Genuises need not apply; any fool can do it! Well, if geniuses need not apply, why do we need the likes of Newton and Einstein? Comments, criticisms, corrections are all welcome. Thanks! I leave you with the thoughts of two Nobel Prize-winning scientists who have looked into the philosophical and methodological issues in science: "Scientific method is something talked about by people standing on the outside and wondering how the scientist manages to do it.... What appears to [the working scientist] as the essence of the situation is that he is not consciously following any prescribed course of action, but feels complete freedom to utilize any method or device whatever which in the particular situation before him seems likely to yield the correct answer. In his attack on his specific problem he suffers no inhibitions of precedent or authority, but is completely free to adopt any course that his ingenuity is capable of suggesting to him. No one standing on the outside can predict what the individual scientist will do or what method he will follow. In short, science is what scientists do, and there are as many scientific methods as there are individual scientists." Percy W. Bridgman -- "On Scientific Method" "I know enough about science to know that there is no such thing as a clear and universal "scientific method". All attempts to formulate one since the time of Francis Bacon have failed to capture the way that science and scientists actually work." -- Steven Weinberg (from "Facing Up", essay 4, "Confronting O'Brien") I'm quite sure almost all contemporary scientists would agree with you that God -- or supernatural causation in general -- has no place in science today. Richards Dawkins, however, is clearly an exception -- a very prominent exception at that. You'll find him in various places asserting that he regards God as a scientific hypothesis. I paraphrase: "A universe with God would look very different from a universe without God". (To be sure, Dawkins regards the God hypothesis as wildly false, but scientific nonetheless, if his own words can be taken at face value) As I said, these scientists are an eclectic bunch. And who would have ever thought otherwise? I often say, perhaps the only blanket statement that can -- safely! -- be made about science is, no blanket statements can be made about science.

To add a little more... "Please note carefully, that the scientific method is applied everyday by all of us in the most mundane means ..." -- Beecee Except for the use of the term "The Scientific Method", I'd wholeheartedly agree with this statement. To my knowledge, there are no modes of inference or reasoning that are the sole property of scientists. In other words, we all do it! Doctors, lawyers, plumbers, car mechanics, maybe even dogs and cats. Now, if I'm right in this, why call it "The Scientific Method" and claim that others deploy it too? Why not call it "The Plumbers' Method" and claim that scientists apply it too?

@ Beecee You tell us in your second post: "God is an unscientific concept at best and a myth at worst." Isaac Newton, in his Principia, had the following to say on the matter: "This concludes the discussion of God, and to treat of God from phenomena is certainly a part of natural philosophy". [read "natural philosophy" as "science"] If Isaac Newton doesn't do it for you -- and there were many others who said similar things -- Richard Dawkins, a scientist (we presume) of a more recent age, is also on record, make of it as you will, as stating he considers the existence of God to be a scientific hypothesis. It would appear not everyone agrees with your opinion on God being an unscientific concept. One must be wary when advancing blanket statements about science; these guys are an eclectic bunch, eh? Scientists say all kinds of things about science, and not infrequently, mutually contradictory things. Later, in your third post, you tell us: "The myth of religion and the many deities it supports had its roots with ancient man, who was devoid in general of science, scientific knowledge, and the scientific method", and ... "Please note carefully, that the scientific method is applied everyday by all of us in the most mundane means ...", and "... the general advance of mankind is primarily due to science and the scientific method ..." I could quote Nobel Prize-winning scientists, and countless other thinkers who have researched the matter, (just ask), who echo my own view that "The Scientific Method", as traditionally construed, does not exist; it's pure fairy tale. It would appear Third@rk is not the only one here guilty of propagating mythology.

Got any easier questions?

Then one has to question if logic will make us happy on Sundays

Uh oh, another hanging. My neck can't take much more. How about you address my last post while I enjoy my last meal - lobster dinner Then again, perhaps I can save you some trouble. Ans: You don't know either! "Meaning that when you made your original statement, which implied you did know, you were making that up" Uh oh, again. Erm, balderdash, old chap. No such implication, and rather uncricketish of you to say so. I've made it clear in post after post, I know Jack Shit. You're the fellow who seems to know a lot.

LOL! Ah, you want the answer to the question. That's an easy one : I don't know!

Not true, sir. I offered an answer to the question. I presented both sides of the argument for other members to consider, Let's try again. Consider the properties attributed to a unicorn: (i) a kinda horselike beast (ii) with a kinda horn on its head As far as we can ascertain there is nothing in nature which satisfies those criteria, and therefore, on one account at least, the term unicorn does not refer. There is no such thing! I also offered the following characterization of Newtonian gravity: Newtonian gravity, according to my layman's understanding (so please be gentle -- I'm not a physicist), is construed, among other things, as an attractive force which acts instantaneously over any distance, apparently with no expenditure of energy, against a backdrop of absolute space and absolute time. Is this correct? If so, I don't think anyone believes in Newtonian gravity these days, do they? http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/92140-newtons-inverse-square-law/ I asked you whether my layman's description captured the features of Newtonian gravity. You conspicuously ignored me. Assuming this characterization is more or less correct, and given our current state of knowledge, there is nothing in nature answering to this description, and thus the term Newtonian gravity does not refer -- there is no such thing. On one account, at least. I also presented a rival Kripke-Putnam inspired account of reference to which those wishing to defend inter-theoretical continuity might appeal. Your only answer was... Um, it's used all the time. By NASA, even, to send probes to planets, satellites into orbit and men to the moon. It works very well. (post 23 - same thread) ... once again failing to recognize the distinction I pointed out between a theory working (i.e. yielding true observational consequences) and a theory being true. Yes, the theory of Newtonian gravity can get us to the Moon. But the Ptolemaic theory of the cosmos can also get you around the world! It works extremely well. Most of us, I daresay, would maintain that the Ptolemaic model is not true: as a model of reality, Ptolemy got it quite wrong. You're a very clever man, and a very knowledgeable man, Swansont. In this case, though, you're pontificating on topics you know nothing about.

Erm, caught me as I was off to bed. I'm just wondering how a felon might clear himself of the charges of "manipulating words". Any ideas? Doesn't sound promising to the accused. Anyway, I'll respond to the rest tomorrow, Oph with the usual circular reasoning, flounders, herrings, and stuff in Latin that I can't say coz I'd be labelled pretentious. , assuming cardiac arrest doesn't get me first. Be well. And stop disliking people * poke" .

Hmm, well, be sure to wake me up before 3:00 pm, lest people talk (after all, how many sins can one swine accummulate?). In the meantime, God (erm, Dawkins then) bless you and yours, and we'll meet up again tomorrow. My best case scenario is : "Sorry Colin, we were wrong about everything, and to make up you get a knighthood and two weeks in Tahiti." I'd rather not think about the worst case right now, but realistically speaking, I don't expect any wake-up surprises. Oh well, we'll see. Don't forget to smile, friends. All this is not that important. Be well. And whatever happens... the hangover will be worse than the critique from you fine people.

Oh dear, here we go again. Swansont, I see certain admirable qualities in you. I also see when you presume to speak authoritatively about matters you know absolutely nothing about. If you want examples, I can provide several. Let's take a recent one. In the thread about Newtonian laws I suggested that the issue of whether or not muons, or anything else, are affected by Newtonian gravity, might depend on certain theories in the philosophy of language. With one wave of a hand, you dismissed everything I said. Abracadabra "This is not controversial at all" (I'll go check if need be for your exact words) you said, remember? With your self-assumed omnipotence you disregard Kripke, Putnam and some of the smartest people out there. You made no attempt at refuting... on the grounds that it is blindingly obvious that you have never read their work. You simply asserted there is no controversy. I say there is. So do Kuhn, Feyerabend, Laudan and others.It is embarrassingly obvious you have not read their work. We're not supposed to simply assert stuff here, are we? Now, perhaps you are right, but you don't get this for free. We can argue it, after you do the appropriate reading. Swansont, have you read Kripke? Have you read Putnam? Have you read Feyerabend, Kuhn and Russell? Have you read Frege? Swansont, have you read any of these people? If not, what makes you think one theory can simply be absorbed into another? Can my theory of penguins be reduced to yours? Would that depend on whether your concept of penguins is the same as mine? Swansont, what exactly do you know about inter-theoretical reduction? Does it matter that Einstein's "mass" is not quite the same concept as Newton's "mass"? Or should we ignore that? Does it matter that Newtonian gravity is not the same concept as Einsteinian gravity? What if the two concepts are not the same? Please tell us how one theory reduces to another. Thanks. What do I think? Do I think one theory can be conveniently reduced to another? Ans: I don't know. I'm not that clever. It seems you are. Lets test it. If you'd like more examples of yourself pontificating on topics that you know jack shit about , just ask. I can provide links. Erm P.S. I can probably express all this better when the weather is .... less inclement. In the meantime, be well all. .

Well, at least you haven't yet reached the stage where your ignorance causes pain to other members. Is there a dentist in the house? I'll be in the corner contemplating my arrogance if anyone needs me.

you again, eh? Don't quite recall you being asked anything at all. But here's a +1 anyway to mount beside the rhino heads in your trophy room..

Phi I don't champion Creationism, not at least without examining it. I'm afraid you've got me wrong. Read all my posts in all threads, you'll see. I don't champion anything without examining it. In fact, I don't really champion anything at all. It's enough of a struggle for me to understand what people far more intelligent than myself are talking about. I do read read what these Creationists write about though. Do you? They're not all dummies, you know. Some are very clever and very well read. I read what you guys ( = stubborn scientists with poor fashion sense) write too, at least that stuff written for the laydude. I read what everyone writes. Just another of the perks of having no life, I suppose. I don't have a problem with science either, as you suggestimplied. I'm fascinated by it, especially the more philosophical aspects, which you may chalk down as another sin when my time would surely be better spent climbing mountains or checking out tarsiers (which I'll be doing next month in the Philippines). I do tend to stand in when I see a mob picking on one poor solitary individual though. Chalk that one down to personal history. Er, what else? "A typical example of me making things up"? Um, what were the rest again? Never mind. "Motives I couldn't know"? I don't recall attributing any. Never mind that either. If I may be so bold, I think I can fairly say I'm not entirely unfamiliar with logical fallacies. That is, after all, how pizza-delivering philosophy-inclined miscreants spend whatever time is left between eking a pittance. There has been talk of intelligence-insulting. I might consider my own insulted too if (i) I had any, and (ii) can't remember. Must the fallacy of amnesia. Anyway, gentlemen and gentleladies, I do think there are certain misunderstandings here. Criticism as evil you say? Au contraire, mon ami (chalk up another for pretentiousness ) Anti-science? Not really? Do I think the House of Science has a few spooks of its own? Yes. And I'm quite willing to debate rationally with anyone who demurs. After I sober up, of course. In the meantime, best wishes to all. Yes you too, Phi. You're a clever young (a heinous assumption on my part) man. Bless ya. Most of all, let us get on. Life is short. Oops P.S. -- almost forgot, Phi, just please don't make unjustifiable accusations. I'm not a bad guy. You've misread me. Peace! P.P.S. Have you guys found a cure for baldness yet?